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.
The Spectator US kicked off its first print issue with a cover story entitled Please, America, Take Meghan Markle Back, while the libertarian site Spiked-Online published a venomous piece headlined Harry and Meg's War on Press Freedom.
Today, the Times of London lifted the curtain on the way the Sussexes behaved with the media on their trip to Africa.
Pissing off the press is always a bad idea: as the old saying goes, never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrell.
And never pick fights with the people who write for The Times, or read it. As the old Yes, Minister skit went:
The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
The Independent is read by people who don’t know who runs the country but are sure they’re doing it wrong.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
And the Sun’s readers don’t care who runs the country providing she has big tits.
Well, the Sun isn't in Meg and Harry's corner. (Maybe Meg should have kept her "Deal or No Deal" era breast implants.)
But The Guardian still likes Meg, at least a little bit, because she is a Woman of Color - at least a little bit.
Has Meg lost the support of the British chattering classes? And what does this mean for her and Harry going forward?
If I were Charles or the Queen, I would summon Harry to the palace and not let him out until he completes a course of substance rehabilitation.
Meghan can fend for herself, and no doubt will. And the nannies can take care of the baby formerly known as Archificial.
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.
The pile-on begins
Since the lawsuit announcement and Harry's overwrought letter excoriating the press, the upper-class pile-on has begun in earnest.The Spectator US kicked off its first print issue with a cover story entitled Please, America, Take Meghan Markle Back, while the libertarian site Spiked-Online published a venomous piece headlined Harry and Meg's War on Press Freedom.
Today, the Times of London lifted the curtain on the way the Sussexes behaved with the media on their trip to Africa.
The couple have given a succession of interviews, sometimes almost daily, which they have used to push out their messages, whether on climate change, female empowerment or gender-based violence.
It has been a proactive, slickly co-ordinated campaign that has left little to chance. The broadcasters are told what topics to ask questions on, and none would be so foolish as to venture a question on another topic: they know that they would never be given another chance if they did.
And, as The Times found out when it conducted a rare pooled interview with the duchess on behalf of the British newspapers, the question does not actually matter.
The Times asked the duchess about violence against women, with a second question about the impact Meghan has had in South Africa as a woman of colour. Like a politician, she ignored the question that had been asked, and said what she had come to say anyway.
The select group of reporters, photographers and camera crews who spent five days flying round Africa with Harry — at vast expense — in a trio of small planes said that despite the intimacy of their travel arrangements, Harry all but ignored them apart from when he was being interviewed.
Pissing off the press is always a bad idea: as the old saying goes, never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrell.
And never pick fights with the people who write for The Times, or read it. As the old Yes, Minister skit went:
The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
The Independent is read by people who don’t know who runs the country but are sure they’re doing it wrong.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
And the Sun’s readers don’t care who runs the country providing she has big tits.
Well, the Sun isn't in Meg and Harry's corner. (Maybe Meg should have kept her "Deal or No Deal" era breast implants.)
But The Guardian still likes Meg, at least a little bit, because she is a Woman of Color - at least a little bit.
Losing the chattering classes?
If offending the Times wasn't close enough to offending people in positions in power, Harry and Meg also managed to earn themselves a reprimind from British PM Boris Johnson's Trade Secrertary Liz Truss, who told the BBC "I do think people should be able to say what they like about public figures in the press."
Returning to Britain
The pair are now returning to Britain.If I were Charles or the Queen, I would summon Harry to the palace and not let him out until he completes a course of substance rehabilitation.
Meghan can fend for herself, and no doubt will. And the nannies can take care of the baby formerly known as Archificial.
--------------------------
A few housekeeping notes.
Due to the actions of a spammer from a Malaysian online casino who put advertising on all the old posts, moderation has been turned on for comments older than two days.
Also, we are all grown-ups here. Please no shouting and interpersonal battles in the comments. I will delete them as soon as I see them; nobody else wants to read that!
I'd also like to ask everyone to avoid extremely vulgar names for Meghan and Harry. I don't mind "Megatron" and "Handbag" or "Woke and Broke" type monikers, but when we get into pig and slut and that type of nonsense, it's too much for my delicate ears.
Personally, I think it's much more devastating to use the name Meghan uses with family and friends (at least the ones she's still talking to), which is Meg.
Comments
The letter was obviously designed for public consumption, with its pompous diction and stupid teenage-girl calligraphy. It beggars belief to claim that it was supposed to be private.
Also, if the Duchess is in league with her father for public relations reasons, or if there had been payoffs in the past that stopped, this would also come out in a court case.
My guess is that the Duchess has much more to hide than the MoS, and they know this.
My guess is that they have information that will argue that the letter was released for publication by Megs herself (for the People article). I truly believe that the People article, which had her "friends" giving tidbits of information from both her letter to her father, as well as some information from HIS letter back to her, will prove that she provided this information to another publication therefore releasing her copyright on the document.
What's hate speech and what isn't is in the eye of the beholder, of course.
I'm sure some of Meg's big fans would call criticism of her hopeless hairstyles and ill-fitting, overpriced wardrobe a form of "hate speech", as well as suggestion that something was off with her pregnancy or that she is merching her clothes and other items. (Remember the stop at the Mayhew dog show, when Meg prominently showed off a brand of breath mints in her car as she exited?)
Meg doesn't really care about royal protocol, but she does care about her brand, which is Sussex.
One of the few weapons the Queen has at the moment is to take the name Sussex away. Pretty extreme, however.
Based on my very basic reading of UK copyright, since they did not print the entire letter, it could be considered "fair use." If they had printed the entire letter, then it would have been a breach of copyright.
Therefore, I find it funny that Meg is upset that they did not, in fact, print the entire letter.
Can anyone clarify?
@Cat's Meow - yes, fair use is a good question.
I'd love it if they'd show Meg's fans the whole letter, or at least photos of the "Dear Daddy" opening with its little-girl handwriting (from a then 37-year-old woman). It's totally sick-making.
Yes, HMTQ could take away the Sussex title. I am wondering if they are expecting that...which is why the new website is "SussexOfficial" instead of "SussexRoyal."
I am sure that even if it were officially taken away...they would still try to use it since it has now become their "brand"
I should specify I am American and we tend to support free speech pretty staunchly here. The concept of “privacy” and all that from press is pretty foreign for our celebrities and political figures here. Unless it’s really truly racist or discriminatory, then you’d be hard pressed to find support for suppression of freedom of free speech or the press. While the average American finds it distasteful that paps follow celebrities, no body would support suppressing a paper from printing a story like the private plane stories, for instance. Especially when you start making political statements and it becomes obvious to average person that you might be planning a campaign. There are plenty of celebrities that run for office here so we see it pretty often. If you get on your political soap box and you have other political figures chanting your support, you best get ready for the press to knock you off your little pedestal when your hypocrisy comes to light. If it’s not the same in Britain, that’s kind of shame to me 😿
Someone should see if she's put in paperwork to copyright "Sussex." If not, someone should do it to prevent her from getting it. haha
I am American too (native Canadian though). The legal rules regarding the press are VERY different in the UK.
I think H&M's problems essentially come from them trying to play both sides of the ocean against each other. Essentially wanting things both ways -- including being "private" people on a public income.
The reporter asked what he hoped to achieve with this visit. His response - what, ask her, pointing to an aide or PR person. Reporter then asked another question before he got in his car - was it important for him to come here and talk about this. His response- dont behave like this. And away he went. What an insult to his hosts.
The Guardian had been fawning over her for a long time, but many of the commenters are a lot more cynical. Its most recent article was rather more critical of her but surprise surprise it was not open to comments.
Personally, what bothers me isn't so much the lawsuit but the moronic way they went about it. If they had just stuck to issuing a brief, formal notice through the offical royal sites, as in "HRH The Duchess of Sussex has commenced legal action...." I would have thought it a bit petty and silly, but hey, I guess it's her right. However, that infantile whining over 'Leave my wife alone you evil hacks. You killed my mummy and because you sometimes call us out on our hypocrisy you'll kil my wife too" was just loathsome. This is (still) a free country and we're allowed to criticse people even if they married into the 'royal' family. Deal with it, or head off to LA to hang out with people who would have shut the door in your wife's face 3 years ago.
And why is the super-feminist who's so incredibly intelligent that she can deliver her word-salad speeces without notes getting her husband to write this crap? The lawsuit is in her name alone. Shouldn't this independent woman be speaking on her own behalf? I guess you couldn't play the mummy card that way though.
Wills must be horrified. He must be looking ahead to the rest of his life, having to deal with this troublesome younger brother. Harry is now the ultimate loose cannon his mother became in the summer of '97. I remember thinking then, what on earth is the BRF going to do? The problem then vanished in tragic circumstances. This is as if Diana left an unexploded bomb in the shape of her son. It's becoming Shakespearean in scale and Megs would make a fine Lady Macbeth, in intent if not acting ability. A natural fit. Finally she has a lead role.
Legally once the letters of writ are granted the titles become his unconditionally.
Legally he cannot even give up the titles they are glued to him for life, he may decide not to use the titles but they can never be taken from him or discarded by him.
The only point at which the titles could have been lost is in the first 12 months when a newly made Peer has one year to disclaim a title. If he does so, then the title is removed from him and him only and goes into abeyance until his death when his eldest son receives it. He can not just give up the title and pass it on to a child, only after his death is the title transferable .
An odd ruling, but it was made mainly for sitting MPs who would have had to give up their place in the House of Commons after inheriting a title. (I believe three MPs have renounced a title in order to stay in government)
It's actually a very drastic step to take, you don't get a chance to change your mind, because once a title is disclaimed that person can never ever be granted another Peerage/Title.
On the other hand the HRH style, (note HRH is not a title, simply a way of addressing a Royal personage) can be removed by the Queen at anytime if she wishes to do so.
That is not correct. The Duchy of Cornwall, ie Charles is responsible for the expenses o the children of the Prince of Wales and their spouses.
"What's hate speech and what isn't is in the eye of the beholder, of course."
Not in the eyes of the law, where rules are very clear. Saying someone's dress is poorly fitted would never meet the standards.
"I'm sure some of Meg's big fans would call criticism of her hopeless hairstyles and ill-fitting, overpriced wardrobe a form of "hate speech", as well as suggestion that something was off with her pregnancy or that she is merching her clothes and other items."
But almost all of this comes from social media or blogs like this, not from the mainsteam media who have, though you'd never think it to listen to Harry's whining - been very positive about her.
And just look at Harry. He runs after her, lets her walk ahead and greet people ahead of him, the born royal. He lets her take the lead in every situation. When he's away from her, he looks fairly relaxed. When he's with her, he looks tense and constantly on edge, as though he's terrified of displeasing her.
It's clear she's the boss in this relationship and he does her bidding.
We have seen over the past two years that they have never, NEVER been dramiatic like this without some endgame. The most recent example would be appearing all dapper and cleaned up with Fauxchie at D.Tutus. everyone was wondering why this sudden change in appearance, and *PLOP* falls the HNM merching bomb. Her appearance at Euge's wedding had the public talking and *BOOM* pregnancy announcement. This lawsuit is going to overshadow the Cambridge tour and most likely any talk about Bea and Edo ince they are back in England. That's a short term, but very relevant to them, goal that they achieve.
And as I've said before, what makes it even worse is that the reporter on the receiving end of Haz' rudeness was Rhiannon Mills, who is very sycophantic towards the Sussexes. Indeed, her channel, Sky News, ran a 'leave poor Meghan alone!' special a few months ago.
Their answer to that has been: "Okay, Granny--if that's the way you want it, we will do our best to make sure that happens." And they have proceeded to do EXACTLY as they were denied. They've got their Sussex brand, just as they demanded--the 'global philanthropy charity', the Instagram, the private jets, the celeb friends, the press sycophants, all of it. The luxuriously renovated Frogmore Cottage seems to be a complete phantom. They've never set foot there. My feeling is, they've squirreled away that 2.4 million pounds and are living elsewhere, no doubt in style. I don't think it's together, though perhaps with Harry's disheveled, gaunt, lost appearance of late, perhaps she is ensconced with him all the better to pick at him 24/7. If Harry were away from her for the bulk of the time, and especially in proximity to the Cambridges, if he's back in Nott Cott . .well, she couldn't have that. They might influence him away from her. We see what she did when she got wind of the fact that he'd be seeing Willim for an afternoon of polo.
The Mail on Sunday will probably captitulate and reach a costly settlement, so as to not permanently sour their relationship with and access to the RF. Meghan is not a member of the RF and must be treated as a separate entity, and, so long as he's affiliated with her and marching to her orders, so much Harry.
What do we make of the 'SussexRoyal' account now listing 'SussexOfficial' as its web address? Are they on their way to losing the right to the use of the 'Royal' imprimateur?
I am increasingly concerned that Harry is ultimately not going to survive his involvement with Hurricane Meghan. He has looked absolutely terrible for weeks now; a husk of the formerly robust and jocular Soldier Harry that the nation and the world took to their hearts. Whether Meg is his addiction or coupled with other substances, he's a shadow of himself. Maybe those negative tendencies were always in there, but as long as he was healthy and being supported, those tendencies could be mitigated by Good Harry. Now, like Smeagol with his Precious (the Precious being Meg), all the good has leached away, leaving only his Dark side remaining. The Precious is stronger than any mere human, though, and he is visibly weakening by the day. Once he is used up entirely, I don't think Precious will care, so long as she gets what she feels she deserves out of his family. She'll be on to the next Wearer soon enough.
In deference to Nutty's wishes for less provocative names for Harry's erstwhile, ersatz wife, I'm thinking of taking a page out of a Brit publication's book and just refer to her as 'The American'. That doesn't please me much because I'm an American woman too and hate the way she's shat all over our reputation on the world stage.
All other Royals expenses are funded via the Sovereign Grant along with all the Queens own public expenses, state banquets, palace staff, garden parties,functions, travel etc. Every penny has to be accounted for from the Sovereign Grant and may be use only to cover expenses any surplus goes into a fund for future use not the Queens pocket.
The Duchies are considered to be private entities set up to give the Monarch and the POW private funds, so there is much more leeway to 'indulge' family members without having to account for every penny. However there are still rules and Charles funding his own children is one of them.
Charles will not have stopped funding them, that is just wishful thinking, because he is legally required to pay any on duty expenses they incur but he may have cut back on their 'spending' money.
The misconception that the Queen has taken over their funding probably stems from their offices now being at Buckingham Palace. The Queen simply refused to allow them to set up their own offices, she wanted to keep a close eye on them. It has nothing to do with funding.
The fact that the Queen stopped them setting up their own offices points to the fact that she has felt all along something is amiss.
If you look then you will see that Harry has quite enough money already and can fund himself and his lifestyle, especially if some of his living costs are funded by the tax payer. And yes, through the Duchy of Cornwall estate he will receive income (see the Newsweek link below).
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a22761426/prince-william-net-worth/
https://www.insider.com/meghan-and-harrys-net-worth-is-less-than-kate-and-williams-2018-9#prince-harry-and-william-reportedly-have-a-similar-net-worth-5
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-royals-money-will-kate-724640
Harry will have over $12-17.9 million from the Queen Mother.
William and Harry also received cash from their mother's estate+clothes and jewellery. William received 10 million when he was thirty, so Harry would have received something similar. So that puts him on between $22-$27.9 million.
"According to the BBC, the Queen Mother put the bulk of her estimated £70 million (roughly $89 million) fortune into a trust fund for her great-grandchildren in 1994. "Princes William and Harry will reportedly share about £14 m from the estate of their late great grandmother," the network reported in 2002. That's about $17.9 million.
"The bulk of the cash will go to the younger brother, since William will benefit financially by becoming king."
"Like the rest of the royal family, Harry's private income and money he receives for royal obligations come from the Duchy of Cornwall."
So Harry has about $25-30 million in cash and he gets an income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
"Last year, Prince Charles made £20.7 million, or over $27 million, from his portfolio of properties referred to as the Duchy of Cornwall."
Charles receives the profits from this and distributes this in an unknown fashion.
"While it's unclear how much of the Duchy goes directly to Harry, he is able to maintain a busy travel schedule and keep a busy staff with the money from his father."
And finally "Prince Harry does benefit from the £76.1 million, or $100 million, that the Queen is granted each year by Parliament to maintain and perform the duties of her role. With that money, she maintains his home in Kensington Palace as well as many of the other palaces and gateways that he will enjoy with Markle in the years to come."
If the money that directly belongs to Harry is invested, and returns a mere 2% yield/dividend for that $25-30 million it's 500- $600k personal income per year. Plus the Duchy of Cornwall income. And other benefits: all his mates letting him stay for free and giving him free flights. And all his homes paid for by us mugs.
He doesn't need money for his own lifestyle. Whether it's enough for MM is another matter.
His dodgy PR will clearly be paid either by the Duchy income or the income from the Queen which Parliament grants her each year (it is not her 'personal income' so to speak).
What is clear is that PH is a very wealthy young man, but not wealthy enough to fund his staff i.e. the new PR people who will be on a couple of hundred grand a year minimum, let alone everyone else. And how many are there? That extra money for staff will come from either the Queen's official grant of £100m per year, the Duchy of Cornwall income or undeclared income from either the Queen or Prince Charles.
So it's a bit of a stretch but from looking at all that, then unless PH is paying out of his own pocket, all his new hires away from the official Royal Family will be funded by the Royal Family. If this is the case then I don't know what it means in the long term, but does imply that they're not exactly doing much to stop him right now.
One thing all these posts about the finances of the RF does show is that no one really knows who gets what and I think that's how they like it. If it was broken down just how much income they receive and just how wealthy they are then I would wager that a lot of their support might start to wane:)
I trust the rest of your information about the Duke of the wrinkled grey suit is equally as reliable.
How Harry must hate this. His position is that we must change. Not them. Our opinions must be revised and our minds reprogrammed, in order to receive their reality. Inevitably this will end badly. Harry is squandering any remaining public support. Memories of the boy walking behind his mother's hearse are no longer valid currency, though it will take Harry a long time to realise this. He's built his adult life around it. Wills must have warned him over and over, before he ever met Meghan, that he would need to take a long time before deciding he had found the right partner. And yet Harry trampled over everything. Why shouldn't he? He's Harry! His mother started him off as an allowably mischievious scamp, and the army seems to have reinforced this narrative, much to my surprise. They should have been his salvation, but instead it appears they made allowances and at the first real challenge, from a superior who refused to play the game, Harry was off, and has drifted ever since.
It's a particularly cold kind of family love, that allows you limitless rope to hang yourself. It is not just babies who love firm support. We all need someone to pull us up short and tell us when we're wrong. Harry doesn't seem to have this. Instead he has an enabler for a partner, who will drag him to the bottom. He's a mortal and will drown. She will find her way back to the surface and will start again.
There's an interesting article in the Guardian today about how the mind in crisis mode is unable to hear normal conversational language and only responds to voices in crisis mode. Extreme imperatives. This is where Harry is now, and the only voice he hears is Meghan's.
Perhaps because the H&M merching was cut short, and the DM not offering as much as she had anticipated in negotiations, she is hoping that legal actions will fill the coffers for her greedy appetite.
The Sun also didn't have to pay a fine, they voluntarily removed the story even though it only required a change in headline. They refused to put the apology on their front page as requested by Sussex, which refusal was upheld AND IPSO.
First Nutty, thank you for your reference to Yes, Minister, one of my favorite series of all time!
Mischi, you're absolutely right about how the law works & narcissism. I think that here in the US some of the blame for rampant narcissism could be laid on our big campaign to raise children's self esteem, as low self esteem was blamed for almost all undesirable behavior, so parents, teachers, etc. were terrified of damaging children with criticism. As for the law, it's always been thus. You've also been tangling a bit with another poster here who seems to have it in for you. I think she/he has posted here several times under different names. I think it's very funny that you told him/her that his/her French was bad!
Also, thanks to the poster who explained why Megs is going for a judgement on copyright, & not libel or defamation.
This is a link to an article I came across when I was reading the pulled Forbes piece on the Harkles. Warning: some might find the writer to be a bit misogynistic, but whoever he is, he echoes a lot of what posters here have said.
https://singleman-mag.com/prince-harry-and-the-borderline/
I grew up in good old East Sussex and hate the fact that it is now assimilated with tweedle dum and tweedle dee... I thought the way Harry (or perhaps Megsy) wrote that statement was infuriating. How bloody condescending can you get? It's basically saying you plebs are being manipulated by the press, as if we couldn't make our own mind up!
Someone needs to talk to them and make them understand that their actions, that the press is simply relaying to us simple minded british public, is what is causing outrage.
I do hope the MoS win, that the press turns on them (I've had enough of reading article fawning over Megs), but it seems the tide may be turning with the new headline on DM about Harry...
These are not the details of the complaint against the sun. There was nothing about youpron or claims of Sussex charging fees at Frogmore.
The complaint was that the Sun had written a story that implied that Sussex had ordered the carpark near Frogmore be restricted which resulted in employees having to park further away in a carpark that charged fees. They claimed the Sun had not made it clear that it was the royal estate manager who had made this decision and also claimed that the sun was lying about them being directly involved without proof. They also objected to the headline itself which was a classic tabloid play on words that mocked Meghan's implied role in this episode.
IPSO struck down almost all of the complaint because it turns out that the actual article already had all these clarifications. IPSO also upheld the Sun's right to use the headline on the grounds that it was a play on words which is a signature of the newspaper.
For goodwill purposes the Sun removed the article online even though it was requested or required, and offered an apology. Sussex demanded they put the apology on their front page, the sun refused and IPSO backed them up.
The desire to humiliate the media is another Sussex trick just as they humiliated splash news in court by having the judgement read in public court for all the world to know. The Sun refused to be humiliated and when you read the IPSO judgement, it was a very weak slap on the wrist.
I was Diana's age & woke up early in the am to watch her wedding, followed her life & death, and even though I'm from the US, I love all the movies, etc. about the royals. Would be nice if the English people could keep their traditions alive.
Hikari, fear not. I think most people can see that MM is not a true reflection of womanhood... American or otherwise.
@Alice, I have no doubt you are right that the press debacle was timed to steal attention from the Pakistan tour as well as Beatrice.
Someone else pointed out that if there is a pregnancy, then it will likely be announced during the Pakistan tour.
It seems to me that this strategic move re the press is all simply about being able to accuse the press of retaliation for any and all negative revelations going . Bad tour optics? Retaliation. Future letters come out? Retaliation. Thomas Markle speaks. Retaliation. Sex or other tapes come out? Retaliation.
And the press has already started to cooperate in their plan.
about that person who is hounding me, I am reminded of an American saying that is very à propos in this case which is "Don't piss on my leg and tell me that it is raining"
Wow. Just Wow!
I agree with Mom, best essay.
It reminds me of those pictures of something (usually people) which then are lined up and used to create a bigger picture - which you don't see until you pull back and the tiny picture has become a tiny pixel in the overall picture.
This freedom of press issue (and if you don't like what was said, just call it hate speech because I should not be criticized) is playing on our side of the pond too.
I'm going to double back on a prior essay about M being stuck in the 90's. One of the problems I see with a lot of kids (from way back when and sadly today) is that a lot of kids are not being taught how to handle rejection (your team did not win) or no (no you cannot have candy/a new doll/a new phone). I would say that M ws clearly in that beginning wave of parenting style and now the world is reaping what was sown long ago with love for her by her parents.
As for H, Ava's comments above about how he, too, was brought up in a similar you don't have to be responsible (also in that parenting wave but for different reasons for him - loss of D) meant that when the two got together - it was the formation of the perfect storm fronts connecting. I think this is playing out in a lot of relationships nowadays but not on the public stage where it is ... quite the train wreck.
(ps Nutty, thanks for the housekeeping. I ignore those squabbles but my own personal views are that calling ugly names doesn't make you look intelligent).
I think Meghan is seriously underestimating the British people. She thinks that by muzzling the press, she can also silence her "civilian" critics.
Although the Brits are known to be overly polite at times, she should not mistake this for weakness. I find that narcs have a tendency to do this. They misjudge people's motives and think that the courtesy is based on submissiveness rather than civility.
The Brits are fiercely individualistic hence their dislike for the EU and their historic role in establishing democratic government in the Western world. I guess she never visited Speaker's Corner at Hyde Park.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the duo are planning ahead in terms of the SJW brand they want to be known for, so they are stirring up trouble without thinking of the consequences for themselves, or maybe they don't care. The praise and support they ate getting from the celebrity circles is proof enough and encouragement enough for them. I'd said this a few blogs back, but as a joke at the time, but Id like to repeat myself - they probably want a nobel Peace prize. Ideally, MM wants it for hwrself. But I guess PH would more likely to be nominated. With the kind of projects they have lined up, it could be. (Opeah and mental health. Google summit. Invictus Games. Sentebale. AIDS research. And best of all.... Meg's cookbook!)
You can't fault a girl for dreaming big, after all.
I always sensed MM didn’t understand the difference between the British press and the US press. The British press is different beast and, until she came along, the Monarchy seemed to have settled into a good relationship with the media. Plus, it’s a time when the old guard is ending, so I think people were feeling some nostalgia for the Queen as her reign comes to an end and a new generation takes over. It’s a shame because MM could have really done some good.
MoS want to go to court and establish reasonable doubt as to her credibility by revealing what evidence they have regarding past lies and deceit. The press couldn’t report what they have on her past without getting in serious doo doo but they can sure reveal it in defense during litigation. Even if they lose, MoS has won in getting information out there that would otherwise be concealed.
Harry and MM made a huge misstep with this one, it will damage their credibility in the UK and abroad. Where this is going for Harry has me very concerned, and his comment about history repeating itself sounded like a cry for help to me. His family who truly care for him must be in agony right now.
Sadly, I think the Royal family’s hands are tied here. They can’t do anything as they will surely be called as racists if they show how they disapprove of Meghan’s disrespectfulness towards the family.
Absolutely not.
Just as they're not allowed to accept gifts, or be associated with any commercial enterprise.
Let's just say some royals adhere to these rules more scrupulously than others.
Her father!
The press are bound to start hounding him again with this latest news and the poor old guy already has a dodgy ticker.
She knows this.
I despise her for doing this to him. :(
It’s well documented that the British tax payer’s pay for the maintenance of the royal palaces, apart from the privately owned ones: Sandringham and Balmoral and it’s most certainly not The Queen. We paid for the upgrade for William and Catherine’s refurbishment at Kensington Palace, Prince Charles’ refurbishment of Clarence House after the Queen Mother died, and let’s not forget the astronomical sum for Buckingham Palace, which according to reports is in dire need of an upgrade, and if course Frogmore Cottage!
The Queen uses the money from the Government to entertain dignitaries etc., as Head of State, and performing other duties as Monarch.
I also think there are some other inaccuracies with what you’ve written/ quoted, but I have other things to do.
My sources are in the articles. You don't mention your own sources other than that 'you've heard he recives 300k per year.'
As for the money being held in trust I don't think you read the articles.
"Before Princess Diana passed away, she left a trust for both Prince William and Prince Harry amounting to £10 million (more than $13 million) each. The brothers each received their share on their 30th birthday, but they were allowed to live off of the investment income (which Forbes estimates at $450,000 per year) until then. In addition to cash, the brothers received a number of Diana's dresses, jewelry and documents that she owned, like original handwritten lyrics to Elton John's "Candle in the Wind."
Up until they were 30 they received the income and then 10 million each was released when they were of age. That was 5 years ago.
"According to the BBC, the Queen Mother put the bulk of her estimated £70 million (roughly $89 million) fortune into a trust fund for her great-grandchildren in 1994. "Princes William and Harry will reportedly share about £14 m from the estate of their late great grandmother," the network reported in 2002. That's about $17.9 million.
"The bulk of the cash will go to the younger brother, since William will benefit financially by becoming king.""
From this source:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/932676/prince-harry-queen-mum-money-news-william-meghan-markle-wedding
"The Queen Mum left her estate to her only-surviving child, Queen Elizabeth, but left savings of about £14 million for Prince William and Harry to share. The vast bulk of that fortune went into a trust fund for the younger prince, reported the BBC."
And finally he receives part of the 100 million granted to the Queen and he also gets a share of the Duchy of Cornwall income which totals 20 million per year.
So he has direct assets, whether they are cash or (most likely property) of about 25 million. A 2% yield will get him 500k per year. 3% yield 750k etc etc.
Hope that makes sense to you.
The statement regarding the lawsuit has Meghan all over it. Too many words. They should have made a succinct statement about copyright issue and stop using the bullying-racism-poor Harry-Diana card. It’s really getting old.
Are those paid for separate and apart from the stipend that is granted to the Queen from Parliament as stated in the original post?
Nope, nope, nope. This second-hand wife came with no warranties, express or implied, Harry took delivery of her as is. Y'all are stuck with her.
From one of the articles that I posted:
""Prince Harry does benefit from the £76.1 million, or $100 million, that the Queen is granted each year by Parliament to maintain and perform the duties of her role. With that money, she maintains his home in Kensington Palace as well as many of the other palaces and gateways that he will enjoy with Markle in the years to come."
I'll also stop saying that the Sussex title should be taken away, now that I know that is not an option!
@Bootsy, I think the Royal family's finances are by definition opaque. You've provided some interesting links, but I have no knowledge as to the credibility of those sources. The Express, in particular, prints some questionable material.
What we do know is that Harry is known to be a lifelong cheapskate, never picking up a round of drinks, and making his previous girlfriends finance their own travel while in his company.
I've often heard that the way a person handles money reflects how they treat the people in their lives - tight with cash and emotion, overly generous or foolhearty with cash and emotion, conservative but giving in the right circumstances, etc.
Well, they've said that " proceeds from any damages will be donated to an anti-bullying charity." But note that they don't say 'all proceeds'- they could just mean 1% of the total - and they don't name this 'charity'.
In any case, if Megz thinks that she can retire to LA on the proceeds of this case, she's in for a rude shock, even assuming she wins. Payouts in these cases tend to be pretty modest, especially by the Duchess of Givenchy's elevated standards.
It’s from a different and separate amount of money. As stated in my comment the money the Queen receives is solely for entertaining dignitaries and other royal duties she has to perform on behalf of the government as Head of State. Bootsy has used questionable info. that isn’t all factual.
Meghan's father is an interesting question. I'm not sure the press ever were hounding him, although I think the DM sent a reporter down there trying to get a scoop. But I don't think there were dozens of reporters outside his modest home.
The big mistake the RF made was not sending some junior factotum over there as soon as the engagement news broke to explain to Thomas how to handle the press.
Meg probably said, "I can handle him on my own." She likes to try to handle things on her own, and her hair and make up reflect the results.
Anyway, if God forbid something happens to Thomas, you know that Meg will make up some story about how they reconciled at the last minute and he enjoyed holding Archie in his arms. She may be Photoshopping together an image of this heartwarrming meeting as we speak.
@Unknown “Unleash the kraken” is perfect. It’s one of my favorite phrases.
@Ava wonder if the royal family really is so cold? They seem to have a lot of affection for each other. And in Harry’s (was it closing?) speech in Africa, he spoke about how his father repeatedly brought him to Africa in order to heal. That is a loving father. I don’t think he healed this trip. LOL. But it is that very father that must prove he is worthy of being king by dealing with the Harkles now IMO. It shouldn’t have to be granny. I hate what Prince Brat is doing to all of them with all his NPD attempts at showing them up with his virtue signaling.
His hatred of the press and scowling arrogance toward it while she minces and smirks for them all the while gaslighting him into believing how mean they are to her shows that he has gone off the reservation.
I’d like to see him divorce, leave the RF, marry Chelsy and run a wildlife cconservation society. But I fear his own NPD is so bad that he’ll never be able to forego all that royal privilege that he so obnoxiously takes for granted.
PS Harry wincing and swaying so Markle had to lend a hand to get him up on stage is on Skippy.
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/post/188090193839/skip-he-looks-ill-or-in-pain-look-at-his-face
I saw a longer version, which I can’t find now, where once he is on stage he puts his hand to his back as though it is seizing up.
I continue to hope that the Council of Brighton and Hove votes to reject usuage of the Sussex titles, not that it strips them, but it would be embarrassing. With all that merching of the word Sussex, the council sure has reason to do it.
https://phantom.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=639&TPID=29537362&
"The big mistake the RF made was not sending some junior factotum over there as soon as the engagement news broke to explain to Thomas how to handle the press.
Meg probably said, "I can handle him on my own." She likes to try to handle things on her own, and her hair and make up reflect the results"
It's only rumour, but I did read somewhere that something along those lines did occur. The 'grey men' offered to smooth things over with Thomas, even bringing him over to GB to live as soon as the engagement was announced, but Meghan refused since of course she knows best.
Again, that's not confirmed anywhere but it makes sense to me knowing how she always thinks she's cleverer than everyone else, including those who have been managing royal affairs since before she was born.
I think Harry is also a narc, but to a lesser degree than Meghan. This happens a lot in the world of relationships, i.e., a raging narc marries a lesser narc. They have a tempestuous relationship but get along better than they would with someone with much fewer narc tendencies.
As a narc, he believes that he above the rules (I don't think I need to furnish you with examples on this one) and is innately special. His frustration lies in the fact that his brother is considered more special than he is.
Regarding my dodgy sources they are Newsweek, Town and Country and the Express which is a national newspaper.
I should also add that the figures I gave from these sources are also quoted on many other reliable sources other than those I have posted. Here's another https://www.businessinsider.com/prince-harry-net-worth-2018-4?r=US&IR=T
And here which describes more detail about the Duchy of Cornwall stipend and harry's share.
https://www.businessinsider.com/prince-william-kate-middleton-royal-allowance-2015-7?r=US&IR=T
"To help cover the costs of official royal activities, Prince Charles doles out around $4.667 million (£2.965 million) to his offspring and wife each year, according to a recent annual review released by Clarence House."
Here is another source, another UK national newspaper
https://www.independent.co.uk/royalwedding/prince-harry-age-net-worth-earnings-royal-family-wedding-meghan-markle-latest-news-a8291866.html
I agree that Royal finances are definitely opaque, but it seems fairly clear from the numerous sources that I have posted that Harry is worth between 25-30 million with his own money. Wouldn't be surprised if he is worth more as it is in their PR interest to under report.
He will receive income from this, it won't just be money sitting in a bank. A yield of 2-4% is realistic.
Add to that Duchy income and a share of the Parliamentary stipend.
If those sources aren't enough for people then I really don't know what to say.
I've no idea how many reporters were sent to Mexico but he did complain that they were harassing him, so who knows?
I agree that the RF should have sent someone to advise him, BUT for me the fact that Prince Harry couldn't be arsed to meet his prospective new FIL was a far graver mistake.
'Manners maketh man'... and he appears to have mislaid his! (As he is once again revealing to us - re his remarks to the journalist on the tour.)
LOL @ the hair and makeup! She's a mess and has made Harry into one too. I was married to a narc for a long time and one of the unfortunate downsides is that you unintentionally pick up some of their bad habits. :(
If anything were to happen to Thomas, I think the majority of the British public are too astute to fall for some sob story about them reconciling. They will simply dislike her even more - if that's even possible!
""Before Princess Diana passed away, she left a trust for both Prince William and Prince Harry amounting to £10 million (more than $13 million) each. The brothers each received their share on their 30th birthday, but they were allowed to live off of the investment income (which Forbes estimates at $450,000 per year) until then. In addition to cash, the brothers received a number of Diana's dresses, jewelry and documents that she owned, like original handwritten lyrics to Elton John's "Candle in the Wind."
This is reported in numerous sources across all forms of media.
To make it clear: When Harry reached 30 he inherited 10 million directly. It was held in trust until then.
His share from the Queen Mum is unclear in terms of whether it is held in trust or held directly by him.
That gives him a net worth of 25-30 million in assets. A yield of 2-4% from this figure is....300k? Is that right?
What are your sources and base assumptions, I've quoted and defended mine in detail.
" I believe her ultimate goal is exactly as you state and she’s convinced PH that with her celebrity friends and that with the Clinton’s and Obama’s support they’ll be basically untouchable here as far as negative press."
That's what she thinks, but is it what would happen?
Let's face it, none of her celebrity 'friends' gave a toss about her before she met Harry. So it's logical to assume none of them will give a toss about her should she divorce Harry. It's not Meghan Markle, former ensemble actor in a cable TV drama, they care about. It's HRH the Duchess of Sussex, who can give them an 'in' with the royals.
So let's say she and Haz were to divorce, or both decamp to Los Angeles with an acrimonious split from the Windsors, meaning that being friends with her would risk any relationship with the royals. My bet is the vast majority would not risk alienating the royals. We have some sort of precedent in the case of Harry's great-great-uncle Edward. Once he abdicated the throne, very few people who valued their realtionship with the royals stood by him. And Meghan and even Harry are less important than a former king by several orders of magnitude.
We agree that is about 300k pounds per year. That's it. That's his income.
He cannot touch the capital, ever. Until he dies and then he can perhaps pass it on to his heirs.
He is not a rich man. He is a man with an income of 300k per year, the same as a City trader but again, they get bonuses based on performance which can bring up their income to over a million pounds.
If Harry didn't have his housing, security, transportation, food and staff paid for by whoever pays for it, he's be living in a rather nice house, but nothing special.
I don't understand what you don't understand about that.
p.s. I never said your sources were dodgy. I am just discussing his income.
"So let's say she and Haz were to divorce, or both decamp to Los Angeles with an acrimonious split from the Windsors, meaning that being friends with her would risk any relationship with the royals. My bet is the vast majority would not risk alienating the royals. We have some sort of precedent in the case of Harry's great-great-uncle Edward. Once he abdicated the throne, very few people who valued their realtionship with the royals stood by him. And Meghan and even Harry are less important than a former king by several orders of magnitude."
Nail. On. Head. Applauds! :)
Love the blog and recent posts have got me very riled up.
I have created a petition to debate rescinding MeGain and Harry’s roles as working royals. If they claim the want life out of the public eye, let them (or at least gain some further public awareness re their hypocrisy)
If you guys could please help to sign, I need five votes for it to go live!
I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/276304/sponsors/new?token=7K1j280jcKHTesSefCDw
My petition:
Withdraw taxpayer funding for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex utilize British taxes. Yet they wish to avoid public duties and grow excessively divisive in the nation. The public therefore derive no benefit from funding their duties as working royals. These roles and the attached benefits should be rescinded
It just gets more and more ridiculous. These two wail about the 'media' yet do what no royal, to my knowledge, has ever done before and make a documentary about a minor tour. On the plus side, at least it's being done with a British broadcaster, ITV. Interestingly enough though, for those not familiar with such matters, ITV is considered a bit tacky, certainly much less prestigious than the BBC. Unlike the licence payer funded BBC however, it is a commercial channel with advertisements. I wonder if the Harkles have had some kind of financial incentive to do this? Or would that be a bit much for a British broadcaster, even a tacky channel like ITV?
This freedom of press issue (and if you don't like what was said, just call it hate speech because I should not be criticized) is playing on our side of the pond too.
Indeed. Only one viewpoint is allowed, and that is extremely far left. Opposing viewpoints on social media are silenced, even accounts belonging to government officials have been shut down. Opposing viewpoints on the MSM are largely not covered unless they wish to ridicule. It is rather interesting to watch the moderate left and far left viciously attack each other.
I'm going to double back on a prior essay about M being stuck in the 90's. One of the problems I see with a lot of kids (from way back when and sadly today) is that a lot of kids are not being taught how to handle rejection (your team did not win) or no (no you cannot have candy/a new doll/a new phone). I would say that M ws clearly in that beginning wave of parenting style and now the world is reaping what was sown long ago with love for her by her parents.
As for H, Ava's comments above about how he, too, was brought up in a similar you don't have to be responsible (also in that parenting wave but for different reasons for him - loss of D) meant that when the two got together - it was the formation of the perfect storm fronts connecting. I think this is playing out in a lot of relationships nowadays but not on the public stage where it is ... quite the train wreck.
I agree, it is the meeting of two youngest children, both given everything by a parent, who feel entitled to special treatment and support for life. What is very striking to me is how very incapable so many people are at (what used to be) normal skills of daily living. By normal skills, I mean carrying on a conversation without having to resort to texting across the dinner table. Maybe incapable is not the correct word. They are not learning the skills that they need to be able to adequately function on an adult level at the appropriate time in their childhood.
(ps Nutty, thanks for the housekeeping. I ignore those squabbles but my own personal views are that calling ugly names doesn't make you look intelligent).
I am so sorry I missed that. Having to interact with people in person is really killing my online persona.
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/post/188086795739
This is the sort of candid moment that fascinates me.
Want to comment on the content of her letter. The text clearly is an attempt to gaslight her own father as to the intentions of his rather innocent actions and indirectly gaslight the public as well, since she fully intended for it to see the letter. Her poor father took it at face value and was desperate for her to understand him.
She is despicable.
Yankee Wally (YouTube) presents outakes from the letter.
I am so not surprised the Queen and other senior royals do nothing about Meghan and her behaviour. Now, they never had to survive in a toxic work place for example, never really had to fight for anything major in life other than privacy - I truly believe they may be completely paralyzed by the recent events and have no clue how to put the fire out. Palace aides do, but surely the order needs to come from somewhere higher up. I can't see any of them ever having to put up with a narc or otherwise toxic person to keep their bread on the table and just somehow survive and fight. I believe the RF are dysfunctional in many ways, but they can choose their staff and or basically any person that does anything for them. They may have a ton of mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, which is bad, but they can easily remove someone from their lives who does not comply. Except for Meghan.
The thing with the legal action will die down. Meg will come up with something else. Being in the papers, doing something that makes her feel in power obviously feeds her narcissism. So we will see more of than.
Harry is long walking on egg shells around her, which is why he appears nervous and depressed. This will not only end in divorce (when Meghan decides, Harry will be unable to break free) but in much, much worse. For Harry and Archie. My heart breaks for Archie.
Lets see what Meghan comes up with next. I start to not only find her annoying but actually dangerous to other peoples mental health.
Does anyone else think Meg is using twitter - denying it is her?
Below is the press release by The Queen’s secretary regarding the Queen Mother’s will and bequests.
I also know that the Queen mother died with £2 million in debt which was written of because she was deceased. She was asset rich, but apparently cash poor.
https://www.royal.uk/will-queen-elizabeth-queen-mother
It’s always questionable when it comes to American sources quoting assets and wealth about the British Royal Family, and other matters regarding grants including Property Services Grant-in-aid, Crown Estates, The Duchy of Lancaster etc. What stands as personal wealth opposed to Public and government funding. A lot of foreign press is not good at separating much or any of it.
My apologies, I did not see your post until after I had asked the question.
“Nope, nope, nope. This second-hand wife came with no warranties, express or implied, Harry took delivery of her as is. Y'all are stuck with her. “
I am laughing so hard right now!
I also know that the Queen mother died with £2 million in debt which was written ‘off’ because she was deceased. She was asset rich, but apparently cash poor.
“Nutty, narcs are notoriously cheap. It's a characteristic which is hardly ever associated with them in psychological texts but people who have experience with them report that infallibly, the narcs they know love to limit their expenditures to a most pathological degree. “
This is totally true. My mother and one of my siblings are NPD narcissists. There are different types of narcs and different degrees thereof, but handling of money is a huge hallmark. In my experience it usually centers around the control of other people or self aggrandizement. For instance, my mother would not buy food, basic necessities, or shell out for copays for the dentist, but she had no problem shelling out thousands for me to be a cheerleader, because she could brag and shove pictures down everyone’s throats. I once watched my sister demand that we stop for food, the only place around being a Burger King attached to the gas station. She then ordered a single cheeseburger and proceeded to verbally abuse the 16 year old counter girl. She sent it back because the cheese wasn’t melted enough, demanded to see the manager, was given a refund, and then walked out and proceeded to eat the cheeseburger. Needless to say that I keep my family at quite a distance.
While watching Sparkle’s antics can be a little bit triggering, I don’t quite get the narc vibe from Harry. He is spoiled, entitled, and divorced from reality for sure. But what you have to remember about narcs is that they leave little nuggets of narcissism all around them; it’s almost contagious. It especially rubs off on the weaker personalities around them, because the cycle of infliction, gaslighting, and other abuse starts to make a crazy sort of sense after a while. Children are especially vulnerable, and I worry for any child left in their care. (God watch over Archie.)
Anyway, I don’t care how much money Harry has. I just know it is not enough by Smirkles standards. She wants billions.
So now it seems they had a crew making a documentary of their tour. How could I not have expected this?
The nineties Madonna tour!! Truth or Dare doc of it!
Am sure there will be many laughable moments.
"I think we also have to seriously entertain the idea that Meghan is doing this legal procedure to make money. She must have seen the large amounts given to certain Hollywood types and thinks that this may be a source of revenue for her.
Perhaps because the H&M merching was cut short, and the DM not offering as much as she had anticipated in negotiations, she is hoping that legal actions will fill the coffers for her greedy appetite."
Meg has two primary motivators: Money and Attention. This lawsuit and making maximum noise about it is her attempt to get supply of both. She is obviously quite confident that they are going to squeeze millions of pounds out of the Daily Mail. We shall see about that. She may be in for a nasty surprise.
Narcs need attention like the rest of us need air. Apparently they cannot distinguish between, or do not care about the difference, of positive attention and negative. As long as they are being talked about, speculated about, photographed and have their names splashed all over the media, they are getting what they crave, even though what is being written is bad. They can't stand criticism but they cannot stand even less being marginalized or ignored or otherwise made irrelevant. If they are criticized, they can spoil for a fight and come out swinging and stir up more controversy and attention. It's stress-inducing for a normal person, but they *thrive* on it. This is what's happening now. The tour has wound down and Meg had to concoct some big splash to keep herself front and center of all eyes. This was precisely timed to deflect positive attention from both Beatrice's recent engagement and the upcoming Cambridge tour. That's why it's emerging now, and why there has to be all this noise surrounding it instead of a more private process. Go big or go home, and Meg has no intention of going home yet.
Whatever she can do to cause the maximum chaos and damage to others around her, that is what she will do, so long as it comes with the maximum media exposure for herself. This is how she rolls.
If M grants P permission to publish something M has copyrighted, that does NOT mean S can then publish the copyrighted material. S would have to be given permission to publish the material. Previous publication does NOT remove the copyright.
Someone else asked a question regarding precedent. The outcome of the case in UK court will have little to no bearing on copyright cases in the US. US courts follow US laws, statutes, and precedent.
Now, about Harry and his rudeness to the reporter asking a question. Has he always been so far up his own backside or is this new? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7532899/Prince-Harry-reprimands-Sky-News-reporter-Malawi.html#reader-comments
Regarding Meghan and the IRS...I believe that I read somewhere that she either didn't pay her taxes or incorrectly reported her taxable income a few years ago. She supposedly ended up paying the balance, plus interest and penalties.
More importantly, the IRS tax deadline for filing 2018 tax returns that are on extension is October 15, 2019. The regular deadline is April 15 (April 16 if April 15 falls on a Sunday and April 17 if April 15 falls on a Saturday) but individuals can apply for a six month extension, which I am assuming Meghan took advantage of.
So she has to file her U.S. tax return for 2018 in 12 days.
From an MMTCD/TCD member, Credit to LipStickAlley: < more content >
.
Pretty much hits the nail on the head, so to speak re: what The American is trying to do.
Harry seemed to understand that the relationship with press, especially with reporters like Rhiannon or Richard Palmer who report ONLY on the BRF and even follow them physically on tour, as an actual relationship. Like with extended cousins you only see once or so a year, whom you find kind of weird but have to engage in polite conversation because you'll see them again next year and besides, Grandma will be upset. They know almost everything about you, and thus ask friendly yet slightly more deep questions to which you answer because it's a normal conversation, not an opportunity for you to have a captive audience to brag and show off to.
I don't think Meghan ever had a close relationship with the press as a relationship. This is probably why this major "F-U unless you ask me questions that will make me likeable" is happening. Reporters were used, like a once-and-done deal, for this interview here, that interview there and probably rarely the same person. Her goal with reporters was probably to make people interested in her as a great, down-to-earth person, not actually about her work or opinions. Did she ever get interviewed about her charity work before she became Harry's girlfriend? Or was the interview angle more like, here's a puff piece to get to know Meghan as an actress or as a fashionista or as the person behind the Tig.
Because we all know how those things go...like every Harpers Bazaar or Vogue article about any actress ever - "Actress X arrives on time, without her entourage, in a casual cashmere sweater, minimal make-up, and scuffed up Chucks. She orders a grassfed, organic free-range beef burger and a macrobiotic cleansing juice because she actually eats like us normal people, takes one bite from the burger (for the entire interview) and asks if I'm comfortable. Wow! She asked about me, the interviewer! This actress is down-to-earth! Caring! What a warm, charming person actress X is, chatty and intimate like a sister you actually like, Oprah, and your BFF from elementary school rolled into one...we begin talking about her latest movie to promote because face it, that's why she's here, and then move on to her important political/global/environmental issue to show she's not a shallow, vain idiot and is WELL-INFORMED and is more than just a pretty face. #METOO #TIMESUP Also we ask about her favourite work-out playlist, which is also a carefully curated list of classic oldies to show good taste plus some underground up-coming artist to show how hip and arty she is, and favorite recipe because she's not only beautiful and smart and talented and hard-working, she's also a kickass home cook who doesn't just have friends over for delivery pizza and Netflix binges, she "entertains". Then close up by asking about her beauty secrets, which is always just drink lots of water and rest and that's how I'm so beautiful, you poor pleb. Naturally beautiful. Ahh, swoon."
Meghan needs to wake up to the real world outside of L.A. and acting.
For argument’s sake, even if Harry’s net worth is in the $25-30M range, that is peanuts compared to circles in which they run. $30M may buy them a country estate, but the operating costs and staff needed to maintain that estate would bankrupt them in a few short years if they live solely on Harry’s assets. Hell, Meghan’s clothing expenses alone would bankrupt him in less than five years if Charles wasn’t footing the bill.
It’s only a hunch, but I do believe they are cash poor. Clue #1 was the fact that there’s no signed pre-nup. No way would he be allowed to marry without one if there was serious money at stake. $30M is not serious enough money in their world. Clue #2 is the fact that they accepted Frogmore at all (a swamp in the middle of a flight path!). HM obviously only gave them only one option after turning down KP.
Harry doesn’t have William’s money to buy his own Amner Hall or Highgrove. After their marriage H&M were rumored to be staying in a leased property near SoHo House. “Leased” being the tell-tale word. He had to rely on a freebie from Elton John to travel private. How demeaning that he couldn’t provide that luxury for Meghan and Archie out of his own pocket.
I do think Meghan is money-hungry and knows how to hustle, and hates losing face and being treated like the poor relatives walking a step behind William & Kate. The expensive couture that she wears is her only armor as it telegraphs wealth to the sheeple, who seem to ignore that Charles pays for it all.
Harry doesn’t have the intelligence or financial acumen to build his own fortune or to structure tequila deals like George Clooney. He’ll never be able to give her a yacht like Bezos, Musk or Diller. But Meghan does. She’s taking a page from the Kris Jenner and Oprah playbooks. She’s like the Unsinkable Molly Brown while Harry is going down in flames. And when she finds a billionaire she can latch onto, to build an even bigger fortune, Harry will be dismissed. Times gave changed, and she’s not going to stick around like Wallis Simpson.
Ow. I was thinking the other day that we haven't seen anything recently about what her tax bill might be.
That's not going to be a pretty number to her eyes.
Yes I agree with this, which is why I think Megz probably has a good case for breach of copyright. If she'd stuck to that, gone through the normal royal channels and left out all the whiny crap about 'vilification' I wouldn't be bothered with this too much.
That said, could Thomas Markle claim that the version of his letter put forward by the 'friends' (ie meghan herself) in 'People' magazine defamed him and therefore he had the right to reply using the same letter?
Nutty, I think the Mail on Sunday is defending the law suit, because it is a strategic way to defeat the superinjunction that the Sussex duo almost certainly have in place against the media.
A number of media outlets have identified the law firm Schillings as being experts in superinjunctions. That is the only acceptable way in my view, that media outlets can seek to tip off the public, that superinunctions brought by the Sussex duo are currently in place and restraining the media from releasing something really big, that would destroy the Sussex brand and H&M's credibility.
If the matter gets into Court (and the Mail on Sunday is hoping like hell it will), then information can legitimately be revealed, that otherwise would have been supressed by a superinjunction.
I hope calling them the Duck and Duckess isn't offensive to anyone.
I find this kind of error very endearing (and personally, if I saw that poster and it was directed at me, I wouldn't be able to hide a very large smile) but I don't think that Harry or Meg will see it that way.
For example, if another member of the Royal Family had written a letter expressing their communist sympathies and their hope that the Royal family would be eliminated and the United Kingdom ruled by China, how much of the letter would the the Daily Mail be allowed to quote?
Technically, the writer would have full copyright of the work, but the news value would be seen to outweigh the intellectual property rights, at the very least for excerpts from the letter.
Meg whining at her Daddy would probably be judged to have less news value, but the principle is the same.
It would be fascinating to know what Meg and Harry have a superinjunction against.
Shortly after this, up pops Meghan's Mirror as a merchandizing arm for her instead. Some here are convinced that she's got zero involvement in that site. To which I say, That's good; now pull the other one!
Who would benefit the most from a website named after Herself and devoted to her favorite activity in the world besides ordering Harry about and throwing shade at the Cambridges via her paid PR shills? Herself, of course. As a strictly 'fan' site, it goes way beyond what a fan site normally does, which is post photos, not try to sell the items in the photos of the subject of the fandom.
I still feel laughter bubbling up inside when I think of the word 'commoditised' and the supreme irony of its recent usage.
Were you around when Esquire Magazine invented a fake actress named Allegra Coleman, wrote exactly that type of fluffy profile about her, and put her on the cover?
Several talent scouts got in touch hoping to cast Allegra, who didn't exist.
http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/allegra_coleman
It would be interesting to learn whether the IRS has set sniffer dogs crawling all over Meghan's Mirror to determine its affiliation with the DoS, if any, and whether she's got income from kickbacks on there that need reporting for tax purposes. I don't think Meg's run-in with the IRS so far is going to be her only one by a long shot.
For our British friends, the IRS is the cousin of the Inland Revenue and both agencies are like dogs with a bone. You don't want to run afoul of them. The IRS has taken down gangland figures who have easily slid out of charges of multiple homicide, racketeering and the like. Meg could be the new Al Capone! I look forward to it.
"That said, could Thomas Markle claim that the version of his letter put forward by the 'friends' (ie meghan herself) in 'People' magazine defamed him and therefore he had the right to reply using the same letter?"
Under US law, I'd argue that publication of the entire letter was necessary and is characterized as transformative. "Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work." Seems this is exactly why the letter was published in its entirety, to provide a different character that could not be substituted for the original. We'll have to see if the UK law is similar.
Super injunctions aren't valid outside the UK so people there can just google and get the info from papers in other countries.
@Mischi, also super injunctions are usually only used to suppress information/suits e.g. yes Elton’s case, plus a few footballers and a well known Downton Abbey actor. Totally agree, they are only legally binding with in the UK.
There are so many unforced errors, I'm not even sure where to begin. First and foremost, this opens up Smeg and her +1 to discovery (if that was one of the offensive names, I do apologize and will refrain from using the name in future comments.) No one with anything to hide or anything a bit embarrassing, regardless of how trivial, wants to be subjected to discovery.
Second, she has to show the publication of the copyrighted material resulted in loss of earnings from the copyrighted material. I just don't see how that is possible. Maybe someone more creative than me can come up with a scenario where she could profit from the letter.
Third, the defense for the MoS is so blatantly obvious. The law seems to require a prior publication (got that in People) and that the copyrighted material would be used to criticize or review the previously published material OR to report current events. The letter was published both to review the contents, really set the record straight in regards to what the letter contained, and was reporting current events.
MoS has a textbook defense. Read it for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_law
What's the end game? What is the real goal in all of this?
Counting against Meghan is the publication in Hello magazine (parts of the letter were already in the public domain and she is not suing Hello magazine for that, which is devious and undermines her case).
However, her claim seems to be that they edited her letter and thus misrepresented it. She seems to want the letter in its entirety in the public domain.
Meghan does not understand love or basic human decency. Her father is not a well man and he is going to be dragged into this. She knows that he cannot afford to pay huge legal fees. I guess she is going to try to spin this (look what the media did to my poor father).
All she had to do was get on a plane with her husband and go and see her father and sort things out with him face-to-face, and use her financial means to protect him from the press (plus daily reassuring phone calls to a man who is ill).
Family members can be insanely cruel to each other in a way that makes no sense!
'Excerpts from her diary didn't clarify matters. "I am having thoughts," one entry read. "Really getting into thinking." She seemed to be a mystery. Or, as Allegra herself put it, "It's like Stonehenge, you know? The biggest mystery, totally unsolved."
I wish we could get the sussexroyal account to Instagram that quote "I am have thoughts...Really getting into thinking". hahah
I don't think you have bothered to read a word I have said. If you had then you will see that he received 10 million on his 30th birthday. It was held in trust until that point and he received the interest up to that point. It is his money now. Do you understand this?
If people want to argue against the numerous sources that I have provided then please do and provide your own sources rather than hearsay.
@Swansong Whether 30 million is a lot of money in his circles is a separate issue. If he is worth this amount through a combination of released trust fund money and money held in trust from the Queen Mother then a low figure of 300k per year income is absurd for the reasons I have given.
Bear in mind that we also don't know how much Charles really gives him from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Considering that the Queen Mother was husband to the King and had many years to accumulate wealth via similar trusts and income that PH and PW have (with a rather more frugal lifestyle than what the RF have now) then I am more inclined to believe multiple sources that claim she left millions of her own PERSONAL wealth.
I would also add that large sections of the aristocracy aren't that wealthy and that 30 million still represents a serious wedge for them.
But yes, nowhere near enough for Megan I'm sure. The potential to monetise their status massively is clear to see, especially if it's true about the paid meetings.
Pre-nups aren’t legally binding in the UK, but the judge can take it into consideration.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-506198/The-Empress-Extravagance-How-Queen-Mother-left-7m-debts.html
I remember the stories about how the Queen was annoyed that She had to cover Her mother's overdrafts and then the debts after her death.
The Queen Mother lived a frugal lifestyle?!? Lol lol That’s the funniest thing I’ve read about the Queen Mother! You clearly know little about her life especially in later years! She lived an extremely opulent and hedonistic lifestyle, she never worried about costs and she ate and drank etc., exactly what she wanted. The Queen paid off her overdraft more than once, when Coutts bank were rather concerned about it! She died owing millions, and it would have been more if the Queen hadn’t of stepped in.
It’s rather sad that the IRS is seriously understaffed.
Below is the press release by The Queen’s secretary regarding the Queen Mother’s will and bequests
According to the Queen Mother’s Will she didn’t leave any money in trust for her grandchildren. Her entire estate etc., was left to the Queen or for the Royal Collection.
https://www.royal.uk/will-queen-elizabeth-queen-mother
However, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't listen to advice even if she didn't have a case.
For example, as much as I want to minimize my income tax bills, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have hired an attorney to challenge the IRS on a tax bill of a little over $900. Yet it's been reported on the Harrymarkle site that's what she did in 2009 (when she lived with Trevor.) Sometimes it is possible to collect attorney fees if a case against the IRS is won--- but from my understanding getting those those fees awarded isn't a slam dunk. Maybe through various legal challenges she reduced a whooping amount the IRS claimed she owed and ~$900 + interest + court fees + attorney fees is the amount left she had to pay? Otherwise legal action was asinine over $900. It's not as though one can take the IRS to small claims court!
And if she did file for defamation as @Liver Bird says, that should be really messy (or would be in the US where truth is a defense and opinions are somewhat protected)
Technically yes and no. From what I’ve read and heard, they are suing because they believe ‘words (in her letter) were taken out of order and context’ in an attempt to cast Meghan in a poor light etc.
Amen to that ! I am a bit tired of the bullying happening here
It's reMARKLEBLE how little people know about domestic violence.
So I went through the #DomesticViolence hashtag on Twitter and discovered that that October, apart from being breast cancer awareness month is also domestic violence awareness month.
Anybody know precisely when Meghan made that ignorant comment about domestic violence?
Was is it October?
Anyway, I don't think the lawsuit will will end well for her... even if she wins.
There's winning and then There's "winning", and I think she'll be "losing".
Can’t you be civil?
Meg doesn’t get it, she released the letter to People and so I am sure MoS has that defense zipped up.
It’s really too bad, as we all gave Meg a fair shake
I side eyed her claim during the engagement interview that she knew nothing of Harry, but was still excited and happy for them both
https://blindgossip.com/her-own-game/
I'm a newbie to these blind gossip sites.
How reliable are they?
I know you replied to Louise but you answered my question, so thank you. :)
They always show their ‘solved’ blinds and there’s a lot of them. So I’d say an awful lot are very true to mostly true.
@Mischi, ‘think blindgossip is more reliable about Meghan than CDAN is. CDAN has admitted he doesn't have good sources for the Royals. But even when they do have good sources, they can also get it very wrong.’
I only read the CDAN for a very short time. Some of the blinds were just too outrageous to be true, and then I saw the disclaimer and saw some were fabricated and I stopped reading. So as with my reply to Miggy, I think Blind Gossip is pretty spot on with a lot of their blinds, and that includes ones about Meghan.
It’s gone midnight here and I should be asleep!
Thanks for the reply. The blind gossip that you posted was really interesting, especially if true.
A hour ahead of you here, so time for my head to hit the pillow too.
Goodnight all. :)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/28/meghan-markles-u-s-citizenship-could-cause-tax-head
See how that works?
There must be something in the air making all this irony so ironic.
Anyway, Nutty. I think the casino spammer is Indonesian (not Malaysian).
Also look what came in my email this morning: https://www.quora.com/Is-Meghan-making-a-point-by-using-American-spelling-on-the-sussexroyal-Instagram-account
Is this proof she wrote her own captions and doesn't have a social media manager? Or at least a professional to copyedit/proofread?
Meghan Markle Meghan Markle Meghan Markle <-- ms working on the SEO 🤣😂😂😂😂
Perhaps periodic command visits to Grandpa and Grandma Wales checking on Archie's well being might be in order and a stern warning against merching the baby.
If people want to throw money at her for shilling butt pads, bunion pads or jewelry, whatever.
I do not know if that is enough to deter a narc, though.
Nooooooo not divide et impera.
We don't have to like each other but let's not fight among ourselves? Especially not when we're united by a common enemy?
It's a traaaaap
There's something utterly satisfying about coming on any Meghan Markle comments section and not talking ABOUT Meghan sometimes.
Just because I think/believe the lack of attention would drive her nuts.
I try not to do it often tho just to be respectful to the blog and other commenters. But LOL it's more satisfying than a satisfying video.
I’m her still. I’m not sure what it would take.
It's sunny AF on this 08:08 morning... ☀️
Lol sorry nutty
Not sorry meghan
They’ll have to find something so awful that Ph will hate her immediately. Money shenanigans and yachting aren’t enough because I’m presuming PH knew about these and may actually be complicit to some degree. They’ve got to do it so he has plausible deniability too. Tricky tricky!
What will it take apart from him seeing her stab someone for him to think that maybe she's not the woman for him?
Remember when Kate cried during a dress fitting for Charlotte?
Well, at first I assumed it was because Meghan had yelled at Charlotte. Then, I read that it was because Meghan had yelled at the nanny to control Charlotte. And that Kate responded by telling Meghan that she didn't know how to treat staff. But, even if they did get into an argument about the nanny, that wouldn't explain why Kate would cry.
Then, I read somewhere that Meghan had hit Charlotte. That would explain why Kate would cry.
All they care about is their image and how they look. Run by ineffective airheads.
I watched an interview by an actual hooman who works there (he was talking to the satirist Jonathan Pie). It millennial cringe. Even I wasn't like that as a fresh-grad not-yet-cynical intern.
You'd think their HR department recruits through Tumblr.
Apologies for the eye-sore.
it's one thing for a suck-upy publication to wear kneepads.
But publications like the Guardian just have their selfish reasons.
It's like they're the poster child for selfish activism. To the point of lacking reason.
A terrible human being is a terrible human being regardless of gender or ethnicity/race. Even more ridiculous, aren't they supposed to be the ones who dislike the monarchy?
As a non-brit that puzzles me?
No such luck it seems tungsten has the hide of a rhino and is the meanest snake in the pit -
Reading blogs Harry got so much support but now that is gone as well - he's as dense and dumb as a rock -
His mother died some 20+ years ago - get over it! Quit whining and using that as an excuse for your bad behaviour -
Now I am sick of the both of them and have one wish - that their name never appears again - that there is no publicity about them at all - I don't care where they live - what they wear - what their stupidity and word salads are about
I have no respect for either of them and consequently their opinions are not worth consideration -
If the royal family cannot send them off to some distant place and keep them there that is their problem - but for heavens sake keep them out of the news - take the media away from reporting on them and they will disappear from view - attention is their holy grail - I hope the media finally starts taking all the blinders off and shows the true nature of these two brats.
HAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAAAHAHHAHHHAHAHHAHA