Skip to main content

Open post: No news is good news? Plus Kate and Meg's servant problems

It's been a few slow days of Sussex news, so slow that Meg had to post 4-year-old video of herself speaking at the United Nations to support the International Day of the Girl.

Today's Daily Mail online briefly headlined a staff departure on the Cambridge side - one of Kate's body women has apparently "been made redundant", or laid off, due to a downsizing of staff.

Not particularly hot news, unless you're Meghan's team and know that her team will be downsizing sharply soon. Samatha Cohen officially left yesterday, but that was long expected - the trip to southern Africa was designed to be her last hurrah.

More departures soon?

But more departures are expected soon, if Tom Sykes of the Daily Beast can be believed. In an article titled Prince Harry's War on the Media Leaves Him Isolated in the Royal Family, Sykes writes:

There is widespread speculation that there may be a new spate of resignations at Harry and Meghan's office, with many staff increasingly feeling that as well as finding Meghan and Harry difficult to work for, they also have no real responsibility, are not asked for input, and are not valued when it comes to big decisions. 

Sykes goes on to note that several of Harry's advisers specifically told him not to overshadow his South Africa trip by issuing the press statement, but Harry did it anyway.

Next out the door 

Who's next to leave the Sussex team?  Sara Latham seems like the obvious choice, taking her heavyweight contacts list (the Obamas, the Clintons) along with her.

Fiona McUnspellablename, the ambitious Foreign Office careerist only recently assigned to the Sussexes, may follow.

Right now the Sussexes seem to be infatuated with their new social media hire, 26-year-old former Burberry employee David Watkins, who was presumably responsible for that weak tea comedy video featuring Ed Sheeran and Harry.

Watkins had better keep his LinkedIn current though, because nobody lasts too long with the Sussexes.

Is there more to the Cambridge story?

Back to the story of the departure from the Cambridge household. Is it precisely what it seems? 

The Daily Mail reports that Sophie Agnew had recently returned from her honeymoon, after marrying "insurance company director Stuart Hill" and was surprised to be dismissed after seven years of service.

Perhaps Sophie really wasn't needed any more, due to the "split in households." Perhaps she would rather focus on her marriage to what sounds like a very wealthy man. 

Or perhaps the "split in households" reference obliquely suggests that Sophie was a Sussex mole.

The Shakespearean drama continues.  

Comments

Nelo said…
I believe the latter. DM is giving clues without trying to be too obvious. They want people to read in between the lines. At first I felt it was a Sussex plant to divert from Cohen leaving but reading it again, I feel the DM is trying to send a message. She was obviously sacked by Kate but for what reason? Why is DM saying she was a victim of the split? By putting it out there,it means it's likely she was giving information to the Sussexes. The story reads almost the same as 'Kate banished Rose from their cricle'.
In unrelated news, the Cambridges will start their 4 day tour on Monday, a day after the Sussexes documentary airs. If I had access to the Cambridges, I would advise them to write a thank you note to all the journalists and media houses that were represented at the tour. That would be the greatest shade to Harry and Meghan. I wish anyone in their team reads this blog.
Beth said…
Sophie's departure could simply be a cost cutting measure. According to the article she was in charge of Kate's personal assistants. How many are there and why do they need someone to oversee them? I think it's unlikely that she was made redundant by the Cambridge/Sussex split or that she was a Sussex mole.
d.c. said…
What do we make of this aricle in IB Times?
https://www.ibtimes.com/truth-about-prince-harry-getting-emotional-after-learning-meghan-markle-pregnant-2843244
Just rubbish, pure speculation? Planted story by SS (PR for MM), to keep the Sugars happy/hopeful, and show the world how devoted Harry is to her? Feels like an overly intentional attempt to “prove” how loved she is...

Regarding the firing, I don’t know anything about this new departure. But is she was a Sussex plant/mole, good riddance.
Nelo said…
I don't see the connection to the Sussexes from the story unless DM is trying to point to something without making it too obvious. There could be more to the story and DM wants readers to read in between the lines.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Well there is a fantastic post on charlatan duchess by anonimoushousplantfan about MM's supposed anti-sexism ad campaign. I encourage you to find and read it. The lady did fabulous research and this is the summary: she couldn't find any traces of the ad recall anywhere, including the book about P&G history; Meg says "I went home and wrote letters to powerhouse feminist attorney, Gloria Allred; to a host of a kids news program; to the soap manufacturer; and to Hilary Clinton (who was our First Lady at the time)". The devastating blow to this myth is Clinton was not the First Lady at that time and nobody heard about Allred until much later, least of all an 11 year old school girl. This is Meg's lies, and shameless lies at that. The more I learn about Rachel Meghan Markle the more I am revolted.
Ilona said…
The way it was reported in the Daily Mail sounds as if she was feeding information to the Sussexes. That was my first thought just by reading the title. Sophie Agnew was one of Katherine's "most loyal aides" and her redundancy was "said to have left her friends and family shocked." If that redundancy was absolutely necessary wouldn't Katherine have prepared her friend/aide in advance? I wonder.
lizzie said…
When Rebecca Deacon married and left her position as Kate's private secretary AKA her "Gal Friday," Sophie Agnew was briefly elevated to that position. Then Catherine Quinn with the Oxford-heavy resume was hired as Kate's secretary supposedly to help Kate up her royal game and increase her visibility as a working royal. People wondered why someone with Quinn's qualifications took the job especially if it meant trailing around after Kate carrying flowers as Deacon had done. Quinn is also older than many Cambridge hires. That could mean she's less likely to reap future benefit from a royal job as her working window is smaller.

It doesn't seem Quinn ever did those super-visible Gal Friday duties too often (duties Deacon was often criticized for because it seemed she positioned herself as a BFF in photos rather than fading into the background as an employee.) Looking back, maybe Sophie was kind of demoted then to be in charge of the assistants and to be a flower carrier.

I do think there's more to be story.
Nutty Flavor said…
@Lizzie, thanks, that's interesting info.

You're right, there's more to the story. If it were simply a cost savings, you'd think the Cambridges would have emphasized that. The public loves it when the Royals save money.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Also,I am curious what you think about the fact that every member of the royal family has "supporting the Queen" under their profile, where their engagement as royals are listed. That is, apart from MM. Even Harry has it but not his wife. Also, princess Anne is overshadowed by the Markles kerfuffle and she is doing a great job in Japan now meeting the new Emperor and working to strengthen ties with UK. I would like more coverage on Anne's work, Sophie's and Edward's and Charles's. They support a lot of great projects that deserve a higher visibility.
Louise said…
My first impression was that letting her go due to "splitting of the households" was illogical, given that she was employed to manage Katherine's personal assistants only, and not to manage both duchesses. If it was just that there were too many employees in the "personal assistant department", one of the personal assistants could have been let go instead.

And when something is illogical, one's mind looks for a more logical explanation. She might be a mole, or might just have pissed off the wrong person in some other manner.

Fairy Crocodile: I agree that the press tends to ignore the other Royals in favour of endless Smarkle stories. They need to add some balance. I also read that piece at Charlatan Duchess re: P&G and agree that it is worth reading. Does not surprise me in the least. I hope that this goes "viral", as they say, so we don't have to hear her tell this story again and again and again........
JHanoi said…
Off topic:
The DM had pictures of HM first public appearance. It’s one of the first times I’ve noticed her clothes didnt fit well. She’s lost a little weight and I hope it’s an intended weight loss and it isn’t due to family stresses of H & M and PA.
She looks well other than looser fitting clothes.
Nelo said…
Fairy crocodile, Maybe Anne doesn't care for media visibility or it may be that people are more interested in seeing the younger royals. I don't know. I'm surprised that Sophie also doesn't get much visibility despite the fact she's a PR professional who was running her own PR firm before she married Edward. How she doesn't get much coverage surprises me. Many people outside the UK don't know her or don't know the great amount of work she does. I feel her profession should have given her an edge over others in terms of visibility. If they are to draw attention to their causes, how does not being visible or not getting media coverage help? Even Charles doesn't get as much coverage as his sons and their wives and I feel it should not be so.

Nutty, I read somewhere that the video Meghan posted of her 11 year old self was actually a group project given to her class by their teacher. They were told to write a company and complain about an advert. It's not like it was her initiative the way she's putting it. I wish more reporters will investigate some of these claims of hers. If they can trace her teacher and classmates, they should be able to find out that what she's now using as PR was actually an assignment given to them in school.
Then her gig at UN was gotten for her by her agent and PR people, so it's not like she was in hot demand and UN wanted her so badly. It was her PR team that hustled for that gig for her.
Girl with a Hat said…
@JHanoi, I also noticed that the Queen has lost a lot of weight. Her clothes were very baggy. I hope she is all right.

On twitter, someone said that all of the American breakfast shows had picked up the Instagram post by Meghan, meaning that they had to pay her royalties (no pun intended) on using her photo since she has copyrighted it.
Miggy said…
Also off topic - but for those who may be interested, the documentary 'Harry and Meghan in Africa' is due to be aired on ITV on Sunday October 20 at 9pm.
Nutty Flavor said…
@Mischi, that's quite humorous about the photo. I wonder how much Meg made off it.

@Louise, I think the reporters know Markle is a huge fraud; they probably know much more than we do. The question is, who will publish the information? What will they get out of it, other than a) alienating the factotums who surround the Royal Family b) being accused of racist bullying? The first is more important in the UK, the second more important in the US.

I've been counting on some German, French, or Australian-based publication to come out with the good stuff, so that everyone could quote them/direct their righteous indignation at them. "Can you believe what that German tabloid published?" Hasn't happenned yet, though.
Girl with a Hat said…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1EYaEo_CRM

Danja zone video says that they went to California for a few days after returning from South Africa. They cannot move to California because Harry needs a visa from the US government and that can take a long time, so they now want to move to Toronto.

They supposedly have a real estate agent looking for a mansion for them in Toronto. Meghan will supposedly guest star in Jessica Mulroney's Netflix series about weddings.

I hope they are denied permission to live in Canada. The Canadian government will have to pick up their security costs and that could amount to millions every year without any obligation on their part to the Canadian people.
abbyh said…

I read that article and thought it slid between the words "firing" and made "redundant" as if they were one and the same.

But for me, you don't get fired because there are too many workers. It's more of not doing the job, doing illegal things. Redundant is not through your own bad actions. And, in a lot of big corporations, they want to keep good workers so they try to find other positions to retain them.

The dissection post of the commercial look at what a feminist I was way back when: trying too hard to shove how wonderful she was and continues to be shoved down our throats. If she were wonderful, we would notice. And, once I know you lie to me (like this), I will always wonder if you are lying to me this time when you open your mouth.
Nutty Flavor said…
@Mischi, I don't know much about Danja Zone's sources, but Harry and Meghan certainly did disappear for a few days between the end of the South Africa tour and Harry's appearance in Nottingham the other day, so it's plausible that they were in Los Angeles.

Interesting that Enty's local sources didn't mention this.

Harry doesn't need a visa to live in California - he can just walk across the border like thousands of other people do. California is a sanctuary state, and no one can throw him out due to his visa status. Seriously, though, he could also just show up as a "tourist" and then never go home, which is actually the primary source of undocumented immigrants in the US.

Re: Canada, if they're not in the country on official business, it seems ludicrous for the Canadian taxpayers to pick up their protection expenses.
No news on the sussex front usually means they are (Meghan) working on a super secret new project, aka Meghan's latest try at how can I be more famous.

A day in the life of the suckesst duo likely seems to involve coming up with franric last minute attempts at out doing the Cambridges. Even this Ed Sheeran video, which just seemed like an anti-climax, seemed to have been done last minute. It seemed too cutesie and trying to appeal to Ed Sheeran fans. I'm guessing they heard about wills football thing on mental health day, and thought they could so one better. That's also why they released a trailer as well.

abbyh said…

No news on the sussex front usually means they are (Meghan) working on a super secret new project, aka Meghan's latest try at how can I be more famous.

Isn't their documentary about the African trip coming out in the next day or so? I read somewhere it happens just before PW and family go to Pakistan.
Louise said…
Nutty: Given the apparent coolness between the Smarkles and the Queen, Charles and William, I don't know that the RF would mind if Markle was outed for the confabulator that she is. They might even be grateful.

As for the racism charges, the racism card will, along with the Diana card, always be the biggest tools in the Smarkle box. It might even explain why the marriage was permitted in the first place. But at some point the press and the RF will have to bite the bullet and ignore the false accusations. Otherwise, Smarkle will continue to remain fully in control of the agenda... forever.

And anyway, the RF is not beholden to the American press for anything; it is the people of the UK and Commonwealth whose support thy need. The U.S. is becoming increasingly vulgar on so many levels, with it's low brow, celebrity culture, etc, and is best ignored.
Girl with a Hat said…
@abbyh, the Cambridges leave on October 14th for Pakistan but the documentary airs on October 20th.
Girl with a Hat said…
@Louise, the British press is also obsessed with celebrity culture, and its celebrity culture is even more vulgar than the American equivalent. Maybe we will see Meghan on Love Island or Celebrity Big Brother one day.
punkinseed said…
@Fairy Crocodile, Thank you for the tip about the soap ad. Very informative. It's great to see a real reporter doing her job by digging and looking under every stone, and even when the results get hazy, to have the humility to admit the dead ends. What does matter is her finds along the way and how much is bogus spin created by Megs and her PR.
In an interview Megs did before the her wedding to Harry, she talks about having a week or so of hiatus from Suits, so she volunteered her time to the UN. She said she called and asked if there was a place for her to donate her time and that they were "shocked" that she was making such a request. THAT is another story I'd like to track down. For all we really know, she might have been shopping in NY and decided to get a latte at the UN gift shop. While quaffing her drink she imagined herself being Marlo Thomas and being That Girl after watching reruns as a child. Then her mind floated to the diplomats who caught her eye as they passed by and imagined herself speaking at the general assembly... And to finish my thought, she as all Narcissists do, honestly believes the whole incident took place and talked about it at that TV interview.
To Tess in Working Girl: "I can dance around in my underwear in my living room, but that doesn't make me Madonna!" would have been a great come back by the host of the talk show after her UN appearance story.
abbyh said…

Thanks Mischi. I have been wrong before and willing to admit it.
CookieShark said…
There have been far fewer articles in the DM about MM since Harry's statement. I would think this is agonizing for her. Maybe she didn't realize that many of those puff pieces were harmless, and didn't criticize her at all? In any event, her need to be in the press on a daily basis appears almost pathological. Posters on other sites praise her for her work ethic. I don't see work, it just looks like relentless self-promotion to me.
Teasmade said…
Mischi--Don't you need a special, hard-to-place skill to be allowed to emigrate to Canada? And/or have a job waiting? They don't take just anybody. We know what skills SHE has . . .what about HIM?
Girl with a Hat said…
@tweeymma, there is the investor category where you can invest 500k in Canada and get approved for residency. Americans and Europeans can also live in Canada for 6 months out of a year and can buy homes but will not get financing through a Canadian bank.
JL said…
It would be very difficult for me to believe that anyone would care to be more loyal to the Harkles than to the Cambridges. My guess is that serious mistakes may have been made regarding the Pakistan tour by a soon-to-be bride distracted by her wedding.

As for Canada, Markle has said she found Toronto to be too cold. So it may very well be Vancouver, with its shorter flight time to LA.
Anonymous said…
@MIschi. I thought the same thing when I saw a photograph of the Queen after her return to London. Her coats are usually fairly form-fitting. That coat was hanging off of her. She must have lost a good 20 pounds. :(
Girl with a Hat said…
@JL, yes, Vancouver offers several benefits over Toronto, but it's a relatively small town.

There are a lot of Hollywood movies and television series filmed in Vancouver. In fact, for a while, if you knew Vancouver even a little bit, you could recognize the background in most Hollywood movies, although I was told they had to add trash to the streets to make it look American.

It rains over 6 months of the year and although there's not much snow (it only snows 1-2 a year), the climate is brutal because it wears on the morale. Maybe not for a Brit but definitely for someone who grew up in California.

A lot of the Hollywood movie making has shifted to Toronto because it's a much larger city and there are a lot of people with experience that is required to shoot and do post-production on a movie. The weather in Toronto isn't that bad for a Canadian city, as Toronto is pretty far south in Canada.

The Vancouver west coast culture is quite different to Toronto with people there being obsessed with going to the gym and plastic surgery, rather than the more traditional culture in Toronto. Meghan might prefer that aspect as well.
Fairy Crocodile said…
@CookieShark. Yes indeed, articles mean visibility, visibility means opportunity to merch. There is a Russian idiom describing very greedy people - "grab money with hands, mouth and a**s whole". It is on the rude side but describes Rachel Meghan Markle to perfection.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Sorry, blooming autocorrect - hole, not whole. Apologies!
SwampWoman said…
JHanoi said...
Off topic:
The DM had pictures of HM first public appearance. It’s one of the first times I’ve noticed her clothes didnt fit well. She’s lost a little weight and I hope it’s an intended weight loss and it isn’t due to family stresses of H & M and PA.
She looks well other than looser fitting clothes.


Well, "Bear" Grylls talked about her incredible stamina in standing for hours smiling and chatting during and after the ceremony, so perhaps it was just walking around the lovely Highlands that resulted in some weight loss. Some people are stress eaters (that would be me). She may be one of those people that can't eat much during stressful periods.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/uk-news/2019/10/10/adventurers-moustache-a-talking-point-for-queen-at-investiture/
Liver Bird said…
I'm amazed that the Sussex 'documentary', ie puff piece is in the prime Sunday 9pm slot. Yeah I know it's only ITV but still. I don't know a single person who would watch it or even turn it on out of curiousity. Most people didn't know or care that the tour was even happening, so why would they tune into a 'documentary' about it 2 weeks later? I expect ratings will be miserable.
Jenx said…
The mockumentary. Why am I thinking Spinal Tap? Will she emerge from a giant pod? A fragrant, dewy gift from the gods. I can't decide whether to torture myself and watch it or Boycott? I don't get itv, so it's a non-starter there. Will it be tightly controlled or is it something they want the world to see? I can't believe my life has come to this. Where these are my pressing concerns. Egad.
I really hope this circus has not harmed the elders.
@Liver Bird, the itv special is not meant for the masses (there's hardly going to be any thruth in it after all). so it doesn't matter whether it's Sunday 9pm or Dec 25th, 3pm. It's made solely for the Harkles to hark upon and talk about their amazing life for years to come. Just like they do with Meghan's UN speech and that 100 year old soap commercial. I wouldn't be surprised if they start teasing trailers on their Instagram and try to pull a Vogue on us.

Liver Bird said…
I agree, just wondering why ITV would put it in the top slot as they'll be chasing viewing figures. Can you really see anyone sitting down on a Sunday night and thinking 'Fantastic! That documentary about that tour I never even cared about is on! Great!'
CookieShark said…
Some musings on this dreary day:

Why even bother with the lawsuit over the letter? Is it because this is the only transgression by the press they can turn into a court case? The story is half a year old and probably not the first anyone thinks of when PH and MM come to mind. Also, it didn't reveal any important information. It was already apparent that MM and her father had a falling out. We don't care! (to quote the wonderful Harry Markle website).

Why take Archie to meet Tutu? He is a complete stranger to the child and besides, it was a meeting between adults. This is very good evidence to me that she could be a narcissist. The child is an extension of her, not its own person. A four month child would derive no enjoyment from going to a meeting with several adults without any teethers or a fun bouncy chair to be in. It would make much more sense to take him to the mothers2mothers meeting. Why didn't she do that? And why didn't Archie try to nuzzle her or lean back into her arms during the meeting?

Finally, going even further back about Archie...Archie may have been 2 days old or 2 weeks old during his first press conference, depending on who you believe. What are the chances that either a 2 day old or 2 week old is going to be in a deep, deep sleep at just the moment he goes to the press conference? He does not stir, blink, or try to break the swaddle. He does not purse his lips or turn his head to Harry or look around. He does not startle or turn towards MM. Finally, her subsequent statement that "he slept for 11 hours" on Harry on the flight to SA makes no sense. So Harry didn't move for 11 hours?
KnitWit said…
Maybe the Cambridges hoped the staffer wouldn't return after maternity leave. Or perhaps, they functioned well without her. Happens in companies all the time.
PaulaMP said…
Louise: I live in CA and there is no celebrity culture outside of LA, believe me. Most of us are so disgusted by all the Hollyweirdos trying to tell us how to live and what to think that their popularity is at an all time low. Look at the ratings for the awards shows, for example, they have never been lower. For some reason the Kardashians dominate the DM but that's just because Kris pays for articles.
Lurking said…
@Fairy Crocodile

A couple other things about the soap ad speech..


The Hollywood Little Red Schoolhouse is located in Los Angeles, although Hollywood is in its name. The farthest north the riots got was Wilshire, the farthest west S. Western Ave, so more than 5 miles on surface streets form the Little Red School House, 3 miles as the crow flies. People living in the part of LA where the school is located are accustomed to hearing sirens at all hours of the day and night. The story was likely ginned up to create drama.

Smeg claims the lemon tree in her front yard was charred from the fires, but not the house? Houses in the parts of LA where the riots occurred have very small front yards. It's hard to imagine a house near a tree that is charred would escape damage. Where did she live at the time? We know that after school she would hang out with her dad on sets, was she living with him as well? I'm thinking the story about the lemon tree is an embellishment.
JHanoi said…
OT again - My prediction, I think MM is going to lay low for a few weeks, until Remembrance day in November (the next big public event I can think of) , then she’s going to hold her tummy again in public to announce her pregnancy.

Blind Gossip had a thing about a fameho celeb who was looking for the ‘right time’ to pat her tummy to let her fans know she’s preggo, apparently Beyonce did the same thing in public , but didn’t make a official statement, and her Hive went wild. Thats just the kind of PR games MM would play, ‘oh, I’m a Celeb and I want my ‘Privacy’, except when I’m not on the front page and I’ll play games to get attention’.

Other blinds have hinted H & M want to have another baby ASAP, and not wait (makes sense cause she’s getting on the older side for having babies). In Touch this week, says she’s having a girl! Lol, it’s as reliable as the National Enquirer ;)
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JL said…
@Mischi
Many good points on Vancouver vs Toronto. I did factor in Vancouver filming. And what Toronto has is proximity to New York not to mention nostalgia as the site of their "falling in love." (Bleech)
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maggie said…
The responses to Richard Palmer announcing the date that the documentary is due to be broadcast were absolutely scathing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1182601281875173378

That kind of reaction is absolute poison to the palace.
Jenx said…
@ Maggie. Just went over to Twitter. OMG. It is bad. People are livid that they are using funds from the monarchy/tax papers to fund their self'promotion and money making schemes. People are asking the despicable duo to show them the money.
Fairy Crocodile said…
@charade and Jenxs. Thank you for the posts. I think many people don't give a flying fig about Harry and his wife but do mind strongly if an unelected person gets to represent the country and doesn't follow rules of propriety and protocol. When this person combines shameless self promotion and virtue signalling plus demands privacy while funded by tax payers-we have a perfect storm brewing. Top it up with stupidity and sense of entitlement on Harry's part, mix in riding on his mom's skirts and William is right to be very concerned. It is his heritage Harry is washing down the loo because Harry has been whining for a long time he doesn't want to be a part of the RF.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger PaulaMP said...
Louise: I live in CA and there is no celebrity culture outside of LA, believe me. Most of us are so disgusted by all the Hollyweirdos trying to tell us how to live and what to think that their popularity is at an all time low. Look at the ratings for the awards shows, for example, they have never been lower. For some reason the Kardashians dominate the DM but that's just because Kris pays for articles.


How about the people that work behind the scenes in accounting, building sets, etc.? I've heard that they don't love the celebrities, either.
Marie said…
It's just sad to see that the Monarchy with Meghan and Harry's insistence to promote their own interests is becoming yet another divisive force in an already quite divided climate. The Royal Family offers stability, political apathy and a healthy amount of loathing to be in the spotlight. It's a refreshing counterbalance to the narcissistic loudmouths in politics and celebrity who clamor for the spotlight as they are absolutely certain their own ideas, pure and unadulterated with no input from any other opposing party or opposing ideas, will save humanity and the public. Meghan brought in such rigid thinking, refusal to see compromise as nothing short of an utter a betrayal of self, a determination to control the narrative to an already headstrong, spoiled, immature, self-centered, emotionally unintelligent, uncompromising man-child. Blegggh....
Louise said…
Paula MP: I don't live in California, or even in the U.S.A., but I do have access to American television and print media and it is my impression that actors, singers and other celebrities take up a lot of space in the news cycle in general, including many and various celebrities involving themselves in politics.

But in any event, going back to the original point, I don't think that the British Royal Family needs to care about the American press alleging that they are racist if they criticize Smirkle; the future of the BRF will be decided by citizens of the UK and Commonwealth and not by Oprah or Ellen.
Girl with a Hat said…
this is a very good article on how the Royals get their money and the story behind the Queen Mother's inheritance;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566439/Where-did-Princess-Margaret-20m-Queen-mothers-70m-legacy.html
bootsy said…
R.e. whether Harry can stay in the USA without a visa/immigrant status.
Answer-yes he can. You can get a tourist visa for up to 3 months as long as you can show that you have the funds to support yourself without working. So in the case of PH I think he'll be ok on that one.

Add on the fact that he is a privileged member of the RF and people can do things behind the scenes that normal citizens do not receive then it's safe to say PH can rock up to the USA and stay there when he wants.

I can go and stay in the USA for up to months tomorrow if I show I have funds to support myself and can provide a basic itinerary of what I'm doing. And if I can do that then what can a politically connected multi millionaireember of a global oligarchy do? PH is fine to do what he wants in the USA.

As for the firing of this staff member-who knows. There is a game of chess going on, and we don't know what each piece represents.

I saw this story and read it as a negative piece for Kate and PW as it makes them look bad for firing someone. Opinions eh?
Girl with a Hat said…
I read on twitter that there is a call for a tweet fest about Meghan for a Sussex Love Fest while Kate and William are on their tour of Pakistan. To get the attention away from Kate, of course!
SwampWoman said…
Mischi, I read that DM story about the alleged money of Princess Margaret and Queen Mother as just that...a story. There were a lot of allegations tossed about but no actual facts. I believe the purpose was to incite ill feeling against the crown.
JHanoi said…
I read the dm article too and agree the author/ book doesnt appear to be a fan of the crown. Whats strange is he’s on the privy council. If i were HRH, I’d try to dump his a$$ and replace him. Seems like he’s using his position to gain access to info/research that isnt normally avaiable.
Cabraxas said…
https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com/post/159721104186/meghan-markles-ivory-soap-controversy-is-totes

This post by 'Tiaras and Houseplants' rips apart Meghan's story that, as an 11 year old, huddled inside her school as she listened to the "soundtrack of sirens outside" hailing the LA riots of spring 1992, she watched a TV show which featured a Proctor & Gamble ad which Meghan found sexist. Meghan then enlisted the help of First Lady Hillary Clinton, feminist lawyer Gloria Allred and journalist Linda Ellerbee to persuade P&G to pull the ad, which P&G did. Okay, here goes.

(1) Hillary was NOT First Lady in spring of 1992, Barbara Bush was.
(2) Gloria Allred was totally unknown in 1992. She wouldn't attain fame until 1995 when she sued the Boy Scouts for discrimination.
(3) NO 1992 video of Linda Ellerbee mentioning 11 year old Meghan can be found.
(4) NO 'sexist ad' by Proctor & Gamble in 1992 exists that even remotely resembles the sexist ad Meghan described.
(5) The TV show featuring the sexist P&G ad which Meghan watched was a show that aired in the morning. The LA riots didn't start until the afternoon.
(6) Meghan says she was interviewed for her letter to P&G in 1992 but InsideEdition says she was interviewed in 1993 on 'Nick News'.

https://www.insideedition.com/gallery/meghan-markles-family-tree-see-photos-her-relatives-41859/meghan-markle-522

(7) Meghan insists she wrote her letter on her own with only help from her father but Humane Education now reveals it was a class project one year later in 1993 which ALL the students in Meghan's class participated in.

https://humaneeducation.org/blog/2017/6-activities-for-teaching-about-advertising/

Just thought you'd like to know.
Girl with a Hat said…
@Cabraxas, we know she didn't write the letter on her own because it wasn't written on a banana.
lizzie said…
@Cabraxas Thanks for the info from tumblr. I agree the whole P&G story has always been fishy. Maybe Allred was known in LA before other places? Even so I doubt she'd have been known to a preteen child, even in LA.

The LA riots occurred in April and May of 1992. Meghan was not 11 then IF her publicized birthday of Aug 4 1981 is correct. She would have still been 10. Of course, people have also said she is older than her stated age.

I don't know if folks have seen this article about Meghan's early life. It article has locations listed. It also has the mandatory mention of the soap ad but says "A classmate revealed Meghan was notorious for writing companies to complain about their products, often receiving placatory cases of chips and candy that she’d share with friends.". Also note the info about Doria's store.

https://www.laweekly.com/mapping-meghan-markles-los-angeles-life-before-the-royal-wedding/
emeraldcity said…
@JHanoi

There are about 700 people who are members of the privy council. Privy Councillor is pretty much just a fancy title these days , less than a Knighthood, only a dozen or so members actually get to ‘advise the Queen’, I wouldn’t give too much weight to someone being on the privy council. Privy Councillors are supposed to be official advisors to the Queen but 95% of them never get past the front gate of Buckingham Palace except for the occasional cocktail party.


Norman Baker is an ex MP, (Lib Dems - the UK’s also ran party), always a motor mouth he likes to stir up the pot , not always a bad thing especially regarding the death of David Kelly which the powers that be swept under the carpet (a very brave move). He is a bit hypocritical because he was always blathering on about MP’s finances and exposing the wrong doers and then oops.......caught out in the expenses scandal.

He got on this list, which names lots of loony and incompetent ex MP’s as Privy Councillors including the ludicrous Diane Abbott, simply because he spent 18yrs as an MP until he lost his seat. He isn't terrible, but he is a stirrer.
Marie said…
@Cabraxas
I'm not finding the info from the tumblr that you copy/pasted so convincing...so far, I'm seeing pretty weak to ridiculous arguments from that tumblr person.
To point 7, the Humane Edition link doesn't reference the letter at all. What is the relevance of the link in proving it was a class assignment?
To points 3 and 4, Finding a video of Linda Ellerbee, whoever she is, from 1992 I would imagine is a difficult task, as is finding the video of the PG advert altogether. Unless someone has access to taped TV archives, I wouldn't trust someone saying they did an internet search for anything that aired on TV so long ago and didn't find anything as evidence.
To point 5, The LA riots may have started in the afternoon, but it's feasible they were happening thereafter in the morning.
To point 2, according to her wikipedia page, Gloria Allread sued in 1987 a male-members only Friar Club for its anti-women discrimination policies. She had multiple big-news cases already by the 80s in southern California. And the Friar club was even as local as in Beverly Hills and the article linked in the Wikipedia article was from the LA Times. One could argue that by 1987, Allred may not have been known nationally but perhaps she had a reputation already in LA. To a kid, maybe not but perhaps Meg's dad helped out and he thought of Allred.

@emeraldcity, thanks for the info on the privy council. SOunds much fancier than it is.
@Bootsy, ‘I can go and stay in the USA for up to months tomorrow if I show I have funds to support myself and can provide a basic itinerary of what I'm doing. And if I can do that then what can a politically connected multi millionaireember of a global oligarchy do? PH is fine to do what he wants in the USA.’

You’re absolutely correct. I’ve visited America for a longer than average stay. As long as you can prove you have sufficient funds to support yourself, and provide an address where you’re staying etc., it’s absolutely fine. Prince Harry is a VIP, I really couldn’t see any issue with him, unless the American authorities didn’t think much of Harry’s cannabis malarkey when he was a teenager.
Maggie said…
On the Royal finances article, the responses are overwhelmingly anti-royal. The Sussexes' behaviour has triggered the same sort of public anger towards the monarchy that their ill-judged reaction to Princess Diana's death did.

Why is their PR so diabolical? Either their antennae simply aren't tuned in or they don't give a flying f*ck what we ordinaries think.

OTOH, the Yorks are getting it absolutely right, having a low-key wedding; they can recognise a disaffected public.

Harry and Meghan are making Britain look ridiculous, the monarchy being led by the nose by a trashy American. The story has been that actions are being taken behind the scenes, but that simply isn't good enough. It is our money that is being squandered and our nation that is being turned into a joke. It really can't go on.

Meanwhile I'm happily anticipating Tow Bower's hatchet job on Meghan ����
Maggie said…
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1190003/Meghan-Markle-news-Duchess-Sussex-Prince-Harry-Tom-Bower-book-royal-family/amp

Link on the book I mentioned. Love, love love the shade in the image - the Sussexes look so bad-tempered!
Teasmade said…
@Maggie--

the Sussexes look so bad-tempered!

She just looks like she's squinting in the sun, possibly plotting something, but he . . . never was very attractive, was he?
Girl with a Hat said…
there hasn't been any uproar over the fact that the Sux sexes have posted on their IG account that they are supporting a migrant anti-wall charity in California which would be a political position on their part. Are we just ignoring them? That would be a smart thing to do. Narcissists hate to be ignored.
JL said…
Off topic, but back in the real world:

“The Princess Royal is maintaining a full diary during her visit to Japan, despite the country facing its worst storm in over 60 years.

Typhoon Hagibis is forecast to arrive in Tokeyo this evening, brining with it 150km/h winds.

As 600,000 were being evacuated in preparation of Hagibis, a 5.7 magnitude earthquake was also felt in Tokyo.

Despite the conditions, Princess Anne has had a busy day in Tokyo where she conducted a number of engagements.”
-Royal Central
Maggie said…
Well, HMQ is back in town so perhaps the dressing down is happening? Curious that she didn't go to Nottingham - has she been told to stay away?
Only just noticed that he questioned the future of the exam system!! What is a prat like him, completely bereft of any knowledge of the state education system doing questioning it?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-50001335

I wonder if that kind of stupid comment would have been unreported pre lawsuit?

Whatever, he's ramping up the anti-royalist sentiment.
Girl with a Hat said…
this man admits to being Meghan Markle's hairdresser. LOL

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566779/Meghan-Markles-hairdresser-one-baby-Archie.html
LavenderToast said…
@Cabraxas "Gloria Allred was totally unknown in 1992. She (didn't;t) become famous until 1995...."
UCLA Alumni here; Actually, Gloria Allred became very famous prior to 1992 with a groundbreaking woman's case when I specifically tried to hire her in 1996 for a famous Custody/Domestic violence case of my own. She didn't have even the decency to meet with me but had her office person decline for her. BTW I won my case working as my own attorney. I AGREE with all you said about MM tho,

I lived in West Hollywood (the upscale part of Hollywood) and the nicer parts for many years and during the LA riot period. People in California WILL NOT care about MM and Harry if they move there. There are far too many Celebrities of greater interest. I gingerly mention MM and the debacle and I bore people! Besides California is in a disgraceful condition with the staggering number of homeless people living in filth (with plague and cholera outbreaks occurring) being allowed by the courts to squat on sidewalks and other public properties. Many residents are selling out and fleeing to other states.
LavenderToast said…
UCLA Alumni: I meant to write I tried to hired Gloria Allred in 1986, who was very famous by then (hence well before 1992).
Marie said…
@bootsy - I also found the whole article negative towards W&K, but I also agree something is not being completely explained.

@Maggie - it feels like he's pandering to the pupils with that statement to be relatable and likable. Or we can add it to the list of Harry's areas of sudden expertise after marrying Meghan. I should have married Meghan instead of doing advanced degrees. Certainly saves time, although maybe not money :D

The whole kerfluffle with China complaining over tiny things like the Hong Kong flag emoji in iPhones or the comparison of Winnie the Pooh had me thinking...you know, some people who spend considerable time manipulating and influencing their image are much more sensitive to negative coverage because they understand a bit more how the game goes. Regular people might shrug off negative coverage as part of the package of fame but in the end believe that people are free to think for themselves and that the truth will come out anyway. But people who spend a lot of time engaging in positive propaganda for themselves do so out of a belief that people are easily influenceable, that the truth can be hidden (bc they try to take advantage of that themselves for their own benefit) and thus this is why they spend so much time loudly fighting every little bit of negative propaganda. I think Harry and Meghan fall into the latter category. They have interesting company.

It's funny how every single article about the SA trip segues into Mm scheduling her engagements around Archie's feeding time. Then mentions something something women empowerment...then says how she missed Harry while he was away...then blah blah women emoy. Only the first two paras change. It makes me think there's more to Archie's feeding time.

The link above mentions how the hair dresser never breathed a word to anyone that he styles MMs hair,not even on his Instagram (and that makes him Nobel prize worthy). And I'm like, ha ha, ya bitch he wouldn't. Cz like have seen her hair?!

Also, James the hair dresser has secretly I er the past few months formed a special bond with baby Archie (who the plebs had not got a glimpse of yet) and MM arranged all her SA engagements around Archie's feeding time. Well, obviously! She ran out the moment Archie got hungry and dumped the baby in James's lap. That would explain so much about her hair disasters.

Mm misses Harry while he was away. Duhuhh! Cz she has to now change all dirty diapers and James's the hairdresser doubled his overtime rates! We feel you Meg, we feel you girl...they don't make it easy.
LavenderToast said…
I find it strange about Markle and "the feed time" for Archie as a Mother of 3 who has both breastfed and bottled fed my babies. I find her excuses ridiculous as in her being incompetent if this natural task is too complictaed. Multi-millions of mothers have been able to feed their children and do something else. She almost insults our intelligence with her inane excuses. Surely she doesn't need to have another child if she can't seem to handle one baby's one simple requirement!
PaulaMP said…
Louise: I agree with you, Royals should not be concerned about Oprah or Ellen. I certainly am not.
LavenderToast said…
Woman Who Washes Dishes here:
Thanks to the-charlatan-duchess blog I watched all the Ivory Soap commercials fom 1988 to 1993 and I find nothing wrong with them. They acknowledge women wash dishes (are we to criticize advertisers when it shows women doiung honest work such as feeding their babies, putting diapers on their children, putting bandages on little children's scrapes, etc...). No, it is an acknowledgment that women perform a necessary chore for their family. Bless women for that.

Then if her criticism is that the product cares for women's hands...what is the problem there? She alters her looks by resorting to thins far more sinister than Dish Soap (Botox, fillers, gluing hair extensions on, etc...). If anything, Proctor & Gamble should have been applauded for finding a formulation for dish soap that would benefit the skin.It is a case of where one wants to see something sinister. I applaud women that wash dishes and takes care of their family. I live in a century-old farmhouse and I still wash dishes by hand (and I select dish soap based on the gentleness factor of the brand). It would be a plus if MM would let it be known that she washes Archie'pacifer after it falls on the floor or some such chore rather than a paid nanny! She's lost the script to the plot of life IMO.
JHanoi said…
She may not wash the pacifier after it falls on the floor, before she gives it back to archie. Some don’t, Ick!
NeutralObserver said…
Here's a crazy thought, my quick perusal of various British news sites today found almost no stories on the Harkles. I wondered if the RF had somehow manage to close the tap on the Harkle pr effluvia. Whether Megs & Harry have run out of funds, BP has laid down the law or reached some sort of agreement with British media, I have no idea, but there's not much stuff out there about them, positive or negative. Perhaps the Harkles' petulant & childish actions re: the press are simply a cover for the fact that they're being silenced, & the Harkles are trying to make it seem as though its by their choice & actions. The lawsuits & statement are the Harkles trying to appear more in control than they are. Just a thought.
CookieShark said…
@ Unknown re: the "feed time" comments...

I agree with your assessment and I have said on these boards before that the "MM is breastfeeding" narrative that has been pushed since Trooping is bizarre. It is more evidence to me that she may not have been pregnant. Perhaps she was, but she has said some strange things for a mother to be and her subsequent actions since Archie's birth don't make sense.

Remember her waffling over the due date when asked? She gave a vague story about a friend who delivered her baby five weeks early, then laughed it off. As a pregnant woman you know your due date and a baby five weeks early would be in the ICU. Since Archie's birth she has traveled overseas to watch tennis (!) edited a magazine, and launched Travalyst and the SmartWorks collection. Perhaps they have nannies but that's a lot of activity for a new mom with a newborn.

Finally, are the comments about scheduling the SA activity with Archie's feed times supposed to impress us? What does she think most parents do, simply live day to day and let their children eat whenever? Breastfeeding is quite easy to do anywhere as long as you have a clean place to sit and some privacy. Surely if she could leave him to go watch tennis in another country, she's got this routine down. And not to be rude but she didn't really have to do anything on the SA tour except support Harry. If Archie was having a bad day or difficulty feeding, she could just keep him with her at their hotel or wherever they were. Plus infant "feed time" varies greatly...some days they cluster feed lots and other days go for longer stretches. It's not like Archie was watching the clock and demanded she be home by 4.

Lastly, if she was so worried about his "feed times," why take him to meet with Tutu? This was a sit down meeting for adults and she subsequently wrangled with him on the couch, as he did not lean back into her arms or nuzzle on her. He did not appear comfortable and what was the point of him being there? It would make more sense to leave him with the nanny for such a meeting or stay in and let Harry attend the meeting alone. But, neither of these scenarios would result in the photos they wanted or the implications of Archie there, as an extension of MM. Narcissistic parents are interested in what the child can do to make them look good, if I remember correctly.
abbyh said…

Tom Bower book - the DM comments are out. One of them was something about innocent do not fear the truth.

I prefer to get library books but I fear this one might have a long wait list. I have one book, now 13 on the list but started months ago in the 70's.

And there are new comments from HRC supportive of M. Throwing shade at others and supportive from the other side in the PR driven world. Every day something about how wonderful she is or that others are painted as less than well. Sad just thinking about how much money this takes and how far it could have reached had it been used for something to better the world instead of bettering her image.
Girl with a Hat said…
If you look at the pics of her holding Archie over her head while standing during their visit to Archbishop Tutu, you can see the square shape of some more padding under her dress. I really think she wanted to play the pregnancy guessing game again but everyone just thought she was fat.
Fairy Crocodile said…
I wish there was a way to mark up comments here because I literally want to hug some of the commentators. But short of teleportation "liking" their comment would be easier.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
@charade - Kate was hated by Lainey Lee because she bounced back from her pregnancies so quickly. Kate didn't put on much weight while pregnant because she exercises so much and also because she had very bad morning sickness. But Lainey hates Kate for her perfection. Well, for being white, basically.

Most celebrities use a hormone to lose weight. It's a hormone that a doctor injects in you and allows you to live on 500 calories a day while not experiencing hunger. It's something your body produces during pregnancy. I think it's called hCG. It's what Jessica Simpson probably used to lose 100 pounds of pregnancy weight.

So, for most celebs, losing that much weight isn't that difficult. Most people don't know this, and credit celebs with incredible willpower and discipline. Of course exercise is required to tone up so the skin doesn't sag but it's not the cause of the weight loss.



KnitWit said…
Harry doesn't want to pay US and CA taxes. Hence Canada.


I still think the dynamic duo should go to the Bahamas.
Rainy Day said…
I wish the DM and other publications would do more to feature other members of the RF. Anne’s in Japan, Prince Charles is meeting the Pope, and the Duke of Gloucester is in Morocco, no doubt making a good impression after M&H’s earlier visit.

Charles miscalculated badly, probably figuring that Harry and his wife would support William, and no one else was needed. That might have worked if Harry had married well and exhibited at least the maturity and brains of a 6-week old puppy, but Charles and William are out of luck. William doesn’t really have any family support from anyone in his generation. I think he should offer Royal engagements to some of the others, ie the York princesses, and leave M&H out entirely.

And it’s never good when Media Meg’s quiet. That means she’s in stealth mode, getting ready to inflict her latest schemes and dreams on an unwilling and unwitting populace.
Girl with a Hat said…
KnitWit, Canadian taxes are higher than CA and American taxes.
JL said…
@Rainy Day
My thoughts exactly.
Ozmanda said…
Reading the tweet replies to Palmer's tweet there has been some interesting comments, one mention that Sparkles may be in some trouble in relation to back taxes. I think there are questions being asked as to where all the funds to the charities, gifts etc are going.

I don't know how true this is, but it may explain W & K separating the foundation from them.
KnitWit said…
I thought working royals have special tax status. Could be wrong.

Girl with a Hat said…
Knitwit, in the UK perhaps. But there was never a royal who lived in Canada so there's no special tax status for them. And, if they tried to pass such a law, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of the population would have a good laugh and say "no".
So Meg's been quiet, but her ardent fan HRC and her daughter have sung a ballad in her praise. So I guess mm was told to lay low so there would be conflict in the PR when hills says something nice about her. And hills has said more than nice things, she has tried to highlight how misunderstood, hated she is because of being biracial , cz that has to be it , right? **Eyeroll**

This is such classical gaslighting. I read this Hillary bull and actually thought about it for a while, do we common regular people NOT know something about MM that all these wonderful enlightened celebs know? Is there something wrong with with the way we are processing this whole thing, something wrong with OUR critical thinking that we just don't get it but the world's glutteratti does (that's not a typo btw). And then after a much needed coffee, 2 sugars, I'm like wait... That's gaslighting in a global level and it's so glaringly obvious.

I'm amazed, this woman who is so desperate to be liked, accepted, celebrated, this woman who had such a fragile ego but such big dreams wouldn't do 5 selfless, charitable thungs in her position to prove she is all the things she believes she is. I mean, that's not even even that big a hassle. What does she actually do in her regular life, she doesn't even work!
Rut said…
KnitWit: Didnt the wind blew Bahamas away?
@Rut ... Are you making a hurricane joke??? 🤔
Nelo said…
Richard Palmer says Harry 'broadly' warned the queen and other family members about the letter, while others said the family members were unaware and have distanced themselves. I now understand what happened. Harry must have told a white lie. He tells the queen of what he wants to do but deliberately doesn't give her details.
This is Palmer's tweet:"On that outspoken attack on the royal press pack, sources close to Harry say he did broadly warn the Queen and others in the family about the couple’s plans but others say the toxic statement was a complete shock to the family, who are distancing themselves from it."
ALICE said…
Looks like Tom Bower's going to write a book about Meghan. He is a writer we know in France for having written a book "L'OR NAZI". He investigated Nazi fraud against Jews and other ethnic groups for works of art, gold and other valuables. He presented the real story clearly. The Swiss government and the Swiss banking sector were also involved. The gold stolen in the occupied country and the gold teeth extracted from the mouths of those who were murdered were hidden in Swiss bank accounts. The crimes did not stop at the end of the war. For half a century, the Swiss authorities have hidden the wealth of legitimate owners. I think Tom Bower is a serious British investigator. Also, if he intends to write a book about Meghan, we will finally have the opportunity to see in the media the true face of this woman.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
Is just me or is Hillary desperately THIRSTY?

She's coming off like she really needs Meghan/Harry's marriage to work out for her own personal interest. She seems awfully invested.

It's like she sees this American connection with the royal family as some type of golden climbing opportunity and she's scared Meghan/Harry might divorce and she'll miss out on something?

It's extra CREEPY.

I mean what a creep.

If I were Meghan, I'd be a little freaked out and annoyed. This woman didn't even know who Meghan was 3 years ago.

That's all I've come to say. Back into my break.

Because the bad vibes just feels even badder with these people...

🌴 *SHUDDERS & GRABS COCONUT OIL, SAGE, AND SALT* 🌊
Liver Bird said…
My first thought on that ridiculous Clinton nonsense was "Is Meghan EVER out of the papers?" Even when she's 'quiet', her 'friends' are spouting shyte to the press about how wonderful, victimised and above all, how much better than Kate she is. With other royals, you simply don't see or hear from them when they're not doing an official engagement. With this one, barely a day passes without something. Always something.

My next thought was, as with Scandi above, how creepy it would be to have someone who would have had her security escort her out had she attempted to enter Hilary's office 3 short years ago now fawning all over her. But then I'm not Meghan and I don't consider human relationships to be transactional. Because you can be sure there's something for Hilary in this. Connections between PR firms (Sara Latham?) Returning or anticipating a favour. Or simply getting herself in the news. But something. Again, always something.

Thirdly, does Meghan really think it does her any favours to have the most hated woman in America on side? In Britain nobody cares about Clinton anymore, but then Meghan doesn't care about Britain either, so there's that. And from what I hear, she's something of a has-been in her native country too. So is her endorsement really a badge of honour for any but a relatively tiny number of wokerati?
Yup, if Meghan was a sane person who was genuinely "misunderstood" in her role as a representative of the crown this is when she would finally take stock of her situation, sit down with the palace advisors and ask them to save her from drowning in her own bullshit.

This getting creepy and not doing her any favours. At this point nothing she does is working out for her because she has seriously lost any faith the people ever had in her. Worse, the people are so over their love affair with Harry as well. What is Hills thinking, and what is she basing this assessment of Meghan on?? First ellen, now this.

Btw, I watched the Ellen nacho clip and she emphatically makes nacho specify that she (Ellen) met H&M through him (nacho). That seemed so weird to me, to make sure that point is driven home. Ellen is also famously friendly with Kris Jenner and the whole Kardashian clan, so explains Kim's endorsement. She is friends with Hillary, Obama. She is friends with pink. All those celebrities who all have some common link have all come out in support of megs. Who next? JLaw? Ashton kucher? Justin Timberlake? Ellen's new friend George W Bush?
Liver Bird said…
William famously used to cut off any and all 'friends' who spoke to the media.

Yet Harry and Meghan's 'friends' seem to be doing so on a near daily basis, and the 'friendships' remain. The reason is - and has to be - that they are speaking with the tacit if not explicit approval of the Harkles.

Take this Nacho guy. We're told he's 'friends' with Harry yet given their lifstyles and the fact that they live on different continents I doubt they see each other more than a few times a year tops. How is it that he's now responsible for being Harry's official media 'friend' yet the friends who have known Harry since childhood, who went to school with him and know him really well, never ever talk to the press? Of course hunky polo dude would benefit from a royal association and getting himself into the media, so there's that. And wasn't it revealed, after he stuck up for his great friend Harry in privatejetgate, that he was a stakeholder in the private jet company which the Harkles used to fly to Ibiza?

Like I say, always some catch with this crowd. Always.
Miggy said…
She's back to posting quotes on Instagram. Maya Angelou.

I knew she couldn't stay quiet.

Meh.
Girl with a Hat said…
I find it depressing that these people who have achieved something of note, like Maya Angelou and other people she has quoted, are being used by a woman so cynical she actually faked her own pregnancy. For people who aren't believers in that theory, a woman who had her then husband sign an agreement to pay for her to get back in shape after a pregnancy. She really values nothing and no one except the almighty dollar.
Meghan is taking many a decently well liked celebrities and ico s down with her. Hillary. Michelle Obama. Oprah. George Clooney. Shirt dresses. All forever ruined.

What I don't get is that celebrities, especially high profile ones wouldn't dare to breathe in the same space as a controvercial subject. The MeToo movement, equal pay, paedophilia are subjects people won't publicly speak up about. But this two bit wannabe royal pain comes along,with nothing to show for her credentials, an obviously embellished resume and they support her left right centre like their livelihood depends on it.

Not one person has the balls to ask her to prove her worth, to build her body of humanitarian work. Not one person has the guts to say that she is having a hard time settling into her role because she is not listening to the people whose job it is to guide her help her settle into the family.
Louise said…
Miggy: Someone noted in the comment on Smirkle's IG page that she wrote "women" instead of the required singular "woman", as "in each time a woman...." and not "each time a women..."

Details, details.....
Liver Bird said…
@Alice

" they support her left right centre like their livelihood depends on it. "

Do they though? I've noticed there hasn't been a word from the Clooneys about their great friend for ages now, even though George was previously very vocal about how awful it was that poor Meghan was being 'hounded' by the press. Seems like they are keeping their distance.

I'd say all of these celebrities' 'support' for her is very shallow, just like her. They 'support' her because they want some sort of link with the prestige of the royal family, and want to keep themselves in the news. In turn, she uses them to keep herself in the news. It's all about mutual using. Quite cynical but that's how these people roll. If Meghan were to fall out of favour with the royals, you wouldn't see these 'friends' for dust.
Liver Bird said…
Here's a Maya Angelou quote Meghan might want to take to heart:

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The first time."
@Liver Bird .. I agree, the relationship seems transactional. However, you point out that "they drop her if she were to drop out of favour with the royals" ... She has sort of dropped out of favour with the royals. It seems to me, that with the onslought of celebrity endorsements for her (yes, most of these are has been, but still), what if the royals become wary of dropping her because of the public backlash they would receive? Doesn't it seem like that's already the case now?


It's so disheartening. :(
Anonymous said…
@ Liver Bird I have no idea why Hillary Clinton would endorse Meghan Markle, but I am guessing it's because Hillary isn't concerned about ratty wigs, rapacious merching, and a massively fudged resume so much that Meghan's message--albeit nothing more than a lot of word salad with a massive helping of feminist vinaigrette--is, ostensibly, right on target for Hillary. Of course, Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime actually DOING all the things that Ms. Markle says she's done. Regardless of your political stance, Clinton's record on legislating for children and women is impressive. I will also point out that your comment, "most hated woman in America," warrants a raised eyebrow in my corner of the world. She won the U.S. popular vote by 3 million votes, so I'm not sure where you're getting that.
Miggy said…
@Louise

"Someone noted in the comment on Smirkle's IG page that she wrote "women" instead of the required singular "woman", as "in each time a woman...." and not "each time a women..."


Thank you for pointing that out.

My visit to her Instagram page was so brief, I managed to miss that blunder!

I think she's so desperate to stay in the limelight that she gets sloppy.


Glow W said…
Linda Ellerbee was interviews in Gayle King’s documentary and she spoke glowingly of a young MM. I don’t know if you can still watch it? 🤷🏼‍♀️ Just pointing out that might be a missing piece for some.
Miggy said…
That should have read "... sloppy in her rush to post."

I wish there was an edit button. :)
Glow W said…
Leaked stills from the Africa video dropped today, saw on tumblr, that show gasp, Harry holding Archie.
Liver Bird said…
@Alice

"She has sort of dropped out of favour with the royals."

I'm sure behind the scenes the senior royals are most displeased with her antics, but she's still HRH, still gets to go on offical tours, still does engagements etc. So if you are a 'celeb' looking for an 'in' with the royals, she's easily your best bet as none of the others are interested in pursuing faux friendships with celebs for PR purposes.

Now, if she and Harry were to divorce acrimoniously, and if it were to become a 'If you're friends with Meghan then you can have no access to the real royals' type of thing, you can be sure all of her new 'friends' would drop her like a stone.

"what if the royals become wary of dropping her because of the public backlash they would receive? Doesn't it seem like that's already the case now?"

I really don't know why people expect the royals to 'drop' Meghan. That simply doesn't happen. She is married to the queen's grandson and an HRH. The very most they could do would be to encourage Harry to divorce her, like the queen did with Charles after Diana's antics - which of course were much more damanging to them than anything the wife of irrelevant Harry has done. But there's no sign of that happening yet. Unless Harry decides to divorce her, Meghan will remain a member of the royal family. She cannot be 'dropped', unfortunately.
State opening of parliament. The Cambridge tour begins in a few hours. So obviously...we had to see Harry holding Archie. Let's wait a couple of days more, Kate in Lahore visiting the mosque or the hospital wing Diana opened and we might just see Harry singing a lullaby to Archie.
Liver Bird said…
"Leaked stills from the Africa video dropped today, saw on tumblr, that show gasp, Harry holding Archie."

"Leaked" in the same way that Meghan's new bestest buddy Kim Kardashian's sex tape was 'leaked'. Which means: intentionally given to the media to drum up interest in what promises to be a massively dull 'documentary'. Using their private citizen baby as bait.
Glow W said…
PMK might have leaked them, how do I know? I don’t care who leaked them. I don’t care if it is a vast conspiracy etc.

BTW, I am worried about the queen. At her queen’s speech she sounded like she has or is getting a cold. Plus it looks like she dropped weight. I hope nothing is wrong there.
Liver Bird said…
"PMK might have leaked them, how do I know? I don’t care who leaked them. I don’t care if it is a vast conspiracy etc."

I'm not sure how 'leaking' a few dull stills from an equally dull 'documntary' amounts to a vast conspiracy.

It's just normal practice from PR hungry 'celebrities', no matter how naive some of their fanz might be.
SwampWoman said…
Wizard Wench says: Of course, Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime actually DOING all the things that Ms. Markle says she's done.

Nope. She's spent a lifetime clutching onto Bill's coattails in her sham of a marriage. She's covered up Bill's rapes and absolutely destroyed the women that dared complain about him. Two birds of a feather.
Glow W said…
People don’t want to watch the documentaries and then act like things happened or didn’t happen based on their lack of information. For instance, Linda Ellerbee did indeed corroborate the PG letter story in the Gayle King Documentary.
BigFanUSA said…
OH. MY. WORD. Yesterday a video popped up on my Instagram explore page of Rachel Meghan being interviewed while in South Africa, and at one point she giggles demurely, blushes, and looks away in *embarrassment* before purring that Harry will be returning that day from his solo travels and that she "misses him so much!!!" Something about it is so clearly insincere it makes me wonder if they literally ever spend one minute together outside of appearances. Barf-o-rama! The camera is closely on her the whole time, and she constantly does that strange eye widening, close mouthed demure smile she's always doing. Also she mentions her schedule being worked around Archie's "feed times." Why, so she can micro managewhile the nannies do all the actual work? Also...I watched *THAT* video. The naughty one. It's either her, or her identical twin sister. There are a few things "off" about her though; her hair/ wig is better than Rachel's ever was before the Royal Wedding, and her chest is larger and not as perky as we've seen Rachel's to be. Either way, if there was a video like this starring Kate's doppelganger you'd think we'd hear about it from SOME news outlet SOMEWHERE. Instead, you're only hearing about it in comments sections on blogs. Curiouser and curiouser indeed.
Maggie said…
@Liver Bird - agree all these expressions of support are purely transactional. HRC and MM have Sarah Latham in common and HRC has a book to promote. All statements of support have been confined to a single example per celeb. The exception is Ellen who is looking for an interview; nothing from Oprah (she has the mental health thing) and Gayle King seems to have called it a day.

Serena has dumped the bad juju MM who was present at two Grand Slam finals she lost.

Priyanka Chopra went out of her way to deny she had met Archie.

Most endorsements have been made by Americans who likely view the UK as a pointless little country, so what's to lose?

Her fans aren't Brits so there wouldn't be a negative backlash amongst the people who matter. I think it's more a matter of acting as though we're still in the mid-20th century.

Failing to act is causing immense damage. And the suggestion that it would be viewed as based in racism is insane. Her skin is lighter than many South Europeans, people like her are absolutely not different. She flatters herself if she thinks her heritage makes her special!

What makes her different is her appalling behaviour and the messy way she presents herself. I would be appalled if my daughters went out looking so scruffy.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Internet is alive again with pictures of her size/shape shifting bump. The recent buzz is the the re-run of her "popping" tummy when she stands up from doing an impossible squat with knees together. I have never been pregnant so can't judge but everybody who had been says it is impossible. What nailed her lie for me was disappearance of her bump during a bar visit in NY when she tried to cover with her bag and journalist is heard asking "where is the baby?" Her defenders say pregnant bump may change but I refuse to accept it can change to such great extent.
Marie said…
Everyone endorsing Meghan are celebrities trying to raise their own profiles. I tend to think Hillary's endorsement of Meghan was actually to promote "her" book, which probably was more of a project to get Chelsea working. So it's like a terrible neverending chain of endorsements to the bottom of the talentLESS pool. Why was Chelsea Clinton even being interviewed? She's as bad as Meghan and Harry riding on the coattails of someone who actually did something original, even if perhaps not particularly popular, with their life. I also disagree with statements that Hillary Clinton is hated. In my opinion, she's controversial but at least spent her life doing something, particularly before she was launched into the international spotlight as First Lady. Chelsea can giggle with Meghan about how they both fleeced foundation donors to fund their own lifestyles and launch their lacklustre careers. (NB Bill Clinton vehemently denies using foundation "funds" for Chelsea's wedding, but we all know how precise ex-lawyers are with language. Allegedly the Wikileaks emails show an advisor complaining that Chelsea used foundation resources for her wedding and was paid for her work).

Also, no big surprise that "stills" were leaked. For people so "private" and into "secret" projects, Meghan and Harry never seem able to stop promoting themselves into the spotlight. The hypocrisy and self promotion just never ends. I thought she might adapt and leave her ambitious actress/Instagram influencer ways in America. But instead, she's bringing them into the family.
Liver Bird said…
"For instance, Linda Ellerbee did indeed corroborate the PG letter story in the Gayle King Documentary."

Could be because almost nobody in Britain knows or cares who Linda Ellerbe or Gayle King are.
Glow W said…
It’s not impossible (I’m not agreeing or disagreeing that she was pg or not) and I did have a belly that defied logic and moved around weird. So who knows? Maybe Harry is his paranoia made her wear a bullet proof belly thing. How would we know?

In one video, in her cream colored dress (not the giant get up in Morocco), the movement to me was very clearly a Braxton Hix contraction. I’m just naming that one particular movement.

At any rate, Archie is officially in the line of succession and PH has referred to him as “my son” numerous times and Meghan as “my wife” so I agree with LB that MM is here to stay until a divorce. She is who he chose and like her or not, she is here now.
Glow W said…
Linda Ellerbee is a very highly regarded journalist in the USA. If she says it happened, it happened.
Glow W said…
“Nickelodeon’s Linda Ellerbee, who is also featured in the special, provides the most adorable anecdote about a then 12-year-old Meghan. After watching a Procter & Gamble dishwashing commercial that Meghan deemed sexist, she wrote to Linda. At the time, Linda was the executive producer and anchor of Nick News. After she profiled the adolescent Meghan, Procter & Gamble changed their marketing campaign. “I knew after that story that this little girl wasn’t going to change,” Linda said. “That she was going to change her world.”

https://www.closerweekly.com/posts/meghan-markle-american-princess-special-158543/
Liver Bird said…
A "highly regarded journalist" who peddles 'adorable anecdotes' for a cartoon channel?

OK. You've convinced me now. Meghan is fab! Harry is great! Anyone who disagrees is a jelly h8er!
SwampWoman said…
Fairy Crocodile (what a great name!) says: Her defenders say pregnant bump may change but I refuse to accept it can change to such great extent.

Well, my babies would turn sideways, diagonally, and everything in between. They never disappeared, though. There could be a little bump coming out of the bigger bump as a little foot or hand pushed against the wall, or a head turned. There was never any jelly-like shaking across the whole thing.
Glow W said…
The Cambridge’s have just arrived in Pakistan btw
Glow W said…
Exactly, @swampwoman
Glow W said…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Ellerbee
punkinseed said…
I agree SwampWoman. Mine was Frank's Breach and even then she could turn a lot, but not like a jelly wiggle. She'd get the hiccups now and then but even so, no shaking like that Meg Moon bump.
Louise said…
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/541133-prince-william-kate-middleton-touch-down-at-rawalpindis-noor-khan-airbase

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge arrive in Pakistan.

Katherine nails an appropriate outfit that resembles the local dress.

This is how Royals should disembark from a flight whilst on a Royal tour..... not in jeans and a wrinkled suit. This s what people want and expect.
Glow W said…
catherine’s dress is gorgeous, it’s blue ombré and just perfect.
Liver Bird said…
@Louise

Yes, Will and Kate look great - dignified and respectful of local customs. No games with the press or dressing like you it's a day outat the local youth centre. No sign of baby Louis?
Glow W said…
Cambridge tour live link https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ptv.com.pk%2Fpublic%2FptvCorporate%2Fnewslive&t=NTM5YmNlNWNjMDhiNmFlOTg5NzM3NWRkOGE4NjdiMjJjMmM4ZDVhZixhMzliYTkwZWRkZmU1ZjdjNzI3MmNlZmNhMjJkNzg1YjdhMTczMDA2
Glow W said…
http://live.arynews.tv/#
Louise said…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVaA4mfU0d4

You can see here that she is even wearing the salwar (loose fitting trousers) of the national dress.

And, William greets the dignitaries with a handshake, followed by Katherine. No jostling for position, no hugs and no handholding.

God save the Queen.
Liver Bird said…
@Louise

I used to be very critical of the Cambridges. Still am in some ways. But now that I see how much worse it could be, I am so grateful that William happened to be born first and that he chose the wife he did.
Liver Bird said…
I see it's only a 5 day tour so I'm guessing they left baby Louis at home?
Girl with a Hat said…
There's a blind item about the Cambridges supposedly splitting up over the last year because of William's supposed affair with that Rose woman. Meghan strikes again.
ALICE said…
Catherine is of an absolute class. Her clothes are always adapted to the situation she finds herself in. She is elegant, graceful and does the job well ( and has the most beautiful legs of the gotha, in my opinion but it's not that important) Her attitude is already royal. Meghan is a clothing disaster. Common always, vulgar sometimes and at the opposite of the behaviour of a royal highness. It is to be hoped that William and Catherine will no longer travel by plane with their children and that this trip to Pakistan (described as a high-risk trip) will go as smoothly as possible. Can you imagine Harry and Meghan very, very close to the throne? Just the thought of this catastrophic scenario makes me dizzy.
Rainy Day said…
I’m looking at the coverage of the State Opening of Parliament and the Pakistan visit. So nice to see the adults are behaving and are in charge!
Girl with a Hat said…
@Alice, there's one thing that Catherine does that I really didn't like - it was her open mouthed laugh. I supposed we're all allowed one little thing that distracts from perfection, so I am now thinking that it is endearing.

She really looks genuine in her enjoyment of people and situations, and she has a contagious good humour.

She and William also seem to have a very strong affection for each other.

Liver Bird said…
Also, her dress is by Catherine Walker, a British designer and Diana's favourite.
Anonymous said…
Are George and Lottie on this tour?
Liver Bird said…
No. They are at school. Doesn't seem Louis is there either. Probably not worth hauling the little lad across the world on what is considered a 'high-risk' tour, especially when it's only 5 days.
Louise said…
Rainy Day: "I’m looking at the coverage of the State Opening of Parliament and the Pakistan visit. So nice to see the adults are behaving and are in charge!"

Was thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, Smirkle is up to her usual tricks today, releasing more photos of Archie from the African vacation in order to "shine a light" on herself. The competition with Katherine is bad enough, but now Smirkle is even trying to take attention from the British Parliament and Her Majesty.
QueenWhitby said…
Yes @ Liver Bird it’s been reported children stayed at home..

Kate’s ensemble is gorgeous and on point (I’m biased, I truly love anything Catherine Walker designs), but already the inevitable comparisons are being made to what Di wore. They are not even similar except for the fact that they are in the local style.

I really hope they stay away from the Diana copying/emulation/tributes and forge this tour as their own.

Louise said…
Queen Whitby: Diana is bound to come up in conversation as the current PM of Pakistan was married to one of Diana's best friends.. Jemima something.
Miggy said…
Jemima Goldsmith/Khan
Jenx said…
Kate is wearing a lovely take on the traditional shalwar kameez. While it is a lovely colour, I don't think it suits her.
Re: pregnancy convo. I, too, am short waisted like MM and there just isn't a lot of room for babies. The abdomen gets very tight very quickly. The high one day, low the next, over to one side, the jiggle, the deflation and of course the whole contraption dropping to her knees in the purple dress. Puh-lease. I am also a long-time yogi and no way that squat would happen. Even folks with regular bigger bellies can have trouble squatting like that. So, just no.
Miggy said…
Where are the leaked photos of the African tour?

Can someone please nudge me in the right direction?

TIA
Girl with a Hat said…
@Miggy - try charlatan duchess on tumblr.

https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/
@Miggy, ‘Where are the leaked photos of the African tour?

Honestly, seeing how tightly the Sussex’s ‘cherish’ their privacy could anyone seriously believe they were leaked? More like accidentally on purpose, seeing how desperate they are for attention, and to upstage any other senior royals.
Louise said…
Miggy: The Daily Mail is also showing new photos of the baby.. with moderated comments. All the stories about Smirkle are not pre moderated, while the story about William and Kate is wide open for insults.

Apparently threatening to sue a newspaper works.....
@Louise, ‘Apparently threatening to sue a newspaper works.....’

For while they’ll be moderated, then the DM uploads the lot, it’s a thing they do at times. Though, they have been moderating comments on Sussex’s before the lawsuit. So, we shall see.
Jdubya said…
have you seen this preview video for the special H&M have coming up?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7571459/Prince-Harry-cradles-baby-Archie-Meghan-Markle-kisses-sons-head-new-ITV-documentary.html

that poor baby. H is at least supporting his head but he is jammed up against his chest and M is just touch touch touching that kid. very bizarre
Nutty Flavor said…
Sorry for my absence, all - busy at work.

@Tatty, you're welcome to come here, discuss the case, and give an alternate opinion.

You're not welcome to come here and insult people.

I've deleted your most recent comments and will delete any future comments that are more about flaming than about adding to the discussion.
Glow W said…
@jdubya the one thing I wondered about Archie is if he has what my nephew had... something with the neck muscles and the cross eye. My nephew has to wear a helmet and he favors one side, so how my SIL held him and the positions he would be in all depended on what the therapists had. I never looked deep into what Lady Louise had and certainly 5 months old... muscles are lax. And yes, maybe they are two doofuses trying to hold a baby down in a weird way. I think we can all agree Archie seems to have one “wonky” eye. I’ll have to google what it is my nephew had, starts with a T.
CookieShark said…
Their insatiable need to be in the press daily is so grating. It has been overkill of H&M stories, particularly MM, since the Trooping. And the "Harry holds Archie" feature today only highlights that he appears to have difficulty holding a baby.

I will never believe that they want privacy. They're not acting like it at all. They are acting like people who cannot stand to let others have any type of attention.
I was listening to a lecture on NPD and the facilitator described how those with NPD have a very dark world view. They assume the worst about others and have a very sinister perspective. Individuals stricken with NPD make every event about themselves, no matter how clearly it is about someone or something else.

It struck me how the Tutu meeting was made to be about Archie, not Tutu. This was a meeting that was an opportunity for H&M to listen to someone else and learn from their wisdom. There is much they might have gained. But they brought Archie and so everyone is looking at them with the baby previously so hidden. It didn't matter they were meeting with Tutu, as everyone was watching Archie.
Girl with a Hat said…
@Jdubya, yes, that child looks very detached from his "parents". Usually, there is eye contact and recognition from a child towards his mother and father. In this case, poor little tyke doesn't seem to interact with anyone, let alone his parents.

I believe he's already suffering from an attachment diorder brought about by neglectful parenting.

A mother needs to look her child in the eye and smile lovingly at him often during the early months for the child to be able to form an attachment. I see Kate doing this often to her children, but I have yet to see Meghan and Harry do it to Archie. They just hold him like a sack of potatoes.
cutmasterC said…
Nutty, I think you might have missed a few. How disappointing that one person can pollute this blog with such juvenile comments. I don't comment often, but most people here are capable of respectfully disagreeing without resorting to name calling and childish rhymes. I appreciate your attempts at keeping this a nice discussion space.
Nutty Flavor said…
Just spent about 20 minutes on it. If I'm still missing some, give me some time codes (12:48 or whatever) and I will look again.
Maisie said…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q0P94wyBYk

I believe that MM was inspired by the Enjole perfume adds whilst growing up. Hope you all have a good chuckle.
Nutty Flavor said…
@Mischi, I saw that ridiculous CDAN blind item about Will and Kate, complete with all the never-before-seen posters who come out of nowhere to support it.

It's never been clear how Enty benefits financially from his website, which he clearly spends a lot of time on. (Google Ads don't pay all that much.)

Is Enty - or for that matter Ace at Blind Gossip - above a paid placement here or there? Sunshine Sachs has long tentacles.
punkinseed said…
Thank you Nutty for deleting the icky comments and giving a warning.
Liver Bird said…
"It struck me how the Tutu meeting was made to be about Archie, not Tutu. This was a meeting that was an opportunity for H&M to listen to someone else and learn from their wisdom. There is much they might have gained. But they brought Archie and so everyone is looking at them with the baby previously so hidden. It didn't matter they were meeting with Tutu, as everyone was watching Archie."

This disgusted me too.

If you're lucky enough to have the great honour of an audience with one of the most venerable figures of the past half century, you go along humbly and you give them all your attention. You don't hijack the event by hauling along an innocent little baby, using it as a merching opportunity and then 'leaking' footage bit by bit to maintain interest.

And don't get me started on 'Arch meets Archie'. So disrespectful to refer to an elderly Nobel Prize winner as 'Arch', and to act as though the honour was for him to meet a 4 month old baby, not the other way round.

They are a disgrace.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Just want to say it is so nice to see royals dressing and behaving royally. Well done to Wills and Kate. And thank you everybody here for maintaining a polite discussion and to Nutty for her gentle moderation to sustain this. My respect to you.
Glow W said…
Just throwing this out there. You have to hold the baby to the non preferred side.
https://www.seattlechildrens.org/globalassets/documents/for-patients-and-families/pfe/pe347.pdf

Who knows why they hold Archie odd. We just don’t know.
cutmasterC said…
Kate has such a classiness about her and carries herself so well. MM seems to be one of those who thinks money can buy class. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Marie said…
Someone uploaded ITV's trailer for the HazMat documentary on Youtube. This 20sec trailer is as cringe-inducing as we all predicted, can't imagine what the actual whole film will be like. In the 20sec trailer, they paint the tour as a success, show unseen footage and closeups of Archie including Harry holding Archie, then transition to a close-up of their hands holding, then pan out to a cluster of paparazzi whilst the narrators says "but also the pressure and pain behind the brave faces". Didn't we all say this documentary would use gratuitous footage of Archie to gather interest and then focus on crowds of paparazzi with their telephoto lenses to make us feel sympathy for HazMat?

So predictable. I'm half expecting her weird style of quotes with random italicization and capitalisation to fade in and out of the screen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=MtsoTjTH8hw

TWO television documentaries in less than a year for the sixth-in-line to the throne and his wife. Wonder when she'll pen her memoir. Next year?

So far, they have spent time with families watching their children receive end-of-life care in hospices, military veterans with legs and arms blown off and suffering PTSD, children born with AIDS, dogs and cats who were abandoned and taken to a shelter, gone to visit some of the poorest cities of Britain and some of the poorest countries in the world. His father and mother had their divorce publicly and messily dragged in the papers, his father mocked mercilessly for his tampon comments, his step-mother criticised as a house-breaker, yet they have both remained stoically silent with their feelings on the matter. And HazMat are so self-absorbed to be involved in yet ANOTHER documentary, this time describing their pressure and pain because wah wah, the comments on Instagram, Twitter, and Daily Mail aren't 100% positive and adoring as Madam I-only-read-the-Economist and Mister I-can't-really-read-so-my-wife/staff/army friends-writes-my-missives think they deserve to have. Where is someone in the BRF to shake some sense and perspective into these spoiled little children?

Ilona said…
@tatty "... Archie seems to have one “wonky” eye. The correct term is Strabismus, commonly called a squint. It happens often in young babies up to three months old but if it doesn't go away by itself then the eye needs ophthalmological intervention at some point. I had the problem and my eye was operated when I was 6.
Marie said…
I meant to say after describing all the people they've met who suffer, and yet they still describe what they do on a weekly, if not monthly basis, as "pressure and pain". If you can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen. Take a break and work on their mental health - fine. Or work, but without all the complaints and sighs and huffs. What should not continue is this pretending to soldier on bravely and stoically whilst complaining to every celebrity and every media outlet about how hard their life is.
Unknown said…
My take on the way in which Meg held Archie’s hand as they approached the Desmond’s residence as well as how Harry is holding him so tightly to his chest is to prevent him from reaching out to his ‘real’ caregiver, his nanny, who is standing just out of frame. I would bet the child scarcely knows who they are.
Glowworm
Liver Bird said…
"I meant to say after describing all the people they've met who suffer, and yet they still describe what they do on a weekly, if not monthly basis, as "pressure and pain".

I know!

I want to scream at them "GET OVER YOURSELVES FFS!" What a pair of narcissitc, utterly self-absorbed fools. It's as though the world revolves around them and their petty problems. You'd swear nobody else - royal or otherwise - had ever had to deal with bad press, or in their case, press that is not always 100% fawning (because a lot of the time it is just that). And it's not even as though they depend on press for their 'jobs'. That's the thing about being 'royal'. You're in it for life whether or not you're any good, and whether or not the media like you. Any other famous person would be thrilled with that - I mean, even the Kardashians have to earn their keep, sort of.

"Wonder when she'll pen her memoir. Next year?"

She's keeping that for the divorce in the hopes of huge offers for her royal tell-all. But I expect the royals have learned from the Sarah Ferguson debacle and will ensure that any divorce settlement comes with a watertight NDA.
Glow W said…
@Ilona do you think he could have that or too soon to tell? IIRC, Louise’s was cause by her prematurity whereas Archie was late. My nephew had a bit of a squint (little Torticollis and little squint so had to only wear helmet 3 months when he was under 1 year old). It would explain them holding him like the photo in the link.
SwampWoman said…
Mischi says: @Jdubya, yes, that child looks very detached from his "parents". Usually, there is eye contact and recognition from a child towards his mother and father. In this case, poor little tyke doesn't seem to interact with anyone, let alone his parents.

I believe he's already suffering from an attachment disorder brought about by neglectful parenting.

A mother needs to look her child in the eye and smile lovingly at him often during the early months for the child to be able to form an attachment. I see Kate doing this often to her children, but I have yet to see Meghan and Harry do it to Archie. They just hold him like a sack of potatoes.


Yes. They seem like strangers to him. I haven't noticed him smiling and wriggling with delight when they speak to him. Perhaps I've missed it.

Unknown said…
@Glowworm here: very astute observation, @CookieShark regarding how Archie was made to be the center of attention when they met with Tutu. Shocking really how with every sighting of her our (unprofessional) dx of Meg as having NPD is validated. Truly, the baby is just, really ‘just’, an extension of her.
abbyh said…

Back to the topic ... I agree that the meeting with Tutu (and the chance to talk with someone who has something worth saying) became a look at the baby where as the meet the moms became listen to me and not look at something we have in common.

Watched that trailer for the upcoming doc and thought: Snowflake trauma and pain but lots of look at our baby (on film) and clothing issues. Still all about how we control our image.

It will be interesting to see where the Morton book sells.
cutmasterC said…
I want to be clear I was not calling Mm a pig. It is an old saying kind of like you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It was not an anyway a remark towards her weight. I do not think she is overweight by any means.
Girl with a Hat said…
@tatty, it doesn't explain the lack of interaction they both have with him. They never look at him in the eyes and try to make a connection.

Like Kate does here at around the 00:40 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btsnaJ3RkrA
Liver Bird said…
Just had a proper look at the pics..... Harry looks as though his friend handed him his baby to hold for a few minutes while he had to rush off. He looks as though he's never held a baby before. I don't think I've ever seen a parent hold a child so low down and so flat against the body like that. Normally, when you hold a baby, he or she sort of moulds themselves to your body. But poor Archie is just hanging there.

Let me add that I don't buy into any of the surrogacy/fake baby theories. I do think Archie is their son. I just don't think either of them spend much time with him.
Miggy said…
Thanks to all who replied to my query.

Wow - even Harry looks awkward holding Archie.

I wasn't expecting that.







lizzie said…
@tatty, no we don't know why they hold Archie the way they do but it sure looks awkward to me. But I don't think it has anything to do with holding his head to the "non-preferred" side because of torticollis. While he's often held low and smushed flat against M's lower chest (and now against H's in the trailer) we've seen him held like that with his head facing right AND left--in the polo pictures, in the private jet pictures, in the M carrying A in the airport in Africa pictures...
Marie said…
@Liver Bird, that's a good point that they don't even rely on press for their job security bc it's an appointment for life. Never thought about that but it's completely accurate. Makes their whinging about unfavourable press even more gag-inducing.
Mimi said…
They hold him that way so he can’t look up at their faces and start crying because he doesn’t recognize them.
Mimi said…
He was big enough, old enough, strong enough to hold his head up perfectly fine when he was sitting or standing on her lap at the Desmond Tutu meeting. He doesn’t need his head supported!
lizzie said…
@mimi..true. Archie seemed to be doing a pretty good job holding his head up in the two christening photos too. Seems older than his stated age to me. Louis looked much younger in his christening photos than Archie did in his even though Louis would have been older than Archie when christened (about 11 weeks vs about 9 weeks)
Liver Bird said…
@Marie

"it's an appointment for life."

It's not even an appointment! They just have to be born or get married and they're set for life! Incredible privilege and these tools are still ungrateful whingers.
Mimi said…
Lizzie, we have gone round and round about Archie’s true age. That was one HUGE 5 month old they took to SA. And why put newborn size socks on a baby that looks like he is 9 months? To hide his not 5 month old, but more like 9 month old feet?
Louise said…
Marie: Thanks for the link to that preview video.

"... pressure and pain behind the brave faces". What pressure? The press were nice to them, as were the locals. If you want to talk about pressure, look to William and Kate visiting one of the most dangerous countries in the world.

This actually sounds more like the lawsuit prequel, explaining how "they don't make it easy", with Africa there just for decoration. Who paid for this prolonged You Tube type, selfie video?

lizzie said…
@mimi, I knew Archie's age/size had been discussed. But I was really struck by the differences in the christening pictures of Louis and Archie. Yeah, every baby is different but Louis was not only about two weeks older than Archie when christened, he had outweighed him by over a lb at birth. (8 lbs 6 oz vs 7 lbs 3 oz) Yet Louis appeared smaller and younger than Archie in the photos. Honestly Archie looked closer to George's age and size when George was christened in late October after his late July birth (almost 14 weeks old vs Archie's stated not quite 9 weeks.) Just odd.
Louise said…
Re: the baby photos.... I have rarely seen a baby held so awkwardly.

And what's with all the photos and videos now? I thought that they wanted privacy.

I guess that it was true that she wanted to unveil him in Africa, like in the Disney film "The Lion King"
JL said…
Re Nacho.
My jaw dropped when I saw the tape of him on Ellen and he actually called the Harkles “heros.”
Then Ellen agreed.

Princess Alice of Greece, Prince Philip’s mother is a hero because she risked her life during WWII to hide a Jewish family from the Nazis for which she received a posthumous award from Israel.

Prince Philip is a hero because he risked his life fighting in WWII. During the invasion of Sicily, in July 1943, as second in command of Wallace, he saved his ship and all the men on board from a night bomber attack with a quick-thinking ruse.

The Queen is a hero because she accepted her fate and has dedicated her entire life to it.

The two grifting, self-pitying, social-media-addicted narcissist Millenials are not.
gabes_human said…
We we were waiting to see what MeGain would do to detract from W&K’s triumphant reception in Pakistan. According to Twitter and Enty she has hinted that Charles is slip-sliding out on Camilla. Is there no depth to which this wench won’t stoop?
Girl with a Hat said…
gabes, Charles or is it William?

anyway, you have to read this. It's hilarious, and shows how biting British humour can be. (It's about the opening of Parliament, not about Meghan, but still well worth your while)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7572829/HENRY-DEEDES-State-Opening-panto-Parliament.html#comments
Mimi said…
William and Kate, emerging from the airplane upon their arrival. now THAT’s how you look when you arrive in another country and you are representing the queen. Regal, dignified, dressed appropriately, acting appropriately,
1 – 200 of 279 Newer Newest

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