Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's insistence that she is being hounded by paps in her Canadian hideaway looks a lot like her 2016 claim that she was being hounded by paps in Toronto.
In both cases, it seems likely that Meghan conspired with the photographers, both to obtain publicity and a percentage of the profits from selling the photographs to media outlets. (Meg's mother Doria, father Thomas, and ex-husband Trevor all appear to have done something similar.)
Now the Sussexes have issued a legal warning via their lawyers, Schillings, saying "this type of continual harassment...obviously raises serious safety and security concerns and is causing them considerable distress."
So what is Meg playing at? Does she think that the public can't figure out she's using the paps to boost her profile and merch her yoga pants, baby carrier, beanies, and dog leashes?
Or is she trying to create an incident in order to make the case that the British taxpayers should consider to pay her security expenses? If she is trying to create a "security incident", how far will she go?
Or is she trying to create an incident in order to make the case that the British taxpayers should consider to pay her security expenses? If she is trying to create a "security incident", how far will she go?
Making the wrong people angry
Meanwhile, what does making the pap photographers angry really mean for the Sussexes? Unlike the bad old days of Jackie O and Ron Galella, today's paps don't need LIFE magazine to publish their snaps.
It would be easy for an angry pap to publish unflattering images of the Sussexes - having a fight? holding a doll? co-ordinating a paid pap shot? - directly online without any major media involvement, and then simply direct people there with Twitter. There is no gatekeeper.
It's better to have paps as friends than enemies.
Jesal Parshotam, a young British photographer who was the first to report that Kate was at the hospital to give birth to Prince George, is known for his gallant refusal to take a photo of Kate in labor as she arrived at the Lindo Wing.
Today, Jesal has been tweeting about the Sussex pair. "'Lawyers say there have also been attempts to photograph inside their home using long-range lenses and they accuse the paparazzi of being camped outside the property.' This is a lie!," Jesal tweeted.
"These lawyers always fabricate and use emotive language to win over opinion," Jesal added. "They also syndicate these “private letters” to the press in order to gain media attention and spin the situation into their favour."
In response to another Twitter user's comment that Meg had perhaps arranged the pap shoot without telling Harry, Jesal tweeted "It wouldn’t be the first time a public figure has tipped of the press without members of their family or partners knowing."
What will making an enemy of the paps mean for the Sussexes in the short, medium, and long run?
Comments
In any case, I don't think the legal case will ever happen, it's just them looking for attention as per usual. And even if it did, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as you can have no expectation of privacy when in a public place such as a hiking trail.
Since MM has come on the scene, there was a "hands-off, you're racist" diatribe from Harry, lawsuit against her MoS, lawsuit against Splash, now another lawsuit against Splash.
CB whipped themselves into a frenzy yesterday defending her, stating the photos were an invasion of privacy, and rejecting any legitimate concern about the way poor Archie was half-tethered and smushed into the carrier. Finally one poster conceded they didn't care even if they were staged photos, "She deserves to be left alone" (I'm paraphrasing).
After awhile THEY begin to look like the problem.
Sorry for the connection, but I remember Casey Anthony complaining (while authorities were still searching for her daughter) that the MEDIA was out to get her.
The days when paps would camp out in front of celebrities' houses in the hope of a pic are more or less gone. In an age when every teenager has a mobile phone camera that can upload high res pics to the web in minutes, there's really not much money to be made from a picture of this or that actress or singer walking to their car or coming out of the gym. That's why most of the 'pap' photos we see are in fact paid for by the subject. I'm almost certain that's the case here too.
Ditto the tabloids. Post Levenson they simply aren't the power they were back in the days of.... yes that's right, Diana. It's all about harking back to Saint Diana being 'hounded' by the paps and her life made a 'misery' by the horrid British tabloids. Like I've said before, these two are just so very tedious and so very tiresome. How is that there are still sentient beings - admittedly fewer and fewer of them by the day - who can't see through their lame act?
That said, i am in agreement with other posters that MM got caught in the act: she was focused on where the camera was for a person unawares. So she is allowing Harry to take the outraged lead, claiming innocence.
Everyone - paps, papers, press, citizens are going to tire of this eventually.
I commend you for your parliamentary correctness in the use of Rachel's newly-demoted style. Comma, no HRH.
'Rachel from Crenshaw' does for me.
Rachel's antics are a ploy for the security, I think, yes. They have probably been informed that Canada refuses to pay and the U.K. has given them a time limit. I wouldn't put it past Rach to pull a Smollett--arrange to have herself 'beat up' for being Black & then, throw in some Princess Anne and make sure she's also 'abducted for ransom'. Whether this will come while they are staying at the current secluded property in peaceable Canada or will come when they go to Jessica's pad in Malibu is anybody's guess--depends on how much longer they can mooch off the Russian tech billionaire.
Thinking of all the mischief which Rachel could potentially get into in terms of plots to prove to her heartless, toxic in-laws just how sorry they are going to be to dare tell her No about anything . . Oy, the royals have a migraine majeure for life. They've kicked her out, but this is far from over. The more desperate she gets, the more reckless and destructive she's going to be. She will only be thinking about all the attention she'll get if she were 'kidnapped' and how they'd have to pay then. I dare her to try it; now that she is a private citizen, she would be brought up on criminal charges for making false allegations and wasting police time.
I want to see Rach in an orange jumpsuit. In GenPop, wouldn't that be fun?
As long as she's freerange in the world, I don't think the BRF is going to have a moment's peace. She's like an unexploded IED.
Her dad sounds so sweet, I think the media wasn’t fair with him...
I don’t necessarily have a problem with Sussex posting IG photos of a 2 week old dog charity visit, but then daily mail or whoever takes it and makes 3 stories out of it, which is really showing how the British media loves/hate them.
Thomas Markle lost me when he said it’s time to take care of daddy and something about payback. He is not a sympathetic character to me and never was.
Agree with everything you said. I won't click on tabloid stories anymore and will just read the headlines. I'm not a fan of M and don't want to increase unnecessary media coverage of her.
I was on the fence about Thomas Markle but he seems like a jerk.
They do not appear to understand this would result in a huge animosity among the press and open both Harry and Markle to accusations of press manipulation.
The coverage from not included will turn hostile. Look at Pierce, he never denied she ghosted him and that is why he is so openly critical.
When I worked in the press office the rule number one hammered down into us was "Never lie to the media, never try to manipulate them. You will lose and will be manipulated yourself"
The US Press will not put up with an "exclusive access club".
Neither H or M had to deal with a situation like this. H got a pass from the press and M was never famous enough for the press to pay attention to her.
The entertainment press enjoys battering the egos of pretentious people. Witness the coverage of Goop.
Checkbook Charles needs to put a stop of this nonsense. Harkles are very wealthy with Harry’s inheritance and Meg’s TV money. The British tax payers should not pay for their security.
You're correct in that the Telegraph piece says "the publication of the images in Britain may fall foul of the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s (IPSO) Code of Practice", which would mean that The Sun, which published them first, might face sanction.
But the letter appears to have been sent to pap agencies as well. "At the weekend, a letter was circulated among paparazzi in North Saanich the sleepy village on the British Columbian island where they spent their seven-week sabbatical over Christmas," according to the Telegraph.
Backgrid and Splash took the photos, and "Sources close to the celebrity picture agencies, which are both based in Los Angeles but have photographers based around the world, insist that the Duchesses’ bodyguards were aware the latest pictures were being taken in a public place. "
The agencies aren't going to take the blame for the Sussexes so-called invasion of privacy.
Just like when Harry sued them (apology, "undisclosed" cash settlement) for taking ariel photos of their home in the Cotswolds and they were "forced" to move into Buckingham Palace.
I see a pattern here.
I think I prefer the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton.
I simply cannot see how they have a case here, not that I'm a legal expert or anything. A park is without doubt a public place, so no 'privacy' to 'invade'. Yes, there is a child involved, but you can't see his face and if you could it would be blurred out anyway. The photogaphers aren't in her face or harassing her.
Celebrities are photographed out and about every day, often with their children. Even if the photos are not a set-up - which I doubt - it's very hard to see what case the Harkles have here.
I must say. She looked less than pleased.
He almost took her arm off shaking her hand. Lol.
Maybe it's to create the illusion they are big celebrities, when in reality no media are following them around because no one really cares about them.
Would be interesting to see proof of how many pictures have been taken of the duo that were papped vs. event shots. And then which papped shots were actually set up by MM.
As poppycock said on the last post......’I still think they'll crash and burn before spring.’
I’m hoping this turns out to be mostly if not all true, look at them already. Barely 2 weeks since this tsunami hit and people are catching on fast on what they’re up to.
I’m very tired of reading about them in the press and I know of so many that share the same sentiment. 😬
Spring is officially 2 months away, but we have 3 months of the season. So much can happen between now and the end of Spring. 😏🤔
I've read some of what Charles said, but you are right. Anyone taking on a public stance on climate change is opening up the door to scrutiny on their own carbon footprint. One article made note that Charles came to Davos on a private jet. Ricky Gervais' Golden Globe monologue was a big hit here in the US because he said exactly what people are thinking.
By Camilla Tominey, Associate Editor
'From a media perspective they are now fair game, without the palace to protect them.'
With the ashes of the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ royal career still smouldering, the Duchess of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales were hard at work today.
Kate was continuing to roll out her survey on early years learning as part of a 24-hour tour of the UK while Charles was in Davos meeting Greta Thunberg (what, before Harry and Meghan?).
While the royal mother-of-three was pitching to fix a generation, and the future king was trying to save the world, the Sussexes decided to release two-week old photographs of Meghan at an animal welfare charity.
The timing once again pitted Sussex against Cambridge (and Wales) in an inevitable sign of things to come.
While low resolution Instagram snaps might prove a useful distraction for now, will interest quickly wane once Harry and Meghan get stuck into Canadian life?
I wouldn’t bank on it. In the immediate aftermath of the Sussexes’ swift exit from the Firm, interest in what the couple does next remains at feverpitch. Hence the paparazzi waiting outside their Vancouver Island home.
But here’s the rub. If Harry and Meghan are truly determined to turn their backs on Britain and make a go of it in North America, then they are liable to suffer more intrusion, not less.
While there is no doubt the couple has an impregnable support base across the pond that may soon dwarf their popularity in the UK to the point of irrelevance, US media outlets are going to demand their pound of flesh.
As the couple’s lawyers, Schillings, were busy issuing legal warnings to the British newspapers which ran the paparazzi pictures of Meghan and Archie walking the dogs down a woodland trail, American broadcasters were happily reporting on the story. All while illustrating their packages criticising the ‘intrusive’ UK press with the very images and footage the couple have complained about.
This poses two problems for Harry and Meghan. It not only opens them to accusations of double standards, but leaves them even more exposed than they were in Windsor. The paparazzi and major US networks are already treating the Sussexes the same as other celebrities. They might still be called Duke and Duchess, but from a media perspective they are now fair game, without the palace to protect them.
Let’s not forget that these paparazzi are from LA-based picture agencies – not British. And they show no sign of downing tools, despite the couple’s complaints about being ‘stalked’ and ‘besieged’. The bigger the market in America, the greater the need for pictures – which is going to make it even more difficult for Harry and Meghan to balance their desire for privacy with their need for publicity.
What makes this whole situation even more interesting is that characteristically introverted William and Kate, who were previously averse to being centre of attention, have now been thrust well and truly in the spotlight. While they may not be able to compete Stateside with the Sussexes (could the palace now be regretting letting them keep the titles?), it might actually suit them for Harry and Meghan to do the showbiz stuff – it may have the effect of making them look even more high brow.
If I was in charge of the Oscars right now, I’d be sending out invitations to both couples. Could either resist the opportunity to test their approval rating on the reddest carpet of all? Moreover, which double act would get top billing? I’m beginning to think the answer to that question might decide the fate of the monarchy into the 21st century.
Backgrid and Splash took the photos, and "Sources close to the celebrity picture agencies, which are both based in Los Angeles but have photographers based around the world, insist that the Duchesses’ bodyguards were aware the latest pictures were being taken in a public place. "
The agencies aren't going to take the blame for the Sussexes so-called invasion of privacy.
Woo Woo ( grabs popcorn) to watch the Sussexes vs the Paps.
I also read version where a pap said there have been many occasions where family members don't know that another member called the paps.
If I was in charge of the Oscars right now, I’d be sending out invitations to both couples. Could either resist the opportunity to test their approval rating on the reddest carpet of all? Moreover, which double act would get top billing? I’m beginning to think the answer to that question might decide the fate of the monarchy into the 21st century.
Camilla Tominey’s editor should have red-pencilled this paragraph. It’s stupid.
‘If I was in charge of the Oscars right now, I’d be sending out invitations to both couples. Could either resist the opportunity to test their approval rating on the reddest carpet of all? Moreover, which double act would get top billing? I’m beginning to think the answer to that question might decide the fate of the monarchy into the 21st century.’
I wonder which couple Camilla Tominey thinks would win the ‘approval rating’? 😐 Because I found it a rather odd for her to write that, it’s not about that. 😲
I used to work in the corporate world and if I had this level of resignations (sooner or later someone is going to work out the percentage), even though I had a story to explain away each and every one, I would be in a disciplinary hearing and have a letter of warning pretty darn promptly. It is ironic that the very institution and family that she is now dissing has shielded her from the consequences of her and her husband's toxic behaviour:
https://66.media.tumblr.com/c91e1089525026f863a1a9df43b4b467/bcd47bc71696fc46-08/s400x600/3bc80c6649d772e54ca2283ec0fb1db595a9a80f.png
Megsy is all about optics. She admitted so when she said in the interview that basically she wanted that photo op with Arch Tutu for the history books.
We live in an increasingly narcissistic world played out in a virtual reality that is all about optics and self image. Characteristics such as service, dedication, respect, honour and so on (the qualities that the British monarchy try to project and protect) have no place in this brash new world, for which Harry and Megsy are textbook cases.
I feel sorry for Megsy because she is so limited by her pathological narcissism, to the extent of being stuck in a trap. I feel sorry for Harry because he is a prisoner of his sore spots and weaknesses of character. (Megsy went straight for those tender spots and poked and prodded until they became wounds again.)
Personally, I think wild conspiracy theories and absurd gossip catch fire and spread because there is a natural distrust of the stories being pushed by the media ... they are a sign that critical independent thought is questioning the kool aid. Ultimately the only way to deal with this is to be open and honest and real (genuine, authentic). Megsy and Harry are not open and honest and real and genuine and authentic about anything, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously, and their dishonesty goes way beyond what is reasonable for privacy.
Her fans claim that the paps were 'hiding in the bushes' so that Meghan and her RPOs wouldn't have noticed them. Even if you believe that, you'd have to ask how the paps managed to get so far ahed of her, on a random park trail, without her or any of her highly trained security detail noticing.
Thank you and I agree!
Since they very publically announced their intention to have the taxpayers fund their security - costing millions a year - and to continue representing the British crown then actually they kinda do have to answer to the British people.
But since Oprah is so adamant that they don't need to answer to anyone, I assume she wont' be pushing for an exclusive interview? After all, the Harkles don't have to answer to anybody, do they?
Oh Omid!You are going to be ghosted next. The second she realises the middle-aged, naive ingenue act isn't fooling anyone you'll be blamed. It doesn't matter that you've been fed this narrative, it's going to be all your fault.
Let's just call this how it likely was shall we? She squandered the period of grace by stomping in (no waltzing for her indooors) and assuming that her own perception of herself would just be bought. Despite her actions, attitude and general behaviour. I have to admit to being awestruck by her self-regard!
The thing that amazes me most about all of this is that she was a struggling actor for many years. Those Hallmark movies indicate many failed casting calls. I find it difficult to believe that she hasn't watched herself on repeat. Surely ther was some critique? Yet she still thinks she can act! Rach, you are NOT good at this. Your doe-eyed, aw shucks, they're so mean schtick is laughable and frankly quite, quite sad at this point.
Give up the Diana thing Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor, it was a laughable concept from its inception. It's now revolting.
She always trips herself up with details though. She looks down at Archie lovingly (for the camera) but he is not looking at her because his face is shoved up against her body (what 8.5-month old would tolerate this?) and he hangs from her body at an odd angle. She comes across as a mother who is not connected to her child because she is so focused on herself.
The iconic photograph worth gold would have been of Archie being held level with her face and mother and son looking at each other with real connection and baba bouncing and squealing in delight (which he would do at his age) at being taken for a walk.
Is Megsy hiding her real self from the world (assuming she does have a loving connection with Archie) or does she just not have that connection with her son (and there has been no evidence in the few photographs we have that Harry has that connection either)?
I think Megsy and Harry need some intensive counselling sessions about connecting lovingly and fully with their child because their strange behaviour is just feeding the idea that she is carrying a doll for the photo op.
I really liked the part where they're coming down the path, HRH stops, turns, and obviously tells the protection officers to take off their hats. Which they do. She's not just a fledgling Executive Producer, Writer, Lighting Director, Thespian Extraordinaire, she's got the costume design covered too!
But, PAPS! So intrusive!
Standing several paces behind, one of them on his mobile, while their 'principle' juggles a baby and not one but two dogs.
Either Scotland Yard's most highly trained police protection officers aren't up to much, or the Duchess didn't want them to ruin the photo. I know which I believe.
It's quite funny now that it has been pointed out! LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x55j0GhB4Ak
But what Meghan wants...
As long as Doria shuts up, Meghan can maintain a facade, but there have been glimpses of the real Doria. She tried to control her father with threats, which was a huge mistake and the only way she saw for her to control the damage was to ghost him.
One does not have to be good for the other to be bad.
The Queen has got a lot of criticism for not ghosting her son, Andrew, but unlike Megsy, they keep the miscreants in the family in the fold (the Queen even maintained a relationship with Edward and Wallis, who changed her destiny). Andrew had to face his consequences by stepping down from a public role (and his daughters were collateral damage) and face the looming threat of some kind of prosecution/interrogation, but ousting him, ghosting him, was never an option. That is what Meghan has never understood about the 'family she never had', and many critics also do not.
@ Ava C. Many, many thanks for your most helpful tips, as you can see, it worked.
I would have posted my thanks to you earlier but found that another post was coming up and didn't want this post to be lost on the previous site so I hope you will forgive my apparent rudeness.
At this moment in time, I have just one thing to say about the Markle. I have always abhorred someone lashing out physically but especially when a woman is on the receiving end. However, I shall make one exception to this life-long rule of mine.
I long for the day to come when the Markle is having a first-class, screaming tantrum and throws something (a pot of hot tea, perhaps) and her intended target gives her an almighty slap round the chops, so hard as to make her veneers rattle, her wig fall off and her to fall base over apex (or a*se over t*t, whichever you prefer).
That person would receive my utmost gratitude and would be remembered in my prayers for the rest of my life. But what are the chances?
It made me sad too, a softly spoken man abandoned by his daughter, left without assistance and advice from the palace, only to be preyed upon by opportunist journalists. He was vulnerable to vultures. 😟I’m not sure I quite agreed with him saying at the end that Meghan, Harry and the royals all owe him. 😯I fully understand how he must feel, but I don’t think that put in him the greatest light. Agree, no winners here, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say at the court case; Markle v Markle. 😕
Thomas Sr. came across as sincere, contrite, and very upset. He knows he made mistakes, but he also points out, he had no guidance or advice whatsoever from Buckingham Palace. If his court appearance is anything like he appeared tonight, Meghan and Harry don't have a hope.
They couldn't do that. Royal account books are made public.
The reason taxpayers fund their security is because RPOs are a branch of the Met Police and they are publicly funded. However, now that the Harkles are no longer royal, do not have diplomatic status and do not represent the monarchy, I see no reason they should get full armed police protection. They're celebrities now. Why not do as other celebrities do and hire private security staff? Why do non-royal wannabes need full police protection?
https://twitter.com/JeremyVineOn5/status/1219944778743394304
I still feel sorry for Thomas and I don't blame him for getting a 10% cut out of this production but I don't think he should have said that Meg, Harry and the Royals all owe him.
I guess that's a mixture of hurt & anger getting the better of him. :(
I'm assuming Scotland Yard RPOs will continue to protect them until the 'transition' but it's still very uncertain what will happen after that. All we know is that their security arrangements are 'under review' and ultimately it will be up to the govt to decide. Given public anger over reductions to police staffing in Britain, it would be a brave move to say they are going to spend millions indulging the lifestyle choices of ex royals by having taxpayers fund their security. We shall see.
I have seen may comments speculating about H&M’s “millions,” but I believe I have read that H only has access to the interest on his trus(sorry did not record link), and M probably has zilch left, if she ever even had one million.
I believe that’s why they are so desperately panicked for others ( “Cashpoint Charlie”, taxpayers, Canada or other entities) to pay for their security.
I have seen may comments speculating about H&M’s “millions,” but I believe I have read that H only has access to the interest on his trus(sorry did not record link), and M probably has zilch left, if she ever even had one million.
I believe that’s why they are so desperately panicked for others ( “Cashpoint Charlie”, taxpayers, Canada or other entities) to pay for their security.
I'm always impressed by the how just when I think it cannot get crazier, then something happens which is unexpected and throws down a whole nother layer of crazy.
I have nothing against millionaires, billionaires, etc. Their money is not my money, and as long as the money was made honestly, almost all Americans believe in the American dream, that anybody can be rich, a SEAL, medical doctor and an astronaut by age 35, married with children - everything a Korean family worked towards for their amazing son to achieve only in Murica.
Charles should shut his trap. How dare a person, who is paid by taxes, ask for more taxes? More taxes for Harry)s Private Jets, mansions in North America? Hey, Chuckie Boy, just shut up, please. Do not give a penny or a pence towards middle aged children your taxpayers have to support. The taxpayers who cannot take polluting vacations, drive huge polluting luxury SUV, or heat dozens if palaces.
Exactly! Hence all of the trademarking, copywriting, private, secret photo-ops. I'm trying to wrap my head around how utterly bloody delusional this pair are, but it's hard!
These two vacuous, odious, untalented and charmless "personalities" think they have a "BRAND"?
lolololololol
It's like "The Truman Show - Royal Reboot" It's just that fucking awful.
They are basically Katie Price to me right now.
My reasons are:
1) She is very reactionary - her actions show a distinct lack of long term planning and the ability to predict the consequences of their actions
2) This could solidify her victimhood rhetoric, especially to Haz who seems to have this thing about what happened with Diana and that not happening again
3) A need to regain the sympathy and poularity of the public.
This is only the beginning of the Sussex in exile saga. They will continue to portray themselves as victims. They will continue with their narrative that they forced to leave the royal family and of course use Diana. Will people continue to listen? The media for is still playing along for now, clicks on Sussex articles are still high as are comments.
Will it fizzle out by spring? Lets hope so. Let them live the private life they so desperately crave.
Who will ultimately pay for their security? I think we know it will be the plebs that will pay, in the end we always do.
The drama i this soap opera is only just beginning ...
I am hoping people will say, “God but we are sick of you two”!!!!!!!!!!!! GO AWAY....FAR! FAR AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like others I found the Thomas Markle programme sad. No one comes out of it well, but I would say he seems the most forgivable, if that is the word.
He spoiled his case with some unfortunate turns of phrase, such as being owed, or cheap digs like being better looking in his youth than Harry. Yet this was because he was being human, without artifice or calculation. If the case reaches court, this should stand him in good stead given his daughter is so much the opposite.
However, he could easily be tied up in knots due to his repeated admissions of lying. They were relatively small lies, certainly not sufficient to merit being abandoned by his daughter, but they didn't play well.
Every time I see clips of the young Meghan she puts my back up. I keep telling myself she's just a child there, but she seems to have the wrong values and be very much a smart aleck, which is a capital offence in Britain! Her acting was excruciating. Way below the school plays and amateur dramatics I've seen in my time. How she got to do Theatre at Northwestern I'll never know.
1. I agree with Nutty regarding the silly line in the above cited article regarding how the Cambridges and Dumbartons should both be invited to the Oscars and see who gets top billing. This is silly and reinforces a false "popularity" concept. The Cambridges will be monarch and spouse, the Dumbartons will not. It doesn't matter who has more Instagram likes, that's what it will be.
2. I agree with a commenter above (Holly?) regarding a possible reason for Meg's fighting with the paps. Trying to get attention and proclaim popularity (the paps care about us!) where it did not exist before, and doesn't even exist now.
3. Megxit has been used to create attention and try to stir popularity. True. But it doesn't last, when things are over. This is Meg's latest act. What's her next act? A project with Gayle and Oprah? Ok, but Oprah is far, far removed from the height of her popularity. She's on the wane, and stuck with gimmicks much as Meg is herself. Good luck.
4. The media figure Yashar Ali was mentioned here the other day. Never been a big fan, he seems like kind of a goofy gadfly to me. Anyways, someone with even more Twitter followers who has been retweeted by the president himself, a person named Jack Posobiec (no idea who he is), was tearing Meg to shreds in posts maybe a week ago. The point is that for every Yashar Ali there is a Jack Posobiec. Meg has hardly won over the crowd here in the USA.
5. Meg's team has created a series of false narratives in the wake of Megxit. A) She had to leave the royals for the good of Harry; B) she had to leave the royals for the good of Archie; C) she has to instantly merch out and monetize everything so she can be independent financially from the royals. And so on. As we know, the truth is Meg always wanted to seek fame and fortune from becoming a royal. Some rubes will believe these cover stories (royal family as the bad guys), most will not, I don't think.
6. The concept of Meg becoming USA president (as said to an outlet via a Meg friend) is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard. But this ploy is often used as part of a PR strategy for attention. Seen it many times before.
7. Oprah/Gayle coming out in support of Meg seems a clear heads up that a combined project is on. They waited on this, in my opinion, so that their names were not directly attached to negotiations with the royals and a possible charge of disrespecting the queen. They want to be pro Megan but not anti queen. No celebrity wants to disparage the queen, they're smarter than that.
Meg can do a special with Oprah, can sign up with Netflix. Whatever. But she still has to have a reason for people to pay attention to her. Those reasons are fading, contrary to what LA Times editorials or others may say. There is interest now because of the dust up with the royals and because Meg was previously a proper royal. As those things fade, then what? Meg is probably not going to like the answer to that question.
Super long time lurker here, as a web dev/designer I was curious about the website cookies acceptance and Instagram sign up thing since that didn't sound like something that can be done easily. Doing a quick inspection of the code, (anyone can do this on any website in most modern browsers,) I couldn't see anything that suggests that is happening.
I also tested it out by clicking accept on their site while logged into my Instagram account and I'm not followed so I think that's just a rumor. It's way more likely that she's buying followers in blocks. Tons of shady services to do that from rather easily.
I also just wanted to say hi! and Thanks to Nutty and all the Nutties for being my entertainment over the last couple of months during a crappy time you all have been my entertainment, I love to see other seeing past the surface truth/spin!
Canadian people and media are a docile bunch compared to their UK counterparts and Canadians would be more likely to do nothing if they discover that Trudeau had decided to pay for their security. (He was found guilty of two ethical breaches, not to mention the black face, but was still re-elected).
On the other hand, if the uK accepted to pay for the security, there would be noisy complaints from the people and press.
Therefore, I believe that she has concocted this scheme in order to garner sympathy from the Canadian public and from Trudeau.
I am convinced that we Canadians will be paying for this, although we will never know for sure as details will be withheld "for security reasons" and sleepy Canadians will just roll over and pay.
( This whole thing about remaining HRH but not using it was such a fail on the part of the Queen, Charles and possibly William.
I think that the Royal family really tried to play people for fools and tried to get us to believe that the Smirkles were no longer Royal, in order to appease calls from the peasants to cut them off)
It's like "The Truman Show - Royal Reboot" It's just that fucking awful.
They are basically Katie Price to me right now.
LOL
In Chandler Bing speak: Can they GO any lower?
Yes, yes, they can. They seem determined to prove that they can always go lower.
"Thomas Junior added: “She would not be anywhere without him. He paid for her education, car, clothes, rent, bills, spending money at uni. A small fortune and that’s what put her on her way."
Best as I remember when my daughter who is almost the same age as Meghan was born (1980) it cost approx. $145,000 to raise a child to age 17. This did not include private school, as Markle had before college nor all the additional coasts, Tom Jr. included. I would imagine Tom Sr. easily paid over $350,000 for Meghan's cushy upbringing thru college and beyond. That is certainly staggering how Tom Sr. helped his ungrateful daughter.
So dear old Dad did indeed put out a lot of money and can he not expect maybe Meg should help him out at age 73? He is past the date by which US actuaries would say he would be alive, in essence, he is living on borrowed time. I did not see the program so I can't speak to the issue him saying the Royal family 'owes' him, which is not fair (but many wonderful son-in-law are out there that do help their spouse's parent).
I know for myself I would have loved to pay for my parents or take them in but alas, my father turned down my offer of a lung which could have potentially saved his life and my mother wanted independence and didn't accept help from me in any form. But I would like to think my daughter would be there for me if I need it. She inherited wealth from my parents and could afford to help me and so she should. I'm living on borrowed time also. I don't mean that she should give me a bundle of money but maybe taking me in her household would be great.
I think the world would be a better place if we help our parents (regardless if they helped us, but especially so if they did)..
Surely the way Meghan is behaving at the moment will strengthen the Mail's hand. The whole world (those who are still paying attention that is) can see from the hiker baby photos that she's lapping it up. Distress my foot. Has to be planned, or the security would have been in front also.
How does Harry feel about her not only carrying their son badly (yet again) but also exposing him to greater risk than necessary? If security is such a big deal to them, do it properly. At their own expense of course.
I agree with one of the posters above in that I don't understand why this is even a matter for discussion. They are not working royals, therefore their security should not be funded by the public purse. They have chosen to live somewhere that is much harder for security to operate, at much greater expense. Why should we pay for that? I'm glad the Canadians are kicking up a fuss too. No one wants them. Maybe they can go and live on one of Oprah's estates.
Can't get over Harry being effectively homeless, jobless and rootless all at once, less than two years after his wedding. I don't care about him at all, but I do worry about Archie. What are they going to do when he's even bigger? Think how tactile the Cambridge's are with their children. That unforced unthinking affection truly happy families enjoy. That's how we can see William and Kate are truly hands-on parents. You can't get children to fake that.
The only way the Sussex's can deal with that is to only do Hello-style photo shoots in closed environments, so we only see the images they choose to issue. How will that look? Archie will seem like a child in a fairy tale (a proper, dark fairy tale, not Disney) locked up in a tower by a witch.
There was a period of time I thought that Megsy was in on the staged photos with him. Then I realized that wasn’t possible. He kept talking to the press and his hurt and anger was palpable. If she was in on it, he would have spilled that.
I’m really bugged by the comment the he is owed. Maybe by his daughter, but certainly not Prince Charles and the rest of the RF. When Charles walked Megsy down the aisle, he had no idea what the future held. In his mind, his DIL to be was embarrassed on the global stage by her father. He stepped in to help out with no clue of the merde storm known as “Tungsten.” Regardless of his comments today about a green tax, he owes Mr. Markle nothing.
I understand his desire to defend himself and get out his side of the story. I still maintain he’d be better served by dignified silence.
Side note.. I've been hooked on some Hallmark movies lately, and I now see that Meghan thinks that she's in a Hallmark movie again. Her clothes and her hair look exactly like half these women in these movies, especially the robe like coats that she's been wearing lately. Those seem to be all the rage on Hallmark.
Oh, I was reading the comments about the actions of the PPO and photographer(s).
If it is a set up, then someone gets some nice photos. And they get sold.
If really wasn't a set up, we would be seeing some sort of gestures of anger (interpret as you like). And they are not very saleable.
"As I understand it, they are not private citizens when it comes to security since they still retain their HRH, which could make Canada responsible."
Not from what I've read. They aren't in Canada representing The Queen. They aren't there on an official tour. They are there for an extended amount of time for private reasons. So Canada wouldn't have to pay whether they are HRHs or not. That doesn't mean Trudeau won't obligate Canada to pay but I think the retained but not used HRH is immaterial.
I read the article, where Kate is doing a 24 hour tour and I read something about Sparkle visiting an animal charity 2 weeks prior. I was reading some of the comments and they were all the same "why did she wait so long and this is not even relevant". Why does is seem there are more articles about her being misunderstood, and Oprah and Jenna Bush say leave her alone...Oh please.
I actually think the opposite. When Prince Philip dies, British people will harden still further against the Sussexes. As we've said earlier, many still remember Wallis Simpson with hostility, decades after her death. The British public has a long memory. We will remember how Harry treated his 98-year-old grandfather, who is reported to be exhausted after just 10 minutes of being in company. I can barely imagine Harry being at his funeral, in the middle of the family he has abandoned. He would have to be there, and he will then be on the first jet out, private or not.
I hope he lives longer than their marriage.
I watched entertainment tonight for the first time in ages, and about 85% of the program was devoted to the affectionate reunion between Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston backstage at the SAG awards. Toward the end of the hour Here come Oprah and her BFF/closet lover Gayle Together on the street rhapsodizing about the Harkles And their admiration for them making the best decision for their family...Q to second shot of Archie in South Africa again. Both of these women want the Harkled to know Taney support them 1000%. Those are the very words. Memo to Rachel and Harry: these are the only celebrities who are interested in you. So much for being a listers. They have massively overestimated their brand value, because the image they have of themselves might’ve been viable 18 months ago right after the wedding. Not now. They are the human equivalent of toxic waste; Which influential people in show business are going to put their careers in reputations on the line to trumpet the awesomeness of this toxic duo after they’ve humiliated the queen and have two nations in an uproar over having to support their unemployed entitlist asses?
There should be no more discussion… Give them a 90 day transition period to Decide which country they’re going to live in, and find a house which they will pay for themselves. Charles can fund security out of his own pocket, Deducting it from Harry’s allowance. Going forward, they get maybe 1 million from the Dutchy of Cornwall and a million from Charles. On that they must manage, security household expenses and all, with whatever they can scrape together in terms of appearances and merching...On the Harry and Meghan brand alone, not Sussex royal. That’s it, there is no negotiation. Let Rachel stage her own kidnapping if she wants...Her distraught husband can set up a go fund me page and all Meg sugars can donate to it. Let’s see how devoted they Are when they’re shaking down for donations. Maybe the Harkles can start charging for access to their Instagram. Best of luck to you two tossers...Now piss off. On no account should they be invited to the Oscars. Rachel will storm the stage in A ghastly overprice dress and demand to be made a presenter for best actress, or the jewel of the night, best picture. William and Kate are busy at home doing real royal work, And I’m sure the royal patron of the BAFTAs Would not want to send a message that they are only a sad imitation of the Oscars by his attendance. Wouldn’t look good for the carbon footprint either.
Within the opposition parties there is also confusion, with the leader of the New Democratic Party(NDP) stating that he might accept that Canada pays for Smirkle security, while the NDP critic for public safety is saying that Canadians don't want to pay for this.
When asked directly multiple times about the issue, Prime Minister Trudeau refuses to answer.
>> The agencies aren't going to take the blame for the Sussexes so-called invasion of privacy.
There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, therefore there is no invasion of privacy if someone photographs you while in public. You can take pictures all day long of people who are in public places. The response to H's letter should be "sod off!"
It's odd that they are threatening the publisher and not the photographer... my take is that they/she has paps on speed dial and is willing to be photographed for a cut of whatever the photographer is making, or she has her own photographer on retainer and doesn't want other's to get the jump on her, meaning she won't get a cut if the photos of another photographer are published.
She knew they were taking pictures, smiled, and kept walking toward the photographers.
Anyone see the supposed pictures taken inside where they are staying/were staying at Christmas? They have claimed there are pictures of the Christmas tree taken from outside. If through a window and the photographer was in a public place, they don't have a claim.
News bulletin... if you leave the curtains open and someone can see inside from a public place, or even a private place outside your property, you do not have an expectation of privacy. Canada may have a law regarding telephoto lenses, but I have not checked. There is no such law in the US. Close the curtains if you are worried about people peeping in through your windows.
"We have a high reasonable expectation of privacy in the US"
We may have a high expectation but actually may find our expectations aren't that legally enforceable. Often if there are laws, they aren't federal anyway. So it's not a matter of "the US" but depends on the state. For example, look at the variety of state laws re: drones and privacy here https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/drone-laws-by-state.html
Yes Thomas Markle and his family have issues, yes they probably want money/fame/whatever, but it doesn't dismiss what they say as automatically being bad. So watching his interview, I had to constantly remind myself of this because I don't really have a high opinion of him.
As for her mother, I think Doria is playing it smart, I get the feeling sparkles got a lot of her tricks from her mother. She knows it is best to keep her mouth shut and then she can be financially backed by her daughter and the rich family she married into.
Hope that makes sense, I am a bit distracted by work stuff and watching the bushfire alerts around us at the moment - it is a bit scary not going to lie.
It's stalking if you can show a repeated pattern of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others. Celebrities would be monopolizing the police if papperazzi standing outside is considered stalking. Maybe Canada is different. However, if it is a crime for people to stand around outside someone's home, in a public place, don't you think the police would have been called to move them along already?
"non-commercial purposes." Yes, you can take pictures of someone else's home for commercial purposes. Maybe you're a snarky blogger with catty things to say about the ginormous knickers hanging on the line in the front yard (garden.) Ad revenue is everything!
Agree with you totally!! Same goes for Smamantha!! It’s easy to initially dismiss her out of hand because she comes off as a crazy, jealous relative but clearly she warned about Meg’s unsavory motives from the beginning.
Yes I agree with you there Mimi. I've been reading about William's youth after his mother's death and how his father just wanted a quiet life with Camilla and left the brothers to get on by themselves. He doesn't seem to have the stomach for a proper showdown with Harry, even though he supposedly has a spectacular temper. It's probably only experienced by staff.
Equally, money rolls in every year in millions. He can't possibly attach the same importance to it as people working to pay their mortgages. However public opinion about the Duchy of Cornwall seems to be shifting by the day. Charles may not be able to get away with thinking of it as his money much longer, if he continues to indulge the Sussexes.
I honestly thing HMTQ should change Harry and MeAgain to Harry, Duke of Windsor and MeAgain, Duchess of Windsor. I think that would make her point. It would also shut down that God awful "Sussex Royal"! I cringe every time I see or hear those to words!!
It would also shut down that God awful "Sussex Royal"! I cringe every time I see or hear those to words!!
@Blue Kiwi: You’re right. “Sussex Royal” needs to go. They should not be permitted to use “royal,” “royalty” “duke,” “duchess,” “crown,” or any other words or phrases in their branding, including their clintonista-modeled “foundation” that even hints of a connection to the REAL royal family.
From their overall behavior so far, the Harkles do not strike me as a twosome who will stay out of trouble in their business dealings.
Meghan will not take advice, and from the number of resignations they’ve experienced after not even two years of marriage, plus the rumors of Meghan being a difficult and demanding person to work with/for, I don’t see Meghan making a lot of points with business associates and sponsors when she goes full diva on them during a project.
Their behavior, the OTT spending, plus the character of the people they choose to associate with (Russian oligarchs who lend them their BC estate, which could be bugged, or in Andrew’s case Jeffrey Epstein) could reflect poorly on the main royal family and the monarchy.
It isn’t on life support just yet, but it doesn’t need more bad press coverage from two free-range royals running wild on the world stage using a brand name linked to The Firm.
I don't necessarily disagree with what it seems you wrote...but besides 4th amendment issues and actions *by the government,* in the US it pretty much comes down to state law so far as privacy is concerned when non-government entities (like paps) are involved. As I said, people may have "high expectations of privacy" (as @tatty put it), but those expectations often are not legally enforceable because those expectations don't align with state laws. Or as you put it ".. in order to determine what a valid expectation of privacy is in a location, one must look to the relevant constitution and the common law interpretations."
No state extends an expectation of privacy to anyone in a public place. If you go out in public anywhere in the US, anyone can take a picture of you, they can take a picture of your vehicle license plate. You can be videod and have sound recorded of your conversations in public as long as you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No consent is needed to record you ordering your coffee or having a loud meltdown... or walking your dogs in a public park. You may not like the law, but that's the law in every state.
The expectation of privacy in a private place has to be reasonable. If your front window is 10 feet from the sidewalk and any passerby can peer inside, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy unless you close the curtains or blinds, or take some action to prevent those on the sidewalk from peering inside. If you are naked in your living room, with the curtains wide open, engaging in sexual activity that can be seen from the sidewalk, expect someone to record you and have a visit from the police. Even in your home, your expectation of privacy has to be reasonable under the circumstances.
The 4th Am applies to government actors, not private citizens. It's not really applicable to this conversation. Paps aren't government actors.
@Elle - thanks! At the moment we are ok but bags are packed ready to go - between that and the intense smoke it has been a stressful few weeks:(
Here's the Washington definition of place of reasonable expectation of privacy:
"WPIC 43.04 Place of Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy—Definition
A place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy means [a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance] [or] [a place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another]."
Caselaw:
"The court in State v. Glas, 147 Wn.2d 410, 54 P.3d 147 (2002), drew a distinction between the privacy of a person's location and the privacy surrounding a part of the person's body. The court found that the “casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance” language applies to locations where a person may not normally disrobe, but where, if he or she did so, there would be an expectation of a “certain level of privacy. A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned about being photographed, applies to “standard ‘peeping tom’ locations,” including a person's bedroom or bathroom, or a tanning salon."
Notice it says bathroom and bedroom, but not living room.
Voyeurism law in Washington:
What is the law on voyeurism in Washington?
In Washington State, voyeurism is illegal. To convict someone of voyeurism, the prosecutor must prove that person:
* knowingly viewed, photographed, or filmed another person or another person’s intimate areas
* without that person’s consent
* in a place where that person had a reasonable expectation of privacy
* with the purpose of arousing or gratifying a sexual desire
Place where that person had a reasonable expectation of privacy... so if your front window is 10 feet from the sidewalk and you disrobe with the curtains open, your expectation of privacy is unreasonable. However if you are in your bathroom and the window is 7 feet off the ground and the peeper has to come onto your property, get a log to stand on in order to see in, then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing in the law above that prevents photographing or taking video of someone in public or in a private home if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Close your blinds before doing naked yoga in your living room if the neighbors can see in from their deck.
“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 'will pay for their OWN security - but only when they are on commercial jobs' in a Tony Blair-style arrangement”
How generous of them to offer to pay for security when they are out making money. So big of them. Sheesh, what a pair of twits.
@Lurker, that WPI is specific to that issue as is that case. I wasn't arguing voyeurism, and you seem to have taken this personally and gotten a little angry here. I'm not going to spend my night researching it for you or arguing with you. I'll leave you to it. Have a good one.
>>if you read my explanation to Lizzie, you will see that I was speaking to the idea that an expectation of privacy was a legal issue, not an opinion. That was all.
I think I may know what you mean, and attempted to respond in several ways, to come to the conclusion that I don't think I know what you mean or by legal issue you mean factual issue for a jury to decide.
Just ask yourself, would the average person or society as a whole consider the expectation of privacy reasonable. Out in a public park, on a public trail, it's highly unlikely anyone would consider an expectation of privacy to be reasonable. In your home, with the curtains drawn, behind a 8' wall, an expectation of privacy likely exists. We can come up with dozens of scenarios where there would or wouldn't be an expectation of privacy in a private place, even in a home. Smeg +1 are going to push as far as they can to claim even public spaces as their private sphere where they demand privacy.
One of the things that some NDErs as they are called have reported is that in heaven, there is a place where you can go to look in on the events and activities on earth.
If Diana goes to that place, she must be experiencing a number of emotions, including sadness, fury, and shock as she watches her beloved son being sucked down into the swirling vortex of a narcissistic marriage devoid of love.
If she had still been alive, Diana would have had Meghan’s fakery sussed within a minute of meeting her. The relationship would have been nipped in the bud and then Diana would have kicked Meghan’s padded ass so hard she wouldn’t need a plane to fly back to Canada.
- Sussex's Christmas card has been banned;
https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/please-kill-this-photograph-royal-sussex-23423421-news-photo/1190441169
- There was no photo of Sussex on Her Majesty's desk during a Christmas speech;
- Actual lack of photos of Archie;
- Really strange last photos of Megan on a walk with 'Archie' and the dogs. The child looks like a mannequin. Megan smiles like a person under the influence of substances. Bodyguards look like orderlies of a Psychiatric Hospital.
https://twitter.com/saturnxnoir/status/1219620111478210560/photo/1
Maybe this woman is not on Vancouver Island, but in the Intensive Psychiatric Care and is undergoing treatment? May she have a serious mental disorder?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7917865/I-better-looking-Harry-younger-says-Thomas-Markle.html#comments
He really dropped the bomb on his wise-ass daughter Megsy. She can reply or not.
Between the two narratives I will go with Thomas Sr. over Megs any day of the week and I am glad he got paid by ITV. He merched his narrative and got paid! And so glad he did! The old man got paid some money that he can really use at age 75 for medical and other expenses. He looks thinner and healthier than a few years ago.
You think Thomas didn't have to hustle to get his lighting jobs in a very competitive Hollywood! He was on the ball, competent and tens of thousands of his earnings went to pay for Megs private schools and Northwestern University. Paid for her wedding. Thomas pulled strings to get Megs her first acting jobs.
Thomas needed an emotional rescue so he rescued himself today. He let it all hang out, how a wacky and ungrateful daughter screwed him, shunned him, ghosted him. Hopefully this puts a large dent in Meg's North America ambitions.
This whole thing reminds me of what an atty once "explained" to me on this blog. She said that attorneys spend every day fighting passionately for their clients, and I got a serious lol. I guess for some, that's true, but in the US, the majority practice business/corporate law. Lots (most?) never see a courtroom. For some it is about a fight, for others it is about an idea. Just an observation.
https://www.cheknews.ca/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-threaten-legal-action-against-paparazzi-639260/
More inappropriate speeches, more whining, more greediness, more missteps. And coming faster and faster too. Hasty mistakes, one after the other. I'm not a psychiatrist but wow, if I were, they'd make a great case study.
Link above is to the Canadian Press report on CTV News, where the British Columbia privacy commissioner weighs in.
I think Meghan arranged for the paps. She’s smiling directly at them, doesn’t appear to be pointing them out to her POs, and the two POs seem to be pretty chill and unconcerned.
For example, PC blathering on about more taxes for the plebs while spending himself into oblivion with all of his self pampering. DM commenters were very disgusted as well. I'm no fan of Greta but do wonder what she was thinking. The elite are the ones pushing all of this and yet, just like PC, PH, and MM, they all have the biggest carbon footprint.
Did Charles miss the memo that this is what the public found so distasteful about his new dil and son? Boggles the mind.
"...So when I read that the expectation of privacy wasn't legally enforceable, I spoke up. The 'expectation of privacy' is exactly what will be "enforced"
I think we are saying mostly the same thing now. But you misread what I original said in response to @tatty. I never said the expectation of privacy wasn't legally enforceable.
What I said in response to @tatty was "We may have a high expectation but actually may find our expectations aren't that legally enforceable. Often if there are laws, they aren't federal anyway. So it's not a matter of "the US" but depends on the state."
What I meant by that (and what thought I was conveying) is that our high expectations for privacy may exceed legal reality. For example, it's not illegal per state law where I live to stand in the street to take a picture of someone's house even if the curtains are open, to take a picture at the beach even though it may catch people in the background who'd rather not be photographed in bathing suits, to take a picture at an outdoor concert even though it may catch some cheating spouses in the background.
I get the idea that some places privacy is expected and likely will be protected. But not in a public park! And not even if you are MM.
There is a small chance that Harry has decided to leave Meghan, and it just playing a long until she destroys herself. Which at that point he would have his grounds for a divorce and could completely take Archie from her(if Archie does in fact exist). "
Harry remained in the UK for two weeks after M bolted. She let him fight her dirty battles, or something else was going on?
I thought that something else was happening behind the scenes, it now seemed like SHE was the one being isolated.
Until his unfortunate poor-me speech at the sick children's charity. That was terrible, unforgivable, vile and disgusting. Back to being mental midget pussy whipped Harry doing M's dirty work and not having a clue at how he comes across.
"Maybe this woman is not on Vancouver Island, but in the Intensive Psychiatric Care and is undergoing treatment? May she have a serious mental disorder?"
Seriously, the pap pictures would fit this narrative perfectly! She looks really manic/crazy in these pictures, the baby looks totally fake, the dogs look medicated but maybe they're service dogs trained to be calm, and the two bodyguards certainly aren't acting like they're looking to protect her but maybe just keep an eye on her. Maybe she really believes she had a baby and that she's going to be royal forever no matter what so they're letting her carry around a baby doll and telling her she has RPOs just to keep her calm. This story keeps getting wilder and wilder, you may be on to something! I have actually found myself feeling slightly sympathetic towards her lately because she's soooo bizarre and making such a mess of her life. But then she does or says something totally arrogant (all the time) and I lose all sympathy for her.
I think that one of the reasons she is so disliked is because she is not authentic. Growing up in Hollywood (and even being on a TV set after school with her Dad) had her absorbing the values and lifestyle of the extrovert. I think introverts can be great actors, although it is the profession of the extrovert, especially in the Hollywood environment.
She is not even successful in acting the part of an extrovert. Her taste in jewellery and clothes and hairstyles is really not great. She always seems to miss the mark and spend a lot of money to look a mess. Her speeches are arrogant smug word salad, with plenty of plagiarised quotes and elaboration of the truth.
Introverts can be narcissists, but combining narcissism with a forced extroversion just makes her a most annoying person.
Living in seclusion on Vancouver Island gives her the opportunity to connect with her true self, but that obvious pap walk, using a child, dogs and protection officers as props, indicates to me that she is a long way from doing so. Harry thinks he knows and loves the authentic woman, but I don't think he has any clue who she is because she lives such an inauthentic life. Maybe he has seen glimpses of her and that is what he loves about her.
https://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex
An introvert is not necessarily quiet and shy. An introvert looks within for meaning, whereas an extrovert looks outward. An extrovert can be quiet and an introvert can dance on a table at a party. The generally accepted definition of an introvert and extrovert are misleading and inaccurate. Kate is an introvert ... she takes the time to do research, contemplate, align her values with her life, and so on, and then a confident Kate emerges in the public because she has done the inner work. Introverts come across as shy and quiet because they look inward; an extrovert comes across the opposite because they look outward. Neither is better than the other, but they are different.
I am not here to convert anyone so if you want to disagree with me then that is ok. Personally, I am a Leo but I am not an extrovert in any way whatsoever.
Long time past does anyone remember a man named ELF. Edward Lane Fox this person was on the surface Private Sec to PH. In reality a PR person charged with the task of fixing the image of PH from Playboy Prince to "War Hero Harry" hence the two charities. ELF constructs. ELF resigned in May 2018. Now to the reasons:-
PC did not want PH to marry MM, but as usual TQ over-ruled PC as she always does, the wedding was going ahead and as per their usual short sightedness MM and PH were organising the wedding their way (there are newspaper articles etc from this time. If it had been left to those two it would have been an unmitigated disaster, which might have brought this sorry saga to an end sooner.
PC and his staff had to intervene and literally work day and night to save face for the RF, while all this was going on MM was sending e-mails to the staff telling them that her parents were all organised, everything had been sorted out, when she had done nothing because she wanted the optics of the future King, not her somewhat ordinary father. By the time the RF found out about the lies, there was no time to organise TM as he had already done his pap stunt. ELF resigned as he could not work for liars. NDA's cover this at present, but they could be lifted in future. Also MM and PH were supposed to go on honeymoon (more lies) at the time of PC's 70th Garden Party. They crashed and she wanted to do one of her infamous word salad speeches. Hence the short stay. (there was more to it but that is for another day.)
Long time past does anyone remember a man named ELF. Edward Lane Fox this person was on the surface Private Sec to PH. In reality a PR person charged with the task of fixing the image of PH from Playboy Prince to "War Hero Harry" hence the two charities. ELF constructs. ELF resigned in May 2018. Now to the reasons:-
PC did not want PH to marry MM, but as usual TQ over-ruled PC as she always does, the wedding was going ahead and as per their usual short sightedness MM and PH were organising the wedding their way (there are newspaper articles etc from this time. If it had been left to those two it would have been an unmitigated disaster, which might have brought this sorry saga to an end sooner.
PC and his staff had to intervene and literally work day and night to save face for the RF, while all this was going on MM was sending e-mails to the staff telling them that her parents were all organised, everything had been sorted out, when she had done nothing because she wanted the optics of the future King, not her somewhat ordinary father. By the time the RF found out about the lies, there was no time to organise TM as he had already done his pap stunt. ELF resigned as he could not work for liars. NDA's cover this at present, but they could be lifted in future. Also MM and PH were supposed to go on honeymoon (more lies) at the time of PC's 70th Garden Party. They crashed and she wanted to do one of her infamous word salad speeches. Hence the short stay. (there was more to it but that is for another day.)
I thought introversion/extroversion was mostly an energetic thing?
So an introvert gets drained when they interact with others (but being on stage in a play doesn't count because it's a one-way interaction, a Q&A would drain because it's a two-way interaction where there's a take-and-give of energy back/forth).
Extroverts OTOH are *energised* by social interaction.
You can be an actress and be an introvert. In fact, it's necessary to be that way (as is it is necessary to have empathy) & I'd argue that one of the downsides of introversion is a propensity for navel-gazing.
That's why some of us introverts can come off very narcissistic, and that's why we get so many "special snowflake" articles about "how to feed/treat an introvert" as though we think we're the centre of the world.
As an introvert, I am 100% aware of this. And I don't blame people for thinking I'm an a-hole.
Not all narcissists are social butterflies.
On the rare occasion I socialise, I just enjoy sitting around being quiet at the table without speaking, just listening to my friends that (if I'm sober LOL). Sometimes people who know me from social media can be shocked to find how quiet I am IRL. (I actually lost a job offer once because some was disappointed that I wasn't the badass I am online! They wanted me to be this edgy writer but I was that kid from "Almost Famous" drove to the interview by a chaperone/parents' chauffeur LOL.)
I never read the signs as introvert/extrovert ever.
What I do is, read them as masculine versus feminine energies (yin/yang).
Feminine signs = Receptive
Masculine signs = Active/assertive (energy expressed outwardly)
All we know for certain really is sign sign is Leo (masculine/yang) expresses energy outwardly. Which doesn't necessarily mean a Leo person likes interaction. This can translate to enjoying one-sided flows of energy (being on stage in a spotlight in a non-interactive way, being photographed, having an audience but not a conversation).
Anyway, I don't bother with Markle's astrology because none of us know which year of birth is the true one. I wouldn't waste my time one it.
So yeah hi everyone. I hope the Sun/Uranus square is nice to you all. Just know that if you're anxious/lonely, you're not alone. 💜
Sorry for the mistake. I'm not feeling well today.
Interesting indeed. If true.
Oh it’s fine, 😀 I was only going on that particular birth chart analysis, and just it didn’t come across to me that she was an introvert. 😋 I’ve been studying astrology for very many years, and I know it’s far more in-depth and complicated than people want to give it credit for.
I can't imagine anyone caring what the Harkles have to say. They've "jumped the shark" and aren't attractive nor interesting enough to hold the public's attention, except in a negative way. MM knows this. That's the game she's playing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/01/22/megxit-millions-how-harry-and-meghan-can-write-a-new-chapterand-get-royally-rich/#4a1677992e34
The royals made the error of not making Fergie sign an NDA, that's why she was free to write books. They made sure Diana signed one, and I expect they'd do the same with Meghan too.
Assuming there are NDA's in place - which I'm sure you are correct - I wonder how that affects talk show appearances and other media activities?
It says in the article they interviewed the Splash news guy, who says the irate locals “don’t understand”, Meghan “gave it up” and made sure he got a good shot, but that it’s a totally different reception since Harry arrived. Sounds like someone got caught out for setting up the pap shots!
I'm not assuming any NDAs are in place now, but any divorce settlement will almost certainly come with a watertight NDA attached. Regarding the current situation, I would speculate that any blabbing to the media would be seen as not 'upholding the values of Her Majesty' as per the queen's statement last Saturday, and thus might lead to the withdrawal of funding and perhaps even the removal of their titles.
But this is purely speculation on my part.
Yup! Interesting how during their entire 'family time' - 7 weeks - we didn't have a single pap shot, yet in the 10 days or so when Meghan was in Canada without Harry we had 2 photographed 'charity visits' and 3 'pap' shots, one including the baby. Now Harry's back in town and it's all gone quiet.
I don't think Harry has the upper hand in this relationship by any means, but one thing I do think he would put his foot down is about his privacy, and certainly that of his son. Poor dumbo is too stupid to realise that his wife is playing him for a fool with all her little games with the press. Just like Diana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck0oeyYDdmQ&feature=emb_title
I think that experiences in life, especially in childhood, are very influential in shaping our character and can lead us along a path where we are not being authentic.
Just to change the subject ... are Meghan and Harry really spinning a story to get free protection? First they called themselves internationally protected (was it?) persons. Now they are saying they will pay back the cost of security for business travel to pursue private commercial interests. Those two are spinning so fast they must be very dizzy!
That article of B.C.’s Privacy Commissioner is very interesting too. I think he politely skirts around the idea that H&M are asking for attention, especially from the paps. If those two wanted privacy so badly, they wouldn’t have made their new job: public faces of whatever project they can scrap together. If they stayed in the BRF, they could have pulled back from responsibilities and let nature take it’s course and be forgotten by most of the public as fitting the current 6th and 7th in line.
I just hope H&M finally get what they keep soliciting: a media blackout! Oh pretty please!
"First they called themselves internationally protected (was it?) persons. Now they are saying they will pay back the cost of security for business travel to pursue private commercial interests. Those two are spinning so fast they must be very dizzy!"
Yes - latest is that they want to model their security arrangements on those of Tony Blair who - like all ex PMs - does get taxpayer funded security but pays (or more likely has one of his very wealthy sponsors pay) for his many commercial trips.
This is laughable for two reasons: a) Tony Blair is extremely unpopular in Britain, to the point of not having shown his face in public there for years, and b) whatever you think of him, Tony Blair was an actual PM who did the job he was elected to do, and as such is eligible for the lifetime of taxpayer funded security which goes with the job. Same deal for US ex presidents.
These two? A whiny prince and his ex-actress wife who are nowhere near the throne. A better comparison would surely be with the York sisters, who are also the queen's grandchildren, are HRH, but do not get any taxpayer funded security. There is the point that Harry's military career makes him more of a target, but does this still warrent round the clock police protection costing millions a year? Especially when they made the free choice to live abroad with the explicit aim of earning lots of money.
The nerve of these two!
Certainly puts Meghan's spending as a royal in an even worse light. Approaching £1M for her wardrobe alone. £947,132.49 to be precise. Reportedly all paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall. Talk about a smash-and-grab raid. Harry, multi-millionaire as he is, certainly can't afford her.
All that money to look a mess. Makes me heartsick at the waste. Imagine what Audrey Hepburn, Jackie Kennedy and Carolyn Bessette would have looked like with that money. I'm listing these women as Meghan's most obvious inspirations, but she wasn't even in the foothills.
Jan 20, 2020 11:08am Dear Meg: Making the paps your enemies is a bad idea
Jan 20, 2020 11:09am Open Post: Harry’s Resignation Letter
Jan 20, 2020 11:09am Open Post: The Sussex Settlement:
Jan 20, 2020 11:09am Here Comes Trevor
Jan 20, 2020 11:09am So, when does the dirt on Meghan come out?
Jan 17, 2020 5:13am So, when does the dirt on Meghan come out?
Her recent sweaty pits were a sight. Coupled with her bare legs in January in London, like hookers or trashy skanks rolling out of nightclubs. And the cherry on top, was that look was finished of with a satin skirt and suede shoes! SATIN IN WINTER!
She should always wear torn jeans, they suits her best.
I was too busy at work to read much or say anything yesterday, but I agree with the person who said they will not be clicking or commenting on any stories about M and H on media/social media sites. I think it’s critical for those numbers to plummet so the remaining majority can be shown to be bots. You often can click on a story about the Cambridges and gather your Sussex updates out of those articles.
It’s a disgusting mess and I fear nothing will change soon. Someone please reassure me that momentum continues to build against this talentless, basic con artist.
In good news, it’s nearly the weekend!☀️
Be thankful for small mercies.
At least she was wearing knickers!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7920187/Prince-Harry-bloke-corner-used-royal-parties-royal-expert-says.html
>>>An introvert is not necessarily quiet and shy. An introvert looks within for meaning, whereas an extrovert looks outward. An extrovert can be quiet and an introvert can dance on a table at a party. The generally accepted definition of an introvert and extrovert are misleading and inaccurate. Kate is an introvert ... she takes the time to do research, contemplate, align her values with her life, and so on, and then a confident Kate emerges in the public because she has done the inner work. Introverts come across as shy and quiet because they look inward; an extrovert comes across the opposite because they look outward. Neither is better than the other, but they are different.<<<
This is a good analysis of I vs. E. I'm an I myself (we tend to be vastly the norm in the library world). I've always thought of it as: Es derive their energy from interacting with other people. It's less a matter of 'how many' people at once, though Es do tend to be drawn to careers that put them in the spotlight--running meetings, giving big speeches, performance arts--though many of our finest actors are and have been Introverts, looking within to create their characters and saying that acting allows them to become, temporarily, other people. The more Es are mixing with people, the more energized they get, while Is tend to get drained.
I don't think normal personality models work with someone like Rachel. Narcissists have no core personality to draw upon or look inward to. That's why they, and she, relentlessly copy everything others do and appropriate others' actions, words, style and ideas. I believe Rachel entirely lacks 'an authentic self', hence her pathological need to be 'seen' and admired. If other people don't see her constantly and affirm her constantly and talk about her constantly, it's like she doesn't exist. She's obviously pushing the narrative of 'happy nature girl' at the moment, but that's just more optics. For her, I imagine being alone with her own thoughts is a living hell . . because what thoughts are there besides getting one over on all those she perceives as having and being everything she wants but can never achieve. Catherine embodies everything Rach wants and will never have no matter how many papp walks she stages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIx1vBCtrUA
Marina says she may have been born in 1977 vs. 1981. I haven't wholly jumped on this bandwagon, as I think school mates would've outed her, but with the RF's unlimited resources, they could've been paid off. Anything is possible when someone has that kind of money and resources at their fingertips.
I've been studying astrology for over 30 years and the 1977 chart fits Meghan like a glove. My mind remains open on this subject.
She then writes this scathing letter (in calligraphy, no less) about how HE was horrible to HER and SHE is the victim. Then allows HER friends to eviscerate him AGAIN in the People article using that letter. Then, when he tries to defend himself (MoS), he's made out to be the bad guy AGAIN. His life has been hell these last few years, in part because of his daughter (the rest is health related). I don't agree with his statement that BP owes him anything, he's not their family, but his daughter DOES owe him. If the rumors are true, she told everyone SHE arranged everything for his travel for the wedding...but in fact did nothing! She is probably the reason the man is bankrupt and penniless, and has now destroyed his character. He's hurt because she was embarrassed by him; he's hurt that she's cut him off from her life and his grandchild. He gave her everything and her mother gave her very little....but she's acting as though her mom is her everything, and Dad is nothing. That has to burn pretty bad. She does owe him...she owes him respect and gratitude.
Thomas Markle comes across as a rather unpleasant and unstable individual, I have to say. However, there is no doubt he loved his daughter - she seems to have been his favourite child - and gave her every advantage he could in life. Rachel herself freely admitted this back in her 'Tig' days. However, his 'they owe me' and talking about how he is profitting from talking about his daughter is more than a little tacky, and undermines much of what he has to say. I don't think he would be a very reliable witness in any court case.
That said, I agree that Meghan cut him off because he was 'off brand' for her, which is characteristically heartless. Not only that, but the way she treated him shows her complete lack of strategic thinking. I'm sure that for a relatively small financial 'consideration', along with being allowed to see her and Archie maybe once or twice a year, he'd have gladly shut up, or even sung her praises to the media. But no, she had to discard him like a used tissue and now plays victim when he puts his side of the story across.
So much for 'whip smart'.
Well, mental instability is often times passed down in the family. None of her family members come across as very stable people. Even the stories about her mom aren't exactly stable. Certainly explains Meghan's issues.
I don't disagree that his profiting of her is distasteful to us normal people, but considering how she has treated him and his financial situation (which is likely the way it is because of her), why shouldn't he profit off talking about her? I don't think I could ever do that, because I have a conscience, but if he can do it and makes money to get back even a fraction of what he spent on his ungrateful brat....then good on him.