A long-term friend, a co-star, a former colleague, a friend from Los Angeles, and a close confidante. These are the "five friends" who supposedly spoke to People magazine to defend the Duchess of Sussex - and who may now be dragged into her court case against Mail on Sunday.
This is because the Duchess is alleging that the Mail on Sunday violated her privacy by reprinting portions of a letter Meg sent her father, Thomas Markle.
But some of the five friends, interviewed for an issue that came out in February, were able to quote verbatim from a letter that had been sent in August. This suggests that Meghan not only told them about the letter, but showed it to them, as well as showing them Thomas Markle's reponse.
Since the friends were able to quote the letter word for word, perhaps she even sent them copies.
Or perhaps there never were five friends after all - only Meg repeating her own words to the team at People.
Dragged into court
If there were indeed five friends, Meg has put them in a difficult spot. Although People did not disclose their identies "to protect the private relationships they hold dear", their names seem likely to be revealed as part of the lawsuit.
The Mail on Sunday's lawyers are sure to ask why the news outlet is being sued for sharing parts of the letter when Meg never sued the "five friends" (or People) for doing precisely the same thing.
While it was certainly nice of the friends to "stand up to the global bullying and speak the truth about our friend," it wasn't quite as nice of their so-called buddy who "personifies elegance, grace, and philantropy" to put them in this position.
Ordinary people generally don't want to be part of an internationally-followed court case that will dog their Google mentions until the end of time.
What about the People reporter?
And what about Michelle Tauber, the author of the People article? Won't she end up on the witness stand as well?
How embarassing it would be for Tauber, a senior editor who has been at People for almost 20 years, to admit that she was fed the quotes for her oleaginus cover story directly from a PR firm, or from Meghan herself.
For what it's worth, Tauber's Twitter feed has only three words in her profile description - "Editor. Evidence-based" - and her Tweets reveal that she shares Meghan's political leanings.
So who are the friends?
Generally, journalists try to avoid guessing at other journalists' secret sources. It's bad manners.
That said, Tauber's "five friends" seem destined to come out in court, so I'll do it anyway.
People identifies them as women, which eliminates Meg's weepy makeup artist Daniel Martin and Meg's super-special buddy Markus Anderson.
Lindsay Roth? Genevieve Hillis? Those were the women who attended Wimbledon with Meg.
Heather Dorak? She is listed on Wikipedia as a "celebrity Pilates instructor" and attended Meg's wedding to Harry.
Celine Khavarani, who also attended the wedding as a friend of Markle, according to Wikipedia? Isabel May? Lucy Meadmore?
Jessica Mulroney? Misha Noonoo?
Who do you think the "five friends" might be?
Comments
I firmly believe that these "five friends" don't exist. I think it was fed from Meg, or via an assistant. These friends all seemed to have photographic memories too!
I think Meg rushes into things and doesn't sit back to reflect on all the possible outcomes and pitfalls that will inevitably come with things as big as this.
I loved the use of the adjective oleaginous.
You’re right, about her suing the UK Mail being strange in the face of letting the friends and People escape unscathed. Strange, unless they were planted all along.
Fact is she probably has no one left. In the 3rd season of the show "This is Us" They actually made some snide MM jokes. Hilarious. Wonder if it was an ad lib.
Anyway, no friends. Just Meg. Because, as usual, instead of actually trying to be elegant and graceful she will ram it down people's throats while continuing to clump around like the shallow ignoramus she is.
I think she'd have wanted someone else to talk to the reporter for plausible deniability. It seems very unlikely though most of her "close friends" even know each other. The possible friends mentioned by Nutty live in 3 different countries I believe. Plus the idea that 5 friends just happened to have read/ remember a letter M wrote to someone else months before?
I thought it was interesting the "close friends" didn't seem to really know Harry. At least they had little to say about their recently-wed bestie's hubby (except to say he was out of town when one visited M) And they had little of substance to say about M's happiness with him. Guess that wasn't on the assigned checklist.
I don't know if the friends are real, names will come out. Journalists do protect sources. But what a silly thing to have to go to the wall about. Candles and robes at bedtime? That's hardly Watergate.
i thought they were 5 imaginary friends?
so now they're going to have to cast some actors for the role to make it real?
lollllll.
@DallasSite word of the day oleaginous
@Veena At least Linus and Snoopy are real friends :)
Jessica Mulroney
Priyanka Chopra
Marcus Anderson
The makeup artist whose name escapes me at the moment.
Well, those are my best guesses at the moment.
I think ...
Unknown with Abigail Spencer as the costar ... fits easily
Gabes Human with Jessica Mulroney and probably Priyanka, Ninaki as confidente, LA and long time friend respectively.
Leaves me with former colleague - Markus. I cannot believe she would leave him out of her plans. Perhaps that day they were joking around and he said he could self identify as a woman and they both laughed - I don't know but close friends can joke around like that) or it was decided that it would be better optics to make it all female or maybe the author didn't speak to them but only did emails in such as way that it was controlled to make her think a specific way.
What I do think think is that she suggested to them what to say and sent copies of parts of the letter.
What I also don't know is where did the one visit supposedly happen?
I don't believe five anonymous female friends quoted her letter verbatim. It was all Megs. And the verbatim part is the most telling of all that it's a total sham. Her hubris and pedantic perfectionist mental state forbids her from realizing that readers would notice that such precise recall or recitation verbatim from her letter would reveal that she'd given copies of it to the "friends" and to the reporter at People. Her NPD mind can't come up with an original idea, let alone have the foresight to paraphrase. Plus, her hubris won't accept that she can be caught in her lies.
Wouldn't that mean that they just published the storied that Meghatron furnished them, perhaps adding a comma here or there to make it look like they did some work for the money they were being paid?
She just assumed that all that money spent would have bought her a good reputation by now, and she is disappointed that it hasn't, hence the lawsuits.
Abigail Spencer (this is the skinny mousy looking girl with the OTT boho dress at the baby shower right?) She could definitely use with some publicity, haven't seen her in anything before or since Suits. Infact she was the unnecessary, irritating character in suits, so her only claim to fame has been that she us MMs friend and shares her bday. So that would be the co-star. (Oh my what shade, she has been relegated to being a co-star and not a close friend by People)
There were rumours that Priyanka and Nick visited them early into their marriage when they lived in Cotswold, but I don't think it would be her. Priyanka is way too busy with her own life and frankly bow her posse is Sophie Turner. She is too busy being a jobas groupie and has a couple of Hollywood and Bollywood projects coming out. I don't think she would have the time or need to be MMs spokesperson a year back with no gains in return. I can very confidently rule her out.
Lindsay J Roth? Probably, she would be the friend from LA/childhood friend. It's one reason mm was seen with her at Wimbledon, that couldn't have been random with no epilogue in sight. She is also a chicklit author and could use with the publicity. And she supposedly lives in London?
For the friend who lives in LA? The friend whose 2 girls were flower girls at MMs wedding? She is a lawyer right? And indian or South Asian? So that would tick the customary woman of colour/non-racist category. Plus someone non-celebrity, which Mm would want for the optics.
The weeping willow Daniel guy would probably be one. He has been boasting forever about anything and everything mm related. Seems too eager not to be incluyher.
Jessica Mulroney would be an obvious choice, and she has hinted a few times to have been to visit Mm and had a girls weekend with her.
I do think we might see someone totally unconnected to this so far, someone totally random (for example - Jessica Alba? Pink? Idris Alba's wife? Markus Anderson's plus one at the wedding who is rumoured to be the godmother? MMs long forgotten niece?)
Also, Misha Nonoo. She seems to be too publicity/relevance hungry lately, so definitely could be one. She would also make a good spokesperson for the whole group in a couple of months when we would know for sure and they would be all over boring us to death with why they did what they did.
I looked at the guests list from the wedding and who was sat in the front part of the church.
A long-time friend in Meghan's world could mean 4 years. Or 8 years, as Misha Nonoo pretends is the case. So I would say Misha Nonoo to the first, or Lindsay Roth (Lindsay married a rich British man, which probably spun Meghan's wheels to inspiration, given that so far, she' copied quite a things in her life)
Former colleague - that is strange. Could refer to any non-acting member of staff on the Suits show. I would guess Celine Khavarani though. She does communications work for luxury fashion brands, and maybe Meg considered her Tig blog the vocational equivalent in order to call her a former colleague.
A friend from L.A. - Benita Litt (Meghan visited her and her family at Christmas in LA)
Co-star - Abigail Spencer from Suits perhaps. Funny that according to Meghan's Tig, she and Sarah Rafferty like sisters, and Gina Torres was like her mom/older sister. But Gina seems too dignified to get involved in this mess, and Sarah doesn't se
Close confidante is probably Serena Williams. Maybe why Serena threw some shade at Meghan after Wimbledon is that Meghan somehow blamed her for the whole PR fiasco after she went on with Serena's advice?
Some commenters on yesterday's post were arguing about the queen's ability to cope with the present kerfuffle. Some made a pretty good argument for doing nothing & letting the whole thing blow over. That may be the case, & I certainly defer to those who are more informed royal watchers, but I wonder if the damage M&H have potentially done to the RF's credibility is a problem in this time of things like Brexit & Extinction Marches. By themselves, M&H are a pretty boring news bagatelle. They don't rise much above the sleazy photos on the margins of the Daily Mail's website. Dim rich boy marries cheesy actress who will take him to the cleaners. I've also wondered, as have others, if BP is using M&H as a distraction from Prince Andrew's problems. The palace has also stood by as enough bread crumbs to raise questions about Archie's origins have been sprinkled, the moonbump, the odd announcement & birth certificate, no vehicles seen leaving Frog Cott on the relevant dates, no doctors acknowledged, the odd, very non-royal name, Archie, for example. The DM has a story about the 'Fab Four' reuniting for an unprecedented advert for a mental health initiative. I feel if the RF doesn't clean up the narrative pretty soon, it's going to seem as though the RF, not just M&H, are gaslighting the public. My interest in the whole thing is my suspicion that a respected historical & cultural institution like the BRF has been a party to some sort of hoax. The most benign interpretation of the whole pregnancy parade is that Megs really had a baby, but for some insane reason was allowed to wear a prosthetic for most of it. Why on earth was that allowed to happen? The woman looked as though she was carrying triplets at supposedly four or five months! WTF!
Yet we haven't heard from them in months. What gives?
A court case will nameThomas Markle, People magazine - the editor and the 5 close friends identified to testify. Meghan needs to have her day in court in more ways than one. I am on the side of the Mail on Sunday - they know the laws, they knew what they were doing, and gave an old man a chance to defend his reputation. Which is more than People magazine.
Yep, seen the pics. General consensus appears to be that it is a younger Megs. One thing. She apparently doesn't stop staring at the camera the whole time....
What does Meghan Markle have to do with This Is Us? Well, if Meghan Markle was in the hospital and going into early labor, her family wouldn't be kept in the dark in the waiting room like Kate Pearson's (Chrissy Metz) clan.
"If Meghan Markle were here, right, her doctor would be out here giving us updates every two minutes," Kevin (Justin Hartley) says in the exclusive clip above. "And Kate better not be back there getting anything less than Meghan Markle treatment, whatever that is."
"Baby Markle. Y'all know Baby Markle is going to pop out in full hair and make-up, right? Little crown and scepter, just [waving]," Randall (Sterling K. Brown) says.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1187551/royal-news-king-carl-xvi-gustaf-sweden-queen-silvia-crown-princess-victoria-latest
If these "five friends" are the real deal then they shouldn't be afraid to say who they are at the time of the interview. I mean seriously, if I were to back up my friend and tell the world they're worthy of admiration, I'd stand proud and not be anonymous. However, these "five friends" must be ashamed of her and the bad press they'd be getting for "having her back" that they're too ashamed to stand up and be counted. Just my 2 cents and I could be wrong.
@Jenx I don't watch This Is Us but thanks for the description :) That's crazy :) LOL :) I wonder if someone is throwing shade at Madam LaMarkle.
https://twitter.com/goo_gunner/status/1180944880933183494
If people found this out, that she never really did any planning for him to attend the wedding, it would start to rip away this story of "woe is me, victim of trashy people" and maybe really turn public opinion to the fact she tries so hard to present a certain image and maybe even fooled dimwit Harry. Many people still believe that Meghan's the victim of her dad selling her out to paparazzi for money at the very beginning. Yet others, including me, started to find her really fake when only her mother was invited and not even her uncle who got her her first internship at the US embassy in Argentina or her mom's family who seemed normal and nice. Even Kate Middleton's trashy, drug-using uncle got an invite! Everyone from Meg's past who weren't useful anymore and thus discarded, including Samantha, her former agent, her ex-bff and maid of honor, her decent black side of the family have explicitly said to the press that Meghan changed.
My feeling from the beginning was that he wasn't invited. It was the only explanation that made sense of the whole thing.
Poor guy. Honestly. I don't get along with some relatives but I invite them to family functions because it's cruel to reject people and make them lose face this way with others. And these people have done far, far worse things than what she accuses Thomas of.
This whole business of the friends and the letter are a failed pr ploy. How can she not see how ridiculous this is? A caligraphy letter, copied to at least 5 "friends" sent to aagazone which allows people to pay to plant articles?
Waiting for comment on this mess from the royal family and public sighting of the happy family wherever they are living.
Anyways her 5 friends are probably Rachel Zane, Cass, Amy Peterson, Officer Leah Montoya, and Wendy. As in characters she played in the past. It's all her. Her ridiculous moves just don't make sense because it will all lead to whatever her half-baked plan was being found out.
Dear Dadddy, please don't show this letter which I carefully crafted to anyone. I will make photocopies and send them to 5 anonymous friends and only they can speak of our private correspondence. Charles is my new daddy. thanks for everything. Toodles.
Signed
HRH Meghan
Per The Financial Times:
Insiders said one of the main triggers for the legal action was in fact a set of revisions to procedures at London’s High Court, which from October 1 change the division where lawsuits relating to the media are filed.
Had they waited longer, the Duke and Duchess may have had to issue their claims at the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court. Some lawyers see the specialist media judges there as more open to the arguments of publishers than the Chancery Division, the venue for recent high-profile privacy and phone hacking cases.
In addition to using direct social media channels and tightening up access to staple fodder like pictures of the royal baby, Prince Harry has his sights on the Royal Rota, the self-governing press club that decides who attends events and how material is shared. To the Sussexes, it is “The Cartel”; Buckingham Palace is reviewing the system. But if Prince Harry wants to choose who covers him, he would have to pay for events.
Bruised royal correspondents pine for a better relationship. Jocular Harry used to creep up on them and whisper: “Still writing bollocks then?” These days “he just glowers”, said one old hand.
Thomas Markle has said that Doria received an invitation (and staff from the consulate actually visited her to warn her in person that the engagement was going to be announced). Thomas Markle received no invitation and no visit from anyone. All information he got was via Meghan (mostly text messages). She claims that a driver turned up to drive him to the airport, which is strange as there is no one who can verify that the driver was there and Thomas says he had already told her that he had been in hospital and would not be able to go to the wedding. There was a news story about a suit made for Thomas being on sale after the wedding, but who makes a suit without measurements and fittings?
My own personal dealings with a narc is that they are not reasonable and rational in what they do and say and believe they are entitled to say and do whatever they want and they must be believed and supported.
A good Barrister will uncover lies and improbabilities in court. Either Meghan or her father is going to be exposed in the most terrible way, potentially. If Meghan was a reasonable person, she would not risk that for herself (and the damage that would do to the BRF who enable her to live as the wealthy elite), and if she had any empathy or compassion, she would not want to do that to her father.
This lawsuit is a mess.
Nutty, thanks for the good summary of the 'pesky' People article that raises so many questions. The article was obviously a set up.
Did all 5 so-called friends mention the two letters? Normally that (the letters) is something one would only share with a long-standing, trusted and loyal friend, and one would NOT want that friend to blab to People magazine, but there is nothing normal about all this is there?
From the time her letter was written and sent to the time when the so-called friends were interviewed was more than 6 months. Who remembers such word-perfect detail over that time, especially if it is not something personal to you? Time distorts memory. Were the friends sent copies of the letters?
Yep, lots of people have spoken out in support of and in effusive support and admiration for Meghan, some who have only met her once. They are usually using her for personal gain (e.g. Elton John, who then publishes his memoirs and the first extracts, published in the Daily Mail, ha, ha, are about Diana and the Queen; George Clooney, who then goes to meet Prince Charles and his wife gets awarded some global position by PC; and so on).
But, I can't hazard a guess as to who the 5 friends could be who would have had this much detailed information and then given it to People magazine and not have enraged at least Harry for breaking confidence and acting disloyally.
I don't know about the rest of you, but my answer would be "HELL, no!" and I'd block her number. I have to think that IF there were actual "friends", it was a business transaction that they were paid to do.
Some of you may be giving People Magazine a gravitas which it does not deserve. It is just a PR mag for show biz and celebrities. It is found in beauty salons so that people can look through and say "Ooooh, I want a haircut just like < insert actress du jour name here >". They are also in doctors' offices, dentists' offices (shudder) and the occasional ER waiting room. There are articles, but most folk just flip through and read the picture captions and laugh at the incredibly bad plastic surgery on display.
I've always felt that she never really thought some of this through, she ghosted her father because she wanted to sell the poor me narrative to the royals. It was very apparent when she walked hanging on to Charles half way and then *eyeroll* walked herself down the aisle with that super smug grin.
If it was a "business transaction" it would have been very complicated to get all five of them on the same train if they did not know each other before.
other is the cast of Suits.
I think the magazine will ask her to resign quietly until things quieten down.
Doubt that this will go to court. The matter will be settled behind closed doors just before the court date looms.
She appears in this lovely video clip discussing the case.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/p/tea-time-with-michelle-tauber-breaking-down-meghans-lawsuit-against-the-mail-on-sunday/vp-AAIiBzD
Michelle seems to get her hair done by Meghan's hairdresser.
Anyway, thanks to everyone for your input on the "five friends".
As stated in the original blog post, People says all five friends are women - calling them a "special sisterhood" - so Daniel Martin and Markus Anderson are off the list. I realize that gay men sometimes call each other "sister", but I don't think People magazine does.
Abigail Spencer is a good choice for "co-star." Benita Litt could easily be the "friend from LA."
"Long-term friend" and "close confidante" are pretty flexible concepts - you could stuff Lindsay or Genevieve in there, or Serena maybe, or really anyone else who attended the wedding on Meg's side.
"Colleague" is the trickiest. Somebody from one of her merching deals or the Tig? Supposedly some of the Tig was written by freelancers, although it would be tough for anyone to match Meg's inimitable writing style.
Ninaki Priddy is out of the question, however; she sold Meghan out in December 2017, before the wedding, and her relationship with Megan reportedly broke off when Ninaki sided with Trevor in the divorce.
Or, hey - all five of the friends could just be Meg.
Even if the "five friends" could be named, putting them on a witness stand would presumably force them to admit that Meg showed them the letter and told them they could share it with People, negating her claim to privacy.
I'm not sure.
The issue isn't 'privacy' but 'copyright'. Just because someone agreed to the publication of a copyrighted text in one context does not mean someone else can henceforth use that text without the owner's permission. For example, if JK Rowling were to negotiate a deal with The Guardian to publish an extract from her book, that would not mean The Times could go ahead and publish other extracts without getting her express permission.
What it *might* mean is that Thomas Markle had the right to rebut the accusations made against him in 'People' magazine and that the only way to do so would be through publication of extracts from the letter. Not sure this would supersede the alleged breach of copyright however.
Oh, pah-leese.
There's a part of me that hates myself for keeping up with all this BS. I think what keeps me invested is I want to see the superficial LA grifter/social climber get called out Dangerous Liaisons - style. In fact, what I should do is watch that movie right now and get my fix. Then I can go back to living a more productive life. LOL.
"Yeah, no, I mean, um, you know, when Meghan's friends chose to speak to People, they came to People because they knew that felt that they could be, um, that they could trust us to share, um, their words, their, um, thoughts, um, in a fair and honest way. That's always, you know, that's always our, um, our aim, and I think that, you know, what, what the story that People broke, um, back when her friends came to speak with us, was in their own words. It was, um, their, their own take on this, um, you know, dear friend that they felt was being misrepresented in the media."
So, Michelle is doubling down on the idea that the story was indeed based on input from Meghan's friends, that they approached the magazine, and that the statements were their own.
In that case, the friends really would be legally responsible for breaching Meghan's privacy by sharing the letter.
See ya in court, sisterhood. And, um, you know, Michelle too.
"Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda," reads the statement.
Both copyright and privacy are at issue - Meg is claiming invasion of privacy under the draconian EU privacy laws introduced in 2018.
I don't think she's in a hurry - quite the opposite since the alleged misdemeanour happened 8 months ago. If the rumours are true that she failed to reach a negotiated settlement, she probably had no choice but to reveal the lawsuit now.
Does Harry even know what the word "redress" means?
What it *might* mean is that Thomas Markle had the right to rebut the accusations made against him in 'People' magazine and that the only way to do so would be through publication of extracts from the letter. Not sure this would supersede the alleged breach of copyright however.
I thought that was pretty much his whole reason for getting what the letter said in print? To defend himself.
I think it's beyond a rumor that she failed to reach a negotiated settlement, which I'm sure would have included a payout.
Perhaps. But that wouldn't neccesarily mean there is no breach of copyright.
That was his argument - that he had to defend himself.
The letter was obviously written for public consumption, however. Meg may have encouraged him to share it with the newspaper.
I still think it's possible that Tom is on Meghan's payroll.
@punkinseed
I haven't heard Obama off script, but Michelle is a professional who knew she was going to be interviewed and should have prepared a bit in advance. I'm sure that other lady would have been OK with a retake, as well.
Michelle should maybe stick to the written word.
So she is trying to sell that this was completely organic and out of a sense of duty to "protect" their "dear friend." I'm sorry, but as many here have said, having five different friends reach out to People seems a bit unrealistic. I could have believed this if it were two friends, but FIVE!? I'm sorry, but no. I am horrified that people still use UHMas adults. I know some people can't help it, but it's so annoying when used THIS many times. HUGE pet peeve of mine.
Royal legal action against press was timed to pick where case heard
Legal advice prompted the Sussexes to accelerate the filing of claims
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s flurry of legal claims against Britain’s tabloid press were rushed out late last month with the aim of bringing the cases before judges seen as more privacy-friendly, according to people briefed on the matter. The timing of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to sue the owners of The Sun, The Mirror and the Mail on Sunday had astonished royal watchers — in part because the moves came during a well-received tour of southern Africa.
Insiders said one of the main triggers for the legal action was in fact a set of revisions to procedures at London’s High Court, which from October 1 change the division where lawsuits relating to the media are filed. Had they waited longer, the Duke and Duchess may have had to issue their claims at the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.
Some lawyers see the specialist media judges there as more open to the arguments of publishers than the Chancery Division, the venue for recent high-profile privacy and phone hacking cases. Legal advice on the implications of the changes prompted the Sussexes to accelerate the filing of claims that were months in the making. All three claims were initiated in the Chancery Division in the week before the October 1 deadline....
“The decisions in the specialist media and communications court are generally seen to be less pro-claimant than those in the Chancery Division,” she added. “No doubt this has been a significant reason why the claims were issued last week.” Royal aides have said there were legal reasons for the timing of the lawsuits, but declined to elaborate on the details. A spokesperson for the Sussexes declined to comment."
Not sure if you were here the other day when we were discussing the many bits of Meghan's history that have never been revealed - her real age, the reason for Doria's absence during her teenage years, the reason she left her internship at the Argentinian embassy so quickly, the real story with Joseph Giuliano, etc.
An unflattering answer to any of these questions could disrupt the narrative Meg is putting out to create her public identity.
Tom has these answers, and he's not sharing them. Some media source would happily pay him to spill the beans.
I think someone else is paying him not to, and that person is probably Meghan via her Los Angeles-based "financial advisor", with whom Thomas appears to be in regular contact.
Same with Samantha, which is why I think her book has been so long "delayed." She's getting more money not to publish it than she would selling it.
Just my opinion, of course.
Can you imagine having a prominent friend call you with such a request? What kind of a true friend would ask you to do such a thing for them about her dad??? That would be as crazy as me calling you as your friend asking you to go to the doctor and say you're in pain to get a narcotic prescription for me to take. And if you don't, you're not the friend I thought you were. Aside from asking you to commit about 3 felonies, if Megs asked her friends to do the People thing, it's just as twisted and crazy.
Here we have someone who is nominally part of the Royal family, but she is not a British citizen, suing a venerable British publication for material which was previously disseminated (through her agents) in her country of origin, under directives from herself, as I suppose discovery will illuminate. It's *very* interesting to me that Thomas Markle chose to defend himself against unfair character assassination, as he perceived it, in the *People* piece by having the letter published in its entirety in a *British* newspaper, in the country where Meg is now living. Wouldn't it have been more in Thomas's interest to rebut the People story with a rebuttal in that magazine? Or, if People declined to publish it, being already hand-in-pocket with Meg, a rival publication to People? How many Britons would have even been aware of the 'The Truth about Meghan' story in People, or cared? It seems highly unlikely to me that Tom would have selected the Mail on Sunday off his own bat as the vehicle by which he could set the record straight. I'm sure he was coached as to what would be a suitable outlet for his prize, and I smell Meg's fingerprints all over this, too.
The letter was meticulously drafted in Meg's ornately flamboyant penmanship (regular cursive writing with flourishes is *not* calligraphy) and page-numbered like she was submitting a press release or preparing a fax. How many of us paginate an intimate letter to a family member with (1/5, 2/5 and so on?) And then send that letter via Fed Ex through an intermediary? Because. She was taking no chances that this missive would get garbled or lost in translation. There's not so much as a single blot on it because she fully expected it to be published, in full, at some point. Thomas is her dupe; always has been. The only question now is, is he actively complicit in these 'leaks to the press;? Is his daughter giving him payouts on the sly to willingly depict himself as a sleazeball negligent father in the world media? Or is he still laboring under the delusion that his Narc daughter who has social climbed to the pinnacle of society is ever going to give two tosspots about him or reconcile with him or let him meet that grandbaby?
I suppose this is a conundrum for the Mail on Sunday lawyers to untangle. Another skein would surely be . . why is Meg launching this attack now, months after the fact? Is she incandescent with rage that releasing the letter in all its byzantine self-regard, with that penmanship she is so vain over did not have its desired effect in making the world at large hate her father and embrace her as the poor brave abandoned princess daughter of a heartless father? Her callous treatment of her old, sick dad is a chorus that comes up time and again from those who have not swallowed her Kool-Aid.
Or . . and this is more calculating still . . is she so confident she will win that she's bringing suit solely as a money-generating scheme, some of which she may give to Tom as a payoff in due course for his role in her plot?
With Meghan I discount nothing. Someone once said of Donald Trump, "(He) p*sses ice water." I attribute the same to Meghan.
It simply didn't happen.
I'd buy Markle a shovel for that hole but i see that she is doing quite well with the excavator...at this rate her and Harry the Bore will be at Earths core in a matter of minutes
1.Me
2.Myself
3.I
4.Megrain
5.Meagain
LOL, Lottie!
It's fair to say that Ms Markle doesn't always bring out the best of me...or maybe the little minx does?...LOL
Ohh, that's a point I had not thought of. This whole this being orchestrated by Megs, with her dad's help, in order to be able to sue for copyright infringement at a later date. This would make her an evil genius if it's true.
The MoS lawyers will not have the same delicacy against destroying Meg's credibility which her own marriage family has so far displayed. If the MoS exercises its full powers in court and comes at her with all their barrels blazing, I think her little Narc self is going to be very surprised at the outcome. I hope they nail her to the wall.
I can only find a German reference from 2002 at the moment - https://www.derstandard.at/story/905633/wenn-man-allein-vom-lesen-betrunken-wird
However, Google informs me that in recent years the phrase has been borrowed to reference Trump.
@Jen and @Hikari, very interesting theory that Meg is in cahoots with Thomas Markle. "Oh Daddy, I am so devastated that we are estranged and that you have never met Harry or Darren, err I mean Archie. I need your help, Daddy and I have a plan..."
https://spectator.us/please-america-take-meghan-markle-back/
@Hikari that "calligraphy" that Madam LaMarkle uses is called fake calligraphy, just like her fake smile, teeth, persona, hair, etc., ad infinitum.
It crossed my mind that Thomas was working with Meg in his own character assassination because he always pipes up at such opportune times for Meg, do you notice? I think he is a flawed but loving Dad . . the only custodial parent that Megs had for several of her most formative years (Doria was MIA, allegedly in prison). There are ample lovey photos with Tom and his youngest daughter, which she was all too happy to display when she felt that they burnished her image as the 'family-centered, loving, giving grateful daughter' that went along with the 'global humanitarian that cares'.
Then she met Harry and realized that her old, sickly, corpulent Dad, living in exile in Mexico due to bankruptcy and other financial woes was not going to be useful to her in her new facade management scheme. Portraying herself as a loving daughter was useful when she was going to Kenya on modeling shoots with cute native children as a 'global ambassador', but her one trump card within the Royal Family was her 'half-blackness'. Tom Markle was not of any use in ramping up her blackness. Now we can debate endlessly if Tom would have scored an invite to give his daughter away at her Royal wedding if he were say, Tom Selleck-looking and fit, healthy and rich, with the appropriate image for a global TV audience. Someone more on a par with Michael Middleton, handsome self-made millionaire father of Catherine.
No amount of styling help was going to turn Thomas into an attractive-enough figure to represent the new and improved Markle Brand on global TV, so he was out. He also, like most fathers, would be rife with embarrassing stories and dirt about his daughter's younger years. There was always the danger that Tom could have been tricked into revealing embarrassing skeletons about his Meggy with or without alcoholic inducement. For a guy who had a decades-long career in show business, Tom Markle comes across as quite naive and not the skillful manipulator his daughter is.
But he's also a broke man. As distasteful as it might be to him, he may have agreed to play 'the bad guy' in public in exchange for financial assistance from Meg. If this is happening, then Harry nor anybody else will know anything about it. I still say that the compromising papp photos that alledgedly got him banned from her wedding were in fact Meghan's own idea. Thomas knew in his heart of hearts that he'd be an embarrassment to her and himself at the wedding, plus he was legitimately unwell for international travel and all that stress. The photos gave him an out, and perhaps in exchange she covered his medical bills.
By not naming her dad in this action, Megs no doubt assumes that he and any dealings she's had with him are untouchable. We shall see about that. But nothing with Meg is as it appears, so I do not trust anything I have been told is the 'truth' in the whole Markle narrative . . any party.
@MIschi, oh I didn't know that people because the people I talk to in real life all immediately trash Thomas for the pap pics. I agree with you about the inviting family thing. I mean, if Charles and Camilla who had an affair, embarrassing tampon comments and all, could be forgiven, then why is Thomas so terrible? The pap photos weren't even spreading rumours about Meghan but just making him looking ridiculous. I agree, she was looking for any tiny excuse to villify and disown her dad. And Harry was caught doing things that made the BRF look absolutely terrible and racist, like the comment to a black commedian about not talking like a black person would or his Nazi fancy dress. Did they cut off all contact with him? No, and the lack of forgiveness and ruthlessness from Harry towards an isolated old man, who by Meghan's own words as late of 2016 sounded more openly supportive than many people have as fathers...well it is pretty hypocritical. Why hasn't anyone shaken Meghan and said that she's being hateful and petty?
I wonder if Charles sees the irony in this.
If that is Megs and Thomas' game plan, wouldn't it be a crime of some sort? Bringing a lawsuit loaded with subterfuge and false claims of damages? Fraud maybe or misrepresentation? I'm sure the MoS lawyers are going to be very busy with Subpoena Duces Tecum docs. for all of Meg's and Thomas' phone records, emails, all communications, bank records... and Doria's as well. This is going to be a long, big fight with Discovery, Stipulations, Motions to Compel... Lordy! Ha, and you watch. Megs will try to refuse a Motion to Compel or suppress Discovery, because you know... she thinks because she's a duchess it gives her impunity.
Burkle also has ties to Epstein. From New York Magazine: "Burkle took what were described as humanitarian trips to Africa with Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private Boeing 727. According to a 2008 Vanity Fair feature about the former president, “Burkle’s usual means of transport is the custom-converted Boeing 757 that Clinton calls ‘Ron Air’ and that Burkle’s own circle of young aides privately refer to as ‘Air F**k One.’ ”
Burkle would have two motives to support Meghan: originally, to advertise Soho House as the chic place where beautiful (?) women meet handsome (?) princes, and more recently, as a way to keep the attention away from Epstein via Andrew.
Pure speculation on my part, of course.
But Burkle does have the money (which he made in the supermarket business) and the motive.
I do think Meghan was hiding the fact that Doria didn't have a good job. According to the early articles of the Tig, she was a travel agent. Funnily, in the later post that was eventually published in Elle magazine, Doria suddenly was transformed into a "clinical therapist". I know she graduated from her social working degree a few years ago, but Meghan made it sound like Doria was a clinical therapist since Meghan was a child and thus instilled in her her humanitarian, social justice warrior attitudes, when in fact, Doria just probably liked to travel and was perhaps using her travel agent job to "discover herself" or recover from the shock of her dad's weird sudden death. Maybe she wasn't too interested in being a mom, especially during the annoying teen years - it's not a crime to lack maternal instinct and she doesn't seem too involved with Meghan's emotional growth like her dad was.
Of course as you said - just pure speculation.
Re. my suggestion that Thomas might be colluding with his daughter in his own defamation ..
>>>>If that is Megs and Thomas' game plan, wouldn't it be a crime of some sort? Bringing a lawsuit loaded with subterfuge and false claims of damages? Fraud maybe or misrepresentation? I'm sure the MoS lawyers are going to be very busy with Subpoena Duces Tecum docs. for all of Meg's and Thomas' phone records, emails, all communications, bank records... and Doria's as well. This is going to be a long, big fight with Discovery, Stipulations, Motions to Compel... Lordy! Ha, and you watch. Megs will try to refuse a Motion to Compel or suppress Discovery, because you know... she thinks because she's a duchess it gives her impunity.<<<
Yes, I believe it would constitute criminality. Do we suppose that would stop her? It hasn't so far. She is so convinced of her own brilliance (and let's not forget the definition of a grifter--someone who delights in the practice of deception for its own sake, apart from any gain, though gain is always the objective--but for a pathological narcissist, Meg doesn't tell the truth even when she's got little to nothing to gain by deceit because she gets off on pulling one over on everybody) . . I don't know to what degree the MoS lawyers can examine aspects of her and Thomas Markle's doings/communications that do not have direct bearing on the infringement of copyright lawsuit. But I do believe that raftloads of paralegals will be kept busy researching everything that could potentially become relevant to the Mail's defense.
As we've had ample evidence of, Meghan is not nearly as smart as she believes herself to be. She's crafty, but she sucks at details. She didn't read the fine print on UK-based surrogacy agreements. A woman who couldn't pass the foreign service test or stick out an internship and whose collegiate credentials are dodgy at best does not have the same level of knowledge as the Mail's lawyers. She's a foreigner who's brought suit against a British institution, in Britain. Something is going to trip her up. She may have finally tipped herself into hanging herself with that rope that has been spooling out for the last two years. We can only hope.
I read somewhere, no idea if it's true or not, but something about Doria forging her father's will and getting busted for it. Does anyone else know about this allegation?
Part of her lawsuit is that the media outlet only published excerpts that showed her in a bad light (i.e. misrepresented her). The letter she wrote to her father was not published in its entirety. I don't think his reply was either.
I think Thomas Markle had already established a relationship with the Daily Mail by that time, and was definitely talking to Piers Morgan, so MOS would have had access to him. She ghosted him from the time of the wedding (May) and sent him the letter in August. How long before the first interview he gave and how many interviews did he give in those few months?
But, like you, I smell something very fishy with the whole business, which just does not make sense!
I've never watched Suits, but I'm wondering if Megs got the idea to create that letter and all that's followed then file this lawsuit based on some plots in Suits episodes. I'll try to find out.
>>>>For those of you frustrated at the vast amount of press coverage Meghan Markle is getting despite her being an awful person who does awful things, the solution is simple -- ignore her. Don't click on any articles about her, don't comment, don't write letters to the editor, don't do anything at all, etc. Instead, just get out of her way as she destroys herself (and she's doing a damned good job of it). As Napoleon says, "Never interrupt the enemy when (she) is making a mistake."
Sage advice. It is something I'm trying to put in practice myself. The tipping point for me was the Merching of Archie and watching the sickening display of Mother of the Year in front of the Tutus. Worry for that baby does interrupt my sleep. I have speculated before that when the inevitable separation from the Royal Family occurs, Meg will stir up litigation again on a par with the Elian Gonzalez case in the 1990s. In brief for those who weren't following that, being too young to remember . . Elian was a little Cuban boy whose mother and all the other adults he was with drowned in their attempt to make landfall in Miami. Elian was rescued and taken in by maternal relatives in Miami--the same relatives his mother was trying to reach. She had abducted Elian from his father back in Cuba and was travelling with another man. After a drawn out global ugly custody battle fought in the courts--dragging on for nearly 2 years, IIRC, Elian was returned to his father in Cuba.
Meg would have no qualms about doing that to Archie--spiriting him away to L.A. and daring the Queen to wrest her child, heir to the British Crown, however distantly, away from her. I can imagine a 'settlement' favorable to Meg finally being reached, whereby she gets custody of Archie and the freedom to go back and forth with him wherever she pleases, and by this means, keep her hooks into the Royal teat forever, even after the Harkle marriage breaks up. That court battle would make this current fracas seem like a game of patty-cake. But Meg will do whatever she can think of to keep her name and image in the papers.
I will have more to say once I wade through all the awesome comments, but I agree with a earlier comment that in the event of depositions being made for the lawsuit they will want to talk to these people - so either the names will be revealed or it will be revealed that was a big fat lie and it was just Meg's PR company.
Just as an FYI - I am so Markle fatigued.
Just thought I'd throw it out there. But continue with the discourse :) I'm very interested in people's opinions.
In this case there is no need to bother to guess who these five friends are or even bother to believe that 5 people across America got together to give an interview about Meghan because People has never been known to conduct an interview with any of it's subjects nor does it question any of the PR articles it publishes on behalf of the paying subject. The publicist or subject themselves email what they want, people reproduce verbatim. There might be a back and forth if People decides to edit text, but at the end of the day they give subject full copy approval.
My view is that Meghan and her publicist composed entire article, quoted extensively the letter that she sent to Thomas as she kept a copy, they put quotes into the mouths of 5 phantom friends. These 5 phantom friends can also be publicly blamed for interview because they are seen as the transgressors even if they allegedly got permission to speak. This hides that Meghan herself gave this interview. Notice how carefully they insist on anonymity for privacy reasons. We should know by now that 'privacy' in the context of Meghan means she's upto no good. Privacy is a red flag and a tell.
The public is deliberately misled by the very precise descriptions of how the 5 phantoms are connected to Meghan thereby making erroneous (false) assumptions about who they might be. From a legal standpoint, assumptions are not facts and that is why we collect evidence to prove our assumptions.
Meghan doesn't stop to think that the resultant gotcha lawsuit and public reading comprehension would mean the 5 phantom friends would have to be revealed. Or she calculated that the lawsuit would quickly be settled out of court therefore no need to produce the 5 phantom friends.
As always she's a very good strategist in certain respects, but awful at the detail and fine print. That lack of attention to detail is what gets her every time.
He says: "Nobody in the Royal Family or the Royal Household is supporting Harry and Meghan at the moment. Even the couple’s aides seem embarrassed by their actions. William, who dropped his brother like a ton of hot bricks earlier this year, and Charles have distanced themselves."
I've seen that photo of their three hands linked over Thanksgiving dinner making the rounds. Allow me to express my profound cynicism that these are in fact Meg's parents' hands. Even supposing that Tom and Doria are no longer acrimonious since their divorce circa 1983 . . Tom lives in Mexico and Doria has a partner. Their 'chick' was 35 years old and, if it's November 2016, had already met Harry. I think it was an Insta-ready Hallmark Happy Families moment crafted to further sell Harry on her 'devoted daughter' image. Less than a year after this purported photo, Harry'd be telling the world that his family would be 'the family she never had'. What a difference a year makes, huh? It wouldn't be tough at all to get two hand models who roughly match Tom and Doria's skin tones and stage this photo. Meg can't keep track of the lies she's told . . shortly after this photo was allegedly taken, she put it about that she hadn't seen her father for five years.
So which is it, Meg?
>>>My feeling is that he only contacted the paparazzi for the photoshoot AFTER he realised he wasn't going to play any part in the wedding.
That's one possibility, though Thomas does not strike me as the long-range scheming type to arrange illicit papp photos by way of revenge. This kind of fake photo stunt DOES however have Meg written all over it. *My* feeling is that Meg (through some minions in the local area) arranged these 'candid' shots after contacting her dad and persuading him that this would be a great way to introduce himself to the public. After all, as her father, he was going to be a celebrity, too! She would of course have failed to mention that such a photo shoot was categorically frowned upon by the Palace. He wouldn't have had any reason to disbelieve her. At the time, the idea for the photos was attributed to Samantha. I did not think poorly of Thomas for his participation in these very innocuous pictures. It was obvious that they weren't entirely candid shots, but I figured that he'd accepted payment for them so he could cover the costs of his trip to London for the wedding. New clothes, airfare, a wedding gift for the couple . . .out of the pride you spoke of, and not have his daughter or his daughter's in-laws-to-be foot the bill for him completely.
How naive I was then . . .
As for the assertion by her family members that Meg has 'changed' .. I don't believe that adults change fundamentally from who they have always been, especially not with such swiftness as it's claimed she did. She is, and has always been, a Narcissist. She learned to hide much of her uglier side while she was still an up-and-comer. She could play sweet to Trevor and her yachting clients and other celebrities she was trying to cultivate on her way up, because she needed them far more than they needed her. After she got a regular acting gig and started making her own money, she got a little more comfortable to let out more of the real Meg. And now that she's a Duchess of the United Kingdom, her ego is uncontainable.
Please, oh, please let her wear her enormous strap on a$$ to court so they can literally hand it to her. Hope of this is going to keep me going!
Mimi, I'm just very thankful that my past was before the internet so that my grandchildren don't know it!
@Acquitaine, wow! That's some great information about People Knee Pad mag. That explains a lot! Thank you!
There's a lot in the DM articles today about Epstein and his charity/foundation contributions with more information about his executor, Khan et al. It makes me wonder after the great digging Nutty wrote about upthread about Epstein's connections that Megs is closer than 6 degrees of separation from them.
Hikari brings up the yachting days, so I wonder, when would Meg's yachting days have happened? It would be nice to make a timeline.
The reason I'm trying to connect this is because I think it's possible that the real reason Megs brought this lawsuit, along with Harry's right now is that they wanted to get the jump on anything about Meg's connections to Epstein coming out. If you've got something huge to hide, like for example if Megs had a close connection to Ghislaine Maxwell, you'd want to use a lawsuit to distract and possibly block any kind of exposure via Fleet Street.
Earlier someone gave great detail about the possible reason for filing before Oct. 1 was because of court division concerns, but wait, they've had several months to file this, so court venue wasn't the priority. There's something else going on and I think it has something to do with the records reveals about Epstein and his concentric circles of friends and their foundations. One or two of the Epstein charity donations went to Elton John, and who was visiting Elton awhile back on that last minute trip to Nice to see the Rocket Man in his private jet? I doubt they were only discussing legal strategy with Sir Elton on that wham bam thank you ma'am visit. No sireee. They also discussed how to deflect, distract and manipulate and circumvent BP and the public away from news about Meg's connection to Epstein's partners.
@Nelo That's wild. Re: Richard Palmer's tweet.
BREAKING NEWS. Lol. This tweet from Richard Palmer 44 mins ago I interesting.
He says: "Nobody in the Royal Family or the Royal Household is supporting Harry and Meghan at the moment. Even the couple’s aides seem embarrassed by their actions. William, who dropped his brother like a ton of hot bricks earlier this year, and Charles have distanced themselves."
The family must be establshing plausible deniability.
I feel sorry for William. This has become positively Shakespearean. His brother has committed treason by messing with the bloodline. Prince Andrew may be a dickhead perv, but he didn't commit HIGH TREASON.
I looked at the tape on Celebrity Jihad and I’m convinced it’s her. She is so vain and convinced that every man is dying to have her that it’s easy to see where she would think it was just more publicity. Had she used a good surgeon for her implants they would have been inserted under the muscle and wouldn’t swing like that. She must have been in a tight budget. As a retired ob/gyn I’m not easily embarrassed. Believe me, I’ve seen it all However I did shower after seeing that tape. The still shot that’s supposedly H&M is an obvious photoshop job. Neither of them are looking at the camera or even in the same direction. We know very little about her “lost years” when she was supposedly too broke to fix her car door necessitating climbing through the window and kept running out of gas. Maybe she supplemented her income by doing some blue movies. Skippy has a prayer on her tumblr if you feel the need for some soul cleansing absolution after viewing it. ; ) I’m anxious to hear what excuses she comes up for the whole debacle although we probably can’t expect any statement from the in-laws. This makes Randy Andy and his 17 year old look tame.
https://www.celebjihad.com/meghan-markle/meghan-markle-brexit-sex-tape-video
Video description suggests she's cheating on Harry in it but clearly it was filmed longer ago as she appears to be younger.
I watched it and unless Deep Fakes has improved to include a youth filter, it is absolutely her with a prior set of implants. I believe she just got a new set on her NYC trip to curse Serena Williams because she didn't have boobs before (lately) and she suddenly does in all the Africa pics.
Yeah so that link above is straight porn. She is rumored to have dated a porn star and my friend acknowledged he knew the guy as a professional porn dude. The lighting in the video is also super professional and they perform in at least four positions, the video is FULL banana so consider yourself warned.
Friend also says you can tell in the first three seconds of the video that she is a hooker who has done this before. I re-watched the beginning and can see what he means. Huh.
Show me a convincing deep fake - ANY convincing deep fake and I might reconsider.
To get that license an MSW and paying a fee is required.
She is not a clinical social worker. Her ASW license was granted in 2015. She hasn't gotten the LCSW. That does require 3000 hrs of supervised practice over 2 years and passing both a California exam and a national exam. Still, if she hasn't done it yet, she not likely to as a yoga teacher.
If that is a lookalike, she’s going to have a TREMENDOUS porn career! Lucky girl. 🍀
The studio better start casting for Harry lookalikes too tho if they really want to make serious bank! 💰
(Not that I think anyone really ships them... *Kanye shrug*)
Her ex isn't terrible-looking, look: https://www.womanmagazine.co.uk/woman-magazine/meghan-markle-ex-porn-star-76047
I'd check out his work! 🖤
Is it true that Haz is suing for media allegedly hacking his phone in early 2000's? I find that interesting - my theory is they have something they were about to release and this is a dim attempt at stopping it.
Or am I going a bit cray?
In the UK ,the openness of courts is a fundamental principle of the judicial system. It is generally taken for granted that court proceedings are open to the public and may be freely reported.
However the idea of open justice is not absolute. Exceptions have been developed by courts through the common law where, on rare occasions, limits are placed on publicity. Numerous statutory provisions also recognise that justice requires that the general rule of openness be modified in particular cases, this applies mostly to Juvenile and criminal cases, cases regarding sexual offences, protecting victims of violence etc. and maters of national security.
It would be extraordinary if a judge closes the court entirely on this type of suit but it is certainly possible, he/she could ban anyone not involved directly in the case from being present at the proceedings (public and media). As the relevant media would acctually be in court for this one they would still have 1st hand information to report and it would likely defeat the purpose of a closed court.
However,‘a media embargo’ may be issued by the judge which means they could attend in limited numbers but they would not be permitted to report on the trial in any manner, or identify any witnesses until a specific date, probably not until the trial had ended, theoretically the embargo could stay in place for months.
Regarding the early filing date to avoid changes in court venue hearings: it might still not be enough, the Media themselves might countersue, before or after this current trail starts, by that time the date for change of court venue will have kicked in. Or they may refile after the trial on appeal citing new 'evidence'. I’m not sure where the jurisdiction would lay then.
After watching a poorer quality video of Emma Watson doing unimaginable things, I no longer believe the video is real.
I apologize for being so easily fooled, I don't watch pretend porn so I didn't realize it had become so advanced.
I AM SORRY EVERYONE.
Also...Meghan has a annoying way of raising her eyebrows when she is holding her speeches and want to emphasise things. The woman in this video IS raising her eybrows a lot :) but not in the same annoying way Meghan does it.
I apologize to my brain for watching that.
Don't feel bad, Hunter.
Not everyone is a connoisseur...
lols, *sheepishly raises hand*
I totally paginate exactly like that, but it’s bc I write on the front and back of sheets of paper, and itks a mess that is impossible to dollow otherwise.
I wonder if everyone’s opinions about that video (similar/same face, but wrong body/movts) would be explained by the upsurge of “Deep Fake” porn videos that have recently started to spread.
meant to say, it’s a mess that is impossible to follow
I feel Schillings must have already advised her about the 5 friends being exposed in the future. Usually lawyers and clients thrash out all the weak points before proceeding to act. Unless, they didn't as this was good business coming their way.
The media embargo on the court case appears more favourable, but not to the public. Suspect that royal priveledge or national security will be used.
With no support, seemingly , from the BRF , I doubt whether they want their dirty linen to be aired publicly. So I am all for the embargo.
Nobody in the Royal Family or the Royal Household is supporting Harry and Meghan at the moment. Even the couple’s aides seem embarrassed by their actions. William, who dropped his brother like a ton of hot bricks earlier this year, and Charles have distanced themselves.
Obviously, if that changes it will be a story but at the moment the Sussexes appear out on a limb. Whatever the merits of their various legal actions, they didn’t inform their family that Harry was going to release that inflammatory statement.
@swishyfishy and lizzie - Meghan definitely wrote on the https://meghanpedia.com/how-to-be-both/
"Yes, my hometown is Hollywood, California, but what you think of as The City of Angels, and what I know to be home, are two very different things.
So let’s begin there.
I was born and raised in Los Angeles, a California girl who lives by the ethos that most things can be cured with either yoga, the beach, or a few avocados. I’m being cheeky, clearly, but it speaks to the temperament I grew up around. With a free-spirited clinical therapist for a mom, and the most hardworking father you can imagine (a television lighting director by trade), I always had a foot in two worlds, because their work and home environments were so vastly different. "
Ugh. Why can't this be evidence that Meghan will outright lie to put herself in a good light, that her parents must not shame or embarrass her. She's using this clinical therapist bit to explain why she was raised to be a humanitarian from the very beginning. Usually people lie in their memoirs much later, but she already wrote the first draft of chapter 1 in her memoir before she even became a Duchess.
William's "earlier this year" lines up well with the Archie birth debacle.
And I think it's signficant that Charles is no longer supporting Harry and Meghan, since he was originally "Tungsten's" biggest cheerleader, and the Royal Family member she was most successful at winning over.
"It’s always difficult covering the Royal Family because information rarely comes directly from the principals but there are sufficient people with direct knowledge speaking to make me confident that the Queen is unhappy about the behaviour of the Sussexes over the past months."
@SwishyFishy, I read somewhere that the horrible, dark thing that she did that caused Ninaki to side with Trevor was abort his child, then ask for a divorce. It's a rumor, nothing to back it up, but that would be something truly heinous that would cause a good friend to turn on you.
I read that as well. That would be such a vicious act that I can't believe that people would keep quiet about it.
Come hither, all ye empty things
Ye bubbles raised by breath of kings
Who float upon the tide of state
Come hither and behold your fate
Let pride be taught by this rebuke
How very mean a thing's a duke
From all his ill-got honours flung
Turned to that dirt from whence he sprung
Harry has an engagement in Nottingham this Thursday, the 10th. It will be VERY interesting to observe his demeanour and to see his interaction with the press. I wish they'd all get together and come to an agreement just not to cover any of the Sussexes' engagements. If they want privacy, fine, let them have it.
Speaking of engagements, anything in the pipeline for Meghan? I'm pretty sure most of her appearances in the latter half of the Africa tour were not offical royal engagements, so shouldn't she be out and about earning her keep soon?
Certainly the California licensure site documents Doria's first license in any sort of "human services" field was issued in 2015 shortly after she earned an MSW. Supposedly she'd earned her undergraduate degree in PSY in 2011 when M would have been about 30. So neither had happened when Meghan was "growing up."
Of course, in California the term "clinical therapist" may not be legally protected ("therapist" usually is not legally protected) so maybe a part-time yoga instructor could be described that way. I think it's clear though M intended to create a false impression about Doria's professional life. And I think the view by "sugars" that M helped Harry excise his "mental and emotional demons" because she grew up with a clinically-trained mom definitely was misplaced. On CB (got too gag-inducing so I no longer read it) at the time of the wedding when Doria quit her job, many posters thought Doria would move to the UK to "open her own practice" since she had so many years of solid experience as a social worker...yeah, less than 3 full years and that all had to be under supervision.
HEADLINE:
Prince William and Kate Middleton's Royal Foundation REMOVES Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from its website and abolishes 'empowering women' as an area of interest after couple left to launch their own charity.
15 October - The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will attend the annual WellChild Awards at The Royal Lancaster Hotel.
I wonder if the BRF is freezing her out and not allowing her to undertake any solo engagements. When Fergie got the Big Freeze from the Palace, all of her engagements were canceled.
Also, to be fair, the court circular doesn't give well in advance notices about many of Kate's engagements either.
But, yeah MMs probably not going to be doing any major solo enagagements anytime soon. The only thing she did was smartworks that was more or less a vanity project for her.
@Swampwoman, I'm reminded how thankful I am that my university days occurred prior to social media. LOL.
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that someone with a felony conviction on her record for welfare fraud, who spent time in custody on those charges would be ruled ineligible for a professional licensure. Goes to character and ethics. Particularly for someone entrusted with administering mental health support to vulnerable patients/clients, the opportunities for abuse/manipulation for somebody with a criminal bent would be rife.
I guess we see that the (rotten) apple does not fall far from the rotten tree that nurtured it. If Doria earned prison time for fraud, it wasn't just a one-time thing, a mistake or an oversight, but a systematic pattern of violations.
With a criminal felony conviction and jail time on her record, I suppose the only employment she can get is teaching senior yoga, and I got the impression that that gig is volunteer or very minimally paid.
****
It will be interesting to see if Harry makes his engagement in Nottingham in a couple of days, and whether we find out where he arrived from. The Suxxits are laying very low; no sightings of them for nearly a week.
Autumn here now, and the dark nights are getting earlier and earlier. Someone who walks their dog close to Frogmore says there are never any lights on.
Strange!
Mm not wearing any smart works clothes to me is a big lol, never thought we'd ever see her in those mns dresses anyway. Maybe that's what she told the mns execs before the launch, "I'll wear mishus shirt and the jigsaw pants now, thank you very much. But don't worry I'll definitely wear these awesome dresses in South Africa, I promise". Classic Markle!
PS: my phone autocorrects MNs name every time, and I can't be bothered to correct it. Such a weird name.why do all the HnM friends always have these 'unique' names - Nonoo, nacho, ninaki...
I wonder whether the quarry has gone to ground or whether the press is giving them their desired privacy good and hard.
https://www.bbs.ca.gov/consumers/criminal_convictions.html
The next big family appearance will be in November. Should be interesting to observe the dynamics. And is anyone already taking bets on whether the Harkles will show for the customary Christmas walk to church at Sandringham? My bet is they won't be there.
https://twitter.com/byQueenVic/status/1180035683659997186
My bets are on LG and Buckhouse who made sure the tape was released.
Tick Tock that’s how long before she is well and truly dusted.
Florida law has a really dreadful penalty imposed on health care providers who are found guilty, pled guilty, or plead no contest to certain criminal charges. The result of any of these actions means that the Department of Health (or your specific professional board) has to:
Refuse to admit a candidate to any examination for a license
Refuse to issue a license (certificate or registration)
Non-renew an existing license
The law states that any such conviction or plea shall exclude the applicant from licensure unless the sentence or probation period ended:
More than 5 years ago – for felonies of the 3rd degree involving possession under Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes;
More than 10 years ago – for felonies of the 3rd degree;
More than 15 years ago – for felonies of the 1st and 2nd degrees.
Similarly, if your crime involves certain laws including Medicaid/Medicare or public assistance fraud, and depending on the plea or conviction, a licensee may have to sit out anywhere from 5-20 years. The exact number of years is dependent on the circumstances.
Agree re all the mysteries in MM’s past. Has anyone pointed out that Priyanka is no longer friends with MM? Recall how news reportts states that Priyanka visited Archie after the birth and she denied it? Priyanka sure has in her nose in the wind and disavowed all knowledge to the Harkles. Because of those instincts she will never go away.
I can't believe you're still pushing this!
Palmer also said "Nobody in the Royal Family or the Royal Household is supporting Harry and Meghan at the moment." It's clear as day that the senior royals do not approve of the Harkles' legal shenanigans, for the reasons we've been through several times. I simply don't understand why you're so desperate to beleive otherwise, despite all the evidence. But that's not my problem.
“Make me confidant that the Queen is unhappy about the behavior of the Sussexes over the past months.”
That is quite a message.
“Past months” includes the tour.
Why am so pro Priyanka? Because I recently watch the trailer of her latest Bollywood project that's releasing soon. It's quite good. So I do think she has some dignity left, unlike the mishas and Ellens of the world.
Anyway, this isn't about the main brou-ha-ha but someone's mention of the Sandringham walk this Christmas. What if the BRF don't want H&M to be there, but they decide to push in anyway, like they did for the investiture exhibition at BP? I can just imagine H&M trying to be there for the finish, as their arrogance and stupidity knows no bounds. They are then surrounded by burly Norfolk policemen, like Caesar's signature turtle move, and shuffled away in full view of the BRF's devoted public. They'd even help if Meghan used a surprise yoga move and made a dash for it, straggly hair waving.
>>>@Hikari, how did you find out that Doria that spent time in prison for welfare fraud? I heard drugs, and other things but never welfare fraud.<<<
I actually don't have any independent attribution of this. Was repeating a comment someone else posted earlier in this space. Shouldn't do that, but i find our commentators are well-informed, and it seemed like a plausibility. Maybe the person I got it from (sorry, I've forgotten who initially posted about welfare fraud) could elaborate further?
'Welfare fraud' is a broad umbrella. It could mean that she was cashing checks for a relative who had passed away, and not necessarily that she was harming others. But a custodial sentence is pretty serious. It's sort of a Catch 22; if one's mother has spent time in the pokey, which is the lesser of two evils: Drugs or welfare fraud?
Like Meg's birth certificate, prison records are public documents and are easily verifiable. Something significant took Doria away from her preteen daughter for a number of years, and it wasn't anything good, like an overseas posting for some glamorous job or else Meg would have been sure we heard all about it.
Very unlike them to go invisible for a whole week.
Has Granny gotten so fed up, She told Harry and his baggage to not bother coming home? Maybe Sir Elton & David will take them in. Or maybe they are just having a quiet pub lunch with Archie somewhere and we are blowing things out of proportion.
ThisLittlePetal tweeted 10 hours ago from St. Rocco's Hospice in Warrington, 3 hours north of London, near Liverpool, with some other comments posted 7 and 6 hours ago. It's after 7PM in the UK now. Are the Suxxits wending their way home slowly with a stop off in Nottingham? Nottingham looks to be about an hour east of Warrington; north-centrally located some 2 hours and 45 minutes from London. Do any of our NuttySnoops have intel on an official engagement for Harry in honor of #HospiceWeek?
I suppose Harry's demeanor when we see him next will tell a story, along with how many engagements he's got coming up from now til Christmas.
Were I a bettin' woman, I'd lay all my quid with Ladbrokes on the Sussexes NOT being invited to Sandringham this year for Christmas. While watching the Epic Scarfing provided entertainment value, I doubt anyone in the RF is up for still pretending that they are welcoming Meg to their midst. Though lack of an invitation has never stopped her from turning up where she wants to. Shall we look for her pressed up to the gates waving Archie at the Queen?
We will have to lay in a big vat of Christmas punch for the scenario.
They might passively aggressively ignore them during dinner or as they smilingly wave to the church crowd, but I bet they'll still invite them. No matter what Harry does, he's of their royal blood and they'll never really snub him unless he does something to really damaging to the Queen. Meghan gets a pass because she's his wife. So much for feminism, when your status and power lie solely in your husband...
It's entirely possible that the Harkles will be *invited* but continue on in their petulant p*ssy FU mode and not show up. Opinion is still split as to whether the Harkles were invited/expected at Balmoral and they blew the Queen off in favor of their 'Summer of Free Private Jets Programme' instead . . or if HMTQ showed her displeasure with them by not extending them the privilege of an invite to her favorite spot.
They may be family, nominally, in the case of Meg, but these invitations by the Queen are still privileges. Does anyone but the hardest core sugar still believe that these 'shows of solidarity' have anything behind them at all that's . .well, solid? Christmas is still a ways off; perhaps the Harkle's invite to Sandringham will be contingent upon how these lawsuits progress and what is revealed in discovery. Sure, the Queen is bucking up Andrew in the midst of his scandal . . but Andrew is her son and favorite. I wouldn't expect such a public show of royal support for the American grifter granddaughter and her dimmest grandkid who has landed HM in a whole heap of hot water. I suppose Charles is getting an earful about the Harkles from the maternal unit as I write this.
OMG, that made me giggle. I can see her doing it, holding his little hand so as to not cover HER face so that the paps can get her good side.....SMDH
So, I went and read some of what I missed at the Harry Markle site and got incensed all over again about Megs and her lawsuit. Her poor father! I'm not a birth parent, but my nieces and nephews are my kids...if one of them did this to me, I'd be broken. Truly broken. She is truly an evil person. WHO does this to their parent?
No worries. You didn't do anything wrong by mentioning the welfare fraud. As a hobby site, we are not held to same standard as a published newspaper (though those standards are d@mn low these days . . ). I think of NuttyGroup as the proverbial blind men groping the elephant . . each of them has a piece of the whole, but he can only experience the elephant and report on his experiences based on his very limited frame of reference. We are kind of like that. All of us have heard and read different things about the Harkles and we're just flinging all of our pieces on the table to see what we can make fit into some semblance of 'truth'.
As you said,
>>>the TRUTH exists and others have done some investigating and have posted actual records of other shady information regarding Doria. The death of her father, the forgery of her brothers signature to obtain the house, etc. I have nothing against Doria. But in my opinion, it is not right to print negative things about only one side of her family when the other side is just as bad if not worse than the Markles.<<<
Yes, Doria's gotten a really big pass owing to being the parent with the 'right' complexion to serve Meg's narrative as a woke WOC. At the wedding I didn't have a problem with Doria; I actually felt sorry for her, thrust upon the world stage all alone with no other family members to sit with. Her poise on that occasion impressed me. But since then I have come to have a feeling that there are potentially many things I could hold against Doria. That GIF of her licking her lips at the wedding while she looked at Harry the way a she-wolf would look at a nice fat ginger bunny rabbit got me thinking that she just may be very complicit in her daughter's schemes to bilk the RF for as much as she can get. Meg is obviously squirrelling money away with her mother; Doria's bank account has swelled by some 9 Million dollars in the last year. She didn't get all that from doing extra yoga classes.
That's another unattributed factoid about Doria btw, but I have read it in multiple outlets as well as the rumor about her prison time. There's no honor among thieves--I'd think it'd be really hilarious if Doria would find a way to abscond with her daughter's merching proceeds. I would larf and larf!!