Prince Harry appeared today in Edinburgh, Scotland, to promote his rather formless "Travalyst" project, ahead of a busy week for the Susssex duo. (And perhaps trio - nobody seems to know whether or not Archie will make an appearance.)
Harry is supposed to hit Abbey Road studios tomorrow to record a charity single with Jon Bon Jovi, a single that absolutely no one asked for. I've got nothing against Bon Jovi, who I think has aged very well, but who wants to hear Harry sing?
Probably not the Invictus soldiers the record will supposedly benefit. These are men and women who have made enormous sacrifices for their country, only to see their founder and patron jack the whole thing in to live in luxury someplace else.
The Invictus chorus will also perform on the song, and Bon Jovi has an eager fan base among ladies in his age group, but really - who else is going to buy this thing? Or stream it?
Probably not patriotic Brits, who have had enough of the Sussexes. And I don't think Bon Jovi is a big draw for the younger generation. If the Invictus people wanted some serious sales, they should have brought in BTS or Post Malone.
He was papped at the train station looking surprised by the photographer, and the mechanics of that interest me.
Did he book the paps? Did Meg?
What about the informal agreement that Royals are not subject to unscheduled paparazzi photos? Harry is, after all, still a Royal for four more weeks.
On March 5, Harry is back (temporarily) supporting the military again, appearing at the Endeavor Awards, given to wounded veterans who have taken on extreme sports challenges like mountain climbing.
Two years ago, this might have been a good fit for Harry. Now, not so much. It'll be interesting to gauge the energy level of these tough, highly-motivated injured soldiers when they meet their runaway leader.
Meg may also attend, although I'm sure they couldn't care less. Vain, self-centered, and certainly not self-sacrificing, she's not really the military type.
This was just hours after her famous quote to CNN about how she and Harry had "single-handedly modernized the monarchy."
It would be hard to top that, although Meg had someone leak to the Daily Mail today that she feels "picked on."
And it's questionable whether Meg will show up at all to the Mountbatten Awards, because this is not a crowd that can be trusted not to "boo" her.
This is Harry's final engagement as Captain General of the Royal Marines, and it would rather spoil it to have to defend his wife from the very British citizens which God supposedly has appointed his family to command.
If I were Meg, I'd limit myself to controllable events like the injured soldiers, who are honorable enough to at least greet her politely while complaining behind her back.
This is interesting only to see how many of Meg's "woke" followers are still interested in having her support their cause.
After the Sussexes' bitchy note released over the weekend, it may be dawning on even the most rabid Meg fans that the problem is not the 'racist' British media or the 'racist' Royal family or the 'racist' British public, but Meg herself.
Edward Enniful of Vogue is still singing Meg's praises, so maybe he can help her find a good feminist place to appear.
That'll be a happy group of people.
Let's see if Meg can top her dress from last year, which was a spectacularly inappropriate "chains" pattern, never a good idea when both countries you represent have been involved in the slave trade exploiting many parts of the Commonwealth.
Harry is supposed to hit Abbey Road studios tomorrow to record a charity single with Jon Bon Jovi, a single that absolutely no one asked for. I've got nothing against Bon Jovi, who I think has aged very well, but who wants to hear Harry sing?
Probably not the Invictus soldiers the record will supposedly benefit. These are men and women who have made enormous sacrifices for their country, only to see their founder and patron jack the whole thing in to live in luxury someplace else.
The Invictus chorus will also perform on the song, and Bon Jovi has an eager fan base among ladies in his age group, but really - who else is going to buy this thing? Or stream it?
Probably not patriotic Brits, who have had enough of the Sussexes. And I don't think Bon Jovi is a big draw for the younger generation. If the Invictus people wanted some serious sales, they should have brought in BTS or Post Malone.
Papped in the train station
Harry's showed up last night in Edinburgh after ostentatiously taking a train there to prove he doesn't fly everywhere by private jet, although I had to wonder if he was granted a private train car. No London North Eastern Railway 36 pound specials for him.He was papped at the train station looking surprised by the photographer, and the mechanics of that interest me.
Did he book the paps? Did Meg?
What about the informal agreement that Royals are not subject to unscheduled paparazzi photos? Harry is, after all, still a Royal for four more weeks.
6 days off
After the Bon Jovi single is recorded, Harry has 6 days off before his next engagement, and it would be interesting to know how he will use it. Meet with friends? He's cut off most of them. Meet with family? Bea and Eugenie, at least, wouldn't be too pleased to see him, and William is travelling to Ireland with Kate. Maybe pay his respects to Prince Philip?On March 5, Harry is back (temporarily) supporting the military again, appearing at the Endeavor Awards, given to wounded veterans who have taken on extreme sports challenges like mountain climbing.
Two years ago, this might have been a good fit for Harry. Now, not so much. It'll be interesting to gauge the energy level of these tough, highly-motivated injured soldiers when they meet their runaway leader.
Meg may also attend, although I'm sure they couldn't care less. Vain, self-centered, and certainly not self-sacrificing, she's not really the military type.
Boos at the Royal Albert Hall?
Meg is also supposed to come along to the Mountbatten Music Awards at Royal Albert Hall, the site of her odd appearance in late October, when she did a victory lap through the crowd wearing a giant wig and a Barney-the-Dinosaur-colored purple dress.This was just hours after her famous quote to CNN about how she and Harry had "single-handedly modernized the monarchy."
It would be hard to top that, although Meg had someone leak to the Daily Mail today that she feels "picked on."
And it's questionable whether Meg will show up at all to the Mountbatten Awards, because this is not a crowd that can be trusted not to "boo" her.
This is Harry's final engagement as Captain General of the Royal Marines, and it would rather spoil it to have to defend his wife from the very British citizens which God supposedly has appointed his family to command.
If I were Meg, I'd limit myself to controllable events like the injured soldiers, who are honorable enough to at least greet her politely while complaining behind her back.
International Women's Day
Meg is also supposed to make an appearance commemorating International Women's Day on March 8, although no details have been announced.This is interesting only to see how many of Meg's "woke" followers are still interested in having her support their cause.
After the Sussexes' bitchy note released over the weekend, it may be dawning on even the most rabid Meg fans that the problem is not the 'racist' British media or the 'racist' Royal family or the 'racist' British public, but Meg herself.
Edward Enniful of Vogue is still singing Meg's praises, so maybe he can help her find a good feminist place to appear.
Spectacularly inappropriate dress
Finally, on May 9 the Sussexes are scheduled to appear at the Commonwealth Day service at Westminister Abbey with all of the family members they've been leaking poison about for the past six? ten? 24? months.That'll be a happy group of people.
Let's see if Meg can top her dress from last year, which was a spectacularly inappropriate "chains" pattern, never a good idea when both countries you represent have been involved in the slave trade exploiting many parts of the Commonwealth.
What are you most looking forward to during the week ahead? What are you dreading?
Comments
Helen Mirren is respresented by CAA in the US. For media and charities, she's repped by Stan Rosenfield in the US, UK and Europe.
http://www.helenmirren.com/contactsqa/
David Beckham is repped by Rogers and Cowan and 19 Enertainment, London and LA.
https://www.celebrities-galore.com/celebrities/david-beckham/contact/
In researching this info, I've discovered that celebrities tend to change their PR companies often (so I'm not sure if this is up to date), and they also use separate agencies for various divisions of their work, such as one PR agency for clothing lines and another for charity work or athletics, but I don't see any relation to MM and Just Harry.
When our guys came from all over the US we stood in streets and clapped and cried as well. I wish I could post pics it looked other worldly afterwards. Sorry off topic
@Swampwoman
Continuing off topic, I have never experienced such incompetence from govt officials at all three levels until this hurricane. The police officers were the best over all even though completely overwhelmed. We should have been evaced like SC, but our Governor declined except for the barrier Islands. By the time our mayor said to get out there was gridlock for miles and miles with people running out of gas en route.
After this experience, we go inland with all major storms. We are lucky to have family that will put us up with our two crazy floofs.
Thinking about megonline ... owned by tDoS and claim not to be connected to any members of the BRF
I'm not quite so quick to say it couldn't possible be M there.
Um, why?
Well, I have read too many articles where a friend or friends of her talks to the press on her behalf.
I knew too many kids who could have some convoluted reasoning why they weren't really lying so they would be telling me something like: well, we consider ourselves no longer part of the BRF, their deadline means nothing to me/us and so this this isn't connected to anyone at the BRF.
And, if the DM article about how she feels picked on (with all the rational used), perhaps she really could double down with something like this.
OTOH, I could see it as a set up to gather who might join up though.
IDK, it is an interestingly provocative blip in her saga.
I'm curious to see if the Google Play and Apple App. Store buttons will work on March 1.
I think travelyst is a stillborn. It has already got the nickname hypocryst and it is everywhere.
As Liver Bird pointed nobody can actually say what it Does. Astonishingly poorly thought through idea.
O207 number suggests London. Interesting. I did a quick search and it appears to belong to business consultants service in High Wycomb, London.
I can't decide if 'meghanonline' is 'official' or not. I'm going for 'not' at the moment, but it does look like a lot of trouble has gone into it for a mere fan site - announcing an 'opening' date, asking visitors to register, promising a 'store' and a channel to donate to the Harkles' 'charities'?
I mean, it COULD just be someone trying to cash in on the Harkles' faded allure. If so, you'd think the famously litigious duo would threaten legal action, wouldn't you? I guess we'll see.
This has just been posted in the comment section of the DM...
Breaking News ! Canada does NOT have to pay for their security after the end of March !! Win win !
I think Travalyst is an attempt to pick up where the Tig left off. MM appears to be a fan of luxury travel and doesn't mind at all staying at other people's houses (mansion in Canada is exhibit A). I think this is why she is such a fan of SoHo house. Like the Meghanonline website, everything requires "insider access, members only" blah blah.
But I can't help think they're running a con. While woke celebs with enough money to care may shell out for a "curated, ecosystem friendly" trip, H&M won't be staying in a tent in a field. They'll take the funds from running Travalyst and continue their luxury house hopping. They can take splashy trips themselves and write it off as business expenses for Travalyst.
I was terribly in love with a gorgeous, intelligent farmer over 10 years ago. He lived in San Jose and was committed to most sustainable, least invasive, most eco-friendly living. It is a beautiful but difficult lifestyle. People who truly believe in it don't live anything like H&M do, my farmer had a backpack and his earthworms.
"You will also be invited to take part in special events, including a once in a lifetime opportunity to travel to London and visit the famous Windsor Castle."
which suggests that even if it's registered in London, it's targetting foreign, probably American, audiences. After all, a trip to London or Windsor is hardly 'once in a lifetime' for anyone in Britain!
Like I say, a lot of trouble for a mere fan site..... And registered in Jan? So just after Mexit?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/style/meghan-markle-instagram.html
"Unless otherwise specified, the Site is directed solely at individuals from the UK. If you choose to access the Site from locations outside the United Kingdom, you do so on your own initiative and are responsible for compliance with local laws."
The terms and conditions page is worth reading. I have never seen anything quite like it and don't know what to make of it.
You're right. The T&C page is quite bizarre. Why the block caps? And this:
"We will endeavour to pass on any communication addressed to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Kensington Palace or The Royal Foundation staff. We have informed the Palace and the staff of The Duke of Sussex that this is our intention and our primary aim is to help publicise the charitable work of their Royal Highnesses and assist in the generation of funding for such worthy causes."
Eh? The Sussexes have nothing to do with KP or the Royal Foundation!
And while it says who the site owners are not - ie, not affiliated with the royals - it doesn't say who they are. Who, exactly, is going to all this trouble to promote the as yet unspecified 'charity' endeavours of the ex-royal Sussexes?
Also, the email is:
Email: admin@www.theduchessofsussex.com, www.meghanonline.com
Surely you can't use the term 'the duchess of sussex' in an email unless you are, in fact, the Duchess of Sussex? Is she going to sue them?
https://deadline.com/2020/02/meghan-markle-escaping_the-crown-documetary-kicks-off-vice-versa-series-1202869355/
Meghan Markle Escaping The Crown will premiere Tuesday, March 10 at 9 PM ET/PT. Produced by the UK-based production company ITN Productions, the hour-long special takes a deep dive into the rapid rise and unraveling of the Duchess of Sussex.
The report investigates the role that the monarchy and British tabloid media played in vilifying Markle. As the saga continues with Harry and Meghan’s loss of royal branding, the documentary confronts issues of race, prejudice, and obsession in a story that now threatens to upend one of the longest-running institutions in the world. The episode features exclusive interviews with palace insiders and experts, including William and Harry’s former butler, the American wives of the British aristocracy, and royal correspondents.
Perhaps part of the exit agreement , included the fact that the Harkles have to show up in person . No show , no perks , or perks cease until you show up. A very neat way of checking substance abuse amongst other things.
I feel she will show up, just because she is compelled to or that Harry agreed to it in that exit agreement.
With all the demand about protection and entitlement to it , I wouldn't be surprised if someone higher up agrees to send the army out to camp on the Harkles doorstep , just to put a spanner in the works. Imagine that , tankers and the like. That should stuff up all that shouting and bleating across the Atlantic ocean.
Nutty posted that someone on her private Facebook page mentioned that the Harkles had left the mansion in Canada because security fences had been taken down.
Now we have someone in DM comments section saying that from the end of March Canada will not be paying for their security.
So - have they deserted Canada?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-stop-providing-security-harry-172406411.html
They got it from Reuters, so probably true.
Thank you for the link.
Very glad for Canadians but indignant for the Brits. We will be forced to pay the whole bill. If this happens I become a Republican and be d***med my respect for the Queen.
A quick look at Vice TV shows it's owned by A&E Networks and Vice Media. The co-owner of A&E along with Hearst Corporation, made a second 10% investment of $200 million in Vice Media to support the production of new programming.
Who is the co-owner? Disney.
I believe the last time I checked the Travalyst website, questions about the website were to be directed to H&M at a mailing address (!) Really?
I too find the T&C of meghanonline.com very odd. And the language used on the website sounds exactly like a certain someone who enjoys firing off written decrees, which also resemble the speeches Harry's been giving in the past few years.
And www.duchessofsussex is a dead site, though available for purchase. Very strange.
Yes, I saw the mention of Disney. :(
How popular is that channel - do you know?
Ogment is barely staying afloat financially, and Secet is in the red.
Michael Malaure is listed as the director of Ogment, and the only info I can find for him was a battle between the Council and developers who wanted to build a large mixed-use development in High Wycombe.
It looks to me that Ogment and Secet were some of the developers and incorporated for that purpose.
Because I don't know the area, I can't tell if MM and Just Harry had any involvement, perhaps as an investment? My guess is they were not involved, and that Mr. Malaure is going to get a lot of phone calls and emails today.
Vanity Fair doesn't have the influence or subscribers it had when Grayson Carter edited it. It's trying to appeal to the "woke" crowd as was Newsweek.
It seems media is either politically left or right these days.
I get Vice though seldom watch it. In the past it seemed to be geared more toward young, alternative viewers. Lately I've noticed the programming is more mainstream with lifestyle shows. House building, cooking, travel, that sort of thing. But still with a bit of a twist.
Re Noughts and Crosses - the Radio Times article on this programme quoted the writer uttering predictable remarks echoing what the left/luvvies say about how rotten we are.
Wild Boar Battle Maid said...Meanwhile at Sky news:
https://news.sky.com/story/extreme-and-malicious-racist-trolls-openly-abusing-meghan-online-11697549
@WBBM: I wouldn't put it past Meghan or Sunshine Sachs to buy commenters to troll Meghan and make racial comments about her in an online effort to portray Meghan as a victim of racists and attempt to garner sympathy for her from the public and Harry ahead of her upcoming appearances in the UK.
I believe she and her hired public relations people are THAT devious and cunning. After watching her in action for more than two years, I believe there is almost nothing she would not do to protect her current status in life, including trolling herself.
In this weeks Hello! magazine....
London based PR and crisis management consultant Mark Borkowski said (amongst many things), ‘in 30 years’ time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Meghan running for President of the United States’. 😳🙄😳
My eyes rolled and my tummy turned over, but then I remembered his occupation ‘crisis management consultant’ and that said all I needed to know as to why he’d say such a ridiculous thing ! 😂😳😂
Agree with tatty and the Zara and Mike thing, no excuse to not to self isolate, selfish of them IMHO. 🤔
‘Is anyone else having errors when trying to post?’
I’ve been experiencing them for a while now, I just try again and it always works. 🤗
"Canada to stop paying Harry and Meghan's security"
3 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835
Because the fences and other "security" measures MM and Just Harry put in place are gone now, it's probably because they are no longer living there. Where ARE they living? In the US, I think. think the gates and screens they recently put up hid they fact that they were moving.
Did Harry ever move this possessions to Canada?
But now we're starting to see the actual, on the ground implications of the removal of the HRH. It's not just symbolic. It has consequences and they aren't good for the Harkles. But still the question remains as to who is going to shell out for these chancers' security. Meghan's rant last Friday did mention something about how they will still have security, so much to my dismay, I suspect that the British taxpayer may still be getting the bill, amounting to many millions a year. But the press aren't going to leave this alone, and the public are not going to be happy. What they can do about it is, unfortunately, a whole other story.
>>>So - have they deserted Canada?<<<
I can tell you if they land stateside I will be immediately complaining to my Congressman, Senator, the POTUS, and the appropriate State representative to loudly object for the US paying for their security.
The other day I suggested a letter writing campaign directed to the Harkle's Canadian address but no one responded here, so guess it was all for naught. Maybe I'll try again. wherever they end up.
Thanks. I was just wondering what the viewing figures would be like for the programme.
They say: “Meghan Markle Escaping The Crown is a prime example of a point of view you won’t hear elsewhere – we’re tackling this subject in a confrontational way to say what’s really happening.”
Will you be watching perchance?
@hunter, I cleared cache and even rebooted my laptop for good measure but it still didn't seem to like me lol I'm not keen on IE but I can always read the blog on my preferred browser and just load IE briefly to post if I get an error so it's not too much of an issue. One bonus side effect is I've realised it's so much easier to draft in Wordpad than do it straight into the comment box so there's a small silver lining after all.
@Nutty, I didn't think it was a moderation issue (I was getting an error page come up telling me to refresh and try again, I should have been clearer sorry) but thanks for checking :O)
Now that I've read the Reuters article that @A Narc's Daughter posted, it seems to suggest that they will stop paying because the Harkles will no longer be HRH's.
You do have to wonder though if there's more to it than that?
No one will be happy paying for them!!
Thanks for that info. If you do decide to be brave and watch, be sure to let us all know! LOL
Canada refuses to pay for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Vancouver security once they step down as full-time Royals (so WHO will?)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8052533/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-security-costs-wont-paid-Canadian-taxpayers.html
Other Blogger sites I visit are having problems, too, so I think it's just a glitch, for which Blogger is famous (or infamous).
This just might mean the Dumbarton snowbirds are flying south to Malibu anyway, on April 1st. Megsy, Harry won't like the sky high sushi prices at Nobu. I read he gets a $300,000 yearly payout from his inheritance trusts that he is not allowed to dip into? At his age?
https://www.yelp.com/biz/nobu-malibu-malibu-4
"What CAN the UK citizens do about the security issue?"
Very little, unfortunately. At most, citizens could make their deep displeasure known and hope it might have some effect on the govt, who are ultimately the ones who decide such matters. Given that there has been a recent spate in knife crime, which many attribute at least in part to cutbacks on policing in the UK, there will be considerable anger that millions are being spent so that these two former royals can cavort around North America. But whether that woudl be enough to convince the govt to cut back on thier security is a different question.
"I just don't understand how the RF with all their money could expect the "peasants" to pay for this couple especially when they are no longer working royals and are not keeping their side of the bargain!"
I think the problem is that RPS work for the Met Police and for constituional reasons - I'm guessing - the royals cannot pay the police out of their 'own' money. I guess they could pay for private security, like Andrew does for his daughters, but it's argued that Harry 'needs' high-level security with links to intelligence reports etc, which can only come from govt - ie taxpayer funded - organisations. But it's going to be a major source of discontent, and the press are not going to let it go.
Could the whole thing be a massive criminal (ie different criminals?) telephone scam? Dial the number, `press 9' and get a phone bill of several thousand pounds from having yr money skimmed.
The only Ogment to come up for me is some kind of `tips for teachers' firm based in the US.
Btw: in England the term `nationalist' has been loaded with almost as much opprobrium as `racist' - often used as a very slightly milder term. `Patriotism' often equates to `nationalism' and so on...
It seems to have become a sin/crime to love and value the land of one's birth if one is English, although in the other countries of the Union (plus Cornwall) such devotion is seen as perfectly OK, highly desirable even.
Much depends on one's attitude to the EU. Has all this been wished upon us as punishment?
PH's Trust Funds are tied up more securely than Fort Knox, since he turned 25years of age, he has been allowed to draw on the interest. He cannot touch the capital sum but he will gain the interest on the total investment when he turns 40 in 2024, which will
probably amount to between £500 000 to £650 000. The total amount invested in the Trust's has not been verified in public that I know of but is estimated to be anywhere between £25miilion to £40million. At present the sum mentioned in the Press is £300 000.
PC and PP are the ones who tied up the Trust's, they know PH. William has the same arrangement at present.
Getting back to Travalyst: Harry announces his new venture just after he and his wife had taken numerous flights jetting around Europe (including two trips with private jets). None of the trips were for official royal duties and three were for leisure. His excuses for the private jets were lame (protection of my family) and came from a place of arrogant privilege. Now he holds this workshop* in Scotland at a time when Coronavirus is spreading and shutting down air travel and holiday resorts (among other things). Unlike his relationship with Meghan (sarcasm), the stars are not aligned for this new venture!
* The delegates were split into three groups to brainstorm ideas, each with a specific topic. It seems that Harry does not have a carefully worked out plan but is trying to get the travel industry to come up with and introduce changes. From his speech one can deduce the goals is to encourage travel experiences but reduce environmental impact and have a positive economic benefit for the destination. (I have been on numerous such out-of-the-office workshops, sometimes for more than a day. They produce no change whatsoever and are only useful for networking, which is great if you need to change jobs. They do create stress as time out of the office in a profit-making environment is less time to meet goals.)
Sorry to be negative Harry, but you should follow the example of your sister-in-law, not your wife. Slow and careful research, gathering a team of great advisers and collaborators, and a well-planned roll-out of projects and so on does create lasting change. Megsy's boom, splash and move on does not. It is like comparing installing street lights for a town (solar powered of course) and putting on a weekend extravaganza of fireworks.
@Holly, they might show it on (I'm assuming) ITV at a later date. I'm not entirely sure how tv stuff works but when Good Omens was made it was a joint enterprise between BBC and Amazon, was aired first on Prime and then we had to wait months for it to be shown on BBC, despite technically already having paid for it via the licence fee. I guess they wanted to get some extra money out of Prime subscriptions from those who didn't want to wait.
What the H--- does that mean?
How does that fit with the argument about HM's power being restricted to UK?
It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks for those who follow the Markles. Not to toot my horn but for some reason, I am able to predict Meghan's moves pretty well. I just put myself into an extremely narcissitc mindset and it works!
Having said that here's what I think: Meghan will ONLY come to the engagements in Britain if the Royal Family planners put her in situations where she cannot possibly be booed. For example, insulated by friendly crowds and pre-vetted attendees. She won't want a repeat of the booing in Royal Albert Hall. I believe her preference is not to come to England, and she well may not. Harry did arrive by himself after all and she could have came with him and brought Archie so the Royal Family could see the baby. That would go a long with the Queen and Charles, but I think she is too angry for that. However, she does like to shock and 'wow' people with brief, dazzling visits and they do need money from Charles. So I guess..... I don't really know! I would say it's 60% likely that she will be a no show and 40% likely that everything will line up to her liking and she'll show.
That clip that one of the Nutties posted of Camilla discussing her 'friend's daughter' that was in an mentally abusive relationship was fascinating. Clearly she is discussing Harry and Meghan! IF she is not discussing them, well she certainly described the exact type of situation H & M are in. It sounded to me like she was spinning a conversation that she had with Charles. At the bare minimum it shows the Royal Family is aware of the perils of mental abuse.
And Harry. Bah the look on his face as he got off the train. He looked so angry, so resentful and either he's a better actor than his wife or he did NOT know the paps would be there taking his picture. When I saw the look on his face, I though, what an a**hole!! He looks thin, gaunt and possibly coked out (as Nutty said). Such a shame, beyond a shame. The nice Catholic girl in me hopes that he'll go see his grandmother and aged grandfather.
I look forward to seeing the wonderful William and Kate shine. So many talk about Kate and deservedly so! But William has stepped forward with such a kingly elegance. I do hope to see a little bit of 'scarfing'. Come on Wills!
It is outrageous that they are getting away with this. Is there not some way that the British taxpayers can insist on some kind of financial accountability? Make them pay back the money and use it to help provide housing for all the homeless (a pledge from the new PM).
As for the Canadian situation ... the Harkles have been living in Canada as private citizens, not as official representatives of the monarchy. They should pay back the money that the Canadians spent on security.
PH's Trust Funds are tied up more securely than Fort Knox, since he turned 25years of age, he has been allowed to draw on the interest. He cannot touch the capital sum but he will gain the interest on the total investment when he turns 40 in 2024, which will
probably amount to between £500 000 to £650 000. The total amount invested in the Trust's has not been verified in public that I know of but is estimated to be anywhere between £25miilion to £40million. At present the sum mentioned in the Press is £300 000.
PC and PP are the ones who tied up the Trust's, they know PH. William has the same arrangement at present.
Does Harry ever inherit the trust fund? Even when he is 50 he can only get the interest it generates? This seems absurd to me. Though I suppose he could get a few millions in loans with the trust funds as collateral.
I know one person who would like to sink claws into those trust inheritances.
"It is outrageous that they are getting away with this. Is there not some way that the British taxpayers can insist on some kind of financial accountability?"
No. If the Home Office decides they are at risk, their security will be covered. Which would be tolerable if they were living in the UK and/or carrying out royal duties. But if they are private citizens flying from Vancouver to Miami or Los Angeles or whereever, just to schmooze with billionaires, it's outrageous that British taxpayers are shelling out for it.
Not to mention that those poor RPOs didn't sign up with the expectation of spending weeks at a time away from their families just so these two could indulge their selfish choices.
'He might have said ‘Just call me Harry’, but HRH still booked a whole train carriage home!'
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/tv/palace-confidential
Harry reportedly had 4 or 5 bodyguards with him (were they the ones carrying his luggage, other than his 'formal' clothes for the day?!) and 2 staff who were moved from BP to his Travalyst office (so I suppose he does take this new venture very seriously). That's 7 or 8 people in a first-class carriage, which seems reasonable (I assume most of his luggage was taken to wherever he is staying in London).
Or maybe it is not reasonable for him to have booked an entire carriage (about 20 seats per carriage?) ...
https://www.britrail.com/plan-your-trip/our-trains/enjoy-1st-class/
and as others have posted, Coronavirus is not the end all virus so many are saying. It is basically another version of the flu. The flu itself has killed more people than coronavirus. The media is really blowing this up to be much bigger than it is. The pharmaceutical companies will love it. Just take the normal precautions you do during any flu season.
It is interesting that now Canada is publicly stating they will be done providing security March 1st. H&M should be paying out of their own pockets as of that date as they are no longer part of the RF. Or out of PC's pocket :) They can buy Brook Burke's place in Calabasas for about $4 million and it is lovely.
The Canadian decision not to pay for security after the end of March is leading to a crescendo of anger across the board. As it should. It will be intolerable if UK taxpayers are expected to continue to pay. This is definitely getting into Diana death week territory, in terms of public unrest and hostility.
Who knows? This is an unprecedented situation. RPOs didn't exist back in the Uncle David days. As I understand it the RPOS are 'rotated' every 2 weeks, which of course will involve them being flown to and from the UK at great expense not only to the taxpayer but to the environment (so much for sustainable travel!). In addition, obviously they will have to be accommodated in whatever city the Harkles choose to be in, again at great expense.
It's a ridiculous situation, and nobody seems to have any answers.
My guess is more like they left so ....
I was hinting much the same.
So will it be Malibu?
Here are some of the sites I visited to find out about Orgment and Secet:
https://www.192.com/atoz/financial/business/04921189/
https://www.uk-busines.co.uk/company/3ci4j977/orgment-limited
There's a profit and loss sheet on Orgment, but I can't copy it as it's a pdf, but look up Orgment financials and corporate info. Same with Secet.
Hope this helps.
Orgment Limited - Management And Business Consultants in ...www.192.com › atoz › high-wycombe-hp14 › orgment-limited › comp
020 7097 8634 · Or Call 118 119. Calls cost £0.77 per call + £1.55 per minute with a minimum of a 1 minute call, plus your telephone company's access charge.
I don't understand the charge for the calls????? Scam?
As far as I know PH and PW do not get the capital sum that stays invested for future generations, i.e. only PG will be heir to the throne in due course, P Charlotte and PL may or may not be working Royals in the future, so the monies are to provide for them in theory. PH was until the dreadful SA trip was a full time working Royal and therefore had no expenses, so his £300 000pa is in fact pocket money and he has a reputation for being extremely tight with his money so not spending freely. The RF were assuming that PH would marry and have children but that he would continue to be a full time Royal so as his children or potential children would be down the line of succession and he would have to provide for them as no one is sure of the direction of the future of The Monarch. Am sure no-one in their wildest dreams thought the wife would be a raging, raving narc with a severe personality order to boot!!!
Another example is when W&K and baby George and Charlotte visited BC a few years back. I lined up to see them downtown and was right against the rope that holds people back. The security guys I was chatting with were all Canadian. Not a Brit in sight. Even the snipers on the roof were Canadian. So I really wonder if all this time we’ve been footing the bill.
back to me:
I read about something similar to this on another website. that Canada works "with" the Brits but Canada is totally responsible for the security. Don't know if Canada gets reimbursed by the Brits. Going to be interesting if they come to US. But it's California's problem. (as if they don't have enough already)
If Brits are angry now about paying for security, just imagine when they are paying so the Harkles can laze about in the Malibu sun by day and party by night with American celebrities.
'Beatrice and Eugenie are stripped of their 24-hour protection after row over £500k annual cost'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384476/Beatrice-Eugenie-stripped-police-protection-row-50k-cost.html
1. The costs were much lower then and did not include a spouse and child nor jet setting around the world.
2. Beatrice and Eugenie were 5th and 6th in the line of succession. Harry and Archie are 6th and 7th. When Charles becomes king, they will then be 5th and 6th again, until the Cambridge children start having children.
3. The claiming of some kind of international status by Meghan is a typical narc move. If they are in so much danger, put them under guard in a house (make it a nice one like Frogmore Cottage). Remember Salman Rushdie? He was given taxpayer protection but he was also confined to a house (security is then cheaper and easier). That ex-politicians (in my country, even those that did so much harm to the country) and present politicians who claim to be in danger (in my country, even if they are robbing the taxpayer blind) are given taxpayer-funded security does not make it right to provide such security.
Agree, and great advice. 🤗This is something I’m always aware of and wary of. I have my phone settings set so my IP etc can’t be traced and none of my data can be transmitted back to websites etc . I always opt out or turn off of all data harvesting (this is easy to do under European laws because you are asked). I always make sure it’s a safe site too (on a computer your spyware will tell you if unsafe) my phone is set up in a similar way; lots of dodgy phishing sites out there too. 🥴
“We’ve seen William at a lot more high-profile events, a lot of international trips particularly to countries that need a bit of care and attention.
“Perhaps not the jolly countries like Canada or Australia but the more complex countries where there’s more political unrest.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1248404/Queen-Elizabeth-II-latest-news-abdication-Prince-William-Duke-Royal-Family-update
---
Without going back to the original article, I'm sure it was Angela Mollard who was critical of Bea's wedding (the one about the "posh tent" and portaloos), so perhaps she isn't as much of a H&M fan as I originally suspected.
Personally, I don't think HMTQ will ever abdicate. I also hope she blows Louis XIV's record out of the water. In my view, it's only natural that Charles and Wills are getting more responsibility in their current roles to prepare them properly for the ones they'll be taking on at a later date, I don't think it's a sign of HTMQ preparing to step down completely.
^ not really intended to get a discussion going on whether HMTQ will abdicate or not, I just felt not mentioning anything would look weird as that's what the article was supposed to be about. I mainly wanted to share the quote above about the international tours.
This is a taste of what's to come-
"[T]he hour-long special takes a deep dive into the rapid rise and unraveling of the Duchess of Sussex, investigating the role that the monarchy and British tabloid media have played in vilifying Britain’s first black princess,” Vice said in its official description.
The documentary will explore “issues of race, prejudice, and obsession in a story that now threatens to upend one of the longest-running institutions in the world” and will feature interviews with experts, William and Harry’s former butler, royal correspondents, the American wives of the British aristocracy and other “palace insiders,” according to the press release.
The TV special will be the first for Vice Versa, a new series of independent documentaries that the company says will “tackle broken systems and corrupt power structures head on.”
“I never thought that this would be easy, but I thought it would be fair,” Markle says in the trailer.
“Vice Versa: Meghan Markle Escaping the Crown” premieres March 10.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2020-02-27/meghan-markle-documentary-vice
If Brits are angry now about paying for security, just imagine when they are paying so the Harkles can laze about in the Malibu sun by day and party by night with American celebrities.
Going by the comments in the DM and no doubt elsewhere too - there will be hell to pay!
People are rightly furious!!
It sounds like it's for the 118 number which can vary in their pricing, although I've never needed to use a 118 number so I'm only going by what I've found online. If it's actually for the 020 number then I think Ofcom might want a word with them. I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me will be able to clarify.
Links to Ofcom and the govt website for more info:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/how-much-does-a-phone-call-really-cost
https://www.gov.uk/call-charges
Yes, aged 30, just like William did once he reached 30.
I can almost hear the ominous rumbling in the royal family. Bea and Eugie's RPO were only a fraction of the cost to taxpayers, both are blood princesses, both stayed in UK, and what is more important, never put a foot wrong. And yet their protection was removed.
Whatever press is saying about Andrew he is the Queen's son. A favorite. Does anybody believe he simply accepts his nephew's behavior?
Don't you think Camilla who knows how to manipulate Charles is silent about Megsy - after everything she herself had to endure for years to be finally accepted by the public?
Do we believe William is benevolent after the damage inflicted by his idiotic brother on his and George's heritage?
Royals are like a boiling pot under a tight lid at the moment.
Trusts are a dime a dozen and are no real indication of high net worth. A trust can be set up to provide a place to store assets, as small amount as you wish, and for distribution after death or set at to age that the heirs can access the principal. So they aren't really only for the very wealthy. Many people set up a trust for the cache of it.
I know of one man who has a family trust with $5,000 in it. He just likes to see his name on a trust document. I only know this because I knew he didn't have big money and was able to search his trust and the amount in it.
Same goes for LLCs. People set them up all of the time and close them just as often. It makes them feel important. Most people love to name their trusts and LLCs after themselves (The john smith Family Trust. etc.), and they don't understand how easily all of their financial info can be found online.
A mantra for anybody with assets it to never touch the principal, only the interest. It's even better to spend less than the full interest and re-invest it. You make more money that way.
Thanks for the phone charges info. I have no idea of how the British system works.
Fairy Crocodile said...
People be careful looking into the meghanonline business. I have seen reports from people who went to this site only to discover they have magically became her ig followers
I hope this is only a prob if you do not have an instagram account and whosomever owns it cannot mess with any other account you might be using as you checked the site. The ways of technology are dark and deep..
I think the bit about under UK law and others use at their own risk refers to the Queen having the right to control use of "Royal" but outside the UK you the user take the risk that you are breaking the law. I think if there were to be fines levied overseas the owner would try to say the site's users made me break the law, they should pay. Pretty sure, not how it works....
.................
As to his visit to Edinburgh, doesnt that make Harry the Briefcase Boy, eye,candy for the masses, while Meghan is the "business genius" behind the scenes? In her own mind anyway.
Be assured The Queen is allowing her favorite dig his own hole and she has let go. Understanding she is not able to save him. They will be fully stripped at the end of their full time. Harry is not worth the life she gave to her country. Behind Granny is the name Elizabeth. Make no mistake who she is at the core.
https://nytimespost.com/harry-warned-doors-will-be-closing-for-him-and-meghan-markle-after-royal-family-exit/
The link below is to a Daily Mail podcast featuring Royal experts, Angela Levin, Richard Eden & Rebecca English & hosted by Jo Elvin. So you don't have to watch:
Angela Levin expressed displeasure with the disrespect the Harkles have shown the Queen.
Richard Eden said he thought it was unfair to take away the use of the Harkle HRHs, but was put in his place by the other two, & given reasons why they shouldn't be compared to Eugenie & Beatrice.
Rebecca English expressed pity for Harry. She said he looked depressed in unguarded moments when not on script. He exhibited some 'diva like' behavior with 5-6 RPOs who made it difficult for the press to take pictures of Harry coming & going, or ask questions. The RPOs also made it hard for reporters to get seats inside the event. Harry & his RPOs booked an entire first-class car on the the train for his return trip. She mentioned that she had once inadvertently traveled by train with W & K, & they had no problem sharing their car with plebs. She said she thinks Harry is terrified of angering Megs.
Other points covered by podcast: Almost everyone but Richard Eden thinks the Queen should decide for herself if & when she wants to step down. Eden seems to think she should be given the push.
Almost no members of the public would have gone to Prince Andrew's B-day bash if invited, but the all the journalists except Angela Levin would have gone if invited, out of journalistic curiosity. So now, you don't have to sit through the podcast.
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/tv/palace-confidential/2241/palace-confidential-he-might-have-said-just-call-me-harry-but-hrh-still-booked-a-whole-train-carriage-home
London based PR and crisis management consultant Mark Borkowski said (amongst many things), ‘in 30 years’ time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Meghan running for President of the United States’.
Perhaps Meghan is playing a long game. In 30 years, she plans to run AND WIN the Presidency. Security guards for life. That'll show us!! ;)
< < < Orgment Limited - Management And Business Consultants in ...www.192.com › atoz › high-wycombe-hp14 › orgment-limited › comp
020 7097 8634 · Or Call 118 119. Calls cost £0.77 per call + £1.55 per minute with a minimum of a 1 minute call, plus your telephone company's access charge.
I don't understand the charge for the calls????? Scam? > > >
I can see the cage fight between Chelsea Clinton, whom Hillary is setting up for a run for prez, Megan McCain, Ivanka and MM. A knock down, drag out fight to the finish for president by all of these wannabes. Add Kim Kardashian into the mix, too. She's gunning for a career in politics.
Can you imagine the debates? I pray for the future of our country.
Nothing on sussexroyal IG nor the media.
Perhaps they used their own crew to make a video that will then be released, because there is no point in setting up something to promote the Invictus Game if you don't use the event to, well, promote the Invictus Games!
Harry must be in a dark place. With the floods and coronavirus everyone could use with something uplifting and the pre-Meghan Harry would have certainly provided that with this gig.
USA Presidency: My understanding is that the electioneering gets brutal in terms of scrutiny from everybody and anybody. Megsy could never survive something like that. She needs adoration and admiration, and a platform for that, and she cannot cope with any 'negativity'.
Enjoyed that podcast you posted. Thanks.
"USA Presidency: My understanding is that the electioneering gets brutal in terms of scrutiny from everybody and anybody. Megsy could never survive something like that. She needs adoration and admiration, and a platform for that, and she cannot cope with any 'negativity'.
Yes, the background checks by the parties and their foes are brutal. Everything comes out, but Megs thinks she's smarter than everybody else, and that she is always right. She doesn't think anything can touch her. Sadly, she is mistaken, time and again.
BTW, that new show that going to air all of her grievances is going to bomb as badly as the SA "nobody asks if I'm OK" documentary. Just my opinion.
After spending decades as one of the world's most eligible bachelors, family man George Clooney is getting ready to spend more time in Southern California – amid speculation he may be seeking to run for office in Los Angeles.
If he does run for mayor of Los Angeles, will he be in a position to help the Harkles?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8048797/Aerial-photos-George-Clooney-making-renovations-Hollywood-bachelor-pad.html
Could also have something to do with this.
https://www.ibtimes.com/george-amal-clooney-fly-canary-islands-twins-amid-divorce-custody-battle-rumors-2929197
Clooney is a creep. Lots of skeletons rattling around in his closet.
I had no idea there might be marital problems! (denied, of course)
Interesting nonetheless.
There is an error. Harry and Meghan were never invited to the State dinner for Trump. Harry did meet Trump on one official occasion; Meghan was on pregnancy leave (she could have sent a handwritten note of apology but did not, and then she turned up for Trooping the Colour shortly after, but looked very bloated at that occasion and was publicly given a bollocking by Harry, so I think she genuinely was not up to a pubic occasion but TtC, photo ops with all senior royals, was too good to miss for PR).
Begging For A Big Briefcase Of Cash
Here’s the problem with one celebrity insulting another: You never know when those insults are going to come back to haunt you!
This married TV actress has insulted a prominent politician more than once.
She called The Politician names and said she would never vote for him when he ran for office in Country 1.
She blew him off when she was supposed to attend a dinner in his honor that was hosted by her family in Country 2.
She said that she and her husband didn’t even want to live in the same country with Politician and would choose life in Country 3 instead.
She clearly despises Politician.
In fact, she actually seems to take pride in her vitriol towards him. She even flaunts her friendship with a rival of his who tried to take him down.
She always saw herself as being in a morally superior and more popular position to [Politician].
My, how quickly things can change!
Our actress behaved like a royal pain in the butt and quickly made herself rather unwelcome in both Country 2 and Country 3.
While her ego has now been knocked down a few pegs, her purse may suffer even more.
She may now have to bear the burden of millions of dollars of expenses that were formerly paid for by Country 2 and Country 3!
What’s a spoiled girl to do?
Go back to Country 1!
She does not want to pay that money herself and she feels like she should not have to pay the money herself. She feels like [Country 1] should be honored to have her back and should willingly pick up the tab.
The level of entitlement is simply staggering.
There’s a problem though.
Guess who is in charge of Country 1?
Why, the very Politician she insulted multiple times!
We are rather confident that her demands are going to be met with a wall of resistance.
If she really wants a big briefcase of money from Country 1, she is going to have to do something extreme.
She will have to go from insulting Politician to basically begging him for help.
And our Politician never forgets an insult!
This should be fun!
https://blindgossip.com/begging-for-a-big-briefcase-of-cash/#more-100237
With regard to the costs of their security recent reports have suggested costs of around £20million. Charles could not pay for this as his revenues from Duchy of Cornwall are £21million. I have on other forums urged people not to sign petitions since this is basically a waste of time and effort; what is needed is direct communication with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, if you are UK voter your own MP
At the rate Megsy is burning bridges, removing their titles might happen anyway, security issues or not.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8053403/Prince-Harry-booked-entire-class-train-carriage-London-eco-conference.html
As a Canadian, I completely agree with you and just posted a similar comment at the Globe and Mail (Canada's leading newspaper) comment thread.
Trudeau has been asked repeatedly since January whether Canadians were paying for the Smirkles security and would only respond each time that "it as being discussed'. And then today we find out that we have actually been paying for them since November!
The minister for public security state in the House of Commons today for the first time that we have been paying, but that it will end "some time in March". Could he have been any more vague? Had he said that it would end April 1st, when they lose their royal status, I might have bought this. But a random "some time in March" tells me that we will only stop paying for their security once they leave Canada.
Fortunately for Trudeau and the Smirkles, most Canadians are not paying attention due to Covid 19 and the aboriginal blockades of our railroads.
His friend, selfish, lisping Violet Elizabeth threatens “I’ll scream & scream & scream until I’m sick”
if she doesn’t get her own way. Sounds familiar...
The Canadian government has been led by the nose by the couple and have put their selfish needs above the duty to the Canadian people who elected them. I think Canadians are very polite and tolerant to have let the situation go on for so long, and to have let their government be less than truthful with them.
@NeutralObserver: Even if all Harry's titles were taken away from him, he would still be in the line of succession (unless he signs his own instrument of abdication and relinquishes that spot). However, Beatrice was higher in the order of succession when her RPOs were withdrawn and Eugenie was in the same spot that Harry now has. Of course they should pay for their own security and should have been doing so since at least November last year.
By the way the 10/20 million security cost for the Harkles was from a private security firm. If it was costing half a million each to provide security for Beatrice and Eugenie just less than 10 years' ago, a realistic cost for the Harkles could be 10 times the amount. There are three of them, their relocation and frequent travel (where three of them may be in different countries, which is inconsiderate and entitled recklessness from them) add to costs, and I am assuming that inflation would have doubled costs but I may be exaggerating. The Harkles cannot afford that if they are going to live on the interest from Harry's trust money, but they left the BRF and UK because they want to be able to commercialise and make money so I reckon that within a year they will have the deals in place and the money in the bank to take care of their own security. In the meanwhile, Papa and Granny should cough up (and apologise to the people of the UK and Canada for the waste of money) but try and be firm about budget.
The anti-personal-interaction police have been active here recently, so I have to stay on topic. Ha!
I actually think we're seeing the beginning of the long slow fade into obscurity for the Harkles. I hope that Harry can find his way back to his family & some semblance of mental & physical health.
The Harkles are so nuts. I've used the Linda Blair's head-spinning in The Exorcist analogy before, & that's exactly what Megs' contemptuous dis of the RF is when juxtaposed with her insane determination to hang on to her HRH & Duchess of Sussex designations. It's head-spinningly crazy. If the the RF is so insignificant, why are her titles so important to her?
I came across an article in In Touch Weekly today describing how much Megs enjoyed her time in Canada wearing 'jeans & sweats,' & she 'hated 'the 'royal dress code.' Huh? The woman who spent almost $1 million on clothes in her first year as a duchess?
She & Harry could have probably remained in the UK & stepped back from their roles as senior royals. They could have followed the footsteps of the Earl of Snowden. They could have dropped some of the titles & taken up Charles' offer of an estate in Herefordshire. Megs could have lived in jeans & sweats to her heart's content.
They could have gone into some business like raising sheep or llamas & manufacturing organic mohair throws to be used on sofas covered in silk made from silk grown in their organic silk farms. They could have raised bees & manufactured organic Sussex Royal honey, & Sussex Royal Royal Jelly cosmetics. Megs could have started a line of Sussex Royal organic jams & jellies made from their organic berries. They could have started a Sussex Royal version of Whiteflower Farm.
Megs could have lost the last of the baby weight, hired a decent hairdresser & makeup artist, & posed for glamorous layouts in mags like Town & Country, Vogue, Architectural Digest ( & all the British equivalents). She could have had it all. I'm sure Charles would have bankrolled almost any scheme like one of these, but no, Megs had to have her world domination & glamorous profile, & she & Harry aren't energetic & enterprising enough to make a go of something that requires hard work. Back in my day, the 70's & 80's, rich young couples who did stuff like that were considered cool. Now, it's the influencer thing. No actual work or special skills required other than the ability to take a good selfie.
Updated Date: 2019-12-02T18:03:45Z
Creation Date: 2016-11-30T04:47:25Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-11-30T04:47:25Z
Registrant State/Province: California
Registrant Country: US
https://www.domains.co.za/pages/whois-results
The Duke of Sussex was a title that had not been used for more than a century although rumours had swirled about its revival. Why would someone in California register this domain (and never use it)? Unless it was Meghan and Harry had told her (this would be about 5 or 6 months after they purportedly first met) that he wold get that title when he married,
Here's the information from Wikipedia about the title and it is interesting ...
The title of Duke of Sussex was first conferred on 24 November 1801 upon Prince Augustus Frederick, the sixth son of King George III. He was made Baron Arklow and Earl of Inverness at the same time, also in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. The title became extinct upon Prince Augustus Frederick's death in 1843.
Although Prince Augustus Frederick was survived by a son and daughter by Lady Augusta Murray, their marriage (purportedly solemnized at St George's Hanover Square Church, Westminster, in 1793) had been annulled for lack of royal permission under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, rendering the children illegitimate under English law and unable to inherit titles from their father. Both children by the annulled marriage died childless, rendering the issue of their inheritance moot.
On 2 May 1831, Prince Augustus Frederick married secondly (and again in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772), Lady Cecilia Gore at Great Cumberland Place, London. Not being the Prince's legitimate wife, Lady Cecilia could not be received at court. On 30 March 1840, she was given the title of Duchess of Inverness in her own right by Queen Victoria.
Second creation, 2018
In 2018, the dukedom of Sussex was recreated and granted to Prince Harry to mark the occasion of his wedding to Meghan Markle, who thereby became the first Duchess of Sussex. On 19 May 2018, it was announced that Prince Harry would become Duke of Sussex in England, with the subsidiary titles of Earl of Dumbarton in Scotland and Baron Kilkeel in Northern Ireland. In 2019, an heir to the dukedom, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, was born.
In 1999, before the wedding of Prince Edward, the youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II, some had suggested the dukedoms of Sussex or Cambridge as the most likely titles to be granted to him. Instead, Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex, and it was announced that he would eventually be created Duke of Edinburgh, a title currently held by his father, Prince Philip.
There was again speculation that Prince William might be given the Sussex title on his wedding to Catherine Middleton in April 2011, but he was instead created Duke of Cambridge.
Updated Date: 2019-12-31T00:00:00.000Z
Creation Date: 2014-12-30T19:16:03.000Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-12-30T00:00:00.000Z
Registrant Street: 2635 Walnut Street
Registrant City: Denver
https://www.domains.co.za/pages/whois-results
Can anyone explain this? Someone randomly in 2014 and then 2015 registered these domains (in different places and through different people) but never used them?
@Miggy posted the DM link re Just Call Me Harry booked an entire train car for him and his party, reminds me of when his missus booked the entire section at the tennis match.
Updated Date: 2019-11-22T10:28:09.00Z
Creation Date: 2010-11-29T23:42:00.00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-11-29T23:42:39.00Z
https://www.domains.co.za/pages/whois-results
But, what about the Duchess of Cambridge?
Updated Date: 2019-12-04T13:10:33Z
Creation Date: 2006-11-30T10:01:50Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-11-30T10:01:50Z
https://www.domains.co.za/pages/whois-results
Although it was probably always known that William would get the title of Duke of Cambridge, why is there such a huge discrepancy between registration dates?
I think someone was randomly registering domain names for titles that had not been used for a long time. But why register at different times and from different places and then never use the domains?
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-3004#post-55242645
@Narc's Daughter "Never touch the principal" is the trust fund training that my TFK friends receive. (These are serious TFKs, not the $5K kind, and I am NOT one of them.) so, in theory, your honey was being sensible. I know TFKs who've dedicated their lives and big bucks to charity, and I've known a few who spent it on lots of drugs. It looks like Harry FKAP may be the latter. Sad, really. Most of us would love to have the opportunity to make a difference and pursue our passions, but elusive happiness and dark demons happen at all income levels, and some people never leave the pity party long enough to experience the blessings. IDGI.
Hey Neutral O! thank you! Nutty said that we're allowed brief social contact :) so re the job, yeah, I thought it would be so cool, but I was wrong. Probably the biggest career mistake I've ever made, and that's saying something, but oh well. Live, learn.
I have just been catching up on this week's episode of WtF w/Rach & H. So much I haven't seen. I always wondered how we could know that Harry FKAP is hopelessly stupid. I think i have the my answer:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8053403/Prince-Harry-booked-entire-class-train-carriage-London-eco-conference.html
@Sandie. I think Harry should be talked into abdicating from the succession. They should go beyond what they did to the Duke of Windsor, 'for Harry's sake.' He could stay as close to or as distant to his family as he wished, but have none of the privileges or responsibilities of being a royal. That's what he says he wants isn't it? Give him what he says he wants.
If the rumors about Archie's surrogacy are true, he can't be in the line of succession either, because of the 'of the body' rule. The RF should come clean on that as well. It's 2020. The public can handle it. I think that if the RF addresses the whole mess frankly, the British public will like them better. They'll blame it on Megs, the daughter-in-law from hell. As it is, all of the RF look like Andrew, explaining away his unappealing private life, too arrogant & out of touch to be relatable. Family complications are something everyone has.
so Anne had 2 security men and a driver so why so many for her ginger nephew?
In a rational world, I think Harry/Meghan/Archie could probably get by with a couple of security staff during outings.
But in an irrational world - where the antics of H & M have brought out the crazy in everyone - I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of unhinged "credible" threats against them, thus the need for more security.
They could do themselves a favour and stop poking the bear, thus minimizing "the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years. "
Maybe one or two of the men travelling with Harry are sober coaches.
I think the figure being given of 10-20 million sterling is inflated to create outrage and force the issue, plus I think that the Sparkles are demanding and require double the security that is normal (and the complication of all the travel and leaving baby behind when they do so ... at a place that is not secure as Kensington Palace or Windsor Park would be).
Meghan and Harry have made some very selfish choices and his family must feel very disappointed. It should not be a surprise considering how she treated her own family.
It is questionable that RPOs would have made her safer that night. They could only have done so if they provided the car, drove the car and chose the route. The baby shower trip to New York shows that principals can direct security ... Meghan insisted on being taken out a back door for the optics (not to avoid the cameras).
Meghan and Harry have government security (UK and/or Canada). But there have been rumours of the RPOs or Mounties (?) being used to run errands (not in their job description) and there have been instances of Meghan ignoring the direction of RPOs (or directing them as in the above-given example).
1. New York Times article about Instagram
The Cambridges are not in the running for "Who can be the most popular celebrity?" They are preparing to be the future king and queen. If they do well on IG, great. The Harkles, on the other hand, NEED to get over as celebrities since they will soon no longer be working royals. This is the only way they can seem to stay relevant.
Snoop Dogg has more IG followers than either the Cambridges or the Sussexes, I believe. Just as an example. Does Snoop "matter" more than royals do? Or another example, Katy Perry has more Twitter followers than Donald Trump has. Does that mean she's more powerful than Trump is? No.
The Harkles have nothing but PR gimmicks to fall back on now. They are the ones using bots. The Cambridges have bigger fish to fry than working to outshine the Dumbartons on social media.
2. Vice production on Meg
Looking at the video page, there seems to be less than 5,000 views. Not exactly a production the world is clamoring for. And we're back to the "poor, victimized POC Meg" charade. Maybe that works like two months ago, before Meg is blasting the queen on her blog. Now? Not so much. People are rapidly realizing that Meg is disliked for her attitude, not the color of her skin.
3. Vanity Fair piece on Harkles
Very similar to the Vice production, it seems. The worn-out "bad white supremacist monarchy vs enlightened, good-hearted, awesome POC Meg." Again, very typical 2010's USA identity politics tripe. There are still some people who buy this stuff, but the genre is on the way out. In general, people are tired of this reductionist categorizing of who is good and who is bad based upon one's heritage. It's played out.
Vanity Fair is not the force it once was, either. They are pretty much a glam mag for the Hollywood and elite sets. But their online product is poor. Very poor. I think the magazine itself was on the downturn, but it's for sure on the downswing now provided the poor quality of their internet offerings. The Harkles piece would seem to fit this degraded mold.
Either Meghan is pushing her PR to do the same old stuff to make her popular and thus increase her earning power or her stans have a one-track mind and think that global popularity can topple the monarch and put Harry and Meghan on the throne. The race and popularity and 'modernising' themes are tiresome, especially when they come from those who do not understand the monarchy nor have a vested interest in it. Why should the UK and the Commonwealth accept a monarchy imposed on them by Americans?
@Lurking: The information on who acquired the domains, when and where is interesting (both the Sussex and the Cambridge before the titles were awarded). The online world is a messy one and one to which Meghan seems very attached. However, the Queen is the one with the power in the BRF and she does not play Meghan's online games. Meghan has never understood the monarchy nor the British people and perhaps that is the biggest cause of her failure.
No, I do not think that the Cambridges bought bots at any time to increase their IG following. (I can imagine the brothers getting into a competition, but the Cambridges are surrounded by advisers and staff that not only serve them but also the monarchy.) The speculation from Americans (not all) is fanciful and shameful.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/02/blind-items-revealed-3_26.html
Original blind = "The foreign born royal has started talking a little too much detail about that first birth. It kinds of put her in an awkward spot if the surrogate ever comes forward."
Just hope Meg keeps walking into these traps she sets for herself. The more she battles the queen and Kate, the faster things will implode for her. Those are two fights she cannot win, no matter what continent she is living on or who is doing the reporting. No one, including in the USA, supports Royal Quitter Meg over either the queen or Kate. Sure, Meg's cult and the media does, but the average person does not. And the meaner and more unhinged Team Meg is to the duo, the faster people will dump Meg.
Thanks. Yeah, the supposed strategy makes no sense. It seems to be "once we overtake the Cambridges in followers and likes, we win." That is a joke.
People are weary of false victims like the Harkles. Particularly when those supposed victims are such petulant, ungrateful, childish oafs. Meg fighting with the queen on her blog was a massive mistake. One that cannot be brushed off or set aside by a Meg "friend" leaking to the Daily Mail to try to clean up the mess. Everyone saw it, and knew what it meant.
The monarchy is winning. They can just kick back and wait for Meg to fall into the next trap she'll set for herself.
There will also be mention of the Sussex Royal branding “saga” that has engulfed Meghan and Harry as of late.
In a statement on the Vice website, it outlines how the programme will explore “the rapid rise” and “unravelling” of the Duchess.
Vice said: “Produced by the award-winning UK-based ITN Productions, the hour-long special takes a deep dive into the rapid rise and unravelling of the Duchess of Sussex.
“Investigating the role that the monarchy and British tabloid media have played in vilifying Britain’s first black princess.
“As the saga continues with Harry and Meghan’s loss of royal branding, the documentary confronts issues of race, prejudice, and obsession in a story that now threatens to upend one of the longest-running institutions in the world.
“Featuring exclusive interviews with palace insiders and experts including William and Harry’s former butler, the American wives of the British aristocracy, and royal correspondents. “
The TV special will be the first for Vice Versa, a new series of independent documentaries that the company says will “tackle broken systems and corrupt power structures head on.”
On being a member of the royal family, Meghan admitted in the documentary trailer: “I did not have any understanding of what it would be like.”
Before adding: “I never thought that this would be easy, but I thought it would be fair.”
Youtube users were left divided by the trailer.
One user said: “ Harry was a lone wolf now he is free. Good for them.”
Another replied: “ Oh god, Vice why are you turning this into a race war? It has nothing to do with race at all.”
A third commented: “This is not about race- I’m mixed race. I’m American I’ve lived in London. Yes- they are a bit prude. But the bottom line is that the crown is an institution !!! A well run one at that.”
It comes after Prince Harry shocked the public this week, by announcing that he would now be referred to as just ‘Harry’ in a bid to separate himself even further from the Royal Family.
The Sussexes are due to quit royal duties in a matter of weeks as they begin a new working life in Canada, as they seek to be “financially independent” of the crown.
Royal author Leslie Carroll has suggested that the reason for Harry’s transition away from the monarchy is to distance himself from people who try to “micromanage” him, including royal family members.
Ms Carrol exclusively told Express.co.uk that Harry has taken “displeasure” from the treatment that the Royal Family and palace bureaucrats have given his wife Meghan Markle.
She revealed: “[Harry’s] displeasure at the way his wife and son were being treated by the press, by other members of the royal family perhaps, and by some of the “Men in Gray” as Princess Diana used to call the bureaucrats in the palace who sought to micromanage her life and her decisions.”
The royal author suggested that the seemingly dramatic steps that lead to “just call me Harry” stem from issues that the Duke had witnessed his mother Princess Diana face while still invoking her royal title after divorcing Prince Charles.
She added: “Harry has always been acutely conscious of the way his mother was hounded and hunted by the press, and he has been equally outspoken saying that he will not let history repeat itself with his wife and son.”
The shock announcement to drop his royal title was delivered on stage at Edinburgh Waverly station on Tuesday night, prior to the Duke speaking at an eco-tourism conference on Wednesday.
Former Labour advisor and broadcaster Ayesha Hazarika, introduced Harry to the crowd, telling delegates: “He’s made it clear that we are all just to call him Harry.
“So ladies and gentlemen, please give a big, warm, Scottish welcome to Harry.”
"The royal author suggested that the seemingly dramatic steps that lead to “just call me Harry” stem from issues that the Duke had witnessed his mother Princess Diana face while still invoking her royal title after divorcing Prince Charles."
Harry was just six years old when Diana died. Yes, he probably remembers having to see his mother's coffin passing by, but he has also said he does not remember her. How can could he have witnessed what Diana went through after the divorce and understand it? He could only see or hear things through a child's eyes and ears and would not understand what was really going on after the divorce.
This leads me to believe that MM has created this belief in him or that she is enforcing his belief that Diana was killed by the BRF, and that's why he suddenly seems to hate them so. It was like a hatred switch had been flipped on after he met MM. He absolutely hates his own family because she's pushed this theory on him. To me, that could be the only reason he shows such hatred and disdain for the BRF, his own family.
My sister's children were 17, 13 and six when she died, and the youngest doesn't remember her. Because the family has kept my sister's memory alive for her, she knows that my sister loved her beyond words, but she doesn't actually remember her. She also didn't understand the concept of death at that age. She has grown be be a lovely, bright biologist with a PhD and a thriving career.
Harry has been seriously damaged by MM, possibly by planting false memories and mimicking Diana as often as she can. To an already damaged mind, this could be fatal. Could some of the RPOs be watching over Harry for more than security?
admin@www.theduchessofsussex.com - this email is NOT affiliated with "theduchessofsussex.com" because of the www preface.
That's not now email addresses work for the accounts under which they are issued.
The proper email address if it were associated with the domain would be "admin@theduchessofsussex.com" none of that WWW stuff, that's an entirely different address/domain.
Technically the domain associated with the admin account would be www.wwwtheduchessofsussex.com
See the difference?
Just wanted to point that out, it bugs me every time one of you bring it up because that's not how domain addresses work.
for example: info@ParakeetEyeballs.com would theoretically go to the same address as info@Parakeet.Eyeballs.com
so by this suggestion the "www" is actually part of the registered domain name in that admin email.
Smart trick if you don't know any better.
I have read THOUSANDS of comments - holy christ so many - and aside from the "Straight Outta Compton" headline (which I take offense to, since she never presented with any such identity), NONE OF US have used her race as a reason to disqualify her from her roll as Just Harry's Wife.
If anything, a number of us pale-faces have noticed her legs are just as light as ours, etc. Nobody's problem is related to her skin color.
Sadly, when I try to tell any people of color (who don't follow this story), they just give me a knowing look and smile at my blind white privilege. There's really zero out for me at that point so the accusations are a very effective silencing tool
'But after the Queen ruled they could not use the royal trademark they withdrew the applications.
But a bid to use it on toiletries, sporting goods, toys, beer and jewellery in Europe is still active.
It is now under examination by the department.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11059091/harry-meghan-withdraw-trademark-sussex-royal/
Wasn't there some other person who applied to use Sussex Royal as a trademark for a limited number of goods in Europe? If this isn't an application from Harry and Meghan, then The Sun is being a bit disingenuous. If it is someone else, can't Harry and Meghan lodge an objection? Have they done so?
I've been checking my instagram account since I stopped following SussexRoyal, and no matter to which of their sites I go, I have NOT been automatically added as a follower of theirs, if that sets any minds to rest regarding that subject.
I think I must be some kind of unicorn, because I'm a liberal Democrat, and I can't stand the megster. She's a horrible human-being, much like our current US president, of whom I refuse to speak or type the name. It boggles my mind that people can't see that they are BOTH narcissists, and both of them think they are the smartest person in any given room. It also gives me a hearty laugh.
With regard to what I'm most looking forward to with their visit back to Mother England, I'm just looking forward to her being exposed as the disgusting, lying, abusive narc that she is. And having the TRUE circumstances regarding Archie revealed, once and for all, but I know that will be a ways into the future.
#HappyMegxit to you all. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I am going to try to be fair to Meghan (well partly so) and suggest the following may have happened:
Their relationship happened very quickly and became intensely intimate. (We have seen how Meghan behaves in public with clinging to him and the adoring looks, so imagine what went on in private. Perhaps sharing memories and grief about his mother was encouraged as a normal part of building an intimate relationship with the love of your life.) That kind of intimacy makes one very vulnerable to exposure of buried stuff and unresolved issues, and also tends to highlight character weaknesses, of which there had been hints shown in interviews and 'acting out' (hence we have seen Harry unravelling).
Harry may not remember his mother very well (I think he was 9 when she died), but in that interview he did with William when they were looking at photographs, he did seem to recover some memories. Him and William were doing something positive about her memory (a memorial, memorial events, following in her footsteps with charities).
Meghan obsessively watched the royal wedding and knew a lot about Kate so she may have made herself very familiar with Diane's life.
Meghan probably exploited all of this (and maybe unconsciously or because she has no clue how to deal with such emotional issues but one of her flaws is grandiosity). Her response to him becoming very vulnerable was to dig in, find an issue and pick at it (i.e. his mother). She may have thought she was helping him but she was actually pushing him over the edge. Her whining about not thriving and how the BRF were controlling her and disrespecting her and how the media and British public were being racist and savagely attacking her was probably all stuff she genuinely felt and thought with no clue that there may be something wrong with what she was feeling and thinking.
It was the perfect storm and allowed Meghan to take complete control over a vulnerable man, cut him off from a beloved family, friends, country and all he has known and cared about his whole life.
A car and a driver would have been provided if Diana had held into her RPO’s. She would have at least had a safe driver who knew how to cope under those circumstances, regardless whether she was wearing a seat belt or not (which according to medical reports would have saved her life). 🤗
@Sandie,’Harry may not remember his mother very well (I think he was 9 when she died)’
Harry was almost 13 when his Mother died, he was born on 15 September 1984, it’s a checkable fact. 🤗
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8054861/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-DROP-bid-trademark-Sussex-Royal.html
His friend, selfish, lisping Violet Elizabeth threatens “I’ll scream & scream & scream until I’m sick”
if she doesn’t get her own way. Sounds familiar...
Hahahahaha - spot on! (should be scweem though!) lol
I can see Megsy stamping her big horrible feet in furious rage!
The arrogance of these two never fails to surprise, but I don’t think it will ever be approved, knowing The Queen has said ‘no’. 😳🥴
https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#basic/1+1+1+1/100+100+100+100/sussex%20royal
https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/018178521
I agree with what you say. The sheer audacity of the pair!!
The Queen said NO so NO it is!
Waiting for the next move in this never-ending chess game .... lol
Yep, I made a mistake in Harry's age at Diana's death. Sorry about that.
What and who do The Harkles think they are? The latest news about the trademarks is just pure spite on their parts. With this latest demand, they have proven that they cannot be trusted to keep their word. What *reputable* company would want to do business with them after this stunt?
The public cannot be assured now that any item with the Sussex Royal name would be produced ethically. Isn't that what their whole brand is about? Ethics and sustainability? Are we supposed to just take their questionable word for that?
I can't imagine anyone who would want to purchase anything with the Sussex Royal name attached.
Check my post above, which has links to the information.
It is that guy in Italy (and there seems to be some involvement by a German-speaking person in Austria) that the media uncovered a while back.
Surely the Sussexes raised an objection?
Anyway, the application is still being considered (I think someone in Australia or new Zealand raised an objection or was that for another filing?).
We don't need to hunt around for evidence of gaslighting and psychological manipulation by Meghan. Harry has provided sufficient evidence in his own words. It's out there, in the public record, for all to see.
I've just written in the DM that RPOs for the Sussexes is increasingly becoming more a matter of separation than protection. Separation from anyone who could buttonhole Harry in the way dreaded by politicians on general election walkabouts. Now they have publicly bullied the Queen the anger, frustration and disappointment felt by the public will be permanent. No one recovers from that.
Thinking back, my third thought that Sunday morning, when the news broke, was `Was she wearing a seat belt?'
First and second thoughts that day were words to the effect `How horrible for her' and `In the eyes of the Church, Charles is now a widower - I wonder how that might change things?'
Yes, Harry was almost 13 and the public mood was very ugly indeed. Not helped by an Express reporter stirring things about the Royal Standard on Buck House not being at half mast.
As a child, I'd been taught that the RS signifies the presence of the Monarch, so it's never at half mast (half mast denoted the presence of Death's conquering but invisible flag flying above it on the staff. Compare this with the procedure when a battleship is taken by the enemy. The original flag was lowered halfway and that of the victorious navy flown above it).
The Union Flag has only been flown on Buck House following Diana's death, once a second staff was installed to mollify the critics.
With the Royal Standard, it's a matter of `The King is Dead. Long Live the King.'
Apart from Edward VIII, I can't think of any monarch who has ever willingly abdicated their responsibilities. They may have been forced off the throne, assassinated or, in the case of James II, obliged to flee in order to regroup and return. Abdication requires an Act of Parliament, but William III managed to fill the empty space in time. The remaining Stuarts were finally reconciled with the House of Hanover in the late 18thC. In this matter, Geo III was a thoroughly good egg, IMO.
In any case, Edw.VIII hadn't yet been crowned, so no vows or anointing were involved. There's a lot of theology in the ritual, whether one approves or not. When Elizabeth II vows to do something, she means it and I cannot imagine her ever going back on her pledges to God or to us.
Girl, I thought it was something like that! I, too, in my youth took a job with the Federal gov. It was not a match made in heaven. I did not last 6 months because I realized that this was not going to get better. (Your agency may vary.)
I bet HMTQ is re-thinking "Dame" Helen Mirren's DBE.
I hadn't even thought of that. Way to show gratitude. Take your title and then proceed shitting on the person who gave it to you. These bloody leftie luvvies make me sick.
Here's her lame reason for accepting it...
Dame Helen, 69, told the Sunday Mirror's Notebook magazine: "I was kind of ambivalent about it because I've always seen myself as slightly on the outside or the edge of things.
"In Britain, a Damehood is very much being welcomed by the establishment... so I was a bit wary.
"To me, actors shouldn't be too establishment. Our job is to be sort of anti-establishment.
"But on the other hand... I just know how incredibly proud my father and Russian ancestors would have been.
"So, I took it for that reason and I did feel embarrassingly proud about it."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8055521/Anger-mounts-Prince-Harry-Megan-Markles-security-bill.html
Looking at her IMDB, I see that that I first saw her in "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover". What confusing drek that was, but hailed by the critics-cognoscenti. I zoned out or left after 60 minutes. I know which movie theater I saw it in. A Miramax production that made Harvey Weinstein's name. His big splash.
Here are some young photos of her >>> https://www.buzzfeed.com/unfrufru/25-photos-of-a-young-helen-mirren-that-prove-shes-1m8j7
In a rational world, I think Harry/Meghan/Archie could probably get by with a couple of security staff during outings.
But in an irrational world - where the antics of H & M have brought out the crazy in everyone - I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of unhinged "credible" threats against them, thus the need for more security.
They could do themselves a favour and stop poking the bear, thus minimizing "the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years. "
I'm of the opinion they're doing it at least partly deliberately with the security issue in mind. What better way to force the issue than to create a situation where security is necessary? I can't see them willingly reining it in as it'll negate a whole chunk of their argument. We've also noted that they seem to enjoy playing the victim; I haven't sat and counted, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least half of their PR pushes the "woe is me, I'm so hated/picked on" narrative, what do they have if that's not an option? Not much I'd think. If they settle down and act like normal human beings I suspect they'd fade away into Edward's level of obscurity (we're aware he exists and know basic details about his life, but don't really hear much about him in the press) and that seems to be the last thing they want despite all of the claims otherwise.
@Hunter, I'm half tempted to see if that domain is available haha not entirely sure what I'd use it for though.
If anything, a number of us pale-faces have noticed her legs are just as light as ours, etc. Nobody's problem is related to her skin color.
I didn't even realise she was mixed race until the hullabaloo hit the papers. Back at the very beginning I wasn't really paying much attention, as far as I knew at that point she was "Harry's girlfriend" and further than that I didn't really care much outside of "I hope they're happy" and didn't really read many articles about them. It was only as things progressed that I started thinking there wasn't something quite adding up and I started looking into it more closely. Now look at me, through this blog I know more random facts about the entire royal family than my mum does and she's been a big fan since well before I was born lol so I guess I do have the pair of them to thank for that side of things if nothing else.
'They need to pay themselves': Royal experts say Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should stump up for £20m security bill that Canada refuses to pay as UK taxpayers voice anger.
The RPS also serve as their enablers and semi-staff and luggage carriers. Their presence makes it lot easier for the Drastically Downscaled and Dumped Dumbartons to successfully hide out when they choose and to present when they choose. So of course Megs and H want to keep them. Free of course! Their nanny has a much easier job with the RPS around, when Megsy and H take off on their aimless jaunts.
So now off to Malibu, within a month or two, with no RPS? We shall see. Perhaps the Bank of Dad will pick up the tab. I see so many pissed off and disgusted comments at DM, how British taxpayers are forced to pay for M$H RPS.
---------
The royal protection squad | UK news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/16/qanda.monarchy
Jun 16, 2000 · The royal protection squad (RPS) watch over the Queen and the immediate heirs to the throne. Before the IRA ceasefire, even the houses of the Queen's obscure cousins were given 24-hour protection.
This really is turning into a crisis!
When Diana died and the public made their feelings known, the full scale of public discontent took a while to filter through to the RF. Now with social media, they can read and see it for themselves daily.
The public are enraged. This will not end well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8055541/Jon-Bon-Jovi-arrives-Abbey-Road-meet-Prince-Harry.html
Here's Cringe!
I don't think he looks horrible.
* There was not a huge crowd. I was there. It's all photographers and then max 20 curious people at the last minute.
*I think anyone waiting outside - and there doesn't seem many - were waiting for Bon Jovi
*I was just there as I live around the corner. I find stage managing quite interesting. The PR people at the last minute thought there weren't enough people in the entrance. So they ushered them from across the road...
Also, I read that the media were mostly excluded from the 'event'. That to me suggests it was not an officially sanctioned royal appearance, as the royals can't be seen to play favourites with particular publications. Which in turn means that there may be less coverage of the event, which is supposed to be to support Invictus. So because of Harry's paranoia and stupidity, 'his' charity will get less exposure.
The sooner these two are officially out the better. Roll on April fool's day!
Even if the govt agree for them to continue to receive protection, a huge problem remains. Outside the UK, the Met Police have no jurisdiction and so cannot effectively protect their charges in the event of real trouble. They could not draw arms or arrest someone, for example. So in other words, cooperation from the local police - whereever the Harkles roll up - is absolutely essential. The Canadians have already officially said they will not pay from April 1st onwards. I highly doubt the Americans will either. The only way for them to get continued Met Police protection is to return to the UK and/or take up official royal duties.
They really, really didn't think this through, did they?
I can’t help thinking that this day was picked on purpose . First official day of being non royals...starts on April Fools. Who are the fools? Who is the joke on? 🙄😩 I hope it’s not us Brits who will be saddled to pay for them. 🤨😖
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1233370189930074113
Jon Bon Jovi does not read this board to know that was already taken.
I've looked at the photos from a few outlets, and actually think Harry looks the best he's looked in ages. He looks really good in blue, and he's smiling, I think real smiles this time. He's in his element, eating up this attention from an American celebrity. I didn't see any discomfort and he appeared engaged, and sober.
When did Bon Jovi get so white? Still cute, but for a minute I thought I was looking at Dexter Fletcher.
If anyone remembers that appearance Woke and Joke made at the performance of "Hamilton" where Haz took the stage and sang a couple of bars of King George's number . . it was a brief snippet but I was favorably impressed by his deep baritone. Seems like he can carry a tune with no problem.
Here's an idea for TAFKAP's post-royal career . . hiring himself out as a backup singer. Ha!
Just a few months after the wedding . . my, how things have changed for the Suxxits. If they only just could have kept this going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PFsUJD9Sg4
But then you remember that he's also on the books of Sunshine Sachs and it all starts making sense.
As I said above, I doubt this is an official royal event as they excluded most of the media. I'm more interested in seeing the upcoming real royal appearances in March, where some of the actual royals are also scheduled to appear and which, much to Harry's disgust no doubt, will be covered by the royal rota. The dynamics should be fun to analyse!
Should we start a bet on whether or not Meghan will show? My guess is not, though I wouldn't be too surprised either way.
https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-stop-uk-funding-and-remove-all-titles-for-meghan-markle-prince-harry
18,721 signed so far, but should be much higher if enough people know about it.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1248719/meghan-markle-prince-harry-security-canada-uk-taxpayer-security-sussex-cost-royal-news
To date, 97% say no.
Was a reason given for the move to Canada and potentially the US? Perhaps the Queen should require the Harkles to be based in the UK.
I believe, "they're being mean to me" may be the reason they used. They were forced out of the UK, remember? All the mean press weren't making it easy. As she said, "she knew it wouldn't be easy, but she thought it would be fair." I honestly don't understand what hasn't been fair about her treatment. I wish someone would ask HER that very question.
Not only is it way more expensive - the flights, accommodation and probably overtime for the RPOS have to be paid for - but it's also a massive headache as it requires collaboration with the local security forces. As I mentioned above, RPOS work for the Met Police and as such have no jurisdiction outside of the UK. That's why the Canadians were providing the Harkles' security in Canada, and why during the belly clutching 'baby shower' last year, the NYPD was on the hook for Meghan's 'security' - in addition to British RPOs obviously.
That's why the Canadian statement that the Harkles' 'change in status' (!) means they are no longer entitled to govt funded security is so significant. Even if the British govt decides they are still getting taxpayer funded security, they cannot force other govts to do the same, and it's likely they won't. The Harkles really are so dumb!
I was thinking the same thing... What if the Queen put her foot down again and said that their security would only be paid for if they based themselves in the UK?
I think her aspirations for Hollywood are done.. no one wants to talk to her... so why not find a nice little niche inside beautiful Britain, and focus on raising little "Archie" and becoming financially independent?
From Wiki -
"Unbroken" is a song that was written for the film To Be of Service (2019). It is about soldiers who have PTSD and it was written from the their point of view. The song is meant to honor America's veterans and their service, but also talks about the reality of their daily lives and struggles.
It's actually a good fit for the Invictus Games and great PR for the new album.
Last night when I looked at the Terms & Conditions, at the very bottom, it listed one of the contacts as admin@www.theduchessofsussex.com
@Hunter... that's how it was listed, with the www. before the domain name. I copied & pasted it, I didn't type it out.
So I did a google search of admin@www.theduchessofsussex.com and came up with the following:
http://prntscr.com/r9378a
So whoever owns meghanonline.com IS affiliated with theduchessofsussex.com AND had added the www to the admin email address. They are also reading this blog.
This morning, the contact for admin@www.theduchessofsussex.com has been removed.
Hi Meghan!
Well, of course! We have some very creative ideas for businesses to start in their new lives. I think she should open a bakery selling cookies with royal icing.
>>>Jon Bon Jovi is an odd choice for this collaboration because a) he's not British and b) he hasn't been an A lister since Harry was a kid.
But then you remember that he's also on the books of Sunshine Sachs and it all starts making sense.<<<
This whole Dumbarkle these last couple of years has made me a lot more cynical than I used to be about the trustworthiness of what's printed in the media & the whole 'I'll scratch my back if you scratch mine' aspect of celebrity PR deals. I can't even remember at the moment what this single is supposed to be in aid of, and can't be arsed to look it up right now, but the prospect of Jon Bon Jovi getting Harkled over his participation makes me sad.
While Jon's big hair band days and pinnacle of his stardom were in the 1980s and 1990s, I wouldn't say he is considered a 'Has Been', at least in his home country. He is still active touring and recording as a solo artist & in the last decade or so has built a reputation as a celebrity philanthropist that actually deserves the name. His personal crusade is feeding the hungry/homeless in his home state of New Jersey.
"In 2006, he founded The Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation which aims to support community efforts to break the cycle of poverty and homelessness. One of the most prominent deeds of the foundation is the opening of JBJ Soul Kitchen, the community restaurant where people in need are not required to pay for their meals."
The Soul Kitchen has recently opened its second location and plans for more are in the works.
So Jon Bon Jovi doesn't 'need' Harry for profile. Not sure about the SS connection and how that's in play but I'm hoping that his involvement is out of a genuine belief that this single is going to help people. We will see about that.
If Harry wants to pay back the favor, he could come and volunteer at Soul Kitchen in the less 'glam n'woke' Red Bank, New Jersey. Yeah, like that's gonna happen.
It doesn't hurt though, does it? JBJ is hardly a major star these days. Most people Harry's age would only vaugely know who he is. I thought the Harkles were meant to be movers and shakers, in with the young crowd? Also, all celebrities want to be associated with 'royalty' (poor ol' JBJ probably didn't know that Harry isn't really royal anymore) and to be seen to do good. And the SS connection, if mere coincidence, is a pretty fortuituous one.
Agree that JBJ seems like a genuinely good guy, as his years of work in grass roots, unglamorous, 'unsexy' charity work shows. But that's not to say he's above a PR stunt now and again. He IS an SS client, after all.