While Duchess Meghan clearly has an interest in getting back into show business - Prince Harry was even heard promoting her voiceover talents to Disney chairman Bob Iger - show business seems to have much less interest in Meghan.
Although various blind items have suggested that she is setting up meetings to discuss projects with various production houses, only one US-based project has been definitively announced: Prince Harry's documentary series about "mental health" in co-operation with Oprah Winfrey for the new Apple+ network.
(While Harry is the co-creator co-executive producer, it seems inevitable that Meg will play a role in the production and make one if not several appearances.)
What does Prince Harry have to teach us about mental health?
Willam explains how his patronages the London Air Ambulance and Child Bereavement UK will be working together in two areas: one, teaching the Air Ambulance staff how to talk sensitively to family members of an child killed or severely injured in an incident, and secondly to help the Air Ambulance members themselves deal with the extreme stress of a job where they encounter devastating tragedies.
In the video, he speaks about his own struggles coping with bereavements when working for the Air Ambulance. "Having worked at the scene of traumatic incidents involving children, it was impossible for me not to take on board the enormous sadness and make the connection between the distressing events I had witnessed and my own family."
This sounds like a useful project that will help the people of Britain, exactly the sort of thing that a Royal patron of a charity should be doing.
So, what's Harry up to?
He also has an obvious angle in his association with military charities. Sadly, current and former service members have an extremely high rate of suicide, perhaps because of PTSD, perhaps because of their access to weapons. This would be a useful topic of a documentary.
So would addiction. Harry has already been to rehab once as a teenager on Prince Charles' orders, supposedly because Harry was using marijuana. His longtime cocaine use appears to be an open secret, and he also reportedly drinks heavily.
There may be more substances in play, and Harry's rumpled appearance, particularly his stained clothes and weaving gait at a recent event at Royal Albert Hall, do not suggest a man who is completely sober.
A frank look at addiction - and how it can affect the very fortunate as well as the less fortunate - would be compelling television, but Buckingham Palace may not be quite ready for that.
(Yes, folks, "thrive and survive" made an appearance way back in April 2019.)
In that statement, Harry was quoted as saying the documentary would be "positive, enlightening, and inclusive", which sounds like something Meg would write, but whatever.
Harry was also quoted as saying, "I truly believe that good mental health - mental fitness - is the key to powerful leadership, productive communities, and a purpose-driven self."
This sounds like the sort of word salad that marred the Fab Four's Mental Health PSA released in October, an advert that was so general about the topic that it wasn't very useful to anyone.
The documentary series will also show "human spirit fighting back from the darkest places," which I dearly hope will not be another exercise in pity tourism similar to what the Sussexes carried out in South Africa.
Meghan continues to insert herself into the tragic case of Uyinene Mrwetyana, a young woman murdered in Cape Town, sending a video this week to help launch a foundation in Uyinene's name.
Many are "BAME"- the British term for citizens who are Black, Asian, or Middle Eastern - exactly the sort of community Meghan says she cares about.
Wouldn't a project to address knife crime in the UK and its mental health implications - both for the survivors and for the relatives of the dead - be a more appropriate use of Meg's time and focus?
There's an old American cowboy expression that goes, "You have to dance with the girl that brung you." (Wikipedia defines it as "be considerate and loyal to the one who has been supportive, attentive, or helpful to you.")
Based on what we know about the Oprah Winfrey documentary, I cannot see how it will benefit the people of the United Kingdom who are paying Prince Harry's and Duchess Meghan's bills.
Perhaps it is time for them to be on their own, without public support, so they can pursue the causes they care about unhampered by the British populace they don't.
----------
Housekeeping note: This post is about the Sussexes. I will keep the Prince Andrew thread open for a few days so we can continue our discussions of Andrew, Beatrice, Edo, and that branch of the Royal Family there.
Although various blind items have suggested that she is setting up meetings to discuss projects with various production houses, only one US-based project has been definitively announced: Prince Harry's documentary series about "mental health" in co-operation with Oprah Winfrey for the new Apple+ network.
(While Harry is the co-creator co-executive producer, it seems inevitable that Meg will play a role in the production and make one if not several appearances.)
What does Prince Harry have to teach us about mental health?
William's mental health video
The most convincing hosts and spokespeople speak from experience: Prince William's one-and-a-half minute PSA about mental health, released this week, is a good example.Willam explains how his patronages the London Air Ambulance and Child Bereavement UK will be working together in two areas: one, teaching the Air Ambulance staff how to talk sensitively to family members of an child killed or severely injured in an incident, and secondly to help the Air Ambulance members themselves deal with the extreme stress of a job where they encounter devastating tragedies.
In the video, he speaks about his own struggles coping with bereavements when working for the Air Ambulance. "Having worked at the scene of traumatic incidents involving children, it was impossible for me not to take on board the enormous sadness and make the connection between the distressing events I had witnessed and my own family."
This sounds like a useful project that will help the people of Britain, exactly the sort of thing that a Royal patron of a charity should be doing.
So, what's Harry up to?
Harry's mental health struggles
Harry has been open about struggling with his own mental health, particularly with grieving and guilt over the death of his mother Diana 22 years ago.He also has an obvious angle in his association with military charities. Sadly, current and former service members have an extremely high rate of suicide, perhaps because of PTSD, perhaps because of their access to weapons. This would be a useful topic of a documentary.
So would addiction. Harry has already been to rehab once as a teenager on Prince Charles' orders, supposedly because Harry was using marijuana. His longtime cocaine use appears to be an open secret, and he also reportedly drinks heavily.
There may be more substances in play, and Harry's rumpled appearance, particularly his stained clothes and weaving gait at a recent event at Royal Albert Hall, do not suggest a man who is completely sober.
A frank look at addiction - and how it can affect the very fortunate as well as the less fortunate - would be compelling television, but Buckingham Palace may not be quite ready for that.
"Tools to thrive, rather than simply survive"
According to the publicity when the series was announced in April, it will "focus on both mental illness and mental wellness, inspiring viewers to have an honest conversation about the challenges each of us faces, and how to equip ourselves with the tools to thrive, rather than to simply survive."(Yes, folks, "thrive and survive" made an appearance way back in April 2019.)
In that statement, Harry was quoted as saying the documentary would be "positive, enlightening, and inclusive", which sounds like something Meg would write, but whatever.
Harry was also quoted as saying, "I truly believe that good mental health - mental fitness - is the key to powerful leadership, productive communities, and a purpose-driven self."
This sounds like the sort of word salad that marred the Fab Four's Mental Health PSA released in October, an advert that was so general about the topic that it wasn't very useful to anyone.
The documentary series will also show "human spirit fighting back from the darkest places," which I dearly hope will not be another exercise in pity tourism similar to what the Sussexes carried out in South Africa.
Meghan continues to insert herself into the tragic case of Uyinene Mrwetyana, a young woman murdered in Cape Town, sending a video this week to help launch a foundation in Uyinene's name.
Back to Britain
Uyinene's case is tragic, but so are the cases of the 23 young people who have been stabbed to death so far in 2019 in the Royal's home country, the United Kingdom.Many are "BAME"- the British term for citizens who are Black, Asian, or Middle Eastern - exactly the sort of community Meghan says she cares about.
Wouldn't a project to address knife crime in the UK and its mental health implications - both for the survivors and for the relatives of the dead - be a more appropriate use of Meg's time and focus?
There's an old American cowboy expression that goes, "You have to dance with the girl that brung you." (Wikipedia defines it as "be considerate and loyal to the one who has been supportive, attentive, or helpful to you.")
Based on what we know about the Oprah Winfrey documentary, I cannot see how it will benefit the people of the United Kingdom who are paying Prince Harry's and Duchess Meghan's bills.
Perhaps it is time for them to be on their own, without public support, so they can pursue the causes they care about unhampered by the British populace they don't.
----------
Housekeeping note: This post is about the Sussexes. I will keep the Prince Andrew thread open for a few days so we can continue our discussions of Andrew, Beatrice, Edo, and that branch of the Royal Family there.
Comments
I had assumed that this break would be their way of spinning their American stint while they work on the documentary. Makes sense if you consider that there cryfest has been very recent and it's not their usual MO to appear weak or miserable. Mm has always projected the 'perfect family' image, it doesn't seem like she would want to appear weak, sad, not-thriving. I just think that maybe something did not work in their favour, and the waiting period was longer than they were willing to bargain for. The public now thinks of them as annoying, hypocritical, attention seeking.
I really do believe that MM will be a huge part of the conceptualization of this project and that that will be a big reason why it will be yet another blah self serving attempt. Maybe that's already the reason why it's being delayed, because of creative differences between Oprah and the Sussexes??
The Americans who are long time royal-watchers seem to be mostly disgusted by Harry and Meghan. And longtime American royal watchers certainly know the BRF is expected to serve the Queen and the UK, not spend time pontificating to Americans.
Another chunk of Americans may remember Harry as "Diana's ginger-haired son" (if they are old enough--after all, Diana has been dead nearly a quarter of a century), and/or may know M as the ho-hum second-rate Toronto-based actress Harry married, but otherwise they don't really care about the two of them one way or the other. I expect most Americans fall into this group.
The only people who likely will be interested are the Meghan-obsessed group-think "fans" who seem to have the emotional maturity of teenagers. While vocal, I expect this group is actually fairly small. And like teenagers, they may soon shift their focus to the next new shiny object to come along.
And @Alice, you are correct, it has been a long time since we have heard about the documentary series - although it could be expected to have a long production time, particularly if it involves multiple interviews and locales.
It could be, however, that like Meghan, Oprah suddenly found herself with a chemically-impaired Harry not capable of doing much at all.
@Lizzie, the US TV ratings for documentaries about the Harkles confirm that their organic audience is not very big. As for her puerile
"fans" online, I find it difficult to tell which ones are real and which ones are paid.
She likely just wanted to say something because the nation is collectively thinking about the PA saga right now, and she wanted to endearing herself by voucing an opinion that most public already have. Being in the telegraph is just her newest strategy to legitimize herself.
I think the documentary is currently being prepared. MM still has a lot of support.
They're so predictable... They take no risks and ride along on the most popular social issues (women empowerment, mental health, climate change, body positivity...). The only popular issue in the US she can't jump into is all the topics related to the black & African-american communities (see American son, the Obama foundation, Black lives matters, when they see us...) : it mustn't be easy for her!
I think this documentary will be act II of their pity party & act II of their split from the BRF.
I can imagine they'll use people's stories (veteran, athlete, sick person (AIDS, eating disorder...), victim of domestic violence, new mum, victim of sexual violence....) to highlight their own mental health. At the end of the day, all the news headlines will be about them :
- chapter one on Diana's death/paparazzi (1st documentary in S.A was a kind of incipit),
- chapter II on PTSD in veterans. I don't think it was a random "intimate & secret" meeting with military families in Windsor (Harry, as a former soldier would share his experience : remake of American soldier),
- chapter III would be on being a royal / the British stiff upper lip / being a new mummy/daddy/weds. We may see them taking Archie to playgroup or attending to parent support group.
Long-term friends, A+ list celebrities, US & UK politicians would praise them for having given a voice to people to those who are silent and being so honest about their mental health!
As they're obviously trying to break the internet :
-they'll need breaking news so I can imagine they could also make passive agressive statements on Charles' affair with Camilla (how difficult it was for Harry to see his mummy crying) or on Andrew (interviewing a victim of sexual assault)
- the documentary will come as a surprise, a secret (key word for MM) project they prepared during their 6 weeks family time off.
- the documentary has to remain secret because it’s gonna be bomshell number 2. They’re going to lie and to hide this documentary from Charles & BP (or at least the most crispy parts).
Prince Charles +42
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall -7
Prince William +74
Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge +70
Prince Harry +51
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex +11
Prince Andrew -69.
The Times and Telegraph are known as the official mediums for the royals that's why no one doubts any royal story from them, especially, the times.
As for the documentary, has Oprah had a successful tv production in recent years? The Morning Show produced by America's sweetheart, Jennifer Aniston for Apple had very low ratings how much worse will a documentary from H and M do?
Also, telegraph is definitely a so called unofficial official.medium.for the royals. Which is why it's surprising that she is being quoted in a telegraph article. After the MP letter and now this telegraph article, is SS trying to get MM into the so called smarter set's psyche? That's why I said they are bow trying to legitimize her. Her original fan base is more the people, GoodHouskeeping , national enquirer, I stagram type right? But she isn't happy with that,she wants more. She wants be recognising and lauded for her better than you-ness.
It would, if only Markle was interested in the lives of British people. She couldn't give a damn about any of us aside from how much money she can leech out of the system. Every appearance, and I mean EVERY appearance has been for her benefit in some way.
By contrast William and Kate focus on British people, British trade, British profile overseas. Everything they do has a British focus at the core.
I think this difference is why Markle will never ever be successful in the UK. As time goes on, it gets worse as more people see her for what she really is. The vast majority were so willing to welcome her, but not so any more.
On top of her tone deaf, greedy and self-centred behaviour she either is incapable of learning or does not want. Personally, I think it's a bit of both. What could possibly have promoted her to make that comment about Andrew? I don't buy into the "source" theory, I think it came straight from her via one of her many mouthpieces. It was a most ill-advised comment because no matter what, that's the Queen's favourite son she's throwing shade at (love that modern saying!).
The news that, despite being on a break for six weeks, she has sent a video about the start up of the Uyinene Mrwetyana foundation shows that she just can't help herself. I'm an oldie Brit and have been following royal news since the 1960s, through all the years, including such events as Margaret's shinnangans, the War of the Wales, Fergie's toe sucking etc., I cannot recall ever seeing someone so self-centred, greedy and damaging in the RF.
As for Harry, I think we are now seeing his real personality. He is spoilt, petulant and immature. He and Markle enable each other in their quest for fauxmanitarian glory. The only hope we have is that Andrew's "retirement" prompts a further tightening up of acceptable behaviour.
In the DM this morning there is an article saying that William was part of the process and decision making in sidelining Andrew. Given that he saw right through Markle and cautioned Harry before they got engaged, there is hope that the Harkle Debarcle will be reined in, and soon.
I guess Meghan is at the (to me) astoundingly high figures of +11 because of her stans. Such a polarising figure when she's meant to be unifying.
Numbers aren't brilliant for Charles and Camilla either, given no one is more senior than him apart from the Queen. 51% yes. 35% no. 14% undecided. Must be the Camilla factor.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10410756/royal-poll-taxpayer-funding-prince-andrew/
Who exactly is in this supportive US group besides Hillary, Ellen, maybe Serena (none of them are leaders of public opinion these days IMO) plus a few fair-weather Hollywood "friends?"
I have read this kind of statement before and I'm truly puzzled by it. I don't think I've ever heard MM discussed positively anywhere I've been except right before the wedding and even then, it was more in passing with the sentiment being "glad Harry's found someone to settle down with" not "wow, she's so amazing and so accomplished."
Now MM's pretty much never mentioned by most people I engage with or even read about. And while I don't necessarily get around all that much, to never hear anything about her except in stories in the media, many seemingly planted by her "anonymous friends"....Many young people I encounter (18-25) don't seem to even know who she is and are pretty vague about who Harry is too.
In comparison, I do occasionally hear folks discuss people like Kim Kardashian and Angelina Jolie. Some of it is derisive, at least so far as Kim's "alternative law school" plans go and so far as a range of Angelina's recent saintly activities go. But I do know people who might watch their TV specials. Meghan's? Not really. And I think Harry's US popularity, to the extent he had any, peaked with his friendship with President Obama. (Not trying to get into politics but even the Democratic party seems to have moved away from Obama. While he continues to be a gifted fundraiser, he's hardly front page news these days otherwise or a mover of overt public opinion.)
- Has he not achieved improvement because therapy failed?
- Has his family failed him and continues to?
- Maybe he never addressed his mental health challenges appropriately (ie. self-medicating)?
- He is suffering new problems on top of old problems (ie. lawsuit, overwrought concern for Meghan)?
- How will he spin it that others will find him credible?
These are just some of what could be many issues that he will have to navigate and successfully explain if he really wants us to believe his achievements toward thriving not just surviving. Otherwise, he looks like a failure in a depressive situation. Will or even could, Oprah accept the hard truth if she can even find it when the Harkles have sent a mixed message to the public recently (one day they're sad the next day they're strong).
This leads to my jaded observation that how Harry portrays himself (and maybe Meghan too) could be fodder for his lawsuit. An attorney might instead want their client not to talk about his mental health lest a slip of the tongue could come back to bite him on the witness stand. Harry may have to even involve his lawyers setting the groundwork for what harry can or can't say. I can't see Oprah would want to be hamstrung with her project.
On one hand, having a world stage for a pity party could help formulate a public opinion that indeed the 'poor Harkles' has been negatively impacted by the press (like their SA docudrama). Although such an effect might not influence a judge in the case, it could help settlement talks (look what an interview did to PA because of public opinion). Opposite of that, if Harry and Meg portray themselves as such strong individuals who weather hurt, rejection and media criticism (even lies) where are the 'damages' that they have suffered to the point of needing to sue and deserve compensation..
"Re: YouGov poll figures above, I really don't understand why Camilla is so far below Meghan. "
YouGov poll results are drawn only from people who have a YouGov account. They are sent specific topics for them to vote on and not everyone gets to vote. They are not random because when joining members have fill in an extensive form full of personal details including name, age, address, gender, occupation, marital status, ethnic origin, and educational level.
When YouGov send out polls they select a specific demographic which is heavily weighted to the agenda of whoever commissioned the poll. It is not representative of the country as a whole.
Not only that, YouGov members get YG points for responding to polls. Once they get enough points, they can trade them in for £50 in shopping vouchers. PR firms can commission polls from You Gov, so the results can be taken with a very large pinch of salt by those seeking a genuine public opinion.
Leaving aside the Sussexes' own lack of a big support base, as described by other posters, the Andrew debacle has seriously tainted the royal brand. Oh sure, they like to think they have their own 'Sussex Royal' brand, but as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, they are simply members of the royal family. As such, they will be indirectly tainted by the fallout from the Andrew scandal, however much they try to distance themselves.
Also, as others have said, their 'marketing' strategy seems confused. Oprah Winfrey is passe, and many of the young people the Sussexes seem to be trying to target would barely even know who she is. Then of course there's the point that as British royals, paid for by British taxpayers, they should not be dealing with private American broadcasters. If they must do this 'mental health' stunt, let them find a British TV channel willing to host them. Good luck with that.
“If I’d done something wrong, I’d be the first one to go, ‘Oh my gosh, I’m so sorry. I would never do that.’
Let me translate this so you really catch the meaning. There are some typical “American phrases” in there.
“If I’d done something wrong, I’d say I never did that.”
That is Meg, the “smartest one in the room,” letting us know she really is just a grifter!
Back to Meghan, from the engagement onwards I have yet to meet a single person who is happy with her. Thinking of when I did my personal 180 about her, it was based on appearances and expenditure as it was still early days, and the speed of my disquiet was unsettling.
I still remember how surprised I was with the press event in Kensington Palace gardens for the engagement announcement. Those tarty shabby shoes that didn't fit. Bare legs in winter. The first of her bathrobe coats, so unsuited to her figure. And the engagement photo shoot with the first of many jaw-droppingly expensive dresses. I really didn't expect her to channel Marie Antoinette, at least not that early. Such an obvious and avoidable mistake, to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the British public.
What I'd read about her until then had made me optimistic, even though she was only a minor actress. This is because I had never actually seen Suits and had assumed she at least could act since they were paying her a reasonable amount of money. She looked OK on the red carpet and sometimes really good. I didn't realise the stylists must have done everything.
I kept reading she was insanely smart. Accepted her activist credentials. Liked the look of The Tig (naive I know). Makes you realise how little scrutiny someone like her experiences, when you realise she was on such weak foundations but was coasting along. Though as Jane Austen wrote, she must have 'felt the approach to the years of danger' as time was running out. Smoke and mirrors. It all fell apart SO FAST. I'm still surprised about that.
Guess it's because I was unfamiliar with that particular kind of celebrity culture. Never even read tabloids before she joined the BRF. There must be lots of people like me, who now know more than they wanted to know, but are driven by the need to see her gone. I don't want to miss it, but it's taking so long! So many more pleasurable things to do. Imagine what Jane Austen would have made of her! She was good at charlatans and grifters.
Fact is, while Harry still clings on to some residual popularity among the British public, Meghan is quite simply disliked. Not on Andrew levels - though that's hardly an achievement - but for a young(ish), good-looking, newly married royal with a cute baby, her popularity figures really are poor. The only way she could possibly turn them around would be to lie low, put in some good old-fashioned royal work in Swansea or Hull, release the occasional photo of Archie and hope for the best. But she can't do that.
The Sussex interview will be another pity party.
I think it’s become clear that Meghan, and by association Harry, is toxic. Look at how lamely BFF Gayle’s special on the Sussexes performed...we have seen example after example of the toxicity. Oprah is an almost nothing in the States anymore, so if she were to partner with Harry, my guess is it would only be if he and Meghan could boost her profile—not the other way around.
Therefore, I think it’s not happening. @Nutty et al, do you have information otherwise?
"Speaking of MM's fans - have you ever taken a peek in the pro Markle threads on LSA? She seems to have a large and devoted American fan following on there. I rarely read their posts as I find them very disappointing, but am aware of how fervid they are by how frequently they show up in the unpop opinion thread to "start trouble"
Sure, but how many people does it take to disrupt a discussion? Only a very few.
That's the thing about the Harkles' fandom. There seem to be a group of people - I suspect mostly young American women - who are passionately devoted to them, but my guess is that group is pretty tiny in number. Certainly the whinomentary had pretty poor viewing figures on both sides of the Atlantic, which doesn't suggest that they have a broad fanbase anywhere.
Can I agree with most of the above? Really liked a lot of what people have pointed out
such as popularity numbers (notice we don't hear of K&W's kids - those would blow her out of the water to drive home that point that you are barely tolerated)
Oprah and Gail really haven't had the successes they once had. They are power people still. The issue is that they don't have the audience they had - which makes it harder to see them as relevant in the market place.
problems with someone leading the shows who has not addressed his demons - 1) what kind of optics is this people? 2) this has the ability to come out just all wrong (and it will never go away thanks to youtube). Two of the last three shows by royals (PC's was the good one) are nice examples of just how easily it is to come off 180 from how you think you are.
Given that the numbers were low for the first Sussex doc, what or how would this be so compelling to say that it could be the comeback everyone wants? Hollywood is filled with film which everyone believed would be the greatest/win awards/seal my reputation until that film met the public and the public said: No.
How would this new show not sound like the pity party the first one was? except this time it would just have more people? The real problem is that they cannot have someone who has had some horrific thing happen to them and come out the other side (think survived sexual trafficcing and is now a college grad/working as some high rank something = being productive) because their tale of woe would show up as how truly shallow it is when you think of their resources.
Problems with where and who to film - if it isn't UK people, UK resources for supporting them, then why would UK people want to watch it? If it is UK all the way, why would the US/world watch? Most of the world who would watch (who are not UK) would do so to watch the car crash.
Skip a few years forward, Harry now a married man and a dad, cant get out of bed, every click of the camera reminds him of what happened to his mother and now the same thing is happening to his wife. Did the cringe Halo walk, which he had actually done a couple of years privately. The lone walk down the street then sitting looking at a tree. Then the pity us documentary which backfired spectacularly.
It has been sad to watch a popular Harry, even though we knew some of what he did was covered up, become a weak, simpering petulant man child. A marriage to Meghan which people were happy about, is now a platform for her, and occasionally Harry to jump on the latest bandwagon. No family, no friends and rumours of drugs taken by both of them. Then the Archie saga. He envied the family William and Kate created, but got it so wrong when trying to do the same.
I will be very surprised if they are still living in the UK and part of the RF by the end of next year.
"So, to put this all back together, priming is what we call it when exposure to some thing influences the behavior of an individual later on, without that individual being aware that the first thing is guiding their behavior to a certain extent." http://blog.motivemetrics.com/What-is-Priming-A-Psychological-Look-at-Priming-Consumer-Behavior
Oprah is past her best before date as evidenced in SM comments advertising her last speaking tour in Canada. Most were sarcastic and dismissive. MM and her shadow have made so many blunders that I don't see how they can be taken seriously regarding mental health. Except maybe being walking talking examples of bonafide symptoms.
They are shallow, vain and hypocritical and that is not going to change anytime soon.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9780968/prince-william-is-making-a-bbc-documentary-to-encourage-men-to-talk-about-mental-health-through-football/
Perhaps Harry (and Oprah) do not want to compete so directly with William. Harry does not come off well when compared directly to William, particularly since his marriage.
But personally I very much doubt Charles will try to get H&M to come since they've already publicly declined TQ's invitation. Or if he does and they do come, I doubt W&K will be there playing happy family. Last Christmas was already orchestrated to show family solidarity. (Supposedly W&K were persuaded to alter their plans to be at the Middletons.) But with the scarfing and other evidence of coolness re: H&M, the orchestration failed to convey the impression that all is well and in fact conveyed the exact opposite. And that was before H&M publicly threw the family under the bus. I'd be quite surprised if Will was willing to go through that again or was willing to put Kate through it.
I always wonder at the modern trend to "bare all" for public. In many cases it is bound to do harm. Harry is obviously mentally unstable, and I seriously doubt getting Oprah involved is going to do him any good. He needs privacy, professional treatment and stable environment away from the limelight to get better.
He can participate only as a sufferer, not as somebody qualified to give advice.
Since MM got into his life he's become worse, and if he continues on that path his condition may deteriorate to the extent he would need hospitalizing.
Why Doria? In-laws are never in the family Christmas photos. Brits do not reward bad behaviour. I very much hope never to see the cheap grifter anywhere near our Royal Family again.
That said - both return to the RF a kinder gentler version of themselves, ready for service to the Crown.
I wish.
Therefore in that context it doesn't surprise me to find an Oprah project using Angelou's words.
What surprises me about Meghan using them is that she pretended they are her own words, and if the Oprah project was described this way then Meghan was doing subtle promotion of it even as she cried prettily in the documentary.
Having been alerted to Meghan's use of Angelou's words, i did a quick analysis of her speeches, interviews and essays and found that more often than not she quotes Angelou extensively though she uses the words as if they are her own or she gives quotes a memorable backstory that takes them completely away from Angelou and into her own originality or someone else eg 'Wounded bird','we are not machines','You are enough'.
Angelou isn't the only person whose words she steals. She frequently uses words from Eleanor Roosevelt - a big chunk of her UN speech is actually a speech by ER, and she uses google quotes generator for chunks of her speeches. She is so blatant that i put any new soundbites into google quotes generator to see who wrote it.
It would be funny if she didn't present herself so seriously and others lauded her for being a deep thinker.
In contrast, on the rare occasions she's caught on the hop and asked a question, she's deeply inarticulate and can barely string a sentence together. In this respect she's worse than Kate who is inarticulate because of nerves and has improved over time.
>Father Markle could issue a statement that "they have received a rapprochement with conditions and I cannot speak any more to the subject." Same with half siblings. (MM puts them on a leash with legal conditions).MM fires SS and goes quiet.<
By what I've seen from people's disgust with Meghan and Harry, it would be better that the Queen puts them on a leash with legal and binding conditions. First off, they should keep their inflammatory opinions to themselves and refrain from whining as entitled prats. If the Queen can order Charles and Diana to divorce I think it would be appropriate for her to order Megs to reconcile with her father and have Harry do the honorable thing and meet his father-in-law. If Doria can come to England for a visit, maybe its time Tom Sr. can meet his grandchild. Put out the olive branch to Meghan's siblings as it's not a good look having family discord on both sides of the family. The Queen, after all, is the Head of the Church of England and should expect her family to follow the Christian ideas of love, forgiveness and peaceful harmony toward others.
Without her plagiarism, it’s even difficult to follow her thought process from beginning to end sometimes. Actually, Harry is more articulate on the fly than Meg. I wouldn’t be surprised if he could write a better speech than her as well, if she doesn’t use a speech generator program. I bet that would really burn her biscuit too!!
"Somehow Duchess Meghan and Prince Harry are not in the line up. Must be that neither are mentally well, nor will attract ticket goers willing to pay to see them."
With the recent revalations about Andrew using his royal position for personal profit, it would look VERY bad for the Harkles to be overtly involved in a profit making enterprise in America.
In fact, given the public anger with Andrew, and the polls showing a desire for the royal family to be whittled down to the direct heirs, the Harkles are going to have to tread very carefully from now on. The royal family doesn't actually need them. In fact, if the polls are accurate, they'd be better off without them. I'd say tolerance for these two is pretty low at the moment.
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-named-2019s-most-powerful-dresser-see-her-10-best-looks-of-the-year/amp/
Agree it’s laughable! Don’t forgot, The People Mag is another Megs mouthpiece and just as likely was paid to include her.
Absolutely. The media is really beginning to dig into that cut PA was contractually entitled to for the first 3 years of any IT project under the Pitch@Palace initiative. As soon as I read that, alarm bells started ringing re: H&M's foundation. I would say without MM's plans for financial gain of some kind, she would no longer see her royal life as viable. If she then stayed it would only be because she couldn't get a better offer. No good for Harry, the BRF or the country. She needs to tread very carefully. As does Harry. However, I don't think they know the meaning of the word 'carefully'.
Also, the DM is reporting a spike on popularity for Charles in his newly-decisive mode (applying to William also). This would be music to his ears. He's bound to want to do more of it. We hope!
Nope - that time she wore a low cut, short sleeved dress with added back fat and belly cupping. It was actually quite a nice dress - if it had fit her and if it had been worn for a summer garden party, not a royal event in the depths of winter.
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/12/18/meghan-feeling-very-pregnant-on-visit-to-retired-performers-nursing-home/
Maybe we should start a contest? Your Top Ten 'favourite' Meghan looks?
I think the Oz tour beach dress slit to the upper thigh (on both sides) or the snot green sack, paired with the half-covered rat's tail hair in South Africa, have to be up there with the very best. By which I mean worst.
Who can forget the brown poop hat, the blue 'dead muppet' coat, the way too large shoes she clomps around in, the stained and torn tights she wore once and I think her plain-jane ill-fitting wedding dress (white mind you, for her 3rd marriage). Also maybe include her Himalyian yak hair wigs and her lambskin skirt (RIP baby lambs) that only her being a vegan can wear!
Agreed the green was better. I can’t remember what she did with her hair with the green outfit. Inside and with fluorescent lighting the reds probably better less noticeable color problems. The dangling hair just needs to go. A neat chignon would’ve been much more chic.
I think the belts under her boobs is because she has a broad waist and the belt wants to fall above her paunch. I agree the no stockings with shoes look unfinished even, unpolished. Of course, posters here say it is a California thing...not in the 33 years I lived there and worked in a professional environment.
Like the red leather skirt with the tucked in low cut sweater, with my hair down to my waist and my contact lenses. ........but with stockings!!!!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂.
Her Suits-era styling was much better than what she's doing now. While those outfits wouldn't fit the bill for a Duchess, her overall look was much more polished and appropriate. The low cut tops for official business are inappropriate. I think MM deludes herself and believes she's "pushing the envelope" but she's just inappropriate. The slits up to the Mason-Dixon line aren't appropriate at all, ever, given her new role. Sorry.
Also the booty pads to a place of worship, of all venues, were seriously wrong. Especially for a culture that emphasizes modesty for women. Once again it seems like she was saying a big "FU" towards rules and requests, which seems to have been her MO since joining the RF.
>>>>>. MEGHAN Markle's hopes of modernising the monarchy will be in vain, with Royal historian Adrian Tinniswood suggesting the Duchess of Sussex was simply "not important enough" to make a difference.
[...]
"People have asked me will Meghan modernise the monarchy?
"Well no she won't because she's fleeting. She's not that important and because of that, they've got a lot more freedom."
Mr Tinniswood, who is senior research fellow in history at the University of Buckingham, added: "If we think back, I can remember Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon. They had a fairly bohemian lifestyle, everyone said they are the modern face of the monarchy, which they were in a way, because it did not change things. >>>>>
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1206948/meghan-markle-news-royal-news-monarchy-queen-elizabeth-prince-harry-royal-family.
However, things are moving so fast with PA that I think "She's not that important and because of that, they've got a lot more freedom" no longer applies. PA was not that important but look how much reputational damage he's done. It's only been a week since the interview went out, and in that time the entire royal landscape has changed for Meghan.
I checked out People’s Meghan top 10 looks. She has had MUCH better looks than what they put out!!!!! my all time favorite look on her was the pink ensemble she wore at Charles birthday garden party. It was classy, elegant, subdued. The way she should dress ALL the time.
I thought the green version of the red leather outfit was ok but I'd never wear lambskin. Compared to the red, the green outfit fit a little loosely and wasn't all about cleavage. She looked slim with no tummy but the next week she showed up in a maternity-style dress at Eugenie's wedding.
For the worst outfit (not considering the prices) the winner for me was the "channeling Mary Magdalene" look at the mosque when she was photographed intentionally pulling side pieces of her hair forward and out from under the headcovering.
Tied for second place for the worst---the sausage sheath worn to the retired actors home and the Kim Kardashian "I'm very, very, very pregnant or I have a bouncing beach ball under my dress" look worn to the Mayhew dog shelter in mid-January. And no, I'm not criticizing pregnant bodies but she was supposedly less than 6 months along at that point.
Was this the outfit with the pale tights though, they made her legs look dead. Agree, it was a lovely outfit overall.
I love the comments about the clothes, so very funny! The poo hat was one of the worst, along side the nurses hat she wore at Westminster I believe, awful, just awful. Oh yes, and the diarrhoea green coloured tent. Nasty and ghastly.
>She has had MUCH better looks than what they put out!!!!! my all time favorite look on her was the pink ensemble she wore at Charles birthday garden party. It was classy, elegant, subdued. The way she should dress ALL the time.<
Agreed. I found that dress was also a nice color for her, better than the jarring reds of that sweater/lambskin skirt combo. For evening wear I personally love the white dress with the fluttering black birds (Oscar de la Renta) she wore to Australian Geographic Awards gala in Tonga. However many panned her and said she was overdressed compared to others. I found the look to be clever in that it may have been a thoughtful selection based on the event's sponsor and purpose (awards handed out for wildlife and conservation efforts).
Her selection of jewelry is hardly notable despite her supposedly owning an extensive collection. Harry must be tightfisted as her items are relatively cheap pieces that many say look like they came from Claire's. With the exception of those ridiculously expensive earings she recently wore that cost approx. $25.000. Could they have been on loan as I can't believe she/he would waste money like that, at least for a pr.of insignificant earrings? Then there is the gauche redesign of her engagement ring...who does that when they previously said how much they loved their husband's thoughtful and personally designed gift of such magnitude..
They look cheap because they are. A lot of the jewellery she wears is made by her friends, American’s call it merching? Which is against protocol, but what does Meghan care?! I don’t believe her personal collection is huge by any means, by that, I mean significant pieces. ;o)
As for her jewelry. I was under the impression that Harry and William were given Diana’s personal jewelry. Meghan has been seen wearing some of her jewelry. As for the rest...It is probably borrowed or on loan or maybe just given to her for merchandising purposes but except for those outrageously expensive microscopic earrings, everything else she merches is chintzy looking. Yes, like it came from Claires!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWRvm7beud4&feature=youtu.be
For M&H:
1. Will move to USA in 202 and will probably divide their time between LA and NY. Great for Megsy; a disaster for Harry.
2. The marriage will not end well, but Craig sees another baby, which will delay the divorce. However, problems in the marriage are going to be all over the tabloids in 2020.
3. Craig sees Megsy as very controlling, and confusing celebrity status with what is actually a life of service to the people of the UK.
It's not a long video and it is always interesting to see what he gets right as the year pans out.
I had known Harry originally got Diana's sapphire/diamond engagement ring but selflessly gave it to William when he proposed to Kate. In turn, William gave Harry Diana's watch. However, I have not read on any photo that Meghan has worn it. The only pieces that she allegedly have are Diana's butterfly earrings. It has been subject to speculation whether that is true and the photos I've seen show some differences. Just like anything with Megs, one wonders if the truth is being told.
Meghan does suffer from dressing inappropriately, whether it is too much cleavage, poor posture causing fails, obscenely expensive vanity clothes, sloppy and unkempt attire, or stupid mismatched clothes for the weather she is just atrocious. Even if she merches,one would think she could get the right size and flattering styles suited to her. Now that she has been feted as a 'powerful' influential clothes horse, she will look like she belongs in a barn on not on the high society pages.
Himalyian yak hair wigs...lol
Like, I've had an impression that if you're in an issue of TIME, it must be because Harvey's trying to make you visible to the awards season voters?
IDK why I think that. Or what incident made me think that... But that's basically what I think.
➡️ Pre-Sunshine Sachs: HOMELESS PEOPLE CLEAR OFF STREETS FOR ROYAL WEDDING!
↩ Post-Sunshine Sachs: Wearing vegan sheep's clothing over your lambskin skirt and fur thongs with mink lashes is all the rage!
♻️ My challenge still stands, Meghan:
Go on a #ShopYourStash #NoBuy and don't buy a single item of clothing (or accept freebies) for the entire year of 2020. 🌱
No more buzzwords, no more virtue-signaling hypocrisy, "Meghan's Mirror" be damned, show you're the "environmentalist" you claim to be without saying it.
Do it and I'll stop being such a "hater", I will never say a single negative word about you again.
1) Wasn't the letter to the dish soap company part of a larger school assignment? If so, the teacher assigned a project and she found an example as the teacher requested. For a school age child, this is appropriate but hardly a grand accomplishment.
2) Was the ad inherently sexist? If the ad stated "Women in the kitchen," that's not even inherently sexist, although it may be a generalization. The ad did not state "This soap is only for women, as women only do dishes." The ad did not state, "Men can never wash dishes in the kitchen."
Either way, it appears from an early age MM was keen to pontificate and be critical of others. Did she find sexism in an ad where there was none, just as she finds fault in articles about her where facts are simply stated?
Far more impressive, I would think, are the stories of school age children who help raise their younger siblings, high schoolers who work jobs to aid their families, etc. I guess I've never understood why the story keeps getting circulated. Hasn't she done things since then that should be more important? And what is remarkable about the story? Because she was young at the time, or because she accused a company of sexism?
This to me is a prelude to her projects that she seems to think may "break the internet" but appear of little consequence. Who really benefits when she edits a high end fashion magazine or endorses a "capsule collection" for fashion items already in circulation?
"His first question to Mike Day, a former sniper commander who was hit by a grenade in Afghanistan in 2009 and whose injuries included a broken back and shrapnel in his head and body, went right to the core: 'So what has been the biggest effect on you?"
Day thought for a moment, then said softly, "I am no longer me."
It was a moving and delicate moment, but Harry wasn't thrown. One of your biggest struggles must be living rather than existing.
So Nutties, do you all think Megan took this from Harry, or Harry is trying to get this to become a signature line? Seems like he plays word association with live, survive, thrive and mental health.'
https://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/30/prince-harry-depression-diana-death-why-world-needs-magic-627833.html
Also, look up the Hare Psychpath Checklist. Markle checks most, not all, of the boxes. Psychopaths really do not like to extend effort into work; that may be why MM and PH turned down Charles' offer of 9,000 acre estate. Too much work for entitled snobs.
Hi rabbit, a couple of places you may or may not already be aware of on the web. Read through the Harry Markle blog, especially the older posts that chronicle the Harkles’ ‘courtship’ and other earlier posts. Also read all four parts of the A Very Royal Narcissist posts by H.G. Tudor on his narcsite blog.
I’ve been of the opinion since I saw the engagement interview that Meghan has a profound case of narcissistic personality disorder. Speaking of checking off boxes, Meghan checks off all the boxes, for NPD too, sometimes twice!
At any rate, Harry and Meghan would be like Disneyland for any psychiatrist or psychologist who treats NPD and people who are victims of narcs.
SS - an interesting article (I suggest everyone take a look at it).
https://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/30/prince-harry-depression-diana-death-why-world-needs-magic-627833.html
Personally, I doubt the idea of thriving not merely living/existing as a core value word play came from him at that time. It might have been a vague thought of the moment but the article seems to be more of a he got help, he's fine and look at all the things he's now doing and will be doing with W&K but not MM. I have not done a comparison on visits before and visits after marriage to see how that has held up.
Now if you came up with him using this phrase from before she was in the picture a couple of times and then, a couple more between this article and now ... then I would say it could be more of a possibility.
Where I found things to "interesting" (my code for: hmm, that jumps to my eyes) is the long part about how the RF does charity (not just a show up, shake hands), how the research which one, how they want to be regular visits, how many and that they will be thinning the herd a little. It also does mention how he is part of supporting the Queen, the three parts and so on. Run that through the brain with a parallel soundtrack of the most recent SA trip and then with the documentary. ...
I think the phrasing is a lot closer to the Maya Angelou quote. We know MM finds a lot of uplifting/positive quotes so I think from her to him, not him to her. just an opinion
Another interest point in the article -
"When asked about his family, Harry talks readily about the queen -- "She is so remarkable" --and his late mother -- "She had the most wonderful sense of humor and always wanted to make things fun for us, as well as protect us." He says less about William and Kate, and almost nothing about his father or his stepmother.
...
Later in the article...
...
"He tells me in a rush "I feel there is just a smallish window when people are interested in me before [William's children] take over, and I've got to make the most of it."
Perhaps this is around the same timing that MM ushered in her ideas of "Hollywood" connections etc. as to provide Harry said identity outside of the royal family. Sounds like there's that tinge of jealous brother meets not sure what his identity is as a 30-something that no longer can use the Diana storyline. MM & Harry both, then, get mutual value from the relationship, just for very different reasons.
I wasn't there, so I didn't hear the tone of his voice when he talked of how William's kids will increase their profile. Personally, I read it as more a neutral statement of his understanding of the reality of being part of the Firm and his place in it.
Why? Knowing to make things happen with the charity, he knows he has to get along with both W and K. And, that he visits them often for meals makes it sound like they have him around a lot. Any deep seated resentment would make the work difficult and cut off the easy meal for the bachelor (and would probably be a little obvious to them). And, what is his goal? to help support the Queen and greater good.
Where you do actually read of him not being chatty/friendly is when he talked of his actual resentment of not being allowed to stay on his military tour and the writer talking of how when he's not "on" for a meet and greet, that he can be tense or irritable.
Notice too how he talks of modernizing the monarchy. I hadn't seen that from back then. When he does, it is about a force for good. When M talks about it, it didn't seem to have that laser focus on the goal of greater good through supporting the Queen through charities. It appeared to come off as I'll follow the protocols I like, dress how I like and if I don't, I won't. I don't know if that was her intent or not.
As a side note, it is one thing for someone who is a blood member of the family to lead changes while it may be totally inappropriate for someone not blood/not raised within the family to come in and tell everyone how they are doing it wrong and need to make changes. That's not a good way to make friends or build support. It is, however, totally appropriate for a boss to come in and tell workers that.
But when I read it back when it first came out, I was a bit taken aback by his mention of the narrow window before the Cambridge children grabbed all the attention. Yes, there is a royal hierarchy and he is the second son. But this was also said by someone who admitted he considered abandoning the royal life altogether. So it did strike me as a little odd. I mean, George was like what, not quite 4 years old then? As I recall, neither Will nor Harry were doing much royal work in their teens or even their early 20's. So it came across as jealousy to me. Especially since we'd never seen "Uncle Harry" interacting with George (although recent rumors suggest W&K we're worried about H's substance abuse.)
Second, I thought the "magic" stuff was incredibly condescending. On a related note, I found his dismissal of "showing up and shaking hands" a bit offensive. Anne the Queen's elderly cousins, and even TQ and Philip have done that kind of work across the UK for years and while I'm not from the UK, I expect it has promoted the RF positively. If Harry is saying he'd rather be "the brains" behind the scenes, good luck. (What I think he was really saying was "I just want to do what interests me personally." Like TQ gets giddy about opening a new town hall? Or a bridge?)
Finally, after the engagement interview later on where roasting a chicken was mentioned (as it was by Harry in this interview) I wondered just how often people in the UK eat roast chicken! :)
1) Wasn't the letter to the dish soap company part of a larger school assignment? If so, the teacher assigned a project and she found an example as the teacher requested. For a school age child, this is appropriate but hardly a grand accomplishment.
Hi Cookie Shark,
In addition to the dish soap letter being part of a school assignment ( just like her volunteering at soup kitchen in high school, the volunteer work was required), I read quite some time ago that the suggestion that pointed out the dish liquid commercial came from... wait for it....yes, her father Thomas, who saw the commercial first. Knowing she had the assignment, it was he who said she should write to the company to complain. Also, I highly doubt that little Meghan was so incredibly precocious that all by her little self she worked the phones and networked to get the publicity and story pitch that got her television interview.
One way or another, adults stepped in somewhere to turn it into coverage. The interview with Ms. Ellerbee didn’t come to the attention of Nick News without adult assistance to pitch Meghan’s story to an assignment editor or producer at Nick News.
Thomas was an active and very successful television lighting director at the time, and it is not far fetched to think he had connections to public relations people who could help get the story to Nick News, the program Meghan appeared on.
The other possibility is that someone on the staff at her school had public relations expertise or knew a parent at the school who provided the connection to pitch the story. After all, Meghan getting on a national kids news show made the school look good and helped market the private school to parents, many of whom were in the entertainment business themselves.
How interesting that you worked in a bank. I did as well. The dress code was quite severe. No low cuts , undergarments to be invisible , nothing tight fitting , no mini skirts , no hanging earrings , no dreadlocks - yes, there were no wigs around so women wore their natural hair just possibly finely braided in , in short we had to consider the image being shown to the public, not our own creativity with fashion choices. It was basically, appear well groomed and conservative. I have shuddered at so many of the Sussex duo's public image appearances.
If that Oprah documentary goes ahead , there are 2 things I see happening. Firstly , Oprah , always being one who shoots from the hips , will outright ask Harry about his drug addictions. The BRF will not allow that.
Secondly , Oprah is already associated with Weinstein. Harry and Meghan , via his uncle are already associated with Epstein. Jumble the names up and the press will be brewing up headlines galore. Again , the BRF will not allow this image to show up.
Also the Sussex court case is looming. Their lawyers will not approve of an Oprah tell all. Far too risky. The lawyers will want less information out there rather than more.
Meghan has changed directions frantically , but continues to latch onto people who can benefit her only. From clutching onto celebrities , pop stars ,sports stars , political bigwigs , all name dropping people ....to victims of crime. Very puzzling as to why she is not zeroing in on her supposed home town, being Britain. Not puzzling if she has figured out that she is not liked.
OMG wtf lol I went to the YouTube link you provided on my lunch break and I was drinking me water when the psychic said Charles was going to get hit by an egg 🥚😂🤣😂😂😂
I choked so hard I'd never choked yay he'd before literally had water running through my nostrils to the floor.
That psychic prediction needs to come true. Yes please I hope he does get hit by an egg. He said he saw egg all over Charles' suit or something.
‘Meghan Markle is 'aware' she's being 'pitted against' future queen Kate Middleton and finds the situation 'challenging', source tells People magazine’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7722387/Meghan-Markle-aware-pitted-against-future-queen-Kate-Middleton-source-claims.html
I get the feeling she and Harry are working in isolation now. I would have said what professional person would put up being treated badly day in day out by a minor royal no one respects, as it couldn't possibly be good for their CV, but Prince Andrew seemed to do OK until last week. Although of course the PR man who seems to have been the only one with common-sense got out before that. His CV is nicely burnished now!
Honestly, I don't see this as something MM can be a part of since she is unable or unwilling to see that she has severe mental issues. Sometimes, people cannot be helped because they cannot see it in themselves, therefore cannot ask for help. Harry KNOWS there is something wrong, but I think he's afraid to ask for help.
Nutty, thank you for this blog. I love it and love reading all of the commenters’ posts!
I noticed on Twitter that the Sussex Great Forest account is super active. What is going on with that? Such a random initiative to start, it reeks of MMs arrogant PR and it looks like they’re also accepting monetary donations. Is this part of the “Sussex Foundation” nonsense? Who monitors this type of thing?
Oprah should use you as a coproducer because your concept of hoe the series should be filmed, content-wise, is brilliant! The sticking point I believe would be Harry admitting substance abuse. Maybe I am jaded but I don't know if Meghan would want Harry to do anything that might damage their Sussex brand. And truly it would be a hard thing for Harry to go into rehab for say, the mandatory 60 days or more (sometimes 6 months) hospitalization. However, maybe if he committed to twice a week therapy. I know locally, there is a Mental Health facility, that requires people with mood disorders, mostly anxiety/depression to come 5 days.wk for 4 hours.day for a year.
I think the Queen/Charles may not want Harry to present quite this honest facade of his 'problems'. Heck, Harry might say a lot of things that could reflect badly on them. Meghan with her controlling attitude might feel threatened if Harry got real help. She could conceivably think if Harry got his head on straight, that he may find he doesn't need her.
Yes, a well-done documentary on Mental Health could help the public on both sides of the pond as you point out. Regardless of nationality, we are all the same (biology proves that) facing the same challenges in everyday life. William has talked about his distress of seeing heartwrenching situations while working as a helicopter pilot with the air ambulance service.I believe he had Kate as an effective sounding board for his feelings and handled it well. I would admire Harry if he got help instead of just talking/whining about his more protracted problems (he looks impotent as if he can't/won't do anything to address his demons).
'End of April/first two days of May 2016 she jets off for a vacation in Tulum, Mexico (state of Quintana Roo) with Cory Vitiello. At that point she was definitely still having sex with Cory, because it was their romantic getaway. As they return, Cory hosts the dinner for Harry and she´s there. Various sources have said that she and Harry met already back then and she started two timing Cory.
First week of June 2016 she is in New York City. Supposedly for work..? Well, chick´s gotta pretend to be doing something sometimes. June 8th she posts a selfie that makes it look as if she´s naked with the words “Sleep sweet”. You can bet your ass it was aimed at a guy, most probably Harry.
End of June 2016 she holidays in Greece, snaps herself topless and with ass cheeks out, snaps herself in bed... and allegedly some random guy also vacationing there boinks her (so it is claimed in a forum by a dude who says he's the guy's friend and saw them together, and boinker told him Markle is lousy in bed and tried to make up for that by being very loud).
Very last day of June (doing some press junket for Suits) and the entire first week of July 2016 she then spends in summery London, living it up. She gets clad in Ralph Lauren, the Wimbledon thing “Let me stalk Cressida and do some box and seat hopping, pretending I´m actually there because I'm Serena's friend” ensues.
Other blogs have repeatedly said that she could not have met up with Harry then because he was out of the country. Who knows. I'm pretty sure some boinking was going down with whomever. And she sure was holidaying more than she was “working”.
She does at least one day of shooting on July 9th. She posts a snap of herself in a cream coloured Rachel-Zane-outfit and says they shot until very late at night.
But if she and Harry and the claims of the engagement interview are to be believed - and for theory's sake we now do - in the same month of July 2016 they flew to Botswana together after their lovely first date, took the time to get to know each other there in Africa, and “camped out under the stars” (meaning: they fucked like rabbits in some glamorous tent or luxurious safari lodge). Our hard working, bleeding heart SJW gets to squeeze in more vacay time.
First week of August 2016 she then holidays in Ibiza, Spain. She posts a shot of herself, Benita Litt, Misha Nonoo and Heather Dorak toasting with cocktails at sunset on August 8th. She's clearly there to celebrate her birthday. August 13th she's still there, because she uploads a snap of herself, Misha and Markus as their out and about in Ibiza town.
End of August 2016 she's back in London however. She posts a pic of London Bridge on August 21st and writes that she's there with the newlywed Lindsay Jill Roth, a hashtag reads “#vacation ”. She sure needs a lot of recovery time, huh? But yeah, I mean of course... it must be incredibly exhausting holidaying in Ibiza, so now she needs a vacation from the previous vacation...
So up until this point, let's summarize what we have so far from end of April until end of August:
Mexico
Europe (Greece)
Europe (UK)
Africa (Botswana)
Europe (Spain)
Europe (UK)
For a whopping 4 months she did basically nothing else but vacation on three different continents. Six holiday trips in total, all of them consisting of soaking up the sun and hot weather, within 122 days.
Please tell me, dear sugars: in which country, which company and which form of employment would your boss, your co-workers or any outside onlookers consider THAT as someone being a hard-working woman?
Source: the-charlatan-duchess
But see, that in itself is why Harry will not get the help he needs. He's not "allowed" to speak publicly about his demons. Must keep it quiet and under wraps because speaking of it is taboo. THAT'S THE PROBLEM with mental illness awareness...people won't talk about it! WE cannot be afraid to be completely open about this. The only way forward is to speak out. The RF should be part of the solution if they truly want to save Harry. If they could show the people of the UK that they support him 100%, it may endear them to a whole new generation of folks who know of someone (family, friends, themselves) who have fought or are fighting their inner demons. It would go a long way to showing that groups the RF are so fond of "supporting" are truly being supported and that it's not just lip service.
Basically, put your money where your mouth is. If they aren't willing to speak about it on behalf of their own family, then how can they expect others to do the same?
First of all, who was paying for all these vacations? Even assuming Harry paid for the Botswana trip and Cory paid for the Mexico trip, Meghan would still have to pay for flights and accommodation from/to Greece, Ibiza and two UK trips.
Also, it does make me wonder how all the dates add up. It seems she saw very little of Harry at that time, as she was constantly on holiday with other people.
Whenever possible, I expect M got someone else to pay--Trevor, Corey, Harry, or even Thomas M for many years. But I expect some of the time she had to pay for herself. That's why it's so idiotic when M's fans/stans not only grossly inflate the salary she likely earned on Suits, they act like she has every cent she ever earned on Suits saved and in the bank. They seem to forget how often she traveled for pleasure (and forget about income taxes, fees for agents/publicists/accountants/the dogwalker she wrote about, forget about groceries, forget about vet bills, forget about her Soho membership, forget about the costs of non-work clothes, forget about cosmetic surgery costs, forget about entertainment costs when she couldn't get a man to pay, and so on.)
Messy has exploited Harry’s demons and jettisoned all his close and supportive relationships. Let’s hope someone can reach him, to help him get the therapy he needs.
Glowworm
There's one particular person who calls herself 'notasugarhere' and has beeen obsessively posting about Kate for years, well before Meghan arrived on the scene. But it's amped up several notches since then. This is the calibre of the Meghan fandom. Mad as hatters.
https://www.celebitchy.com/643236/duchess_kate_returned_to_work_on_friday_after_cancelling_an_event_the_night_before/#comments
I also think they didn't see each other prior to becoming engaged quite as often as they wanted to us to think they did, meaning they didn't know each other all that well.
Which then begs the question, why did they get engaged so quickly? There was no reason to get engaged so soon after meeting; they certainly don't come across as the "love at first sight" kind of people and I cannot imagine their love was so great that they just couldn't wait to be man and wife. All very odd.
1) The H&M photoshoot in SA and appearance on the H&M website
2) MM's merching (they deny she does)
3) MM's tendency to rip off the ideas of others
I could go on. In addition to this, CB posters maintain MM is worth "5 million" and that she has "tons" of $$$ from Suits. Other posters above made good points that while working for Suits, MM did not appear to be living a frugal lifestyle. Her Tig blog was about luxury travel, expensive fashion and expensive food. I have said before I would bet MM is not a financial wizard and does not even make good financial choices, one example is paying SS big bucks for PR (it's not working)! I believe her parents loved her but didn't teach her good lessons about money.
@CookieShark Yes, that 'notasugarhere' really does seem like a horrible person. Now, I'm not in the least bit precious about bitching about celebrities - including Kate - as and when they deserve it. But I can just picture that 'notasugarhere' at home, sticking pins into her Kate doll. Why of all people would anyone take such a passionate dislike to Kate? The worst that can be said about her is that she's a bit bland and lazy. Big deal. I'll take that any day over merching, shallow wokeness and hypocrisy, and as the polls show, so would the majority of British people. But of course the CB nutters don't get that the British public is the only one that counts, not a few obsessive nutcases in Des Moines, Iowa.
Their absurd passion for Meghan is very similar to their unconditional love for Angelina Jolie, coupled with their hatred for these women's perceived rivals - Kate and Jennifer Aniston. And being mixed-race, the sense of virtuosity Meghan inspires in her fans is even greater. And just as their love for Brad Pitt turned into hatred the moment the divorce was announced, expect the same to happen for the Prince of Wokeness when the almost inevitable divorce comes around for the Harkles. Sooner rather than later.
I have found some more plagiarism of The Queen’s Speech at the opening of The Princess Diana Memorial Fountain. This can be found on www.royal.uk site on 6th July 2004.
“But I cannot forget - and nor can those of us here today who knew her much more personally, as sister, wife, mother or daughter-in-law- the Diana who made such an impact on our lives.
Does this sound familiar to anyone else?
I have found some more plagiarism of The Queen’s Speech at the opening of The Princess Diana Memorial Fountain. This can be found on www.royal.uk site on 6th July 2004.
“But I cannot forget - and nor can those of us here today who knew her much more personally, as sister, wife, mother or daughter-in-law- the Diana who made such an impact on our lives.
Does this sound familiar to anyone else?
1. Harry made it clear he wanted kids. (Even I knew that from just reading about him.) M could have thought (not unreasonably) she was running out of time on that front. Sure there are options (and I'm not convinced they didn't use one of those anyway) but it may have taken time to get Harry on board with those. Better to be engaged first.
2. M knew her acting career was going nowhere after Suits----she was getting too old for most sex parts (which I expect she saw as wrong and unfair as I expect she sees herself as the ultimate in sex appeal)
3. M had $ signs in her eyes. I think there is plenty of evidence she was shopping for a rich British man while living with Corey.
4. Harry was determined to "settle down" and he likely knows he isn't improving with age. And at some level he probably knows he doesn't necessarily become more lovable to women the longer they know him. Many of his friends were married or engaged, he may have known too that W&K hoped to have a third child (many in the public had read Kate wanted 3 because she had 2 sibs) But Harry may have known they were trying before we knew the deed was done. I do think Harry was envious of Will's family life.
5. I think Harry was at loose ends after getting out of the military. While he did 3rd wheel-it with W&K, they still spent a lot of time at Anmer Hall and I'm not sure Harry was there too often.
I do think Harry had qualms and may have broken off with M as the HarryMarkle site suggests. But a narcissist like M couldn't allow HIM to leave HER so he was love bombed. And if Will did say slow down, that likely made Harry speed up.
As part of Prince Charles' descent on the BRF to sort it out, I do hope he stops the Cambridges from travelling all together in future. When you consider they always seem to do that when with the children, H&M are not so minor after all. I truly think they would have to bring the monarchy to an end after Charles if something dreadful happened and H&M were next.
There are not enough residential facilities for crazy people that should not be running around in the wild. We've had a number of deaths of aging parents or grandparents killed by their dysfunctional children/grandchildren because the caregivers are getting older and the kids are getting stronger with time. The waiting list for a spot in a residential facility or group home is years long. There is a man in the nearest town who, if he takes his meds, does not set his neighbors' houses on fire. Unfortunately, he doesn't like to take his meds and can't be forced. He just got out of a lengthy sabbatical in the county jail and I haven't seen him lately jumping into the road to make cars swerve. I would imagine he's back in custody because I haven't heard of him being killed.
Almost all of the children with severe mental health issues that were not genetic in nature (such as Down or Rett syndrome) that were in our school district had parents who were substance abusers. I do not know if the mental health issues predated the drug abuse, or vice versa.
I suppose I'm outraged that people like M & H are out there whining about their feelings when there are people whose lives are in real present danger of being snuffed out by the mentally ill.
The other aspect that strikes me about the updates on Archie's playgroup and weaning is that they may have realised Archie's the only Sussex the public doesn't dislike. :-/
Locally grown, too, no doubt, by farmers using oxen to plow the fields.
"So here is Prince Andrew, essentially dethroned. His sin was not his inhumanity, but giving an interview about his inhumanity. Remember that when you start defending his mother. Meanwhile, Meghan has been treated as a villain for combining princessiness with stardom and being biracial."
This used to puzzle me, that journalists and people I respect in the public eye defend Meghan this blindly, but I've realised it's because they're too aloof/busy/disinterested to read the press coverage as it's so often about bad wigs, creased or inappropriate clothes etc. Things they would consider too trivial to spend their time on. After all, to use the word 'stardom' here shows she hasn't done her homework at all. Too busy watching art house films to bother with sleb culture.
Well if they're not going to get down and dirty with the History, Life and Times of Meghan Markle they shouldn't patronise us with such airy, insubstantial opinions, all the time rejoicing in their wokeness.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/25/prince-andrew-bad-apple-abolish-monarchy-republic
If old methods were used to plough fields in the UK, it would be Shire horses, strong work horses.
All that said, wouldn't Megsy (for herself) want something a little more exotic than homegrown? ;o)
Smirkle herself listed herself as white on her acting CV and has distorted her nose and hair in order to look more white.
All her known boyfriends/husbands were white, as were her highschool and university friends. (It is only recently that she has collected black friends in order to play up he pseudo blackness.)
Heck, even the sorority that she joined at uni was a "white" sorority.
If anyone is a racist, it is Smirkle herself.
I think part of it is the people doing it truly believe they are right. Therefore, to them ANY criticism of M is in and of itself proof of racism. Criticized for spending 1 million pounds on clothes her first year? That's racist because Kate wasn't criticized for her spending. (Well, she actually was but let's assume she wasn't.) But Kate didn't spend anywhere near as much as Meghan's 1 million pounds. Yeah, but if she had, nobody would have criticized Kate because she's white.
So the proof that criticism of M is racist lies in the fact that someone else wasn't criticized for doing something she didn't do!
Our differentiators tend to be class based. We aren't a version of the US, we are growing more distinctly different by the day. So please don't judge us by American standards.
The pregnancy & coat flicking was endured by the UK for months. It reached its zenith with the picture of her in the black gown at the BAFTAs, cradling her bump and making the moment about her when she was there to present an award to someone else. We can entertain the argument that she was mad at the press and therefore would not allow them to publish photos of Archie. However, not every British citizen did her wrong and it was unfair (to use another word she likes) to punish all of the UK by refusing to talk about Archie or show photos. Lots of grandmotherly types like my mother love baby photos. This is one demographic she could have capitalized on by just taking the high road and allowing a few decent photos of Archie to be published, not the bizarre, arty, "here's a head here's feet photos."
Archie in SA appeared to be much older than his stated age, so that may have been the motivation for H&M to refuse to release photos when he was born. At this point too much time has passed, IMO. No one is interested in what Archie eats. In addition to this, the WHO recommends breastfeeding for at least a year, so it seems early for Archie to be eating entirely solid food. Another detail overlooked by the PR team, but I suspect they want to float that story since not many of us actually believe she is breastfeeding Archie.
Recently Meghan was referred to by one of her stans on DM as an 'internationally acclaimed' actress. At least I could reply asking them to name (1) one award (2) one good review (3) one leading role. No reply of course. They just run away.
There should be a concerted, consistent drive to get Meghan's defenders to provide specific evidence for their claims, using a calm and reasonable tone. Much as Emily Maitlis skewered PA. Of course it only works where there's the right to reply. No coincidence comments are disabled so often in the broadsheets.
They hate her and her coat buttons, it’s really petty and surreal.
I believe some of the "when we met" conflicts were to disguise the fact she was living with a man as well as to imply to the BRF that they knew each other for a longer period of time than they actually did before the engagement.
The Vanity Fair article and the "racism" letter from Harry to the press were critical to her plan. Once he committed to her publicly he would be less likely to dump her. I do think he sees himself as a gentleman.
Once she had him publicly committed, she could move a little slower on the wedding of her dreams, but there couldn't be any lengthy engagement. Every day was the day she, or someone else, could reveal the real Meghan. Another reason her family and long term friends were forbidden access to the trophy.
I love the title of this article!
“Here are the exact “untrue” news stories Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are suing over“
So by default all of the others are true.
Three I can think of so far are:
1. Threw a teapot at staff in Australia
2. Demanded certain tiara from the Queen
3. Made Kate cry
Any others verified as real stories from daily mail? I don’t think they’ve said a word about Archie’s birth circumstances but let’s play a game!
At the time it reminded me of Elvis and Ann Margret in the early '60s, very much in love. Then while she was visiting the UK she was (unfairly) reported as speaking about their imminent engagement and it was enough for him to drop her like a stone. Priscilla knew she should never to say a word to anyone if she wanted to be his wife, and she waited a long time (just like Kate). That's how it should have been with Harry.
>@louise your post comes across as racist<
You're kidding I hope. Sort of like innocently using the word 'uppity'.
Blogger Maggie said...
@Tatty When non-Brits accuse us of racist attitudes they should know that mixed race marriages are so common that they are unremarkable. The 'average' family in a TV ad won't be all white - race in the UK is simply not an issue.
Our differentiators tend to be class based. We aren't a version of the US, we are growing more distinctly different by the day. So please don't judge us by American standards.
Don't worry about it. She's determined to find offense. According to her, we racist southerners sit around on the veranda sipping Mint Juleps and talking about the uppity relatives who think they're too good to pick cotton. (I've actually never heard uppity used for anything other than accusing people of thinking that they were better than anybody else. Anywhere outside of the movies, that is. It is also used for people running off at the mouth, as in telling a person "You get uppity with me one more time, and I'll snatch you bald headed!" which is just another way of saying don't let your mouth write checks that your a$$ can't cash.
Ditto to your remarks!
Talking about Mint Juleps, wish I had one now, dang it! Just have wine. But the warm weather (77 F) might find me on my veranda tomorrow drinking one.
"@louise your post comes across as racist"
Could you state specifically what about my post comes across as racist?
As I said in my original post, it is frustrating when some people call other people racist, without any elaboration or explanation..
What fast-fashion H&M outfit Archie wears howver is allowed to harm other children...
Okay, Meghan.
PS: The Guardian is run by "boys who cry wolf" types, and they're doing more harm than helping the cause of eradicating racism because they're essentially writing fan fiction with Jussie Smollette undertones, undermining actual racism cases... I'll tell you what's racist, veganism is racist: https://thevimblog.com/2018/12/30/is-veganism-racist/
The other day I saw (what appeared to be a middle-class white American) imply that he [regularly] eats rice that Indians only get to eat during "wedding season". When a posh toff says that at least you can attribute it to class and wealth, but when an average Joe says that, as an Asian living in Asia, I don't know what to say.
These middle-class status symbols are seriously messed-up.
I said it once and I will say it again: the most racist person in this debacle is Meghan herself.
I never seem to hear anything about what the Queen eats for breakfast?
Did we ever hear about what Diana fed her children?
Despite being born into privilege, Diana was never a callous one to rub what fancy pants stuff she had in your faces, was she? Manipulative as she was, at least she was considerate in that department.
The only time I ever heard about a product another member of the royal family used was straight from the company itself: https://www.trilogyproducts.com/blogs/the-latest/the-reported-secret-behind-kate-middleton-s-gorgeous-glow-trilogy-rosehip-oil
But then the Elle, Allure, Harper's Bazaar articles focus on the rosehip oil itself and Kate's mentioned alongside other public figures (I doubt Kate herself leaked it or).
I am aware of the same facts as you have stated. Facts, Cold hard facts about Meghan.
As to an opinion about Meghan being racist, I agree. She could also be called what African Americans ('black' people) call a 'Colorist'; someone who despises or avoids their own race. Since Meghan identifies herself now as a Woman of Color (WOC) and has done the things we both know as facts (98% of her life) then yes, she is a Colorist, which in their eyes (LSA) seems worse than a being a racist (if one thinks the posters at Lipstick Alley are to be believed). The thinking being, of all people a person of color has a duty/obligation to accept/socialize with other people of color, date them perhaps, marry them maybe, identify yourself as having mixed blood rather than hiding/lying about as Meghan did on her CV.
I am so disgusted that if one criticizes Meghan we are labeled as Racists. I find that repugnant. I for one thought positive thoughts about her when she married Harry. I got up at 5am to watch the wedding. It took me a little while before I began to think she was doing things wrong.
These days I find her less attractive. I mean her character was so nice and seemed harmless and I didn't think she'd be such an a-hole IRL.
It's true isn't it? That as we age, we become less and less shallow (like the more we learn about a person's personality and actions, the more our brains affect how attractive we find that person).
I'm glad our brains are wired that way! It helps us make better choices about who to spend the rest of our lives with....
I so agree!
The problem with any name-calling and/or label is that it is impossible to respond to (or to change for that matter) because of its vagueness. Which is probably why people use it.
The people who call names are not really interested in a dialogue.
It's also knee-jerk. There is nothing thoughtful, measured, or even interesting about it.
Ultimately, it's simply lazy.
Really, it's designed to infuriate. So it accomplishes that much. Only that.
I'd say it's designed to silence people.
They just want to shut you down.
Yes
Not me. I read that he was getting married, saw the pics, saw she had the crazy eyes and bad makeup. I'd never heard of her but then I don't do TV much. I asked some TV addicts about her, and they said "who?" So, I shrugged and forgot about her until a few months later when SwampMan, reading some of the controversy about her, asked me "What was Prince Harry thinking?" It piqued my curiosity. At that point, I didn't know or care that she was biracial.
I just knew that she was acting in ways that were diametrically opposed to her new role. The clumsy missteps and self-sabotage is fascinating in a trainwreck kinda way.
@Scandi Sanskrit
I posted some polite remarks that were construed as being anti-Meghan (on LSA) and I was lambasted, called names and a couple stalked my comments on different threads to continue with the verbal abuse. One made like 80 downvotes in 10 minutes. They were rabid. Truly, they wanted to run me off. Frankly. it left a bad taste in my mouth and it was not worth responding back to. If I post there again, I will know to expect a tirade from some and to let it roll off my back.
I should have said my positive thoughts were that Harry was getting married after all these years. I didn't know anything about her or Suits. When I later read about the prior relationships and saw the risque acting I was shocked....Shocked I tell ya!!
I was kind of surprised that the Queen took her on that overnight train trip. I thought surely the Queen must know something very good about her. And look at the money the Queen allowed to be spent on the wedding...it was obscene.
Wondering what the Megster has planned for Thanksgiving? Trying to find a shelter serving turkey dinner for a photo ops? Merching Archie's first organic free range turkey baby food? Taking a boat ride with Andrew to reminisce about the old yacting days? Calling the Queen to tell her all the things about the royal family she was thankful for? Driving around in her electric car to see which pub Andrew was drinking at?
How refreshing!
Turkey for the vegan,,,oh no! She will have Tofu Turkey with Avocado Stuffing (made from that leftover toast). Archie will be able to eat Tofu. Maybe she will have some Tig Wine...nope I forgot she doesn't want Harry to drink. We have read she looks out the window at Frogmore and watches lawn bowling, or cricket or something. She could get out there, exercise and lose some of that baby weight. Whoops, forgot she just likes to look at athletes not be one. Perhaps she will relax with some weed (like at her wedding to Trevor)...oh no that's not going to happen because she doesn't want Harry to smoke
Hopefully, she will steer clear of helping at Shelter/Charity Dinner as she would get up there and start pontificating how all the attendees should be thankful they don't have to worry about their carbon footprint since they don't fly, nor drive or even own a bicycle. I would get nauseous if I had to listen to her. The homeless need real salads not 'word salads'.
>Taking a boat ride with Andrew to reminisce about the old yacting days? Calling the Queen to tell her all the things about the royal family she was thankful for? Driving around in her electric car to see which pub Andrew was drinking at <
Oh, that's good! But really, has anyone read where they are? Gee only 2+ days and Thanksgiving will be here and surely if she was going to be in the states they wouldn't want to wait till the last minute. I am curious what will come out in a few days, maybe a photo of Archie knawing on a drumstick?
How delicious your wine sounds....while mine has the taste of mellow cardboard with a hint of ink, Walmart vintage 2019
It won’t be long until Chaz sees the writing on the wall and forces their hand, to pursue all the merching and privacy they desire.
Don’t forget it was Charles who forced HMTQ (long may she reign) to fly the Royal Standard at half mast and flew to Paris to bring Diana home, he also insisted she have a state funeral.
Home boy has waited too long for that scepter to let Meggy snatch his crown.
Only some one who knows their marriage is only one of connivence, it definitely did not resemble a joyous or happy occasion.
Megs triumphant smirk through the streets of Windsor, was extremely off putting. Poor Harry and Archie
Yes, that hideous dress....I could not believe it and said so. Whit all the money and opportunity at her disposal, she was outfitted in basically a slick bedsheet. That was a foreshadowing of her terrible taste in clothes and that she couldn't manage to dress right for the most important occasion of her life. I told a friend at the time, that I could have gotten a Simplicity dress pattern and made it and saved her what $500,000? I will say I really liked the embroidered flowers on her veil. that I believe Megs tried to take credit for rather than the lady who designed it.
"Don’t forget it was Charles who forced HMTQ (long may she reign) to fly the Royal Standard at half mast..."
I didn't know Charles had a role in the flag decision. But it wasn't the Royal Standard, it was the Union Jack. I believe the Royal Standard was taken down when TQ left for the funeral but it is never flown at half-mast.