The New York Post has carefully examined the tax records of British royal family charities, and suggests strongly that Americans should not be donating to any of them.
The news hook is Duchess Meghan's fundraising tour of American high-earners, but the article doesn't spare the Cambridges, Prince Charles, or even Prince Philip.
"As she draws up plans for a mega-charity, Meghan Markle is following a time-honored tradtion among British royals: Go to America. That's where the money is," the Post article reads.
But "while the stateside branches of charities connected to the British royal family rake in millions of year from Americans enamoured with the House of Windsor, they spend heavily on administration and travel and sometimes skimp on the cause, according to a Post review of their federal tax returns."
At last, some real journalism!
Read the article here. It's not good for Meg, but it's also not good for the rest of the Royal Family.
Their slightly-shady foundations pay for a great deal of the good works that boost their popularity. The NYPost is widely (if guiltily) read by precisely the sort of wealthy New Yorker who now might reconsider their donation. Nobody wants to look like a fool.
Harry is suing the Sun as part of his phone-hacking lawsuit.
Clearly Murdoch is telling the royals that if they don't behave, he will go after all of them, not just Harry and Meghan.
From a journalist's perspective, I can tell you that this story took a fair amount of time to research. Newspapers are thinly-staffed these days; they don't often use resources for stories that require several days (at least) of a reporter's attention.
My guess is that the green light for this story came from the top.
Apparently this isn't a total surprise for people following the lawsuit. As a piece in the Guardian stated when the lawsuit was filed:
Meghan really is a destroyer. Will this speed up efforts to remove her from the family?
Oooooo, this is going to be good.
The news hook is Duchess Meghan's fundraising tour of American high-earners, but the article doesn't spare the Cambridges, Prince Charles, or even Prince Philip.
"As she draws up plans for a mega-charity, Meghan Markle is following a time-honored tradtion among British royals: Go to America. That's where the money is," the Post article reads.
But "while the stateside branches of charities connected to the British royal family rake in millions of year from Americans enamoured with the House of Windsor, they spend heavily on administration and travel and sometimes skimp on the cause, according to a Post review of their federal tax returns."
At last, some real journalism!
Read the article here. It's not good for Meg, but it's also not good for the rest of the Royal Family.
Their slightly-shady foundations pay for a great deal of the good works that boost their popularity. The NYPost is widely (if guiltily) read by precisely the sort of wealthy New Yorker who now might reconsider their donation. Nobody wants to look like a fool.
Who's behind it?
Remember that News Corp., the Murdoch umbrella organization, owns the Post as well as the Sun.Harry is suing the Sun as part of his phone-hacking lawsuit.
Clearly Murdoch is telling the royals that if they don't behave, he will go after all of them, not just Harry and Meghan.
From a journalist's perspective, I can tell you that this story took a fair amount of time to research. Newspapers are thinly-staffed these days; they don't often use resources for stories that require several days (at least) of a reporter's attention.
My guess is that the green light for this story came from the top.
Not a total surprise
Apparently this isn't a total surprise for people following the lawsuit. As a piece in the Guardian stated when the lawsuit was filed:
Experts said the prince’s attempts to take on elements of Fleet Street risked backfiring.
The PR specialist Mark Borkowski said Harry was backing himself into a corner with the media.
“I think this was a very tactical ploy yesterday,” he said of the latest legal action. “What he’s hoping, what he’s demonstrating is, ‘You want to take me on, mate, I’m a different breed to other people, I’m a fighter, I’m not going to play to any rules and I’m going to come and get you.’
“Either he’s buying time [or] sending a message and trying to frighten newspaper proprietors who are deeply scared of Leveson [the inquiry into press ethics]. It’s a really, really dangerous game."Yeah, Harry's a "fighter" who is going to protect his wife (or get a quick and lucrative settlement, whatever comes first) and the media is going to go after the family as a whole.
Meghan really is a destroyer. Will this speed up efforts to remove her from the family?
Oooooo, this is going to be good.
Comments
She leaks the story to Telegraph, she denies the story through Scoobie in Harper's Bazaar, when she saw it was not picked up, she leaks to Daily Beast also denying the story
Why is she flip flopping? Philip was able to raise millions in US cos he's Queen Elizabeth's husband. Prince Charles was able to do same cos he's the heir, same as William. Those who donated to them possibly did so because they wanted access to the power players in the BRF.
But will meghan have the same luck? It's already out there that they have fallen out of favour with the queen, Charles and William -those who really matter. So what will people gain from the Sussexes in return for their donations? I'm not American so I don't know. But Americans can tell us how it works.
I think it might you know. Wonder if we will see some negative stories popping out about her soon. All very quiet. And I do wonder where they are living, and if they are living together..
Love your Blog, Nutty. Thanks for creating this space.
America contrasts starkly from our industrialized compatriots in a lot of ways that make our markets highly inefficient. I’m not talking about just our financial markets. Those inefficiencies are catching up with us in a lot of insidious ways. Top that off with our taxation of expats and it makes economic transactions with us extremely cost prohibitive and almost always not worthwhile.
The article may not be flattering for all the royals but I don’t think it’s as bad for the other royals as say Meghan. It’s possible that the only BRF member actually interested in American donations is Meghan.
I have always had a theory that Meg led Harry to believe she was Canadian early on in their relationship. If Meg had actually been from the Commonwealth with Hollywood connections, she would have been a true asset to Harry. I just found it extremely odd how many of the early articles during their courtship mistakenly called Meg Canadian. It was so often that it felt deliberate.
I guess the question is, as I've asked before: What really is in it for donors to the Sussex foundation? They are relatively minor royals. I could see how businessmen or other rick folks might like to get into the good books of the queen's husband or the future kings, but the Harkles? Not so much.
Just like the Smart Works "She designed it, actually she just picked out items" launch and the Vogue edit, why would a first time, new mother spend her time setting up a mega charity? Who is watching Archie?
We all received forewarnings back in 2017 about what was to come, although we didn't know at the time. Haz issued the "Leave Meghan alone, this is not a game" statement to the press (I have not seen any photos of her running from the press or being mobbed by them at that time) and the to do about her engagement photo dress. It was so expensive that a statement was released that it was purchased privately.
I hate to make this analogy, but she appears to be a cancer for the BRF. Aggressive, relentless, destroying everything around it and living only for itself.
Anyway, I can't remember if it was here or another site which alleged that Rupert Murdoch has all the dirt on the Royals. Out of respect for the Queen, he won't release it until after she pops off, but could this be the start of his vendetta? BTW, I am no fan of Murdoch - odious man.
IF the BRF is doing something wrong with their charities - it should be exposed. Charities are to help those who cannot help themselves - please do not tell me that the SussexDuo cannot help themselves.....
If Philip/ the Cambridges/ Andrew - God bless him - are doing something wrong - this should be their cue to correct it.
As for the Harkles - will they crumble into dust?
And to be honest, the Crown trade mark will benefit from some healthy criticism and scrutiny. I have lost a great deal of respect for the Queen after Andrew and H&M disasters, if journalists find some major charity money misuse it will add to the severe cracking of the royal facade.
Excellent summation of Meg as a cancer on the monarchy. I can honestly say that I only liked her for about five minutes immediately after the engagement. I thought the couple looked like they were posing for a DeBeers ad in their arty B&W engagement photo. As for the extravagant engagement dress, it never occurred to me that the dress hadn’t been borrowed rather than purchased given Meg’s contacts in the fashion industry. Designers loan out their couture to celebs on the red carpet in exchange for the exposure all the time. At the time I thought, erroneously, that Meg was in this league. I didn’t know about the shady merching and fudging her expense account ta to line her pockets. The engagement interview was an eye-opener… A terrible acting performance from both of them, and scrutinizing the engagement announcement again, where he looked nice And she looked like the hooker he spent the night with, who rolled out of bed and threw on a bathrobe and some tatty, slutty ill-fitting shoes set off alarm bells. Why was an allegedly successful actress with $5 mill in the bank Appearing before the World media for her engagement announcement dressed Eponine from Les Miserables? As we would come to learn over the succeeding years, this manic “hi/low” sartorial presentation is a patented Meg thing. The revelation of her true motives and character or lack thereof came swiftly and early. Even before the Bizarre and stilted wedding, there were myriad reports of divatastic behavior, bad blood and volcanic meltdowns. Hairy may deserve her, but the family as a whole sure doesn’t.
What I find amazing in all of this is that, despite being officially denied their Global Sussex brand and separate court run without oversight by BP in no uncertain terms over a year ago by the Queen, The Harkles have completely disregarded that and proceeded to do just That anyway. Told no at every turn, they just laugh and say “Watch us!” I think there will be a price to pay for such disloyalty but for those of us outside of palace walls, we have yet to see it exacted.
At the time of the wedding, I predicted Meghan Would ultimately be a disaster as a royal, but I did think she might wait at least 3 to 5 years before completely blowing it. Let’s hope 2020 brings us all some good news, in the form of Megan and her Sussex foundation completely discredited and even better under criminal investigation. Let’s see what a stint in prison does for Meg’s style. Maybe she can accessorize her prison jumpsuit with a skinny bell. Lash glue and hair extensions might be hard to come by inside but enterprising Meg would find a way.
OurE. The impending Christmas card: shall we lay. ASR’s she is going to exploit Archie?
Re. The impending Christmas card: shall we lay bets as to how she is going to exploit Archie?”
Also, I was wondering if they would go the grassroots route and try to fish in lots of little donations. It worked for some political campaigns in the States to raise millions. The Cambridge's foundation only has an annual budget of 6M.
As another poster said, it is particularly terrible if you consider that the living costs and "salaries" of the royals are technically covered by British taxpayers. But what can a multimillionaire do these days to keep up with the Joneses who are billionaires? Those private jets, 10K-a-week villas in Ibiza, and couture don't pay for themselves, and anything less wouldn't do for Megantoinette who deserves these luxuries by virtue of her hard work instagramming quotes and being born as the most devoted humanitarian since she could walk.
Well, well, well. Isn't this quite the dust up for closing the weekend news as we wait to see what happens with Christmas cards or on the Walk?
Liver Bird > tabloids snicker snicker while trying to keep a straight face.
charade > early history described as Canadian. Hmm, had missed that but I wasn't following her until sometime after the wedding so I missed all that. You might be on to something.
Where is she (and him, and baby) is/are good to ask about. Shakespearean is descriptive and I think better than most but this is a plot Shakespeare would do something spectacular with.
I just don't think she's state side walking around Hollywood or New York City doing a face to face meeting about how people can make donations to her charity. There are too many service people who could tip off the paps, enty or merely their friends on FB. Or people who liked Jen and her jewelry (smile at your face - backstabbers tune is running in my mind).
Things are unnaturally quiet. All I keep thinking about is the quiet before a big natural disaster (earthquake/tsunami/volcano).
Another source is the income from the Duchy of Lancaster (land, businesses, buildings etc) which is managed by the Crown and funds both Queen's official and private functions. This is the source most often used to meet expenses incurred by other members of the RF. I think it is something like £20 million a year.
The final huge one is the Sovereign Grant provided by the government to the royal household to fund Queen's official duties and upkeep of her various Palaces including Windsor, Buckingham, Clarence house, St. James's, Hampton Court. I believe the current Grant is at 15%, which means that 15% of all income generated by the Crown Estate (lands, parks, woodlands, farms, businesses, buildings) goes to the Queen. The rest remains in the Treasury. The Grant is a substantial sum of money, I believe it comes up to over £82 million a year.
This is not all, as Prince of Wales has own income from the Duchy of Cornwall which comes up to approx. £21 million a year. This is what funds Charles and Camilla and their charities.
Taxpayers pay for a number of things related to the royals representative function, like security, travel expenses, accommodation etc.
I am sure I am missing other sources of income for various Dukes and Earls but the bare bones are like that.
Harry is not only supported by his father and grandmother, he also inherited considerable amount from Diana, who came from one the oldest, wealthiest and most prominent Whig families in UK, as well as from his great - grandmother.
So he certainly can afford a pair of matching socks, shoes without holes in them and unstained trousers. That is why I am so offended about his and MM's sloppiness in public.
There’s 24 comments on here and we’ve all managed to so far have a really pleasant online chat. We’ve lost some really good posters over the last few months, like Elle, because of the direction of some of the discussions. I still like to read the comments, but find myself scrolling through a lot of the nastier back-and-forth. Please remember that this is Nutty’s blog and we are her guests. If you can’t be pleasant, take a break and leave.
Christmas photos should be out tomorrow!
But that's all I have to say about that.
I put PP's charity in and they are currently not rated because they only rate charities with income over 1mil (listed at $708,325), but you can see 990 Return forms and such. The same with the Cambridge foundation with an income of $745,970.
The Prince of Whales foundation scores an overall rating of 2 out 4, but their financial rating was a 4 out of 4, with 94.1% going toward service and only 2.7% going to administration cost. Their transparency rating was low, but it gives a full break down of expenses. Very interesting that the article didn't list this info, but I agree with Nutty and others that this may be a warning to the Royals about the lawsuit.
Since many of us (me included) have assumed the Sussex Foundation will be set up like the Clinton Foundation, I was surprised to see that they gave 86.6% to services and 10.7 on admin cost....thought those would be different but the break down is interesting to those who like to look at these types of things.
Meghan doesn’t have the same cache.
What do you make of the continuing revelations regarding Prince Andrew that keep turning up in the Daily Mail? A lot of it is extremely detailed and looks like it has to be from an insider who is leaking all of it. Is there a chance it is a leaker which could have knowledge about the entire RF? After all, if this person knows intimidate financial details about PA's dodgy dealings then they might have some (albeit a lot less) about PH/MM. Certainly more than us plebs anyway. And it is the Daily Mail who is being sued...
@KayeC that's an interesting point about the Clinton Foundation. I also thought they would have higher admin costs, since wasn't Chelsea sort of employed there? It could be an accounting trick, but at least records are released. In the UK, charities publish something similar to an annual shareholder letter or earnings calendar/report. I wasn't sure if they do that elsewhere, or if the actual data is also available on a government website (like how the SEC makes available via EDGAR the 10-K, proxy filings, and a slew of other required paperwork whose name I can't remember off the top of my head anymore).
@Sarah, those people who would pay that much money to play polo indeed would overlook Meghan or people who are a bit more conservative and traditional. Even one of her photos from the Grenfell kitchen showed a Muslim woman in hijab leaning in towards Harry for the photo, rather than Meghan. A true blood prince has more influence. But I do think there is a group of people who find Meghan very worthy, perhaps because they can feel good about their own eco-credentials or donate money to her foundation in order to elevate the status, social media influence, and PR for their own. The same base that adores Meghan is pretty much the same crowd that would jump ship to like whomever Meghan says to like - we see that with her dreadfully petty and self-important "I only follow 10 charities on a rotating basis versus my million non-purchased followers because I am a leader, not a follower per se".
I still wish the royals would do as their fellow aristos did back in the day and marry rich heirs and heiresses to plump up their coffers. I still find it feasible that H&M will eventually roll out some grassroots donations appeals or some stupid social media campaign.
The Bahamas is a Commonwealth country. If there are British aid efforts, they weren't publicized in the American press.
When Meghan and Harry's money-making scheme gets the same sort of 4-star rating and proven funds going to actual charities, then they shouldn't be scrutinized. Say what you will about the Clintons if you personally don't like them, but I know for a fact that the CF does great work. My nursing professor's husband, a physician who was a bigwig in a physician lobbyist group who was against Hillary Clinton's proposals for national healthcare in the early-mid 1990s even grudgingly admitted this. He said in his words to us "Say what you will about the Clintons, but for some reason they, especially Hillary, always had a soft spot for healthcare particularly children's health".
Meghan and Harry have zero record of public service that goes beyond lip service and shallow publicity-based efforts. They are never going to get the same sort of gravitas that they think they deserve. They're shameless self-promoters through and through.
Here's the link to the CF ratings and transparency. I'd imagine they'd give the Sussex's foundation High Concern.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Nice article in the DM that they won't be attending two Christmas parties given by the Queen as they are overseas ... but it's not a snub mind you.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7795349/Harry-Meghan-miss-Queens-Christmas-parties.html
I live in California. We, too, have what seems like an intractable homeless problem with tent cities popping up under freeway underpasses, etc. I will also point out that one in five dwellings in S.F. is empty and not owner occupied. As S.F. is a tourist mecca, and Fort Lauderdale is as well, there is ample evidence that vacation rentals companies such as Airbnb and VBRO contribute significantly to the homeless issue. Housing issues, aside, I ask fellow nutters to bring up images of the devastation left by Hurricane Dorian. I have a friend who lives in the Bahamas part of the year, and she said that city where she had a wee house was leveled. Leveled. I point this out to note that there is need and there is NEED.
https://dfidnews.blog.gov.uk/2019/09/03/uk-aid-support-for-hurricane-dorian-survivors/
Also, I pointed out in my previous blog post that the Clinton Foundation has, consistently, received the highest rating possible from two charity watchdog groups (one of them mentioned above). President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. I did not retrieve this information from the Clinton Foundation website.
https://www.usaid.gov/dorian
Florida aid as of early September 2019 is $11 million as per https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-bz-fpl-desantis-bahamas-20190910-32j255f64bflze66uxhcyv4mo4-story.html
I don't begrudge help for victims of any tragedy. Just pointing out private collections in the state of Florida exceed British aid mentioned in the above report.
Refugees flooded Florida. How many Bahamains refugees fled to Commonwealth countries?
My main objection is increasing the long term homeless population which is already suffering terribly. I do literacy volunteer work in South Florida. There are so many people suffering, homeless, hungry I'll... Much worse than NYC or PA where I lived before coming south.
Sad to see so much suffering in contrast to extreme wealth.
There has been much negativity surrounding the Sussexes charity. Could some malevolent force with privy info be outing other senior royals' charities to deflect from the Sussex brand? Rather, if we go down we will take everyone with us?
Also, Genia pointed out what good works the Clintons were doing in Haiti and that's fine, but those of us stateside are literally drowning in debt trying to pay for our hc while she and Bill get it free for life. And our govt does not care one bit. Where is our charity?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10558889/prince-george-princess-charlotte-christmas-day-church/
I didn’t read/see the article (I was told about it from a family member) but I thought some of the detailed revelations came from someone Prince Andrew had worked with for a joint business etc. He said (I’m paraphrasing) that the business kept changing its name and Andrew used a pseudonym ‘Andrew Inverness’, and the business was used to finance Andrew’s lifestyle.
I don’t think William or Charles or other royals (apart from Andrew!) would suffer greatly if American benefactors chose to stop donations. They have many British, Commonwealth, European etc., individuals who do and would continue to contribute to their given charities. However, I do think Meghan and Harry would suffer a lot. They seem to be fixated on America (they’ve burnt a lot of bridges with the UK). I do think the Sussex’s are being cornered now, and all of their doing to boot.
I also hope that the Queen appoints someone with full authority to look into the financial and business dealings of everyone in the royal family who performs official duties and thus is funded in some way. She can avoid future scandals by doing that.
Foundations are what we call NGOs here. A profit-making company aims to make at least 16% profit after all operational expenses are covered (i.e. more than one would get from a safe investment). Why would anyone invest in a company that does less (i.e. after operational expenses has less 'profit' to donate)? These foundations need closer scrutiny and need to re-purpose the way they do business. Especially in what is essentially a charity, multi-millionaire staff should not use donation money to fund luxury travel, accommodation and whatever else. I am an Africa and too often seen foreigners swan in here to take up some executive position in a charity and live the luxurious lifestyle they would never be able to afford at home.
The British did help in relief effort, and from what I read in the UK, the UK government wasn’t able to give as much relief funding as they would have liked, due to EU rules. This was the case when other islands within the Commonwealth were affected by storms etc too (same region) Absolutely dire, I’m hoping things will improve.
Enty mentioned Meg in his most recently-released podcast; he focused on the Jennifer Meyer situation. He's quite offended on Jennifer's behalf, saying that everyone knows that the deal is that when you receive something free because of your celebrity status, you agree to take a photograph with it for unrestricted use.
"Meghan must have known this" because of her showbiz past, Enty says. (In fact, there are numerous photos of her at various gifting suites).
He suggests that perhaps Meghan wants to start her own jewelry line, and that's why she doesn't want photos of herself out there wearing Jennifer's.
I wouldn't doubt she'd love to have her own line - maybe teeny tacky jewelry will be a big trend for the 2020s, and Meghan can sell hers at 3am on QVC - but that wouldn't seem to preclude wearing Jennifer's. Very few women wear only one designer's jewelry.
The message is very clear. Welcome to American journalism at its best! The enforcers have been notified to get Meg under control or face war from Murdoch in the American press since Meg has decided to target Amercian donors with an American arm of her charity. She’s done! The BRF hand is now forced because they will see this and know exactly what the message is and they will not want anymore articles like this to come out about their life work because it will threaten the entire existence of the monarchy. There are no laws to protect them here.
I agree that this article was a warning shot.
Think of all the dirt Murdoch (and the Mail) must have on the Royals and are holding back. We're just seeing stuff come out about Andrew now that they must have known for years. I'm guessing that Andrew wasn't particularly pleasant to reporters, either, which didn't help.
William and Kate's make-nice with the press pack in Pakistan - chatting with them on the plane and making sure they all got proper hotel rooms during a weather diversion - was enlightened self-interest.
Probably also true of Beatrice and Edo attending the party for the owner of the Evening Standard.
Enty often doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the Royals.
I think Buckingham Palace intentionally cut her off because she was trying to launch new deals, perhaps even more blatant than this one.
Embarassing her in front of de-facto Hollywood Royalty like Jennifer Meyer was a clever move.
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/189700483421/submission
If Meghan is sensible and sane enough to know this, she will use any measures to hold onto Harry and her place in the BRF as his wife ... unless she secures a much wealthier man.
Sarah, didn’t get anywhere near as much as Diana did. She was married to the second youngest son for 6 years and had two daughters. Sarah got pittance (compared to Diana), so going on this, and IMO I can’t help thinking Meghan wouldn’t be treated that much differently, especially if she keeps throwing the royal family under the bus.
Let’s see how long Meghan holds onto Harry. She’s waiting for that billionaire with freedom ;o)
How HM probably "understands" and wants the two to skip the family events so they can be with Archie...
How MM "wouldn't damage" H's relationship with his family...
Are they delusional? If H&M could behave and got along with the family, they would be there.
It makes no sense to suggest that HM respects them "so much" that they're not coming.
I think William inherited the best of Diana's qualities and Harry inherited the worst. Meghan so desperately wants to be Diana 2.0, and she is using the worst of Diana's decisions - "poor me" TV interviews and media leaks - to try and achieve it. It's sad in a way that both Harry and Meghan are just so messed up as people.
I expect a separate announcement in 2020.
It makes no sense to suggest that HM respects them "so much" that they're not coming.'
The thing is, Meghan is newly estranged from all of her family except her mother (and the only family Christmas stories she ever shared on social media were about her father so I don't think a family Christmas with her mother were a big part of her life, if at all). She cannot use family as an excuse for skipping all royal festivities and gatherings. Actually, imagine being able to enjoy Christmas celebrations where there are a bevy of servants cooking the food, cleaning up, taking care of all your needs, and entertainment is also taken care of, and guests are family that you know and share so much with and everyone is showering your kid with love and attention and he is getting to know his cousins and children of your cousins (well, Harry at least). Gosh, I would jump at the chance.
Nope, the narc cannot have Harry having normal and healthy relationships so she drags him into isolation.
And as for all these opinions of HM ... who the heck is making up these stories and why do so many people believe this codswallop? Harry has spent every Christmas with the Queen and family except one, when he was serving in Afghanistan. Those who have married into the royal family and have close and loving family of their own, desert their families and spend it with the Queen. Of course it is important to the Queen. Of course it is a big deal that M&H and Archie are not going to be there. And surely the Queen does not believe that Meghan has loving family that she wants to be with? Call her bluff and invite her Mom as a guest - she does not have to do the walk to church and can stay with Archie, because the reality is that Meghan and Doria are never seen going to church unless it is a major social occasion calling for designer wear.
I sometimes take a deep breath and head over to CB to find out how the other half lives, so to speak. I'm conscious that sites like this tend to be a bit of an echo chamber so it's sometimes good to have your views challenged.
However.... any time I do so it just confirms me as a Meghan sceptic! In answer to your question, yes they really are that delusional. They actually think Oprah is hosting both of these two, and their baby, for weeks on end! Like she's going to play hostess to people she barely knows, and like Meghan isn't going to even drop a hint about it? Please! It's all especially ironic given that they've been on at Kate for many years about being lazy. Now they think nothing of the Harkles basically disappearing at the busiest time of the year for royals?
And the idea that the queen 'gave her blessing'..... do they know anything? Anything at all? We all know that Meghan only has a relationship with one family member, so what was stopping Doria joining them in Britain, or the Harkles splitting their time between the two families, maybe Thanksgiving and/or New Year with Doria and Christmas with the royal family? But to skip both, and claim that the queen is happy with this? Delusional indeed. These folks live in a different reality.
I’m back after thinking the flu might kill me. It’s bad.
Enty can be wrong on a lot of things. I believe BP made the jewelry designer take the pics down.
Why would she allow people she barely knows to shack up in her home for weeks on end?
Re. "Meghan's Pre-Marriage Fortune"
Oh, I'm with you . . I never believed for a minute that Meg had $5 million dollars to her name as she claimed to have. Basically this woman has never told the truth about anything and this was one of her early fibs, probably to make herself seem less desperate to hook a royal and more like she was doing Harry a huge favor agreeing to be his wife since she didn't *need* his millions. As if. I'm not sure the woman has ever paid any of her own bills--there's usually some chump man to do that for her, from Daddy on down. Harry is by many accounts Husband #2, but actually might be Husband #3.
Even without $5 million dollars, most women wouldn't allow themselves to be photographed on international television wearing dirty shoes that are too big and a coat that doesn't fit, either, and would run a brush through their hair. I was being sardonic about the $5 million, but most women could spend $50 on their outfits and look better than Megs any day of the week.
How does she 'clearly like them'? Since you're into guessing, how many hours do you suppose they've actually spent in each other's company?
And from my perspective, allowing someone the run of your luxury home while you're away isn't something you do for people you only know casually. Oprah forms working relationships with people all the time. She may even 'like' some of these people. But is she letting them take over her home for weeks on end? I doubt it. Who does that? What's in it for her?
But.... people will believe what they want to believe.
At any rate, if they're talking about Oprah's house in Montecito, that's a 2 hour drive from Los Angeles. Not too convenient for taking meetings.
My guess - and it is only a guess - is that Meg has spent some time with her Canadian posse, who seem to be the only people who can stand her. Also the option for visiting her plus-size sorority friend (last seen at Wimbledon) who lives in Milwaukee.
I'm still betting on rehab or mental health inpatient for Harry. I think the family thinks they can save him.
https://nimvo.com/20-photos-oprah-winfreys-90-million-montecito-home/
Nutty, please excuse the indulgence
KayeC,
It boggles the mind that someone who spent a decade-plus in show business and paid untold hundreds of thousands of dollars to agents and PR firms to make herself look good, and who was styled attractively for many years by professional hair, makeup and wardrobe people wouldn't have picked up some tips for herself and invested in some quality pieces. Beyond the ill-fitting, out-of-season and sloppy merched apparel, she does not even appear clean most of the time. Tom and Doria may not have had the most luxurious standard of living or home, but they sent her to a top-notch private Catholic girls' school. Cleanliness next to godliness and all that. I also don't think she looked like a hobo when she matriculated at Northwestern University, or when a leading Canadian women's retailer made her their spokesmodel. From what I've seen of her in Suits clips and defunct Tig posts, she seemed acquainted with soap and water. This mangy DGAF personal (lack of) grooming aesthetic coincided with her entre into the Royal family, really. How ironic is this? It's like Harry adopted the Poor Little Match Girl as his fiancee and she traipsed down the aisle in St. George's in a dress she got off of some mannequin, so poorly did it fit. Also, Daniel Martin should rethink his career choices because I could have done a better makeup for a wedding--Markle looked like a corpse. Maybe that's why that fly was buzzing around her head during the ceremony. She and Harry both seemed stoned at their wedding . . and Haz's personal hygiene has taken a nosedive off the cliff since their marriage. A classic sign of addiction if you ask me, from both.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2134368/anthrax-scare-meghan-markle-victim-racist-hate-crime-scotland-yard
Does anyone know if they found who sent it?
This will make you smile.
Meghan's high school prom photo is making the rounds, and the sugars are going nuts, exclaiming that she hasn't changed *at all* in the intervening 20 years.
Well, you be the judge.
17-year-old Meg is wearing some spangly painted on black number, showing a lot of skin and has herself plastered suggestively on her date. It's a nice dress but perhaps more appropriate to an adult cocktail party than a high school prom. Meg is wearing a lot of makeup, inexpertly applied, and is flashing a fake smile at the camera. So that much at least has not changed, then.
This young man, whoever he is, had a lucky escape, is all I can say.
We'll have to make due with these since no formal poses of Meghan during her college years at Northwestern have surfaced.
Since MM came to the family, there has been an uptick in negative press about other members of the RF in general. Could be a coincidence, of course. However, if she's the leak, I'm not at all surprised William won't be around her.
Her half-brother warned Harry she would tear the RF apart. And so she has!
https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1206546787093360640/photo/1
Do not excuse the writer because 'she may be African'. True African academics have mastered the art of communicating in English and usually use Standard English, or they use translators and editors to ensure their writing is of a high standard.
By the way, Caroline Newman, being classified as black does not make you African!
Do you think this was a part of Meghan's PR strategy?
The real danger to the monarchy, however, is the illegal stuff and the shady financial deals (including using a foundation to fund a luxurious life).
Hopefully, tied up in the trunk!
Megs seems to be framed to take the fall for this, but I lean toward thinking the Family pulled the plug through their legal representatives. Jenn is just the kind of pal Meg wants to cultivate, and she's been merching her pieces hardcore as long as we've had to endure looking at her pictures. Who knows. Meg has so many merching deals on the hob--the whole SmartWorks fiasco was to suck up to Mischa Nonoo and her boring white shirt. I'm sure John Lewis and the other collaborators also benefited. Stella McCartney. Claire Waight Keller, who didn't deserve the award for British Designer of the Year based on the way Meg's dress didn't fit properly. The blatant H&M merching in South Africa. Jennifer Meyer does seem to have been unfairly singled out from all of Meghan's many, many merching partners--but maybe purposefully so, since estrangement from her would hurt Meggy the most.
I've come to accept that things move glacially slowly in royal circles---I am surprised that they didn't shut down this blatant merching empire before the wedding . . she's been doing it since Day One. Really, that unauthorized Vanity Fair piece "Just Wild about Harry" that featured Megs lolling around in bare feet and couture indulging her supermodel fantasies should have absolutely ruled her out as a bride for Harry. That the Queen ever allowed this travesty of a marriage to go forward still boggles my mind. The writing was on the wall, in huge dripping red letters that Meg was going to be Bad News. If there was in fact a secret wedding in Africa or a phantom baby which Meg used to force Harry's hand into the big Windsor wedding show--before which she had already refused a generous payoff by the Family to Go Away--the onus would have been on her to prove it.
Lady Sarah Spencer might have been the Spencer girl to become Princess of Wales--Charles was very serious about her--until she spoke on record about their relationship to some journalist without permission . . no details, but just admitting that she and Charles were seeing each other. Charles was livid and ended it immediately. Sarah was apparently on the fence and kind of did it on purpose, she admits now. The whole royal fishbowl thing was feeling too oppressive. But the point being, no other member of the Royal family, or even a prospective member, has ever been given as much latitude as Meg. She's been merching away for 2+ years on her position as Harry's girl, and only *now* there is a peep about it?
If Meg is so fond of those dinky unremarkable trinkets, it seems doubtful that she'd tank her lucrative arrangement with Jenn Meyer. This may just be the first snowball lobbed by the family who is *finally* moving publicly against her. She's been sanctioned plenty--in ways that would horrify a more couth person, like being banned from all Royal properties without an escort . . but the general public didn't know about them . . until now.
I wonder if she will actually resurface in London from wherever she is or if she has been permanently exiled. It seems hard to believe that there hasn't been a single sighting of her anywhere in North America if she's on her own recognizance and visiting friends and/or Doria. It's all so clandestine . . maybe Lord Geidt actually has her locked in a bunker somewhere and wouldn't that be a shame.
So whilst I have no idea where the Sussex’s might be holed up, I can t help thinking they’ve been told to keep a low profile and stay out of the media (photographed).
Off to watch A Berry Royal Christmas!
I agree that perhaps the palace decided to really stick it to MM by calling attention to the Jennifer Meyers connection. I don't know when JM made the original post about the MM, so I don't know if this is just the most timely incident of potential marching or they decided to go for big potatoes. I think drawing attention to the connection during H&M's "6 week break" is no accident. We all know MM loves to clap back in the press, whether it comes from her or through someone else. However, right now she and Harry are supposed to be on a break and not making statements. It's the perfect time for the RF say something and have it go uncontested. If she makes a statement, she risks being called a liar and they're supposed to be on the 6 - week hiatus as it is. She can neither confirm nor deny lending her image; she can only sit and watch as it all plays out. MM is in a position where she can't control the narrative, and she must hate that.
My high school would not have let anyone into a prom wearing a slinky black number! They sent my fan home when she wore a YSL tux!
If Meg were in Oprah's house, she would be leaking selfies! I bet she is somewhere with no internet access.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beatrice-wedding-date-june-122950377.html
The 31-year-old bride and the 34-year-old father of one, who are currently living together in the apartment Bea used to share with Eugenie appear to be insistent on a June wedding, despite also claiming that they are OK with a 'low-key', 'non-traditional' event. The Queen has given them permission to announce their wedding date on January 20, 2020, more than a month away. That's just the announcement of the particular date 5+ months further into the future they will actually be married. The Queen's proviso being that the weddding cannot interfere with Royal Ascot, which happens the week after Trooping the Color. So we are into late June at the earliest.
All this protocol of the announcements exhausts me. Given that Philip is very fragile these days and confined to Sandringham, the couple is more or less signifying that they don't care if he dies before their wedding day. Philip is tough, and may surprise us all, but it seems increasingly unlikely that he would be able to attend a ceremony 3/4ths of a year off that required him to travel anywhere.
I suggested that a private family wedding in the New Year, as soon as a small 'do could be organized would be my choice. They could even import Archbishop Welby to Sandringham itself and have the wedding there rather than go to the nearest chapel, since dragging an elderly gentleman into the cold would not be advisable. The couple could then throw a reception for friends and extended family at a later date, possibly in Italy at Edo's family estate and on his dime out of deference for the British taxpayers. Is it really that important to drag out this waiting period out of tradition? The couple has already been engaged for more than three months. A Valentine's Day wedding would be romantic, even if small.
I don't even have a dog in this fight, but that's what I'd do if I were Bea. It may not be the prettiest time of the year for photos but she 'says' she wants something 'different'--this would be different, and we all hope that Philip would live to see it.
Edo's eyes in this photo look a bit insane to me, but we all take unflattering photos sometimes. Especially me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=MzeTKvZyDZM&feature=emb_logo
Anyway. Ref this post, if there really are forces at work aiming to bring down the BED and if Markle is simply one of Their (ultimately disposable once she's been rinsed) tools, then maybe this whole thing about her US charity money raising is actually another hook to uncover more dirt on the rest of the royal. Which sadly it has. Question is, what other skeletons are in the royal cupboards and ultimately how much will their supporters ( the public, media, law) be able to take before having to say OK we just can't let this go anymore. I'm all for people being held to account no matter who they are, but I really REALLY hope this isn't heading that way. For so many reasons. I do have a bad feeling though.
I also have first hand experience of the damage being in a relationship with a narcissist wreaks. It is total carnage. Their joy comes from destroying others. They also stop at nothing order to protect themselves. Anyone standing in their way is simply collateral and will be taken down. If what i wonder above is true, ghen the only way that Markle can be stopped is if a bigger badder Narc is at the top of whatever game is being played here. Alternatively the whole house of cards will come crashing down alongside every other institution that is in a position of power.
Sorry for being such a voice of doom. I would love to have my glass half empty hypothesis pooh-poohed.
I hope I manage to post this and join the conversation successfully!
Jessica is in Puntacana for a wedding (I think) per her Instagram. I was wondering if perhaps Meghan is the one who took the video she posted today as well as the picture from two days ago that is online about her “imperfect” bikini body. It just seemed so Meghan to me.
MM's pose in her prom photo reminds me of her Deal or No Deal photo. She looks cheap in both. The thin bracelet she is wearing as a 16-year-old is not so different from the ones she is merching as a middle-aged woman.
@Tea Cup
Thanks so much for the link to the Mary Berry show!
I doubt that Meghan had the access or control to do anything seriously shady with that foundation. She is all about control and domination so she would not have been unable to work with William and Kate. As for Harry, she completely dominates and controls him, so ...
I think she is messy with details and follow-through and thinks she can just hire a PR company, clean up, put out a false narrative, buy support, and so on. Her financial misdeeds and shadiness will come from that and her self-centredness/huge sense of entitlement, not a deliberate plot to use a foundation to amass personal wealth. Two things from her past show this carelessness: the weed at her wedding (illegal but cool) and admitting in a interview that she did not have a SAG card, and had lied about that.
What strikes me when I compare couples is:
Kate married William because she loves him; he is the one and only love of her life. Luckily she had the background and upbringing and character to support him in his royal role, and they both had enough time to build a solid relationship to support each other in their marriage and public roles (a role that she slowly grew into and gained confidence for). She is a good mother.
Meghan married Harry for access to wealth and fame and power. (Of course she was in love with the man who could give her all of that.) She was eager to jump in and grab at the public role and run with it recklessly, and she was also very quick to start her sending sprees. She does not have the upbringing, background nor character that is suitable for a public role in the BRF and seems to be unable to adapt, no matter how damaging what she says and does is to the institution. As for a child, she very quickly was able to leave him to the nanny to indulge a personal whim (and, it turns out, that while he was a newborn, she was busy with SmartWorks and Vogue - both vanity projects that she did not need to do and could have been postponed so that she spent more time paying attention to her child and learning to be a mother - it's not like she was spending time making sure a community centre got built or raising money for a bursary scheme).
mum Doria!!
Deaparate much, Meghan?
Here's the link if anyone wants a laugh -
https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a30252182/meghan-markle-prince-harry-christmas-card/
I don't think anyone wants a repeat of that and that's why these two weren't welcome for the holidays. It didn't help at all that threw this childish hissfit and burned all bridges.
"There were rumours/comments at the time of the foundation split that William had found monetary discrepancies. It was implied that Meghan was involved. All very shady, will we ever know the truth?"
I believe the decision to split the offices of the "Fab Four" was announced during H&M's Australian October 2018 tour. So whatever prompted the decision happened earlier. While it wasn't announced then that the Foundation would also split, in retrospect it seems obvious that would happen too. Different offices with different goals can't really share one foundation. I expect it already had been decided to split the Foundation in Oct 2018 but that kind of split takes time (required audit etc). They probably didn't want to announce a foundation split that early because donations would dry up during the period of limbo.
I too doubt Meg was able to stuff her pockets with Foundation money but her merching became pretty obvious fairly early (and perhaps was even more obvious to insiders.) It's not that others don't merch in other ways...the article about the American donations--- paying $50K to eat dinner with W&K in NYC or $84K to play polo with Will-- makes that clear. But that's different from wearing out-of-season clothes or tacky jewelry to make sales.
Remember too H&M took Jessica M and her hubby with them on part of their Aussie tour. When that was announced it was said the Mulroney's travel was paid for privately, but who really knows. And how odd to so openly combine an official tour with a private pleasure trip. (I say openly because W&K have on a couple of occasions discretely continued private travel after a tour ended before going home. But that was after--not right in the middle of the trip!) Obviously insiders knew about the Mulroney's trip before the public did.
M may very likely have been starting to spout off on "creative" ways foundation money could be used. She seems to think her ideas are so great so I doubt she'd have been quiet. For example, I doubt it was H's idea to pay SS with foundation money because purportedly it is to support Travalyst (an endeavor I personally have not read anything about since it was launched way back in early Sept.) And her ideas about things like the Smart Works debacle... let's partner to sell stuff!...were probably voiced early on too. I can imagine those ideas making Will queasy. But I doubt there were shortages attributable to Meghan. And if there had been, I doubt Will would have been the one to find them.
@CatEyes I am so sorry to hear about your brother. I send my best wishes to you and your loved ones. May your brother heal as soon as possible. I have an elderly loved one battling stage 4 cancer with a doctor that says their days are numbered. This Christmas season has been heartbreaking. I only hope and wish for healing for your brother, you, and everyone you love.
Does anyone know where the “Fab Four” moniker came from for the Cambridges + Sussexes. I always assumed it was from Meg’s camp. Whenever I hear it, I find it insulting for the Cambs and the real “Fab Four,” the Beatles! That moniker is really cheap for the Cambridges making them out to be Pop Icons and the equals of H&M. Yuck! We only heard that moniker at one event, after that they “disbanded.”
Thanks to vlogger Celt News for such creativity. :)
THE QUEEN'S 2019 CHRISTMAS SPEECH--A PREVIEW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJgc9BFi7M
>>>@Hikari Re Sarah Spencer. Not only she talked to the press, she talked about Charles disparagingly. She said something like "I would only marry for love, doesn't matter if it was dustman or a King. If Charles asked me I would turn him down". It was incredibly stupid; unlike Jane, Sarah Spencer was always reckless.<<<
Yes, that was a reckless act and comments, but Sarah has given the impression since then that she wanted out of the relationship and chose this definitive way to end it. She was fully aware of what the consequences would be. Perhaps she and Charles had had a tiff and she was sure she was Over It.
Having dated Charles for a significant period . . a couple of years, I think . . Sarah knew exactly what sort of lions' den she was encouraging her teenage little sister to jump into just a few years later. Browbeating Diana into going through with the wedding despite her grave doubts after discovering the affair with Camilla in collusion with Jane, telling a weeping Diana, "Too late now, Duch--your face is on the tea towels." isn't the shining Spencer sister moment. In hindsight, of course, Diana should have gone with her gut and cancelled the wedding and damn the tea towels.
But then the world wouldn't have William. I used to include " . . and Harry", but given recent events, Harry's contribution to the world is increasingly questionable.
Thank you for providing me with the new and very entertaining term, "Bum-swizzled". It is very evocative. I hope to find a reason to use it in my daily life.
I suppose that hopes were high in the beginning that Meghan would live up to her own glowing PR. So whip smart! Articulate! Multi-lingual! Comfortable with cameras and speaking! World travelled! Hard working! Organic living! Vegan! Flexible! Industrious! Up with the Birds! Determined to hit the ground running! If she'd been even a fraction as wonderful in reality as she'd paid mouthpieces to promote herself as on paper, the Firm would have been getting an asset. But I find it hard to believe that anyone can work with Megs or spend even a half hour in her company without sussing her true grifting, narco personality and motives. She has no intention of doing actual charity; she just wants wealthy people to fund her lifestyle as has been her MO for her entire adult life. Doing good and being good actually entails some work and sacrifice. Meg is not interested in anything other than promoting herself as a brand and grabbing cash. That should be blatantly obvious to everyone in the world by now, so if anybody is really obtuse enough to give Harry and Megs money for their charitable foundation whose primary recipients are going to be two spoilt, selfish, over-privileged whiners with drug issues, I guess they deserve to have their money wasted.
Sarah was closer to Charles' age and shared more of his sporty interests . . she would have been a better match for him. If she had sellers' remorse after the fact, it was rather sh*tty to be jealous of her little sister. Ah, sibling rivalry. Charles knows something about *that*, too.
***********
In other news, it appears that another of Megs' favorite jewellers has been Markled, with a massive hacking virus which has compromised the credit details of thousands of their well-heeled customers.
If businesses and individuals have any sense of self-preservation, they won't touch Meghan with a barge pole. She is like the equivalent of Typhoid Mary for one's financial and personal fortunes.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/beatthescammers/article-7800919/Meghan-Markles-favourite-jewellery-brand-Missoma-hit-cyber-attack.html
Meanwhile... Meghan who?
Love your post and you mention the exact 2 things that have always really bothered me about MM. Not only did she lie about having a SAG card, but rolled her eyes and showed contempt for it in the interview. She brushed it off, didn't seem bothered by it and laughed at the idea she was a fraud. I found that moment quite revealing.
Her Vogue edit and SmartWorks collection were, as you point out, not exactly crucial projects for anyone but her it would seem. While the herd over at CB has stars in their eyes about how this reveals her "work ethic," I think such projects provide MM with the narc supply she craves. She can show up to meetings and wave her hands around, spewing word salad. Then she gets to talk talk talk, whether in print (Vogue) or giving a speech. There appears to be very little work involved or helping others.
I have always said if MM's engagements told her she would not be giving a speech, she wouldn't go to them.
She doesn't sound phoney like the other lady we all know and loathe...
@Liver Bird A Berry Royal Christmas was excellent! Both Catherine and William came across as refreshing genuine, relaxed and normal. Exactly how royals should present themselves.
Worth a copy and paste!
Her motivations are wealth, fame and power (to control and dominate), and not necessarily in that order.
I still do feel sorry for her because she is so publicly tripping over her own character and being exposed. Certainly the media gave her the benefit of doubt in the beginning (even though there was a lot of tacky stuff about her that was out there, easily found) and the BRF fell over themselves to please her and hand everything to her on a plate (luckily they stopped at opening the jewellery vault).
The funny thing is that as Kate gains confidence, she is more expressive and talks more (had to laugh at her talking so much with Mary that she actually did not finish decorating her roulade within the time limit!). Yet, she is likeable. Meghan is just grating and annoying with her talk, talk, talk and over-the-top acting and pushiness.
I have experience of a narc. They do not care about anything but themselves, no matter what they say. Meghan is not genuine and cannot put in the detailed, hard work because she is not capable of caring. It really is all about her.
This link should show you an outtake from the engagement interview. Strange ...
>>>I still do feel sorry for her because she is so publicly tripping over her own character and being exposed. Certainly the media gave her the benefit of doubt in the beginning (even though there was a lot of tacky stuff about her that was out there, easily found) and the BRF fell over themselves to please her and hand everything to her on a plate (luckily they stopped at opening the jewellery vault).<<<
You're a better woman than I, Charlie Brown. I'm trying to think of a time when I could muster up sympathy for Meghan . . okay, there was a brief window of time, before the wedding, when her trailer-park relatives were causing a ruckus that I felt sorry for her. I never thought the few staged photos Thomas Markle posed for for American magazines were deserving of the ruckus they caused. Even if he was paid, I assumed he did so to cover his expenses for the wedding clothes and travel to London, rather than impinge on his daughter or the Crown to pay for him. It's evident that Mr. Markle is near destitute. Samantha and the brother and the wife-beater wearing nephews that thought they were going to storm the gates of BP and get admitted to the wedding were truly cringe-worthy, and I thought Samantha was certifiably crazy at the time, eaten up with bitterness over the attention her younger sister was receiving. At the time, I didn't blame Meg for distancing herself from them . . .but I didn't have the full picture. It's impossible to imagine Tom Markle in his current state of health and physical condition being comfortable with, or being able to cope with, the stress and exposure of being live on global TV. I didn't fault him for not attending, whether or not the cardiac issues were a genuine excuse and I still think he was set up by Meghan over those photographs.
That was the first and last time I had sympathy for Meg.
The RF had her number early on, if they had already banned her from Royal properties and denied her access to any of the real jewelry before she even became Harry's wife. If they knew they had a grifter in their midst prior to November 2017, it still boggles the mind that the marriage was allowed to proceed. Too bad HMTQ was not willing to play hardball prior to the legally binding marriage contract. There was so much dirt available to her to smear the Corpse Bride with.
Narcissists are not capable of change . . there is no pill, no therapy, no intervention, that is going to help Meg grow a conscience. She doesn't have one and it's going to stay missing. All that can be done is to limit the scope of the damage she is able to inflict. My sympathies are reserved for her victims.
I haven't seen the Mary Berry show yet, but the Cambridges are being warmly praised for being humble and approachable, and festive, in stark contrast to the glum, frenetic whinefest put on by the Harkles in SA. I will definitely try to see it. Kate has been called 'the most enigmatic member of the Royal family' . .she's out there, always smiling and impeccably turned out, but her voice has rarely been heard, until now, with only tiny glimpses of her true personality. She is often labelled 'shy' and racked with nerves before public appearances, but if she's struggling internally it never shows. She exudes warmth, good humor, and grace. On her wedding day, I was gobsmacked at her poise, and not only hers, but that of her entire family. Pippa (and her glorious bum) quite stole the show, and young Jamie read a Scripture with more ease and resonance than many a professional church man. Very photogenic family, the Middletons, and they acquit themselves with more style and couth as 'commoners' than most of the blood royals. Carole and Michael have done a great job with their kids. Catherine seems the very opposite of spoiled. A documentary at the time of their marriage referred to her 'humble beginnings' . . despite having some coal miners in the family going back some 200 or 300 years, her father oversees a thriving multi-million pound business and the family home at Bucklebury is very nice indeed. Upper middle class for sure. The children had all the best schools on a par with their aristocratic peers, and know how to comport themselves in society. I'm sure what William must have found refreshing, as do we all, is the solid British normalcy of the Middletons. Normalcy is nothing one experiences while growing up royal, especially not in the Mountbatten-Windsor clan.
When William and Kate are photographed/interviewed together, they demonstrate the ease in each others' company and the emotional shorthand of finishing each others' thoughts which is the hallmark of two people who have been a couple for most of their adult lives. It's a stark contrast to the Harkles' stiff, stilted public displays. It must be a burden to be scrutinized under the microscope all the time, but Kate makes it look easy, like she was to the manner born. She was not born to it but she has proved herself a natural . . .after 18 or so years of being William's girl, minding her Ps & Qs, watching and learning. I am glad to see her coming into her own with more confidence, and I think she will be warmly received as Queen Catherine one day. When that day comes, Smeaghan will be a sordid footnote in the royal family history.
@drchristna said "Look at Amelia Windsor, Peter Phillips, David Linley, Wessexes, Yorks, Sussexes, Zara Tindoll, the Spencers how can they all afford the holidays, the designer clothes, the fancy cars..."
The issue for me is that there is a mix of folks on that list. Some are "working royals" (like W&K are) and as such they receive support and often receive grace and favor homes (or vastly reduced rental homes) complete with renovations paid for by someone else. Others, like Zara Tindall are not working royals.
I don't know if Will is upset at Zara for her association with the pram company. I didn't see the article @KayeC mentioned. But it's hardly the same as if the Sussexes had done it.
Zara is not now and has never been a working royal. Has she benefited from her royal family connections? Of course. But how could that even be avoided? Plastic surgery, a name change, leaving her family and entrance into a program akin to the FBI's witness protection program?
As long as people are willing to buy things because they are endorsed by "famous" people whether they be athletes, actors, royals or family members of famous people, "merching" will happen. Pippa Middleton was purportedly paid $600,000 for her first book, the cringeworthy "make ice for drinks parties" one published about 18 months after the royal wedding. Presumably the editors at Viking wouldn't have paid that much to someone else without authorship experience and without royal connections they thought had an equally nice bottom.
I do think the line re: merching should be drawn for those receiving significant support from sources such as the duchies or government grants to the monarchy. But I don't see how the monarchy could say "these minor royals should be self-supporting" yet still police the ways they can do that. I see even fewer ways for the monarchy to control in-laws who aren't receiving direct financial support. IF as was reported it's true Will insisted Pippa be given RPO's for her book tour, I do think that crossed the line.
@drchristna said "Look at Amelia Windsor, Peter Phillips, David Linley, Wessexes, Yorks, Sussexes, Zara Tindoll, the Spencers how can they all afford the holidays, the designer clothes, the fancy cars..."
******lizzie replied with, The issue for me is that there is a mix of folks on that list. Some are "working royals" (like W&K are) and as such they receive support and often receive grace and favor homes (or vastly reduced rental homes) complete with renovations paid for by someone else. Others, like Zara Tindall are not working royals.’*****
@lizzie, So agree, because I thought the same. Also agree on, ****‘Lizzie said ‘As long as people are willing to buy things because they are endorsed by "famous" people whether they be athletes, actors, royals or family members of famous people, "merching" will happen. ‘ ***
Exactly right, anyone who can, will trade on/off something they will.
The Spencer’s aren’t royal they are Diana’s aristocratic family, Princess Anne’s children don’t receive any money from the civil list, they are financially independent.
Mike Tindall is a former professional rugby player and would have made money in his own right. Zara a horse show jumper who like many unprofessional athletes are sponsored (though she did come unstuck this year with some financial shenanigans) David Linley owns his own furniture making business. Amelia is so low down the line of succession she really doesn’t matter. She doesn’t receive money from the tax payer, she’s a model/muse, but I doubt wouldn’t have got far without her family connection.
I personally don’t care how some with royal linage earn their income, as long as it’s legal (in the least not embarrassing the nation if they got rumbled) and the British tax payer isn’t subsidising their lifestyle. The York’s and Sussex’s however are working senior royals, they represent the Monarch and the country, so most certainly need in-depth scrutiny, because the tax payer does subsidy them.
Agreed - your family is your family, and no one could have anticipated the free for all of the U.S. Markle family pre-wedding. In this instance, I too, had sympathy for MM. That said, hind sight being 20/20, there are ways and there are ways to handle people (like this) so that in the end, one can smile and say I tried. MM did not try. And this fact is what has added to the line to complaints about the woman married to Harry. I wonder if Harry is receiving treatment for his issues in the 6 week-sabbatical; I hope 2020 brings these in line with the BRF.
In the engagement interview outtake there is seemingly no connection between them.
My family also has difficult people, so I was asking myself what I would do if I was facing an extremely high profile royal wedding? I can't trust them to behave, so what do I do? The answer seems to be a low key ceremony with only my father and mother to attend with a handful of my friends I trust, as well as the groom's closest relatives and friends . No veil, no pomp, no celebrities, perhaps even no church, a civil ceremony like Charles and Camilla had. I tell the country that I didn't want to spend taxpayers money on a lavish ceremony as it is not my first marriage and we want it private, I wear a nice British designed and made dress, which is not too expensive, I do not insist on future King bring me to the altar, we have a small meal afterwards. I certainly do not make a scene about the menu, I do not need a tiara, no carriage ride, no kids squeezed into black outfits. I pose for pics with my mom and dad and my husband, we smile and hug all together, it speaks volumes, British look at it a say: "May be she is considerate, modest, and down to earth. We will give her a chance".
The rest of my family has no grounds for complaints, my dad is safe with me, my mom is not paraded as a race card, we show united front to the world. Everybody is happy.
Looks like MM's pride and greed lead her the wrong way from the day one.
To Kate she could have said "You were so composed and relaxed on your day, I am simply dying with nerves, could you support me and advise me please? I will be so grateful!"
Here we go, she shows respect and readiness to take advice from more experienced women, they would almost certainly chose to help her, the relations start on the right foot from point zero.
I found another A Berry Royal Christmas on YouTube, watch it quickly Nutters in the USA as it will be removed for copyright I am sure
https://youtu.be/rTO_0kG8dog
I’m with you on the smaller wedding with just parents and maybe some of her more upstanding relatives. She has an uncle that was an ambassador and has a cousin that’s an attorney. She does have some respectable but not famous relatives. I never understood why she didn’t invite them. Maybe because she didn’t invite her dad? What about her mother’s extended family? Are there none? Just odd to me that she didn’t invite absolutely anyone except her mother. Are they not famous enough?
If Meghan were a normal, common-sense and furthermore 'kind', thoughtful person, your suggestions are exactly how I would have expected a previously-married, mature, non-British woman to approach her wedding. The handcrafted veil representing the flowers of 22 Commonwealth nations was lovely but way OTT for a 37-year-old divorced second (third) time bride who couldn't even name more than 2 of the Commonwealth countries. Meg's past has been even more colorful than that of the much-maligned Duchess of Windsor. Wallis may or may not have been a courtesan in Shanghai after the first war, but we have unimpeachable proof, in pictures, that Meghan was a yacht girl and all the sordid stuff that would have entailed. Virginal white, with that veil--contrast how modest and relatively simple Catherine's wedding veil was, and she is the future Princess of Wales . . .
There are so many ways Meghan could have played it to show she was amenable to really joining her new family and country and being accepted for her graciousness and willingness to learn. Meg is just not wired up that way. Meg is actually not fit for human society. She's an apex predator who needs to be turned loose on a remote Lord of the Flies island with no Wi-Fi reception.
I think it was Celt News that enumerated at least 25 ways in which the BRF shot Meghan's rapacious demands down . .nixing the air fresheners in the chapel is mentioned, along with giving her the junky replica of the Queen Mary tiara . . like Her Maj would have let this grifter get within 100 yards of her late grandmother's signature piece.
When one's grandson brings home a known prostitute of whom it is feared she's going to flog the family jewels and the silverware if she's allowed to touch them unsupervised . . that's a pretty hard F'in NO on the nuptials, I'd have thought.
Harry must have had some sort of permanent breakdown sometime after the Inskip wedding, because six months later, he's engaged to this horror in front of the whole world and just look where he's at now, poor idiot. I mean look where he's at figuratively because no one has the faintest clue where he actually is at the present time.
One of the items on Celt's list is the aisle walk with Charles . . apparently she was insisting that she do the entire walk alone all the way up to the altar and was denied that. Charles was drafted in as the closest thing to a father of the bride present. Chas is the one that shipped her to the airport pronto when she was caught sneaking around trying to cadge photos of KP to sell, so he made a good show of welcoming Harry's grifting bint into the family. This little experiment in democratic love across the class and cultural divide has just not worked out . . but that's not because Meg is an American from a modest background--it's because she is a sociopath. Unfortunately there's no fixing that. She's a walking nightmare on every conceivable level.
Thanks!
I just watched A Berry Royal Christmas on YouTube and I just loved it!! Kate and William are just too cute and I'm seriously going to be trying a couple of those recipes from Mary Berry.
So, back on topic - I've given up on Megs and Harry, excuse me, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor/Sussex. They're going to work it out or not, but in all this I'm worried about Archie since he's collateral damage if his parents separate/divorce. Then he'll be a pawn in the game of "He said/she said" and whatever else they come up with. I'm hoping for a swift resolution on that front.
Happy Christmas everybody and we'll see you in the new year :)
~MaLissa
>>>I’m with you on the smaller wedding with just parents and maybe some of her more upstanding relatives. She has an uncle that was an ambassador and has a cousin that’s an attorney. She does have some respectable but not famous relatives. I never understood why she didn’t invite them. Maybe because she didn’t invite her dad? What about her mother’s extended family? Are there none? Just odd to me that she didn’t invite absolutely anyone except her mother. Are they not famous enough?<<<
I think Meg didn't invite any of her family members apart from her mother for any combination of the following:
1. She is not actually on speaking terms with any of her family members/they all hate her and the feeling is mutual. She embarrassed her uncle the ambassador pretty badly after he pulled strings to get her the internship at the Argentinian embassy, which according to reports she failed to finish, and get involved in a sexual affair with an older local dignitary in a sugar daddy 'L'Amant' kind of situation. I'm sure it wasn't PG-rated, either. Then she failed the foreign service test. I doubt anyone in Buenos Aires has anything good to say about Meg.
2. Her family isn't photogenic enough. Maybe her African-American aunts are too fluffy. We see how the white relatives dress and groom themselves. They wouldn't take acceptable pictures, except for Doria who is petite and docile enough to be styled according to Meg's specifications.
3. Way too many family skeletons might have gotten out in the context of free talk after a few too many drinks at the reception. Exactly how many husbands has Meg had before Harry? How many men? Has she ever managed to finish a job? Ever gotten arrested for drug use? Is the girl she refers to as her niece actually the baby she gave birth to in high school? Did she actually graduate from Northwestern? Are there porn videos out there starring her? Just so, so many things Meggsy wants to keep a lid on. Keeping an ocean and a continent between her present and her past has been her strategy. That plus a lot of heavy-handed legal threats.
4. Maybe it's a simple as everything which does not feed Meg's narrative of herself as a glamorous celebrity/Earth Goddess/Savior of the Woke World is 'Out of Sight/out of Mind' for Meg. She basically completely forgets about people once they are no longer useful to her on an everyday basis to advance herself. So they didn't get invites to the wedding because she's deleted all their contact information and completely forgotten about her own family. Clearing the decks.
Let's face it--the evidence is overwhelming that beyond a couple of college girlfriends who are willing to be seen with her in public, Meghan has no friends or relatives with whom she's maintained contact. If Doria had been white, I doubt she'd have been invited, either. You'd think her best friends, her Wimbledon companions, would have been invited to be bridesmaids . . but both are plus-sized and Meghan wouldn't have liked those optics.
Such are my theories. The wedding was like a play, starring Her Royal High-ness, the Duchess in her own Mind . . but it lacked authenticity from start to finish. It looked just as staged and fake as it was. Sadly for Haz, the wedding vows were real enough. After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury presided. Shame on him. As a man of the church, he ought to recognize a fraud when he sees it, never mind actively putting his ecclesiastical stamp on a big fat lie. I don't have much use for Mr. Welby.
@Raspberry Ruffle, I agree about the non-working royals, that's why I pointed out Zara, who is a private citizen, but William was not happy about it. To me, Zara would have every right to make money anyway she saw fit that would not embarrass the family. And I don't think the more senior royals would merch or take free merchandise, but I do believe they would stay at someone's vacation home or take their private jet (freebies), like Andrew and Harry have done.
Will and Kate have also borrowed private jets (like for Pippa's hen do and the "boys ski weekend" right before Commonwealth Day a few years ago.)
There is also no “irrefutable proof” Meghan was a prostitute lol. As if.
Also, the wedding tiara was very very real.
At any rate, we must be in a dearth for topics if we are going back over trivial wedding things like the gasp white dress. I’m have known many brides who have been married outside the church who wore white for their eventual second marriage but first in a church.
Harry’s recording for the display says: ‘Every girl’s dream is to be able to try on a tiara and, funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best, the one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn’t have really been there, but an incredible loan by my grandmother, it was very sweet.’
Jewellery
The veil was held in place by Queen Mary's diamond bandeau tiara, lent to The Duchess by The Queen. The diamond bandeau is English and was made in 1932, with the centre brooch dating from 1893.
Andrew but mentions Harry and Meghan. Although nothing shocking we haven’t discussed before in these blogs it’s still a nice summary.
https://blindgossip.com/the-rules/#more-99515
I wanted to expand just a touch on my initial post concerning some members of the BRF and extended branches/hangers on like the Spencer's and how it seems as their lives are one long keeping up with the Joneses. While it might seem they earn their money legally. It would be nice if they truly did some true charity work by helping others instead of themselves.
I truly enjoy posting and reading others opinions..Thank you...
1. I attended a wedding where it was her second and his third. My friend didn't have a white wedding the first go around and insisted on white dress, attendents, etc. She looked silly. If you're going to invest in the symbolism, IMO, you do NOT get to cherry pick the protocol. The simple choice of an off-white dress would have silenced many critics. Perhaps it is unfair, but there are so many clips of her simulating sex acts in her career that the white dress with the mile-long train made her look like a fool. Compare this to what Camilla wore when she married Charles: a gorgeous suit that was completely spot on for an older woman getting married for the second time (in a church as was her first marriage). No matter how much she often acts like she's eighteen with the giggling and hand clapping, Ms. Markle will never see twenty-five again.
2. This lack of common sense that dogged this wedding keeps manifesting itself two years out. She did her level best to add fuel to the rumor that she's a narc grifter who stalked Harry over the course of a year with the end goal of a wedding ring. Her guest list included, what, five people that she knew personally> The rest were celebrities who she'd met maybe once if then. Throw another log on that fire of raging rumors Harry was her one-way ticket to expensive clothes, jewelry, and hobnobbing with celebrities that four years ago would have cut her dead. Do you really think Beyoncé would have given her even a single glance had she not been clutching Harry's arm?
3. She didn't invite her trailer-trash relatives at her wedding because she was concerned their uncouth ways would ruin her day. This is difficult to parse when she is consistently clueless socially and tries to pass off her constant fashion faux pas as being chic and modern. It's not chic to attend a wedding wearing a blouse unbuttoned to the point where one's bra is completely visible. Or visiting a mosque and arranging a head scarf so that one's hair is exposed in violation of religious custom.
The point I'm making is that this wedding was the initial salvo in a series of major appearances/gaffes that highlight her refusal to accommodate ANY social protocols. She's not bucking royal protocol so much as she's feeding her ego. I wouldn't wear a black blouse unbuttoned to the point where other guests could see my bra. Would you? Would you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a single outfit when you know that the economic situation in Britain was uncertain due to the Brexit confusion? This is sheer vanity topped by wanton stupidity.
Her vanity and outright greed constantly overwhelm basic common sense. That wedding exposed Ms. Markle for who she is. THAT is why people on this blog talk about her wedding over and over again, because it has relevance to her current behavior. She used to live in a world where it was perfectly acceptable to pass out joints as party favors at her first (second?) wedding, and many of her peers were also simulating sex scenes. She married into a world where let's just say this behavior wasn't acceptable. She thought she'd marry Harry, gain immediate notoriety and fame, and it would be Christmas every frigging day! She'd just indulge in her previous lifestyle but with much better shoes, jewelry, and all the bespoke clothes she couldn't afford before when she was Meghan the Actress. Now that she's Meghan the Duchess, she can't reconcile these two worlds, and, indeed, I don't think she wants to. She wants all the perks of being royal by virtue of her wedding vows and the freedom of being an actress. If being a duchess were a job, I'd have fired her ass months ago. She was given lots of time to learn the ropes. Instead she doubled down and did everything possibly to alienate her in laws: flaunting her cleavage at solemn events, the on-going merching, the scheduling of events to showcase HER. I did this. I did that. I. I. I. Her inner narc is calling the shots. As it did at her wedding.
I loved Camilla’s wedding outfit, but 1) she was in her late 50s (?) with grown children 2) she had a first marriage in church as you noted and 3) had a civil ceremony and then a church blessing, so I don’t think the two can be compared.
Plus, Saint Diana the virgin wore ivory (nearly tan) wedding dress, so 🤷🏼♀️
Second time commenting, I don’t think this has popped up in here yet...
Just saw this regarding a Berry Merry Christmas special,
https://m.eonline.com/news/1103610/watch-kate-middleton-awkwardly-shrug-off-prince-william-s-pda
Perhaps some negative publicity for the Cambridge’s being paid for by MM?
We didn’t actually except MM to just accept the quite lovely and positive tv special did we? Haha
MM must have watched it a thousand times to look for something she could “use” against the Cambridge’s.
I don’t condone her Father for the staged photos (it was an atrocious idea), but he was abandoned in every sense. A palace adviser would have ensured he was made aware of what to expect and do, it’s seems clear to me that he had no official guidance, no outfit supplied by the royals, this wouldn’t have happened if he had been invited.
I saw the real Meghan during her engagement interview. Meghan’s family were right about her, they’ve always been right about her.
@MLRoda, what a lovely message! Come back soon. ;o)
All the children looked sallow and ghostly in the clothes she chose for them.
@tatty, that quote from Harry about the tiara might prove that the tiara was real. I don't believe that the Queen would say no to Meghan if she asked to borrow jewellery because she's too polite. I actually suspect Meg actually prefers to wear loads of small, tatty jewellery that shows how she supports female designers or impoverished women or ethically sourced this/that. To me, Meghan is cut from the same cloth of people who need to show off Louis Vuitton logos or Patek Philippe watches - those kind of people are insecure and need to broadcast constantly to others what kind of person they are by the things they buy. It's very materialistic in my book. Also, Harry's quote pretty much shows that Meg was over the moon to try on tiaras, despite writing in her blog that she rather be breaking glass ceilings as Princess Power or whatever drivel an aging actress would write despite having never merited or earned a place at any corporate table. If they were so in love and Meg was such the selfless, caring, pure humanitarian and strong feminist as her PR forces us to hear, would the tiara receive the focus "as every girl's dream"? We didn't hear William say that it was Kate's dream to wear a tiara at their wedding...
I don’t know what her designer and seamstresses were smoking when they nodded their heads ‘yes’ saying that huge veil with the Commonwealth flowers would look good with her dress. Any decent seamstress would have told her that the longer the veil the longer the dress needs to be. Her veil did not drape properly and looked like a web of toilet paper dragging on the floor. The dress highlighted her lack of any fashion sense.
Oh, I'm sure they told her. Then no doubt she informed them that she was a star, knew what she was talking about, and they would just shut up and sew. And so they did.
Re. Tiara-gate
>>>that quote from Harry about the tiara might prove that the tiara was real. I don't believe that the Queen would say no to Meghan if she asked to borrow jewellery because she's too polite.<<<
Except when confronted by blatant rudeness to the level of One's grandson roaring at One, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!" To which One replies, "Meghan gets the tiara she is given by me." Her Maj was not steam-rolled over the matter of the tiaras. Her Wokeness *wanted* the Vladimir emerald tiara, lately worn by Her Majesty at the diplomatic reception. This is very typical of Meghan's tacky, grasping aesthetic, because the Vladimir is easily the most showy and ornate tiara in the collection of which I am aware--and the only royals to wear it have been Queens--surely not the divorced, American showgirl bride of the pouty grandson who's a distant seventh in the pecking order.
If I can be honest, I heartily dislike that tiara; it's very very over-the-top for me (which is why Megs digs it so much). If it weren't comprised of top-quality stones, gold and top-notch jeweler's craft, I'd call it 'gaudy'. It's too expensive to be gaudy so I will stop at 'much too ornate for a peasant like me'. I prefer the smaller and more delicate tiaras. I liked the Grenville worn by Eugenie, and I liked the Queen Mary, until I saw Meg wearing it . . or at least, what we were encouraged to believe was the Queen Mary. There has been no small dispute by various people who have studied Meg's wedding video minutely that the tiara she was wearing displayed subtle differences to the actual thing and did not sparkle appropriately for being genuine diamonds but more in the manner of crystals.
The Vladimir tiara would have in no way whatsoever complemented Meghan's dress and would have looked ridiculous on her, but as the biggest, glitziest piece in the collection, of course that's the one Meg felt herself entitled to wear.
If Meghan were given a replica of the Queen Mary to wear as a chastisement over her egregious lack of respect to the Queen over the matter of her wedding tiara in the first place, I'd call that a suitable punishment. If this were the case, pretending that the replica was the real thing is what I would expect everyone concerned to do, to preserve appearances. Why should the Queen have suffered verbal abuse at the hands of her grandson and his fiancee and then still let Meghan have one of the most famous Crown jewels to wear before the world? The Queen Mary is exceptionally well-known--more so than the one Meghan had her black little heart set on. As her grandmother's favorite piece, it must be very close to the heart of the Queen. I hope that Meg wore the replica, because I don't like the thought of the Queen Mary tiara touching her ratty wig; the piece is somewhat spoiled if that's the case.
A picture of this year's Christmas card. Very cute.
Seriously, what is up with the Harkles? To not attend any of the royal Xmas events? Any of them? We know they think nothing of flying across the Atlantic at will - carbon footprints are for the peasants - so you'd think they'd try to be seen at at least one of the events. It's not like Meghan has a huge range of family and friends she's dying to see in America. And for Harry, the queen's grandson, to be entirely absent during his son's first Christmas?
Something is very very wrong. Quite what it is though, I can't figure out.
have turned up something? It is very very strange.
On that note: I agree it’s quite obvious now that something is seriously amiss with regard to Prince Harry. Mental health break? Which could include substance abuse treatment, though I have resisted believing or speculating that he had a serious drug/alcohol issue (I know many believe that he does, and I suppose he could have been able to stay high functioning to a point). Or is he this pissed at his family thanks to his wife’s easy work of brainwashing and isolating him? I really don’t know but I am sad for the Queen, flawed human that she is. I deeply admire her but believe she has had no idea how to deal with her male offspring.
I am not sure when we will see Harry again, but I pray a permanent break from Meghan is part of this hiatus he is on.
Several of my elderly kin with failing minds have been detained under the Mental Health Act, for either their own safety or that of others. It's a medical decision, with the consent of a close relative or other appropriate agency eg Social Services. The patient has no choice and the police may have to be involved in taking them into care.
Over the years, I've suffered at the hands of a couple of narcs but have managed to hang onto my wits long enough to ask myself `WTF is going here?'then to have fought my way out and built stronger personal boundaries. Yet I can see how easy it would be to slip over the edge into complete breakdown.
I do wonder if the Mental Health Act has been applied here, or is that wishful thinking?
I have 2 GIA classes under my belt, have an extensive jewelry collection and I can assure you that NO jewelry expert has said the tiara was fake. That has only been said by internet conspiracy theorists who have zero knowledge of diamonds.
To suggest that Harry and royal.uk are lying again suggests the queen holds MM as more powerful than she is, making MM once again the. Most powerful woman in the world (tm). She isn’t. She doesn’t have grand information that will take down the monarchy. Do you honestly believe she didn’t get an extensive background check before she married in?
As for the tiara, I think Meghan wore the real deal. Probably was told before hand that if anything hinky went on she’d go immediately to jail for life without parole. I don’t think she was left alone with it and I think the Queen was attempting to welcome her to the family and to teach her what an appropriate tiara was for the occasion.
Do I believe that she demanded the giant green tiara her Majesty wore to the state banquet? Oh yes for sure because she is tacky and gaudy and has zero sense of style and also would’ve demanded it. Harry has long been known for tantrums so probably did make a fuss with gam gam. The palace played it off in years past as him being cheeky or mischievous but the truth is he’s a spoiled rich man who is rarely had anyone say no to him. Notice also Meghan and Harry did not include this is their lawsuit so it’s likely very true. Once again, they never should’ve started the lawsuit because now we all know she demanded the giant green tiara and Harry said “What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.” Karma at its best! Thankfully the queen had the sense to say she would get the Tiara she is given by me.
@Tatty I hadn’t thought of a trial separation from the royal family. That’s possible. Atleast to the public anyway.
You and I disagree on certain aspects of the whole Markle saga, but I always endeavor to be honest about my feelings, and I endeavor to be as honest as I can be about the facts as I know them. Given that so many verifiable facts about Meghan's pre-Royal history and her relationship/actions within her marriage family over the last two years remain shrouded in mystery/discretion for us mere mortals not ingratiated into Royal circles, I concede that we often indulge in rampant speculation about the bits and pieces we do receive, myself included.
For instance, I have no hard proof that Meghan is a known prostitute, so I will withdraw the 'known' bit and substitute 'suspected' instead. We do have photos, some posted by herself on her own blog(s), that show her consorting on yachts with other nubile young women. Hired as decorative entertainment by the wealthy and powerful men who own these yachts, what they actually agreed to do, physically, for financial compensation remains open to conjecture, but I strenuously doubt that these young women were hired solely to decorate the decks in their bikinis and nothing more. Certainly no Bible study or anything like it was going on aboard. Meghan does have a history of attaching herself to men in order to get them to pay for things for her, and her moral center seems a bit wobbly, so selling sexual favors seems like it could certainly be in her wheelhouse, but I have no proof.
I'm no jewelry expert, and the conjectures that Meg's wedding tiara was a replica that I've come across were not posted by any 'official' experts as you say, though several posters do identify themselves as jewelry makers in their own right. I had a crash course in diamonds when I sold fine jewelry one holiday season, but not enough to decree with authenticity about whether Meg's tiara sparkled appropriately. But by questioning the tiara's provenance, I'm not attributing power to Meg but rather to Her Majesty in being the sole decider about who gets which royal tiara or any at all regardless of the tantrums thrown by family members or those just questing to marry in. Her Maj is in her 10th decade, has survived Luftwaffe bombs falling on London and 13 Prime Ministers. I don't think her creampuff enough to flinch in the face of Meghan's demands. Being given the Queen Mary tiara to wear on her wedding day was frankly an honor which Meghan did not deserve if reports of her conduct leading up to the wedding (flipping out over egg in a dish; having Harry yell at his grandmother on her behalf for emeralds . . .I do not believe that *these* items are in the list of disputed stories in the DM which are under her lawsuit, so one can only assume these ones are true.
I take glee in disparaging Meghan, 'tis true and I do not deny it. Perhaps some of the stories we hear about her have been unfairly embroidered. She could help her own cause by being more transparent about her own doings and not obfuscating events under her 'privacy' mantra. Despite her recent award as "The Most Unfairly Treated Person in Britain in 2019', I find the mass of unflattering stories about the Duchess of Sussex to be overwhelming; surely they can't ALL be manufactured? There are simply not enough anecdotes supporting Meg's narrative of herself as the good, kind, woke, hard-working Duchess to balance things out in her favor and such as we have ring as inauthentic to me.
I genuinely wanted to like Meghan and for her entry into the Royal family to be a success. I did like her for a little while and watched every moment of the wedding. I wished the couple well. It was after that that things began to fall apart for Meghan--but even a supporter of hers must acknowledge that she has largely done it to herself. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter a whit whether her tiara was real or a replica on her wedding day--this marriage is built on a sham foundation and isn't going to last. In that light, a fake tiara would have been appropriate. The Queen keeps her own counsel to spare everyone's blushes, so I would not expect us ever to know from official sources whether a bait and switch was made on Meghan's tiara. Perhaps someday, decades from now, when Her Maj is safely gone and the Sussex marriage is dissolved, some staffer will write a juicy tell all. I plan to read such a book when and if it appears.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think we've seen any British royal Christmas cards *officially* yet (including the Cambridge one.) So the Sussexes aren't late. But that weird announcement saying their card was still being "finalized" suggests it will be late or non-existent. Maybe they'll send a New Year's card instead to be more "inclusive?"
Does anyone know whether the royals usually supply a copy of their holiday pics to the press or does the press have to obtain a copy by scouring SM postings?