Although numerous polls of the British people suggest they'd like to see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lose their HRH titles and funding from the Duchy of Cornwall, cutting the Sussexes off entirely is impossible, and the Royal Family knows it.
It's impossible because Harry is vulnerable and could end up in a gutter - quite literally - without the support of his family.
(As the Prince William character says of his family on the TV comedy series The Windsors, "These people are like budgies. Let them out of their cage and they'll be eaten by the first animal they see.")
And it's impossible because social media makes it impossible to control information that might be released about the Royal Family by Duchess Meghan.
True information, false information, it doesn't matter.
Meg can just make it up, release it on social media, and someone will believe it.
Meg can just make it up, release it on social media, and someone will believe it.
Since the bananas
Social media has been a key player during Meghan Markle's two-and-a-half years of acknowledged connection to the Royal Family.
She first hinted at her relationship with prince Harry with an Instagram photo of two bananas cuddling; when she closed her lifestyle blog The Tig six months later, it was seen as a sign that the relationship was getting serious. After the engagement, Meghan closed her Instagram and Twitter accounts, something her supporters later described as the former actress being "muted" and "losing her voice."
In the run-up to the May 2018 marriage, social media in the form of the Daily Mail comments was the first sign that the British public was not entirely behind Harry's choice of bride.
Meg "clapped back" with a team of PR posters paid to defend her on the DM comment boards, along with some vicioius Twitter bots and perhaps some pseudonymous Twitter accounts of her own. She also seems to be the person behind anonymous messages to the notorious anti-Meghan Tumblr blogger Skippy. (A few anti-Meghan bloggers were doxxed, although Skippy was not one of them.)
Meanwhile, the Meghan's Mirror Instagram and Twitter offered lightning-quick information on where to buy whatever Meghan was wearing that day. So quick, as a matter of fact, that they must have had advance notice of what would be worn, likely by someone who would receive an affiliate fee.
Very confident in her abilities
Ultimately, Meg was allowed to start an official Instagram account again, the much-derided @SussexRoyal, which has been used to trumpet the Sussexes' achievements and offer lukewarm birthday greetings to members of the Cambridge family.
Meg feels confident in her social media abilities, so confident she apparently writes much of the @SussexRoyal text herself without the benefit of a copyeditor.
She also appears to enjoy do-it-yourself Photoshop, as displayed on the Sussexes' bizarre last-minute Christmas card.
Why is is this important?
Because social media is Meghan's insurance policy for the future.
Deference to the Royal Family
When Edward VIII, then Prince of Wales, met Wallis Simpson in 1931 and they became lovers, the British public knew nothing about it.
Foreign newspapers wrote freely about the developing romance between the prince and the then-married American socialite, and Brits abroad delighted in cutting out clips and mailing them to family back home, but British newspapers did not report on the situation out of deference to the Royal Family.
US newspapers arriving in London had articles about the situation removed with scissors. In the case of Time Magazine, pages were ripped out.
The public only learned of the nascent constitutional crisis involving the not-yet-coronated King in 1936, when a local Bishop mentioned it in a sermon. After that, the gloves were off.
No photos of Royal children
The British media still shows some deference to the Royals today, such as the de-facto ban on publishing candid images of the Royal children, whether they are taken by paparazzi or the public.
Various older Royals are also rumored from time to time to be having extramarital affairs, but this is also kept out of the papers unless some event forces the question, such as the theft of then-married Princess Anne's letters to her lover Tim Lawrence.
(Super-injunctions also help enforce this deference, the "articles removed with scissors" of the 21st century.)
But social media shows no deference. Anyone can write anything, and it's up to the public to decide whether or not the statements are credible.
Credibility and rumor
The rumor of an affair between William and Rose Hanbury was invented by a blogger in Utah who has never met anyone from the Royal Family and was inspired by photos she had seen in the Daily Mail; they were given additional weight by a Soho House habitué and Meghan pal named Giles Coren who said "everyone knows" about the affair. (Coren, ironically, was recently bullied off Twitter after making a distasteful joke about a gay journalist.)
But "a lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots," as Churchill once said.
Some members of the public still believe the thin gruel of the Rose rumors (Enty lawyer at CDAN is one of them). Certainly Meg's fans enjoy adding rose emoji's to Tweets taunting Duchess Kate.
How much more power would such a rumor have if it came from the Duchess of Sussex?
What she could say
Rumors of an affair are one thing, but the Duchess of Sussex could also cause havoc with innumerable other types of accusations - and they don't even have to be true.
Creating quotes or otherwise suggesting that members of the Royal Family are racist, sexist, or homophobic is an obvious tactic, and given Meg's hatred of the Cambridges, they would be her number-one target. How delicious to damage the heir to the throne by crediting him with some vicious statement that would always be believed by at least a few people. A little mud always sticks.
She might also Photoshop embarassing images and release them, or cast aspersions on the Cambridge children, and true or false, whatever she said would follow them for decades.
Meg's a viper. She doesn't have to win, as long as other people lose.
Social media makes it possible, and unfortunately makes it very easy. Some people will believe anything, particularly when they want to.
They need something they can take away
This is why the Royals must always keep Meg onside, at least nominally. They need to have something they can take away - an ongoing income, a title - if she misbehaves. They cannot leave her with nothing, because they will then have no leverage over her.
The only other alternative, if I may be so bold as to say it, is to neutralize her.
(Sensitive souls should look away now.) When I say "neutralize", Ari Behn, Andrew Burkle, and Jeffrey Epstein come to mind.
Controlling information about herself
Ironically, despite the growing power of social media, Meg seems obsessed with controlling what the traditional media say about her.
Her lawsuit against the Daily Mail is ongoing, as is Harry's lawsuit against some newspapers involved in an ancient phone-hacking scandal. The Duchess has long worked with People Magazine to promote her side of the story.
And on their personal website, the Sussexes say they would like to remove themselves from the Royal Rota of traditional-media reporters in favor of "grassroots media organizations and young, up-and-coming journalists."
In other words, small-potatoes types who will be so flattered to meet us that they'll write what we want.
Hey Sussexes - you can cut off the Royal Rota's access to your events, but you can't prohibit them from writing about you. And if you don't have anything to trade, they're likely to be harsh.
Traditionally Royal reporters temper their stories in order to maintain access. If you've already removed access, why should they bother?
The Gayle King interview
There's been some suggestion that the Sussexes are planning an interview with Gayle King, who has been responsible for two previous (low-rated) specials on the pair.
Are the Royals worried about this? A little, perhaps, but Gayle King is an establishment journalist and a somewhat responsible gatekeeper. She'll let Meg say, "I never really felt welcome in Britain" and suggest that Meg is unpopular because she is (a little bit) Black.
But she won't let Meg go full-throttle. She won't let Meg say crazy, damaging, or demented things about Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis.
Social media will. Let go from the Royal Family, Meg will waste no time re-establishing her accounts (there are suggestions that the "Meghan-ish" accounts popping up means she already has) and becoming an ongoing thorn in the side of the Royals at a vulnerable time, during the transition from a beloved monarch to a plummy and unpopular successor.
The Royals will pay her off, or they will pick her off. We'll see which.
Comments
Matt@itsgodgabitch tagged her with
lady gaga, oprah and prince william is working on a documentary series for apple tv exploring the global issue of mental health. the emmys, here they come
https://mobile.twitter.com/itsgodgabitch/status/1214582052345073665
Byline investigates:
Tip of the iceberg— why Harry and Meghan move is really about dishonest journalism
“IF YOU want to understand the Sussexes’ decision to step back from front-line royal duties, then the answers are contained in one remarkable legal document.
Acquired (perfectly lawfully) by Byline Investigates, it reveals the real background to these events – a background which today’s UK media reporting, for all its frenzied activity, is simply refusing to show.
The document comes from the preliminary exchanges in the Duchess’s legal case against the publishers of the Daily Mail and as you will see it describes nine news stories, all appearing in the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday, or MailOnline.
Not one mainstream media outlet is prepared to present this affair as what it really is: a scandal about dishonest journalism
They give a flavour – just a flavour – of the press coverage the couple have endured, and of which they have now plainly had enough.
As you will read, this is not legitimate media scrutiny of members of the royal family; it is lying and bullying by a powerful press organisation”
https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2020/1/10/kv913pun97mbewgk1hodcipttt1wfj
The media coverage is quite interesting tonight :
1.Don’t mess with the Beckhams…
Some people who shut their mouth for months/years are quite vocal now…
Let’s talk about the Bekchams….
Allegedly, MM accused Victoria of leaking stories about her. Harry called David !!! It turned out Victoria wasn’t the leak.
This article speaks volume. It seems Posh still has a grudge against MM and is now chatty!!!
Best parts of the article :
« Despite previously saying she would never wear one of Victoria’s pricey designs — because of the wrong “silhouette” — Meghan has since sported several. »
Posh refuses to give out freebies : “it all got cleared up, and of course Meghan is now happy to pay for anything.”
“But obviously when representatives for the Duchess get in touch to ask if Victoria can commission and send over some outfits, the subject of money is difficult.
“There are also strict Palace guidelines about gifting to be taken into consideration. ”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/10719371/harry-meghan-david-victoria-beckham-row/
2. Their business plan
At the Lion King premiere in London last July, Ginge told Disney chief and advertised MM's 'interest' in doing voiceover work.
I had seen this video a few months ago on You Tube (Yankee Wally, Murky Meg, According to Taz…) which shows why those two are a disgrace for the BRF.
It also seems that Rachel doesn’t appear to be good at calculating tax.
Her plot to quit the Firm with all that she wants could be more complicated she thought….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7876671/Harry-Meghan-confronted-dire-tax-impact-abandoning-royal-family.html
3. As I mentionned earlier today, Harry’s mental disorders are being put forward.
I do think it is important because if Harry suffers from menthal illnesses disabilities he could latter ask to a Court to declare the agreement invalid arguing he was unable to negociate the best for him and his family at that time.
« Queen … is also said to be concerned for the mental fragility of her grandson Harry... »
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877331/Prince-William-reveals-sadness-broken-bond-Prince-Harry.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7876715/ALEXANDRA-SHULMAN-rumblings-married-life-Meghan-not-going-well.html
4. At least, one positive article about Meghan!!!
Apparently, she can fly commercial flights (I would be curious to see some proofs !).
Besides, MM seems to be a normal neighbour (… who asked neighbours to sign non-disclosure agreements)…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877061/Meghan-Markle-sneaked-Vancouver-island-mansion-134-budget-flight.html
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's 'threat of a no-holds barred interview': Couple's confidante Tom Bradby says they could go public if they don't get their way over Megxit - amid fears they would brand royal household 'sexist and racist'
Bradby may well find himself adrift as persona non grata after all is said and done.
Yeah, right. Tom Bradby is on Team Extortion.
Bingo, @Swampwoman! They knew what she was up to, so they laid the trap.
8. "They'll be fabulously rich!" is absurd, but that fiction actually benefits the BRF game.
Ego and bluster and Rach's craving for attention/attention/attention make Rachel do very dumb things. And @Liver Bird nails it: this is just the start of it. I get all giddy thinking of the end of it. Rach is going to be shacking up with Andrew before we know it. (Actually, talk about a reality show...)
@Octobergirl, true that All this would be a lot easier if Harry didn't have a child by her. He's going to be reluctant to divorce her because of the kid.. That was the reason she had to hurry it along.
@CookieShark re the book signing, a quick google will get you myriad stories, but I read that the DL on it was that Rach showed up and forced her way in basically, MO had a quick meeting, and Rach was the put out into the rain. There is no existing relationship between them.
This, I've got to see:
"Celt News posted a video about MM's visit to the Theatre. She said MM blew off a meeting with HM, so HM called the theatre and cancelled MM's visit. MM was escorted out with her photographer. This was the famous "rings splayed" picture.
If HM threw this back to Rach and canceled the meeting, then we know Her Maj is not coming to play on Monday, either.
@Liver Bird and @Octobergirl: Agreed:
"She's run off to Canada, holding their son as a bargaining chip, leaving him to fight the battles for her, great feminist that she is."
"Narcs can sniff out vulnerability in people. Meghan's in the devaluation and maybe even the discard phase of her narcissistic relationship with Harry."
My hope for Monday is that the BRF strip the title, but give them the pittance (the BRF income to them is a pittance to her). With no title, Rach is gone. Rach is not running from publicity to privacy. She nabbed simple Harry to secure the bag, and that is it. She produced Archie in some fashion, and will discard anyone and everyone who stands in her way of world domination.
Only, who's she going to dominate because when the Obamas and Oprah are denying association with you, it's only a matter of time... someone knows more than we do. I'd imagine a number of calls have been placed.
Soon, Rach will have no place to run or hide. And @KC - she has no plausible deniability. None. What could she possibly deny? They'll have her on everything (as I wave to Wills and MI-6).
And now the unhappy Harry stories are coming out. I think they will try to save Harry. I just don't know if he'll go along, and what about Archie?
What's beyond the pale for me is that Rach really does seem genuinely heartless and evil, the archetype villian, a la Griselda Blanco, just beyond understanding.
"Perhaps the clues to an imminent crisis were there all along or, at the very least, since Meghan guest-edited the August issue of Vogue. In Meghan's Editor's letter – reached by readers after 80-odd glossy pages of adverts for designer clothing and handbags – she quoted a book called The Four-Chambered Heart by Anais Nin, where a character says: 'I must be a mermaid, Rango. I have no fear of depth and a great fear of shallow living.'
So was life in The Firm 'too shallow' for Meghan? Perhaps cutting ribbons at community centres was never going to satisfy the ambitious young actress who had her engagement ring 'upgraded' by adding extra diamonds to the band."
<3 <3 <3
I was participating in a thread on a Canadian newspaper site and when I wanted to link to that particular phrase earlier today, I saw that it was gone.
2) I still believe that TP1 is a troll. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Much of the premise of TP1 was that Smirkle was going to be exposed and dumped. But in the end she dumped the Royal Family and appears to be en route to getting what she wants. Even without the titles, she stands to make money from speeches, an autobiography and attaching her name to all the things she trademarked.
I also speak french at work (English in personal life) and have not detected a pattern of a French speaker. The pattern of speech at TP1 is reminiscent of Frank (Ottawa version) .. a Canadian political satire magazine.
3) I can't remember who said it further up on this thread but I fully agree that Smirkle forced Harry's hand by threatening not to return to the UK. This was made crystal clear when she left Archie behind in Canada. This would be why Harry has been described as being under so much stress. I wish that the Queen was not asking that this be done quickly, because if he were to spend more time with his family, they might have more chance of deprogramming him.
"She wanted all the glamour and glory of being a Windsor, but I don’t think she was ever truly up for taking on the daily grind that came with it.
I don’t think she really understands the Royal world of altruism, history, tradition and low-key patronage for no personal gain. She’ll see Royal life as staid and stuffy. She certainly never showed me any interest in British life and traditions. Even with that said, I don’t think she could have dragged Harry away from his family unless part of him wanted to make some kind of grand gesture. But from what I’ve seen of them together, I’m certain she played a large part in the current crisis."
Legally, in the US, legal annulments vary based on state laws. There is no one set of facts or list of factors. I provided a link above. If Rach tries to establish residency and file for divorce in the US, then again, state law would apply.
Justin Welby will fall in line with Her Maj. She is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Thank God for HG Tudor's website, which I have followed for many years, or I'd have never survived. I learned I had a lot more strength than I realized thanks to Tudor. Plus it was great to know the steps a Narc uses and how to identify when an episode is coming.
Some Narcs have a pattern. Megs does and right now she's on hit and run mode and is using Archie as a hostage. She's ghosting herself right now. It's all a big fat game to her as long as she thinks she's winning.
I'm wondering if royal security and MI6 could just bust in and take Archie from her if need be. The baby could be in danger if he's all alone with her. Narcs seldom react rationally if they feel caught or cornered.
https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=172&top=17
Thanks. I doubt M would want an annulment (she'd prefer divorce in a state like CA with favorable community property laws) so it would seem if annulment happened it would be a UK thing.
Hope you are right that Welby would fall in line with TQ. In the past some of his defenses of H&M have not seemed to be what I think TQ would prefer. For example, lecturing the public that H&M were "entitled" to take time off. That's hardly a question of religious doctrine/guidance.
Harry the royal family will never cast him out, he is of royal blood and part of the family. Sparkles is using this to hang on.
I agree with others who said the way to get rid of her is to cut off the two things she cares most about - the Sussexroyal brand and her title. I have always believed she will use these to get her own reality show in the US, do a "de Lesseps". She doesn't given a hooey about Archie or Harry.
In the news today is she apparently signed a deal with Disney for voiceovers.
However, often in these abusive type situations the victim keeps going back for more for many, many years.. or forever.
The best outcome for Harry would be for Smirkle to leave him.
How they can bear to speak with her on Monday is beyond me. The most extraordinary thing has been William's statement to the press today, and the revelation that Meghan and Kate haven't spoken in six months. Trying to imagine what happened between them is the most interesting thing, because clearly there has been an escalating war between the couples. As I think PW and Kate are much more interesting, I'd give a few pennies to know what they've been thinking and doing, having to play chess with a snake when they're trying to raise young children and keep one of the last monarchies in the world afloat.
TP and DD called it right down the line and the current plan is to allow the British press to destroy this couple
Sadly, I think Harry will join Megs in Canada after the meeting with the royals. He's not hit bottom yet and thinks she's right and helping him find a new life away. Some never hit bottom, unfortunately.
Ozmanda, if Megs does a "de Lesseps" it would be hilarious. Especially since Luanne put on so many airs with people, that everyone dissed and made fun of her. Remember how she hated that?
Love that Bethenney Frankel is talking about this, too. Betheny is such a Narc. but mild one and it takes one to know one. However, Frankel made her own way and didn't stalk and shop for producer, chef and a prince to get where she is today. And, Beth is super funny, so yay. Love that she's tweeting.
Love everyone's comments today. I have to hit the reset button a lot cuz there's so many posts.
Tatty, I can only hope that whatever things that she had to be picked up were covertly checked by intelligence agents.
And this, from the Sun, the source revealed: “Prince Charles is furious about this. He is really p***** off in fact.
“He says it is simply not true. He and the Queen are massively keen for Harry and Meghan to be part of everything.”
“He has supported them all the way, and helped pay for their wedding, their house near Windsor Castle and their separate office."
And see, this is why it was all covert and they let Rach burn it down, because now they can say "We tried, we really, really tried..." This will pay off for the BRF exponentially as things unroll.
@Swamp & Tatty, I hope that she doesn't think she can keep Harry's half in the event of divorce... assets before marriage belong to the individual.
Makes sense now that we know that they were not planning on returning to the UK.
I agree with you Harry plays the "woe is poor motherless me, I have PTSD" card well. But he does seem to have lost weight over their break, he does seem disheveled at times, he does look "out of it" at times, he does seem to have aged 5 years in the last year....he's either using drugs---alot, he's got some mental problems, or both. I don't think it's all manipulation.
'William strikes the right tone here - disappointment and defeat at the hands of two exhausting, mad, damaged people. The flameout begins'
https://twitter.com/camillalong/status/1216119513818783745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
I wonder if the Queen, Charles, William, the government people ... everyone pulled into this crisis are aware that the negotiations are pointless and that Meghan will not stick to any agreement?
Maybe they do know that but must have it on record that they went way beyond what was reasonable to please her.
Meghan and Harry are issuing threats to the BRF through Tom Bradby (if they don't get what they want they will do a tell-all interview ... basically claiming family members were not friendly and welcoming and Meghan was subjected to racism). So they issued a threat via their mouthpiece in which they made the accusations anyway!
As well, Bethanny has involved herself in charitable endeavors, notably disaster relief where she both contributes her own money and is present on site to make sure that the money is used appropriately.
She began in Peurto Rico and is currently raising money for Australia that she will distribute to firefighter teams, people who have lost their homes and for animal care.
Unlike Smirkle, she gives 100% of donations to her causes.
Bethany walks the walk.
Speaking of which, they're running with everything right now. It especially picked up about 3-4 hours ago (don't judge me too much for refreshing, I got little kids and the weather's bad so I've been checking the story all day). It's like they got some kind of permission - Kate and Meghan haven't spoken in 6 months. Meghan was going to have "a meltdown" if Harry didn't quit. Meghan and Harry are threatening to do a no-holds barred interview (isn't that called blackmail?) Meghan's ex-business adviser pens a letter. Harry begs Bob Iger for work and it's on tape. Harry bullies David Beckham because Meghan throws a hissy fit. Harry is reported to have looked miserable at a dinner right before the six-week break.
I mean, this is the stuff they're being allowed to print: two sons who lost their mother torn apart after promising the new arrival that they'd be the family they never had. A woman who, after being brought to tears by her SIL, still shows up to take her to Wimbledon and yet all ties are cut just a few days later. A statement about how they're going to "support" the Queen while then telling a journalist that they'll spill all the dirty secrets if they're not paid off. A desperate husband being threatened by his wife, forced to do her dirty work. And poor, poor, poor Archie, used as a pawn by his conniving, cruel mother.
I thought Meghan Markle was bad news, but using her son as a bargaining chip, threatening her husband and his entire family...I mean, I could go on at length about her despicable hypocrisy, but nothing really comes close to how she's treated every family she's invited into. Snake.
On meeting MO--MM: I read she said she had lunch with MO once--chicken tacos--which in actuality turned out to be MM ate her lunch while she either Skyped or talked to MO by phone.
MM lies like a fish and from all the denials that ppl are putting out there re: giving the Harkles help, I agree. No one wants to be caught up in her lies.
Left leaning media in the UK (and Canada) have been singing that song for at least two years and the American media are almost all calling them racists this week.
Another "they are racist" interview will be superfluous.
Phil Dampier has been writing about the Royal family for 26 years. Between 1986 and 1991 he covered the royal beat for The Sun, Britain’s biggest-selling daily newspaper. As a freelance journalist for the last 20 years, he has travelled to more than 50 countries following members of the House of Windsor and his articles have been published in dozens of newspapers and magazines worldwide. He frequently appears on radio and TV and gave expert analysis for Global National TV of Canada during their coverage of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in April 2011.
his books:
Diana: I'm Going to be Me: the People's Princess revealed in her own words
Gaffers: The Wit and Wisdom of Football Managers
Royally Suited: Harry and Meghan in their own words
Prince Philip: Wise Words and Golden Gaffes
Prince Philip: A Lifetime of Wit and Wisdom
White House Wit, Wisdom and Wisecracks
The Duke of Hazard: The Wit and Wisdom of Prince Philip
What's in the Queen's Handbag? (And Other Royal Secrets)
Come to think of it, Meghan isn’t really different from Trump. Bullying and manipulating just to get their way.
And @KC - she has no plausible deniability. None. What could she possibly deny? They'll have her on everything (as I wave to Wills and MI-6).
This must be for KC Martin, but I agree. No plausible deniability here.
Do people realize this particular physical defect is alleged all the time about famous men, including Hitler? I find it hard to believe that this kind of embarrassing detail could have leaked from Harry's medical files. And if it is true, that Harry would be as sexually promiscuous as he is largely considered to be. It's just such a common way to attack a man's masculinity, I wish someone could cite a half-way decent source the next time they use it as fact.
@Bardsey, thank you! There are so many articles being dropped that I was reading and not finding the info. Couldn't agree more with your summary re that wicked, evil worse-than-a-snake: two sons who lost their mother torn apart after promising the new arrival that they'd be the family they never had. A woman who, after being brought to tears by her SIL, still shows up to take her to Wimbledon and yet all ties are cut just a few days later. A statement about how they're going to "support" the Queen while then telling a journalist that they'll spill all the dirty secrets if they're not paid off. A desperate husband being threatened by his wife, forced to do her dirty work. And poor, poor, poor Archie, used as a pawn by his conniving, cruel mother.
I thought Meghan Markle was bad news, but using her son as a bargaining chip, threatening her husband and his entire family...I mean, I could go on at length about her despicable hypocrisy, but nothing really comes close to how she's treated every family she's invited into. Snake.
Are snakes even this nasty?
And yes, @DesignDoctor, that was the Vogue issue with the chicken tacos. It was hard for me to believe that the Obamas were hanging with the Dumbartons. I steer clear of all politics here, and I do not wear a tin hat or rose-colored glasses about any of this / them due to personal experience. I see no win for any of them to align with Rach & H because that would alienate the BRF, and that would be very silly. Still, I think Rach makes up the lie and figures no one will correct it, and yet, they are. Even the Gayle King interview has now been denied.
Has anyone noticed that Gary Janetti is on full Smegs blast again??? Wonder what that's all about. After nearly two months of posts either kissing her butt or just being non existent, he's back to blasting her, and he's not being kind.
Distancing himself....I remember reading once about how in the 1800s when a ship in port was just no longer seaworthy, but not yet actually sunk, you could look at the ropes securing the ship to the dock at dusk and sometimes actually see the rats (a species that SURVIVES and THRIVES) walking down the ropes to the dock. They could tell the jig was up.
There has been some excellent ideas on how to rein these two in and the one I like the most is take away the HRH and their titles give them a lesser title instead. This will hit them in their pseudo pocketbook. Whatever the outcome they will both be persona non grata in GB and the adoring public is no longer. It's a dam shame that this has happened but Harry needs to know you no one forced you or told you to say "I do". Time to grow and man-up.
Blogger SwampWoman said...
KC, I believe your phone does not like you (grin).
It's evil Swampwoman!
I have an exorcism scheduled for tomorrow afternoon.
Also, re the Fauxrchie issue, the BRF must be the ones to out it sooner than later otherwise they lose the edge and plausible deniability. And of course, a caveat or two with the Queen wanting it all decided:
1. If I am Her Maj, I can say I want things decided so that it sounds like what others involved want to hear. It may or may not be what I really want.
2. Once things are "decided", I can unroll a whole lot of stuff. They know Rach will lie and be rash, brash, and dishonest. They will prepare for this. Rachel skipped a meeting with HMTQ, so they know just what kind of low-rent trash Rach is and just how low she'll go.
Just look at the family division, destruction, drama, and uproar she’s caused in the RF, Harry’s life, and to a certain extent, in the UK in less than two years of marriage.
Her status as a free-range royal will only serve to magnify her narcissistic behavior and divaness, which means she will burn people in the same manner she as she has done all her life, but on a worldwide scale. Eventually her name, and by association as her feckless husband, Harry’s will also be poison.
How Will She Do It?
As a narcissist, Meghan will not listen to advice or opinions that do not reflect her own opinions and ideas back to her.
I read something the other day from an anonymous palace staffer who said Meghan sends anyone who says anything that doesn’t agree with her and Harry’s half-baked unrealistic ideas quickly to the exit door. Most of their ideas, which are actually hers, are designed to glorify herself, such as the stunt to write on the bananas for anonymous sex workers that totally bombed out.
The staffer said she doesn’t even want listen to suggestions that might improve her ideas. Basically, Meghan is a “It’s my way or the highway” type, which is a manifestation of her need for total control.
When millions of dollars and other peoples’s careers, corporate profits, and reputations are on the line, she won’t be able to get away with forcing her half-baked ideas.
I think she will make a small fortune, yes, but I also think the palace knows that in a relatively short period of time, she will piss off so many people, burn so many bridges and dump so many others that she’ll inevitably dig her own grave with her sources of money and connections.
Sponsors and show business entities will be more than happy to wave a royal goodbye and move on to the next flavor-of-the-week in a better age demographic who has ascended to the top of the heap. Meghan’s and Harrys money will have been spent by then.
Katherine Heigl comes to mind as someone who destroyed her own career, and I think Meghan will follow a similar path of self-immolation.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, Heigl was a Hollywood “it girl” with a golden future ahead of her, but she was such a bitch and diva that she was written out of shows and couldn’t get work for years. She is now only just starting to get work again.
Part Two
Outside Looking In
The other problem Harry and Meghan face is the product they were planning trade on is being royals who are members in good standing of the British royal family.
Well, that was shot to hell earlier this week by the manner in which they are cutting most of their ties with that institution.
They damaged Brand Sussex Royal by the sudden, ruthless, and cruel go-to-hell manner they treated Harry’s 93 year-old granny, Prince Phillip, Harry’s father, Harry’s brother, and the other members of the RF. And, to a certain extent, the close associates and advisors to the royals.
To a wider extent, they also told the citizenry of the UK and the Commonwealth to go F themselves.
For as long as she lives, the queen will remember being what palace staff termed being “stabbed in the back” by the Sussexes. Charles will remember it, and so will William. And they have yet to rule. The British public will also remember it. Heck, they still remember Wallis.
The RF will never be able to trust Harry again. Ever. They already knew they can’t trust Meghan.
And, as a result, Harry and Meghan will likely be royals in name only, with little or no access to the unseen power possessed by the monarchy.
In essence, they will be allowed to stand on the doorstep, but they won’t be allowed to enter the house ever again.
They won’t be able to offer the world any real or imagined access to the invisible power and influence of the monarchy, and others in powerful positions already know it. As when you know both parties in a divorce, their “friends” will usually align themselves with one spouse or the other for the aftermath. Real movers and shakers will line up with the monarchy instead of the Sussexes.
Just this week there were media reports saying Oprah and the Obamas had advised Harry and Meghan on their exit plan. Both quickly distanced themselves from the Sussex exit by issuing statements saying they had NOT given the Sussexes any advice on this matter. After all, being in good graces with the real royal family is probably more important in the lung run than catering to a narcissistic duchess and her dimwitted husband.
If Harry and Meghan eventually divorce and he comes crawling back to the fold, he will likely receive a tepid, but polite welcome to maintain the public face of the royal family, but he will forever be a bete noire kept out of the inner sanctum of The Firm.
Will Catholic or Baptist holy water be used?
AND that she had a bump (grin).
We are using some water from Lourdes and the Reverend Jim Bob Scruggs is officiating.
He is bringing the snakes just in case.I
I believe the demon is responsible for pop up ads and endless cute kitten videos.
I was trying to say she would then be able to say "I left because Harry could not get me what I needed for the RF. They have cruelly separated us and caused the end of my marriage"
Clearly I did not convey that point, lol!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-harry-meghan-canada-1.5423395
"If Harry wishes to live in Canada and keep his title, he might face another problem: the Nickle Resolution of 1919.
That resolution of Parliament, reaffirmed by the governments of Lester Pearson, W.L. Mackenzie King and Brian Mulroney, effectively bans foreign titles of nobility for Canadian citizens and anyone "domiciled or living in Canada.""
"It's not as clear how that applies to people who already have titles when they come here. But newspaper magnate Kenneth Thomson, who was once Canada's richest man and who inherited the title Baron Thomson of Fleet, chose to follow it.
"In London, I'm Lord Thomson. In Toronto, I'm Ken," he told the Globe and Mail in 2006. "I have two sets of Christmas cards and two sets of stationery."'
Good opinion piece by Tony Parsons in The Sun.
Poor Archie. He has a father who has trouble getting out of bed in the morning, and a mother who is so unstable that his father was worried about her having to return to the UK. I hope he has a loving nanny.
Is there any chance that H&M have split up, the meeting on Monday is an intervention, they will present Meg with her divorce package by phone, she’ll return Archie as an unaccompanied minor on British Airways, and Harry will be bundled off to be deprogrammed? Because that’s starting to make as much sense as anything.
I think your husband might object most strenuously if you attempt to relieve him of his back up!
The NY Times has a popular satirical columnist in Maureen Dowd. She skewers anyone regardless of political persuasion. Below are excerpts of her column titled " Gone with the Windsors".
Can you really call yourself “financially independent” when all you’re doing is cashing in on the royal name?
Given the state of the world and the implosion of the British Empire — with Scots once more contemplating an off ramp, Irish unity in play, Australia on fire and Boris Johnson tricking the queen into suspending Parliament in a Brexit ploy — it is hard to feel sorry for the Duchess of Sussex complaining that her diamonds are heavy. The pathos for Markle, trapped in a designer cage, goes only so far.
It’s easy for royals to come to North America, where they are lavishly embraced as celebrities without all those pesky restrictions about class and role. (See “The Crown” episode about a wild, imbibing Princess Margaret charming L.B.J.)
Still, I think Meghan Markle should have wielded her wokeness where it is most needed — in Buckingham Palace. She could have channeled the Obamas, who did a magnificent job of rising above racist taunts and working within the institution to imprint a new image of racial possibility in America.
Markle had already successfully brought a refreshing dose of semi-radical chic to the royal family. Her visits to a mosque that housed Londoners displaced by the Grenfell Tower fire led to her putting out a 2018 cookbook, the proceeds of which went to the victims.
At its best, the monarchy has been able to lift up people, as it did during the blitz in World War II.
I saw that ability to alchemize emotions and opinions when I covered the queen on her visit to Ireland in 2011, the first by a British monarch in a century. It was impossible not to be impressed watching her speak Gaelic and offering regret about how Britain had made Ireland suffer, bowing her head at the scene of Bloody Sunday and the Garden of Remembrance, the sacred ground for slain Irish patriots.
The Irish started out skeptical, but by the end of her visit, many were calling her “Betty” on Twitter.
The queen of England holds out the idea that she and her family should have some sort of vestigial moral authority. But with the Prince Andrew imbroglio in the seraglio of Jeffrey Epstein, and with Harry’s run for the Hollywood Hills, it is clear that many in her family are not interested in moral authority.
The collapse of the authority of the British monarchy mirrors the collapse of authorities generally, scarred by years of scandals about clergymen abusing children, athletes beating up girlfriends and university officials accepting bribes.
And yet, even if the royals’ role in the culture is now akin to the Kardashians, it wasn’t cool for Meghan and Harry to pants the 93-year-old queen, defy her instructions, dump their Megxit plan on Instagram and intensify the sad split between the brothers. (If ever there was a time for some dry gin. …)
What’s the rush to give up real influence to be an Instagram influencer? Besides, who unfollows their own grandmother?
What do you think that was about? The timing puts it after that joint appearance at Wimbledon.
I wonder... isn't Blackmail a crime? Isn't it illegal to blackmail people? Doesn't UK have laws against blackmail/extortion because what Megs is demanding along with her sidekick Harry, is extortion if the queen fails to give in to their demands and give information, be it lies or fact to the public.
Megs and Harry's lawsuit against MOS in their Complaint states they are suing because of all the "lies" published. Well, if Megs releases information about her in laws without balls on accurate proof, that's the same thing she's suing MOS over. Hmmm!
No wonder DM has no problem releasing The Kracken! So many stories today and in other publications. It's dizzying.
What do you think that was about? The timing puts it after that joint appearance at Wimbledon.
AND the polo match debacle with Meghan carrying what looked like a doll. Katherine may have said "She's batsh*t crazy and I don't want any part of this!"
Then she probably went home and lied to Harry about it by saying Kate disrespected her and the dingbat believed her. That's just it. He believes everything that comes out of her greedy blackmailing face.
There were pictures of something going down, and IDGI. Rach had behaved abominably towards Kate & the BRF, yet, Kate still stepped up to help Rach out, and then this? I have screenshots of Kate lifting her eyeglasses and something unpleasant happening between the two, and Rach looks almost pleased with herself, but I don't have a link for you.
Not stupid, just sociopathic in their pursuit for fortune and more fame.
Dang, tatty, I'm sorry! This is one of those inexplicable things that happen to me occasionally, like the time I told the lady that was spouting bullsh*t at a trade conference that she must be a Taurus, and she said "OMG! HOW did you know?" (And before you tell me that you are a Taurus, too, I know NOTHING about astrological signs, just that Taurus means bull.)
I had previously mentioned we had to see a RE (reproductive endo) and we had to do DH’s end of the program. With his results, let’s jusf say it’s truly a miracle that we had more children afterwards and spontaneously.
I figured it was time to say why the “Harry might have had one undescended...” statement gets nowhere with me!!
I'm with Nutty. Social Media is the new tool that changes the rules of the game, but the Crown will still always win.
They've had to sacrifice beloved blood relatives in the past; neutralizing a narc that's hurting one of their own AND messing with the monarchy is a no-brainer, as heartless and ruthless as it sounds. They are, after all, the original Robber Barons.
Actually, what you're describing is a sociopath, not a narc. (I welcome any professionals jumping in here; I don't have my usual materials to refer to.) The quickest way to describe a sociopath's impulsivity is to describe Uncle Sam's testing of them during WWII. The Pentagon ran a test using diagnosed sociopaths as bomber pilots, thinking that their lack of a conscience would make them naturals for the job. But it turned out that the sociopaths got so excited by the killing, they couldn't turn their planes around when they got to the designated fuel points, and the U.S. military lost too many of their planes. (Too many crashed instead of returning to base.) It can be hard to distinguish a narc from a sociopath as narcs are frequently described as "one-half of a sociopath." As far as I know there is no hard-and-fast rule. But some sociopathic traits differ from narcs: e.g., the pity play, their recklessness, the ability to charm others when they choose. A good-looking male sociopath, Ted Bundy for example, could charm a beautiful or vulnerable woman into getting into his car. A narcissist can only try to impress her with how wonderful he is -- a much less successful technique.
MM's behavior does suggest some of these traits. For me, the two biggest are her inability to bond with Archie and her seemingly magical ability to reel Harry back in (that is, to seduce him) every time they break up. How many times has it been now? Two or three? This probably is the part of their relationship that the BRF finds so infuriating. He no sooner figures out that she's bad for him than MM convinces him all over again that "they can change the world."
The article about Philip angered me, which was probably the point of publishing it. He’s 98 and on bed rest and being dragged into dealing with this nonsense. He’s apparently livid at the way Harry has treated the Queen and the lack of respect.
Thanks! Interesting (and a bit scary) story about the sociopathic bombers. And more than a little scary that the Pentagon was trying to use them to kill without conscience.
It's the perfect description of pragmatism.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201803/how-spot-sociopath-in-3-steps
The only thing that she is missing is the torture of small animals.
--Did I read correctly that the statement from the Obamas specifies that Barack has never met MM? Didn't they meet at the White House?
--The statement from William (and yes I believe it) is a bombshell. William is done. He is tired of the drama, tired of fixing Harry's messes, tired of the disrespect towards himself, his wife, his children. William is scarfing Harry. Maybe with sadness, maybe with regret, but he is doing it nonetheless.
--Who has custody of Archie? Does Megs really think she can just depart the country with an heir to the throne and everyone will be hunky dory with that? What is she trying to get in exchange for Archie?
--the TAXES. I have read multiple times over the years that Harry is a tightwad. Hitting him in the wallet might be the only way to get through to him.
-- Catherine and Megs not speaking for the last 6 months. Doesn't surprise me at all. I have avoided speaking to one of my sister-in-laws for 17 years, and she's only half as crazy as Megs.
@swampwoman don’t worry about it! When he was cancer free, we had a “ball” to celebrate it. I made everything food ball wise... tamale balls, artichoke balls, cheese balls etc, matzo ball soup.
I had previously mentioned we had to see a RE (reproductive endo) and we had to do DH’s end of the program. With his results, let’s jusf say it’s truly a miracle that we had more children afterwards and spontaneously.
I figured it was time to say why the “Harry might have had one undescended...” statement gets nowhere with me!!
I don't know that it was just the undescended testicle with Harry, though. It was the prospect of him having lower fertility along with her advanced maternal age and (presumed) lower fertility and, if you throw in a sexually-transmitted disease that one or both may have contracted along the way which could have caused some scarring/inflammation even if treated, it could make a quick pregnancy problematic.
But then again, former DIL was told that she would probably never become pregnant because she was missing a fallopian tube and ovary on one side as well as having endometriosis and fibroids. She is the mother of four.
“The statement from William (and yes I believe it) is a bombshell. William is done. He is tired of the drama, tired of fixing Harry's messes, tired of the disrespect towards himself, his wife, his children. William is scarfing Harry. Maybe with sadness, maybe with regret, but he is doing it nonetheless."
Agreed. This is William letting the world know that he would have taken the hard line with Harry, whatever deal HM eventually makes.
Off the top of my head, here is a list of avenues that Me-gain might explore for cold, hard cash:
-Endorsements of products (Sussex version of HMTQ's Royal Warrants-of course, Sussex Warrants will be allowed to print Sussex Coat of Arms... for an annual fee & % of gross profits)
-An App (beauty? fashion? watch the world burn! donate to this cause and Sussex will charge a transaction fee)
-Fees for appearances- (charities, causes, events, political rallies)
-Board Seats (imagine how much $$ they can rack up annually by getting paid to sit on Fortune 500 boards)
-Product endorsements (via social media, photos, appearances-- how much will they get paid if photographed taking Archie to Walt Disney World for the 1st time?)
-Media kickbacks (alerting paps to location-split profits)
-Information (this one is terrifying-- paid for providing info to governments/intel agencies on past conversations of wealthy or famous people, relatives, disclosing said people's habits, routines, preferences)
Take away it all-banish them. They are NOT team players. MM reminds me of that velociraptor from Jurassic Park that keeps testing the electric fence for weaknesses. She will not stop. Banish them, the survival of the monarchy is dependent on this decision because once HMTQ & the monarchy is seen as trivial or banal, it is over.
I think Meghan met Barack in the East Room in 2015. She posted a photo to her old Instagram account.
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11831800.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/PROD-Meghan-Markle.jpg
Re: Michelle Obama- check out this Daily Mail article from September 29, 2019. Apparently, Meghan took photo during SA tour and sent it to Michelle who then posted it on her own Instagram account. (Note that MM seems to have met with leaders within the Obama Foundation?!?)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7517251/Student-gobsmacked-Meghan-Markle-asked-picture-Michelle-Obama.html
Williams statement is significant because now it appears the gloves are off. Until not he has been quiet on this and this has allows the idiotic two to give all sorts of "poor us" interviews. Now I think he realises he can't clean up after Harry anymore and it is time to speak out. I feel for him and would reallllly like be there if Anne and Phillip decides to "take care of business". I would pay money to be presenter that meeting :)
Harry was very open in his disdain and repugnance towards his family that fed him, learned from listening and reading his Newsweek mag interview (btw, Newsweek followed Harry for one year on his day to day living, outings and official duties; it was such a disaster for Harry, showing that he did nothing but drink, fool around, and literally fall to sleep when he was being informed about Invictus, as one example, tat Newsweek was paid off to protect Harry’s low reputation.)
Harry is no hero. Harry resents everything, and it has nothing to do with his mother. Harry is in the double digits in IQ tests, and thus has no idea, except acting like a clown, how luckyhe is with his role in the Royal Family. I know of no other person that is given riches beyond imagination; homes, chefs, housekeepers, five months of luxury vacations (many weeks spent in his friends’ African colonial plantations, or in palaces with his bff, the Princ of the poorest African country, Lesotho; private security - RPOs are a bit like the USA Secret Service; Jets, clothes, Jaguars and Range Rovers - everything inthe world. He had the love of family, friends and his nation. But he has a low intellect with an incandescent anger, and simmering rage that he has to represent his country, and not hang out with his aristo friends who inherit but do not have to “put up” with a photo or two every month. Harry is too thick to understand that his pals can lose everything if times are hard, but Harry would still be unfathomably wealthy just by throwing popcorn at a child at one of his few engagements.
"The article about Philip angered me, which was probably the point of publishing it. He’s 98 and on bed rest and being dragged into dealing with this nonsense. He’s apparently livid at the way Harry has treated the Queen and the lack of respect."
That is exactly the point of this piece (and I'm all for it!). The longer this can be drug out, the more the BRF wins, because public sympathy across the globe will lean towards them.
It's somehow harder to feel pity for a woman who destroyed a family, held a baby hostage for material gain, and abused two great grandparents in their 90s than it is to feel bad for a woman who didn't get everything she wanted every time. It is much easier if the public is outraged for the BRF must withhold money and renounce titles. Then, it's the will of the people, not just personal animosity. And it takes time to get these stories circulated.
My guess is that most Americans don't understand that Rach & H want to leave to be independent except for the money. There needs to be time for that to sink in. I've read Rach & H are worth about $30 million -- that's generally considered to be a good, solid step towards "financial independence", and yet, they want Daddy to keep paying the bills? Let that sink in with Americans. And why do Americans matter? Social media. So yes, articles like this in the mainstream here, and then everyone, not just the British, will be PO:
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-meghan-markle-prince-harry-need-financial-independence-2020-1#baby-meghan-and-harry-dropped-hundreds-of-thousands-on-baby-related-expenses-which-could-be-telling-if-they-have-another-baby-1
(Some might consider $11K on acupuncture and numerology to be an area where the two could cut back, for example.)
Because Canada needs an angry alcoholic king and a trashy, ticky-tacky, abusive, narcissistic queen?
Worth reading for this alone:
...which American law-school genius dreamed up the hilarious wording on the new SussexRoyal website that refers to the couple ‘collaborating’ with the Queen, as if she were no more than just another co-worker? In case Harry and Meghan have forgotten, you serve the Sovereign – mainly because she has devoted her whole life to serving us.
The message is Mother Teresa – the reality is Kardashian.
If ‘SussexRoyal’ yoga mats are all the rage in Malibu next summer, we’ll have our answer.
I somehow have a hard time imagining Malibu giving AFF about Rach & H. Malibu, in fact all of LA, knows Rach was a D-list actress who screwed a guy for money and he just kept paying.
@Tatty, I disagree if I was LG that would be the exact article I would allow published at this stage the drama. The groundwork to show everyone just how ridiculous they are is well and truly out there, if this article was published earlier, wills would ave had a lot more negative response. Now it is the right time. I always said he was playing the long game and I think this is the result.
The few positive stories in the media about MM right now are total PR fodder that is a last ditch effort to salvage her sinking reputation.
January 12, 2020 at 7:56 AM Delete
Firstly, we have a general aversion to "tall poppies" with the exception of a few singers and, of course, hockey players.
For example, when Trudeau was first elected Prime Minister his wife tried to take on a prominent role akin to the "first ladies" in the USA. She was roundly criticized, put into retirement and mostly hidden during the second election campaign.
Canadian actors only become "stars" after they move to the USA.
As for becoming Governor General, I don't see most Canadians ever accepting that idea since we have more qualified Canadian individuals available and , moreover, it would be a step backwards to our colonial past. If anything, the next GG would be a First Nations (aboriginals in Canada) person, a gay or transexual person or a person of a non Christian religious background. That is Canadian society in the 21st century.
There is also very little for the GG to do, since it is mainly a ceremonial position. They would have to be based in Ottawa (not the most glamorous place) and I doubt that they would be allowed to have the side hustle that they desire.
As it is, a lot of Canadians would want to do away with the Monarchy entirely. The only reason that we don't have a republican movement the way they do in Australia is because we can't change our Constitution regarding the monarchy without opening the Constitution to a host of other changes desired by various interest groups. But certainly the idea of giving Royals any prominent place in Canadian society or governance is a no go.
Well, Tatty, if you’ve been on Vancouver Island and changing Archie’s diapers for the last few days, give us the scoop!!!! 😂😂😂
One thing that may not have occurred to non-Canadians is that the national Governor General and the Provincial Lieutenant Governors are all appointed as the Queen’s reps in Canada. So, if H&M move to Canada, why do we need a Gov Gen or a Lieutenant Gov in whatever province they live in? It’s kind of double-dipping into our tax dollars to support all of them.
Meghan loves privacy. Why is that? 2 reasons, in my mind.
1. The more Meghan can keep people from finding out about her associates, her past, and her actions (take for example the apparent Russian billionaire whose house the Harkles stayed at while in Vancouver. Russian billionaires are not exactly en vogue at the moment, particularly shadowy ones), the more she can pretend that her life began two years ago and try to sell that story (and only that story) to the public.
2. The more scarce a thing is, the more it is worth (Archie, etc). Meghan wants to merch everything. It is much more in her interest to keep Archie (and other things) hidden and she be the one (and not the royal press) to put out photos and appearances when she wants, for the return on it she wants.
Meghan, like many public figures (particularly Hollywood types), is obsessed with controlling her image. Nicer, kinder, less ruthless celebrities (particularly royals) don't have to worry about this privacy issue as much, because they don't have the kind of skeletons in the closet or emotional roller coaster personalities that Meghan seems to have.
Meghan completely botched things in the UK. It's over, there is no coming back. Her brand is finished there.
But she is hoping that she can still create and maintain the image she wants in North America. She has a leg up here in the USA on that front because the press here has willingly used her as a prop for their various agendas. She's not particularly popular here, but she has a relatively good image (compared with her image in the UK). And, of course, we know that Team Markle will just say that the 'racist and backward' UK was really the issue, not Meghan's personality or behavior.
Canada. Hmmmm. I guess a Canadian will have to say more about this. Canadians, in my experience, tend to be mostly down to earth folks. Yes, there may be a bit of mass wokeness embraced currently in Canada (embodied in Trudeau, I think), but things change. The Harkles wear very, very poorly. And they are not near the point of sophistication to be ready for their own, independent roll out. The Africa trip was ok, at best. It was great compared to their other events, but still not the stuff of sustained popularity, I don't think.
If the courtiers are worried that Meghan and Harry will become the unofficial king and queen of Canada, I would tell them not to worry. Same with those who are proclaiming the Harkles will be billionaires. Not only do these scenarios seem unlikely to me, the opposite seems likely - that the Harkles will quickly burn bridges, disappoint sponsors and irritate audiences as things move forward. Look at all the famous people rushing to back away from suggestions of ties between themselves and the Harkles now.
Metaphorically speaking, the Harkles seem like ticking time bombs just waiting to go off. It is very unlikely that this tendency will be kept under wraps in a new location, no matter how much the Harkles strive to keep such information from coming out and being shared. They are leaving the UK partly because they know they can't control the information flow there. But if they think that all of the USA and Canadian media is going to bow to their whims, they will soon learn they are mistaken.
The DM article is worrying, since it mentions that there is no discussion of removing titles.
I take particular note of the comment that Harry thinks Meghan can't return to Britain because she will have a breakdown. Does she strike anyone else as really being emotionally fragile? She's tungsten, I thought. If it is true regarding a breakdown, I wonder what is going on with that. I just can't buy that--it just seems to me she would be manipulating Harry in order to get her way.
Regarding the courtiers worried that Meghan will accuse them of being racist: I am so over this. So what? It's time somebody had the nerve to say, call me anything you want, that doesn't make it true.
@HappyDays The irony is that now Katherine Heigel plays a role on Suits.
@DesignDoctor: Yes, that’s right. In all the uproar this week, I had forgotten about that! It truly is ironic. But it took her several years of no work before she was able to get back into the business and she’s not on a really big show in a starring role. She threw away a lot of opportunities during her prime earning years because she was such a diva nobody wanted to work with her, so essentially she blackballed herself.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7LULNSH9Fc/
Again I know this is evil and cruel but she will never stop, and no one deserves her as punishment forever, not even dopey Harry.
That they now seem to be creating a Commonwealth position for them appals me. The idea is being put out there that Harry is more popular than Harry in Africa and would thus overshadow his brother. Not with the wife he has! Firstly, she would not be classified as considered black in Africa (during the tour, people were being polite as she was a guest). Ironically, in Africa, any diva tantrums or arrogance from her would have her labelled as a racist! Who would be funding this created position and the associated costs (travel, living expenses, staff, clothing, catering ...)? The Harkles like to live large and their extravagance could result in a backlash that creates animosity to the monarch and the UK among Commonwealth countries, many of whom are poor and have a memory of colonialism.
So many here have suggested that the best thing to do, to be fair to the British public and the BRF, would be to let them go and live as private citizens and make money in any way they wish to do (pay rent if they want to keep Frogmore Cottage, take care of their own security, travel, staff, and everything else - Charles and maybe even the Queen can be generous and give them a one-off payment to help them establish themselves, and protect British taxpayers' money from being claimed by Meghan in the event of a divorce). This can be communicated in a very loving and caring way. Instead, it seems, The Queen, Charles and William are being manipulated to come up with some kind of ridiculous hybrid model that is going to harm them and never satisfy Meghan.
The most interesting and frankly, stupid misadventure in the whole Harkle fiasco is the supposed pregnancy, delivery, and christening. Why is the press holding back on reporting about this whole travesty? Why not admit the truth? Meghan was not pregnant. HM had the name Archie Harrison trademarked before the supposed pregnancy. Why would they do this? Did they have a baby waiting for them? Or a few surrogates pregnant, and thus could pick and choose one or the other at the right time? Sounds crazy, but no more than the so-called journalists who lick at the feet of the Sussex duo, trio, or foursome? Why not tell Harry, the taker of tens of millions of tax payer dollars every year, just for breathing, to tell them the godparents names! Or the day the baby or babies were born?
I am extremely puzzled about Archie. It seems inconceivable to me that Meg could’ve cavalierly left an heir to the British throne with unvetted “friends” in Canada...is he “with the Mulroneys”?...Or did she “rush back to the waterfront mansion to be reunited with Archie, who was left with his nanny?” I’ve read both, sometimes in the same paper within an hour of each other.
If Archie is a real baby, and was really with them in Canada, there is no way the RPO‘s would have left him unattended, or without informing the palace of his whereabouts. The security risk would be extreme. Not least of which from Archie’s own erratic “mother”. RPOs would have the Queen’s authority to override whatever unauthorized schemes their protectees try to pull. Harry can’t pull rank on them because they don’t work for him; they work for his grandmother. I realize theory and practice might be different on the ground, but this was not OK in any level. This actually makes me think she doesn’t have him...which means they never had a baby in Canada, and that is a blind to make it seem like she’s got the biggest bargaining chip in her possession
Surely if Archie is a hoax the BRF knows it by now; but the mention of him in HM’s speech is confounding if he doesn’t exist in the flesh and in the family. I hope the days to come clear up these questions.
You are not alone. I have cathartic daydreams of Meg achieving the legendary status she always wanted, just like her idol Diana, via a spectacular dive off the PCH in her woke convertible. She can emulate those empowered feminist role models Thelma & Louise who go out on their terms after they make a whole scholastic of really bad life decisions. The wig flying free into the azure Pacific would be a sight to behold.
This negotiation for separation could be so very simple: “No.”. Repeat as needed. What penalties really await the family If they refuse the Sussex manifesto? Meghan lobs the racist grenade? Let her. At this point, being called racist is less damaging then capitulating to treasonous blackmail. When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, monarchy is inherently racist, since it was built and retains its power on the backs of subjugated peoples of various colors but largely brown and black. The best counter charge To megs accusation of racism is “but we welcomed you with open arms and gave you a 42 million pound wedding and made you our first black princess! Actually our second after biracial Queen Charlotte, who built the home we have just lavishly refurbed for you at great expense!” The public mood makes racism the lesser of two evils, I think. The monarchy survived the Plague, the reformation, the Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser, the Spanish flu, Hitler, Suez, the Troubles, and the loss of most of its colonies. I think it can survive one narcissistic Instagrammer with delusions of talent. She burned her self too fast. They’ve got nothing to offer the world… If she releases dirt on the family, they can counter with the relentless drip of her criminal misdeeds and decimate her. One porn video and they can say “ consider the source” with any of her leaks. Stop treating this pathetic duo like they have the stature they’ve got in their own mind.
Giving into blackmailers never ends.
>>>. And if it is true, that Harry would be as sexually promiscuous as he is largely considered to be. It's just such a common way to attack a man's masculinity, I wish someone could cite a half-way decent source the next time they use it as fact.<<<
Uh Oh....You saying Harry is promiscuous....ouch (I hear his lawyers talking libel suit now). That seems far worse than an 'Undescended testicle"...
1) They probably won't live in Canada for a few reasons.
i) As others have mentioned, having Royals there would be an uncomfortable throwback to the past. Royals are popular at a distance but not close up. There will be little to no culture of deference.
Also, it has been mentioned that there could very well be a legal framework which means you cannot hold a title in Canada. If this is correct then their brand is worthless where they plan to live!
ii) Taxes in Canada are also VERY high. As a US citizen I think I'm correct in saying she will have to pay taxes in the USA and Canada? Not good at all....
iii) If MM wants to still do acting stuff then Canada is not the place to be. Also, it's not a centre of power and influence unlike the celeb infested streets of LA/California. She's a California girl after all which leads me to...
iv) Neither of them are Canadian citizens so neither have a right to live there so this is an added complication. MM is an American citizen so this is quite simple IMO.
2) Nutty's ideas over the power of social media are dead on. Any deal that is made will have to include cast iron rules on what can and can't be said with real repercussions if these are broken. The RF can't have PH/MM acting as loose cannons either commercially or politically. The commercial side will cheapen the royal brand if PH/MM are seen as hawking products, let alone ones which are dubious (dodgy owners or just cheap/tasteless).
And on this front, the RF cannot allow them to stray into political territory, making statements about issues of the day etc. You know it will happen and it would cause real problems, real constitutional ones, if they did.
3) It is not in the interests of the RF to make a deal in just 3 days unless they are well prepared, have ammunition and hold a strong hand. You never want to fall for the sales technique of the limited time offer as it means you don't have time to work things out and will act more impulsively. If the RF are not already prepared, and if they are the ones under time pressure then the 'deal' will be a disaster. They will look weak and will then suffer when all the future guaranteed mis steps occur.
I would like to think that the Rf are well prepared for this but we've given them way too much credit in terms of how good they are about dealing with issues. Whoever has been advising them up to now has not done much to help them out, or after the PA scandal maybe no one is advising them!
Did anyone else notice the story in the DM the day this all broke last week, that Jessica Mulroney was pictured walking down a street in NY and they said it was where that family spent the xmas holidays. I wondered whether this was basically saying that’s where H & M had spent their time, but why then do the Canadian picture show and ‘royal visit’.....was Harry on Vancouver island whilst Meghan was elsewhere initially? Did she need to sort out paperwork?
They then showed a separate story of Doria walking her dogs in LA, so how much time did Doria spend with H & M? Was it literally Thanksgiving day, or no time whatsoever, but let’s say we did as it makes us look so family minded.
The press are very good at running one story and juxtaposing another story near by to basically say discount what you’ve read, this is the real story. I do not understand why they don’t just state what they know to be true. And another thing, what does Tom Bradby think he’s going to gain by being their mouthpiece, he’s not dumb, so what’s in it for him? Does he know something else? Is he there for Harry the moment he says they are divorcing? Therefore he’s going to be Harry’s mate and shoulder to cry on, plus exclusive mental health interview. What other angle is there?
Under civil law a marriage that took place in CoE church, does not exist if the reasons for it are dodgy (ie a sham marriage). In a CoE marriage, the officiant acts as he did before the Reformation, when the Church was the Civil Service - he is both priest and Registrar. (We do love our little quirks!)
There's been at least one case of a scam in which vicar has been paid to marry a couple knowingly but illegally. For eg. the parishioner `bridal' partner (also payee) marries an immigrant, (payer who wants to use marriage for immigration reasons). There's no divorce because the marriage doesn't exist. Church rites etc are irrelevant. Criminal sentences have followed. This does not apply to other denominations where, apart from Jews & Quakers, a state Registrar has to be present.)
Of course, M may have have defrauded H as well. I feel in my bones that there are some very good options for the RF along the annulment pathway.
I've always thought Welby was wet - I've far more respect for Richard Chartres, former Bp of London & friend of Prince Charles.
I was disgusted with Lynne Fauld-Woods last night (BBC News 24, Tomorrow's Papers). Spouted the standard tripe about M not being treated properly by RF, racism etc. Quite clear that the woman had no idea of what's been going on.
How is it that I, for example, a very ordinary mature lady without contacts in high places, with just some experience of nasty people (plus a computer), can have a shrewd idea of what's what, based on what I can see with my own eyes, and that I have been able to check it out and find that I am not alone but my fellow Nutties endorse it?
We are not in an echo chamber of faux-liberalism - we identify speculation and thrash it between us, just trying to find out what the hell is going on. How can a public commentator not smell a rat? Wilful ignorance?
Of course, L F-W, a Scot & republican, had to add that she thought public opinion in Scotland might be different. This was in the context of `racism', nice one, eh? That suggests it was her own racism at play; after all, nobody can load `Och, you English!' with as much scorn as my sister-in-law achieves.
@Debra: Hear! Hear!
I'm not sure if my ears were deceiving me but I thought I heard Fauld-Woods refer to MM as an `ex-slave'. I blinked very hard - she said what?
Words fail.
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1215634283290923011?s=19
https://twitter.com/E_L_James/status/1215783695606538243?s=19
The tone of self-righteousness in those tweets boggles the mind.
These people are so shallow to think that just because you dislike a celebrity then you must also hate all the causes & charities that celebrity is associated with.
But it’s a reflection of the world we live in now where the *celebrity* is the cause rather than the charity’s victims itself, isn’t it?
Says more about themselves, really...
(Still devastating to read nonetheless. One of my low points this month so far... A presumptuous tweet from clueless celebrities, strangers straight out of a Ricky Gervais rant.)
It’s a sad thing.
Why would I want to punish disadvantaged victims because I dislike a priviledged a-hole or two?
And they are disadvantaged, otherwise they wouldn't be living in a fire hazard for a home.
Meghan Markle came into the picture way after the tragedy and those people should not mia out on support just because we dislike her.
I don't appreciate Tweets by white people calling people think like me “idiots”(FTR I'm a light-skinned person-of-colour who knows that light-skinned PoC have it easier & I say that as a mixed-race light-skinned PoC who doesn't pass as white). I can see through the white-slating/bronzer, who are these virtue-signaling celebrities calling people like me an idiot for disliking someone on the basis of something they never experince or can comprehend?
I said it once and I said it again, the most racist person in this mess is markle herself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dgrr/the-papers-11012020
IDK why I said "
I find it absolutely disgusting that people think the best way to "annoy" a person who dislikes Meghan markle is by not supporting efforts to help Grenfell Tower victims."
Obviously the "not" wasn't supposed to be there as I was talking about their grandiose virtue-signalling gesture of showing what wonderful human beings they are by allegedly "supporting" a charity.
Perhaps it was a Freudian slip as I know in the back of my head their intentions were not likely yo *support* victims, but for selfish reason (to make themselves look good and righteous).
Prince Charles has traveled to Oman for that sultan's funeral. Clarence House tweeted: "The Prince is attending the first of three days of official condolences."
More delay for Harry. More time to deprogram him. More time for flighty Megs, in far far far away Vancouver, Megs is out of sight, out of mind........More time for her to go nutso and do something stupid. That Oman King had to go sooner or later, so might be as well be now and help out the British monarchy.
Top 8 stories today at this mornings UK Daily are about Megxit and none are favorable to Megs cause.
Yes, just looking through these. The comments are highly unfavourable and interestingly, the down votes on comments are the lowest I have ever seen them. The overwhelming majority now seems to be highly negative in theirs views of H and M.
I love this comment:
"I still have very fond memories of that day in 2018 when she stood in Windsor Chapel and gazed adoringly at her meal ticket for life."
That commenter forgot to mention that this was a 60 million pound wedding the BRF threw for someone who blames the British for being racist. And this racism is why she is holed up in Vancouver Canada, which is so welcoming, with Justin Trudeau and all.
Time difference-wise, it is actually better to fly from SA to UK or organise phone calls.
Not at all, duty first. He’s coming back for the meeting and it’s already been confirmed on our news, he’s not going Skype or anything like that. Besides his Private Secretary will be at the meeting with him, like all the other royals will have theirs.
None of us want the summit to be delayed!
There’s no discipline. Everything leaks and then everyone engages in swearing and shouting and blames each other.”
This sounds like one of my family reunions
Love everyone's comments!
1.NDA
@Louise : NDA : « I don't see why a neighbour(s) on Vancouver Island would ever accept to sign a non disclosure agreement unless they were paid substantial amounts of money.»
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7872209/Harry-Meghan-asked-neighbours-sign-non-disclosure-agreements.html
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/01/blind-items-revealed-3_5.html
It may be fake news but I believe it’s true and they had the nerve to ask their neighbour(s) such a thing.
2.Phone call on monday
@KC Martin : « I saw on insights blogs that the RF probably won't allow Me G to call in on Monday. She could record the meeting. »
If it’s a secure video conferencing/line room, phone/connected devices are not allowed. RPO could check.
3. A+ list friends
The Obamas: Michelle Obama admires HMQ (cf. her autobiography « Becoming » ). I don’t see her disrespect HMQ at that point (plotting against the BRF).
From my understanding, M.O met Rachel in London during M.O’s worldwide tour. M.O gave her advice about joining the BRF. Cringe ignored Michelle Obama’s tips which were basically wait & see: « don ’t do anything in the first year. Listen, take advice, take it easy. »
Besides, M.O did Rachel a favour answering Rachel’s questions for Vogue issue.
I’m pretty sure M.O knows Rachel is a mess. M.O will be polite but she will also maintain distance from Cringe because unlike Hillary Clinton M.O doesn’t need Rachel.
@Twinsmama : I agree with @ drchristna who wrote: « Once everything settles then all of those so-called friends will be back ».
They will all come back for sure. We talk about transactional relationship, not friendship. They are all cowards.
In addition, it is highly possible they chose Bradby as their spokesperson because Jameela, the crying make-up artist and Elton don’t help their PR stuff.
Bradby: really?! Are they threatening HMQ with their “no-holds barred” interview? Again, shame on them!
Bradby probably hopes his loyalty will pay off and he will have the opportunity to film or interview those two in the next few months.
Lastly, @ Twinsmama : the BRF has always used friends/staff/former staff to send message.
4. Divorce
I don’t believe a divorce is being discussed, not at all. Harry is still besotted with MM.
He thinks he will save his marriage quitting the Firm with a good deal. He is a fool !
5. Dirty laundry
I’m happy to see the story of Disney (video during The Lion King Premiere) and the rift with the Beckhams are hitting the headlines. It shows their true nature.
Tom is also friends with William, he’s become The Sussex’s mouthpiece of late and ‘appears’ to be on side. He’s toast with the ones that matter.
On another note, I can’t help thinking that some of the articles in the British press is to garner the public’s mood for the royals.
I don't think H's still "besotted" (after a mere 20 months of marriage) but I do think he's committed, partly out of stubborness. If nothing else, I don't think he'd want to admit he made a mistake and everyone who counseled him to slow down was right (or in the case of Philip, not slow down but forget marrying M altogether.) I think he'd be especially galled to admit 1) Will was right-- that M "didn't understand" royal life and 2) his own marriage failed faster than his father's.
However, I haven't seen it mentioned yet that she also ruined Beatrice's plans to announce her wedding date. Wasn't there supposed to be news in the 2nd or 3rd week of January?
Regardless of the outcome of the summit tomorrow, I highly doubt the public will be in a mood to be happy/cheerful for Beatrice's news.
So, since the media are starting to print the negative stories, can one of these media outlets truly make my day and give the details of what really went down at PC's garden party, where the dumbo duo were asked to leave.
Two things: MM was definitely NOT well-known before. But then, I don't watch third-tier cable shows, or game shows. So I, among millions of others, had never heard of her.
And I just don't get these continuing racism charges, by someone who marries and dates white, calls herself Caucasian on her resume, and whose store-bought white hair goes a long way into establishing her "white" look. Seems to me there are many more likely celebrities who could play this card. One headline referencing "Compton" doesn't convince me.
Oh, and speaking of cards, one more thing: My mother died young, leaving three children from 8 to 18. This was from a medical cause, not from a series of bad judgement calls like not wearing a seatbelt. We all managed to 'man up' (even the two girls!), get degrees, take responsibility, earn a living well before our late 30s, and never play the dead mother card. It CAN be done!
"The Queen’s stature and popularity mean abolition remains a distant prospect. But Harry and Meghan’s announcement should act as the catalyst for the scaling back of this unwieldy institution. Some of its supporters undoubtedly hoped that a mixed-race woman marrying in was the sign of an institution modernising to survive. That it so clearly has not worked instead serves to show that its long-term survival remains in doubt."
Just as racists talk of 'you people' thinking only in the mass, and are rightly deplored by bodies such as the Observer and sister publication The Guardian, the Observer's own statement makes no allowance for the individuality of the actual "mixed-race woman" involved. They are not thinking of the person. Of the person that is Meghan. If they had, they would have all the reasons why the "marrying in" did not work staring them in the face. They certainly are no reason to doubt "the long-term survival" of the monarchy. On the contrary, the vast majority of press and people want the monarchy to expel her and cauterise any wounds she has left, quickly.
@Hikari - I agree Meghan is being built up too much as a crisis, given her comparatively lowly status in the BRF, but what matters here is how the BRF deals with it. That IS worth all the fuss and drama, as it speaks to much more than what happens to two failed freeloaders.
Link to the editorial is below, and to give the Observer some credit as well as criticism, they do agree that H&M's plan to be part-time royalty wouldn't work.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/12/observer-editorial-view-on-harry-and-meghan-decision-to-step-back-from-royal-duties
It does seem to be gloves off in the press. Social media or not, a huge chunk of the nation still reads traditional news.
But the biggest surprise for me Patrick Jefson, the arch-royalist and moderate who did his best to keep Diana in the family, now openly calls for stripping MegaHaz off. "Royal family opens itself to accusation of corruption if they don't".
Simple Wow.
She REALLY hates Andrew and, by extension, the princesses.
That must be difficult for him to admit to his family he was wrong, but the most difficult is certainly to be honest with himself and to accept he screw up.
As far as stripping off Sussex titles, I think Piers Morgan gets credit for loudly proclaiming this a few days ago. He got the ball rolling. Pushed the stripping meme out there. Piers called H$M spoiled brats and used the word strip, which is harsh.
His tweets on this got thousand or more responses, while more important, his DM opinion piece on stripping titles layed this out in full. And got 5000 or so comments.
I hope Wills is reading! As much as Harry is responsible for this “sh*tuation,” I agree with what other commenters have said that nobody including him deserves Meg’s special brand of toxicity for life. It’s in the BRF’s interest to separate Harry from Meg and discredit her. I truly hope the BRF takes Meg down by destroying her credibility and miring her in nonstop controversy on the world stage. Stories I think that can accomplish it without revealing she faked her pregnancy (which I whole heartedly believe she did):
- Her sex tape and yachting past
- Her race baiting: passing as white in college, her CV, her “white savior” photoshoots, and resurfacing her awful quote she made about Hollywood racism and changing her race depending on the color clothes she wears: Red-Latina, Yellow-Black, ...
- Don’t want to go political but resurfacing her worship of Ivanka Trump during her Tig days and merching IT’s line; NY & LA would cancel her.
- Her abusive behavior as an actress and then as a Duchess (think Naomi Campbell throwing a cellphone at her assistant)
- Meg’s involvement in doxxing her critics not saved by EU privacy laws
- Security costs Americans incurred because of her baby shower and future costs when she visits and lives here
- Meg’s atrocious carbon footprint with her private jets and plans of living on 2-3 continents
- Archie’s shady immunizations situation (Zika countries, Meg taking him to a 3rd world country before his 6 month shots, ...)
- Her merching Archie wearing H&M, a fast fashion company, and potential future merching with Tig Tots
@Nelo, sorry didn't respond on byline query. Didn't have time to check. I don't pay much attention to bylines because so many US papers have sidelined their expensive veteran reporters, & go with young nobodies who have no real job security. The Brits seem to allow journalists more of a chance for a long career, but I'm not that familiar with them.
The Sun, I think, had a story on the Harkle 'team' that was helping them through the 'transition.' It was laughable, mainly
featuring people like Abigail Spencer & that music exec who helped them with their Canadian rental & who admitted that he didn't really know her.
The story from her former rep. at Kruger Cowne was a chilling portrait of a charming & ruthless opportunist, but what was most amusing was, true to her pr nature, the rep. still seems excited by all the millions the Harkles might earn.
I don't know much about T. Badby's general reputation as a journalist. But didn't he try to walk back a bit his suck-up responsibility for the awful SA docudrama after it aired? And weren't people (sensibly) not buying that? If so, he may feel stuck and figure he might as well go all in & hope to get good scoops from H&M.
Every morning, I wake and up and hope that someone is running a story that covers one (or more!) of your bullet points. We live in hope.
This couple seems to have no regard for the suffering inflicted on the royal family. No moral elegance. Their desires come first. A fine example for their child (and all their fans...)
In my view there are four possible scenarios re Archie staying in Canada:
1. Archie was left behind in Canada with a nanny and/or a friend while H&M returned to the UK to drop a bomb on the Royal Family. This scenario seems extremely unlikely to me, as several RPO's would have to stay behind to guard Archie. And as they are employed by HMTQ and not by H&M they would have to inform BP they were staying behind. I cannot imagine BP would approve of the 7th in line to the throne staying behind by himself at 8 months old with only a nanny and a couple of RPO's in a mansion which had already been all over the press, which is accessible from the water and the google maps location was shared on social media. Also, HMTQ would immediately have known something was up with H&M if they left their child behind.
2. There is no baby Archie and Meghan is in Canada / the USA by herself. Again, extremely unlikely as Archie was specifically acknowledged by the Queen in her Christmas speech. There must therefore be a baby.
3. There is an Archie, he never left the UK and is staying with his birth mother. Again, unlikely as the Queen acknowledged Archie.
4. Archie never left the UK, did not stay with his parents in Canada (explains the photoshopped Christmas card) and is being cared for by the BRF. This seems the only possible scenario to me. In that case Meghan could not use Archie as a bargaining chip.
Hard Megsxit - basically go it alone, and by the way here is all the evidence from HMRC (the UK IRS) showing you how much tax you'll pay. This will horrify tightwad Harry.
Soft Megsxit - divided time between their activities and royal duties, described as full active royal duties or variations of that. This would mean they'd continue to be controlled while they have their royal hats on. With all that entails. Everything Meghan abhors.
Meghan would find it nearly impossible to accept the soft version. If so, the BRF could effectively evict them with minimal criticism, as the soft version they offered was entirely reasonable.
The fly in this ointment is the human side. Are HMTQ and Prince Charles strong enough to harden their hearts and do what's necessary if, as expected, Meghan rejects even the merest vestiges of royal control?
I say 'control' but that's her word. We would call it loyalty, professional behaviour, obligations to the country that feeds and clothes her, necessary co-ordination of the large, complicated institution of monarchy ... I could go on and on, using all the words and concepts Meghan has never tried to understand.
And since the two have decided they simply can't abide being "full time" royals and do the royal duties, then how in the world would they possibly be only part time haters of their duties? We only hate our job half of the time, half way if you give us all of our sussex royal trademark symbol demands. Some kind of crazy logic compromise/blackmail scheme? No wonder it took them 7 weeks to hammer out their half witted, half baked, half cocked statement.
I predict, wrongly I hope, that Megs will try to postpone the Monday meeting somehow. If she can't be in charge of all things she will create a false flag to rearrange everything to her liking.
As for the Tom Bradby-delivered threat of a no-holds-barred interview by H&M, the public reaction so far is 'bring it on'. It could be their Prince Andrew moment in terms of royal hubris.
That woman aleady has spread falsehoods about members of RF and no matter how much she was pai she would ontinue to do so
If these demands are met it is very likely that the RF will cease to exist
If the demands are not met she will very quickly ditch her current husband after all with her record he won't last much longer anyway - is the Russian owner of the Canadian mansion married? Married or not if he has sufficient money he will be in her sights as a replacement
Perhaps he was left behind with RCMP protection. I do believe strongly that Prime Minister Trudeau has been in on the plans to decamp full time to Canada since the time that he Tweeted : "You're among friends and always welcome here". Trudeau himself could have approved RCMP protection for Archie.