Skip to main content

Meg and Harry: No Sale

In her infamous TV interview with Martin Bashir, Diana, Princess of Wales, describes seeing herself as "a good product that sits on a shelf and sells well, and people make a lot of money out of you."

All celebrities are products, to some extent. Media companies use them to draw attention and sell advertising; the public projects their own emotions onto them - desire, anger, fear, hope.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are products, too.

And proudly so, which is why they have put so much energy into their @SussexRoyal brand.

Their supporters (paid and unpaid) will tell you that they are a contemporary and cutting-edge product, shaking up the Royal Family and moving it into the future with meaningful lectures on environmentalism, multiculturalism, and girlpower.

But very few people want this product.

The British public definitely do not want this product, which they are nonetheless obligated to pay for. And the American public is mostly indifferent.

Nobody is buying, and Meghan is angry. 

Talking vs. listening

This week there were a number of comparisons between the Duke and Duchess of Cambridges' masterful visit to Pakistan and the Sussexes' ramshackle tour of South Africa last month.

William and Catherine focused on Pakistan's positives; the Sussexes drew attention to South Africa's many negatives.

Catherine's wardrobe was well-chosen and reflected the local culture without venturing into cosplay; Meghan wore spike heels and giant gong-like earrings to a mother and baby play group, where she made everyone sit on the floor.

Most importantly, William and Kate appeared to spend a lot of time listening to their hosts, while Meg and Harry were there to talk.

And talk and talk and talk, largely about themselves.

When they weren't talking about themselves, they were taking pictures of themselves for the @SussexRoyal Instagram account.

Or video of themselves, for the documentaries that will be broadcast in both Britian and the US.

And, of course, overshadowing the entire trip with a last-minute lawsuit about breach of privacy.



Basic sales theorey

There are many versions of Meg's cv online, but looking back at her twenty years or so of job history, it doesn't seem like she's ever worked as a salesperson.

That's not surprising, because every salesperson - whether they are peddling Girl Scout cookies, health and beauty services, or aircraft carriers - knows it's not about the talking.

It's about listening, not just to what your customer says but what they do not say - listening to their unsaid motivations, which are probably what's really driving the sale.

(One example: a young person in my circle was sent out recently to sell lottery tickets in front of a supermarket in support of her teen athletic club. My tip: the people you're approaching aren't buying a piece of paper, or even a chance on the prize. They're buying an image of themselves as the sort of person who will spend a few coins to support kids' sports, and perhaps revisiting a warm memory of themselves as a young athlete. That's the real product.)

Meg doesn't seem capable of thinking about other people's motivations - and probably doesn't care.

From her father to her first (second?) husband to Prince Harry, she's had a standard method of getting what she wants: throwing a raging tantrum until the browbeaten fellow finally gives in.

This is the tactic she is now trying on the British public.

Push and pitch and publicize

But Meg's angry letters and lawsuits and tearful interviews aren't working: they don't like her, and they're not giving in, at least not if the 26,000+ disparaging comments on a recent Daily Mail story can be believed.

You simply cannot sell a product people don't want.

You can pitch and push and publicize and perhaps generate a little interest, but it doesn't last. In the long run, people will go where their true interests and desires, said and unsaid, are taking them.

The whole setup reminds me of another publicity campaign, from the late 1990s, for Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah was at the peak of her power and influence then, and she had just produced and starred in a movie based on the Toni Morrison novel Beloved.

Morrison was and is a very popular author, and Oprah was everywhere promoting the film; on her own show, on other people's talk shows, on news segments, in the print media, everywhere. It had all the earmarks of a Sunshine Sachs PR carpet bombing, although I don't know if Ken Sunshine himself was involved.

But the movie was a failure, coming in fifth in the box office on its opening weekend, well behind "Bride of Chucky." (Winfrey has since described the episode as the worst moment of her career.)

You can't sell people something they don't want.

And right now, they don't want Meghan.



Comments

JL said…
We don’t want them in the States. I have no interest in paying for their protection. If NYC, they are the last thing the NYPD needs. I want them to retire, but stay in the UK.
Sunnykm said…
Maybe Harry should volunteer at a children's support group for those who lost their mothers. He could empathize and console the children in their grief and perhaps he would find solace in this; he is not the only child to have lost their mom.

Sconesandcream said…
The crocodile tears from MM in the documentary preview is earning MM alot of sympathy and respect from women/mothers in my country. Her claims of PND has touched a nerve and she is being praised for being "so open" about her struggles. I dread to read the comments once the full documentary is shown here tomorrow. I think alot if the unwashed public will fall for this pity party.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tamhsn said…
I don't know but I don't have any hope anymore. I don't believe the Queen is going to do anything, Charles is not interested to get involved and Williams's hands are tied. This mockumentary was pure PR propaganda and it looks like it worked. I feel bad for Williams, he must feel sad and angry at the same time, specially when he just finished a triumphant tour.
Nutty Flavor said…
Good morning! Thanks to everyone for the comprehensive coverage of the "documentary", which sounds like a long goodbye to the Royal Family and to the UK.

How exhausting it must be to always be blaming your life circumstances on somebody else.

It's the opposite of "empowering" - it's portraying themselves as powerless against all the forces of unkindness around them.
Nutty Flavor said…
I was particularly interested in the information that the ABC documentary will be running on US TV at the same time as the first game of the World Series.

Back in the day, this was called "counterprogramming" - ie if there was a big event that appealed to one part of the population (World Series, Oscars), you'd try to put on something that would mop up the people who didn't care about that event (non-sports fans, glitz-haters, etc.)

It only works, though, if there are a limited number of TV channels, which isn't true any more. Those non-baseball fans (whom the programmers probably assume are women and gay men - falsely, because I personally love baseball, but whatever) have dozens of other alternatives in 2019.

You have to wonder if this is part of a bigger deal with Disney/ABC, linked to the Lion King premiere and the donation to the Sussex foundation, and if so how many parts of the deal are still out there.

At any rate, the ratings are bound to be bad, as a large portion of the viewing audience turns in to watch the Astros face the Nationals. (And Houston and Washington are big media markets in the US, so a lot of people will be tuning in.)

It'll be interesting to hear what the ratings are in the target market, however, which is probably women 35 and up. I know that's not Meghan's target market, but it's probably ABC's. I'm sure the advertising will be directed at that demographic.
Nutty Flavor said…
And, just to sum up, the ratings for this special will help determine how desirable Meg is for other media appearances once she's back in the US.

"Good" ratings for a network documentary in this fragmented media market would be 5-6 million viewers - that's what an ABC documentary on Farrah Fawcett got in May. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/abcs-farrah-fawcett-doc-leads-tv-ratings-thursday-may-23-2019-1213476

"Bad" would be under 3 million viewers, as another ABC documentary, this one on the anniversary of the moon landing, posted in April of this year. https://www.thewrap.com/abc-1969-docuseries-ratings-bless-this-mess/

Can Meg and Harry do worse than that?

FWIW, the US population is currently around 330 million.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nutty Flavor said…
@Charade, I'm not sure there's a market for them in New York or LA.

Meg has basically one story to sell - "I was a princess, but I fled the royal family." Great - that's one daytime interview and one evening interview.

Maybe a Vogue cover if Sunshine Sachs/Ron Burkle has the money to spend - but glossy magazines aren't what they used to be. Neither are the Oscars, should she get an invite, or the Met Gala. Meg's living in the 90s again.

Harry, meanwhile, used to get US media attention because he was a (somewhat) good looking single prince and a (supposedly) macho military guy.

He's now none of those things. He's not single, he's not good-looking any more, he's not very macho or even in control of himself and his emotions, and he may not even be much of a prince by the time he gets to the US.

What does he have to offer? Who is his target group?
Nutty Flavor said…
I also think it's interesting that a reunion with Meg's father, Thomas Markle, is being discussed - as awkward as it is, given the ongoing litigation related to the publication of her letter to him.

Mending fences with daddy is basically the last arrow in Meg's quivver when it comes to media attention.

If she is thinking of using it, she's really desperate.
emeraldcity said…
I do believe Meghan when she said didn’t know what she was getting into, choosing not to believe the warnings, she expected a Disney fairy tale with her landing on top of the Christmas tree, smiling down contentedly at her devoted fans and servants while living the high life and scattering fairy dust and bananas as she went.

Now she has taken off the rose coloured glasses , come down to earth with an almighty thump,seen the reality of that long, looming road ahead, duty bound for years and years while living on the edge of a cemetery in a frog swamp and said

“Bollocks to that, I’m a celebrity, get me out of here"

“H, we are trapped in a cage with evil demons tormenting us daily ,please protect me, we need to escape , let’s have a pity party like Diana did, it got her out of the family and set her free”

This is their Panorama interview but neither of them are as good at playing to the camera as Diana
Ava C said…
I still stand by my impression that Tom Bradby is fundamentally not sympathetic to Meghan (going only by clips as I won't watch the programme). Yes he's a friend of Harry's going back years. But isn't that in itself a clue? How must he feel seeing Harry like this? Brought to this I should say? The tone of TB's voice in the trench-dress pityfest bit was the same as mine when talking to someone I really don't like or approve of but have to get along with. I especially heard this note when she reached the 'newborn' bit and he said it was a long time ago but he remembered. In a way, by indulging her to the max, he may have contributed to her demise in the BRF. A friend of Harry's could do no greater service.
Ava C said…
I remember the day after Diana's Panorama interview was broadcast when all the men wanted to protect her and all the women talked about her calculated use of eyeliner. Imagine if there had been online blogs then! I don't know how we could have kept up with Diana.
Britannia said…
They must be absolutely awful to work for.

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fuzzynavel said…
I hated that book Beloved. Unsettled every fiber of my being. Couldn't finish reading it. Pretty much how I feel about the Sussex's. They unsettle every fiber because there's no plan. It's Diana card. Privacy card. Victim card. Racist card. Whatever you can think of. And Harry with his every time a bulb goes off or a camera clicks BS. That's throwing bad shade at his father and grandmother. Do you think if he was that sensitive they would still make him go out and be a working royal. He's telling everyone his father, grandmother, to a degree his brother are pure evil monsters completely unsympathetic to such pain! Please. Pull the other finger you jerk. And Meghan, shut up and meet your Dad like youve planned
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
R_O said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
R_O said…
@emeraldcity "I do believe Meghan when she said didn’t know what she was getting into, choosing not to believe the warnings, she expected a Disney fairy tale..."

It's possible she didn't know what she was getting into for she did not take the time to get to know Harry's family before the engagement. If I remember correctly, they did not spend more than 2 weeks together at a time before she gave up her life and moved to KP.

And because she has delusions of grandeur, she truly believed she can talk her way through and make the Royal Family fall in love with her and they will follow her lead in "modernizing" the Firm.

What she doesn't realize is that for most traditional families, you don't only marry the person. You marry the whole family as well.
@Ava and Charade, I agree with so much with what you have to say. Most Brits have a way of showing distain and disproval by just the tone in their voice and even a subtle change in demeanour. However, it might go over the heads of a foreigner like Meghan.

I agree with Ava’s comments on how the royal family will deal with this. They don’t do knee jerk reactions, but they do react, but it’s extremely subtle and slowly too.

The is Harry’s Panorama, that didn’t end well for Diana, but she married into the royal family and not a born royal like Harry is. He’s thrown his family, including his brother under a bus in a very public and undignified way, it’s unprecedented in so many ways, so I’m unsure what or how the repercussions will play out.
emeraldcity said…
Speaking of media litigation.

We were talking earlier about Andrew and Fergies finances . About three years ago Fergie started a suit against News Group for £25million damages over lost earnings because of the 'Fake Sheik Sting', it obviously went no where so she doubled down on it last year and is now sueing for £45million. I wonder if she is part of Harry's group media suit.

Amongst the particulars of the suit : "Ferguson claimed to have lost a deal with the British film executive Graham King to raise “funds for new projects of $125m [£90m]. The commission that would have been payable on funds raised was - £4,373,250”. But the deal fell though after the story ran.

She also claimed to have "lost out on a deal to find investors for a private equity firm that was “working to accomplish the merger of the Jaeger and Aquascutum fashion brands”, for which she expected to get a commission between £1m and £1.5m".

Gives a whole new black and white insight into how Andrew made so much money, simply by using his Royal contacts working as a middlemen to 'fix' deals. Who knew there was so much money in that line of work, even in basic uncontroversial business deals.

However Andrew as a working Royal is forbidden to make money in that way it comes under the corruption act : 'the act of getting money or advantage through the use of official political or civic power and influence'.

Andrew is the one who needs taking down by the UK media, Meghan, as irritating as she is , is just a tadpole in the Windsor swamplands.

Unknown said…
Oh my goodness, @emeraldcity...this actually made me laugh out loud! Thanks for the visual!

"I do believe Meghan when she said didn’t know what she was getting into, choosing not to believe the warnings, she expected a Disney fairy tale with her landing on top of the Christmas tree, smiling down contentedly at her devoted fans and servants while living the high life and scattering fairy dust and bananas as she went. "

This is always going to be my go-to mental reference for Meghan now.
Liver Bird said…
I think the comments about the rift with Will, and the implication that the royals weren't asking poor Meghan 'how she was' are the real killers here as far as the royals are concerned. The whole 'evil media killed my mummy' stuff is just background noise, annoying but nothing new to see. However, Harry has now slagged off his own family in a very public way, knowing full well that they will not stoop to doing the same thing to defend themselves.

Wills must be absolutely furious and he is known to have a temper. That's why I'm convinced the upcoming 'family time' is not simply a 'break' from the hardships of waving at the plebs one day a week. It could be that Harry is seeking psychiatric attention, as some seem to think, but I doubt that. I reckon they are being gradually eased out of offical royal duties. We all know Meghan's plan has always been to return to Los Angeles, but it may be happening sooner than we expected. Hard to figure out the logics of it though. Harry presumably cannot continue as a 'working' royal in a non Commonwealth country. The situation is pretty much unprecedented.
Nutty Flavor said…
@emeraldcity

I agree that Andrew is probably a bigger story than Meghan - but to be honest, I find it rather uninteresting because there isn't any tension. No one is insisting that Andrew is actually an admirable guy. It's just dirt, dirt, dirt and more dirt.

I already know the guy is a creep and needs to be put out to pasture. How many more details do I need?

@Liverbird

"Harry presumably cannot continue as a 'working' royal in a non Commonwealth country."

Harry can't work. He has no skills, and no experience of the self-disicipline necessary to generate income for himself or anyone else. He also seems to have persistent personal problems - whether they are addiction-related, purely psychological or both, I'm not qualified to say. But he's not anyone I would hire for anything.

What in the world is he going to do all day in NY or LA? LA is a company town - if you're not in the business, you're a support service for people in the business (restaurants, banking, etc.) He can't spend all day, every day, at the beach.

And New York City is merciless. If you don't have something to offer, you're going to be pushed out of the way very fast.
Liver Bird said…
@Nutty

I think Harry might get a few gigs in America giving vapid soundbite talks about 'mental health' and the evils of the media... for a while. But as you say, he has no skills and no experience of life outside the royal family - even during his short period in the military he had special protection. And in LA, or anywhere else in America, he'd be completely outside his home turf. He'd only have his son and Meghan, and she will discard him as soon as he no longer meets her needs.

I'd feel sorry for him.... if he wasn't such a self-indulgent twat. He's alienated everyone who cared about him and things are not going to get better for him.
lizzie said…
I'm baffled by some of the positive comments on DM. I know some are planted and I know there are differences of opinion on the Sussex situation (fiasco, IMO) But it's baffling when pro-commenters call H&M "kids." Is that because the Queen and so many working royals are definitely "senior citizens"? Or is 35-40 years old the new childhood? If so, do these people think of Will and Kate as "kids" too? Somehow I suspect not.
bootsy said…
@ Liverbird
Thanks for all the great comments! You and Nutty always get to the heart of the matter in a celar and concise way.

I agree with an earlier post of yours that most people simply don't care about the RF and this situation. I'm the same, no one in my family/friendship group is the slightest bit bothered. They probably think that MM has been targeted a bit, but also acknowledge that she's a bit fake. And that's it really!

R.e. Andrew's daughters stepping up into Royal duties I would be surprised if that happened. They are still connected with their dodgy Dad, who has escaped censure for years with his dodgy financial dealings e.g. his house being bought for way above the asking price by some dodgy individuals. And that doesn't even take into account the Epstein stuff.

My impression of them is that they're fine, just your average posh and a bit dim nice girl Sloane Rangers. And as MM as found out, to be an effective royal, having the name is not enough, you have to have something about you if you are going to elevate yourself above the hoi polloi.

Also, their Mum is a bit of a trainwreck as well who is also not that popular. I could be wrong but they are just not a great advert for the RF. Anne's daughter is a much better bet, but she is now caught up in a cash for access scandal so she is tainted as well.

I do think that MM/PH will have a career when they leave the UK. Their victim narrative (black/female/mental health/press bullying credentials) is extremely popular with a certain segment of society and that will be enough to give them a living. Think of how Hollywood is now marketing films to people using identity politics. It alienates lots of people but at the same time entices many others. The days of consensus are no longer necessary in order to make a buck. You just pander to your group and they will provide enough backing for your product.
Liver Bird said…
@bootsy

Agree re the York girls. No matter what happens with the Harkles, they will not be made working royals. Charles' aim is to 'slim' the royal family, as is happening elsewhere in Europe, ie Denmark and Sweden. Also, as you say, the York girls' parents are very unpopular - not that that is their fault - so I would consider it highly unlikely their status will be elevated.

"I do think that MM/PH will have a career when they leave the UK. Their victim narrative (black/female/mental health/press bullying credentials) is extremely popular with a certain segment of society and that will be enough to give them a living."

I do think Meghan will thrive. But Harry? His 'royal' status might impress for a while but soon enough, he'd have to fight for his place along all the other substanceless wannabes. And Harry has never had to hustle in his life. Meghan has, and she's good at it, at least within an American context. I just cannot see Harry adapting to life in Los Angeles. He may think he's so worldly and not like the other toffs, but this is a man who's been a prince from the day he was born and has never ever had to fight his own corner. He will crumble, and she'll be sniffer around richer, cooler men quite soon.

Or am i being horribly cynical?
Ava C said…
Nutty, your comments about Harry emphasise how vulnerable he is in the BRF as well as the US. Think of late-teens early 20s Diana as she found her feet. She may have thought she had it tough but she was psychologically armed to the teeth to deal with such stresses, compared to her son in his 30s. She handled the media almost immediately.

When I think back to Harry in his younger days, closer in time to Diana's death than now, he was a media natural. I never took to him but I thought he was going to be an asset. Like Diana at her best but without funny tricks, waywardness or malevolence. We all knew he'd never set the world on fire, but there was space for his joshing around and harmless play. That was his niche and he owned it. All that has gone now. The young man who hugged kids so warmly can't even hold his baby properly. He can't see anything beyond bitterness, resentment and anger.

I think he would have reached a (lesser) crisis point without Meghan, as he was approaching his mid-30s with little to show for his time since he left the army. Maybe if he'd had a Catherine Quinn to keep his diary busy with charity work that would have saved him. But he was allowed to loaf around and follow his worst instincts - that fatal BRF tendency to inaction - and the result is Meghan.
Unknown said…
Hi, longtime lurker. I had to comment on this:

Now she has taken off the rose coloured glasses , come down to earth with an almighty thump,seen the reality of that long, looming road ahead, duty bound for years and years while living on the edge of a cemetery in a frog swamp and said"

AND living this life with a weak manlet who she does not love or respect, probably doesn't even like, stuck with a kid she would rather not have, but needs, to cement the privileges. A woman like that only respects a man that stands up to her and doesn't take any of her crap. "H" clearly does not fall into that category.

I'm an American who had never heard of her before the wedding. I couldn't watch that engagement interview. The phoniness was too much. I know why she didn't listen to warnings. Her focus was on locking down the commitment and she figured that she could deal with whatever fallout there would be. I can't blame her for that and actually respect her determination and drive. She would be a great CEO if she were smarter. I think if she deepsixes the RF and British public, the gloves will come off and dirt exposed, maybe sending her to Paris Hilton territory in the US. Except, nobody here really cares about a 40 year old skank. We can see those on the Real Housewives series.
Ava C said…
@Liver Bird - I don't agree at all with your take on the York girls. They are not their parents. Indeed if anything people feel sorry for them and root for them more.

They came across better than any of the other younger royals on the documentary for the Queen's 90th birthday, and I remember people saying that with surprise at the time. Even their past ugly wedding guest clothes raised a very British laugh, when sarcasm is mixed with affection.

Eugenie's wedding was exceptionally well-received and again I have heard people discussing this with great relief after Meghan. And that is their strong point. Meghan. As someone else said, she's poisoned the well and people are reacting to her unwarranted arrogance by approving royals by blood. It's an understandable and very human reaction.

Meghan has even succeeded in partially rehabilitating Fergie. She seems harmless in comparison. Quite a few DM commentators would take her back if they could lose Meghan. Of course her sleazy ex may stop anything like that in its tracks soon. But again, that has nothing to do with the York girls.

Finally, it's a simple matter of numbers. Harry's family will be out and we can't expect William and Kate to do it all. A whole generation of older royals will soon be gone. Camilla won't be able to do much (BTW I love Camilla but she's not well) and Charles is 70. Even if they redefine what the BRF does, they can't cover the country with numbers that wouldn't even make a small dinner party.
Jenx said…
Well, I have had enough. I also think MM hit a wall and met with too much resistance. Her Pinky and the Brain plans have been scuppered. Now, statesward. The irreverant Ashlee has said that Oprah awaits along with Doria and Thomas, together for a family thanksgiving. Why is it so easy to imagine Oprah presiding over that? Christmas at the Obamas perhaps? New Years with the Clintons?
And perhaps Harry can learn to do laundry. He would look mighty cute in her little French maid get up.
Liver Bird said…
Another point: I think we all agree that this 'evil British press' thing is part of the build-up to their being 'hounded' out of Britain and having 'no choice' but to go back to kinder, gentler America (!) How, exactly, would that get said evil British press off their backs? Despite what they hint at, they have never ever been physically 'hounded' by the press in Britain. That DID happen to Kate and Diana, but only before and in the latter's case, after, they were members of the royal family. The royals are surrounded by RPOs every time they set foot outside the door, and are never physically harassed. It just doesn't happen.

However, if they do go to Los Angles and if they lose the 'working' royal status, they would very likely also lose their RPOs. Also, as I said in an above post, though you'd never think it to hear these two whine, the British press is much more deferential towards the royals than the American or European press. And it's not like simply moving to America will mean the British press have no interest in them, or, in the age of instant news and the internet, have no means to cover them.

A move to America would in fact invite much more intrusive press coverage than they are whining about now.
bootsy said…
@ LiverBird
Good point r.e. the slimming down of the RF, I forgot that stuff. Well it's definitely going to get a lot slimmer because it looks as if Kate and Wills are going to be doing the heavy lifting, especially as Anne winds her stuff down. The RF will have to slim their commitments as a result.

Fair point about Harry in LA, it will really be a different world. You're right he has never had to hustle, and he will probably become a marginalised figure.

But he isn't substanceless like the other wannabes. He is still a Royal, princess Di's son and was second in line to the throne for years. He is not someone who has just been on a reality show for a few years.
I think his status as royalty will still be enough to sustain him, just nowhere near the same levels as he is expecting. Americans like their 'royals' too (look at the Kennedys). Humans are hierarchical by nature so having a bit of that in their country, combined with the history that PH represents (Lord knows they love history as they don't have much of it themselves) will be decent enough for some Americans.

Whether that will be enough for him and his ego-who knows. But I think it will be enough to parlay that into making money and enjoying a lifestyle over the years, even if he isn't taken too seriously.

Could be wrong though, and your breakdown of his future seems just as likely as my own scenario!

The interesting this is that MM is a social climber and if he doesn't turn out to be the powerhouse that she wants and expects? Then yes, MM will be sniffing around other people for sure.

So I think we agree with some minor differences in the details? :):)
Scandi Sanskrit said…
Don't the CSI folks on "CSI: Miami" also call Horatio Caine "H"? 😂🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Insert CSI: MIAMI THEME SONG] AWWWWWWWWWW

I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING

HELP ME
Scandi Sanskrit said…
OMG I got YEEAAAAAHH mixed up with AWWWW

THats how distraught I am by this revelation thay sheb calls Harry "H"

Please somebody make some epic mashup horatio Caine memes:https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/10900024/Horatio-Caine

🕶
Liver Bird said…
@Ava "Eugenie's wedding was exceptionally well-received"

But such was the lack of interest that Andrew had to go around shopping it to the TV channels. The BBC said no so he had to slum it with ITV.

"Meghan has even succeeded in partially rehabilitating Fergie. She seems harmless in comparison"

Not with the stories about the 'loans' she took from Epstein. It will be interesting to see the C4 documentary tonight. And I agree that the girls aren't responsible for anything their parents do, but I would say Andrew is so toxic that there will be no prospect of any 'promotion' for his daughters any time soon.


"Harry's family will be out and we can't expect William and Kate to do it all. A whole generation of older royals will soon be gone"

But within 10 or 15 years, the Cambridge kids will start to take part in royal duties. And the relatively hard-working Edward and Sophie are still reasonably young. And how much do royals have to do anyway? Their 'work' is symbolic. Throughout Europe, royal families are being pared down to the heir and their family. That's how it is in Spain, Holland and recently, Denmark. In Sweden, royal status was actually revoked from non direct heirs. And given that Charles has said he wants to 'streamline' the family, I think it highly unlikely he would take the unprecedented (?) step of elevating the Yorks, particularly as it was he who insisted they didn't get 'working' status in the first place.
Sconesandcream said…
I agree with others in that Harry will really struggle in the US. I think he will last a max of 18 months in LA or wherever they initially settle. Within 18 months, Harry & MM will separate. He will return to the UK with his tail between his legsfor a short period but will be at a loose end within the Royals so will eventually move to Africa and live out a quiet life there. Megan's celebrity will briefly burn brightly but will soon fade. She will remarry and end up on Real Housewives of... I just don't know where Archie fits into all this.
Liver Bird said…
@bootsy

"But he isn't substanceless like the other wannabes. He is still a Royal, princess Di's son and was second in line to the throne for years. He is not someone who has just been on a reality show for a few years"

Actually he was never more than the 3rd in line to the throne - after Charles and William. But I get what you're saying. He's not just a wannabe Kardashian and already has a 'brand'. But I think a huge difference between Harry and the wannabes is that the latter know how to hustle and have thicker hide than a rhino. By contrast, Harry has been spoiled and cleaned up aftr from the day he was born, and whines like a baby when the press don't love his wife. I'm not sure how he'd cope in a more competitive marketplace, so to speak.

"Americans like their 'royals' too (look at the Kennedys)."

But if we compare him to someone like the late JFK junior, the contrast couldn't be starker. The latter was handsome, polite, well brought-up and most of all, extremely humble. He used to ride the New York metro and say 'sorry' when he bumped into people. And while like Harry, he supposedly wasn't that bright, he did try to make a career for himself though editing a magazine - obviously his connections helped - not by being a 'star'. Who knows how it would have turned out for him had he not died so tragically young, but he seems to have been a totally different creature from spoilt brat Harry.

And another crucial difference: he married a woman who hated media attention. That is to say, she hated all of it, not just the negative bits like Meghan, a woman who has craved attention all her life and is now using that same media to complain that it 'isn't fair'.
earlybird2 said…
Whether she's a victim or a bully or whatever, they both need to go away for awhile. Even Taylor Swift goes away for awhile and gives us and her a break.
Miggy said…
Here's the full transcript of Meghan's interview from the DM.

Tom Bradby: 'This has been quite a journey really, one way or another. Up in the bush I did talk to Harry about the pressure you're under. Its clear, and its clear from last night's statement the pressure you're under. You've talked about the pain behind the brave face. I don't think a lot of people really understand what that is, so perhaps you could give us an idea of what the last year has been like?

Meghan: 'It's hard. I don't think anybody can understand that. In all fairness, I had no idea, which probably sounds difficult to understand, but when I first met Harry, my friends were so excited, my US friends were happy because I was happy. But my British friends, they were sure he was lovely, but they said I shouldn't do it because 'the British tabloids will destroy your life.' Because I'm American I very naively didn't get it. I'm not in any tabloids. It's complicated.'

Bradby: 'I talked to him up in the bush about mental health and the impact on his mental and physical health and he is obviously very concerned about protecting you and protecting you from what his mother went through. This is obviously an area one has to tiptoe into very gently, but I don't know what the impact on your physical and mental health and all the pressure that you clearly feel under.

Meghan: Look, any woman especially when they are pregnant you're really vulnerable and so that was made really challenging, and then when you have a new born – you know… 'And especially as a woman, it's a lot. 'So you add this on top of just trying to be a new mom or trying to be a newlywed it's, well…' 'Also thank you for asking, because not many people have asked if I'm OK. But it's a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes.'

Bradby: 'And the answer is, would it be fair to say, not really OK, as in it's really been a struggle?'

Meghan: 'Yes.'

Bradby: 'Look, the pressure you are under is pretty obvious, its been obvious to me in a growing sense throughout this tour and before it started I kind of knew some of the picture but not all of it, so can you put up with this? Can you deal with it, can you manage it, can you handle it and what happens if you can't?

Meghan: 'I've said for a long time to H – that's what I call him – it is not enough to just survive something. That's not the point of life. You've got to thrive and feel happy. 'I really tried to adopt this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip.

Bradby: It has its advantages I guess.

Meghan: I tried, I really tried. But I think what that does internally is probably really damaging. I never thought that this would be easy, but I thought it would be fair and that's the part that's really hard to reconcile. I take each day as it comes.

Bradby: The counter argument is that you have this power, this privilege, you have this fame, this wealth, and that comes with scrutiny. Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad. How do you counter that argument?

Meghan: Things are fair. That completely tracks with me if things are fair. I'm the first one to go, 'oh my gosh I'm so sorry I would never do that.' When people are saying things that are just untrue and they have been told they are untrue but they are allowed to still say them, I don't know anybody in the world that would feel like that's ok. And that's different to just scrutiny. What would you call that?

Bradby: I don't know..

Meghan: It's really a different beast. You know? I think the grass is always greener. You have no idea. Its really hard to understand what its like. I know what is seems like it should be. Its a very different thing. The good thing is I've got my baby and I've got my husband, and they're the best.
alice france said…
@Living bird: it is true that European royal families are beginning to reduce the official activities and public funding of some of their children and cousins, and will eventually withdraw sovereign titles from many of their heirs. But let me think that the situation might be a little different with the British royal family. Because it is the royalty known throughout the world, which is not only the case of the Swedish, Danish...etc. royalty, even the King of Spain does not have as many articles in the European media and newspapers as the Windsor. The whole world knew who Diana was, and today her sons are as famous as she is. I find it hard to believe that Prince Harry will become less and less important after the queen's death, because he will be one of the king's sons and so he will seem to still have an importance. However, I agree that in 10 years, few people will be interested in Harry and Meghan. This will be the moment when the children of Cambridge will be at the forefront of the world stage, and our eyes will be on them. My life and work force me to spend my time between France and Italy. Nine days ago, I was in Bologna and in the newspapers, there were articles on Sussez, but not on the other royal families, it is rare to read them. Meghan is criticized in Italy. It is a country where the role of the family is important, which is often the case in Mediterranean countries (such as Spain, Greece...) so I let you imagine what Italians think of a girl who treats her father like Meghan. This modest man who lived incognito until two years ago is judged and criticized by hundreds of people around the world. All because his daughter ignores him, rejects him and makes him look like a bad father. And this behaviour is terribly shocking to the Italians. On the other hand, Harry has always been appreciated and even now, even though people say he is a man who seems so in love that he has gone blind. But you may be right about the changes Prince Charles will make in his family in the future. I just wanted to tell you what we think of the Sussez and the British royal family in countries other than the United Kingdom.
Ava C said…
@Liver Bird - no time to fully catch up but yes, Andrew had to hawk that wedding around to get it televised and I was one of the ones who thought it was laughable, but once we saw it we were glad. Everyone I know loved it! Watched it again. Talked about the best photos. The dress. That lovely cake. I admitted I was wrong and I was glad for the quality coverage ITV provided (never thought I'd say that). We just have to agree to differ, since you're one of my favourite nuttiers!
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
bootsy said…
@ Liverbird
I take your point and don't want to go too far down a rabbithole with this.

Of course the Kennedy clan is different as is JFK junior. My point is that the USA are, in part, enamoured by the idea of dynasty. PH and JFK jnr are of course different but are in the same strata of what we are talking about i.e. come from a dynastic family and are looked upon as somehow 'better' than normal people.
Of course there are differences between the two. Don't forget that PH was VERY popular before all this. In the same way that most people aren't bothered by the PH/MM stuff, if you took a straw poll amongst those same people, PH was almost universally popular, especially with the ladies (yeah, I know, hard to believe now). He was somewhat dashing and did have an easy charm. Maybe he will be able to recover a bit of that.

Of course I agree that he has never had to work for anything. I'm not sure that working the celeb circuit, with an intro by oprah/whoever will mean that he ever has to hustle and graft like everyone else. If he can rediscover his easy going persona (whether that was really his actual personality is another matter) then life will be a lot easier.

But of course, will it be enough for MM:)
This has just appeared in the DM, I’m hoping it’s true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7595725/Duchess-Meghans-emotional-interview-damaging-royals-claims-royal-expert.html
Louise said…

Miggy: Thanks for the transcript.

She certainly does like to toss the word "woman" into everything. "when you're pregnant and have a new born.. ESPECIALLY AS A WOMAN..." Did she mean "only as a woman"? Who else could be pregnant?

"I'm the first to go "oh my gosh. I'm so sorry, I would never do that." When has she ever apologized for any of her mis-steps? Whenever she was criticized, she just dug her heels in deeper.

"My friends warned me.." Is that why she rushed into marriage, even bumping Eugenie's wedding out of the way? She was more concerned that Harry's friends had warned him.. and that he might change his mind.
Miggy said…
@charade

Yes, you're quite right.

none said…
If MM and PH move to the US they will flame out quickly. Neither have the looks, money or charisma to make it in here in our celebrity-obsessed culture.

The race card has been overplayed. We aren't impressed by royalty. The only identity left for them is Woke Millennials playing to an audience of 20-somethings.

The question is how long can PH continue with this charade? He is already a ghost of a man. Moving to the US and away from the protection of the BRF would finish him off. Perhaps that has been the plan all along. Take down both PH and the monarchy.
Miggy said…
@Louise

"She certainly does like to toss the word "woman" into everything. "when you're pregnant and have a new born.. ESPECIALLY AS A WOMAN..." Did she mean "only as a woman"? Who else could be pregnant?"

I thought exactly the same when she came out with that rubbish!!

Good job I wasn't drinking at that moment because had I been, the wine would have left my mouth like a fountain.
@Louise, ‘"My friends warned me.." Is that why she rushed into marriage, even bumping Eugenie's wedding out of the way? She was more concerned that Harry's friends had warned him.. and that he might change his mind.’

Agree, she couldn’t wait to walk down the aisle. The biggest mistake she made was thinking she could acquire A-list fame and on her terms; that is celebrity-dom. She’s had a very rude awakening with finding out that isn’t what being a British Royal is. It hasn’t turned out the way she so arrogantly thought it would, she thought she’d be lauded and admired, instead she’s found and acquired infamy.
Louise said…
I don't really understand the purpose of airing this dirty laundry in public.

What was the goal? To shame the RF? To shame the British media? Did she really think that they would change in order to accommodate her?

I don't even think that the tabloids were particularly "mean" to her.. although the comments from readers were critical. Does she want to shut down public commentary? I recall that she doxxed some Twitter accounts several months ago..... like a tin pot dictator.
I haven't watched the whole documentary yet, don't think I will. I have watched a few clips and after the teasers that were released nothing's seems to have been released that wasn't already anticipated. I'm still a bit confused as to why they want to market themselves as sad, unhappy, helpless and mentally ill.

It also seems like they are competing with each other as to who is more mentally ill and sad which is coming across as them not having each other's back. They are giving separate interviews and both releasing how it has been excrutiating for them individually. I feel the impact could have been more if they sat down together and talked about it together, appeared as a solid United front, supporting each other there while the world media collectively us out to get them. To me now, to see their separate interviews, seems like they are desperately trying to share their feeling with Tom while they can't share them with each other. Also, what's the pint of Tom jumping on the badwagon with his own insomnia struggles. Is this a free for all? And if it is, then let's also hear from the South Africans who are benefitting from the charity they are promoting.

The point of a Royal tour is to highlight the relationship with the country, to show us how the money us being spent for the betterment of the recipient nation's. And so far it seems like the South African people are more than happy to get a hug from Meghan, the cause be damned.

I would have also liked Tom to have asked some uncomfortable questions, the questions that have been bothering the public and have led to this onslaught of critisism -

* What do they think of the hypocrisy accusations regarding the private jets.

* Keeping Archie's birth and Christening secret from the public

* The excessive spending on Meghan's clothing

* The money spent of Frogmore

* Wimbledon

* Her relucrance/cluelessness about royal protocol

* How Meghan ciews this feud between H and wills

* The baby shower. And the us open trip leaving Archie home when he was supposedly only 3m old

Now, I don't expect honest, straight forward answers but I would have liked these questions, or issues as I like to call them now, out in open and acknowledged by the media and the both of them. Nobody really cares the brother don't see other that often anymore, nobdy cares the wives don't get along. Nobody cares if she had acreer before or how long she has been married. And frankly, nobody cares if theirs is the most truest kind of fairytale love there ever was. We care about the fact that our money gives them extereme privilage. We care that THEY don't LIKE us. We care that they appear to be secretive to the point of being dubious and doing all this on our dime. And we care that they seem to be shit at their job, do t appear to be intersted. We care that they never seem to stop talking about themselves.
Liver Bird said…
Also, her 'British friends'? What 'British friends'? Wasn't she just whining that nobody was asking her how she was, poor dear?

It's so so obvious that she is trying to make out that all things 'British' are the problem - the snide remarks about 'stiff upper lip' too - which is bloody insulting considering nobody anywhere gave a toss about who she was until she married into the British royal family and got funded by British taxpayers.

Also remember only a few months ago she was telling us she never reads the papers or engages on Twitter? I guess the new PR firm had a different slant though, so the story changed.
Nutty Flavor said…
Meg says in the interview:

"When people are saying things that are just untrue and they have been told they are untrue but they are allowed to still say them, I don't know anybody in the world that would feel like that's ok. And that's different to just scrutiny. What would you call that?"

I'd call that being famous. Famous people deal with this every day, whether they're Jennifer Aniston or Donald Trump or Zion Williamson or Kanye West. They might not like it, but it's part of being in the public eye.

It just shows she was never a real celebrity before she met Harry.
Louise said…
Dan Wootten (Royal reporter for the Sun) had some interesting things to say. I don't want to take up too much space reproducing his Tweets, so here is the link:

https://twitter.com/danwootton?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
alice france said…
I remember reading an article where Meghan's friends said that she was frustrated that she couldn't defend herself on what was said about her in the press, because in the royal family you shouldn't justify yourself or complain. But in the end, this documentary seems to have allowed him to defend himself. That's what she wanted, to be able to say that everything written about her ("unpleasant") was false. Really it violates all the rules of a royal attitude. She is so vulgar and an incredible opportunist. I just read the article from the DM recommended by LOUISE500, very very very interesting and promising.
@Nutty, ‘It just shows she was never a real celebrity before she met Harry.’

That exactly and in a nutshell! (No pun intended! Lol).
bootsy said…
@ Nutty
Very true r.e. famous people. Have said it before on here that Julia Roberts gave an interview where she defended her massive pay. She said that she thought it was the right/appropriate price to make up for the total lack of privacy that you get when you're famous. Great way to put it!
Liver Bird said…
Also, libel laws in England are notoriously favourable to the plaintiff - so much so that there is such a thing as 'libel tourism' whereby people go to great lengths to sue for libel in an English court rather than in their home country. Unlike in other jurisdictions, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, in England the publisher has to prove that the story they have published is not simply 'not false', but actually true. That's why it's very difficult to actually lose a libel case in England.

So if the tabs have made stuff up about Meghan, why hasn't she sued? We've already seen she's not afraid to use the courts when she thinks she has a case.
NeutralObserver said…
Nutty, have to agree with you about what Harry has to offer in terms of skills. I had to laugh when Harry did that photo op on a City of London trading floor. I know a bit about that world. It's full of real sociopaths who are actually very smart, in their limited see everything though a financial lens way. They would eat him up & spit him out in a nano second.

You & Mischi & others have commented on the waning celebrity endorsement culture. They might have a narrow window here in the US to make money before people move on to the next thing. They aren't sports stars, singers, or actors,(Megs's acting chops are pretty minimal), so they don't have built in platforms to keep themselves in the public eye.

The scheduling of the ITV thing in the US says that ABC is targeting single women who live vicariously through people like Megs. She married a prince, like Cinderella, not so feminist & empowered then.

If only Harry had married someone like Rafael Nadal's beautiful, patient bride (she's been with him for over a decade). Oh, wait, Rafael is a supremely talented, hardworking, self made millionaire, & Harry is . . . not.
Louise said…
Nutty: Respectfully, when the British are called racists because they dare to criticize Meghan's antics, I think that discussion of racism is on topic.

I was reading something in a US tabloid recently (don't remember which one), that referred to her as a "bi-racial actress", although her race was irrelevant to the topic. And then Meghan has the audacity to say that American tabloids were better than British tabloids...
Fairy Crocodile said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nutty Flavor said…
Thanks Louise, but we're not going to discuss that here.

I fully support you discussing it someplace else if you choose! :)
Unknown said…

"...yes, Andrew had to hawk that wedding around to get it televised and I was one of the ones who thought it was laughable, but once we saw it we were glad. Everyone I know loved it! Watched it again. Talked about the best photos. The dress. That lovely cake. I admitted I was wrong and I was glad for the quality coverage ITV provided (never thought I'd say that)."

Agreed so much, @Ava C. I was extremely cynical about a York wedding, and was bracing myself for a Markle-esque debacle 2.0. However, I'll gladly admit that I was wrong. Utterly and completely wrong. It was lovely to see Eugenie get her Cinderella moment. After years of being ridiculed for her fashion and looks, she had blossomed into a beautiful swan. Her family looked proud, her husband looked charmingly - but authenticity! Not feigned for her cameras - nervous, and most importantly, Eugenie was clearly a young girl deeply in love with her intended. It was a wonderful wedding...the perfect balance of intimacy and dignity, elegance and authenticity. Best royal wedding ever, imo. It completely changed by opinion of the York girls. THATS how you win the British public over. The York girls have never tried to be anything other than themselves, goofy quirks and all. It took a while, but people have come to see them as genuine and unassuming. They've never complained about the bullying in the press (and unlike the Sussexes, I think there IS a case to argue that they have been bullied). Meghan could learn a lot from them, if she had the humility to follow their example.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Thank you all for your informative and insightful comments. What a contrasts to "save Meg" hysteria going on Twitter. Royals are known for "ostriching", which is avoiding the problematic subject in the hope that it simply goes away. At a family gathering any remark about personal issues will be greeted with a stony silence and the conversation will be changed. Duty is valued above all and one's ability to overcome illness or problems to do the duty will be given top marks. So I am not surprised Meg found no sympathetic listeners there. They would expect her to learn the ropes as she goes. There are no colleges that train you how to be a Duchess. She would have received advice had she asked for it but not pity. After her emotional outbursts and blaming British culture for her problems they will be finished with her, as the one cardinal sin never ever forgiven is airing your issues in public. Diana's downfall began with Morton's book and ended with Panorama. And Diana was the mother and spouse of future Kings. Meghan is insignificant in their eyes. They will rush to unite around the Queen, Charles and William. They will simply squeeze Sussexes out leaving an opening for Harry to crawl back if he chooses.
Louise said…
Another good opinion piece:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/10/20/will-queen-make-harry-meghans-panorama-like-outpouring/





Sandie said…
Louise, I am as baffled as you are! If something is published that is not true, then deny it or report the media outlet to the Press Ombudsman (or whatever you have in the UK). As long as the media gets away with publishing untrue gossip, it will continue to do so. Why do they not do so? They have no qualms about ignoring palace protocol and doing whatever they want on all other things. Are they afraid that if they use the means available (before running to the courts) to keep the media honest, what will be left are the stories that are true, and those alone make for juicy reading?

Remember when he released that statement about her being harassed in Canada (turns out her house was not broken into and there weren't crowds of paparazzi waiting outside)? That was after photos and video clips of here were published (all freely available on the Internet) of the many times she has used sex to sell herself. He can't have his fantasy of her challenged.

Harry and Meghan are not suitable for the job of representing the monarchy nor the UK and should be forced/cajoled/bribed to step down ASAP before they do more damage.

I watched their documentary and am astonished that they participated in it. Either they used Tom Bradby to get their pity me message across or they were used for Tom Bradby to get a documentary that would make headlines. Nothing in the documentary would encourage anyone to visit southern Africa nor lobby for their country to do trade with and broker co-operative deals with any countries in that region - nope, just give handouts for charity and don't visit the most dangerous, poverty-stricken, racially divided place in the world. I just hope that the visit did not cost South Africa anything! (By the way, would a visit to China be called an Asian visit, an Asian journey, and so on? I am going to keep banging this drum ... Africa: BIG continent; southern Africa: BIG geographical region within that continent; Southern Africa: BIG political region within that continent; South Africa: BIG country within that region.)

And I affirm what others have said about the documentary: she does all the talking and, when he is with her, he only speaks when she indicates that he should, and then she cuts him short if he goes on for too long. She uses so much word salad that it is difficult to focus on what she is actually saying (if anything at all) and he does the same. Building a home in Botswana in the place where they fell in love? No way is Meghan Antoinette going to live there! Harry is living in a deluded fantasy about her, his marriage and his life.

If she loved him, how can she encourage and foster that which gives him pain and causes him to unravel? What kind of love turns you into a rude, bad-tempered, paranoid, belligerent person, cut off from family and life-long friends?
Louise said…
The Telegraph article to which I linked asks a question that I had been asking myself, i.e., what were the untruths to which Markle was referring? She speaks generically without giving any concrete examples.
NeutralObserver said…
@Louise: 'She certainly does like to toss the word "woman" into everything. "when you're pregnant and have a new born.. ESPECIALLY AS A WOMAN..." Did she mean "only as a woman"? Who else could be pregnant?'

That's pure gold. In the PC world, points are handed out or deducted for things that we have little control over, our race & gender. We do, however, have control over our actions & choices. Megs has chosen her fate. She grabbed it with both claws.
Maggie said…
Such interesting contributions,thanks Nutty and everyone.

I didn't watch the documentary, it would have made me too cross. However there is a video by The Hawk (search YouTube "The Hawk South Africa") by a white South African who is utterly incensed at them exploiting his very troubled continent as a backdrop to their PR exercise.
Liver Bird said…
Viewing figures sugggest that the whinomenatary was only the 5th most popular programme on ITV yesterday. Pretty much confirms my view that there just isn't as much public interest in these two as is often believed. Diana's "Panorama" interview is still talked about a quarter of a century later. This cry fest will have been forgotten by the time the next episode of 'Great British Bake-off" airs.
luxem said…
So pulling a couple of threads together - talk of visiting/moving to LA. Planned events with Oprah (per Ashlee). Big election in US 2020. Oprah has always been vocal/active during election years regarding democratic candidates. Harry and Meg are clear in their liberal-leaning views. Can we expect to see these two showing up at campaign events/fundraisers in support of democratic candidates? They no longer care about Royal protocol. This would be Megs "step up" to her next career - hobnobbing with the politico/celeb elite. She no doubt has the hubris to think she would make a great senator/president, but I think she really wants to be seen as an "influencer" rather than the rough and tumble work required to run for office. What she wouldn't give to have her Angelina moment of walking into the UN to give a speech on poor people with Harry following her in like an assistant.
NeutralObserver said…
I think Megs' use of the initial 'H' to refer to Harry lends credence to the rumor they don't live together. Who refers to their significant other by their initial? The 'H' looks like it's how Megs refers to Harry when she communicates to her pr team in emails & texts. She probably rarely speaks to him in person, just talks about him when planning her latest pr blast.
Ava C said…
@Unknown - thanks so much for your view on Eugenie's wedding. Women I know thought it was the best royal wedding ever, as did I. All of us amazed to find ourselves saying that. I still think Princess Margaret's wedding dress was perfect and I've always had a passion for the Poltimore tiara she wore but Eugenie surpassed even that for me.

Back to the documentary, I can't believe DM comments saying Meghan's done nothing wrong. I reply with a list but one can't keep doing that. So infuriating. More often than not they're outside the UK so they seem not to feel the financial insult to tax-payers, but many of us on this blog are overseas and completely understand.

The spiel is either that she's done nothing wrong or Harry is paying for it effortlessly. They seem to think his reserves are as bottomless as her pay-packets used to be. They still think she had £5-7M herself. Have schools stopped teaching arithmetic? Of course she may have had some interesting additional sources of income, but I can't see how or for what.



none said…
@NeutralObserver Agree about her use of 'H'.
Ava C said…
@NeutralObserver on Meghan's use of 'H' for Harry - a DM comment said something like she's erased him as a person to the extent that only his initial remains. A beautifully-phrased observation.
Liver Bird said…
BBC royal correspondent has said that Wills threw a fit about what Harry said about their relationship. The BBC tend to be very cautious when it comes to the royals, so you can be pretty sure its true, and probably an understatement.

I cannot see how Harry - much less Meghan - can continue to take a part in public royal life. As I said before, the comments about William and the implication that the royals weren't being kind to poor dear Meghan, are much much worse than the whining about the press. I cannot see a way back from this, at least not in the short term. Hence the 'family time'. I'll be genuinely shocked if we see them at Sandringham at Christmas. They're finished.
lizzie said…
#Ava C-- Don't know how schools teach arithmetic these days. But alot of those US posts must come from people who are unemployed or earn so little to pay no income tax if they think Meghan managed to save every penny she ever earned (while traveling, paying agents/publicists/accountants, paying ordinary living expenses, paying for Soho memberships, buying clothes, entertaining, all the while paying US income taxes.) I've read some blogs where posters claim the studio paid her taxes but if so, that would make the tax payments taxable too! So no, she didn't come to the marriage with $5-7 million stuffed in her underwear even if the sugars are right about how much Suits paid her.
IEschew said…
New to posting here but I’ve been reading for several weeks and appreciate the intelligent comments. This clearly is not a crowd that dislikes Meghan just for the sake of hating on someone. I wanted to chime in and agree that Bradby and/or his producers may be trying to save Harry here. It seems the ‘documentary’ makes it clear to all that Harry is in a bad way. Based on the transcripts the UK posters have nicely provided, Bradby asks questions that give Meghan the opportunity to express her concern for what this has done to her husband and what it could do to Archie (as Harry does in his statement and perhaps the interview—his focus is on protecting his family, not just his own experience). But Meghan expresses no concern for others’ welfare, beyond using the ‘all women are vulnerable postpartum’ defense of herself. Is this more of the ‘give her enough rope’ strategy and Bradby is doing his part to rescue Harry from a narcissist? I believe someone mentioned that Bradby is not just a longtime Harry friend, but that he’s also a friend to William.
Ava C said…
The Telegraph article by Camilla Tominey is good but behind a pay wall, so here it is for fellow nuttiers:

PART 1

2019 is starting to feel like another annus horribilis for the monarchy. First we had the allegations surrounding Prince Andrew’s friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Then the Queen was dragged into a constitutional crisis over Brexit.

And now the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have given a television interview that feels on a par with Princess Diana’s explosive sit-down with Panorama.

By seeming to suggest that she can no longer continue in the Royal Family as it stands, Meghan appears to be not only casting aspersions on the British tabloids but also the Firm she married into.

Her revelation to interviewer Tom Bradby that: “Not many people have asked if I’m okay,” appears to hint at a lack of support among her royal relatives - echoing the criticisms Diana made to Martin Bashir in 1995 of being isolated and misunderstood.

Sources close to the Sussexes have told me they feel like they are “completely on their own” which is perhaps why they have felt able to justify breaking with the 93-year-old monarch’s mantra: “Never explain, never complain,” for this extraordinarily emotional outpouring.

The monarchy can be brutally dynastic - when times get tough for one part of the hierarchy, it can be a case of every household for itself.

As when Diana and Prince Charles were having marriage problems, the suggestion seems to be that no one has taken Harry and Meghan aside to help them deal with the press criticism, let alone the mental anguish they claim it has caused.

Which begs the question: have the couple been receiving poor advice, or simply ignoring the good advice they’ve received? Since they did not appear to consult their advisers or closest family members before releasing a statement attacking the press on the final day of their tour of Africa last month, perhaps we can deduce that it is a bit of both.

Harry’s admission that “stuff” has happened between him and his brother, who he reveals he no longer sees as much of, also bears witness to the notion that the Sussexes are increasingly operating in a silo. Harry used to rely on brotherly advice. Now married, like most husbands he largely listens to his wife.

(Part 2 continues)
Ava C said…
Part 2 Telegraph article by Camilla Tominey:

Yet unlike William, Harry clearly has not fully come to terms with his mother’s death, admitting his mental health needs ‘constant management’.

Declaring that he “will not be bullied into playing the game that killed my Mum”, he confirms that he does still blame the media for what happened on August 31, 1997. Many will sympathise with this view. Others will conclude, as the inquest did, that a combination of drunk driver Henri Paul and marauding paparazzi were to blame.

He also appears to have forgotten that at times both of his parents were willing participants in the “game” he describes, actively tipping off journalists in a bid to win favourable headlines during the so-called War of the Waleses.

But this was not an interview that sought to give both sides of the story - hence why it was allowed in the first place.

In insisting he will protect his family at all costs, backed up by Meghan saying she will not adopt the “British stiff upper lip” - the Sussexes appear to be saying something deeper about their ongoing role in the Royal Family. They are no longer willing to put up and shut up - which could prove problematic for a family that has traditionally kept calm and carried on.

Both the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Cambridge faced a relentless media backlash when they first entered the royal scene. Camilla was famously dubbed “Britain’s most hated woman” and “the laziest woman to have been born in England in the 20th century”. Kate was also described as “lazy”, a “doormat”, nicknamed “Waity Katie” and a “Wisteria Sister” (highly decorative, terribly fragrant and with a ferocious ability to climb). Both royal women rose above.

Of course there is a big difference between unfair headlines, and untrue ones. But as with their generalised statement about the press, this documentary did not make any clearer just which stories the Sussexes were objecting to, and why.

Some members of the public will be scratching their heads at Meghan’s suggestion that she and Harry don’t want to be seen as a ‘mixed race couple’ but a love story. If that is the case, why does the Duchess keep bringing race into it, like when she spoke of being a “woman of colour” in South Africa? Hardly anyone else mentions it.

No one expects either Harry or Meghan to “just exist”. The British public and indeed the world wants both to “thrive and be happy”.

But the reaction to this documentary will inevitably be divided between those who think people in positions of great power and privilege should follow the Queen’s example - or Diana’s.

END
Girl with a Hat said…
apparently, Meghan has managed to sell her mockumentary abroad.

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1186231468303015938
Glow W said…
Archie was sleeping, not drugged. They said, “oh, he’s sleeping” and then they started whispering. 🙄🙄🙄
Ilona said…
Well done, Nutty on your summarisation of the recent happenings and on the MM plans and (non)successes.

A commenter on DM mentioned something outrageous (?!) - it is rumoured that on Thanksgiving Day there will be another two guests at Doria's table: the Father of the Bride and Op. Win. The latter will film the reunion of father-daughter!!

As for the pitiful look on MM's face in the documentary, she reminds me of a girl, that I am involved with at my volunteering work, who has a load of serious problems and she makes a huge effort to smile every time someone says Hello to her. She is a lovely looking girl, a little younger than MM who hasn't one hundredth of what MM has been given in life.

Also, a friend who lives in Windsor has told me that the general consensus is that she is shaming the Royal Family with her antics.


Louise said…
Harry Markle wordpess has a new posting today.
Unknown said…
"Archie was sleeping, not drugged. They said, “oh, he’s sleeping” and then they started whispering. 🙄🙄🙄"

Maybe not, @Tatty, but it's not like they would say, 'Oh, don't worry about Archie, we've got him doped up on cough mix to keep him from wriggling away on camera when we hug him," would they?
Liver Bird said…
Why would Archie even feature in the whinomentary? I thought they were determined to maintain his privacy.
Humor Me said…
Dearest Nutty - how about a new thread on the ITV interview. I know there are remarks/ opinions here - TL/DR at almost 500 is a bit much. Love to all - have a great day.
alice france said…
@Mischi:I don't know if the documentary will be broadcast in my country, but if it is, I think the criticism will be terrible, because since this morning there are already newspapers killing Harry and Meghan. Especially for saying "we survive, we don't live". These same newspapers compare articles on Brexit (an uncertain future for the British in all respects). The real difficulties are experienced by the British people and not by this couple. Harry and Meghan's crying and complaints shock us
Maggie said…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07q4pt4
This is a BBC podcast discussing Harry's absolute loathing of the Press and refusal to understand thd transactional nature that Royalty have with the fourth estate. He gives an example; the press pack had followed their tour of Australia (remember only accredited reporters are given media passes) and on the plane on the way home he spoke to them for the first time in 16 days. The two of them came down to the back of the plane for two and a half minutes and were incredibly rude. We weren't told what he/she said. Their relationship must be absolutely toxic.
Archie features in the documentary because showing Archie renders them above criticism (in their minds) he is their trump card. Just as crying about Harry's dead mum and Meghan's race.

People seem to have been swayed, even if slightly by this display. Just because ether appear sad doesn't actually mean they are sad. They want us to sympathize and believe their life is miserable. I believe they are desperately, whiny, blaming Harry's family, out for revenge, believe in their own myth, think they deserve better....but I don't actually think they are sad and flailing. That would mean they will seak out help and take the help they are offered. And that they will use their resources so they can get better at their job. They don't seem to want to be in the position where there are any expectations from them. They hate the duty part. That's the part they don't want to give of themselves. Their biggest problem has been and still remains, that they don't want to be representating the family in this capacity. They despise and do not get the accountability partner of their position.

Ungrateful entitled twats!
Maggie said…
I saw Meghan's promotional clip and thought she looked triumphant. She hates Brits, the Press and the Royal Family; she's not very smart and thinks she's pulled a fast one, going behind the RF's back and saying how hateful they are.

She obviously hasn't had any media training otherwise she could have really made that a powerful statement that would have elicted some sympathy at least.

I hope that the Mail's legal team have spent time with Thomas and secured extensive sworn statements.

There are some people, and I belive MM is one, who don't realise how stupid they are; she has many streetwise and manipulative skills but unable to empathise can't imagine counter arguments to her claims of poor treatment. I've said it before but every misstep she takes makes me more certain that she will make an appalling witness. The High Court must be a terrifying place and if your story doesn't bear scrutiny, quite unbearable.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger tatty said...
Archie was sleeping, not drugged. They said, “oh, he’s sleeping” and then they started whispering. 🙄🙄🙄


Bless your heart.

Miggy said…
A timely reminder.

https://twitter.com/katiehind/status/1186200338120007680
Girl with a Hat said…
I think the BRF's best response to all of this would be for someone senior (but not William) to appear on television and apologise to the nation for Harry and Meghan's behaviour. They should explain that it was because they indulged him due to his mother's death.

It will never happen but that is what they should do
SwampWoman said…
Maggie said: There are some people, and I believe MM is one, who don't realise how stupid they are; she has many streetwise and manipulative skills but unable to empathise can't imagine counter arguments to her claims of poor treatment.

I would like to add my views to that, if I may. I think there is something very, very off about her and, for whatever reason, she just does not 'get' emotion although she attempts to use it in a manipulative fashion. I would not trust a word that comes out of that mouth.

I would say rather than not being able to imagine counter arguments, she knows very well that the BRF would not deign to give examples to the contrary to the press. So exactly who is bullying whom here?
mel burns said…
I think Harry and Meghan are paving the way for a separation from each other. If this happens Meghan will be able to move back to LA or NYC and achieve the kind of celebrity she seems to crave. Harry will then be taken back into the "bosom" of the BRF and the public sympathy will be with him for "loving an American actress" and then ultimately abandoned. Meghan will claim "their love was not enough" to keep them together and blame the British tabloids as she sails home with a big pay off. But what happens to poor Archie? Does he end up with Harry or Meghan or become Catherine's fourth child? I think the thing I despise them most for is bringing a baby into this mess they've created.
The Sussex brand is detrimental to the BRF and their reputation worldwide and I have always wondered if that has been Harry's plan all along, to bring down the House of Windsor in revenge for what he believes they did to his mother. Meghan, his tool of choice has spun out of control and now she the tool is running the show.
The whole thing about these two is divisive which seems to be a world wide trend. I am no lover of the Sussexes, but I resent the bigotry that surfaces in blogs like this and devotion that bubbles over in blogs like MAM where if you are critical either your comment is not published or is crucified and called racist. I look forward to the day when I stop seeing them on every media outlet and cease to feel compelled to comment on blogs. No disrespect intended, this place is very entertaining. Thanks.
Fairy Crocodile said…
In the view of the article in Telegraph blaming both Harry's parents for the press game I have to come to Charles defense. It is a well known fact that he had expressly forbidden his friends and aids to return Diana's fire. It is in the aftermath of the Morton's book that Diana expressly denied cooperating with (lies, because she recorded tapes and passed them to Morton) when several of his friends independently of each other came to the Queen and Prince Phillip to describe the impossible situation Charles was in. The result was the Queen's instruction to Charles and Diana to separate. Diana didn't stop there and went for Panorama. Queen lost all patience and ordered a divorce, as well as consented to withdrawing HRH from Diana. Charles has many flaws but on this account he has my respect.
Liver Bird said…
Any solidarity being shown from Meghan's great friends today?

Serena? Jessica? Oprah? Madame Clooney? Elton? Anyone? Bueller?
Ava C said…
Re: Mel Burns post - let's not take up the bigotry point. This blog suffered so much getting riled with Tatty. No one changes their minds in spats like that so it's pointless engaging.
KnitWit said…
Baby Archie is the true victim. Is he going to have 2 birthdays, the secret real one and the public one? Who is caring for him now?


I hope Meg doesn't get custody if they split. She would be worse than Angelina, dragging the kid around for publicity.
PaulaMP said…
I was able to watch it last night and share most of the same thoughts that you all do. Meg constantly interrupted Harry, he couldn't get two words in edgewise. She steered him with her arm on his back everywhere they went, like he was a young child. Meg brought up all her rehearsed Diana expressions. I think she really thought everyone was going to LOVE her, and that's what she can't stand. She loves loves loves the fame and being in the media, but she wants to control what people comment about her, and that is what she can't do. I think she is stunned that she didn't become the Queen of Hearts overnight, and never will.
Anonymous said…
An interesting thought occurred to me -- President Trump will be visiting London in December for the NATO summit, and it is expected that the queen will give another state banquet for all of the leaders. With H&M taking "time off" from doing precious little except having pity parties from mid-November on, Meg will again manage to avoid having to be nice to someone she hates. Meanwhile, she will by then have been in the BRF for more than a year and a half without taking part in any kind of international event hosted by the queen.
mel burns said…
@AvaC: I agree, but that said remarks like "the great unwashed" diminish credibility.
Miggy said…
@ Fairy Crocodile

"It is a well known fact that he had expressly forbidden his friends and aids to return Diana's fire."

So forgive me, but was Nicholas Soames wearing ear-plugs when Charles made this request?
Liver Bird said…
Many years ago, a friend of mine, then quite young, married a man she'd known for a fairly short time. Over the first year or so of her marriage, he tried to isolate her from her friends and siblings and increasingly tried to control her everyday life. Friends, noticing how tense this formerly laid-back young woman had become, warned her that this was a classic controlling and potentially abusive relationship. Luckily she got out before having any children with him and is now married to a wonderful man.

Now, I'm not one for amateur psychiatry, but isn't it obvious that something similar is happening with Harry? She has isolated him from his friends, then his family and now his country. Harry looks miserable as hell when she's around. He seems desperate to please her and keep her happy. If this is what we see in public, can you imagine what is going on behind closed doors? It looks to me like a classic toxic relationship, so much so that it's not really amusing anymore, especially as an innocent baby is involved.
Ava C said…
Good point Fairy Crocodile. Patrick Jephson, Diana's private secretary, opened my eyes once and for all about Diana. I had a boss from hell at the time - extremely manipulative - and I carried Jephson's book about with me as a reminder of how much worse it could be. I don't think there was a man in the world who could have kept Diana happy in the longer term. She needed help. Proper help. Not gurus recommended by Fergie. I don't know how Charles lasted as long as he did. He was not blameless, but he did not deserve his first marriage either.
Ava C said…
@Miggy - Nicholas Soames always goes his own way. I'm still trying to get used to approving him for something (B****t), but fortunately I didn't have to try long.

Yes, it got ugly then, but I think both sides were at the end of their tether.
Liver Bird said…
"President Trump will be visiting London in December for the NATO summit, and it is expected that the queen will give another state banquet for all of the leaders. With H&M taking "time off" from doing precious little except having pity parties from mid-November on, Meg will again manage to avoid having to be nice to someone she hates"

I don't think so. Meghan and Harry are not important enough to be invited to state banquets. And she may 'hate' Trump, but only a few years ago she was fawning all over his daughter.
JLC said…
I'm sorry if I am repeating something already mentioned on this blog, although I am sure I read it elsewhere. I read that Meg was the producer for the documentary, has anyone else seen that?
JL said…
@Nutty I absolutely believe there’s a package deal at Disney/ABC. (I wonder how Bob Iger feels about the way they spent his $3 million on Sunshine Sachs to no avail? Also I can’t forget how she ignored him at the Lion King premier in her rush to Beyonce, leaving Harry to stand there and shill for her getting some acting or voiceover work from him.) Disney/ABC has pushed a real diversity agenda in its programming, the most asertive of the US networks so, on paper, the Harkles probably seemed perfect for it. GMA and The View both discuss her only positively and sympathetically. This has to come down from the too because there is no way that Joy Behar doesn’t think the way we do, but she is obviously stiffled. But how will Gayle feel about Robin Roberts having the get? Meghan is playing both sides Oprah/Gayle and Disney/Robin. Don’t know if this will go over well.

@Emerald City I also loved the Christmas tree topper image. However, I disagree that Markle didn’t know what she was getting into. After all, she studied Diana assiduously. All on her own she ran a fairly sophisticated campaign to climb her way into the Royal Family, crafting a PR narrative that bears no resemblance to the reality of her life. I think she knew what she was dealing with but her incredible HUBRIS is such that she figured that a) she’d nail the silly rules and protocol quickly and b) she’d make quick work of them as she’d find her way around them. Just as her family said, she liked to break the rules.
Miggy said…
@Ava C

Soames went totally over the top in defence of his friend Prince Charles. He had to rightly apologise to the Prime Minister in the Commons for his remarks.

I was so glad when he years later got his comeuppance! ("like having a wardrobe fall on you with the key still in".)

Miggy said…
The DM is busy updating articles.

Prince William is concerned about his younger brother after Harry and his wife Meghan made a series of troubling comments in a new TV documentary, a royal source has revealed.

The Duke of Cambridge is said to be 'worried' about Harry and hopes he and Meghan 'are all right', a Kensington Palace source told the BBC online.

The source said there was a view among the Royal Family that the couple are now 'in a fragile place'.


Also this...

Fellow royal commentator Penny Junor called the television appearance a 'huge mistake', and urged the duke to change his approach.

'My advice would be to keep his head down, and I'm afraid to say, stop whingeing,' the writer said.

'It's beginning to sound like a bit of a whinge. That's not the Harry that we know and love.

'Yes, Harry's been through a lot, but there's a lot of other people who have been through a hell of a lot as well, and a lot of people who don't have the privileges that he has.'
JL said…
Also @Nutty I agree Harry has nothing to sell. BP succeeded in crafting him an image as a warrior, Invictus etc., that was very successful. Now he’s a mewling kitten of a husband so that is shot.

All Virgo’s have a more intense mind/body connection than most. They need modalities that will help them with this. Also being in nature really helps them. Urban life isn’t good for them really. Moving to NYC or LA would only prove more disastrous for him because of this.
He has stated how trips to Africa helped him heal after his mother’s death. The same is true for Balmoral, which has been a balm to him.
Once in the States he won’t have the kind of regular access to nature he once had. The Hamptons are a traffic jam as is Malibu. Here again he married the wrong girl. I really don’t see MeMe going incognito and camping in Canyonlands National Park. LOL
Ann Christensen said…
Meghan has busted through the door like a swat team. The door Diana left flapping open in the wind with her departure. No other royal would ever deem it appropriate to even approach that entry to public sympathy, until now, when Harry is emboldened by Meghan's proddings to vent his little lost boy woes. I think this gives the Queen herself, and Charles too, their own ptsd. They have spent decades overcoming the bile Diana spread with such style and seeming innocence. This is part two of the Diana tribulation story, writ large. It was bound to happen. Only Camilla seems to get a certain black humour out of this situation. Would love to see the insides of Camilla's private diary.
Fairy Crocodile said…
@Miggy Are you referring to remark that Diana was "showing advanced stages of paranoia"?

He should have kept his mouth shut and he didn't. But he is pretty much the only one. Charles had and has many loyal long term friends and most of them held their tongues. In private Diana was called "mad cow". Even Jephson whom Diana called "my rock" turned quite bitter after the Panorama and his book "Shadows of the Princess" proves this. I suspect there is something similar going on about Harry and his wife too. Silence in public from the royal circle of friends and aids and a lot of swearing and throwing things in private.
Hikari said…
TCD has embedded a clip of the whinamentary in full (Some 47 minutes sans commercial breaks) and I plan to watch it over my lunch hour. Until then I was going to be good and work and not waste any brain space on the Murkletroid drama.

Completely unbidden, this article came up and slapped me in the eye. I was looking for no such thing, and here it was. I have skimmed it but plan to read it more in depth later.

I wonder if Tom and Doria ever considered that they had one of these in their own family?

For the record, Meg has not displayed behaviors quite this bad, at least that we know about, but if her hair trigger temper and rages that have been alluded to, including the hurling of crockery containing scalding water at assistants is true, then she would be fuly capable of further violence if she felt provoked or thwarted enough. It will be very interesting to see what access to Meg's childhood and adolescent years the forthcoming biographer will be able to get. So far, there's been a pretty masterful job of whitewashing her past, though the leaks are starting to spring faster than she can manage. Hence this whineamentary, which I view as a preemptive ploy to paint herself as a figure deserving of sympathy when the inevitable sex tapes and whatnot hit the fan.

At this point, if a sex tape(s) is all Meghan ever did, that would be relatively minor. Her 15+ year career of hustling on the fringes of show business has been acknowledged. Most people wouldn't be shocked that a nubile and hungry aspiring actress used her sexual currency to promote herself in the business. That's old hat, and Hazza was not exactly conducting himself like a monk during his bachelor days. We've seen almost as much of Harry's bits as any sex tape of Megs' would show.

What is more chilling about her by far is her obvious callousness toward others. Harry is the most visible example of this. In the 2 years since this relationship was made public, he has wasted away into a shell of the former vibrant man he used to be. He's gaunt, exhausted, almost completely bald and looks to have aged 10 years in the last 10 months. This is what that holistic non-drinking, non-smoking vegan yoga regimen does for a man? Hardly. Harry looks like he's been hooked up to a bag of chemotherapy poison since his wedding. That's what Meghan has done--poisoned him. Not without some of his collaboration, but I think Haz has reached the point in his mental fragility that he is no longer 100% capable of consent. It's a form of Stockholm Syndrome. For a man who was born to the deference of being a blood prince, Haz has given up his privilege of rank very easily in my view. Either he is a very weak personality and always has been, or the Murkletroid Koolaid is an incredibly powerful potion.

We see that the Murkletroid Kool Aid has little effect on mentally strong individuals. William has been immune to the corrupt Murkle charms since Day One, as has his wife, Camilla and any of the female royals. Andrew certainly has her number, but then he may have seen more of Meghan than her own husband has. Charles was perhaps temporarily charmed, but I think he's seen the light. As for other minor royals, like the Tindalls, they don't even seem to have met Meghan. Her circle of influence is actually very small, but she picked herself the best possible target. Harry is the only royal she would have gotten anywhere with, owing to his sense of self being so curiously absent. Meg moved in to fill the void--that's what predators do.

Read this for yourselves and see what you think. Maybe Meg's biographer will discover that she used to stick pins into her dolls' eyes as a child.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/
Scandi Sanskrit said…
@JL: Virgo is the sign of service.

It's quite fitting that he's born into a life of public service. (The noblesse oblige is STRONG with this one!)

I think having an unevolved Leo (with no concept of what it means to be a public servant and no genuine concern for her subjects) for a life partner is killing him on the inside.

Terrible match. But probably karmic and very necessary though (too dense to learn life lessons the easy way: observation).

I wonder where (sign and house) their North Nodes and South Nodes are.

PS: I have Saturn/Pluto/Mars in the 6th House myself (pretty much counts as an honourary Virgo). I get that constant impulse to serve others despite being surrounded by literal servants. We're also easily guilt-tripped (which is how I suspect she plays him).
Miggy said…
@Fairy Crocodile,
"
Are you referring to remark that Diana was "showing advanced stages of paranoia"?

Yes, I was.


I've not read "Shadows of the Princess", (only the reviews) but would I be correct in saying that his stance on Diana has considerably softened over the years since he wrote it?

Scandi Sanskrit said…
LOOOOOOOL I just tried Googling "Prince Harry Virgo".

And as i typed in "Vir--", Google auto-suggested "Prince Harry virtue signalling".

The people's fingers don't lie, Harry, the plebeian unwashed fingers of the people do not lie. 😂🤣😂😂😂

✨👐🏼⚡ JAZZ HANDS ⚡👐🏼✨
Maggie said…
https://singleman-mag.com/prince-harry-and-the-borderline/

This is linked to by yachtgirl on Twitter- dated around the wedding it is quite scarily prescient. It's a description of his experience of a BPD mother and wife and the destructive effect. Very much worth reading.
@Scandi, Virgo is the sign of service.’

Meghan has her moon in Virgo, it’s dark side is not so great. Harry I believe has his moon in Taurus, so he’s a double earth. There’s a lot of compatibility between them, I think Harry will struggle to get away from her, Taurus craves stability, and as a result won’t leave a relationship even if it’s past its sell by date and rotten.
Girl with a Hat said…
I think Harry's moon is in Capricorn, which would make him a very earthy person, but also someone who needs and craves financial and social status.

My stepson has the same birthday as Harry, and has a lot of his characteristics. He is the whiniest, most self-pitying person I have ever met. I am glad he spends the majority of his time at his mother's
Jdubya said…
Blind Item #6
This police force has requested permission from the Queen to question one of her offspring. There are now a half dozen women in their own country who say they were underage when he assaulted them sexually.
SwampWoman said…
Thanks for the link, Maggie. I think that many of us here recognize that disconnect between the look in the eyes and the smile, and how it doesn't match. Many of us have that instinctive recoil due to our own life experience.
@Mischi, ‘I think Harry's moon is in Capricorn.’

You’re wrong, go google his birth chart. I’ve known for a long time, astrology is something I’ve loved and studied for a couple of decades or so.

https://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex
Scandi Sanskrit said…
@Louise500:

Did you mean to say her Venus is in Virgo?

This says her Moon is in Libra: https://www.astrotheme.com/Focus-Astro-celebrity-Meghan-Markle.php

This source also says it's her Venus that's in Virgo and her Moon is in Libra: https://starsignstyle.com/meghan-markle-astrology-and-personal-birth-chart/

Being service-oriented doesn't sound right based on what we've seen of her public behaviour.

Being picky and nit-picky about partners and wanting a partner who she can boss around does.

As for the Moon in Libra, I've recently discovered that there Libras can be quite Belligerent/litigious. Oddly enough.

Combined that Belligerence with her Leo Sun and makes for a drama queen restless for constant "excitement", if you know what I mean.

As for her apparent Cancer Rising... 😂🤣😂😂😂😂😂 I'm a Cancer moon and let's just put it this way: my tears come from the heart, and they're 100% hooman tears. Not crocodile tears LMAO.

Oh Meghan. Wheeeeeeeee~
Fairy Crocodile said…
@Maggie I went to the link you provided. That guy just nailed it. In 2018 he predicted that she would create a s**t storm within a very short time and would destroy Harry. He knows what he is talking about because he had a boderline mother and a narcissist girlfriend. Just like Harry.
KitKatKisses said…
Upthread someone asked how or in what way Harry threw William "under the bus."' Lady Grayhound93 on Tumblr sums it up well; hope it's OK if I repost it here:

"Harry KNEW the reporter was going to ask him about William. This was not a pap on the street screaming pop questions at him. He should have said “don’t ask me that, or anything about my family” or could have prepared to answer “we are as close as ever, the rift rumors are completely false, there is no strain on our relationship.”

Instead he allowed it to be asked and answered in such a vague way so as to perpetrate the possibility of drama and IMO to swipe at Will and look the victim whose brother won’t support his “marriage” and “path”

Again I think because William is cutting them out, first the Foundation, the scarfing of Meghan, probably supported Charles on the $ issue and Harry is mad at his brother for doing what he should do - protect his family and the monarchy. William has always been so kind to Harry I think he expected Will to support him through anything but the future Kind is drawing a line in the sand now. It’s called boundaries - adults have them, the emotionally immature do not.

There would be no reason for Harry to lie about a strain on their relationship if it’s not true."

Reports today range from William being furious to William
being very worried.

Neither Harry nor Meghan will come back from this.
@Scandi, ‘Did you mean to say her Venus is in Virgo’.

You are correct and I apologise. Yes, Venus in Taurus. Flighty moon in Libra with a Leo sun what a combo...! Lol
@Scandi, ‘Did you mean to say her Venus is in Virgo’.

Typo! With my last comment! Lol you got what I meant (I hope!) ...Venus in Virgo! Lol lol
Girl with a Hat said…
@Louise, sorry, you're right. Prince Harry's moon is in Taurus. Itès his ascendant that is Capricorn.
Girl with a Hat said…
haha. My Venus is in Virgo like Meghan. I don't want a partner to boss around. I would like a strong partner. But I have no need for a partner like some people do. I know a lot of people who are desperate when they don't have a partner. I don't do that but I am very demanding in terms of idealism. I can't be with someone who lies to me.
KitKatKisses said…
Also, God bless Skippy for trying to expose The Markle, but she is so wrong about Harry, it makes the blog
unreadable.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
@Mischi & @Louise500:

His moon is Taurus & his Rising sign is what's Capricorn: https://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex

Makes sense. He's accustomed to a certain lifestyle that he was born into and would be seriously thrown off if all the perks were taken away from him (Taurus moon).

I was born with a lot of Capricornian energy myself (Sun/Venus/Mercury/Pallas/Lilith in the 10th House + Jupiter/Neptune in Capricorn).

While I wouldn't say I "crave" financial/social status, I will tell you that I am "overly concerned" (if not preoccupied) by it, almost in an allergic/autoimmune kind of way. That's why I keep coming here to vent out about how much I hate climbers, how freaking AMUSED I was by the award Meghan won LMAOOOOO, etc (I despise them with a passion because of what happened during my childhood). They come with the ickiest vibes, which is why "allergic" is a good way to describe my feelings toward those kind of people who step on your face like you're just a step on a ladder. It's like an obsession to fight that kind of thing in this world. But then again I also have a bunch of Aquarian (MC/Pallas/Venus) placements, so there's that... Balances things quite a bit.

I doubt Harry's Capricorn ASC goes that deep, though. If it did, I'd think he would've been more thorough about screening the women he dates and wouldn't have ended up with Meghan in the first place. He's just the face of a traditional institution, that's all...
lizzie said…
Up thread "Being service-oriented doesn't sound right based on what we've seen of her public behaviour."

Agree. Unless it's these sorts of publicized service activities:
Hand warmers for guards
Ice cream social for staff
Leftover flowers for sick children
Leftover food for the poor
Old baby clothes for poor women
@Scandi,

So you know, I have moon in Capricorn, stuff might have bothered me more when I was younger, but not much now. We evolve. Maybe having a strong Neptune energy throughout my whole chart, probably dilutes the worst parts.

I’ve not known anyone with a Libra moon so I need to have a little read up on Megan and her chart more.

@Mischi,, ‘I can't be with someone who lies to me.’

Me neither! It’s the death knell with me in any relationship!
Scandi Sanskrit said…
I looked up Wallis Simpson's year of death.

Apparently 1986.

5 years AFTER Meghan was born.

I was just beginning to think she Wallis reincarnated back into the royal family in a different incarnation. 😂🤣😂I'll shut up now 🤣😂😂😂😂 but I won't stop cackling just yet.

Too funny.

Reincarnation jokes are the best.

I quite liked the film "W.E." (I saw that like 11 TIMES on rerun on FXAsia). It gives me this feeling that the Dutch would describe as "gezellig", but just because I like a film about & the cinemtic portrayal of Edward VIII & Wallis doesn't mean I'd sympathise with the real deal.
JL said…
Hey don’t mean to pop the party balloon on Meghan’s chart, but there is very good evidence that her birth date is a lie. Certainly the year.
She probably has enough ego about being a Leo that she kept the date.

No way Libra moon—she is too inelegant. Ditto Venus in Virgo—they tend to be hard on themselves and as we know she does not love Virgo Harry.

I looked at 8/4/1978–again with Venus in Virgo so ruled it out.
My pick is 1979.
That gives her Venus, Sun, Jupter in Leo.
Venus in Leo with Sun loves herself first
Sun Jupter is lucky, which she has been, but it is often a law unto itself. They have no problem cheerily breaking societal norms. All that Leo loves glamour.

Moon in Sag with Neptune. Bingo. Moon in Sag is really good at working a room and zeroing in on the most important people there, with Neptune makes for delusion/illusion, addiction and again love of glamour.

All that fire is high energy, but scorched earth too.
Mars in Gemini—goes in teo directions/ two faced.
This chart has Saturn in Virgo—sticking to harry like glue. With the north node of the public. No one was going to like her with Saturn there, a real uphill battle all the way, but a Virgo finally brought her to prominence.

So this, to me, is the chart that fits. 8/4/1979. Too bad we can’t get a birth certificate with a birth time.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
@JL:

Actually a Leo stellium makes a LOT more sense.

That would explain her level of thirst.

Moon in Sag with (conjunct?) Neptune sounds like delusions of grandeur.
JL said…
Yes Scandi the whole planetary lineup for 1979 makes much more sense.
Yes Moon conjunct Neptune in Sag.
Didn’t mention Mercury is also in Leo in a broad trine to that Neptune so very imaginative but untruths trip off the tongue fairly easily.
Maggie said…
Richard Palmer on Twitter and the BBC News Channel have both called MM out on her claim that there aren't any tabloids in the US. Are they laying the groundwork for her being called out in Court as being economical with the truth?
Maggie said…
It appears the gloves are coming off. An article in the DM saying the ITV interview was fawning and a list of 10 questions that should have been asked.

It was certainly a coup for Tom Bradby to secure the interview but not if his failure to ask legitimate questions becomes the story.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7596099/amp/Viewers-praise-ITVs-Tom-Bradby-sympathetic-interviews-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle.html
@JL, ‘Hey don’t mean to pop the party balloon on Meghan’s chart, but there is very good evidence that her birth date is a lie. Certainly the year.’

I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories about her age/birthdate being a lie, she would have to show legal documents just wanting to live in the UK for starters. That said, I mean no disrespect when I talk about astrological signs etc., it’s not personal to anyone here. ;)

If she had Sagittarius moon, they are honest to point of being blunt, even rude, I personally don’t think that ties in with Meghan at all. Furthermore, Libra’s are master manipulator’s (who could easily work a room etc), seductive, turn on a coin and change their personas whomever they are with...as in ‘will the real Meghan please stand up’.
Maggie said…
Wow, the comments have been released and they are vicious about Tom Bradby. He's suffering the Markle effect. One comment:-

Tom Brady lost ALL his journalistic credibility with this docu-drama.. he was literally feeding them the questions and answers and it was obvious he was doing it..how are we supposd to take him seriously now?
JL said…
@Louise
I hear you about official documents.
Sag moon may be honest but Sag Neptune is not.
Is her birth time verified? Without a verified time she could just as easily be a
Virgo moon since the moon changed sign the day she was born.

Am not one to argue If you like the ‘81 chart that’s fine with me.

For my taste it doesn’t fit her, in particular that Venus in Virgo or that Mars in Cancer.
She really does take all her action through the media (Gemini) doesn’t she?

And I never thought the synastry with Harry’s chart fit either.
I think his Mars Uranus in Sag prefers a Venus in Leo to a Venus in Virgo. And his Venus in Libra would prefer a Mars in Gemini.
Squares versus trines? Hmmm. Maybe squares make for hot tension?

And I never saw the 81 chart composite as working either
I just ran the 79 composite with him and there it was: Sun Venus Mars in Virgo
Opposite Moon in Pisces. Again this made sense to me.

People who don’t care for astrology claim that you can read what you want in the chart. It does all depend
on the reader’s degree of study and experience as well as personal bias so I never hold too hard to opinions. The fun and interest is in speculating and in learnig. I also rarely comment on astrology just because many people don’t care for it.

JL said…
@Scandi
I am familiar with Harry’s chart. He has a rather lovely grand trine in earth: Sun Virgo, Moon Taurus (one of the nicest moons IMO) and Jupiter as well as asc in Cap. It was as though he was made for service. As gou say, he sure did marry the wrong person: the fauxmanitarian glamour seeker.

I think some of his hidden story lies in that Uranus Mars Neptune in Sag squaring his Sun. Yearning for freedom but can’t find direction. I think he thought he found both with her. The other tough one for him is that Saturn in Scorpio at the midheaven. This is his discomfort with his public roll and again difficulty finding the right path. William by contrast has Jupiter there—born to be a king.

If I were Harry’s advisor I would tell him to become a psychologist. He could share his struggles, it interests him (Sun in the 8th), and Moon in Taurus is the best listener in the zodiac.

Those sixth house planets of yours: honorary Virgo ha. Fastidious? Pets? Can mean many things like multiple skill sets.
Anonymous said…
Liver Bird, re: H&M not being "important" enough to be invited to the queen's state dinners -- the duke and duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra, and the prince and princess of Kent all attend the state dinners, as do Edward and Sophie, Princess Anne and Tim Laurence, and sometimes Prince Andrew. I would say that all of them are far less important, constitutionally speaking, than Harry.
And I don't know what MeGain slobbering over Ivanka years ago has to do with anything. The two of them were both at the wedding of Misha Noonoo (or whatever her name is), and there were no photos of the two of them interacting there, at least none that I saw.
Hikari said…
Just a question for our astrology practitioners here. My birth certificate does not list a time of birth; is that standard everywhere? The State of Michigan did not do it in the 1960s. My mother does not remember the precise time, and I can't really blame her for that XX years after the fact. I'm closer to Diana's generation than the Harkles. In fact, I've watched Harry grow up from a babe in arms on the steps of the Lindo wing and thought he was the most irrepressible spirit & so cute. The toxic transformation into what he is now has been painful to see, but probably nothing near what his family feels.

Anyway, my mother vaguely recollects 'afternoon' for me . . sometime around 2pm, she thinks. Is time of birth absolutely crucial for an accurate chart? Maybe I could just work through all the hours in the day until I get one I like. :P I am a Libra (sun). I've not had the best experiences of either Leo or Virgo, but I don't need to know Harry or Megs' charts to know they are cosmic losers.
JL said…
@Hikari
A birth time as well as location is needed to erect a proper astrology chart. When astrologers don’t have a birth time they make a chart setting the birth time at noon for example and they can actually read quite a bit from just from the location of your planets on the day of your birth as opposed to the time. I was fortunate that my father was a scientist and noted my birth time because my birth certificate also does not have a time. It is possible to hire an astrologer to “rectify” your chart. This means that he or she will back into your birth time based on the significant events in your life. If you want to do this be sure to find an astrologer who specializes in the art of rectification. I had no birth time for my mother’s chart and had someone rectify it and I feel that the result was spot on. Sadly that astrologer has passed away.
CatEyes said…
CatEyes here (sorry but having trouble signin in)

I have lived many years in California, specifically LA including West Hollowood (the upscale part of Hollywood) and I can tell you there will be very little interest in Harry and Megha. They might have 15 minutes of fame but not one minute more. People look strange at me when I mention those two now, I kid you not; it is not uncommon that people don't know much about them and its because they Don't care. Maybe Ophra might have a few projects but she herself is on the wane bigtime.

But it is a sly maneuver on Meg's part to get Harry over here because then once residency is established if there is a marital breakup, California has a preference for joint custody. Also upon breakup (which I am sure will happen) marital assets acquired after marriage would be evenly split. She would be well set for life (especially with the generous alimony she could get from a California judge).

I personally think this mockumentary suit is to lay the groundwork for showing 'damages' for the suit....boo hoo they are so obviously emotionally upset.

Lastly, I don't know why no one is mentioning a wonderful young royal who could help the BRF in a few years...that is Lady Louise, who is 16. She certainly has two good role model parents who could show her the ropes.

abbyh said…
But it is a sly maneuver on Meg's part to get Harry over here because then once residency is established if there is a marital breakup, California has a preference for joint custody. Also upon breakup (which I am sure will happen) marital assets acquired after marriage would be evenly split. She would be well set for life (especially with the generous alimony she could get from a California judge).

I had forgotten that part.

What would be interesting is what kind of visa Harry would have given that he has no real job skills. Spouse works in computer this that land where many jobs are not permanent so people are always hopping around to keep a job under that visa so they can stay.

If you have no job skills, possible a short term visitor only visa (?), it will be quite difficult to buy some house somewhere as they will need a loan. We all know the house down the street from Doria which was for sale would not work for M. Down payment and mortgage will be expensive. And then, of course, they won't use anything furniture, linens because it would not make fiscal sense to ship it.

And then, to further complicate their financial picture, her and the baby's taxes were due on the 15th of this month. Yeah, remember? She's looking at a complicated and very expensive tax bill ... and just threw a molotov cocktail or two at the people who have the real checking and savings accounts who might have been willing to help her. That ... was a really bad move.

I don't think they will find it that easy to set up house there once they get there.
KitKatKisses said…
Harry is taking every advantage he has ever been given and he is throwing it away with both hands. He actually sickens me. And Rachel from L. A. even more. I hope they get booed and pelted with bread rolls, I really do.
JL said…
@Unknown
I very much appreciated all three of your points.
-Cali being a community property state
-Lady Louise
-This:
“I personally think this mockumentary suit is to lay the groundwork for showing 'damages' for the suit....boo hoo they are so obviously emotionally upset. ”
Oy vey of course.
CatEyes said…
Harry would not have a problem with visa issues if he comes to the states as he is married to a citizen.

They probably not have a problem with buying a house depending on how expensive of a home, I'm thinking they wouldn't want a home less than 4 million dollars and more like twice that. A conventional loan would only require 20% down. They also could have a property financed by the seller and the terms could even be more generous (I personally got a private loan from someone that I never even met for instance).
Scandi Sanskrit said…
@Louise500:

Sorry I didn't notice your response last night. I'm in a different timezone and it was almost 2am and I was very sleepy!

I don't pay much attention to Libra (don't deal with many of them despite the fact that I have a master's degree in international law until I realised we live in a matrix and I can't stand office politics lmao and I'm absolutely terrified that people from my alma maters will judge me for my spiritual beliefs and BOY DOES MY Taurus/Gemini cusp ascendant like to RAMBLE) so I don't know much about Libra Moons either.

However: it just orccured to me last night before bed that 7th house (which Libra rules) also governs open enemies.

So yeah they might & can actually enjoy being openly Belligerent.

People forget that about the 7th house.

@JL: I'm afraid my asteology knowledge is still limited and I haven't read the chapters about what broad/grand trines & kites mean yet!

I mean I still have to rely on my notes to not get inconjuct & semi-sextile confused lol. I still very much rely on aspectarians for reading aspects but I'm good with placements.

Absolutely loved having this discussion with everyone else interested in this. 💜💜💜💜💜

But I'm going on a break/social media hiatus so please don't take it personally if I don't respond to you after this.
tangerine429 said…
Going to LA will be another startling awakening for Meghan's visions of reality.
She imagined being royal would make her adored and famous since she had to be a little panicked at her age with her show ending. She messed it up very badly and took no blame at all, now her ego is allowing her to think America is going to adore her and even throw all kind of offers at her.
Very few care about her or any royals other than the Queen and we don't care at all about Charles. I can't find any of my friends or family that understand why I read blogs about them or discuss these things.
Like Nutty said, after a couple of interviews that will be the end of interest, they are dull, dull, dull. She is even too dull and unoriginal to get a reality show spot.
I don't know what they can do here. Harry will get much worse and Archie will get neglected while she "hits the ground running" again.
Oldest Older 401 – 562 of 562

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids