Tomorrow, October 10, is Prince Harry's first public engagement in Britain since his extraordinary attack on the British media, released on October 1.
In a statement that accompanied his wife's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday, Prince Harry said that he was up against a "British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences."
Harry (or Meghan, writing under Harry's name) went on to say the tabloids had published "relentless propaganda" which was "knowingly false and malicious"
Harry will be interacting with the young pupils of Nottingham Academy to "discuss emotional wellbeing and share his own experiences."
Will Harry take the opportunity to introduce Ghost Diana to the pupils, who were all born long after the former Princess of Wales had died?
Will he share his personal pain inflected by the people who "misled (readers) by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words" as he detailed in the statement?
This is also something the Nottingham pupils may also have trouble identifying with.
Or will Harry talk about being cast out by his family, including his only sibling, who reportedly "dropped his brother like a ton of hot bricks" last spring?
Modern Britain being what it is, many of the students probably have experienced broken families and bitter quarrels.
Business as usual? Not show up at all? Cover it in some different way? Leave the coverage to Instagram, the Harkle's favorite medium?
It would be a shame if the tension between Harry and the media got in the way of publicizing what seems to be a worthy cause.
But the Harkles never seemed to really care that much about their causes anyway, once the immediate Instagrammable publicity moment has passed.
In a statement that accompanied his wife's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday, Prince Harry said that he was up against a "British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences."
Harry (or Meghan, writing under Harry's name) went on to say the tabloids had published "relentless propaganda" which was "knowingly false and malicious"
Great to see you again
It'll be a fun time when he gets to meet these "intentionally destructive" reporters face-to-face again tomorrow in Nottingham, where he will be appearing at St. Ann's, Nottingham to mark World Mental Health Day.Harry will be interacting with the young pupils of Nottingham Academy to "discuss emotional wellbeing and share his own experiences."
Will Harry take the opportunity to introduce Ghost Diana to the pupils, who were all born long after the former Princess of Wales had died?
Will he share his personal pain inflected by the people who "misled (readers) by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words" as he detailed in the statement?
This is also something the Nottingham pupils may also have trouble identifying with.
Or will Harry talk about being cast out by his family, including his only sibling, who reportedly "dropped his brother like a ton of hot bricks" last spring?
Modern Britain being what it is, many of the students probably have experienced broken families and bitter quarrels.
What should the Royal reporters do?
How should the media cover the Nottingham engagement?Business as usual? Not show up at all? Cover it in some different way? Leave the coverage to Instagram, the Harkle's favorite medium?
It would be a shame if the tension between Harry and the media got in the way of publicizing what seems to be a worthy cause.
But the Harkles never seemed to really care that much about their causes anyway, once the immediate Instagrammable publicity moment has passed.
Comments
Will she show up?
Haz and Meghan clearly want to manipulate the media so that coverage of them is 100% positive. That means cutting out all of the British RRs, including those favourable to them. We all saw how obnoxious Harry was to Rhiannon Mills last week, and she is generally very sycophantic. They will still deal with American media outlets as they can be relied upon to be 'nice' - for now at least.
However, their main aim seems to be to communicate with their 'fans' via Instagram, like a reality star or model.In other words, they want to entirely control the narrative and interact only with their 'fans'. Which might be fine if you are indeed a reality star or model, but doesn't work if you are a publicly funded figure who must be accountable to the press.
Not to mention that ignoring the British press won't make it go away. They're always going to be there. The rest of the royal family, however much they may dislike the press, understand this and get the importance of maintaining the kind of relationship with the press which is favourable to all concerned. If the press no longer have any incentive to play nice with the Harkles - particulalry if it's true that the rest of the royals have more or less cut them loose - then what they think is 'vitriol' now will be nothing compared to what they'll face once the gloves are off.
Harry really is dim.
And yes the Kardashians are rich and famous, but they too are starting to look a bit 'last year' now. Unless a celebrity has something of real substance to offer, like Judi Dench or Daniel Day Lewis they will fade from view pretty quickly. And obviously the Harkles have nothing real to offer - nothing that is, apart from the prestige and mystique of royalty, something which doesn't stand up well to poorly written Instagram posts and thinly disgusised merching.
I would prefer no press coverage but that's not fair on the charity. As suggested, have one picture of him, and the rest to do with the charity. If he makes a speech dont print it. Wishful thinking. Can you imagine if he told the press to leave before his speech again. It would be great as it then gives journalists a good reason not to turn up at anything he did.
In a very recent programme about Prince Andrew and the Epstein scandal, it said at the end about his ‘calendar being cleared’ due to the full out of bad press over Epstein etc. So I’m wondering what response BP will have with any future public engagements for Harry and Meghan. Will they scale their public engagements back? Especially if the press doesn’t engage with them. I can’t help thinking that the latter is wishful thinking, and they will still be reported on, but perhaps not in the same way as they were before the lawsuits and temper tantrums.
Also, @Nutty, I read the comment from Aunt Jane you linked to in the comment section of the last post. As usual, she gave an excellent perspective. Thank you for that!
Honestly, I hadn't given Harry much thought until this past year. I think his (lack) of character has really come to light during this time. I'm disgusted with his behavior and it makes all sorts of sense he would marry an "LA Girl" like Meg.
What's he doing with Ed Sheeran?
More PR ahead of tomorrow?
"Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have just teased a secret project with singer Ed Sheeran.
The official Sussex Royal Instagram account shared a video of the Shape Of You singer arriving at the royals’ home."
So here we go again. More 'teasing' by offering tid-bits of 'news', like they 'teased' with Archie's dangling legs. And of course they HAD to make this about a celebrity again, announced only on their silly Instagram.
They're basically free-range royals at this stage. They mostly do their own thing and the odd royal event for offical cover. They need to go.
http://goss.ie/featured/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-tease-secret-project-with-ed-sheeran-187645
Thanks to @Liver Bird for the above.
They are prostituting their roles in the Royal Family.
What's next? A reality show, Keeping up with the Sussex's?
No wonder poor old William has such an interest in promoting Mental Health. Just look at his wack-a-doodle brother.
On a side note, don't even get me started I. The ginger jokes. Ed Sheeran , really Harry? Then you say we are not nice to you!
What this means is that a low key, unglamourous charity is going to have its event totally overshadowed by Harry and his latest 'celebrity friend'. All because the Harkles have to make every single thing about them and don't get - or more likely don't care - that these events are meant to be about highlighting the charity, not them.
I feel sorry for the charity, to be used in such a way by this pair of shysters.
Barf away! I may even join you.... :)
Hope you feel better soon.
What would really get their attention is for the public to lose interest and not show up at their engagements, like what happened to Andrew at his last engagement. One person showed up, a superfan, and even she admitted that Andrew has tarnished his own image. With the loss of family support/money and no adoring fans to hang on her every word, the fantasy of becoming a Royal will turn into Meg's worst nightmare.
Ed Sheeran should know better than to engage in any "secret project" with them. I wouldn't let my client touch MM & PH with a ten foot pole at this point.
I have a sneaky suspythat maybe the engagement tomorrow would be lack luster and the atmosphere would be tense. But this Ed Sheeran video will be released and obviously everyone will talk about that. So, at the end of the day they would have achieved their goal, which is, to have as much coverage as possible.
(i.e. Harry caught in mid sneeze, etc). Or better still use Meghan's hoochie briefcase girl stock photos for every one of her PR stories. But that's just my opinion and I tend to be passive aggressive, so...
William will be the one tapping shoulders with a sword, and he has a long memory and notoriously carries a grudge.
Yes, I do think this is all about ensuring media coverage - for them, and for Ed Sheeran that is. Not for the mental health charity which is hosting him.
He is an absolute disgrace. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
The media ought to let H&M their instagram wars but start call them out for what they are: social media influencers and continue the comparisons to the Kardashians or pull up the old sexy selfies from Meg's old instagram feed where she poses a close-up of her face like any other vain influencer :) Wonder how H&M would feel if they were constantly written off as just unsubstantial Instagram influencers and social media stars... Some journalist really needs to discuss the history and current trend of celebrities, from Angelina Jolie getting her LSE guest professorship to Kim K speaking at a tech conference in Armenia to Meg the Instagram influencer and motivational-cupcake-slogan extraordinaire becoming the expert on women's empowerment, despite believing faff like fashion has an important role in women's empowerment.
Or publish some unflattering photos. Anyone remember when Beyonce's publicist emailed Buzzfeed to ask them to remove unflattering photos from their article about the fiercest moments of her Superbowl dance? https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedceleb/the-unflattering-photos-beyonces-publicist-doesnt-want-you-t#.cgq7wP1xBv
Ed’s been getting hit in the tabloids as well recently. Apparently he’s been buying up several houses in his home town and building stuff that annoys his neighbors.
Maybe Ed also feels he is being bullied by the press.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the Cambridges had a nice visit with Bill Gates yesterday, a philanthropist making a REAL difference. No fuss, no muss, no flashy Insta buildup, just a quiet announcement through the usual channels. Now THAT is substantial and piques my interest.
Didn't Harry deliver a vapid speech all about the alleged 'evils' of social media not so long ago?
And he's probably right that print media is a dying medium. Everyone knows that, so no great insights from dumb Harry there. However, we will still have newspapers and magazines in some form. Celebrity - and we know they see themselves as celebrities - social media outlets are basically a form of advertisement for the celebrity. Nobody with half a brain would rely on them for news. So there will always be some form of media scrutinising them. If they think they can bypass this, they're delusional.
OK.....
Also,the under 40 but well educated, smart demographic definitely are more interested in bill gates than an Ed Sheeran, just saying. I'm 31 and I would prefer to support a charity that has bill gates's backing rather than drop a penny in a hat while Ed Sheeran stands there singing a song for mm by the candlelight.
Ed Sheeran. Wow. MM is 38 and Harry is 35 and they are acting like a pair of celebrity struck 20 year olds. First fangirling Beyonce and now Ed. Bizarre. Should we expect to see MM, Harry & Archie in gumboots at Glastonbury? Will MM's next solo weekend be at Coachella? Glitter and selfies for Sussex royal..
Bring on the K-pop stars.
Harry and Meghan do not desire press coverage . . .except when they do.` Starving them of press coverage would be so satisfying, but realistically it is not going to happen. The press will still want to cover official Royal engagements, and should do, but after their drubbing by HRH the Duck and Duckess of Wokeness, the press should be more selective in what they choose to highlight about the pair's activities. They've all got access to the Court Circular--if it's not an official engagement on behalf of the Queen, they should avoid it and give the Sussexes their privacy to Instagram away. Coverage of the duo's appearances to an official charity should be steered away from them as the centerpiece of the event and to the organization itself. Get some photogenic shots of Harry or Meghan with cute kids or meeting the staff, etc. Print a brief statement from them about their purpose in visiting (a few sentences, max) . . then make it a point to spend the bulk of their interview/photo time on the people and places being visited. In essence, put the Royals in the background. Don't mention anything about Meghan's clothes; just take a few snaps and move on. In the case of the Nottingham visit, the focus should be on the kids, speaking to the teachers and administrators, talking about the school itself and anything of note about it.
I think this is how engagements with the senior royals were always handled, and still are, with the likes of Charles and Camilla and Anne. The Queen makes a stir wherever she goes, but one does not see nor hear an inordinate amount about what other senior royals are doing. They just get on with it and once in a while there is a photo in the paper of the day's activities. Diana created the 'celebrity royal' prototype that is in force for her sons and their families, but the rest of the royals conduct their press affairs quite modestly. Interesting that Harry believes that he's entitled to bigger celebrity status than not only his brother, with whom he has always been competitive, but than his father, the Prince of Wales. H. and M. need an attitude adjustment, so I think the solution is, cover them, but treat them like they are the Wessexes . .not the Rock Star Royalty they obviously view themselves as. I think such sedate coverage would please the Queen.
However, strife and drama sell papers better than sedateness and quietude, so I honestly do not expect the media frenzy around the Sussexes to dial down any.
As to their "SECRET" project with Ed Sheeran, I just saw the teaser about Harry showing off Princess Eugenie's Ivy Cottage on Insta. Why Eugenie's cottage? Why not Frogmore Cottage where Harry and his Wife and child? I'm at a loss to find the logic of using Eug and Jack's cottage for this little "secret" project.
I wonder if they're his guests while Froggie Palace is still being worked on?
Nothing would surprise me - seeing as all their best pals are celebs.
Ah, yes, the infamous 'knighting' horseplay injury. That made such a great anecdote.
Fellow party guest James Blunt remembers it differently, though. He says the sword story is bogus . . Bea did use it on Ed, but Sheeran cut his face when he plowed into a table face first, being completely hammered.
Who shall we believe? Ed Sheeran is a talented bloke; I even own some of his albums. But it seems to me that he is another ginger who likes to be elastic with the truth for the purposes of self-promotion. There were a LOT of stories about things that happened when he was hammered, but I think he's even dressed those up a little, to make his drinking problem seem less dire and more of a boozy joie de vivre.
I tend toe believe James Blunt's version of events, even if Ed's is more poetic. Ed's a songwriter after all; embellishing real life to make poetry out of it is what they do. James Blunt is a songwriter, too. But he was sober and old enough to be Ed's dad. The Millennial hijinks on that night were too much for him to take.
Really though, why can't they understand that secrecy is different than privacy. Privacy is what W&K have - we know what their kids look like, the tiny details of their birth and godparents, and where they all live. In exchange, we don't care where they're going every moment nor we have anything to discuss about their family or living situation. They're painfully dull and rightly so. Secrecy is what H&M have and are fighting for, we don't know x, we don't know y, we don't know z, and so we discuss xyz because it boggles the normal person that such non-invasive details are being kept so exclusive...the natural conclusion is that there must be something else going on because why hide such mundane details, when in fact maybe nothing is going on. But that's what secrecy does.
That's it, exactly. Perfectly put. And I agree completely about the Cambridges, and lord knows I've been plenty critical of both. We see their kids - in tightly controlled situations - just enough for us, the public, to feel we have some sort of 'bond' with them, however tiny. But other than a handful of carefully staged events a year, we never see nor hear from them. Which is how it should be. They're children.
But with Archie there's been non-stop shenangans. Where was he born? Who are the godparents? And that utterly cringey 'presentation' in Windsor Castle, because the hospital steps weren't good enough for the untitled 7th in line. I have never heard so much about a royal baby than about him, the supposed 'private' one. If they'd just done wtht other royals do - not just in Britain but in the other European monarchies - and just had a quick photo op in the hospital and at the christeing, nobody would much care about him. He's just a baby after all, no cuter than any other baby.
But of course his parents do not actually WANT privacy for him. They want to control the images. Totally different.
World Mental Health Day (how timely)
Musing to myself about how one of his takes was that it was the press that killed his mother. Very primal. And yet, it was a series of choices, some made by her (to be on a yacht and then land with Dodi - who was someone who encouraged some fast driving as well as dancing with the paps - sorta), to get into a car with a driver who had been drinking (again not something she made), not wearing a seat belt (totally in her control) but her choice to give up the protection which would have handled that whole thing very differently.
She really hadn't figured out what her next real long term steps would be so she was at loose ends (like H) in many ways - no clear path from the monarchy or knowing their own strengths which often leads to the weaknesses taking the lead.
To help himself, he could give up the idea his mother was a saint who didn't always make the good choices and didn't always have good people around to encourage the good choices. And that not everyone in the press is out to get him.
And, he could say he was sorry for his behavior, it was not appropriate and he won't do that again. That would clear a lot between him and them (and others). M? that's a different discussion.
pivot: I have been reading bios on Diana and came across discussion about the phone taps for her. Let me get my head wrapped around it and post more later on that topic.
Bazinga!
Since 'the Duke' told everyone on the Africa tour 'Just call me Harry', it would be a gas if the media do what he wanted and find creative ways to avoid using either his inflated title or his name. We could move on to 'Prince Charles's second son, a disappointment to his father, visited a school in . . ' or 'The 6th in line for the British crown appeared today to open the local Sainsbury's on behalf of his grandmother, the Queen'. When Beatrice or Eugenie are mentioned, Harry can be 'the cousin of the Princesses of York'. "The uncle of George, Charlotte and Louis was a no-show at the annual Christmas walkabout at Sandringham', etc.
The Africans had the right idea: "Welcome, Archie's father". Which, if Haz isn't actually the father of Archie would be a double slap in the smug bearded face.
Then he married the girl from home. I can’t stand a man with the whore/madonna complex—i.e. women they consider whores are subhuman and do not deserve resoect or compassion.
@Nutty Bwahh no knighthood for Sheeran.
All of the celebrities who have publicly offered words of support for the Harkles are mature celebrities and I don’t mean age. Like mature companies they have reached and passed the peak of their performance. People are either sick of them (Kardashians, Ellen, Hillary—even Dems can’t stand her for running a bad campaign) or just don’t care about them so much anymore (Sheeran, Pink, Oprah, McCartney). Notice how Priyanka Chopra ditched Meghan since she probably considers herself to be on an upswing and doesn’t want anything to ruin that. The oldsters who support the Harkles have nothing to lose because they are essentially over anyway, they don’t consider their established celebrity at risk and a bit of publicity that looks like they are standing up for someone can only be good.
Bwaah! Wrong! The Markle Effect is real. It all goes back to Nutty’s thesis that MeMe and Henry are stuck in the nineties.
As for press coverage, I would provide MeMe with no coverage since she does not represent the Queen. Henry would receive the equivalent of a paragraph notation in a small town newspaper.
What the press should be doing is the type of journalism that supports a free democracy. Investigate and ask the right questions:
1. What are the aims of this organisation (why does it exist)?
2. Who funds this organisation and how much is this funding? As a patron, does Harry make any financial contribution?
3. How are these funds used? Salaries, operational expenses, events, PR?
4. What mechanisms are in place to evaluate aims against achievements?
5. What does the organisation achieve?
When people have access to information, they can make informed choices about what they support ...
Kind of like the promised video documentary/glam spread in Vogue to take place at Frogmore Cottage . . that was completely authentic too! Everybody remembers enjoying those, right??
SMH
All we've ever seen of Frogmore Cott are those same tired, weedy, overgrown dilapadated photos of the backside of the ugliest house in Christendom. Exterior renovations were planned and applied for before any announcement of H. and M. going to live there, so why can't we even see any updated photos of the exterior work? Those are the parts the Sovereign Grant is paying for and should be available to the public to see. So H. and M. can flash around photos of parts of the KP compound where they aren't even living but we are not permitted to see a single shot of the updated facade of their alleged home?
And, if zilch has been done to FC, hence no photos . .because if it looked nice, I'm sure Megs would be keen to sell photos to a glossy . . where then, is all this money, this $3 million allegedly spent?
Example "PH visited ____________ today."
End of statement.
As for MM, Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.
I've just had a look at the Court Circular for October 10th and there seems to be no mention of it there either, though engagements for other royals are mentioned.
Interesting.
https://www.royal.uk/future-engagements
On the subject of their going to see The Lion King instead of going to Deal, in Kent, for the Royal Marine Memorial Concert they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and missed a brilliant day which was really enjoyable and touching. I don’t think there was a dry eye on Walmer Green when the band marched in formation with gaps where the dead Marines should have been. Shame on you Harry as the Head of The Royal Marines.
Sorry to rant but I have close connections with Deal and The Royal Marines.
New (obvious) blind item on CDAN :
"The feud just gets worse between the alliterate former actress turned royal and her in-laws. It is all being done quietly behind the scenes and online in some cases, but no words are forthcoming publicly. It is shocking how this once very close family now doesn't speak unless forced by circumstance."
Ha ha - "Boy with Luv" is one of my K-pop favorites, particularly the video, which is old MGM Hollywood quality. Love the brilliant colors!
We'd better watch out, though, and not give Meg ideas - she'll be wanting to do a K-pop collaboration with BTS like Nicki Minaj and Halsey have done.
Amazingly, it's not out of the realm of possiblity. Countess Alexandra, who used to be Princess Alexandra of Denmark, just released her first pop single last year at age 55. It was apparently "something she'd always wanted to do." Can Meg be far behind?
That's a great idea about honestly reporting crowd size.
@FrenchieLiv
Yes, Enty is really obvious with his Royal items. He wants the clicks - on his podcast he's always talking about which items were most popular - but he doeesn't have the sources.
If it was and is no longer there - and last time I checked it isn't - that means it's either been cancelled or it's no longer considered 'official'. Does anyone have a screenshot of the CC with the engagement mentioned?
For both of them their sole topic is themselves, everything must reflect back on their personal experience which, for some weird reason trumps anything that anyone else's.
The press will reflect what the public want, and I suspect that's very little of the woke couple.
His recent bleating has done the memory of his mother a real disservice, exposing her personal issues to a new reading public. She wasn't the saintly victim that he has chosen to draw her as, it must be desperately painful for those who loved her, warts and all, to see her son using her memory constantly to excuse his boorish behaviour.
Sadly he is very much his Uncle Charles nephew - you know, the one who refused her sanctuary in an Althorp cottage after the divorce.
The sooner the Royal Family is slimmed down the better; the Yorks must hate him and his American wife for increasing the public appetite for a more European style monarchy.
He has a misplaced vendetta against the press. The recent lawsuits are a temper tantrum, attention seeking undertaking, and an attempt to muzzle any negative comments. It's not simply about the press, it's an attempt to limit free speech of the peasants. He wants a return to the days when peasants knew their place and royal authority was unassailable. For all the "modernizing" these two claim to want, their actions indicate they desire a return to deference due to station and royal prerogative.
Remember that time Harry said no one knows the real Harry. Hmmm... is this what he meant? Has he been a power hungry snob the entire time?
I think Harry has always been a dim, spoiled brat. It's just that for a brief period between the times of the Party Prince getting photgraphed naked in Las Vegas, and the current petulant hypocrite, palace PR managed to hide it. They did so with the help of the evil British press, who for the most part went along with the image of Humanitarian Hal, so much more fun than his dour older brother. But it was a persona created for him, what we are now seeing - again - is the reality.
And it makes me laugh when people rave about him being the Prince of Wokeness, when not so long ago he was dressing up as a Nazi and using racist terms to desribe his army colleagues. Yes, I know people grow, mature and learn from their mistakes but, other than marrying a mixed race woman, what evidence is there that Harry has done any of this?
I too would like to see a media blackout. Barring that, maybe one succinct comment about H&M being there-period. If H or M gives a speech, it will probably be about themselves or his mother. Rather than printing the speech maybe the reporter could state that “There was nothing pertinent to the charity” but go on to say in his own words what positive things they do so as not to play into their self aggrandisement. If it was up to me, I’d give them their privacy and not show up. I have a bad habit of giving people exactly what they claim to want and when they choke on it, give them another bite. Just ask my ex. When he swore he couldn’t sleep except in absolute silence and darkness (I read in bed), I moved into another room. Eight years later he decided he had changed his mind.
Heh.I was wondering why you didn't just say "younger brother's first wife" and now it is perfect.
@Maggie I think the York girls have seen the writing on the wall so they bagged themselves well-off husbands. However Fergie and Andrew are in trouble since any possible paying role for them is over. Hope the sons-in-law are expecting mouching in-laws.
I don't think they needed to see any writing on the wall; hasn't PC come right out and stated his goals for trimming down the monarchy?
>>>The headlines should be something along the lines of "Royal family highlights [charity] for [ cause]" and the article should be all about the charity and the event itself, closing it off with a "The Duke of Sussex also attended, engaged with a handful of attendees and left after 30 minutes" or "Social media influencer Meghan Markle also attended...".<<<
. . .Or they could just call her 'the American'. That's been done before.
"Yes, I know people grow, mature and learn from their mistakes but, other than marrying a mixed race woman, what evidence is there that Harry has done any of this?"
Getting older has only amplified what was always there. The petulant child has become an ill-tempered simpering fool.
Smeg and her +1 have chased the spotlight, doing everything they can to turn the attention on themselves, hoping to profit from their "brand." It's really a case of the Smeg +1 doth protest too much. All the complaining and whining has succeed in getting them more attention. It doesn't matter that it's negative attention. They are banking on people forgetting why they were getting attention and hope to springboard into wealth and fame. Think Kim K and her sex tape, which catapulted her entire family into fame and riches.
https://blindgossip.com/homemade-controversy/
Question is, will it make it to the papers if pics can be verified?
"
I don't think they needed to see any writing on the wall; hasn't PC come right out and stated his goals for trimming down the monarchy?"
Totally true.
But I recently read somewhere that William supports the York ladies having a role. Eventually he might need them. If Harry stays rogue who will support him and Kate when he is on the throne? The Queen has all of her children working and supporting her.
Streamlined yes, but can one couple do everything?
Am curious why you are so adamant it is not her?
As much as I assiduously avoid porn I bit the bullet and looked at it.
Looks like it is her to me. The mole is there. Also a couple of tells: While she is looking at the camera she brushes her hair out of her face for a better view (how many times haven't we seen that?) Also her eyes appear slightly cross-eyed when she is concentrating.
I don't need it to be her. I just think it is her and that it is something she would do.
If not, the idea that it is possible to fake porn videos via DeepFakes to embarrass women is abhorrent to me.
https://blindgossip.com/homemade-controversy/#more-99347
To give a European perspective, I think the average, religion-apathetic person doesn't care about private, consenting adults do in the bedroom, unless public funds or company secrets were misappropriated, the tape was made without consent of all parties, or the people involved were not consenting to sex/filming or were minors.
She wasn't a public figure then. And it's not like Meg is going to be the next Head of the Church of England, and she never claimed to be virginal or prude (she did take posed topless photos with her friends). To me, it comes off a bit grasping to find dirt, like preteens girl "slut-shaming".
Her breasts are also very small and perky in the beach photo, and since I have decided that in the video, those weren't implants, the only possibility is a breast reduction which leaves a big huge scar under the nipple, which she also doesn't have.
The woman in the video also doesn't have Meghan's weird nose with the bulbous tip.
It looks like her, and the woman has a boxy waist, I agree, but I also think that there's a lot of women who look like that. I assume that women who are mixed race and/or Latino can have those types of features.
I think she was chosen because she looked like Meghan to make a sex video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIsSlNy3t6g
The second half of the video is one of Ashlee's theories that I don't necessarily agree with.
I haven't been following the deep fake video concerns past reading the headlines, so I'm not the person to comment on how it's done or how real the videos look. The woman looks remarkable like Smeg, face, but I don't think it's her.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2019/10/09/deciphering-harrys-october-1-2019-statement/
The breasts are the main problem for me. Otherwise I think the face works. I don’t think her look is that generic. Her nose has become more ski-jump-y over time. Someone mentioned the difference between cheap implants, which swing a lot, and those placed under the muscle. I know zero on this topic. That is why the alternative to me is the DeepFake. There is an amazing demonstration of DeepFake of Bill Hader talking about Tom Cruise all the while morphing into him. In the end it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change anything.
And @Marie I’m not particulalrly scandalized bybsex tapes. I just doubt the Queen feels the same way.
I agree, once PH is in LA ignoring his duties or no longer getting paid to perform Royal duties, PW will need the York girls to help him and Kate manage all the appearances, charities, patronages until his own kids can take on some duties. Much like the Queen has relied on her cousins and relaitves. Eventually his aunts and uncles will slow down, anne is aleady 70 or so. The york girls were brought up to do the royal duty thing and help with patronages. The other cousins, not so much.
There are so many patronages and appearances, when the time comes, unless PC or PW starts dopping some, I don’t see how they can manage with a streamlined Royal family.
@Happy Days, they were never going to move to Africa. Meghan would never want to live there.
I don't think Harry has the experience or education to be a lieutenant-governor, unless it's a ceremonial post.
I'm crying over the low class mansion... say it ain't so!
I'm sure it was a nice place, but it's a public building, and in Canada, even the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive (ironic, isn't it) is in such bad condition, that he doesn't even live there.
You have got to love the hypocrisy. The peasants have to reduce consumption to save the planet while Smegs can't be satisfied with free housing, staff, security, a clothing allowance, free travel... the list of stuff is never ending.
The British have a very special relationship with their monarchs. If you watch the series Monarchs on Amazon prime, you will understand.
The rest of the Commonwealth doesn't have that tradition and history.
I agree with above commenters who say that the media should just specifically cover Harry, not her at all. That would drive her bananas (handwritten messages on them of course)
I still have a wacky theory they are actually not expecting these lawsuits to amount to anything but will be a tidy excuse for the "The media harassment has us moving to the USA" line they will spin.
I think Sparkles still thinks she can do that and keep the titles, wealth, and all the trappings without being on duty. She will learn pretty quick that is not how it works.
Marie said.
Regarding the sex tape, regardless of authenticity (I haven't seen it nor intend to watch) it seems like an American attitude that a private sex tape is a "prior indiscretion" that needs to be explained or held accountable for.
It's not the Americans that are the problem. Markle is supposed to be able to represent the Queen in extremely religious and conservative countries, from the Middle East to Asia (Indonesia, the Phillippines) to Africa (Malawi, Niger) to Latin America.
If Markle's p*rno past is officially confirmed, say by a major UK or US media source, sending her to visit one of these countries could be seen as an insult to the country. They might even refuse to host the Sussexes.
The European attitude on nudity and p*rn is an outlier around the world, not the standard.
I'm talking to a Canadian elsewhere. She seems to think Canada wouldn't be paying for their security. I thought when they traveled, the host country pays for security, at least for official visits. Can anyone chime in?
The host country pays for security on an official Royal visit, and perhaps for short-term unofficial visits like Meg's baby shower in New York.
If the Sussexes move to Canada on a long-term basis, however, that would seem like a totally different level of expense. Security for years? That's costly.
The public wouldn't necessarily care one way or the other about a private sex tape made prior to her association with Harry. It'd be a fun bit of titillating gossip - something to make fun of her for, headline jokes about the Duchess of SusSex etc- but nobody will be calling for her to be tarred and feathered outside the Palace gates. HOWEVER, if there's one thing that the British hate, it's liars and hypocrites...particularly when we're paying for them from the public purse. If all this grandstanding about bullying from the press turns out to be a cynical excuse for legal action to try and scare Fleet Street into silence over Meghan's past, then the public are going to start demanding Harry's excommunication from The Firm. And if it turns out that those lawyers and advisers are being paid from taxpayer's money, then they'll be baying for his blood. The porno is really just an entertaining side issue to the main problem, which is Harry and Meghan's attempts to control public criticism while simultaneously spending public funds like its going out of fashion.
Was the palace really contemplating exiling them in April (before Archie was even born)?.
I doubt there is any move afoot for a Royal job in Canada. If Harry and Megs moved to Canada the only possible ‘royal role’ that would keep them financially, house them and give them regular official royal duties is ‘Governor General’ (the Canadian Government would pay everything ). The job is usually for 5years, I can’t see them sticking it out for that long and the job is pure protocol. DumbCluck and Wife would be a disaster , no way would the Queen. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office or Canada agree to it, bi-lingual is a job requirement for Canada GG these days also.
One of the Caribbean islands Bahamas/Barbados/Jamaica/St Lucia. might take them on or maybe the Solomon Islands , not much damage they could do there and they’d be stuck in the middle of the South Pacific out of the way. Royal representative roles now are usually given to locals because they are financed by the country involved and it becomes less a media problem if held by a citizen.
Only a Governor General title holds out any possibility of enticing the scream team out of the UK, even then such an appointment would be blocked by the bigger more affluent countries, too much unnecessary drama, the GG is better off being out of sight/out of mind to keep the republicans quite. Charles wanted to be GG of Australia in the 80’s but even then that was politely and quietly nixed. The D&D of Drama wouldn’t have a chance in the 2020’s.
All just idle talk really ,because obviously now they cannot be trusted to do the job (Representative of the Queen) in any acceptable manner. The only place they will be sent to is Coventry and they already seem to have arrived at that point if Royal scuttlebutt is true.
Christmas at Sandringham will be the real test on how they stand with the family.
Last Christmas H&M were there but William and Harry never once looked at each other at the Christmas day church service and now things are even worse , what a terrible atmosphere there would be for the whole family. Last year and I would think every year in the foreseeable future the Queen wants all the immediate family present at least for a day or two over Christmas week (children/grandchildren and g-grandchildren) because there is no telling how long Philip will be there to celebrate with the entire family, his health has picked up from last year....still he is 98.
As a Brit myself, I totally agree with this!
Are they really so desperate that they would do everything controvercial to be in the news, or are they the dumbest most hopeless duo to have ever been born in England???!
They have allegedly had a ton of people over - Ellen, Jessica Mulroney, Misha, Daniel Martin, Gayle king, Michelle Obama's email reply but suddenly a low key English ginger boy with a guitar is not cool enough.
A very nice spread in the local Nottingham Post, featuring the kind of coverage we have been talking about--Lots of quotes/photos from local residents about the visit. Harry is very favorably covered in the comments by these folks, by and large, but mostly they talk about the Queen and what a visit from a royal to their community means to them. Haz is shown laughing and joking like his old self with Years 7 and 8 students. MM gets one mention (as "Meghan Markle", NOT 'the Duchess', as having accompanied Harry to this Nottingham Academy in 2017 when it opened. A number of references to him as 'the father-of-one'. Since Harry's 'one'is under a year old, the relevance of mentioning Harry's dad status in the context of a visit to a junior high school is a bit quizzical. If he were visiting a day care center, it would have been more relevant. Haz turned up to this engagement wearing a light navy blue blazer that looked like it had been pressed recently, paired with blue-gray trousers in another shade altogether that were decidedly wrinkled. Plus brown shoes, but these look too new to be the same ones he usually favors. Perhaps a brand-new pair in the same style? An hilarious photo of Haz considering a book with a pensive expression like "D@mn, I never expected to have to hold one of these awful things again.' He joined a reading circle comprised of struggling readers including a therapy dog. Perhaps if he'd had the benefit of this kind of intervention in his own schooldays, we wouldn't be here now.
Barney the black Labradoodle was the highlight of the visit, when Haz fed him a fish treat.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/live-updates-prince-harry-returns-3412028
Some more coverage/pics from the Dail Fail:
-------------------------------------------
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7558317/Prince-Harry-looks-high-spirits-visits-school-Nottingham-World-Mental-Health-Day.html
(2) MM’s prestige goes way down with her target audience, Americans. Puritanism colors all our values and institutions. She becomes another Kim K knockoff; think about the difference in optics between 2 sisters from the same blue-blooded American family: Paris & Nicky Hilton
(3) MM’s merching and job opportunities will die with the controversy. Do you think Disney or any “family” brands will touch her? Fashion and jewelry houses are by definition elitist. Hollywood won’t want her either if her “dirt” is out in the open.
I agree. It would be a HUGE shot to her 'feminist' creds (although her signature achievement of marrying into the royal family would also seem to be a huge shot to her 'feminist' creds). I'm not sure that upper middle and upper class women would want to be seen wearing things merched by a skanky ho. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps liberated women want to be skanky hos. Personally, I'd rather work in retail (and I HATE retail).
Good Lord lol.
Also, the conversation at home...
Act I
Haz - Most amazing mother of my son and best wife ever, have you seen my grey suit?
MM - Do I look like I have time to help you with your clothes? I AM thinking. Deep thoughts. Inspo quotes from Pinterest. Must Instagram...
Haz - Ok, darlingest of all darlings, I found a light blue jacket here and a darker blue trousers there. Do they match? ::Scratches head:: It reminds me of those terrible matching tests I had to take for Sandringham's officer intelligence test - what thing is not the same? Was traumatised that they didn't let me use Maj. Lowther-Pinkerton just to do it for me, as he did for my essays there.
MM - We can't afford another suit for you! We blew it all on these terrible lawsuits that you just had to file on my behalf and make me look terrible! Now I have to wear off-the-rack instead of custom Givenchy and Dior that is my right as the next Audrey Hepburn. ::cries offstage::
Haz - Don't worry amazing and bestest of the amazing best light shiners climate change force for change pocket change change change amazing bestest best! Speaking of which, when does Dad's pocket money come in?
FIN
Also, Harry's lawsuits and statements remind me a bit of the dictator. Erdogan recently released a statement that if the story were spun that Turkey intends to occupy Syria, he will release 3 million refugees into the EU. It's pretty much the same thing - thin-skinned man with way too much power and privilege shakes fist angrily at press and the public for negative coverage.
LOL. Thanks for the laugh.
Though I am not very predisposed to be charitable to Harry at the moment, I will dredge up the last of my compassionate reserves and consider the possibility that Haz might be color blind. This afflicts a lot of guys, many more males than females. Shades of blue, green and brown are particularly hard to distinguish. He didn't look bad today. He's looked far, far worse at more formal events than a school visit--his son's christening for an example, or meeting political leaders of other nations. Today's outfit was not terrible. It did not match, but it was at least in the same color family and at least half-pressed.
On his first visit to Nottingham Academy back in November 2017, when Edward Lane Fox was still on hand to make him presentable, Harry was in blue also, but the halves matched and he was also wearing a nice tie. No tie today. Which is OK; some of the teachers were also not wearing ties and a more casual look is more approachable to students (who were all wearing ties as part of their school uniforms, however.)
But back to the color-blindness . . perhaps Haz takes refuge so often in the light grey suit because he struggles to put together other colors. This is why a gentleman of his station has a valet, to worry about these kinds of things for him. Loving wives have also been known to put together outfits for their husbands, especially if they struggle with matching colors. Of course, most loving wives live with their husbands and their husbands' clothes. Not the case with Megs, I'm guessing.
Harry is so totally like a different, liberated man when he is set loose by himself. It's positively bipolar. So his role as a high-profile ambassador for encouraging mental health among students who struggle in school is deeply ironic. I doubt that Haz understands what irony is, or else he wouldn't have issued his blistering rebuke to a press that has for the most part, sucked up to him for years.
How come he appears disheveled and badly dressed now when he didn't let's say 3 years ago? Occam's razor. Because of something that happened recently.
>> Mail order <<
Turbulent times at Northcliffe House
Now that the Mail on Sunday is on the backfoot after getting served by Meghan Markle, folks at the Daily Mail are plotting a bit of a power grab – a plan to absorb their sister Sunday paper and turn the Daily Mail into a seven-day operation.
It'll be met with some resistance though. The old guard at the MoS don't much care for the DM's recent chumminess with the celebrity set under new editor Geordie Greig. It didn't escape their notice that Geordie offered his good friend David Furnish a massive deal for the serialisation rights to Elton John's new memoir (a deal which has ended up doing naff all for their sales).
But the thing that really caused raised eyebrows was Geordie agreeing to turn off the comments underneath the online version to avoid any unwanted "negativity".
I agree with several people that the Harkles are behaving like fascists in terms of their media coverage. Completely oblivious to press freedom issues, they myopically and narcissistically only want people to see their carefully crafted portraits of themselves on their instagram account, which they use also for their dastardly deeds. For example, as 2Taz points out they released the Sheeran video yesterday when DOC Kate had a solo event. I can just imagine Smirkles cackling away as she posted it.
I am increasingly chagrined by the laissez-faire attitude of Buckingham Palace and Clarence House. WHY ate the grifters permitted to have their own instagram acxount? They should fall under @theoyalfamily like all the non-heir-to-the-throne royals. Am losing respect for Prince Charles and HM The Queen as I see them being totally steamrolled by the griifters.
Finally, I concur that yesterday’s post on Harry Markle was an excellent anaylsis on why the lawsuits were filed when they were due to the date stricter rules for filing such claims were enacted. More than the change in court venue, it seems clear that under the stricter reporting rules the case might have been tossed out.
Also, can we stop being so pedantic?
"Those are the larger and somewhat uneven breasts I saw in “that video”. Agree. And as breasts are enlarged so are the nipples, which are stretched along with the skin. I believe it's her in "that video" which I wish I would unsee!
I looked earlier too, it’s sooooo far down the page, it’s a missable article, and only had 9 comments when I looked (and were moderated). I just checked, just over a hundred comments and now not moderated. Comments about the photos and video etc. How can the media ignore this now?
Dyslexia may be the learning disability that is most familiar/recognized by laypersons, and perhaps the most diagnosed, but there are a number of others. This is from the Learning Disabilities Association of America website, which has the comprehensive list.
https://ldaamerica.org/types-of-learning-disabilities/
There are a number of other neurological conditions which would impact an individual's ability to process information or have the necessary concentration to learn, including the range of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders. I'd say Haz displays some hyperactivity even now as an adult. Some executive functioning deficits as well. A person with these might be able to read to a peer standard but lack the focus necessary to stick with intellectual tasks for long periods. Self-control is an issue. We've seen samples of Harry's handwriting, so dysgraphia is probably not his issue, but all of these linguistic processing functions are kind of tied together.
The Ed Sheeran vid though? All that 'teasing' for a 2 minute home vid of two idiots talking about the burden of being ginger? What was that all about? And I'm not sure if joking around is the best way to discuss the very serious issue of mental health. But that was merely an afterthought for them.
Harry is well within the age range when ADD/ADHD started being widely diagnosed. My husband has ADHD and is 53. He was diagnosed in the mid-70's. Additionally, ADD/ADHD and dyslexia are wildly different disorders when you look the part of the brain affected, but there is some overlap in the behaviors displayed by individuals with those disorders. Those behaviors, along with tests for vision, motor skills, and cognition, are used to make a diagnosis, there is no blood test.
Anecdote: When my son was in first grade, his teacher "diagnosed" him with ADHD and told me he needed to be medicated. After visits with several different doctors, we found out that the behaviors he was displaying (staring off into space, getting up and walking around when he was supposed to be doing school work, fidgeting) were caused by a problem with his vision and not ADHD after all. The problem has been corrected with glasses.
I was posting that information for the benefit of us all; I was not attacking you personally, just offering a resource. I think your response to me is more hostile than is warranted, but since you are not a native speaker of English, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. You may wish to consider how your responses to people may be coming across much harsher than you intend. I think there have been misunderstandings in the past with others over your tone.
I do not claim to be a dyslexia expert OR a color-blindness expert. In wondering aloud about something, I do not consider myself to be 'sending out false information' as fact. I am an educator who works with children and teens who have learning differences though. To assert that the only 'learning disability' which could possibly exist for Harry or others is simply erroneous. I do not have color blindness myself but I would think it a reasonable assumption that people with this condition are going to experience it differently. In suggesting that Harry *might* be color blind, I was only offering a potential explanation for his seeming inability to match the two halves of his clothing when he goes out. I was speaking of *him* and not intending to demean others who have color blindness and who do not let this prevent them from taking pride in their appearance.
My question is: why are we all obsessed with H and M? How did this start? Anyone have time to give me a TL:DR about why there are webpages devoted to her from people who supposedly hate her yet are obsessed?
I’m not saying that is what is going on here. (Cough, skippy, cough)
I’ve always been a royal watcher. Yes, I belueve they are both in love and willingly married and that Archie is theirs.
What is it about her that causes this obsession? Any ideas.
Welcome to the dark side, @Tatty.
The beloved but aging monarch. The weak heir who has waited decades, and is still waiting, to succeed her. His own son, who is stronger and more resolute but relatively powerless in the current structure. His beloved brother, whom he has been forced to cast aside after repeated betrayals. The devious newcomer to the family, who is the source of much of the tension.
Shakespeare is still popular after 400 years because he wrote about basic human dramas.
The current Windsor saga is Shakespeare in real time - and nobody knows the ending.
I'm not sure that your questions are in good faith - I'm getting a definite sense of faux naif here - but I'll bite. Speaking for myself I don't hate Meghan and I'm not obsessed with her (you of course may speak for yourself). I just find this whole soap opera playing out for a global audience to be fascinating. I think it's so interesting to observe a complete outsider storm into the world's most famous family - and yes I am on one level impressed by her hustle - and try to wreck everything, with her dumb husband, who we watched growing up, playing along.
I will of course add that in the greater scheme of things, none of this matters. It's all just a bit of fun.
I also noticed that! That special bond between her and Archie just seems to not be there (neither between Harry and Archie). Surely by now they know their child, have a bond with him and have natural interaction? She looks like she has been given a baby to play with for a scene (is she afraid he is going to pull on her dress, hair, jewellery?) and Harry mostly ignores the child. It is very strange!
I don’t necessarily think Harry is dim.
I am impressed with Meghan’s hustle, but I also think you have to WANT (all capital letters) the job. Kate waited TEN years. Harry spoke on record years before that he wasn’t sure anyone would want the position of his wife. Chelsey and Cressida both didn’t. He is also very liberal (which Charles also is if you watched Charles at 70). So he found an ambitions, beautiful (I think she is pretty and no I don’t think that is her in the video) woman who wanted the position and shared his ideas about the print media and social media as the future. She was willing to help him fight this fight and have his back, etc.
@nutty, ok I see your idea of a Shakespearean drama unfolding and we are the chorus making comments. I majored in English, so that completely resonates with me. We are the chorus commenting in between acts.
And yes, I do get from across the internet that this is fun to discuss. I have been sick and bedridden for months so I’m one to admit it’s giving me something to do. But I am nearly healthy again so I expect to be less involved and interested in daily things. Like let me know in 6 months what is going on.
I also think they are going to be married longer than 10 years (which I use as a benchmark since Chuck and Di officially made it that far).
This: "It's all just a bit of fun."
It's impolite to gossip about people you know, however a somewhat healthy outlet may be to gossip about celebrities and people in the public eye. At any moment Smeg +1 can withdraw to private life and their behavior would go largely ignored. If they can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen or they should comport themselves knowing they are under constant scrutiny.
It stops being fun when unelected busy bodies attempt to steer public policy, as they both have done with climate change and empowering women, among other issues. Smeg +1 were never elected, lack the foundational education and knowledge to be lecturing anyone about what we can do to mitigate climate change, not to mention, they suffer from astonishingly robust hypocrisy. If they had merely supported charities and issues, no one would have batted an eye. Instead, Smeg wants to personally profit, whether financially or in reputations/fame from her position.
Well, obviously I don't know you in real life.
But this whole 'help me out, I'm just trying to understand'' thing is classic faux naif, especially when as nutty says, you already post frequently about the Harkles and have definite opinions. It's not like you're completely new to the subject and are genuinely trying to understand, is it?
"I don’t necessarily think Harry is dim."
He barely scraped 2 A levels despite the most exclusive education money can buy. And then only allegedly with 'help'. So by any normal standard he would be classed as dim. What is your evidence of his great intellect?
"He is also very liberal"
He dressed up as a Nazi. He used the derogatory terms 'Paki' and 'raghead' on tape. He spent years falling out of night clubs. He benefits massively simply by virtue of having been born to the 'right' people and seems to have no desire to give up those benefits. Can you define what you mean by 'liberal'?
"She was willing to help him fight this fight and have his back, etc."
Etc?
What is this great struggle one of the most privileged men on earth is up against, and how can a D list cable TV actress and A list social climber be of assistance?
I'm not obsessed with Meghan, I'm tired of her antics and her desperation. I am, however, obsessed to the degree that I want to know what this means for our country, what the future holds.
In the grand scheme of things a wannabe humanitarian, who used to be a struggling actress could be a blip and life would carry on. But this blip now is a public figure. She represents our country, has become the face of some of the grave , pressing issues that the general public is facing and fighting on a daily basis. So when she is not up to the mark, most people should be allowed to have a problem with her. She did not earn it and unfortunately in our country, certain people happen to come across this immense privilege of being the country's spokesperson not by merit but by chance (of either birth or marriage). Some are good at it and some are bad. The public is allowed to call out the ones that bad.
In other countries Presidents and prime minister can be impeached or be asked/forced to step down when the do not prove themselves to be up to the mark. In the past few years we in the UK have lost a couple of prime minister to some unfortunate decisions. A civil servant can be sacked for not performing their duty with integrity. So a sub-par, fame-hungry, self-serving royal should very well pull up their socks and do their duty impeccably. If they don't, we are allowed to be obsessed about it, about every single detail of the mess that is leading our country unto chaos, because every little thing, however miniscule, could add up.tobe a collosal mess. Public opinion in a democracy, hell in the year 2019 SHOULD matter.
And, if she doesn't like it, she has the choice to do her duty well. The public is not there to appease her. She is there to serve the public, the nation. Whether it's convenient or not. Otherwise, leave.
A little OT, but the loons at Celebitchy are really going off the deep end! They’re all mind readers, Kate and William are behind all of this “hate racism sexism” media coverage and they think Thomas Markle is going to be summoned to the UK to testify about this, as if he’d leave Mexico to do what? Be tried by the laws of a country he doesn’t live in or know anything about? Where do these freaks come from?
"He is also very liberal"
He dressed up as a Nazi. He used the derogatory terms 'Paki' and 'raghead' on tape. He spent years falling out of night clubs. He benefits massively simply by virtue of having been born to the 'right' people and seems to have no desire to give up those benefits. Can you define what you mean by 'liberal'?
I am genuinely curious as to how those make him not liberal? At least, in America, many liberal politicians have been found to have done many of those things.
He's not in America though, is he?
I wouldn't have thought it neccessary to point out that what is OK for American politicians isn't for British princes. Certainly not ones who pose as 'woke'.
Thank you. This exactly.
Royals are public servants. Ultimately they are only there so long as the people want them there. Trouble is, so many of them don't understand this. The Harkles are by no means alone in this, but they are the ones in the news now, so it's only right and fair that we be 'obsessed' with them.
I think a lot of the problem in discussions about the Harkles is that many contributers are American and they simply have no clue about the role the royal family plays in Briitsh life. The CB comments another poster referred to are typical of this.
"So he found an ambitions, beautiful...woman who wanted the position and shared his ideas about the print media and social media as the future. She was willing to help him fight this fight and have his back, etc."
Except he didn't. He found a self-absorbed, money/fame/power-starved unsuccessful actress pushing 40 who found someone to manipulate. He swallowed all of her lies about her family and her "dreams" for her life (to help the world, *of course*), and they pushed back. (They're utterly classless, but Meg has lied repeatedly about them so I fully understand her half-sister's attitude.) She COULD go away and live a quiet life, but she's not about that. I think you willfully refuse to see that Meg's every action screams her intentions. Her utter disrespect for the RF and its traditions is particularly galling.
Speaking for myself, I don't like her or believe a word that falls out of her mouth. She herself doesn't actually wind me up that much, as it were, but the people defending her do. It's like you're all not even on the same planet, because if you were *really* paying attention to Meg you'd see the ugliness very clearly all over the place.
He's not in America though, is he?
I wouldn't have thought it neccessary to point out that what is OK for American politicians isn't for British princes. Certainly not ones who pose as 'woke'.
My question was in reference to your comment about his not being liberal because he wore a nazi costume and got stumbling drunk when younger. Nothing was ever mentioned about him being a Prince in your statement. I guess I misunderstood.
The snark isn't necessary, it truly was an innocent question.
That and....
... has talked on tape about 'Pakis' and 'ragheads'?
And is more than happy to take the immense privileges conferred on him simply by being born, preaching at the public while living at their expense?
And why would I need to mention that he's a prince? Surely that would be understood?