Skip to main content

"Give minor royals a means of escape": Tips from a UK professor

Not much news on the Sussex front this week, except for a "remember when" post on @SussexRoyal Instagram. (Remember when Meg helped the women from Hubb Kitchen publicize their cookbook in 2018? @SussexRoyal does!)

I'd like to share an excellent post from another blogger, however - Robert Hazell, a professor at University College London, who offers us "Prince Andrew: Six Lessons for the Modern Monarchy". 

While he doesn't mention the Sussexes by name, a couple of his "lessons" have relevance for them.

For example, Lesson Three, Be Wary About Fundraising...and Lesson Four, Keep Tight Control of Royal PR

And, in particular, Lesson Five: Understand the plight of minor royals, and allow them a means of escape.

You can read Hazell's full blog post here. 






Comments

erika said…
Oh my gosh! Am I first to post? Nutty, your blog is brilliant! You are incredibly intelligent writer and well researched. I discovered you over a month ago and binged reading all your articles, it's become a nightly ritual to read your blog and every single comment (all the people who comment here equally intelligent,respectful and contribute so much to the discussion.). This is my therapy, no joke. MM is a legit (covert) narcissist (yes, covert) and I, like orhers, am just trying to deal. That's all. I saw the opportunity to post first and just had to send my praise. Brilliant! Thank you!!!
Nutty Flavor said…
Thanks, @erika! I'm glad you're enjoying the blog.
PrettyPaws said…
Hello, Nutty and all Nutties

Another good topic for us to discuss, I think. I haven't yet read Prof Hazell's blog although I intend to do just that in the next hour or so, assuming I can track it down.

My comment is this: does anyone think the Harkles will take note of anything they read or hear, particularly on a blog, no matter how good it is?

Let's be honest, the only time they seem to listen is when money is mentioned, either money to be paid to them or money they might lose if they don't behave.

I am now looking forward to seeing Nutties' comments come pouring in, the reading of which always gives me great pleasure. Go to it, Nutties!
KCM1212 said…
Very interesting post, as per usual, Nutty. What I most took away from the article are these points:
For the monarchies:
- You are here by our difference
- You are being watched
- You are held to a higher level of accountability than politicians (and the people who support you)

I wonder If this last point causes Megsy the most problems. As an American she would have a high degree of cynicism regarding politics and the hypocrisy of both political parties who decry the behavior of their political rivals while excusing the same behavior in their own party. For her, to be held accountable would be lip service especially given the fawning of HRC, Oprah, the MPs and other celebrities.

Perhaps the lessons available from Prince Andrews saga has frightened H & M into quietude for the moment, but we know it can't last. Meg absolutely must have adulation and she will risk everything for it. Indeed, she already has, if the Archie deception is what we suspect.

I think the Sussex Foundation irregularities will be the crisis that brings them down. The RF does not support the duo, leaving them very vulnerable. More vulnerable than either knows. Meg feels she is due unlimited support simply by being her special self, while Harry has been bailed out many times during his short career. Why wouldn't Pa and GanGan bail him out again?

They are in for a very unpleasant surprise.

KCM1212 said…
Damn autocorrect.

* You are here by our sufference!
Liver Bird said…
A good article, though I had to laugh a bit at him bemoaning the 'plight' of minor royals. Yes they do face some restrictions, but so does everyone. Being a minor royal is a pretty sweet deal I reckon. In many ways much better than being the heir - you get the best of all worlds.

Regarding the Harkles, I think it would be very hard for Harry to withdraw from public life. He's nearly 40, academically subpar (I'm being kind!) and his only job was in the military. He can't go back to that, so what could he do? Interest in a retired royal is only going to last so long, esp as he loses whatever looks he had and becomes middle aged.

He would be lost outside the family. Meghan however? She'd do fine. She can merch, do the round of the talk shows, maybe even do some acting. It might not be the star studdded career she'd like - I really don't think there is that much interest in her - but she'd find something.

Will be interesting to see them on their grand return to public duties. To me it's increasingly obvious that they've been placed on the royal naughty step. So it will be interesting to see if they return chastened and ready to accept the mundanities of royal life. Or not?
Piroska said…
Re the plight of minor Royals - Prince Richard qualified and practiced as an architect until on the death of Prince William he became heir to his father the Duke of Gloucester.
It appears highly improbable that the wife of the 6th in line will ever be permitted to attend any State Banquet since she would not be permitted to sit with her husband and paw at him as she was said to do at his friends dinner parties she would be required to conduct intelligent conversation with the guests on either side of her and avoiding any possibility of saying anything contrary to government policy or insulting to the guests own nation.
Jenx said…
I was pondering just the other day about how the BRF, a family or extraordinary wealth and leisure, can be so unaccomplished, generally speaking. I can only imagine with that lifestyle how many novels I would write, how well I would play the cello etc. What do they do all day?

And MM isn't quiet. There is all kinds of "old news" resurfacing to remind us what a stellar human being she is. A celebration of the anniversary of their engagement. It was amusing to see Kate on the People Mag cover, though.

It would appear that the MM stooge, Omid, is taking a trouncing from other RR while he tries to fan the flames of racism in the press.

As a Canadian I have mostly been indifferent to the monarchy, but now I can say that I have become a staunch anti-monarchist. We could save a lot of money by cutting that cord. Time to grow up Canada! :)
punkinseed said…
I think the Sussex have been exiled to more than just the naughty step. They were already put on notice several times, but the SA tour was the last straw. BP has taken over full control of the Sussex PR and will not tolerate anything further without full approval by the queen or Charles or both. To break ranks and go rogue would break all of the rules laid out by Prof. Hazell's lessons.
What's interesting is why or if they've been put on family leave for six weeks. What is supposed to happen after the six week hiatus? If Megs thinks her version of hit the ground running will resume, ha! She best think again. The monarchy will slap her to the ground. All the monarchy cares about is to survive and if she thinks she can play her little blackmail cards to get what she wants, she's going to feel a huge reckoning from BP and the public.
Humor Me said…
Greetings to all! The timing of the Grenfel anniversary post was not lost on anyone. MM had to get her appearance in with Kate and kids at the Tree farm article and picture splash. Everyone MUST be aware of MM's good deed. Yawn.

Yes, January will bring a new year and a damoclean sword over the Susses duo in light of Andrew's retirement. Charles is large and in charge now. MM's cutesy antics will not be suffered by anyone. We shall. see.
Liver Bird said…
It must slowly be dawning on Meghan - as she watches silently from Fortress Frog Hall or wherever she is - that the royals don't actually need her. Sure, I do think Charles would like to have his son take a role in public life, especially as time goes on, but they don't NEED him. Much less her. The overwhelming mood in Britain - to the extent that anyone is thinking of this lot with a contentious election campaign in full swing - is in favour of a streamlined monarchy. In fairness, that has much more to do with Andrew's disgrace than with the Harkles, but they haven't exactly been proving their worth to the British public either.

In Spain, I believe only the king and queen do public engagements, though their daughters may get involved as they get older. Yes, Spain has a smaller population then Britain and of course there's also the Commonwealth, but there are still just too many royals on the public payroll in Britain. As the Cambridge kids get older, George at least will presumably be a full-time royal. And really, how many ribbons need to be cut, and how many hospital wings need to be opened? Less is more.
abbyh said…

Has she really figured out that they don't need her ... or she still telling herself that it is only a matter of time before they come back and ask her to step in again because they don't have enough people to go around doing things under the proposed trim the Family support?

If no one can blame B & Eu for their parents actions, they seem to have a much better sense of how and how not to behave, would there be a case for modernizing by bringing them in to replace "others" who have aged out or shown to be less than suitable?

We haven't heard any articles about their taxes in a while. October deadline has come and gone. Dreary working on the taxes and trying to remember what or where this receipt is all about.

Maybe the money (where ever it came from) ran out for SS?

I do think that the financials of their work (past and current) will grab them at the ankles and pull them down. Don't know if it would be the killer blow or just the one which starts the avalanche.
Liver Bird said…
@Abbey

"Has she really figured out that they don't need her ... or she still telling herself that it is only a matter of time before they come back and ask her to step in again because they don't have enough people to go around doing things under the proposed trim the Family support?"

You could be right.... it's hard to know what goes on in that head of hers and certainly she is delusional. It is interesting though that it has been VERY quiet from her. Even her few Instagram posts, though annoying, are fairly inoffensive. Something is up.



"If no one can blame B & Eu for their parents actions, they seem to have a much better sense of how and how not to behave, would there be a case for modernizing by bringing them in to replace "others" who have aged out or shown to be less than suitable?"

No.

The country wants fewer royals, not more. I cannot see this changing. Trimmed down royal families work elsewhere in Europe so why not in Britain?

I agree that the 'Foundation' is likely to be their downfall. How and when is yet to be seen, but I do think something very shady is going to be exposed at some point.
CookieShark said…
I predict MM is not going to be able to resist her relentless merching, and this may be her undoing.

The H&M connection in SA was blatant. She is staring straight at the cameras for the photos snapped as they went to the Tutu meeting, and the photo shows up later on the H&M website with a description of what Archie was wearing. Although the photo came down, you can't unring that bell.

MM is ill-equipped to challenge the traditions of the monarchy. It was never hers to overhaul. Her special blend of "sexy humanitarian" may do fine in LA where they don't mind hypocrisy and word salad. As others have noted, it appears someone in their camp, maybe MM herself, is trying to stay relevant during the "break" by planting puff pieces to the press and reposting "unseen" photos to IG. They are squandering the opportunity the PA scandal has afforded them. A chance to go away quietly for a bit and come back with a clean slate.
Jen said…
So I've given this some thought lately because this has been mentioned on this blog numerous times; I wonder just how long the monarchy will last in the UK? I've read articles that say many Commonwealth countries hope to get out from under the British rule (so to speak) when HMTQ passes on. Many respect HER and that's it; Charles is NOT popular at all. So a future King Charles III is not something many in the UK or other Commonwealth countries are excited about. What happens to this entire family if, heaven forbid, there is a referendum and the folks say "We are done!"

Its certainly plausible. I hear more and more opinions that are similar to JenX's.
lizzie said…
@Liver Bird said "...And really, how many ribbons need to be cut, and how many hospital wings need to be opened? Less is more."

Maybe. William has said he doesn't want to cut ribbons but wants to do "more important" stuff with fewer causes that interest him. Presumably the favored causes for Will are mental health, conservation (mostly in Africa), early childhood, young people, and military service.

But how can that work anyway? We've seen MM lecturing (and interrupting) experts. That's not a good look. There's no reason any of them would be experts in most fields, IMO, but MM doesn't seem to understand that having an opinion doesn't make her an expert.

Still, it will be a rare expert roundtable discussion that will benefit from any royal participant doing very much talking, IMO. When Will has talked freely about conservation, for example, it hasn't necessarily been an unqualified success (I'd be happy if we destroyed all the palace's ivory [those historic items made from the tusks of long-dead elephants don't belong to the RF] people in Africa have too many children and that's causing problems [Kate was about to give birth to Louis], I want to preserve African elephants and other animals so I can take my children there to see them [Africa = Disneyland for those with privilege]....) I like Will but he's made some bloopers.

We've seen Will and Kate in "listening" while wearing their "appropriately concerned" faces. Definitely a better look than interrupting and lecturing. But if the hundreds of events each year being done by royals who aren't TQ and aren't in Charles' family stop happening, is the presence of an occasional concerned royal face (at the favored causes only) enough to justify having a monarchy? Or justify supporting more than the monarch and spouse? Especially since it's unclear how much "taxpayer money" will revert to taxpayers or to worthy public causes if the monarchy is slimmed down and/or appearances are severely restricted? While he argued the RF family should be kept small, the professor did acknowledge that a smaller active royal family will mean a smaller public profile and that could be a negative.

It's my impression groups request the attendance of a royal to cut ribbons. I keep thinking that wouldn't happen unless local people wanted them to come to those events. Am I wrong?
@Lizzie. Would that we could cherry pick which part of our jobs we did and only focused on the interesting tasks! Sadly, the boss is in charge and decides what needs to be done to perform the role. Just as we (the UK taxpayer) surely have a say in what we want of the RF. They may want to take on different causes, but if they choose those over the more mundane ribbon-cutting ones, then the public purse might be firmly clasped shut.

Agree that William overstates his ability and puts his foot in it. On last year's trip to Jordan and Israel, he declared finding a solution to the Palestine issue was going to be his life's work. Good luck with that. Far greater minds than his have been grappling with this issue, and spent far longer than a few hours in the Occupied Territories.
Liver Bird said…
@lizzie

"t MM doesn't seem to understand that having an opinion doesn't make her an expert."

And she's not alone in that! I remember reading the itinerary for the Cambridges' last tour and noting that it said things like "Today the Duke will learn about...." So they weren't offering their uninformed opinions, they were listening to the real experts. Which is good. I agree that Will has had a few cringeworthy moments but I do think he, and Kate, are improving. As they should.

"While he argued the RF family should be kept small, the professor did acknowledge that a smaller active royal family will mean a smaller public profile and that could be a negative."

I guess it's about finding a balance. Enough public events so that people see what value you (supposedly) bring to the country, but not so many that the public get sick of seeing you and wonder who's paying for all this. Also, the more 'working' royals there are, the more potential there is for one of them to go rogue - ie Andrew and to a lesser extent the Harkles - and embarrass the family.

Most European royal families have had at least one scandal in recent years, and the general trend seems to be to cut back on those living off the public purse. Britain may be a bit different as it is easily the biggest (in population terms) of the countries which still have a monarchy, and there's also the Commonwealth. But even so, cutting back on 'active' members would seem to be the way to go.
Himmy said…
When I try to hire a new employee, the number one thing is if the candidate is a team player.

H&M are not team players. They are actively trying to upstage or undermine other members of the firm. I don’t think they will ever change. If the RF decide to keep them on the public payroll, they deserve the public backlash
I think Harry used to be when he tagged along with Will and Kate. Not so much now that he's in league with my way or the highway.
Nutty Flavor said…
If the Sussexes come back to royal duties, it would have to be on the RF’s terms: central control of publicity and planning, plus a willingness to appear at non-glamorous events all over the U.K., the kind of stuff Anne and Edward and Sophie do, not to mention Charles himself.

Would it be worth it to Meghan?

BTW, has anyone else noticed that no Royal Family Christmas card photos have been released yet? It’s December 6. I think last year they came out in late November.
Nutty Flavor said…
Never mind, I’m wrong. They came out in mid-December 2018.
Nutty. Not too much longer to wait for another pic of Louis then.
Nutty Flavor said…
Ha ha! That’s what I was thinking too.
Liver Bird said…
"If the Sussexes come back to royal duties, it would have to be on the RF’s terms: central control of publicity and planning, plus a willingness to appear at non-glamorous events all over the U.K., the kind of stuff Anne and Edward and Sophie do, not to mention Charles himself."

I agree. No more royals a la carte.

"Would it be worth it to Meghan?"

I guess it would depend on what her options are. If she thinks she can do better - ie make more money and be more famous - outside the royal family, Harry will be Markled. If, however, she's sensible enough to accept that her only real value is as a member of the royal family, she might hang on.

I just can't see her deigning to carry out these less than glamorous visits. It seems to me that she has barely ventured out of London and the home counties. That's not to say that I want to see her in my manor, but she needs to recognise that the UK has 4 parts to it. Well, at least until Thursday 12th.
Blogger Jenx said...

I was pondering just the other day about how the BRF, a family or extraordinary wealth and leisure, can be so unaccomplished, generally speaking. I can only imagine with that lifestyle how many novels I would write, how well I would play the cello etc. What do they do all day?

@Jenx, the opportunities squandered are endless. If I had married into the BRF, I would have immediately gone on a year long road trip to every single hamlet, village, town and city I could get to, talking to the locals, learning about their history, food, culture, everything. Eaten at pubs with the locals. Eaten in their homes. Explored the stately homes, the castles, the cemeteries, the battlefields. Explored every castle's dungeons. Explored the creeks and rivers where history happened. It could have been glorious! This was FREE REIGN to have endless learning opportunities of the vast British history on the BRF dime. Become a British historian! British historical architecture!

Nope, let's piss it all away on photo ops.
CatEyes said…
@AVerySunshineyDay said:

>>Nope, let's piss it all away on photo ops.<<

And they were meaningless photo-ops unless one counts seeing Meghan smirking or sticking out her tongue, her claw hands grasping Harry double-fisted, her messy wigs, coat flicking, her clutching her bouncy ball stomach, crotch shots, boobs-a-bursting and vag itching spectacle, etc...ad nauseaum! That's all I remember and I wish I could unsee it!
Mimi said…
I think they should use the crazy lady with the dangling baby and not very happy father at the polo match for their Christmas picture. Doesn’t it just scream......”Look at how very happy our little family is. Merry Christmas! “
Lady Luvgood said…
Pops popcorn and waits for the next installment of the Harkle train wreck, checkmate Meggy. LOL
Mimi said…
my second choice is the impromptu family outing to the pub. The blurry picture taken from a distance where you can’t tell who is who.
CatEyes said…
I like the look of Harry telling Meg to turn around at Trooping the Color on the balcony and she has a mad/sad face (why include Archie in a photo because you know he "can change in two weeks" according to Harry (besides he might be with his real mother and unavailable for a Christmas photo).
Teasmade said…
@Jenx said...

"I was pondering just the other day about how the BRF, a family or extraordinary wealth and leisure, can be so unaccomplished, generally speaking. I can only imagine with that lifestyle how many novels I would write, how well I would play the cello etc. What do they do all day?"

They are not known for intelligence though, nor for intellectual curiosity. They are indifferently educated if at all. Kate is known to be dim and uninterested in anything that doesn't involve her (per her cousin.) We know about Harry's limitations. Diana: self-admitted to be dim also. The queen: no formal education, and her passions don't lie in cultural or intellectual areas. Charles has many interests and accomplishments, yet is mocked and unpopular. Not sure about any of the others--does anyone know?
Liver Bird said…
"They are indifferently educated if at all

Huh? They all go to the most exclusive schools in the country. Both Harry and William attended Eton, for example. And many of them have university degrees - both Charles and Edward went to Cambridge. That doesn't mean they're intelligent, but to claim they are 'indifferently educated' is just wrong.

"Kate is known to be dim and uninterested in anything that doesn't involve her (per her cousin.)"

Kate is not 'known to be dim'. One person's tittle tattle is hardly accepted fact. She has a decent degree from a good university, so I'm not sure what your evidence for her 'dimness' consists of? I don't think she's a great intellectual - though the truth is we know very little about her private personality, which is a good thing for a royal - though I see no reason to believe she is 'dim'.
Glow W said…
Kate has morphed herself into the perfect queen in waiting. She isn’t dim.
DesignDoctor said…
Agreed. Kate is not dim, graduated from university. Both Charles and Edward graduated from Cambridge; It is not an insignificant accomplishment to achieve a degree from a world class university.
Having three small children and being a hands-on, caring mother does not leave a lot of time and energy for intellectual pursuits.
punkinseed said…
Kate is far from dim. She was tops in her classes from what I've read. Doesn't she have an art history degree? I would not believe her cousin. Admittedly, Kate isn't very good at delivering speeches at times, but has improved. She's a great mom, too and it really shows. I'm glad we don't know much about her private personality. That's a good way for someone in her shoes to be. We'd never hear Kate say, "Nobody asks if I'm ok" or any other boo hoo, crybaby uh huh whinging.
Mimi said…
Some people prefer to go about their business quietly and not flaunt their intelligence (or lack of it) in people’s faces. Other people love to step up at any and every opportunity to open their mouth and proclaim to the world how truly stupid and ignorant they really are.
Blogger KC Martin said...

Very interesting post, as per usual, Nutty. What I most took away from the article are these points:
For the monarchies:
- You are here by our difference

@KC Martin, you corrected "difference" to "sufferance" later, but I think "difference" is perfect. If the BRF wasn't a higher tier than Hollywood, they would not be so enticing, so elusive, so escapist...so royal.

There has to be difference or the BRF would not be elusive prey for the likes of social climbers of this ilk.
Marie said…
@tweeymma I agree with you on the Royals not coming off as particularly intellectual, although Charles seems more a sensitive, artistic soul than the rest. It might be bit of the old upper crust thing though. Clever people worked or had a career, whereas a mark of a peer is the country pursuits of hunting, fishing, being sporty, knowing some history, etc.

I believe Kate wouldn't call herself an intellectual either, although I think she definitely doesn't come off as dim. She went to St. Andrews, a good uni, and earned relatively decent 2:1 honours, even taking in account for grade inflation and the fact her course is a bit less objective than say a technical one. A 2:1 at least demonstrates a good work ethic and willingness to pay attention to what is being asked of her. Her grandfather attended Cambridge and her paternal cousins are lawyers, so the intelligence runs in the family at least on one side. She likes photography, gardening, sport. Are these non-intellectual pursuits? Maybe, but certainly the existence of hobbies shows some sort of intellectual curiosity.

Meghan did not even graduate even with low honours, despite having such a toy degree like studying theatre at a non-arts school. And her hobbies largely seem to posing for photos, clothes, make-up, showing off to friends with her cooking, and traveling (and sharing her trips on social media). And to the person who mentioned Harry at Eton, I do wonder if Harry got anything from his time there.
abbyh said…

I have a lot of respect for Kate. She stepped in and has done a great job (and continues to do the great job).

What kind of is bugging me is that the DM has sub-categories for MM, PA and the BRF.

I wish/think two things:

If they give MM her own tab, is it now part of their legal case against her as in see how well we have given her respect we have not for Kate?

Am I the only person who has had greater difficulty with my Operating System since the DM has not allowed Ad Blocker? It seems freeze, end and then force me to restart so much more frequently (like from almost never to now every 2 or 3 days). So not happy with their advertising.
KCM1212 said…
@a very sunshine day (great handle!)

I agree! The difference (real or perceived) is what makes them alluring. And the famous "never explain, never complain" is part of what kept the mystique alive. Until the suffering sussexes and PA showed how very ordinary some members of the Firm are.
DesignDoctor said…
@KC Martin

It is important for the Monarchy's continued existence for the "mystique" to survive. If they are "just like us" then why should the British people continue to pay for them?
What the Harkles do not understand is they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to modernize the monarchy and be "normal."
How short-sighted of them! But we have all seen that Markle does not have the ability (ADD?) or the intelligence to play the long game well.
DesignDoctor said…
@K C Martin

And they have shown how very human they are--without the character and the morals (PA & MM) to deserve their exalted position.
CookieShark said…
More than once MM has been referred to as "whip-smart" although I don't know what their basis for that description is. I believe I read somewhere she did not pass the Foreign Service exam, although I don't know this for sure. Perhaps this is why her career in International Relations never got off the ground? My opinion only, but I don't think she's whip-smart at all. She appears to be incapable of taking advice from those in a good position to offer it. A trifling example is the hat at Wimbledon. As of this summer she was not new to being a royal at such events and she knew a hat would be inappropriate, yet she wore it, I believe, to be defiant. It is just another example of her special blend of "I don't care, but don't you dare judge me" behavior.
punkinseed said…
I agree CookieShark. Meg's is not whip smart at all. If anything, she has been told all of her life that she's "smart" but in reality, not very. She's so busy with what she wants to tell others that she doesn't listen to what they have to say. That's why she interrupts and has convinced herself that her platitudes are more important so she believes she is not being rude or out of order.
From what I've read, she either didn't take or failed the Foreign Service exam, which, takes some studying to pass. If she was determined to pass that test, she would have taken it until she did. Even John F. Kennedy, Jr. took the bar exam what, 3 times, until he passed.
Megs has very little if any impulse control and has no concept of considering consequences to her own actions. When caught red handed what does she do? Blame others, play victim, lie, lie more, play the race card, etc. And she got away with that for years so she must be in a total shock meltdown right now to be gated and gagged by BP.
Narcissists are also very defiant unless there's something they want like a reward at the end. That's why she won't wear the right clothes, crowds in front of Harry, refuses to use any manners or social graces because she can't stand being told what to do.
abbyh said…

...She appears to be incapable of taking advice from those in a good position to offer it.

There is a small part of me which has some sort of feelings for the people at SS trying to tell her what is in her best interest and having her blow them off.
Brown-eyed said…
@Cookieshark @abbyh @pumpkseed

MM failed the foreign service exam. the exam has a reputation for being very hard, with a high failure rate. I think it is similar to the exams for professionals—lawyers and CPAs come to mind.

Quoting Andrew Norton from one of the tabloids, Daily Express, I think. :

Mr Morton continues: “Certainly she was sufficiently committed to a career with the State Department to take the Foreign Service Officer Test while she was still in Argentina.

“The three-hour exam is a mix of politics, history, general knowledge and maths, requiring an awareness of everything from the origin of be-bop to East Asian labour laws.”


Morton, who is working on an MM book, comments were the last ones in the article by the Daily Expres.

Interestingly, shortly there was a run of articles about how MM gave up a career in the foreign service as a diplomat in order to be an actress. [cough cough]. Apparently her PR machine was already working and the articles quote her saying she made a hard choice, blah, blah.

Isn’t that fun? Is there anything she tells the truth about?
Brown-eyed said…
@Cookieshark @abbyh @pumpkinseed

Morton said, “It proved a stretch too far; Meghan failed the exam., “

(This sentence got left out of my comment above.)
Brown-eyed said…
@Cookieshark @abbyh @pumpkinseed

Morton said, “It proved a stretch too far; Meghan failed the exam., “

(This sentence got left out of my comment above.)
DesignDoctor said…
@Brown-eyed

Isn’t that fun? Is there anything she tells the truth about?

In a word, "No!"
Mimi said…
surely someone that is “WHIP SMART” could have aces it on their first try?
Mimi said…
dam it! ACED IT!
DesignDoctor said…
She is NOT whip smart. A whip smart person would not have taken the opportunity to be a respected member of the BRF and thrown it away. I love the comment someone on here made about taking the opportunity to travel all around Britain, getting to know the country, its people, customs, and history. She could have become beloved rather than reviled and ousted. IDK how others feel but it is a relief not to see MeMe ME's smirking, smug face all over the media.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
lizzie said…
@Marie and others,

I agree if Meghan is "whip- smart" we haven't seen evidence. Taking credit for others' projects (like the cookbook), plagiarizing right and left (for years apparently), and word salad speeches don't convince me.

But I don't think it's entirely fair to compare M's lack of "honors" at Northwestern to Kate's honours at St. Andrew's. While I have worked within the US system and so I'm more familiar with it, I'm pretty sure everyone admitted to the final 2 years of specialized study at St. A's who graduates, graduates with some sort of honours. According to
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/subjects/study-options/ug/degree-routes/honours/
"Depending on your performance, you will be awarded with a First Class Honours, Second Class Honours (2.1 or 2.2), or Third Class Honours degree."

In contrast, at Northwestern,  Latin honors are awarded to the top 25% of the graduating students in each school with those in the top 5% earning summa cum laude, the next 8% magna cum laude and the last 12%, cum laude. In order to graduate at all, students at US universities have to earn a grade point average of C (2.0) or better in all 4 years of coursework and a C (2.0) or better in courses in the major (varies whether it's an average or whether every grade has to be C or better in the major.)
https://catalogs.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/requirements-policies/graduation-degrees/graduation-honors/

So 75% of the students graduating each year at Northwestern in each school don't earn honors while 100% of those graduating from St. Andrew's do.

Further, St. Andrew's provides a conversion table for their honours categories to US grades.
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/administration/academicdatateam/assessmentandawards/undergraduateinformation/

First class 3.7-4.0
Second 2.1 = 3.0-3.6
Second 2.2 = 2.2-2.9
Third class honours = 1.3-2.2

In determining honours, only the last two years of St. A's grades count while in the US, all 4 years count (including 1st yr. and those are often lower.)

IF grading standards were equivalent (big if), a number of the St. A's students graduating with Third Class Honours wouldn't graduate at all in the US if the 4 years of grades were as low as the last two years shown in the table. And it is extremely unlikely anyone with Second Class Honours 2.2 would receive US honors, and even some receiving a Second 2.1 probably wouldn't either. (Those in the 3.0-3.1 range)

I'm not denigrating Kate's university accomplishments, but it's really apples and oranges.

For those interested in what's on the Foreign Service Officers Test, here is a link with a "practice test."
https://fsotprep.com/fsot-practice-test/
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
eller from TX said…
Howdy Nutties!

@Trudy:

"Although all universities are different, I believe a major in art history is more intellectually challenging than one in communications."

No disrespect inferred, but what is the basis for your assumption that art history is more intellectually challenging than communications? I ask this because I myself have a Bachelor of Science in Communications (Critical-Cultural Studies of Film and Television, with Honors)--and I also took some electives in art history, as well. Art history is challenging (I was surprised just how challenging it was), but my major was even more so intellectually challenging, due to the various aspects of history, film theory, religion, psychology and sociology that encompassed the academic track established by the university I graduated from. As you stated, "...all universities are different...," this is true, as the university I attended is only one of 3 in the U. S. that offers a Ph.d program in my major. As Sparkle Farkle has said, "They don't make it easy."
Nutty Flavor said…
Actually I think art history is a very good degree for a Royal.

Not only do the Royals lend their name to many UK art institutions (Royal Academy of Art, Queen's Gallery, etc.) and own a lot of classic art and portraiture, but they're uniquely placed to (symbolically) weigh in on some of the thorny questions in the art world.

For example, what should Britain do with all of the art looted from Asia and Africa during the days of Empire? There's a lot of momentum to the "give it back" campaign, but personally I think that is short-sighted when the areas you are "giving back" to are not necessarily safe or stable.

We've seen how much classical Chinese art was destroyed in the Cultural Revolution, and how the Taliban/ISIS attacked historical artifacts in their zone of influence. One could argue that African art belongs in Africa, but can current regimes there really protect and preserve some of the masterpieces of the genre? Many of those masterpieces would not have survived if they hadn't been taken to Britain.

Clearly no one wants a political screed from the Royals, but Kate or Eugenie (who also has an art history degree) could make a statement by attending preservation society meetings or exhibit openings of non-Western art, which will be of increasing interest in multi-cultural Britain.

It's a bit annoying that Kate and Eugenie don't put their art history degrees to better use.

Kate does go to photography and National Portrait Gallery events, not sure about Eugenie.
Liver Bird said…
I don't think any of the royals - incl the married-ins like Kate and Meghan - are especially clever. Just about average. Exceptions include Andrew, Harry and the late Diana, who are thick as two short planks.

Regarding Meghan, I don't think failing the FSO test should really be held against her as apparantly it is a tough exam with a high failure rate. So failing does not at all mean she is stupid. However, combined with the error laden word salad posts, her lack of curiosity about any even vaguely intellectual pursuits (see her blog) and perhaps most of all, the fact that she married renowned dumbo Harry, proves she's no more intelligent than the family she married into. What 'whip smart' woman would marry Prince Dimwit?
Nutty Flavor said…
Interesting short piece here about a woman who tried to marry into an upper-class British family but couldn't figure out how to follow all the rules, causing a rupture with her husband's family.

I'm sure Meg must have had similar experiences.

With good PR, they could have made us sympathize with her. That might have been a good interview - "I didn't know you weren't supposed to show shoulders for day dressing, only for evening dress. It's been such a big learning curve!" The public might have enjoyed following her as she learned to be a Royal, a Pygmalion/"My Fair Lady" type of situation.
Liver Bird said…
Yeah, Meghan had SO much going for her. Young(ish), good-looking, glamorous, married the then most popular royal on a beautiful May morning and a cute baby within a year. She could have made the 'American girl in Windsor' thing work in her favour too, as you say. Nobody would have minded the occasional misstep so long as it was accompanied by humility and a willingness to learn. In fact, it might have endeared her to the public.

So much goodwill, squandered so soon. One for the Guinness book of records.
Acquitaine said…
It remains delicious that for the entire first year of their marriage as well as the 6mths of their engagement, Meghan and Harry have pumped out PR about how important that they are, their fans say the monarchy was dying until they coupled up yada yada yada global superstars who only hobnob with (90s era) superstars, but the public, media, academic response is no way. Y'all are minor royals who are irrelevant and don't contribute anything that isn't given to you by the royal machine so sit down and be quiet. The more Harry and Meghan push against this, the more the public, media, academics go further down the road of cutting them out altogether rather than just pushing them into a quiet corner.
SirStinxAlot said…
@Unknown.. I hope you popped enough popcorn to share. Who is bringing the drinks?
lizzie said…
@Nutty, I agree with you Kate could probably do more related to her art history degree. While she does have patronages related to art, there doesn't seem to be any sort of real focus in that area. But perhaps her interests have changed. She'll turn 38 next month and graduated when she was 23. Interests sometimes do change in 15 years and after having 3 children. (Her interests seem more child/family related these days.)

But I don't agree Eugenie is not using her degree. (I believe her degree is in English Literature and Art History.) She currently works fulltime as the director at Hauser & Wirth, an art gallery in London. She began as the assistant director in 2015 and was promoted to director in 2017. Of course, I don't know what she does day to day, and I don't know how full-time her full-time job is, but it seems her job is related to the art part of her degree.

Prior to working in London, Eugenie worked for a year in NYC at Paddle8, an online art auction house. She worked as a benefits auction manager. (The portion of the business that partners with non-profits to raise money.)

And according to Wikipedia,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Eugenie_of_York
Eugenie became the ambassador for the Artemis Council of the New Museum in 2017, an initiative focused on supporting female artists.

Eugenie is also active in supporting a number of children's charities, Elephant Family (a group focused on saving Asian elephants), Project O (focused on saving oceans from plastic pollution), anti-human trafficking initiatives, and serves as the director of the Anti-Slavery Collective.

It seems to me Eugenie has done alot of charitable work for a 29-year old, especially since she is not a working royal so she's not being paid to do charity work. Of course, all of us could do more but I do think Eugenie's reputation as an air-headed party girl is undeserved. (Not saying she was called that here but she is often viewed that way.)
abbyh said…

I'm in with drinks.

I have some chardonnay, a little red wine, some fun bubbles and brie cheese/crackers. However, at this time of day, there is coffee, tea and juice.
KCM1212 said…
@nutty, interesting piece regarding the woman who couldn't make the move to the aristocracy.

Did you notice the little blurb toward the end of the column that Eden also reports Harry and Williams decision to stop playing polo (?) will hurt the foundation set up to honor their friend Henry Van Straubenzee?

"Earlier this year, I (Richard Eden)disclosed that the Audi Polo Challenge would not go ahead amid claims the car-maker was asked to increase massively its donation to Prince Harry’s good causes. Kensington Palace denied suggestions that Audi was asked to donate £1 million — and that Meghan inspired the increase."

KP denied the suggestion, but it sure falls in line with what we know about Meg and perhaps the Sussex Foundation.
Liver Bird said…
The claim about demanding extra 'charity' funding from Audi was not one of those stories listed on Meghan's lawsuit, despite being from the same newspaper. So are we to assume it is true?
KCM1212 said…
Good point @liverbird!
Liver Bird said…
That's why 'never complain, never explain' is the royal modus operandi. Once you get into a spat with the media like this, where do you draw the line?
Nutty Flavor said…
Interesting point, @LiverBird.

If it is true about the polo match and the big donation, I'm sure it's yet another bone of contention between William and Harry.
Nutty Flavor said…
@Lizzie, thanks for the info about Eugenie's art interests. I can see she's using her degree in her commercial endeavors - which are completely appropriate, since she's not a working Royal.
punkinseed said…
Liver Bird, great observation about Audi funding.
And as far as a spat with media, when I was a reporter I got threats now and then. The best advice from my publisher was: "Always remember to DUCK!" and, "If they threaten you, tell them it's unwise to threaten those who get their ink by the barrel."
Megs decision to sue DM et al was to convince us that she's a victim and to pick a fight with the media. She likes to start things but as always, she won't finish it.
She's not very smart and she sucks as an actress. A good actress would have been able to fake a pregnancy far better than she did. She's sloppy about just about everything. She never follows through. Look at her foreign relations degree. Who gets a degree then doesn't keep trying to pass if they failed the foreign service exam? That's like going to law school and giving up on passing the bar exam.
It kind of makes me wonder if she didn't pay others to write her term papers for her in college. Going by the word salad and lack of continuity in her writing and speeches, along with mountains of borrowed or plagiarized material, it's as if she didn't learn very much in her courses.

Liver Bird said…
"And as far as a spat with media, when I was a reporter I got threats now and then. The best advice from my publisher was: "Always remember to DUCK!" and, "If they threaten you, tell them it's unwise to threaten those who get their ink by the barrel."

Quite.

And the royals' situation is different from celebrities' for two reasons (neither of which Meghan seems to understand):

Firstly, they are at the end of the day, public servants, funded by the public. So people have the right to know what you're up to, and if you're up to the standard expected of those who get to reign over us purely by an accident of birth. So you have to put up with a bit of annoying gossip. It goes with the territory.

Secondly, royals are there for life. Barring the abolition of the monarchy or a major scandal, their position is secure. They don't have to worry about the next starlet sniffing at their heels. In theory, the Harkles could be active royals 50 years from now (of course in reality I expect Meghan won't even last 10 years, but that's another story!) So if you're going to chase down every little bit of tittle tattle about wanting air fresheners in a church or spending taxpayers' money on floating yoga floors, you are going to burn yourself out pretty quickly. People will have forgotten it in a month, let alone a year, let alone 10 years. Let it go. Isn't she supposed to be a laid-back California yoga type?

The royals and the press had actually reached a pretty comfortable modus vivendi in recent years, one which - most of the time - benefitted both parties. The Harkles and their nonsense threaten to ruin all that.
lizzie said…
Northwestern doesn't offer a stand-alone major in International Studies/Relations. An interdisciplinary "adjunct International Studies major" is offered that is open to all students but they still must complete a stand-alone "disciplinary" major in order to graduate. https://www.internationalstudies.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/

So Meghan's Theater major in the School of Communication Studies would have been her primary major.

I expect the adjunct major is designed to complement disciplinary majors such as Econ, Poli Sci, Business, or be helpful for those with aspirations such as International Law. So I do wonder what M's career goals really were.
NeutralObserver said…
A quick comment many may disagree with: IMO, Megs is a distaff, or female version of Prince Andrew, albeit, not a 'blood royal.'

I have never alluded to them here, but apparently there are some unsavory rumors out there about Megs' private & professional life, as there are about Andrew. What's different about them is that Andrew has had a proven & acknowledged friendship or acquaintance with a convicted felon accused of serious sexual improprieties. Megs may have equally unsavory connections, but they haven't been made public as of yet.

Both Megs & Andrew have been accused of exploiting their status as royals to enrich themselves. If all of these rumors & accusations are true about both of them, I don't see how the RF can't treat Megs the same way they treated Andrew, ' a blood royal.' It seems it would be as necessary to toss her to the curb as it has been to get rid of Andrew. Just an idle thought.
@lizzie, I don’t think you can fairly compare British and American universities, I know they vary enormously and I’m not going to go into detail . I know Catherine did a masters (4 years). Did Meghan even finish her degree (bachelors or masters)?
punkinseed said…
interesting points Neutral. I doubt Megs will be around the RF after she is exposed if we are to compare her actions with what Fergie's last straw moment was. There's a lot of connections with Meg's best buddy Marcus Anderson to that creep who "didn't kill himself."
I do wonder why Megs was unable to get a few decent acting roles in Hollywood while she was married to Trevor. You'd think that Trevor would have helped her with her road to stardom, but no. Seven years is a long time in actress years. She must not have been a very good actress at all. I've never watched Suits.
Nutty Flavor said…
I haven’t seen “Suits” either, but it had a big impact on some people. Yesterday I was in a rural part of my European country and met a 17-year-old boy set on moving to New York City and becoming a lawyer, because that’s what he had seen on “Suits”!

Didn’t ask his opinion on Meghan, but now I wish I had.

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hikari said…
@Lizzie, Nutty and all (and Trudy, who wondered where I was)

I'm still kicking around. Haven't visited the board lately due to various life events overtaking me, but also just general apathy over the Sussex Duo. They have finally worn out my (salacious) interest in them. I've been hanging on with this spectacle for these last two years, waiting for something definitive to happen with the gruesome twosome, and it just feels like, no matter where they are, or what kind of sanctions they receive from the RF that they will just continue to drift around like two bad smells to annoy us in perpetuity . .or at least for the next few years, which feels very much like the same thing.

Someone above referred to Meghan as a covert narcissist; I must respectfully disagree about the 'covert' part--she's as blatant and overt as a personality disorder gets. I'd peg Harry as more in the covert line. All these years he's had the public snowed (with massive amounts of facade management from the Palace and dedicated courtiers like Edward Lane Fox) that he was a great guy . . soldier hero, loves kids, good, hearty hale Haz, always up for a bit of a cheeky laugh. I think discovering the extent of Harry's dysfunctional personality and substance abuse problems and general piss-poor attitude has been the most uncomfortably illuminating part of this whole saga. It's very easy to dislike Meghan because she's so transparently the opposite of everything she claims to be. Harry's true nature has been a nastier surprise because it was much better hidden. I don't know what the future holds for Harry, but even if he is able to extricate himself from the Claw, I don't think it's anything good, unfortunately. Haz peaked years ago and there will be no recapturing his appeal or the world's respect . . he's tossed that away with both hands.

I do wonder if Megs is brazen enough to foist another faux pregnancy on us in the New Year. I think yes, she really is that brazen. I wonder what it would take to have her sectioned, and if the RF would ever consider Going There?
lizzie said…
@Raspberry Ruffle, I'm willing to agree that universities can be hard to compare. But I'm not willing to agree that the 4-year degree Kate earned at St. Andrew's is the equivalent of a master's degree in the US (or anywhere else.) In fact, according to St. Andrew's own website, the degree Kate earned is "a Master of Arts (MA) which is equivalent to a Bachelor of Arts (BA) elsewhere." https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/subjects/study-options/ug/degree-routes/honours/

I've never read anything other than unsupported blog posts that suggest Meghan didn't finish her undergraduate 4-year BA degree. Her name appears in the commencement program for the appropriate year although that can happen if a person fails a required course during graduation semester. But I don't really think Northwestern--a highly respected university-- would be so eager to claim her as a graduate that the university would lie for her. (Revealing degree earned and date earned is not a FERPA violation.) And I don't think Northwestern would say she graduated in 2003 in a story on it's own website if that wasn't true. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/

I'll be more than happy to pile on if it comes out Meghan (and the university) lied. But right now I think there are plenty of other legitimate grounds on which to criticize Meghan. Others may feel differently and that's fine.
KC said…
Long time lurker, due to the quality of the blog material and the comments! (politeness counts!) I've had a lot of ideas to respond, that others then covered, but one suggestion I did not see....There has been mention of MM using old photos on IG (I don't think Harry does anything with that, it's all her work): that could be because she owns the copyright to the pictures she is using taken by her own photographer (like in SA) but doesn't have a photographer anymore for new ones...or the photographer(s) want a royalty for pictures.

She reminds me so much of Rebecca Sharp in the novel Vanity Fair. As I recall (I read it years ago) one of Rebecca's first scenes is her sitting inside a carriage, ready to depart from her boarding school from the last time. She is casting a sour gaze on the gift from the headmistress--a book about how to behave morally. Not for her! She shuts the book smartly, extends her arm out of the carriage window, holding the book level, and lets it drop to the ground, where it lands flat in a little cloud of dust. And the carriage drives on.....I easily imagine MM in this scene, true to life.

And later in the novel, Becky is sitting in her hotel room in a town about to be overrun by the enemy's army (I think it's Napoleon, and people would be afraid of soldiers looting, raping, and shooting the locals who objected). The populace is panicking outside, trying to get out of town any way possible. Not Becky. She is calm, waiting for the right moment. For she has a carriage and horses, and she is confident of getting a very high price for them, just by waiting till the right moment, til the panic peaks. She has no fear that she will not be able to escape herself once she gets her price. I can just imagine Becky in a modern setting, checking the tabloids on the internet to see if it's time yet....
CookieShark said…
MM's ex Cory Vitiello is a SNACK.

What was she thinking leaving him for Harry?
If she had stayed with Cory, she could merch to her heart's content and star in all the Hallmark movies. I say this with some seriousness; it's as if she didn't realize how her position in the RF would limit her.
SirStinxAlot said…
@Cookieshark...she probably thought Harry's money was easily accessible. Not to mention the instant stardom of being part of the RF. I certainly hope they signed a prenup. I am sure the RF attorneys secured his trust and inheritance ages ago to protect it from gold diggers. Marrying a man for money is not a new scheme, been around for ages.
Himmy said…
@cookieshark
Cory is self-made and has a brain. He would not be easily manipulated by MM.

Harry would have been fired long time ago if he worked in a private firm. I had to take drug tests for some of my jobs. One of my coworkers got fired because he was an alcoholic.
TTucker said…
Nutty, We are talking here of a family with a net worth at 88 billion sterling as per the 2017 Forbes Magazine. Each one, including Andrew, has accumulated amazing wealth. Not even William, who apparently owns land in New Zealand, would drop poor if monarchy ceased to exist. But of course, if people want to keep funding them as public servants through their taxes, why reject it?

So I enjoyed the article much and think it is brilliant. However, I differ with the author as regards the remark on "choice of career". In these circles, in aristocracy, there is no such concept of a "career"; that's for the bourgeoisie et la plèbe. The very few at this level would find it quite offensive to "work" for money. Money works for them. At most, they "administer" or "manage" their wealth. Or lend their name to causes, such as art, history, peace...

Also, their capital (and inheritance) is not just financial, which Megs has probably not yet understood. They also own social, cultural, symbolic capitals that they very carefully transfer to the next generation. So even if a family's financial capital is not what used to be, they will still belong to this circle due to birth (the family tree they descend from) and marriage (they usually marry accross countries but among themselves) and they will keep enjoying all other forms of capital. Christmas together in Gstaad, February in St Moritz, summer in X's mega yatch, polo in Marrakech, hunting wherever, rallye for the younger ones in Paris ... but also art pieces, furniture, membership in the Interalliée Union, the Jockey Club, and other highly selected clubs, etc.. Their gains can also be valued in terms of the fantastic network of well placed family or extended family or friends network they enjoy in the military, the church, the finance world, etc.

"Career choice", fulfilling your life through a career, is rarely a life quest for them. Looking after all their forms of capital for the next generation truly is.

NeutralObserver said…
@punkinseed, @Nutty Re: Suits. I watched it for a couple of seasons. I have a weakness for dramas about intra organization scheming. I stopped watching it because, like a lot of shows, it became repetitive, & more & more implausible. I also thought Meg's love interest, whose name escapes me, was unappealing, although I thought Gabriel Macht & Gina Torres were charismatic & fun to watch. Megs was forgettable, because when her engagement to Harry was announced, I had no idea who she was. I do remember thinking that she was pretty, & didn't realize she was black until they gave her a dad played by a black actor. Suits was on USA network, a cable outlet for NBC-Universal, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. USA is like a discount version of the big networks, & actors are paid accordingly. No $1million dollar per episode actors there. USA network exists in a universe of potentially 500+ cable networks, depending on your cable package. So Megs was no Jennifer Aniston in terms of fame & compensation
Liver Bird said…
"So I enjoyed the article much and think it is brilliant. However, I differ with the author as regards the remark on "choice of career".

I felt the same way. Royals and the upper tier of the aristocracy don't have 'careers' as we plebs understand them, ie, as something neccessary to pay the bills. "Work" for them is more like a hobby or a form of social networking. I'm surprised the author didn't acknowledge this as he bemoaned the 'plight' of fantastically privileged royals. Most of us would love to suffer such 'plights'!
Liver Bird said…
@Lizzie

I agree with you. St. Andrews is one of the 'ancient universities' (Cambridge and Oxford are others) and an MA there is equivalent to a BA elsewhere. If you graduate with a BA, the MA is automatically granted to you and thus is fairly meaningless.

I also agree that Meghan probably did graduate from Northwestern as stated. Getting a bog standard arts degree requires no great intellect, and while Meghan may not be 'whip smart' I don't think she's stupid either so I don't think this would be beyond her.
NeutralObserver said…
@SirStinxAlot: Prenup or no prenup, if there is a divorce, Megs most likely won't get enough to keep her in the style she wants to become accustomed to. Diana, British aristocrat & mother of a future king, & Fergie, got peanuts, relative to the purported wealth of the RF. I've wondered whether Diana's fairly modest settlement was one of the reasons she dated Dodi Fayed, whose family had very deep pockets, & could provide her with an almost royal life style. She probably felt the Fayed family could protect her (mistakenly). Jackie O made a similar choice when she married billionaire Aristotle Onassis. Jackie's social peers here in the US called Onassis a 'peasant.' I think Jackie wanted to not only the luxury Onassis could provide, but also the privacy he could give her. Megs isn't really very interested in privacy, (no matter what she & Harry say) but she loves status & wealth. In any case, the RF has shown itself quite capable of hanging on to their moolah in the past, & it probably will in this case as well.
NeutralObserver said…
@HIkari, please no, not another faux pregnancy! It would, however, probably be very amusing to see the Daily Mail flood its paper with saccharine headlines & stories about the 'pregnancy,' while surreptitiously hinting that the whole thing is fake.
NeutralObserver said…
@Nutty, I totally agree with you as to art. Better to have it safely stored in secure, climate controlled museums, etc. than in places where it could be destroyed or looted for any reason. Sometimes I worry that even places like Britain or the US will no longer be safe for art. Globalization ironically has precipitated not only inflated prices for art, but an increase in art moving into private hands, & no longer available for public view, as museums increasingly find it hard to compete for rare pieces. The destruction of valuable art in China for political reasons was a tragedy, as was the fire that destroyed the National Museum of Brazil. I will never forgive Donald Rumsfeld for not stopping the looting of Iraqi art treasures. Iraqis were the looters, but the US was there in its seemingly endless role as the world's policeman. No excuse. Maybe someday the world will be safe enough for all the wonderful things men have made to be repatriated to their countries of origin. We're not there yet.
Ozmanda said…
While I have no actual proof, I have a firm belief that Sparkles has some monies stashed as a result of her marching and charging "appearance fees" in offshore accounts. If I was investigating her, I would put her mum first on that list. I also think she owes a lot of powerful people a lot of favours so will probably need to start paying them back or stories may be released - especially now when they can see her popularity is at the bottom of the barrel and associating with her is going to be far less of an advantage.

As for divorce - I would like to see that but there is one major sticking point - Archie. I think she got herself a child as quickly as possible, knowing full well this is her trump card to secure a wedding. As long as threes a child I don't know if the BRF will force her out - this is also why I will bet you all a extra gin martini that there will be another fan pregnancy accouncement soon.
punkinseed said…
So true about the art treasures Nutty. The Cairo Museum looting is another one on the top of my list of art and culture horrors. All that time Zahi Hawass spent ranting and demanding countries repatriate Egyptian artifacts and what happened? So much was destroyed and stolen. Such a disaster. And don't get me started on Hawass. That man disgusts me on so many levels.
CookieShark said…
If there is a second pregnancy....das ist doch die Hoehe. (German for that's just the limit).

I can't take another 9 (10)? months of posing with hand on bump and then the indignation and screeches for PRIVACY when anyone shows interest in the birth. There is a photo over on Charlatan Duchess that is interesting. It is when she is wearing the black vintage top during the baby shower. There is a rather large gap between her chest and the start of the bump. To me, it does not look natural, but this is only my opinion.

I believe she kept her hand glued to her bump throughout the pregnancy to obstruct anyone else from reaching out to touch it. Yes, this would be rude anyway and I don't blame her but sometimes elderly Grandmother types want to, without meaning any harm. Anyone touching the bump would know the truth. There are also no photos of anyone else standing with her with their hand on her bump. Husbands are often known to do this in photos, although I agree it would not be appropriate for H&M to pose this way. However, they engaged in inappropriate PDA in other circumstances. Harry's comment: "She's got a big baby in there" (I'm paraphrasing) turned out to not really be true (I believe Archie was 7lbs something), and is not a very thoughtful thing for a husband to say.
Brown-eyed said…
@LiverBird

I also agree that Meghan probably did graduate . . . from Northwestern. Getting a bog standard arts degree requires no great intellect, and while Meghan may not be 'whip smart' I don't think she's stupid either so I don't think this would be beyond her.“ I also agree that Meghan probably did graduate from Northwestern as stated. Getting a bog standard arts degree requires no great intellect, and while Meghan may not be 'whip smart' I don't think she's stupid either so I don't think this would be beyond her.

I believe that the rumor that MM didn’t graduate got started because no one has found college graduation photos. So, therefore, some people believe MM must be lying. I think, for the reasons you said, that she graduated with her class. I cannot imaging Northwestern misrepresenting their relationship to her.

I didn’t attend commencement exercises when I received one of my graduate degrees. So, I didn’t have cap and gown photos, but I do have a diploma.

punkinseed said…
I posted this link because I believe it's a very informative talk about how narcissists are able to pull in so many people. Dolan is a UFO researcher, but what he warns us about applies to any field of research and common sense. I especially retained the part about how frauds are able to pull you in by insisting on being the only conduit of information. I also appreciate him reminding us that evidence and empirical thinking is being overrun by charlatans when they go on their "your truth" "my truth" word salads. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqpWk_MG_0E
Brown-eyed said…
****Sorry about the repeat at the beginning of the comment. It didn’t show up like that in the preview. Maybe I need to stop using my phone to post.

@LiverBird
Magatha Mistie said…
She may be educated, but she is sorely lacking in manners & social graces. Plain rude, & obnoxious.
@Lizzie, I was asking whether Meghan had finished her degree, not stating she hadn’t. I have read a lot of conflicting info, about the uni. Meghan had attended and whether she finished her degree. I was enquiring because I wasn’t sure. I hope this clarifies. :o)
@Hikari, ‘but also just general apathy over the Sussex Duo. They have finally worn out my (salacious) interest in them. I've been hanging on with this spectacle for these last two years, waiting for something definitive to happen with the gruesome twosome, and it just feels like, no matter where they are, or what kind of sanctions they receive from the RF that they will just continue to drift around like two bad smells to annoy us in perpetuity.’

I completely feel like this too. I can barely be bothered to read the articles in the press, let alone make a comment. The same will be here soon, it’s the same one thing over and over. Until something big happens, just being an observer is fine.
Urgh! Typo with my phone. It should have read:

it’s the same thing over and over.
bootsy said…
@TTucker
Thanks for your fantastic post, that really does get to the heart of the matter regarding the RF's privilege and immense (opaque) wealth. I will remember your excellent description and use it when chatting to other people!
@TTucker, ‘Also, their capital (and inheritance) is not just financial, which Megs has probably not yet understood. They also own social, cultural, symbolic capitals that they very carefully transfer to the next generation.’

Love this bit! A very opaque piece of inheritance. Many and most definitely Meghan can’t even conceptualise it, which is the reason why she misses the mark each time.

Thanks Bootsy for highlighting TTucker’s brilliant comment.
lizzie said…
@Raspberry Ruffle said

"I have read a lot of conflicting info, about the uni. Meghan had attended and whether she finished her degree. I was enquiring because I wasn’t sure. I hope this clarifies. :o)"

Got it! I have read stuff on blogs too but as I said, I really don't think Northwestern would say she graduated if she didn't. And the story on the NW website I posted before said she graduated in 2003. The date is a little wonky (as many dates are with Meghan!) She was born in Aug 1981. Most likely she would have started 1st grade at age 6 in fall 1987, meaning she would have graduated from high school a few months before her 18th birthday. So she would have begun NW just after her 18th birthday in 1999 (and NW confirms she began in 1999.) But graduating in spring 2003 would mean she was a few months short of her 23rd birthday at graduation. Graduating in fall 2003 she would have been 23. Either way, it did take her longer than the standard 4 years to finish, perhaps because of her internship, perhaps for other reasons. Maybe that's how rumors about not finishing started?
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
I’m usually a lurker but this conversation about Meghan and her BA. The crazies have been insisting she has a Ph.D and two other degrees.
lizzie said…
@charade, You are correct! Ignore my post. I was just trying to figure out why rumors of M not finishing persist. Guess that's not it!
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fairy Crocodile said…
I enjoyed a masterpiece in the Sun where our favourite duchess Rachel Meghan in a very revealing dress holds a briefcase with five dollars mark on it. Immediate association is "this is her price tag". The Sun has always been very good at saying more than the actual words of the article allow.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
punkinseed said…
Thank you for explaining Charade. You shed light on why, after several years with Trevor, couldn't manage to become a star.
Can you imagine being her director? Going by her behavior in the RF as she always refuses to take direction, follow simple rules and protocol, let alone her lack of manners of any sort (tongue poke, PDA, etc.)? My guess is nobody wanted to deal with a person who would hold up production by insisting on doing everything her way, including her views on the script. She'd refuse to stop using overly dramatic expressions like as you said, sappy faced open mouth kisses and also, puffing her lips or overacting in general.
If the word got out that Trevor's wife wasn't a bankable actress and had the reputation of a production steam roller then it would explain why it took her such a long time to land a part, and NOT in Hollywood where her reputation preceded her, but all the way in Toronto, where their information about her was watered down and aided by her agent.
One of my former bosses brother is a Hollywood producer for a well known company. He told us that "the talent" is always a pain in the ass, and the only ones who are allowed to get what they demand are the superstars.
Brown-eyed said…
@charade

Not everyone goes to commencement. As I noted earlier, I did not attend commencement when I received one of my graduate degrees. I just picked up my diploma at the dean’s office. Maybe MM was already back in CA, or family wasn’t coming from CA, etc. Lots of reasons she might have skipped the ceremony.

As to timing, if she was b 1980/1981, (depending on month of birth and cut off date for enrollment) she would have graduated right on time in 2003. Please note her birthday is listed as August (forgot day)1981 in the official government index to California births. It is searchable on Ancestry.com , and lists her full name and names of parents, etc.

Enjoy the day. It is bright and beautiful outside today. I hope we’ll have more days like this before we go into real cold weather.

CatEyes said…
For Nuttties who would like to read a little British humor about the Sussex's there is a new weekly post at Crowns of Britain (warning a few cusswords).

https://thecrownsofbritain.home.blog/
Anonymous said…
Northwestern has booklets saying she is alumni. I don’t know why we keep going round about that. They say alumni. That means she graduated.
Tuneful said…
We keep mentioning it because the dictionaries readily available say "alumni" means graduates or former students.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fairy Crocodile said…
@CatEyes I went to the crownsofbritain blog you mentioned. British humor at its best. And the lady behind it doesn't take b***t from anybody. Makes fantastic antidote to all pro-Sussexes propaganda we are subjected to.
Sandie said…
Not only is Meghan a bad fit for the BRF and British society (other than the WAG-type celebrities), but she seems to be flailing around and not having a clue of how to fit in, or to even want to. If only Harry had waited a few years and really got to know her. He might still have married her, but the arrangement would probably have been that neither would be working royals. Now, the only way to get rid of them is what will look like a disgrace. (Although senior royals knew there was a problem with Andrew for years and did nothing.)

I was thinking of how Meghan ghosted her entire family except her mother, with whom she has a distant relationship (they really do not see each other often). That is not how the BRF operate. Andrew is a sleazy disgrace, but he has not been ghosted by his family. David gave up the throne to marry a twice-divorced American and it was a messy and ugly abdication, but no one in the family ghosted him, or his wife. Ignoring inconvenient relatives does not make them go away and just makes you look like a ruthless grifter. How can Harry want to be married to someone like that when he comes from a family that is big on family get-togethers and traditions? Did she lie to him about her family? If so, how is he ignoring the truth that has been uncovered?

By the way, Megsy probably does have a degree, as do millions in the USA. That such a fuss is being made of her having a degree with a double major (no other kind of degree in my country so it would be laughable to claim it as an accomplishment!) from a prestigious university (never heard of it before the M&H drama) is just embarrassing. Besides, it is what you do with your university degree that is notable, and Megsy certainly did not use it to build a career or any kind of work reputation (she failed in her one attempt to work in the foreign service).
CookieShark said…
I believe she graduated if she's listed as an alumnus.

I'm not sure I believe she's fluent in several languages (French & Spanish I think) as was listed on one CV, but I suppose it could be true.
I think it was also reported that she double-majored, and some posters have called into question the validity of this statement.
Then there is the whole matter surrounding how her college was financed.

At this point, major life events for her are so convoluted and full of speculation and multiple stories. If someone did doubt she graduated, you can understand why.
SwampWoman said…
Drabredcarpet, not completely true. Cambridge dictionary says it means graduated from, Merriam dictionary says graduated OR attended.

I don't care either way. he seems to be a singularly ignorant individual regardless of educational level attained.
SwampWoman said…
Well, my gracious. The period on the end of the first sentence in the second paragraph and the capital S from 'she' was somehow omitted. I must have been typing too fast for the computer to keep up. I am quite busy today and must dash out again.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
SwampWoman said…
Charade, perhaps I'm cynical, but I believe that anybody with a "royal highness" in their name is probably going to be claimed as an alumni regardless if he/she graduated or flunked out.
SwampWoman said…
Note that I am not making a value judgment as to whether a degree is superior to no degree. I have met many autodidacts whose depth of knowledge is far superior to a degreed individual.
KCM1212 said…
So I just caught a reference to something called"A Royal Knockout" from 1987. I hadn't heard of this one.

It seems Princes Edward and Andrew, Fergie, and Princess Anne ( yes, you read that right) appeared on a cringeworthy Ren Faire type game show at Edwards behest. And as bad as it was, Edward completely lost it when the press pack didnt slaver over the show and stormed out of an interview. He ends up looking pretty entitled.

If you are willing to watch an overview with some opinions on how damaging this was to the monarchy, and esp Edward...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cAcw855m2q0

If you are willing to subject yourself to the actual buffoonery here is part 1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwtfGnBQTw&t=1235s

Anne comes off the best. She manages to keep her dignity.

While nothing near the malignant antics of the Sussex duo, it shows that at least two of the RF managed to live down an embarrassing episode. Fergie and PA just kept repeating their mistakes. Another lesson for the Harkles.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
xxxxx said…
punkinseed said...
She best think again. The monarchy will slap her to the ground. All the monarchy cares about is to survive and if she thinks she can play her little blackmail cards to get what she wants, she's going to feel a huge reckoning from BP and the public.

Charles is the monarchy very soon, has been waiting (salivating) years to be King. He can almost taste it! Charles is not going to allow *anyone* to mess this up for him. Thus the serious slap down of Pr. Andrew. Charles should exert the same discipline on Megzy. He must and will not let this foreign interloper ruin it for him. Same applies to the Harry half of this wise ass, out of control combo.

Charles has to lay off the imbibing. This has made him too nice and accommodating to the Sussex wild child (her mad wardrobe expenses etc. etc.) and Hapless.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
punkinseed said…
xxxx, very true. Charles won't stand for, nor will Camilla, any further antics from Megs, and as far as spending, I think the spree is over. Especially after Andy's opaque finances are being explored. The last thing Chas. would put up with is a flashy Yank tossing molotovs on his long awaited reign.
Charade, exactly! I'm sure there's no way Trevor would dare suggest his bossy, insipid actress of a wife be in any production with the reputation she had in Hollywood. He was wise enough to know that if he had pushed it then he'd be exiled from future projects of his own.
As far as being nice, that's very true. I waited on celebs at Mount Rainier and all of them were fun and nice. I also worked with a lot of chefs who previously worked in high end eateries in Hollywood. They said the big talent is very nice, with few exceptions. One that they all agreed upon was the worst ever was Cloris Leachman. She complained so much and shrieked at the chef and was horribly rude to waitstaff. After he'd remade her food a few times, he told me he was fed up and told her to leave. As she left in a huge huff the staff and ALL of the customers applauded and booed her out. It reminds me of a server at Cory's restaurant who said Meg's was a nightmare to wait on and would say to staff, "Don't you know who I am?" She's lucky I wasn't there to answer her question. "Yeah... you're the nasty little hooker who thinks she can treat staff like crap..."
I listen to NPR and today they were talking about philanthropy and how some abuse it. They called it "Predatory philanthropy." Interesting, because it sparks the idea that the Sussex Foundation and Meg's whole idea of charity is predatory.
Does anyone remember when exactly they announced their six week break? I have a feeling that Harry is in some sort of treatment and definitely not with MM. That is why we haven't seen any recent photos posted by MM.

I seem to recall that rumours of a 'break' started a few days after Harry's speech/ 'breakdown' at the WellChild event. The formal announcement of the break was in early November if I recall, just before Remembrance Day.

I have a feeling that H&M were told after the Wellchild event to take a break. Clearly Harry has been on a downward spiral and that speech may have been the impetus to convince H & MM that he needs some therapy. Sadly, I think he needs much more than a few weeks of therapy or rehab, as many have noted even his attire has been quite scruffy and he looks like he's aged so much.
punkinseed said…
GoodVibes Eternal, I wonder the same thing about the "six week" break as it was never really announced when it would begin. Then around that time there was speculation/leaks that Megs would be spending Thanksgiving here, there, where ever, but nothing solid about that.
It also was around the time it was announced by BP if I remember right, that Megs and Harry were not invited to Sandringham for Xmas. Plus, yes, the well child laugh/cry breakdown thing was very weird. I think after that, BP told them that Megs would no longer be allowed to write any more speeches for Harry no matter what venue.
Is Harry using drugs? Most likely and so is Megs. He never looked such a mess until after he married her and she's rather scruffy as well at times. I would guess that Harry is in some kind of therapy, and yes, he surely needs more than 28 days; but hard to really say or know for sure. Truth will out eventually.
lizzie said…
@GoodVibes Eternal

You could be right. While I don't personally remember exactly how things unfolded, according to CNN's (dated) reporting, the "planned break" was in their newsfeed just before the ITV SA documentary aired on Oct 20. The WellChild event was on Oct 16.

At the time though I thought

1. Harry was laughing (definitely not crying) at the WellChild awards. I thought was because M is pregnant again or they are trying hard to make her so. So talking about the secret pregnancy a year before led to his giggles.

2. The senior royals (TQ  PC, PW)  knew what was in the documentary before it aired publicly.

I know the RF usually tries to "keep up appearances" and cancelling scheduled appearances isn't done often. But it seems to me it would have been hard to acknowledge Harry was too impaired to go on and needed treatment ASAP shortly after the WellChild event on Oct 16 but still allow him to Remembrance events and do who knows what else until his scheduled appearance at the OnSide event on Nov 17. But I guess it's possible if H or H & M were the ones deciding he needed treatment. IF Harry decided he needed treatment on his own, that's a good sign but I doubt that's what happened. I'm not even convinced he's getting any sort of treatment.
abbyh said…

Nutty - could you please add Daniel Radcliffe to the MM supporters?

Apparently he has made some sort of supportive statement.

Thanks.
Nutty Flavor said…

I'm not sure I believe she's fluent in several languages (French & Spanish I think) as was listed on one CV, but I suppose it could be true.


She attempted to speak French in Morocco, with poor results. I haven't heard her speak Spanish, but in general learning any language you didn't grow up speaking takes a lot of focus and dedication, qualities Meg doesn't seem to possess.

Nutty - could you please add Daniel Radcliffe to the MM supporters?

Will do. He seems to be trying to publicize a new show in which he plays a prince, and the interview was conducted by Meg's beloved People Magazine.

Meg's team at SS must think Radcliffe is a way to reach the Millenial segment, although I think his openly-acknowledged and ongoing struggle with alcohol is what most people think of when it comes to his non-Harry Potter life.
Nutty Flavor said…
Here's the updated list - although I see a commenter named "Miss" has suggested several other names!

I'll check those out and find the relevant links when I have moment.

List of celebrities who are supporting Meghan
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clarissa said…
Paul McCartney and Ed Sheeran have both defended MM.
lucy said…
I just read, somewhere other than the Enquire, that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting twins!

Meggy haha
lizzie said…
@Lucy, I think Kate was reported to be carrying twins with every pregnancy and at least 4-5 times between pregnancies. :) Most times, at least one girl was expected who would be named "Diana" (even after Charlotte was given Diana as a middle name.)
Jen said…
Did anyone in the UK watch the Channel 5 doc "Sandringham: The Queen at Christmas"

The DM has an article about it, and I just LOVE that they compete to buy each other the tackiest gifts. That's quite funny.
Humor Me said…
What is TorontoPaper talking about on Twitter? Is there another pregnancy? Is Archie not with his parents? And what is going on with that lawsuit?
Hikari said…
Haven't read Daniel Radcliffe's statement in support of Meghan, but I just find it so very odd. DR has been pretty vocal in other outlets that he's an avowed anti-royalist with no use for the monarchy. On the one hand, publicly supporting a tacky foreign interloper whose deceitfulness and outrageous behavior have served to destabilize public trust in the Crown would seem to dovetail nicely with an anti-monarchist agenda, in a way. But I would suppose that an anti-royalist would be even more burned up than average over a grifting Yankee carpetbagger swooping in and playing Duchess dress-up (poorly) whilst thumbing her (multiply doctored) nose at not only the Crown, but the British people as a whole--royalist and not, and spending insanely lavish amounts on frocks and star-studded American baby showers and whatnot. Megs epitomizes the very worst traits on both sides of the Atlantic, regardless of one's politics, and that should have everyone regardless of monarchist views or which way one votes up at arms. She's wasting everybody's money and time, and that goes for Dan as well.

DR was a cute kid of limited talent whose cuteness got him through since he looked like J.K. Rowling's boy wizard hero come to life without even trying. Now he's an adult, definitively not cute any more and never going to grow beyond Hobbit size. In short, just not bankable as an adult actor in the manner of his co-star Emma Watson. This smells like a desperate ploy for attention from a guy whose viable acting prospects evaporated with the final Harry Potter film. He got some good reviews on stage in 'Equus', but that was quite a few years ago now. I direct everyone's attention to "Swiss Army Man". *This* is the kind of work that remains for Dan Radcliffe, post-Harry Potter. Even getting into bed with Meghan (figuratively speaking) has to seem worth a shot at this point . . but DR needs to pipe it because he's only making himself a greater embarrassment than he is already.
lucy said…
@lizzie I so want it to be true :/
but I see your point.

it really would be epic timing
lucy said…
@nutty

Chrissy Tiegen should be on list of devotees
@Jen, ‘Did anyone in the UK watch the Channel 5 doc "Sandringham: The Queen at Christmas"

The DM has an article about it, and I just LOVE that they compete to buy each other the tackiest gifts. That's quite funny’

I did, it was a rehash (it’s been shown before) with a few added bits . I thought there was a lot of Meghan loving going on, and the Ch5 reporter said the Cambridge’s had spent several Christmas’s away from Sandringham which isn’t true, it’s only been two.

For me, there wasn’t much new to learn, but I still watched it all. Though I did chuckle when it said Catherine had bought Harry a grow-your-own-girlfriend kit one year (supposedly) What a shambolic disaster that was then! Lol ;o)
Mimi said…
Rolls of toilet paper for the Sussexes would have been a good gift if they were attending Sandringham this year.
Jen said…
@Raspberry Ruffle....the grow your own girlfriend would have been an improvement over the real thing...
Hello everyone, newbie here.

@charade, your comments re: Suits. You had me laughing because I agree with everything you said. And I was one of those snarky commenters on IMDB! LOL
Glow W said…
RE: Toronto Paper on Twitter is a troll/make up information. Disregard completely. MOO
Unknown said…
Glowworm here: I’ve been trying to read the Daily Mail’s article this morning on the Royal’s Christmas at Sandringham. I write ‘trying’ as that website has so many crashes (that always start back with an ad, never the article you were reading) it’s the devil to read...but, I persevered enough to see a picture of Sandringham itself. I started thinking of how I would have reacted standing in the courtyard of such an edifice as the bride of a prince. I see myself, arms outstretched, my head stretched back, laughing as I spun around in such pure glee...not in front of the Queen, of course, but I would not have been able to contain the sheer happiness of even seeing such a place and knowing I was expected inside.

This made me wonder anew about markle. She had this and it meant nothing to her. Someone so bereft of sentimentality that she could throw her own family away would derive no pleasure in simply reaching up to touch the elaborate and ancient stone; thinking of the hands that created such beauty. Nothing means anything to her beyond perhaps a favorite pair of heels or a clutch. So grandiose is her self-image, this - all this - is nothing but a stepping stone,
punkinseed said…
Very true Glow Worm. She'd just as soon tear down every stone in order to build a lofty platform just for herself. She's such a fool.
I'd love to be the BP PR person who has a video recorded sit down with her to show her replays of all of her nasty public behavior. I'd start with the TOC and the writing on bananas videos, then make her watch and listen to why she's been put on "family leave". And just for the record I'd ask her to briefly explain herself. I'd make sure there were no sharp objects or tea pots within her reach, too. Narcissists, when confronted can be very violent and nasty. This one has zero impulse control, too, which is another reason to record the interview.
I honestly believe there's no way back for her anyway because she's incapable of real humility. She'll try to act her way through it for awhile maybe get back into favor and in an attempt to build a new facade, but her mask will fall off as her arrogance overrides and takes over her script.
abbyh said…

In the courtyard - nice visual.

Thanks Nutty.

And another post of out of date photos for Intstagram snaps (February for Endeavour Fund which he started in 2012).

So much for the six week quiet time break. I tend to agree with whomever it was who mentioned the idea that the reason the pictures are out of date have to do with her owning them plus that any new stuff would give a heads up to BP that things are not as quiet as the P might be thinking/wanting.

Oh, and there is a part of me which thinks that SS might have had their hands full dealing with her over her control issues.
Unknown said…
Glowworm here: yes, Punkinseed. There’s a collage on a Tumblr site called Best Soap Opera Ever (sorry no link but it’s easy to find using that title), anyway, this collage is a collection of short videos of her being snubbed, ignored, shut down, etc. I am stuck by how EASILY she visibly collapses in these situations!!! Even I, emotional as I am, can cover an embarrassment sufficiently to not be noticed...but, as the video record proves, meghan markle cannot. She may be cruel, thoughtless and self-centered but her shell is as fragile as a sparrow’s egg.
I find that odd.
Sandie said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7772855/Meghan-Markle-hires-former-Hollywood-publicist-fort-Prince-Harrys-charity-foundation.html

Megsy is not in the USA for a family Christmas but to get money,and lots of it! Note that even though she is 'working' with a publicist (all about publicity, image, optics with Megsy), she is in charge in every way and Harry seems to no longer even pretend that he is not completely dominated by her in every way.
Unknown said…
Glowworm here: funny that markle is depending on this Hollywood publicist to get her where she wants to be...rich beyond belief when this is the same one she had while trying to get her acting career off the ground. What makes her think this person will do more now than she did for her then? Perhaps she will do better with selling access and whatever crap markle is offering than trying to sell a lousy, ill-tempered actress.

Of course, just because markle puts this plan for global success out in the tabloids doesn’t make it true...or even remotely possible. I believe she has climbed as far as she’s going to and is already in free fall all the way down.
Sandie said…
A Hollywood publicist for the SussexRoyal Foundation? Surely Andrew's disgrace is a lesson to the BRF how things can go very wrong when you do business with people who do not know about, care about or serve the best interests of the BRITISH monarchy?
@Sandie, ‘A Hollywood publicist for the SussexRoyal Foundation? Surely Andrew's disgrace is a lesson to the BRF how things can go very wrong when you do business with people who do not know about, care about or serve the best interests of the BRITISH monarchy?’

The DM’s headline:

‘Meghan Markle uses break from royal duties to team up with her old Hollywood PR guru on plan for raising 'tens of millions' for her and Prince Harry's charity’

The tens of millions...going where exactly?! I’m hoping we are about the witness it all going horrendously wrong, this surely has to backfire on the Sussex’s now. Surely they’ll be stopped by the Royal Family? I’m aghast at her arrogance.
Dusti Siscon said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
punkinseed said…
Thanks for the link info Glowworm. I'll give it a look see.
Raspberry Ruffle, haa haaa. ya. Tens of Millions headed directly to her offshore accounts after becoming the world's most infamous Predatory Philanthropist.
How will she get this past BP? Threaten to play the race card on them? She's got to have the biggest deck of cards in the UK.
@Punkinseed, ‘Predatory Philanthropist. How will she get this past BP? Threaten to play the race card on them? She's got to have the biggest deck of cards in the UK.’

I’m not sure the race card would hold as quite as much leverage as it once did. It can easily be counter-argued, because of Prince Andrew’s own financial shenanigans. The world is looking inwards at what’s going on within the royal family, questions are being asked and so I’m doubtful (maybe just blindly hopeful!) this will get glossed over so easily. The Sussex’s have got away with so much nonsense, surely the end to their antics is in sight?
Ozmanda said…
@Tatty how do you know TP is a troll and/or made up stuff?
Ozmanda said…
@Raspberry Ruffle I saw that too and straight thought "they are royally (pun intended) screwed now!". There will be several investigative journos as well as agents already looking over her taxes very interested in where this money will go.
Hikari said…
The sooner Meghan can be removed from the royal family. The better for us all and humanity in general. Harry might still be saved if he is separated from her and get the rehab he so desperately needs, and comes back into the fold. She is bad, bad, bad news. A completely worthless human being, and nothing good can come from her, because she has no soul. She’s irretrievably broken, and there’s no fixing her. She can wind up in the gutter fry care. I just want her gone, off the radar and out of our collective lives. I had a much more positive attitude before I knew she existed, and I would like to go back to that. I don’t know what the future Holds in store for Harry, But it’s pretty clear that he has no future unless he can extricate himself from her clutches. She is a completely 100% awful person.
Anonymous said…
I have twins and wouldn’t wish them on my worst enemy lol. I’m grateful for them obviously, but twins are hard (probably why Charlene of Monaco looks so miserable— joking).
Anonymous said…
@ozmanda TP and DD both said Meghan and her mother were arrested and held by Lord Geidt in the Tower of London. We all saw those tweets. What date was it that TP dropped the big BOOM and then disappeared for a long time?

Go back and look at their tweets from early 2019. I think they are fun entertaining accounts and aren’t meant to be taken seriously. Like let’s think of the most outrageous things we can think of and have fun talking about it. Like now TP and DF suggest that the queen has custody of Archie and they paid off his surrogate mother to keep him and stuff like that. it’s because nothing is going on and they have like 4 more weeks before they are proven wrong again. They are entertainment for the lulls in news.

I don’t think they are trolls like @tatty does. I think people take them seriously and misunderstand they are for entertainment purposes.
Mimi said…
Hikari, She absolutely MUSTgo, and NOW! But if Hairy is still under her spell I don’t see what they can do to her without infuriating him and/or possibly sending over the edge.
Anonymous said…
Here @ozmanda I picked some out for you. Toronto papers 1 abbreviated for time
4/21/19 9 months are over! Your husband is on his family’s side. Non paycheck etc.

4/25/19 united family exposing her lies. House of cards collapsing. You will get the tower.

4/26/19 william and the press are ready. Tick tick boom.

4/29/19 BOOM! The end. (Even funnier in retrospect)

5/18/19 DNA never lies! Checkmate!

6/7/19 how is Darren (Darren doll but now they say there is a baby)

6/27/19 from the depths the truth surfaces (wtf does this mean??)

7/28/19 the wait is almost over!

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Believe it it you want. I think it’s all a bunch of nonsense. Notice it never says anything. They just reiterate the gossip in like a dramatic reading)
Sandie said…
Is BP asserting control?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markles-pal-told-take-21061385

Megsy has been wearing the jewellery for at least 7 months now and must have been aware that Jennifer Meyer Jewellery was using photographs of her on their website, yet she said and did nothing about that. I hope BP takes a thorough look at Megsy's affairs and puts her and Harry, and their foundation, under direct control of BP. The risks for the monarchy of not doing so are great.
Nelo said…
I don't see anything changing between the BRF and the Sussexes
Tea Cup said…
@Sandie This hearkens to a Blind Gossip item back in February 19, 2019:

https://blindgossip.com/a-sticky-break-up/#more-98031

Misha Nonoo's 2nd (and current) husband, Mikey Hess, is an unrepentant can't-keep-it-in-his-pants philanderer and supposedly cheated on his then celebrity girlfriend (not Misha) with none other than Jen Meyer.

Perhaps MeWant is wielding power at the behest of her buddy? Hah, it could be Mikey is already cheating on Misha and went with something familiar like Jen again.
Sandie said…
@Tea Cup: 'Perhaps MeWant is wielding power at the behest of her buddy?'

Chuckling at the new nickname ... most appropriate!

Interesting info on Jen Meyer ... a narc would definitely behave in such a spiteful way.
abbyh said…

Going back the article where she working "stateside" to get tens of millions of dollars for their (cough) foundation.

So ... with all the various problems in the USA, why would people willing to drop big sums to help her when they can keep the dollars circulating locally (or at least within our country) or pick a big well known international one (Heifer or Fistula come to mind but there are lots of others)? Just who all has tens of millions in cash - earning minimal interest when it could be invested in some income producing product?

Does their foundation meet IRS rules for charity donations? Charity Navigator is a good reference.

I don't do fund raising but I have been in some situations locally where there is a lot of talk of how difficult it is right now, people are just not donating the way they used to. What I do know is that it is a lot harder to say no to someone when you are looking at their face and they can reach out to touch you. On the phone is much easier (to say no). So, I'm wondering how well she is succeeding at this.
Portcitylass said…
I can't believe that they are setting up a foundation in the US like the Clintons.
This looks bad. Especially after all the drama with PA.
Fuzzynavel said…
First husband is Joe Goldstein (Goldberg) Guiliano. Marriage annulled. Husband #2 May have been a guy named Jason Buttas, or some spelling close, other than a name no info found. Husband #3 is Trevy trev trev.

I've been looking at her since 2016 and there was no reported record of her graduating uni. At some point theres a faked alumni listing for a communications degree replete with fake alumni book. Theres another faked double degree listing for her international studies/theater crap. There's also a fake article by northwestern about her as a student and graduate. She did join a sorority first year. Most of her sisters found her rude, mean and unpleasant. She did go down to Argentina for 6 weeks with the help of her Uncle as a helper/go fer person. When she returned she did NOT return to uni to finish & get degree. Instead she started with a few bit parts acting. She went that route because she could not pass the Foreign Service Officers test.
There's photos of her from the following graduations: 8th grade. HS, her sisters grad., her mother's grad. NONE from her uni
KC said…
>>lass said...
I can't believe that they are setting up a foundation in the US like the Clintons.

Maybe that's where the idea came from. And I would suppose that MM thinks her situation is somehow totally separate from Andrew. *He* wasnt (pretending to be) doing charity work at Epstain's, he was satisfying ego and appetite. Ah but mm is different!
lizzie said…
@Fuzzynavel, I do understand why there are lingering questions about Meghan's graduation. But I'm not sure about the absence of photos.

At Meghan's private Catholic all-girls school, apparently graduation is held in the Hollywood Bowl (gag). The graduates wear satin full- length white gowns (not graduation gowns) and carry red roses. There is a video on DM of M receiving her diploma.

https://www.immaculateheart.org/Student-Life/ Traditions--Celebrations

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5711269/Video-shows-17-year-old-Meghan-Markle-high-school-graduation-day.html

Apparently the school does take graduation portraits in more traditional graduation garb but it is white. https://www.immaculateheart.org/news-detail? pk =954381

Things could have changed re: the color of the portrait gowns since M graduated but it seems unlikely to me since the girls still graduate in white.

The photos of M separately with Doria and Thomas with M wearing a dark graduation gown and mortarboard are frequently said to be at her high school graduation which doesn't fit with what her high school says it does. But the robe does look a bit dark for Northwestern in some photos. (They wear purple robes.) Here it looks a bit more purple.

https://meghanpedia.com/duchess-of-sussex-education/amp/

It's just hard for me to believe Northwestern would lie. While some object to rankings, it is ranked #9 in National Universities the US News and World Reports rankings, the main ranking service. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/northwestern-university-1739

She has lied about so many things though.
SwampWoman said…
KC said I can't believe that they are setting up a foundation in the US like the Clintons.


The Clinton Foundation sold actual commodities (US Uranium to the Russians) as well as state secrets (classified documents on an unsecured server) and "influence". Had Gaddafi (or whatever the correct spelling is now deemed to be) made a sufficiently large donation, I believe he'd be alive.

I wouldn't think that H&M have the influence or the knowledge of state secrets to pass on to people making 'charitable' contributions. I think that she might know some Hollywood secrets that she is not averse to keeping quiet about if there are contributions made through their "charity".

Glow W said…
@fuzzynavel none of that is fake. You can find the link at northwestern website.
Glow W said…
@fuzzynavel it took me all of 2 minutes to find it. YOU dont want to look and see the truth. YOU just want to believe and spread lies. What does that say about YOU?

https://admissions.northwestern.edu/viewbook/#p=8
Glow W said…
@fuzzynavel here is the exact page. https://admissions.northwestern.edu/viewbook/#p=52
Glow W said…
@ozmanda tell me one thing TP has said that is true.
Glow W said…
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/

“From Wildcat to royalty
2003 Northwestern graduate Meghan Markle to marry Prince Harry”

It says GRADUATED.
Glow W said…
Same link: “Markle graduated from Northwestern in 2003 with a double major in theater and international studies. She was a member of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority.”

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/
lizzie said…
The whole Sussex US foundation makes me suspicious too. But to be fair, the Royal Foundation has had a US branch since 2011. (Begun by W&H.) Now it is just W&K's after the split. This link has 990s.

https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/american-friends-of-the-royal-foundation-of-the-du,452062094/
Glow W said…
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ent-meghan-markle-northwestern-20180509-story.html

“...details of Markle's time as a Northwestern student have mostly remained private. The "Suits" star, who is set to marry Prince Harry at Windsor Castle on May 19, graduated in 2003 with a double major in international studies and theater. In magazine interviews, she has talked of being a "theater nerd" at Northwestern and exploring her biracial identity through an African-American studies class. She also served as the Kappa Kappa Gamma recruitment chairwoman and lived in the sorority house off Orrington Avenue some time after her freshman year.
The Tribune reached out to more than 140 of Markle's sorority sisters, from her class and two classes before and after her, to get more insight into her college life. Most of the women did not respond to the request for comment. Some of those who politely declined to be interviewed offered that Markle "always seemed lovely," "was always very kind," "is a delightful person," "is a lovely person" and "is a truly wonderful person."


I guess it’s a grand conspiracy between Northwestern University, Andrew Morton and th Chicago Tribine to lie about Markle to upset the haters.
Glow W said…
I’ve said many many times, she has issues. I’m not a sugar. She doesn’t listen, and how I wish she would. She married into the BRF and she needs to become British. Sorry, not sorry. that is how it works. She isn’t doing that; an idiot can see it. She should have slowly gone into public life like Kate and instead she jumped in all manic and hyped and caused chaos.

At the end of the day, she is who Harry chose and it’s his business. Never discount his mental illness and what he contributes to this mess.
abbyh said…

In other news, the recent auction of one of the most recognizable Diana dresses (when she danced with John Travolta at the White House) did not sell.

It originally sold years ago for 420K pounds and was expected to sell for 250K to 350K pounds. The reserve was 200K (not met).

Two others of hers sold for the modest prices of 28K and 48K.

Is the cult of Diana fading a little? was it the drama about the BRF? is it just people aren't spending money like they used to? and, if the cult of Diana is fading, what does this mean for MM's strategy to be Diana 2.0?
Glow W said…
@abbyh it could b a few things. The dresses might have been a bad investment. Or several more years need to pass before they regain their value again.

I didn’t hear about it until after it didn’t sell. Was the auction in the UK? Aren’t times rough right now in England? Plus the Andrew shitshow might be affecting all things Windsor/upper class/royalty etc. Andrew is pestilence.
Royal Fan said…
Article says Meg has been in the US working with SS “in a private capacity” to make 10s of millions for Sussex royal foundation. Stinks to high heaven if you ask me. I just hope someone from the IRS catches this article and makes sure everything that goes into that foundation is not going to straight to Meghan’s pocket. She’s been in trouble with them before so hopefully they are making sure her causes are getting the money.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1215164/meghan-markle-latest-news-prince-harry-royal-family-sussex-foundation-sunshine-sachs-la
Glow W said…
She wasn’t “in trouble” with them before. If that is true, then I have been “in trouble” with them numerous times. Mistakes happen. When you move states or countries, sometimes things get lost. When you have a bunch of 1099s, sometimes you never get one or it gets overlooked or whatever.

She showed up and represented herself and paid the amount due. Done. I get letters telling me what we missed and I call my CPA and then cut a check to the government. It means you are successful.
Glow W said…
It was administrative court and a low amount if I remember correctly. It was NOT a big deal.
Mimi said…
if it involves the IRS. it IS a big deal!!!!
lizzie said…
@tatty, The thing that seemed weird to me about the IRS issue when she lived with Trevor is that she went to court. She did hire an attorney to represent her (probably foolish not to) but ended up paying less than $1000 in tax and penalties. Seems it could have been handled before getting to the court level. Certainly everyone who is audited by the IRS or finds a missing form after filing and owes money doesn't go to court! Maybe the attorney got the amount owed reduced. Otherwise the attorney probably cost more than the tax and penalties.
SirStinxAlot said…
If you have already been audited by the IRS, you are more likely to be audited again. Especially if you were found in error. It is my understanding she did not hire an attorney. Attorneys would cost more than the $800 she owed. Hence, the reason she represented herself. I have no doubt the IRS is foaming at the mouth over her taxes. Her husband, charity, business dealings etc are all fair game even if they keep separate funds. They will both be audited and all their professional business/charity associations. My mom is an IRS agent for 20+ years. She is the last agent you get to see before court but has worked in all areas. She could have easily paid her penalties and been on her way. Odd that she fought all the way to court for such a small amount owed. The IRS usually tries to settle out of court. Lawyers are expensive on both sides and there are always bigger fish to fry like Apple or Amazon.
SirStinxAlot said…
If she gives up her US citizenship she will also have to pay an "exit tax". The IRS would audit her and Harry then too. USA want their $$$$.
1 – 200 of 458 Newer Newest

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids