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
I have my pumpkin pie spice creamer for my (iced) coffee, and a new corkscrew for the wine. Life is good.
As to the rumor that MM slapped Charlotte at her wedding, y'all, I dunno about that. I know the British are super polite and all, but Kate wasn't born a royal. If that were MY baby girl that MM slapped, she'd be limping up that aisle with a size 10 high heel embedded in her a$$ and balder than Harry.
Comments on just about every article everywhere are so negative. Rough estimate, 95% negative.
Imagine if Harry got held up at immigration because the queen disowned him
@Mischi: The one Nutty discussed in this blog post. Apparently there s a paywall newspaper in England and after they opened comments, 200 people commented. Mostly negative.
I know free sites like the DM get like 9K but I'm imagining like the readers of The Economist b*tching about this imported Kardashian-like "royal" hilarious. Uptight in their sweaters (jumpers?) Expressing their dismay.
EPIC
The answer to both is: The People.
If the People of the United Kingdom are sufficiently aggrieved and demand that Harry and Rachel be removed from official duties and from HRH status, it will have to happen if the Monarchy is to continue. History repeats itself, and Rachel is not Wallis Simpson, but is Marie Antoinette.
That is why Rachel manipulated Harry into the lawsuit and The Statement. It is not about silencing the press; what she really hates are the comments. She has previously hired bots to post glowing comments; she has tried flagging comments; we are currently experiencing heavily moderated comments. Furthermore she has shut down blogs, YouTube channels, Tumblr accounts, Instagram accounts, and so forth.
Whatever she does, she cannot succeed and will not succeed in controlling what people think and say about her. There is something in us that instinctively shrinks from and rejects someone like her.
I cannot tell if Harry is a victim or if he is as bad as she is; I suspect the answer is a bit of both.
This will end, eventually. William will be the one to end it, although he may lose his brother forever.
Remember Machiavelli said it was better to be feared than loved.
Maybe Kim Jong Un of North Korea? But he also wants to be feared.
What is happening
Harry does not get an income from the Duchy of Cornwall, all the money goes to Charles and it is entirely Charles decision what to do with the money. He is obliged to pay the bills for official royal duties carried out on the Monarch’s behalf but that is it, he is not obliged to give them any money only settle their bills related to royal work.
Charles does also pays for their office and domestic staff and gives them a clothing allowance but I doubt he is paying for SS and also Harry stated they are paying for the court case. Income: i.e. cash in hand from the Duchy of Cornwall is not Harry’s by right and depends entirely on the generosity of Charles.
Harry receives no Parliamentary stipend at all, it is only the Queen who receives the Sovereign Grant, to pay her own way and fund her children (not her grandchildren).
Re - The renovations at Frogmore they have no direct relation to Harry as such , the property was a shabby dump and needed structural renovation, Harry and Meghan gave them a good excuse to carry out the work immediately. Any building work is the responsibility of the government because they own all the property at Windsor (H&M just have a lease on Frog Cottage)
The Sussex’s would not have received any part of that money to squirrel away as some suggest. The bills will have been paid directly to the contractors by government financial officers. However H&M (probably Charles)do have to foot the bill for any interior decoration, interor fittings and soft landscaping.
Despite what newspapers and wills say, I do know that the Queen Mother left trust funds for all her great-grandchildren, the wills of Monarchs are actually sealed (the QM’s will came under that category) so the parts that are known may not be the entire truth.
Whether she left equal amounts to all grandchildren is unknown (probably not, as she definitely played favourites) but Beatrice and Eugenie came away with around £3 million each, we know that because there was a scandal brewing over Fergie dipping into their trust funds (she admitted it herself) and to avoid legal proceedings Andrew covered the short fall. (Trust funds would only be mentioned in a will if they were controlled by the Deceased or he/she was still paying into them at their death- otherwise they are not deemed to be part of the estate and hence can be omitted from the will)
The rumour that a large cupboard full of jewel boxes was found after her death is absolutely true, the Queen collected these as the remainder of the estate went to her. (Aprt from the jewels and artwork left specifically to Charles). The Queen paid off all the QM’s debts during her life and after death, they were not written off as there were assets in the estate which would have covered them if sold. However there was no death tax applicable on the estate.
Indeed most of her treasures passed to the Queen without legally being part of the QM’s estate because in a very shrewd way, whenever her mother needed bailing out the Queen would get her to sign over various properties she owned in exchange for cash (mostly jewels, artwork and objet d’art). The Queen was always exasperated by her mother’s gambling debts but in the long run she probably just about broke even via property transfer.
IMHO, the goal is neither love nor fear. Rachel and Harry's game is about influence, power, and control. What really shocked me during the engagement interview was when Harry and Rachel were discussing touring the Commonwealth, and Harry talked about people thinking about things the "wrong way", and how one of their objectives would be to get people to think about "things the right way."
Yes, on the surface, that is breathtakingly arrogant.
But when paired with their leftist politics, it is not only unsurprising, but it is also to be expected. That is now the MO of the global elite: to correct the thinking, the words, and the behavior of the masses regarding gender, borders, climate, religion, and so on.
And what is behind all that?
Money.
At the beginning it was easier to buy into their schtick of "love Meghan, hug Meghan". She is a terrible actress and seems fake. Harry cannot hide his disdain. And for both of them, actions speak louder than words, whether through their clothing, their travel, or their seemingly drugged behavior.
Another clue is who they associate with, which I know has been discussed here previously. Hillary, the Obamas, Oprah, the Clooney, Ellen, etc. are all part of liberal global politics.
One point I wanted to make is that Meghan comes from parents who have BOTH declared bankruptcy, which is not a terribly good model of financial management for Meghan. Of the approximately $5 million she made during her acting career, a good chunk of it went for federal and state taxes, public relations, her agent (usually at least 10%), plus housing costs, a car, insurance, health insurance, clothing, makeup and hair, manicure, pedicures, travel, restaurants, health insurance, food, entertaining, costs for her blog, utilities, travel, and that’s just off the top of my head.
On the Tig, she showed off her $40,000 shoe collection. Yes, $40K worth of shoes, which for most people is a huge amount, but it is not much by Kardashian standards. She likely didn’t have that much left by the time she met Harry. I read she was down to her last $300,000 by the time she met Harry, but the article did not offer the source of this number. I think she could easily have had a lot less than a million dollars when Harry came into the picture. That’s a big part of why she was cruising the UK looking for a rich snd famous man,
Remember that narcissists can never get enough money and material goods. A common tactic for a narc is when they latch on to someone with wealth, they spend every penny of it before moving on to their next target.
Meghan is a lot like the lottery winners or professional athletes here in the US that have literally burned through a hundred million dollars and end up penniless. Meghan has already demonstrated her OTT expensive taste via such goodies as the engagement dress, the hand-hammered brass bathtub, the resort in Ibiza and so on. Add that to the extreme senses of grandiosity and entitlement to feed her narcissism, and you’ve got a woman who could spend Jeff Bezos into the poor house, let alone Harry and his $30 or $40 million.
I think if they end up shunned or worse by the RF, people in the elites might shun them in order to stay in good standing with Charles and William and Kate. If Harry and Meghan should ever split, I think her status would take a huge dive.
@Lurking.......’discovery’ in the US legal sense is not part of the UK system, the plaintiff writes an affidavit outlining the facts and the reason for their suit (do not ever get caught in a lie on an affidavit about the slightest thing or a judge could just throw the whole case out), the defendant reads the affidavit and then responds with their own written affidavit, refuting any point in the plaintiff’s affidavit and giving their own evidence on accusations made.
Discovery in the US is basically a fishing trip, UK law does not allow for that, Plaintiff and Defendant must stick only to the facts relevant to the case filed, everything else is irrelevant. If the case goes to court everyone must stick to what was written in the affidavits, no side trips allowed unless she opens that line of questioning in court by something she says.
Lawyers can try to catch the parties out on things they have said in the affidavit on the stand, but in a case like this which is a clear case of legal mechanics, you don’t even have to turn up at court because all the ‘evidence’ will have been put into the affidavits by the Plaintiff and Defendant, in court the barristers list precedents, points of law etc. which the judge considers along with the affidavits and any prior notes taken by a mediator at pre trial negotiations (this offer was made/ that offer was rejected etc.) The judge retires and then rules on the case perhaps not for weeks. LOL......the cost of this will be astronomical £50 for your lawyer just to read a one line email for example and it has been going on for 9 months so far.
I wouldn’t expect much in the way of extra scandal here, I’d make book on her not turning up at court at all , but she is so contrary if the lawyers told her to stay home she could just make an appearance , because she knows best and hey paps at on the court steps. Harry’s anti-media rant is totally irrelevant to the actual case and would not influence a judge.
@Sandi......the MoS admitted that the whole letter was not printed , but that the omission of some parts did not change the meaning of the letter. They totally refute her accusation that they changed words. I think the MoS purposely left out parts of the letter so the ‘fair use’ laws would apply, they only printed part of the letter not its ‘entirety’ , which would make the fair use defence much harder.
The other two counts are just a pile on......Defamed? by her own words? Data Protection would be thrown out at the same time as the copyright if ‘fair use’ is upheld.
Re- super injunctions (actually that's just media speak , there is no such thing-it’s simply an injunction) they are used solely to protect the identity of publically known people in criminal proceedings. It's the 'mud sticks' ploy, if they are found guilty and sentenced the names and details can be released by the media. Harry already let that cat out of the bag.
Re- the IRS, they have recently applied for the right to inspect all bank accounts business dealings and funding of US citizens in the UK, I’m not entirely sure if it has been passed yet but it could have been and it’s a foregone conclusion that it will be allowed in the future, possibly retrospective of the application date.
Which means any funds she benefits from, even if they are nominally given to Harry, via Charles, apart from the officially Royal duty expenses, can be taxed by the IRS private gifts including the freebie flights can also fall within their scope. Considerings she has already had problems with them they will be watching her. This IRS problem is likely the main reason they set up the charity naming them as directors..... tax free money don't you know.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10063097/meghan-markle-invaded-own-privacy-claims/
She does love drama, especially the passive agressive and often the nonsensical type of drama. BRF now seem to be quite in board with this drama nonsense and indeed seem to be using the resources that they have and that the Sussexes claim as theirs - namely social media. You just have to listen to Prince Charles reciting the poem "Quoting Shakespeare". He did this to celebrate national poetry day, and the post is up on the BRF IG. And boy o boy, is this shade or what?! The poem is very apt and quite a clap back. So I for one, do believe that the senior royals are more than a tad bit miffed, if not more, at this latest PR brain wave of the duo. It comes across as warning and a very very bold statement communicating, to the world basically that " you might think I'm weak and silent and on deaths door, but I know what you have been up to, I see it all, and I'm more than willing to deliver some Shakespearian justice if need be."
That, along with the many articles and insights by respected royal reporters tells me that the intelligencial is indeed turning against them. And more than willing to beat them.at their own game.
One thing about the foundation. Any money that passes through the foundation to Smeg +1 is taxable in the US, likely as ordinary income. I see the foundation as a money making operation/cover. Someone who wants access to the royal family makes a donation. They can claim it's for charity, however we all know what the real intent is. Smeg +1 can then pay themselves from foundation funds for "consulting" or some other bs. Any funds that are used to pay employees of the foundation are taxable in the US.
Charles does also pays for their office and domestic staff and gives them a clothing allowance but I doubt he is paying for SS and also Harry stated they are paying for the court case.
I suspect that they may have been "gifted" or "lent" some money to seed that suit from some of the public figures who have visible supported her and ... might also benefit in some manner if she were successful.