Yesterday's open post, with more than 300 comments, was fascinating; thank you for everyone who shared their insights, expertise, and gossip. (I particularly enjoyed the rumor that Coutts, the bank of British aristocrats, turned Meg down when she applied for a personal account.)
The thread was energized halfway through by Prince Harry's announcement that he was taking initial steps towards a lawsuit against two British news groups in relation to a phone hacking scandal that took place more than 15 years ago.
Why is he suing, and why is he suing now?
Of course, they may just want a payout or a settlement. The British press has paid out many times in the past, including suits brought by the Cambridges and Prince Charles. Just recently, it paid out a few settlements related to the phone hacking suit.
Still, a 15-year-old case seems to be an odd way to get rich, particularly when the phone hacking affected Prince William so much more than Prince Harry.
Granny's picture is on the money for crying out loud, and the family has access to vast riches. How much more do they need?
Also, any lawsuit exposes Harry to discovery (although it apparently much more limited in the UK than it is in the US) and possibly to testifying in person.
Since Harry isn't the world's brightest fellow, being forced to field questions from sharp, highly-paid lawyers for the media companies could be an invitation to disaster.
What do they have to hide?
Many observers are guessing that Harry and Meghan have gone so hard against the press at this inopportune time - they have completely negated whatever good publicity they got from their trip to Africa - because they have something to hide.
Perhaps, they say, a big story is about to break, and Meghan and Harry are trying to inform the outlet in advance that they're lawsuit-happy.
This threatening posture can work: when was the last time you read anything about Tom Cruise's personal life?
But enough people are following the Sussexes that it is pretty easy to guess what they might be trying to suppress.
The thread was energized halfway through by Prince Harry's announcement that he was taking initial steps towards a lawsuit against two British news groups in relation to a phone hacking scandal that took place more than 15 years ago.
Why is he suing, and why is he suing now?
Avoiding unflattering stories
The general consensus is that Harry and Meghan are hoping to intimidate the press into agreeing to avoid unflattering stories about the Sussexes, such as their extensive use of private planes while supposedly advocating for the environment.Of course, they may just want a payout or a settlement. The British press has paid out many times in the past, including suits brought by the Cambridges and Prince Charles. Just recently, it paid out a few settlements related to the phone hacking suit.
Still, a 15-year-old case seems to be an odd way to get rich, particularly when the phone hacking affected Prince William so much more than Prince Harry.
Royals grasping for cash
The spectacle of Royals publicly grasping for cash is also rather unappealing.Granny's picture is on the money for crying out loud, and the family has access to vast riches. How much more do they need?
Also, any lawsuit exposes Harry to discovery (although it apparently much more limited in the UK than it is in the US) and possibly to testifying in person.
Since Harry isn't the world's brightest fellow, being forced to field questions from sharp, highly-paid lawyers for the media companies could be an invitation to disaster.
What do they have to hide?
Many observers are guessing that Harry and Meghan have gone so hard against the press at this inopportune time - they have completely negated whatever good publicity they got from their trip to Africa - because they have something to hide.
Perhaps, they say, a big story is about to break, and Meghan and Harry are trying to inform the outlet in advance that they're lawsuit-happy.
This threatening posture can work: when was the last time you read anything about Tom Cruise's personal life?
But enough people are following the Sussexes that it is pretty easy to guess what they might be trying to suppress.
A few guesses
I have no inside information about what type of story the Sussexes are bracing for. But here are a few quick possible scenarios:
- Ex-employees. Melissa Toubati, Meghan's first personal assistant under the Royals, quit after supposedly having a hot pot of tea thrown at her. Could Melissa be planning an interview, perhaps accompanied by video or audio of Meg behaving in an unladylike manner?
- The surrogate. Perhaps somebody found the register receipt for the baby formerly known as Archificial, or the surrogate contract used to produce him. Maybe one of the many fired nannies is ready to speak out, about Archie's incorrect date of birth if nothing else. (He appears to be about two months older than advertised.)
Or, if a substitute has been used to represent Archie - for whatever reason - perhaps someone recognized him and went to the media. "That's my grandson from Leeds - why is Duchess Meghan holding him?"
- Merching contracts. Many of us were surprised when no media organizations wrote about Archie being used in an H&M advertisement. Could some media organization be planning to use the ad as part of a larger story on Meg and Harry's merching?
- Frogmore Cottage. Those of us following the Sussex story have long been hearing that no one lives at Frogmore Cottage, despite reports of millions of pounds supposedly used on its renovation. Is some news organization ready to break the story of where the Sussexes are really living, and if they are living together? And what happened to all that renovation money?
- Drug use and drug smuggling. Many sources have described both Meghan and Harry as longtime cocaine users. Could there be video of them using the drug, or some type of letter or text messages sent by them trying to acquire the drug? Even more seriously, could there be a case of either Meg or Harry using their position to bring drugs into Britain?
All of these scenarios are pure speculation, and I have no evidence whatsoever that any of them are true.
But these would be the type of scandals that it might be worth the Sussexes' while to head off with lawsuits against the press.
Comments
It's one thing when Heather Mills does it, and a totally different thing when the Queen's grandson does it.
In my opinion, Royals should be above that kind of thing - particularly working Royals.
re: something absolutely huge that will shake the entire royal family and if they make it safely to Christmas "it will be a miracle".
If the Sussexes make it to Christmas or if the Royal Family makes it to Christmas?
Shades of Yekaterinburg.
Africa tour many people commented that the Archers we met in SA is much older than they claim. Some say the charade is treasonous. (As a side note Celt News had the idea that the Harkles were keen to live at Windsor because they can’t be arrested while inside one. Just a notion.)
Archers and the yachting.
(@Nutty if you consider that posing a question is overstepping that is not my intention, but I get it and won’t mind if you delete.)
Here is a question. I think comment boards will be increasingly shut down. For example a recent post in US Magazine on Kate’s Pakistan tour that led with a Markle mention has no comment board. Elton John exclusives in DM—no comment boards. Meanwhile I think SS is successfully seeding the US magazine and tabloid market with pro Sussex articles. And as we know individual bloggers and YouTubers are who see through the Sussexes are being targeted. The point is how to respond to this control and proaganda? The Harkle lies are not important in the global scheme of issues, yet I would like to see to it that the Harkle propaganda is exposed. How to do this when we are up against a purchased and litigated media? I think @Nutty is great, but besides her readers how will the wider audience ever learn the truth? Is there anything we can do?
Oct-4-2019
"As predicted, unlike the previous times, the Sussex shenanigans are gonna impact other brf members heavily this time..the stress it is gonna cause will be bad, very bad..Oct/Nov are gonna be very heavy for the brf, if they can come out intact by December, it'll be a Christmas miracle".
I think you're right about the push to get rid of comment boards, not just for reasons of censorship; they're a pain to maintain (see: Malaysian online casino ads that keep propping up here) and without maintenance the very worst actors take them over. And they're not income-generating for many sites - although I suspect that for the Daily Mail, they are indeed income-generating, particularly on Meghan stories.
Fake medias also have limited lifespans. During the days of the Soviet bloc, no one believed anything the media said. It was all about rumor and what you could puzzle out from outside sources. All those media are gone now.
Indeed!!! And for heaven's sake, why can't they just give it a rest?!
And also, how juicy was that bit about Meg getting turned down for an account?! That's the type of tittle-tattle I live for. LOL
If there was a recent hack and info on a huge story was uncovered (surrogate, drugs, and so on), would that story not already be out there?
Any recent stories citing a secret source (rather than providing actual evidence such as a photograph)? There was the story of the number of nannies they went through in a short time; the story of Harry disappearing for 48 hours; the story, that kept on coming up, of how much The Queen loves and admires Meghan; the story that Meghan wanted to break the Internet and that she wants to be a global brand ... what else? Was the secret source for these stories ohone hacking, or is the lawsuit about the hacking from many years ago and revisiting it is about trying to shut down any photographs and stories that are not controlled by Meghan and Harry?
For a snowflake and a narc, embarrasment is unbearable, and they are not rational nor reasonable in perceiving a slight nor in holding a grudge. My instinct tells me they are trying to shut down rather than hide something big (but the latter would be so much more interesting and there is probably some underlying truth to all that gossip!).
There are a few very good and accurate tarot readers online who foresaw that something big was going to blow up about now (even effect the Pakistan tour), and they have all seen that this is just the beginning (but in the end, which is not too far away, she will blindside Harry, leave him and divorce him, and leave him gutted).
I wonder if it's just anger. Have the others sued? I really have a hard time believing that Meghan has many skeletons, other than just being vain and controlling. Like I thought the hot tea throwing was just a CDAN thing, i.e. unsubstantiated rumour. It doesn't fit with her passive aggressive modus operandi of being the victim and excising people from her like an unwanted wart. Her exes might have dirt, particularly Corey about how the relationship ended, but it'll been seen as tacky and bitter so they never will say anything. Nobody listened to her former agent Gina at Kruger Cowne, whose comments I read as insinuating that Meghan used them to create her global humanitarian profile in order to snag a rich British guy.
Applying this idea is good when trying to work out what the longterm strategy is here.
It does seem fairly simple. PH and MM are going down the victim path, claiming to be innocent actors against an abusive press and public. PH can utilise the sympathy that he gets after his mother died 'due to press harassment', and MM can use the racism card. Enough people (not all) will have sympathy for them about this.
The question is why they are doing this.
1) Money. If PH's lawsuit succeeds then he will get a big payout. Not so clear for MM but it could be fairly decent.
2) Greater control of the press. This has numerous offshoots. Successful libel cases will muzzle the press. This us important for a few reasons:
a) PH and MM really think that they are above the people and are very egotistical about their place in the world. As others have mentioned, they are both (but especially MM) positioning themselves as some sort of elite global do gooder leaders. In order to achieve this then a compliant Press who will only give positive coverage is a vital tool to achieve these ends. Note that achieving their elite do gooder status is key to achieving their monetary goals as well as their ego driven goals.
b) If they lose their cases (or even if they win them!) then it means they can justify moving to the USA to escape their persecutors. This move maximises their earnings potential.
If their court case gambit fails then they still win as it will show to their supporters that they are hounded by the Press and yet still can't win. It's so unfair so we're moving etcetc.
c)Related to point a), there is a good chance there are a lot of embarrassing stories out there. Most likely more about MM as she has been married and has had boyfriends so there must be a lot of stuff floating around. Let alone the yachting/drug taking rumours. Taking pre emptive action is the best way to deal with this.
3) In fairness to PH he probably really does hate the Press and MM has probably stoked this. Now that there is a strategy behind taking them on that he/they will benefit from is all the excuse he has probably ever needed.
4) As mentioned, along with all the strategic reasons, their egos and sense of entitlement is most likely a key driver in all this. Criticism of their saintly lives cannot be tolerated.
I remember reading an interview with Julia Roberts years ago. She said something that stuck with me that applies to all famous people, and that was her ridiculous high levels of pay were the price for losing her privacy. Sums it all up doesn't it.
As another commenter mentioned yesterday, the actual satirical TV show "The Windsors" is filming now.
They must be having conniption fits trying to keep up with current events. Rewrites every day.
That would seem highly unlikely. All royal employees sign strict NDAs. If not, we'd have an 'expose' from a disgruntled former royal servant every other week.
But I agree with Marie above. Much as the gossip lover in me would like to think otherwise, I don't think Meghan is hiding any major scandal. That would surely have come out in the early days of her relationship with Harry, before she had royal protection.
Instead I think it's motivated by:
a) Money. Yes it's extremely tacky for a royal to sue for money, but these are no ordinary royals. And most of these phone hacking cases are settled out of court, with substantial pay-outs.
b) Harry's hatred of the British media. This long predates Meghan of course, but I do think she has egged him on in an attempt to isolate Harry from his own country and pave the way for the Los Angeles exile.
c) A wish to control the media. They basically want to be treated like deities, with no critical comment allowed.
Turbulent times ahead.....
The actions of a thoughtless snowflake and narc, who use the BRF and British people for their own agenda but are completely thoughtless in terms of causing harm to respective families, the BRF as an institution and the British people? It seems they are not being guided by the BRF, but do they have support in his family and in the BRF as an institution? We cannot assume that they do not?
I think it’s more about shutting down the press to try and suppress criticism. As for any potential salacious stories, that could have caused them to make this preemptive move. Well, it’s not stopped the press from releasing stories in the past, especially when it’s in the ‘public’s interest’ and so anything regarding either of them will come to light. Let’s not forget foreign press can release articles first and in far more dirty detail than sometimes the UK press can. We didn’t see Harry’s naked photos of his shenanigans in Las Vegas (2012) in the UK, but other countries did. Though some could be accessed online. That’s another tricky area, no one can truly police the internet, the Sussex’s can’t control that no matter how hard they try.
I think it's all those things they want to hide, feelings of power, their pride and assorted feelings of discontent/lack of never-ending adulation/respect and turning it into revenge against "the enemies". Together, they may have nothing on Nixon.
Yes we did. Viewer discretion advised!
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKwhA92Fb-xg8y-Nf4fgjd82ltj6t9xYNBO9PWm4O-viySHaWg
Now, I am going way out on a speculative limb here. I have been watching MM since the beginning and reading everything, even listening to all the tarot readers. So, I think it is a huge plan of a malevolent design I can't even begin to imagine, but one that could involve the likes of the Obamas, Clintons, Oprah etc.
Perhaps she was a plant, originating with SH. All that seemingly sponsored world travel from SH to SH in the company of MA could have been to determine the extent of her moral bankruptcy. How fully could she be bought. A true sociopath would be required for the role to infiltrate the BRF. She was caught taking pictures at KP, I believe.
Anyway, I think the vacuum in what masquerades as a Soul surprised even the alleged backers. She got a taste of real power, wealth and control and went rogue. She appears to be an insatiable black hole without a conscience with a closet full of transgressions. I hate to mention this, but since this is speculation only, has anyone noticed that the letters for RMM are 666. Creepy.
It will take a formidable force indeed to curtail this juggernaut.
Not in the newspapers we didn’t, not like other foreign papers. I did mention they could be accessed online.
Clive Goodman: "His father thought he would benefit from a short, sharp, shock at a rehabilitation centre"
Yes, Meghan was wearing an eye amulet, wasn’t it for warding off evil eye/spirits? Lol
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-kiss-and-tell-vegas-1296671
Kerry Reichert, who spilled the beans on his naked antics, is now Lady.
Of course, every time I think I have these two figured out I am proven wrong by their increasingly over the top antics, so what do I know? I do know that they don't belong in the venerable institution that is the British Royal Family. The arriviste that is MM is a disgrace and I feel so bad for the Queen having to deal with this mess in her last years on the thrown.
Click on the link I included in my last post. Harry's naked Las Vegas pics were on the front page of The Sun.
Interesting.
Perhaps Harry has got caught up in something similar? And he mistakenly believes that the information about to be released was due to his phone being hacked but is due to some unethical law enforcement personnel selling the information to the papers.
1. An obscure American actress has insinuated herself into one of the most famous & wealthy families in the world.
2. The actress seems to have long been eager to establish herself as some sort of global 'humanitarian' icon, as well as make herself wealthy.
3. She banished all members of her family from her internationally televised wedding except her mother, a demonstrably WOC.
4. Multiple photos of her & her oddly moving & shape shifting uterus were published during her purported pregnancy.
5. An infant of a provenance that has not yet been established as beyond all doubt has been produced.
6. The doubts of the infant's provenance are mostly the result of the hitherto obscure American actress's own actions.
These seem to me indisputable facts, but that is just my opinion. I also think some of them to be very odd & not indicative of a very good character, but that is just my subjective opinion. Others may think what they wish.
Yes, I am aware of The Sun photos but they were edited. I was referring to full unedited photos that appeared in the foreign press.
In future comments , I shall try and go into boring and minute detail, so I could come across as pedantic.
I am a writer of fiction so this post is a whole lot of fun for me, from conspiracy to Revelation to everything in between. Woohoo!
@LiverBird. Troll or no troll, I have heard that torontopaper gets under her skin.
The cover photo of naked Harry standing holding the crown jewels was not 'edited' at all.
Regardless, I don’t come online to get trolled, when I simply made an innocuous comment about a topical subject.
Dealing with Harry's equipment is part of Meg's job description, not ours.
Eh.... you said that no British paper had published Harry's Las Vegas photos, when it is a fact that one did. Pointing that out is hardly 'trolling'. And there were no 'full on frontals' of Harry anywhere - the pic the Sun published, with him holding his hands over his crotch, was the most explicit one published anywhere in the world.
Maybe Samantha has finally written her book and is about to spill those beans?
She's been suspiciously quiet of late.
The Markles were canny enough not to give away all their secrets until they were paid for them.
What's Meg's real age? Where was Doria for much of Meg's teenage years? What really happened with her internship at the US Embassy in Argentina - why did she leave halfway through. Was it really to run off with a married man? What was the story with poor Joseph Goldman Guiliano? Is it possible that Meg had a daughter while in her teens and twenties? Did she ever really graduate from Northwestern, and if so when, and with what degree? How did Meg support herself during the 'hard times' between acting jobs? Did she offer any special favors to producers to get jobs? Why was the breakup with Trevor so bitter - and why did her longtime friends side with Trevor? Is is true that Meg was pregnant during her time on Suits - then suddenly no longer pregnant? Was the father Trevor, or a Canadian hockey player? Was Meg still dating Corey the chef when she began her romance with Harry?
The answers to some of these questions may be G-rated, wholesome, and suitable for family audiences. But I bet the answer to all of them is not, and someone is paying the Markles not to deliver the answers, at least not yet.
I think it is Meg.
Great post.
But I think the legal actions are aimed more at preventing disclosures of future actions, not past actions. While IMO there have been lots of missteps and less-than-royal behaviors since they married (Eugenie's wedding, lots about the pregnancy/Archie, enlisting OTT public defenses from anonymous friends and not-anonymous famous people, private jets while telling us we should protect every blade of grass) in some ways they were likely on their "best behavior" for much of the past 18 months. I don't think that's likely to continue now that they have their own platform and iffy foundation. And they don't want ANY future scrutiny.
One is written by Diana's former private secretary:
"Accusations of media bullying and prejudice are now being launched from the duchess’s homeland. This can be a learning opportunity for some of her celebrity sisters: royal people have to learn the difference between bullying and criticism, between sarcasm and irony. It’s part of the historic deal that’s overseen by the British media holding to account public figures whose lives are subsidised by (usually) benign British taxpayers."
So true. Bullying is NOT the same as criticism.
Then there's this:
"“Follow your dream”, the duke exhorted young Africans last week. Words for the Sussexes to ponder as they survey the royal future through the sheeting rain over Windsor Great Park. And what a dream: celebrity without apology, Gulfstreams without guilt, Sundays without the Sunday papers and happy anonymity for baby Archie. All this plus gold-plated endorsements from two former US first ladies one of whom, Michelle Obama, hails the duchess as “a mould-breaker”.
As the Americans might say, Oh the SHADE!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/05/i-was-by-dianas-side-in-her-press-battles-meghan-harry-patrick-jephson
NPD's can't tell the truth and believe their own fabrications as fact. Then they rage when discovered and confronted. This lawsuit is one of Meg's many histrionic rages to deflect.
Ninaka Priddy has also been uber silent.
@Mischi, that makes sense about the police hack on a drug deal. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" comes to mind for that.
I've been meaning to ask this too when it comes to Megs and Harry's royal status. Do they have diplomatic immunity, translated by Megs to Impunity, when they travel? If so, we hear of the Diplomatic Pouch. How big can a diplomatic pouch be? One pictures a satchel or case, but really, could a pouch be the size of a freight car? And surely, private jets used for diplomatic purposes in their travels would make it much easier to avoid US or EU Customs and IRS declares and searches... Makes it easier for Haz and Megs to avoid running out of their Oxy and Coke stash.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/05/prince-harry-legal-action-alleged-phone-hacking
HAAAAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA
IT s so good. 👏🏼😂🤣😂😂😂😂😂
I even scared my cat LOL-ing at this
☕
Patrick Jephson's article was excellent.
THIS is how you do royal PR. No glamour, no ostentation, just a 'normal' family indulging in a favourite British Saturday afternoon activity. Now of course we are not stupid and we know very well that this 'normal' family will have armed guards at hand and will go home to their taxpayer funded palace by chauffeur driven limo. We know that this was a clever PR move. But that's not the point. The point is that the Cambridges are playing the royal game as it's meant to be played. They are not shoving their wealth and privilege in our faces. They are not whining about someone taking snaps of their kids. They're just getting on with it.
OTT @Scandi Sanskrit- are you on Reddit? I saw a post in the Etsy subreddit and it sounded like a very similar situation to the one you shared in a different comment thread. I'm on Etsy too and yes, you should definitely put your eggs in different baskets!
I agree with Liver Bird that torontopaper accounts seem like a troll. It's creepy too.
Funny that it's in the Observer/Guardian, though. Reads more like a Times or Telegraph piece.
Tom Skyes of the Daily Beast talked with an anonymous source within one of the papers involved in the lawsuit.
"A senior employee at one of the named outlets, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so, told The Daily Beast that they did not believe the allegations related to specific allegations of phone hacking, or phone hacking that had taken place in recent years, but rather to an inference of phone hacking based on the publication of private information.
The source said they did not have detailed knowledge of the complaint lodged by Harry and was basing their speculation on previous legal actions by other claimants.
The source said: “The papers were lodged a week ago. Since 2011 there have been a steady stream of civil cases, and usually they don’t actually have direct evidence of phone hacking, they just say, ‘Well, in 2005 you published this story that you couldn’t possibly have known about unless you had hacked my phone.’
“I suspect this is similar. Now we’re being traduced as phone hackers but in the vast majority of cases someone had actually told us the story and we hadn’t hacked anyone’s phone. Usually the lawyers just settle anyway, because it’s easier, but for some reason Harry has obviously decided he wants to make a big public statement out of it."
What do people think?
Just read this and thought the gang may like it. Spending too much time and mental energy on the puzzle that is H&M. Hope Harry is spending time with the family today.
They could stop the lawsuits claiming Henry is "under stress" and "needing rest" aka a psych eval.
Fruit of the poisonous tree only applies to evidence that typically the prosecution wants to introduce in a criminal trial.
"How big can a diplomatic pouch be? One pictures a satchel or case, but really, could a pouch be the size of a freight car?"
As big as it needs to be.
Do they have diplomatic immunity?
Depends on the situation. This is why Andrew is unlikely to travel to the US until the entire Epstein thing is resolved and he's cleared one way or the other. Royals are granted diplomatic immunity if they are visiting in an official capacity, or accompanying the Queen or government official. If they are private citizens, the British government can request immunity, although it doesn't have to be granted. Also keep in mind that diplomatic immunity can be waived by the government, not the individual. That would be delicious, UK waives immunity for Smet+1 if they are caught committing a crime in a foreign country. Thought just occurred to me... tax evasion is a crime. Other question is, since Meg retains her US citizenship, can she even claim diplomatic immunity arising from her official duties and would a foreign government recognize her as having diplomatic immunity.
I think the next formal family event is the Remembrance Day services, with the family on the balcony. Can’t wait to see the family dynamics at that! I hope Princess Anne does that little side shuffle again to block Meg.
Interesting about the diplomatic pouch and status of royals. It makes me wonder if that's how Megs could go full on Duty Free and dodge the IRS.
It is fantastic that the Cambridges are taking over the headlines. We always love to see them with the kids out and about. And aha! Normal royals don't go out and do things for marching purposes.
I'm wondering if the Cambridge and Sussex will walk together at Sandringham for Christmas this year.
@Nutty : great blog!
This is my 1st post, sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.
I've just got this blind gossip from CDAN :
"What you won't hear in that adjacent royal news is that the betrothed is apparently the former mistress of the soon to be father-in-law."
Do you think it's irrelevant or is it a new attack against Kate from S.S?
If Harry does have evidence and he wins this case, people are going to jail ...
Have been meaning to mention, as an experienced survivor of a Narcissist, the Narcissist will convince their partner that everything is always your fault, no matter what it is. And, to make matters even more crazy, their target always gives in and owns the blame because one gets worn down so much that self esteem and self respect are pretty much shot. Harry is showing all the signs of Megs forcing Harry to take the blame and he's worn out as a result.
I think the real reason Harry doesn't hold the baby is because Megs has told him he can't for whatever reason, probably that she doesn't want a bond to form between Harry and the baby because that would take his undivided attention away from her.
Byline Investigates
NOT AFRAID TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry Set to Claim Princess Diana was Hacked by The Sun AND The Mirror - which then 'Covered Up'
5 Oct. 2019
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry Set to Claim Princess Diana was Hacked by The Sun AND The Mirror - which then 'Covered Up'
PRINCE HARRY CASE TO CLAIM NEWSPAPERS PAID SHADOWY PRIVATES EYES TO SNOOP ON PRINCESS DIANA AND HER ASSOCIATES - WHILE EDITORS PRETENDED TO BE ON HER SIDE
RUPERT MURDOCH’S NEWS UK CEO REBEKAH BROOKS WILL BE DRAGGED BACK INTO THE HACKING SCANDAL
BROOKS WAS THE EDITOR OF THE SUN WHILE HACKING WAS ALLEGED TO BE RIFE - AND HEADED MURDOCH’S COMPANY DURING ALLEGED MAJOR COVER-UP OF PHONE HACKING
DUKE OF SUSSEX IS LIKELY TO CHARACTERISE MIRROR AND SUN EXECUTIVES AS GUILTY PARTICIPANTS WHO SOUGHT METICULOUSLY TO COVER THEIR TRACKS FOR OVER TWO DECADES
ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE SOPHISTICATED CONCEALMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, INVOLVING TOP IN-HOUSE LAWYERS AND BOARD MEMBERS
Screenshot 2019-10-04 at 15.56.56.png
PRINCE Harry’s explosive phone hacking cases are likely to allege The Sun and The Mirror tabloids intercepted the voicemails of his mother Princess Diana, Byline Investigates can reveal.
His claim - if as expected follows the format of other hacking cases to pass through the High Court - will stretch back to include allegations of reporters and private investigators listening to messages about the Prince left on his mother’s phone when he was a child.
Voicemails from, or about, the now 35-year-old Duke of Sussex were also likely to have been left on the phones of Princess Diana’s confidantes and staff, which being targeted by Mirror and News of The World journalists.
Family and tragedy: (l) Diana with her sons William and Harry on a skiing trip . (r) Mourners outside Kensington Palace in 1997. (c) PA
Family and tragedy: (l) Diana with her sons William and Harry on a skiing trip . (r) Mourners outside Kensington Palace in 1997. (c) PA
The claim will also explore whether, even after her death in August 1997, private investigators were hired to illegally target her friends and family.
Piers Morgan and Rebekah Brooks, two of the most powerful figures in British media, have already been named as alleged conspirators in various illegal cover-ups of hacking and blagging at The Sun, News of the World and Mirror titles.
And legal sources with knowledge of the litigation say they can see no reason why the Duke’s claim will be any different.
I'm not certain that the claim of this was for Diana would work because the money ought to go to her estate directly, not H immediately unless her phone was paid for by H (therefore he owned the phone/the plan/the contents/the messages. And, any monies which should go to the estate (which was settled long ago and far away) would probably be divided between the two sons as per the will after the executor(s) took their cut to reopen it (if that is even possible).
This is supposed to be her graduation.
https://archive.org/details/annualcommenceme2003nort/page/20
BS in communication
How accurate can this source be? I'm thinking it is. I looked up my uni and it does not have commencement programs. However, it does have a fair amount of ancient historical stuff that I kinda knew about way back when so ... I'm not thinking photoshop.
In this case, I would call it an outright lie if I were an employer. She claims to have studied International Relations, as even the Royal Family website says under her biography. This was probably to set her up as a humanitarian. But she actually studied communications, which, while doesn't disqualify her, it does actually makes her more suited for PR and other exercises in public sentiment manipulation, errr umm, "influencing." As far as I know, communications is quite unrelated to international relations, which is can be a bit more theoretical. Or maybe communications degree in the States is pretty much the same as an IR degree.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/05/prince-harry-joins-court-case-against-tabloid-hacking-crimes
https://www.internationalstudies.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/
I don't known anything about that school.
I saw it on a Skippy post in mid September and then spent time trying to refind it for Nutty's comment about her graduation above.
Is this the norm for royal tours?
Thank you foe the reply. It was actually rather comforting. Thank you.
My common-sense self knows you are correct. Too bad the Harkles seem to activate not that self. Ha ha.Cheers!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7541785/Duchesss-father-Thomas-Markle-reveals-kept-note-secret-MONTHS-never-intended-share-it.html
The British press are sharks and he knows this, hes trying to limit damaging material coming out. It's a shot across the bows with the lawsuits and nothing more.The DOS needs to remember that if you live by the sword...you die by the sword.
I dont care for MM ....she saw her meal ticket. However I will not lay all the blame for this shambles at her feet. She met a weak and easily manipulated man and went for it. He didn't have the experience to see he had been played.The people with the inside information and experience to steer him away turned a blind eye.
Look for example at the childhood best friend/maid of honor Ninaki Priddy and even Meghan's former agent who arranged for her charity appearances speaking to the press. But why listen to non-celebrities who know one side of Meghan when George Clooney, Michelle Obama, Serena Williams, Ellen, Elton John, and now Desmond Tutu and Graca Machel are all providing glowing character references?
No reporter can piece together the tiny cracks in the facade because it's all circumstantial and will lead to a defamation lawsuit anyway. She's effectively scrubbing her past by discarding or discrediting anyone who has an alternate version of Meghan.
It's rather telling about someone's character when their own siblings, half or not, age difference or not, along with former friends and co workers try to warn a guy not to marry their fiancé, especially one who is engaged to a prince. It's not something people would go around saying unless they honestly believe the bride to be is one heck of a bad choice. If anything, most would put aside any flaws their friend or relative had, cover for her , be very happy for her and gush about her qualities. It became obvious early on that all of those people, especially family members were telling the truth through letters to BP and Harry, the press too, and not being jealous or haters. They were being honest about her from their own experiences.
Those five "anonymous" cowards who spoke about Thomas Markle to People are going to see some subpoenas with their real names soon. Let's see if this flock of birds of a feather lies as much as their so called friend.
Would be fun to start a Markle Malarkey list.
Maire, I hear you about the longer people are in their new and "better" existence, the farther the photoshopped past is in the rear view mirror. I've seen it too.
Except that, in America, there isn't as much super injunction to contain and control people. There is not long standing relationship built over the years to play nice the way the royal reporters have it. And, there is sometimes a schadenfreude when people are exposed, especially lying or cheating.
Legal discovery is a whole 'nother ball game too if this idea of sue to threaten is used over here (especially if it worked well there).
Life has a way of being a great leveler in the long run. You and I might not see it (as much as we wish to) but it does happen.
I am talking REAL evidence. Not fake ( like the birth certificate) or photoshoped, etc. type of evidence...
However, narcissists have extreme senses of privilege, grandiosity, and entitlement, and they believe they are NEVER wrong, which causes them to be furious when called out for bad behavior. They tend to lash out at those who legitimately criticize them, by any means necessary, which in this case, is suing the media outlets that publish articles that show the world who they really are and then allow the public to criticize them in their comments sections. Let’s face it, doxing every person who makes an honest but negative comment about the would be difficult, but if they could put a chill on articles and comments that point out their bad behavior to the world, that might satisfy them - for now, at least.
I think Meghan thought she would be greeted and adored as if she was the Second Coming, but she overestimated her acting ability and underestimated the intelligence and common sense of the public, many who can sniff out a fraudulent personality from a mile away.
However, narcissists have extreme senses of privilege, grandiosity, and entitlement, and they believe they are NEVER wrong, which causes them to be furious when called out for bad behavior. They tend to lash out at those who legitimately criticize them, by any means necessary, which in this case, is suing the media outlets that publish articles that show the world who they really are and then allow the public to criticize them in their comments sections. Let’s face it, doxing every person who makes an honest but negative comment about the would be difficult, but if they could put a chill on articles and comments that point out their bad behavior to the world, that might satisfy them - for now, at least.
I think Meghan thought she would be greeted and adored as if she was the Second Coming, but she overestimated her acting ability and underestimated the intelligence and common sense of the public, many who can sniff out a fraudulent personality from a mile away.
Megs just cannot take criticism. To herself, everything she does is perfect. We all are supposed to worship at her feet for every least little thing she does. If the media keeps reporting all the mistakes she makes, well, they're wrong, and must be corrected. She is the beautiful, special, Saint Duchess of MeAgain, everyone must see that.
And money. She wants it. Needs it. Simple enough. Drag up the old phone hacking chestnut, add in the race card, stir up with a spritz of the damsel in distress routine she hooked Haz with, and give it to her unstable, stressed husband who'll run with it.
As for all the things Meg has tried to cover up, the alleged yachting career, the dysfunctional family dynamics, the merching, the silliness surrounding Archie, etc., etc., well, Mega thinks she's smarter than everyone else, they'll never find out, she simply won't allow that. She's not worried about that because it will never occur to her that she has failed to fool everyone.
@Marie It is horrible to see the lying NPD’s of the world win. I resent that the Harkles PR seems to be working in the States. But once it blows up in the UK, I hope the US will follow suit. I keep spreading the word.
PS Re the Voodoo lady. This story is by Ashley at Danja Zone on YouTube. She claims to know some missionaries in SA who observed some of the tour. She says they know a Voodoo lady (or similar) and attest that when visitors arrive she quietly sizes up their energy and intentions. If she gets bad vibes she protects her community by burning incense or whatnot so the bad Mojo returns right back to the visitors. Allegedly she did this with the Harkles. Seems to have worked. (Talk about third-hand heresay.) Just wanted to credit Danja Zone.
There will be no winners in this royal war with Fleet Street
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have had a highly successful visit to Africa. It has included Prince Harry walking through an Angolan minefield in memory of his mother and in support of the Halo Trust, the mine clearance charity, and an appearance for their son, Archie, who met Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the noted anti-apartheid campaigner. The couple have impressed with their support for serious issues including the tackling of gender-based violence in South Africa.
It is unfortunate, then, that the trip has been overshadowed by the decision by Harry and Meghan to go into battle with tabloid newspapers. On Tuesday they announced that the duchess had begun legal action against The Mail on Sunday, claiming it had broken copyright law by publishing a private letter to her father. Now it has emerged that the duke is suing The Sun (part of News UK) and the Daily Mirror over the alleged hacking of his mobile phone.
Neither of the actions appears to be guaranteed success. The private letter was released by Meghan’s father to correct an impression given by some of her friends in an article in People magazine, which had included references to it. The phone hacking claim may fall foul of the six-year limitation period. Serious wrongdoing was done in the phone-hacking scandal but a newspaper has closed down and prison sentences have been served.
The duke has enjoyed affectionate support from the tabloids for cherished causes such as help for wounded veterans and the Invictus Games. The duchess has been a breath of fresh air for the royal family, welcomed by all but a tiny minority. Harry is concerned that his wife is “falling victim to the same powerful forces” that he believes ultimately led to the death of his mother. But Diana, Princess of Wales often had a co-operative relationship with the tabloid press and a difficult relationship with the royal family, including Harry’s father.
Meghan’s situation is different. Harry should not go to war with Fleet Street on a false premise. Wiser heads must prevail.
And if the press didn't do traffic, it could have done Portland's lab. ALL newborns have blood drawn and tested, no exceptions. Archie being born at 5:26am means his blood tests would have hit the lab by 5:45am at the latest. (And I won't even go into checking work logs for staff on duty at the time.) But again, NO sign exists the media tried to investigate this either. Why not? Since perfectly legal means existed to get the explosive story of the decade - "Meghan Fakes Archie's Birth!" - why didn't the media do that?
"THE PRINCE IS F*CKING!" 📯📯📯📯📯
That was some 4th of July BBQ.
Side-note:
And yeah I am on Reddit. The thing with Etsy is, they're very controlling. So they won't let you comment on their internal forum anymore. You have to discuss their behavioural patterns in a public space where they can't control you.
This is why I think Meghan/Harry trying control the media is a very bad idea.
ThisLittlePetal ?
Some people thought it was Megs, some think it's a fake. Whoever it is does a good job of at least pretending to keep the same schedule...
A Diplomatic Pouch can be any size, often just a brief case with papers. Most items are packed into large rucksack style bags with locks, tamper proof clips/tags and numbers attached, the numbers let them know where the bags contents originated if there is a problem later. Sometimes furnishings and household items are sent in either direction by diplomatic staff stationed abroad but usually it just goes as freight.
Not to mention mundane items such as teabags or toothpaste if unavailable in out of the way places, these can find their way into the bags but are not supposed to. All the registered diplomatic staff gets to receive and send essential things as long as the embassy or consulate approves and there is no other way to transport the item securely in a particular country.
It would be quite hard to send illegal items through that didn’t go past at least two official checks at the point of origin in order to have the diplomatic tags placed on them and then at least one security check when they arrived, sniffer dogs included. Drug smuggling/contraband has happened a time or two I was told. So I don’t think the Sussex’s would try that on if they were planning a new biz. Too many eyes (just not foreign eyes).
Re Royals and diplomatic immunity , as Lurking said
Yes, they and their staff apply for and are given Diplomatic Immunity if they are visiting in an official capacity or if they are with the Queen or other senior government official. However, if they are abroad as private citizens (wedding/holiday) they usually won’t be given diplomatic immunity, but they can apply for it if they want too.
As Harry’s legal wife Megs would also receive the same immunity as her husband. If Megs and Harry were to give up royal work and go to the US to live as private citizens Harry as HRH could request immunity although it doesn’t have to be given. Megs as long as she was an American citizen would not qualify, because you can’t receive diplomatic immunity in your own country.
So lots of paper work has to be spot on before they go on tour, for everyone in the group, not just the Royals themselves. I don't think Meghan would have one though as she is not a British citizen and it's unlikely the US would add her to their diplomatic list.
The only one in the family who doesn’t have a passport is the Queen, because as passports are issued in her name, by her authority, she is actually the British Passport embodied, so a paper one is deemed superfluous.
Completely omitted why Thomas Markle had to release parts of the letter....that's how they are fooling the masses...now that I think, I have never seen any bad press for MM in Canada...
Interesting that the Times is coming out on behalf of its tabloid siblings, although of course it is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which means it would be affected by Harry's suit naming The Sun.
I see that the Mail on Sunday has come out swinging when it comes to the suit it is facing for publishing the Thomas Markle letter.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7541785/Duchesss-father-Thomas-Markle-reveals-kept-note-secret-MONTHS-never-intended-share-it.html
It didn't republish the actual contents of the letter, however, or a photo of the letter with that dumb faux-calligraphy.
To quote:
What kind of dad does this?
Not a great one.
And no, it doesn’t matter that his health is poor.
It doesn’t even matter if he’s technically in the right, and Meghan has been unduly harsh in her treatment of him.
Because no reasonable, well-intentioned person shares personal information about his kid with tabloid journalists and speaks with a broadcaster who makes a living lambasting her.
But despite the deep hurt caused by Thomas Markle’s behaviour, members of the tabloid press appear to take his side, choosing to believe that the duchess is selfish and uncaring.
I just don't understand why there are all of these unanswered questions. If the British press is too scared of ruining relationships to do some investigations, why don't any American press outlets send some nosy parker out to look into stuff?
Did Meghan actually graduate from Northwestern? When?
Why did she leave her internship in Argentina, and did she have an affair with a married man?
She was in her mid-30's by the time she met Harry, and had been knocking around Hollywood for 15 years with little to show for it. How did she make money?
Was she married before Trevor, and was it annulled? Why?
Did she have a baby as a teenager?
Why did Doria leave her with her father for years when she was a teen? Was Doria in prison, as has been rumored? If so, what for?
How, specifically, did Harry and Meghan meet? When?
Is it true that they went to Africa together for a week after going on just two dates?
Are they actually living at Frogmore?
What's the deal with her dogs? Why did she REALLY leave one of them in North America? How did the beagle reportedly break two legs? Is the beagle still alive?
What was the deal with that cluster around Archie's supposed birth? How did they make it out of Windsor grounds and drive the 20 miles to London and enter the Portland without anyone seeing them, then make it back practically immediately after the birth, again without anyone seeing them? Why hasn't any doctor been named as the obstetrician?
Why do they refuse to name Archie's grandparents?
Why have they kept Archie under wraps so much?
How did Meghan supposedly meet all of the celebrities that were at the wedding?
Why was Doria the ONLY family member on either side to attend? She has uncles, aunts, and cousins. Where were they?
These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. WHY isn't anyone investigating these things? I just don't get it. I have a degree in journalism. If I was a freelance reporter or worked for an American media outlet, I'd be chomping at the bit to get answers!
Does Harry actually have new solid evidence or will the 6 year limitation clause just kick in ?
Will the Q make it known that this has to stop at once , either to Harry or the legal powers that be and it’s all just dismissed as past it’s due date and already been tried.?
If this is just a ruse by Harry and he has no intention of actually filing the suit how is he going to stop the other members of the 'group' from going ahead with it?
Is he also dragging William and Kate into it and any other royal mentioned in the Voice Mails, all the old stuff that had settled to the bottom of the pond would be dredged up again as front page news at the very least. Could W/K be forced into giving testimony? (surely they aren't part of 'the group').
Are Harry and Meghan also sticking it to William and Kate as well as the media by dropping this bomb into their relatively calm life a few days before their own Royal tour for spite and out of jealousy/revenge for perceived slights to Meghan.
This whole thing sounds like a Lyle Waggner voice over on a Carol Burnett ‘As The Stomach Turns’ soap opera sketch.
Why would she use that "dumb faux-calligraphy" in the first place if she didn't want it leaked?
Why so showy? It's your own dad. Not only that, there are photos of Meghan hugging him and being a daddy's girl. She's clearly comfortable around him. Why so formal?
I have a difficult relationship with my parents. Our relationship is strained and when it's strained it can get quite formal. But I still just email them or WhatsApp them. I would *never* write them an old skool snail mail letter unless I had no internets, and I certainly wouldn't write in calligraphy.
Does anyone else see how eff-ing CONTRIVED this is?
"Daddy, it is with a heavy heart that I write this....."
My @$$! What is this, "Downton Abbey"?
She might as well have just called him "Puhpah" like the girls on downton Abbey.
You don't do calligraphy unless it's for show.
Most people just post their calligraphy on Instagram (hashtag #calligraphyattempt). They don't incorporate it into their scheming and manipulations.
I'm sorry but I 101% think she sent that letter with the intention of trolling him to get it leaked.
She baited him.
I honestly don't think I've handwritten a letter any time this century.
If you want to contact a family member, you pick up the phone or you email.
I've been in political circles in my country for over 10 years to know that what is seen on the surface is usually more than what is happening behind the scenes. There was a case in my country where a man who is poor, raped a young girl and got her pregnant and it became a media issue. The girl was Christian and the man was Muslim. The case was taken to court and over five top expensive lawyers represented the man. Everyone was shocked. This is a man that doesn't earn up to five dollars a day but he flew in for the court case with first class ticket and was chauffeur driven. That case has died a natural death and till date, no one knows those who provided funding for that man. It was clear that he had powerful backers who didn't want the case to continue for reasons no one knows.
Back to the issue; It's likely that for a while, there have been plans behind the scenes to sue. Over a 100 people didn't just wake up few weeks ago because of Harry's tantrums to sue; obviously, this has been planned a long time ago and those behind it saw Harry as the best person to be the face of the claimants. Who are those backing/funding Harry? Does Murdoch have people who will benefit if his media empire in Britain goes down?
I mentioned that this case has the tendency of overshadowing Will and Kates tour but I was accused of being dramatic. Yesterday, after it emerged that Will and Kate went with their kids to watch football in what is obviously very good PR, Harry decides to release more information through byline investigates to try and redirect the conversation. It didn't completely work because only observer had it on their cover.
On his Twitter Bio it states:
Co-Founder of http://www.bylinefestival.com
Executive editor http://www.bylinetimes.com
https://bylinetimes.com/author/peterjukes/
RIGHT?!
it's not like she doesn't have Interwebz access.
what is she, in JAIL?
Yes, I know, but I think they are connected.
"I haven't seen any tirade yet from Prince Harry against Sir Elton John for spilling juicy secrets about Princess Diana in his (very entertaining) new book. Clearly one rule for your celeb holiday mates that lend you private jets - and another for the ghastly press."
And, you can't do this in a picture perfect manner if you are angry because it will cramp your flow, spacing. The fingers have to be relaxed to some degree to do this. I took a class in it.
I do send letters - mainly thank you notes to family. My grandmother was quite old school about receiving them when she sent you something.
I don't get why you'd even use calligraphy to write an angry letter anyway?
It's like writing "EFF YOU" in calligraphy.
Except you're not doing it for sh*ts and giggles.
Admittedly the only time I do calligraphy is when I'm doing it for irony. Like I'll write a morbid cannibalist quote from a short story I wrote. Or something about golden showers.
Who writes nasty content in calligraphy in all seriousness?
I'm thinking she's trying real hard to make a case for "copyright" infringement. You know, like to prove it was handmade?
Scandi, I agree with the idea that they might want to prove something.
If I'm mad, I don't want to spend hours handwriting you some multi page letter about how mad I am. At that point, I don't consider you worth spending my time doing that. I'd rather be doing something else (if nothing else, consolation because that person is such a jerk to me).
I like the phrase, quote it to myself and move on: Living well is the best revenge.
Do we have to host both? One of them isn't ours.
OMG Lyle Waggoner!! Rofl! Then imagining MM coming down the staircase wearing a curtain on the rod that she stole from KP.
She'd be toying with the legal system, treating justice & rule of law like a joke.
@Scandy and @Abbyh, about the deliberately contrived calligraphy letter Megs wrote, here's my take on why she scrawled such a histrionic missive:
If she had emailed it, she was afraid it would be hacked and altered in some way, by her imaginary and real enemies;
If she had typed it and snail mailed it like a normal person, then there would have been doubts afterwards that it wasn't her typed letter;
If she had written in normal cursive there as above would have been doubts after it was revealed publicly; so therefore,
she chose to use calligraphy to prove beyond doubt that it was she who wrote the letter because above all things, it was not really aiming for her dad as much as it was an instrument to reveal to the public what she wanted the public to know about her side of things. But more to the point is that the whole letter is bogus. It's a juvenile attempt to dodge and cover up the direct questions for her real reasons why she didn't invite her family and arrange for Tom to attend the wedding. That letter was a deliberately aimed bank-shot to bounce off her dad and hit her target, which was the media and the "haters" and Samantha because how dare they question her veracity by inviting guests she'd never met or barely knew and not her family. She has zero sense of shame or guilt so nothing is out of reach for her when it comes to what she wants. And to complete her scheme, the calligraphy letter could also be used in court to sue media after she cattle prodded her dad via five anonymous friends to reveal it to the public; and what better vehicle to use than media.
Photo of Her Maj in the car with Lady Sarah Chatto in DM.
She looks tired.
it was not really aiming for her dad as much as it was an instrument to reveal to the public what she wanted the public to know about her side of things.
THIS! the markers of a nasty one.
this is why i disable comments on my Instagram.
because sometimes people don't comment to communicate with me. sometimes they comment to be seen by others (they wish to become acquainted to) who [they think] read the comments section.
i'm like, "if you REALLY have something to say to me, slide into my DM."
the usual suspects rarely do...
bloody climbers.
I'm not going to edit taht a 4th time. Lmao
A good summing up of Meghan's legal action re. the letter.
One question I have on the timeline is 'How did the letter get to her representative in LA?' A few follow-up questions to that are: 'Why did she send a letter to her father through a third party?' 'Why does she still have a business representative in LA?'
I do disagree on one aspect of the summation. Meghan will try to project an image of her father as a victim of the press. (Since she did nothing to protect him from the press, this should be exposed and dismissed in court as nonsense, i.e. that she cares about him.)
Back to the topic: Harry has bought into a world where people use each other and it is all PR spin (no matter how damaging that is to anyone) and entitlement to live a life of luxury. There is a group of 'luvvies' behind this who are using Harry to lead this war.
There probably is a lot of information that Meghan wants to remain hidden, and Harry is probably complicit in this. The main motivation for his lawsuit seems to be two-fold: 1. Defensive: He has been persuaded that if he wins this, he sets the rules to protect his family (Meghan and Archie, not his biological family) and to keep information hidden (this post is about speculating what that information is). 2. Revenge: This war makes him feel important and as if he is doing something for his mother and as payback for embarrassing information about Meghan that has been leaked or publicly discussed. As a probable narc, she wants revenge and he thinks if he gives her that, she will stay.
In May 2019, Prince Charles was interviewed by French journalists. The show was on French television three weeks ago. At the end of the report he talked about tolerance. Here is what he said: "It is difficult to say that one holds the truth and the other does not. Everyone has a part of the truth. We are all heading for the same destination, the ultimate destination, so we must be aware of the importance of forgiveness, compassion and love. "Wise words. What must he think of the whole world media circus of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?
@Nutty Re The Queen looks worried. I agree. Harry’s having a tantrum at this moment when his granny is so worried about Britain and is about to make a speech is chart topping. Expecting a huge PR reset while yammering on about conservation while presenting images of trees looking up from the ground (who hasn’t taken one of those only to discover they don’t work?) with no understanding about what is happening in Britain or the world (SA? Hong Kong?) around him? And then causing his grandmother more stress during a stressful time? Truly a narcissistic twat of the highest order.
I disagree that his addiction/mental health issues come from Diana. His spinelessness comes direct from great, great uncle David, including the derision for the Royal Family and backing the wrong side.
The Royals remind me of a family that has been dealing with an NPD pain-in-the-ass member for decades and have suddenly had enough. Other people don’t know about the years of immaturity and antics, so the final straw is surprising. I cannot imagine how the Harkles can be welcome in the family anymore. Kick them off the public dole then announce that they no longer are working Royals and don’t represent the Queen anymore.
The only problem is how do you keep two lunatics from yapping for dollars?
Wait what?
I thought "luvvies" was the British word for primpish theatre actors. So preeeeescyiouuusss about their "craft."
My personal favourite British word, by the way, is "wanker."
And my favourite Irish word is "eedjit" (which apparently means "idiot"). 🍀
Just kidding, don’t sweat the small stuff
I think Megs offends so many, because for all her simpering and put on humility she is a horrible actress and lies without impunity
Harry is now being trolled. lol. Please read this:
Prince Harry sues Suffolk Gazette over Framlingham Castle fiasco
By Jane Seymour, Royal Correspondent
The Suffolk Gazette is facing extraordinary legal action from the Royal Family after an article claimed the Queen had handed Framlingham Castle to Prince Harry on a plate.
As the Mail on Sunday begins to defend its action from Harry and Meghan, the Suffolk Gazette thinks it’s completely f*cked because “it’s had a couple of dodgy stories”.
The normally accurate paper reported The Queen had been handed the castle as a gift, a claim that upset a lot of people.
Then, it was said that Harry and Meghan had been presented with the castle as a gift. Now the normally reliable paper is in trouble.
Lorraine Fisher, 34, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said: “We’re completely f*cked.
“I mean, really?”
Harry and Meghan really don’t like newspapers and as a result, the Suffolk Gazette is absolutely screwed.
But just in case the great leveling needs some help, I was just doing some thinking...
Meghan makes claims about being committed to women's empowerment. Why can her humanitarian credentials be based on her the fact she wrote a letter when she was 11 in 1995, and then nothing until around 2014 when Suits was beginning to enter ratings decline? If she weren't an actress or Harry's wife, she'd be laughed out of the park when applying for a full-time job at any UN policy organisation or a think-tank based on her background.
I actually took the time to read some of the archived articles on the Tig. I think I lost a few brain cells on the way, so maybe my thoughts are a bit addled. In one of the more recent blogpost (that eventually was published in Elle), she claims to have been committed lifelong humanitarian and even started the blog as a way to meld her humanitarian interests with that of luxury travel and dining/foodie. If you read her early articles though, the interviews seem like a way to stay in touch with the famous people she met. There's not an iota of interest in humanitarian issues, unless you think not knowing the cool places to eat in Paris or how to style marsala (the colour of the year) is a humanitarian crisis.
The blog launched in 2014 and according to Meghan's explanation of the reason behind the name Tig, it was around when Season 5 of Suits had aired. I checked the ratings of Suits to see what pattern. All ratings eventually fall, but it's sudden drops and steady declines that are telling. As my hunch had it, the end of Season 4 was when ratings significantly tanked (from consistently 1.1 to 0.8 ranges, then dropped to 0.5 and lower). So I think the writing was on the wall, starting at least from 2013 to around 2014. Meghan was likely looking for an exit strategy by then. As a woke feminist who needed to fund a life of luxury, she seemed to try out lifestyle brand/influencer (the Tig), becoming a humanitarian, and hosting a cooking show.
My question is - how did Meghan network her way into speaking engagements? This might start having people wonder if she is truly generous or simply calculating and saw that philanthropy is a way to network with the rich and powerful.
Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne (henceforth GNC) says in a DM interview that she met Meghan at a One Young World event in 2014 and that Meghan expressed interest in having Kruger Cowne represent her. Kruger Cowne is a bigname PR firm in the UK, representing celebrities for speaking engagements, like the Earl of Spencer, Cher, Dr. Jane Goodall, Goldie Hawn, Richard Branson. You can even use them to book Archbishop Desmond Tutu for speeches at your event, btw (be prepared to pay more considerably more than 50,000 GBP for the honour).
Meghan says in her blog that she was asked to speak at the UN Women's conference in 2015. My feeling is that almost all of her humanitarian speaking gigs were arranged by her agent though. . I wish reporters would look a bit more critically at not just Meghan, but also this rising class of celebrities who think giving a handful of speeches and having an opinion on a topic are enough to make them experts deserving of a global platform. Emma Watson, Greta Thunberg, although to be fair, she is giving a voice to her peers. Let's hope that she's the only one who does the frustrated teen speech, instead of inspiring a class of copycats.
Trying to wrap my brain around humanitarian and luxury lifestyle/travel/foodie and deciding that I'm not making a dent in the melding of the two.
What was the drink Elle suggested? Crack Baby was one and the other was like Contemptini. Perhaps that might help me get past what seems like blatant hypocrisy.
It will cost a fortune going through all of those trial transcripts and evidence, though. A real fortune.
It must be torture for those that love him, to see him so unkempt and struggling.
Knowing if they speak up, they risk that ages old estrangement of “you don’t like my partner”
Yes, they start sitting in a tripod position (both hands supporting body) @ about 5 months old, then start sitting in an unsupported position for a few seconds at a time, then toppling over. By the time they are six months old, they're masters at it. Archie is not 5 months. He was far too big in those long-distance pictures.
I was wondering the same thing. Are they going to do a seance to bring her to the witness stand?
I think that she would PREFER to be a widow. Then she could play the pity card for poor Orphan Archie, her widowed status, drag around Harry's body whenever she is criticized, plus dig up Diana as well.
I think that she would PREFER to be a widow. Then she could play the pity card for poor Orphan Archie, her widowed status, drag around Harry's body whenever she is criticized, plus dig up Diana as well. and make an annual pilgrimage to Althorpe. (hey wasn't she talking of going last August? what happened?)
It has been over 22 years since she died. How long do businesses need to keep records like this to protect themselves from long, long delayed lawsuits like this?
Besides, as I mentioned earlier, if the suit is about his mother's phone, then her estate is bene, not him personally (unless her will gave him all the cash and not a penny to Will but still it would need to go through probate, taxes).
I can and have been wrong before in life, each side of the pond can vary legally. Open to more knowledgeable posters
The taxman always wants their money. (deep breath) which is why (at least for USA) one needs to make a slow decision about a big payout (lottery or otherwise). I can't imagine things like that are all that different over there.
thanks Lizzie yeah, it ought to be the executor (hadn't thought to completely spell that, just was thinking of him and what some of his spoken rationalization/justification for his behavior).
For those who are thinking (gosh, I wonder who that might have been) it was her mother and Diana's aunt (mother's sister). Which leads to: another gosh, we haven't heard from them during this spectacular show have we? (will they enter stage right now?)
One could say, Camilla, sort of, but she has always been discreet and followed protocol.
Who else?
I'm asking because I can't think of anyone who has.
your English is better than some native English speakers' French, so don't feel bad.
Welcome!