Has the story of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex entered its endgame?
Late Tuesday, the Daily Mail was informed that "as part of their new working arrangements, (the couple) will not be able to use the Sussex Royal name as they had hoped."
This makes perfect sense, considering that at some point later this spring, the Sussexes' retreat from the Royal Family will be complete. If you're no longer Royal, you have no right to brand yourself as such.
But it puts paid to the enormous amount of time and effort the Sussexes (read: Meghan and her Los Angeles-based team) have spent copyrighting the name and buying associated internet domains.
"Dozens of trademark applications were made for everything from bandanas to notebooks," the Daily Mail reports, "although sources have always stressed that these were preventative measures to protect the trademark from others, and never intended for commercial use."
Yeah, right.
The Sussexes could certainly rebrand, perhaps simply as "Harry and Meghan," a bit like "Kelly and Ryan" or, for our followers with longer memories, "Steve and Eydie." (Or even "George and Gracie" for followers with even longer memories or a history fetish.)
On a recent trip to the US, I was surprised to see how many magazine covers still feature the Sussexes - I really didn't think interest was that strong. Meghan holding Archie was the main image on the cover Life Magazine's "Year in Review" for 2019.
Somebody is clearly buying what they're selling, even if right now they're only selling their life story.
But to be frank, that's all they really have to sell. Without the stated Royal connection, will they be able to leverage their story into a business?
Most celebrity fandom has an element of self-identification to it: "They're just like us!", or at least us a reimagined by a glam squad.
Sometimes it has an element of wishful projection - all those accountants and office managers who follow heavy metal, violent rappers, or the Real Housewives for a taste of the dangerous or decadent lives they don't want to live themselves.
Which type of fandom can the Sussexes offer?
If they were a more likeable couple, a daytime talk show would be a fun idea - the (slightly) multi-racial couple meeting people and figuring out how to raise their non-traditional (i.e. surrogate-born) child.
But Meghan is irritating and Harry is inarticulate. Nobody wants to have them in the background as they eat breakfast or fold laundry or take the dishes out of the dishwasher, which is one of the functions of daytime TV.
They could still sell products, perhaps under the Harry and Meghan brand (although they'd have to avoid confusion with the popular gift fruit baskets). But what would make their products special without the Royal imprimatur?
And their other ventures - a speaking career, a voiceover career, a supposed bid for an honorary doctorate at Stanford - have so far come to nothing.
(Meghan should have aimed lower if she wanted a honorary doctorate. There are hundreds of struggling liberal arts colleges in the US that would be happy to give her one for publicity value alone. Perhaps a small women's college trying to bring in students?)
The big question is, at what point does Meghan decide she's better off without Harry and throw in the towel?
The endgame of the Sussex "empire" may be in sight.
Any value he might have as a baby model is rapidly diminishing as he approaches (or perhaps has already passed) his first birthday.
His parents seem perfectly happy to travel to Floria, California, or any place else they may be visiting without him.
Who's taking care of Archie? Is he in North America with his parents? Are his parents - one narcissist and one deeply depressed, unemployed, possible addict - in any condition to take care for him at all?
This is simply stupid, for so many reasons. First of all, given that George was her first pregnancy, how would Kate have known in advance that she'd have such a difficult time of it?
Secondly, given that George is the heir, Kate must have had a reproductive health check before the wedding and constant monitoring throughout the pregnancy. The idea is just dumb.
Enty has acknowledged that his main source on Royal matters is someone within Meghan's camp, and I wouldn't be shocked if it were Meghan herself. Could there be a deal in place there? Publish item X so I will continue to supply you with items Y and Z?
(The surrogate item ran at 815 PST on Sunday, and two other Royal items ran at 830 and 915 that same day.)
Enty's always been a little flexible with the truth, which is why his old confederate John Doe recently publicly cut ties with him. I don't see him as being above publishing a little nonsense to keep his Sussex connection going.
(There's a new one today suggesting that Meg has been meeting with the GOOP marketing guru. Sounds like a Meg plant, as does this one suggesting that Meg is ready to disclose all of Harry's sexual fetishes.)
Anyway, Enty has been embarrassed in the past by his lack of royal sources, and he's very conscious of which stories are most popular and get the most hits. This is something he mentions constantly on his podcast.
It could be that the Sussex side is continuing to sell the fiction of a Cambridge surrogacy in order to soften the ground for any news of a Sussex surrogacy.
Late Tuesday, the Daily Mail was informed that "as part of their new working arrangements, (the couple) will not be able to use the Sussex Royal name as they had hoped."
This makes perfect sense, considering that at some point later this spring, the Sussexes' retreat from the Royal Family will be complete. If you're no longer Royal, you have no right to brand yourself as such.
But it puts paid to the enormous amount of time and effort the Sussexes (read: Meghan and her Los Angeles-based team) have spent copyrighting the name and buying associated internet domains.
"Dozens of trademark applications were made for everything from bandanas to notebooks," the Daily Mail reports, "although sources have always stressed that these were preventative measures to protect the trademark from others, and never intended for commercial use."
Yeah, right.
The "Harry and Meghan" rebrand
So what now?The Sussexes could certainly rebrand, perhaps simply as "Harry and Meghan," a bit like "Kelly and Ryan" or, for our followers with longer memories, "Steve and Eydie." (Or even "George and Gracie" for followers with even longer memories or a history fetish.)
On a recent trip to the US, I was surprised to see how many magazine covers still feature the Sussexes - I really didn't think interest was that strong. Meghan holding Archie was the main image on the cover Life Magazine's "Year in Review" for 2019.
Somebody is clearly buying what they're selling, even if right now they're only selling their life story.
But to be frank, that's all they really have to sell. Without the stated Royal connection, will they be able to leverage their story into a business?
Celebrities and self-identification
Most celebrity fandom has an element of self-identification to it: "They're just like us!", or at least us a reimagined by a glam squad.Sometimes it has an element of wishful projection - all those accountants and office managers who follow heavy metal, violent rappers, or the Real Housewives for a taste of the dangerous or decadent lives they don't want to live themselves.
Which type of fandom can the Sussexes offer?
If they were a more likeable couple, a daytime talk show would be a fun idea - the (slightly) multi-racial couple meeting people and figuring out how to raise their non-traditional (i.e. surrogate-born) child.
But Meghan is irritating and Harry is inarticulate. Nobody wants to have them in the background as they eat breakfast or fold laundry or take the dishes out of the dishwasher, which is one of the functions of daytime TV.
What's left?
So what do the Sussexes have left without @SussexRoyal?They could still sell products, perhaps under the Harry and Meghan brand (although they'd have to avoid confusion with the popular gift fruit baskets). But what would make their products special without the Royal imprimatur?
And their other ventures - a speaking career, a voiceover career, a supposed bid for an honorary doctorate at Stanford - have so far come to nothing.
(Meghan should have aimed lower if she wanted a honorary doctorate. There are hundreds of struggling liberal arts colleges in the US that would be happy to give her one for publicity value alone. Perhaps a small women's college trying to bring in students?)
The big question is, at what point does Meghan decide she's better off without Harry and throw in the towel?
The endgame of the Sussex "empire" may be in sight.
And what about Archie?
Finally, what about Archie? His face now hasn't been seen in a non-Photoshopped version for nearly 6 months, dating back to his South Africa appearance in September 2019.Any value he might have as a baby model is rapidly diminishing as he approaches (or perhaps has already passed) his first birthday.
His parents seem perfectly happy to travel to Floria, California, or any place else they may be visiting without him.
Who's taking care of Archie? Is he in North America with his parents? Are his parents - one narcissist and one deeply depressed, unemployed, possible addict - in any condition to take care for him at all?
A side note
Finally, a side note about our old friend Enty at CrazyDaysandNights. Enty recently published yet another suggestion that the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince George via a surrogate.This is simply stupid, for so many reasons. First of all, given that George was her first pregnancy, how would Kate have known in advance that she'd have such a difficult time of it?
Secondly, given that George is the heir, Kate must have had a reproductive health check before the wedding and constant monitoring throughout the pregnancy. The idea is just dumb.
Enty has acknowledged that his main source on Royal matters is someone within Meghan's camp, and I wouldn't be shocked if it were Meghan herself. Could there be a deal in place there? Publish item X so I will continue to supply you with items Y and Z?
(The surrogate item ran at 815 PST on Sunday, and two other Royal items ran at 830 and 915 that same day.)
Enty's always been a little flexible with the truth, which is why his old confederate John Doe recently publicly cut ties with him. I don't see him as being above publishing a little nonsense to keep his Sussex connection going.
(There's a new one today suggesting that Meg has been meeting with the GOOP marketing guru. Sounds like a Meg plant, as does this one suggesting that Meg is ready to disclose all of Harry's sexual fetishes.)
Anyway, Enty has been embarrassed in the past by his lack of royal sources, and he's very conscious of which stories are most popular and get the most hits. This is something he mentions constantly on his podcast.
It could be that the Sussex side is continuing to sell the fiction of a Cambridge surrogacy in order to soften the ground for any news of a Sussex surrogacy.
Comments
Meghan - before Harry:
1. Cannot honor her important life commitments, two failed marriages..
2. Abandoned her Internship in South America
3. Apparently lived a hedonistic lifestyle for years.
4. Mediocre success in her chosen profession.
6. Heartless treatment of her devoted and adoring Father.
7. Bogus claims of profound humanitarian work.
8. Alleged promiscuity per alleged "yachting activities'.
9. Actively looked for rich husband without regard to wholesome traits for a meaningful relationship.
10. Her career success consisted of being a sex object ('hot girl').
11. Denied her ethnicity for most of her life,
12. Never owned a home, not even a mobile home.
Harry - before Meghan:
1. Remedial Intelligence
2. Lack of higher education.
3. Life of a playboy till middle age.
4. Military career was limited.
5. Was not self-supporting.
6. He became infamous for his prejudicial acts and unsavory behavior.
7. Never pursued a formal education after his earlier failed attempts when young.
Harry & Meghan together:
1. HAMS demanded an expensive wedding despite it being Meg's 3rd wedding.
2. They took taxpayer funding for a house they allegedly never lived in,
3. Meghan was disrespectful in ignoring protocol numerous times.
4, Harry could not honor the BRF rules against commercial activity *ie. Disney solicitation for voice-over work).
5. They were slovenly in their appearance on may occasions.
6. They appeared under the influence at public events.
7. They plotted behind the back of the Queen to leave.
8. They wasted taxpayer monies on their Frogmore home.
9. They ignored the Queen's request not to use their HRH titles.
10. They are freeloaders even tho they say they want to be financially independent.
11. They skipped out on their royal duties.
12. Harry has shown no visible interest in his ill Grandfather.
13. They have sued the media for questionable reasons,
14. They come across as hypocrites.
15. Meghan appears to be a diva and difficult to work for.
16. They have been banned by the Queen to use Royal Sussex.
All in all the Harkles seem to have questionable character, low morals, lousy work ethic, poor interpersonal skills, untrustworthiness, self-centered, ruthless, unkempt and erratic...so these and many others are so much more important for Companies to consider than "just upsetting the Queen".
I come here to talk Harkles because no one I know cares about them. They don't move product, shows featuring them don't get ratings. They are basically irrelevant here in the USA but for Meg's small cult.
The Enty blind about Kate and George was utterly ridiculous. I cannot believe that someone in Meg's camp would even attempt to go that route. To me, it reeks of desperation. But no matter how much Team Meg attacks Kate, it won't save Meg. It's already too late. In fact, Meg has elevated Kate (and Will). The Cambridges could not have bought better PR than by just having the Harkles in existence. It has dramatically raised positive feelings about the Cambridges.
What a great day. Best laid plans of mice and men and Sussexes crushed. This is a massive blow, one that the Harkles are unlikely to recover from, I think. They were already on the brink, falling away post-Megxit. This only hastens the decline.
I would like to think the end game is drawing up but, like much of real life, things always take a lot longer than you think they should happen.
Sad when I think of all the collateral people who were just bit players.
So, in the meantime, this will continue to be quite the show to watch.
He also said he talked to people who were at the JP Morgan event and apparently M&H got paid an obscene amount of money to show up there.
There’s still a lot of curiosity around these two right now, but that will die out over time. If Meghan’s being picky about signing deals because she mistakenly thinks she has the luxury of time, she stands to lose a lot of bargaining power.
With all the streaming services trying to create a footprint for themselves, there's a lot of cash swimming around Hollywood right now. It's a good time for them to try to nail something down.
Despite their problems, they'd still be a marquee hire for a streaming service that's trying to establish itself.
She has got to be angling for some Board of Director work. There are opportunities now that Goldman has announced it won't do business with companies that have all-male boards. Get an honorary degree, combine it with the Duchess title, add in the title Chair of the Sussex Royal Foundation and then rake in the yearly board fees.
This is genius. This may be precisely what she's thinking of.
That said, as a Board member you have fiduciary duty to shareholders which means you have to have a basic understanding of business. I've seen no evidence that Meg has this, or can even *spell* "fiduciary duty to shareholders". But it's still a very interesting idea, and she doesn't need Harry for it.
Michael Gove was Rose Danbury’s first boss and still maintains a cordial relationship with her—Rose and Michael’s wife Sarah Vine walked into the June state dinner together.
Rose Hanbury is also the woman “outed” as having an affair with William, as “confirmed” by Meghan’s soho buddy Giles Coren.
With HG, Kate was out of sight for a few months but once she was back in the public eye, her bump grew in a realistic manner, never seemed to fold up, never swayed side to side and never appeared to slip to her knees. Her hands and ankles looked puffy. Her face looked a bit fuller. She occasionally looked pale and definitely had grey hair showing well before the end of the pregnancy.
Meghan didn't show any signs of a real pregnancy until after Archie's birth when she seemed to gain weight and have a much fuller face.
I don't know why M would be slinging accusations of surrogacy. Maybe so people will say that's not true but if it was, so what?
There was a story not long ago about women in prison in the UK, I believe it was, who looked up to Meg. In this same kind of "she did it, we can do it" way.
That audience and the general wokester audience would be the target demo, I think.
But what is the selling point now -- You can also aspire to be a royal who quit? The story is losing luster.
In the USA, as I've said in previous posts, we are in the midst of an increase of identity politics. This group is good, this group is bad, this group is finally overcoming their history of oppression, and so forth. Many cultural and political narrative arcs fit this framework at the moment. And in the regard, Meg's story can be positioned as just that kind of tale. This is her real 'worth' in this moment, I believe. The same 'woke capitalism' companies that are signing up to be social justice champions are very much on board with the identity politics push.
Given this backdrop, there is a window for the Harkles to fit into now. But I can't see it. They aren't interesting or credentialed enough to carry a show. However, someone will probably give them a shot. My guess is it will be fun, for critics, while it lasts.
Also, who like me thinks that Harry's had some filler work done?? Lol.
The "get on the board of directors" grift is a popular one, particularly these days. In the Woke Era. When I made a long post about woke capitalism, I stated that this was basically what Jay Z did with the NFL. The person of color or woman becomes kind of a shield for the corporation from criticism. It can be a very lucrative gig, and it is certainly all the rage these days.
>>>As far as he knows, Meghan hasn’t signed with an agent yet, but top agents in Hollywood are clamoring to sign her<<<.
Well, it makes no sense that she hasn't signed with an agent unless Madame thinks she could do a better job herself. With her Narc personality disorder she may very well think that. But on a practical level how is that even possible. How would all the potential people representing opportunities.projects/ventures even know her phone number (yeah how about Harry's need for privacy). It is ridiculous to say the least. Then those who do call would take up an inordinate amount of time. If they are so hot, how would she have the time to talk to even a fraction of callers at length. I'm not buying it, sorry!
.
Good parallel with Jay-Z and the NFL. That said, I think that sells mostly to left-learning whites. If Lipstick Alley is any indication, the Black community (or at least the portions of it that post on LSA) isn't buying it.
Meg will have to prove that she really represents someone, that she has a fan base, to make her worth hiring as a token. Also, she has to stay sober and not create any new enemies. Whatever Jay-Z's character defects, the man is very good at schmoozing. Meg, not so much.
Well, it makes no sense that she hasn't signed with an agent unless Madame thinks she could do a better job herself. With her Narc personality disorder she may very well think that. But on a practical level how is that even possible. How would all the potential people representing opportunities.projects/ventures even know her phone number (yeah how about Harry's need for privacy). It is ridiculous to say the least. Then those who do call would take up an inordinate amount of time. If they are so hot, how would she have the time to talk to even a fraction of callers at length.
Meg kept her LA team of business advisors throughout her marriage. I assume potential partners are calling that team.
Nutty -
those board jobs are cushy but you also have to get voted in by the stockholders. And, there are actually some high level business women out there who would have a good background that she lacks. I would rather have a guy with business degrees and long work experience over a woman (who doesn't have that same work credentials) just to say we got a woman on the board. In fact, I would be watching that company closely to see if it is NOW time to take that money off the table and move it into a different investment.
One of the criticisms of the Vogue piece was that no women of science (and now that I think about it, heavy business background) were focused on. Had she been willing to look in those fields, she might have met women who might have had some interesting links to corporate or education that she is now looking for.
Wow, a very minor segment of America. Good luck Meg on making your money on all of 1% of the population. And many WOC don't like she is married to a 'pale stale and male husband' and changed her looks to appear white not to mention she identified as Caucasian for no good reason other than to renounce her ethnicity. A real hero for WOC, not.
@BlueBell Woods, the new BlindGossip entry addresses your question:
[Blind Gossip] In the most refined, educated, cultured, polished, and modern way, this celebrity couple reacted to a proposed change to their branding.
The reaction was basically, “What the f*ck? What the actual f*ck?!”
So if you read something about how they have accepted the change, roll your eyes.
They have definitively NOT accepted this change. They are furious beyond belief!!! This will cost them millions of dollars. They have sunk a lot of money into two-word branding, websites, trademarks, logos, etc. They are asking their attorneys if they have legal standing to fight.
Their rationale for fighting?
The word [redacted] is already being used on towels, on liquor, and on soda brands! They think they should be able to use the word the way they want to.
Maybe. However, fighting the husband’s family on this could potentially make a bad situation even worse!
It is possible that if they even signal that they are going to fight for that one word, the family could withdraw permission for the second word as well.
Meaning… they could have certain titles taken away from them and have both words of the trademark challenged.
Since the titles are pretty much all they have left, they might want to quit while they are behind. Better to settle for half than none?
Perhaps their time would be better spent coming up with a new brand.
In between all that yoga, of course.
Did the family do the right thing? What should the couple do?
Royal Crown cola.
Not sure about the towels. Royal Ascot bath towels?
That said, I don't know that it's only Black women with an interest in Meghan; there are plenty of "woke" white women who see her as a symbol of resistance to patriarchy.
Re surrogate and Kate, I suspect MM is worried that her own surrogacy is set to drop. I also wonder if these two recent Royal divorces are setting the stage for a third announcement. And I heard this recent divorce — they’ve been separated for months, so why announce 5 days after the first?
Also did you see the video of Camilla talking about a “friend” with a “daughter” who is under the spell of a manipulator and the whole RF family is worried sick about the daughter’s health and mental state? She gave the interview last week. These are all coming out 1,2,3 one after the other.
I just feel like something is up.
Say what you will about Jay Z, but that man came to the top by actually being an important and super pivotal figure in the Hip Hop Genre. I love his early work! I also see his marriage to Beyonce as a brilliant move for his legacy. Meg couldn’t hack ANY project she has been involved in: family, acting, influencing, royalty with non-intrusive spotlight. She finally failed the cushiest job on Earth. Meg has no place anywhere in the corporate world.
I agree, the 'audience' of these Woke Corporations/POC Celebrities team-ups is politically-left-leaning whites. Fortunately for the celebrities, those people tend to be very wealthy. You only need 1-2 benefactors in that space to fill up your pocket nicely year to year. And I'll give the Harkles credit -- heading to the Woke Mecca of Silicon Valley (Stanford) is the proper move if you want that easy board of directors cash.
For minority communities, these POC Celebs who do the Woke Corporation team-ups are often seen as sellouts (as Jay Z was with the NFL). But he doesn't care, he's getting paid.
Yes, Jay is good at schmoozing. And I agree, Meg is not good at schmoozing and she has no fan base. Or, not a very sizable fan base.
Coming back to the magazine covers stuff. All of the 'glam' women's magazines refuse to have Melania Trump on their covers. They just won't do it, and some (Vogue) have come out and said they won't do it. It is a political and virtue-signaling decision, not a decision made to maximize sales or serve their readers.
Similarly with putting Meg on the covers. Just for the opposite reason. Now, some of these magazines are very recent creations. Low-rent vehicles who will put anything on the cover. But some (Life) are not recent or low-rent outfits.
The USA is hyper-politicized currently. It can be thought of in a kind of totalitarian light, in the sense that EVERY act is seen in through a political lens. It's almost as though nothing can be separated from politics. More of the woke capitalism phenomenon.
In such a setting, choosing to put 'good' (based on current identity politics) Meg on the covers of magazines is an easy decision, just as it's an easy decision to keep 'bad' Melania Trump off of some of the same covers.
The point here is that these decisions don't reflect actual market forces (supply, demand, etc). Rather they reflect the desire to be part of creating the proper narrative in the age of American Wokeness. That's where the USA is at today.
Jay Z is a heck of a businessman. Far, far beyond Meg's level.
Also, Jay provides the halftime entertainment of the Super Bowl (as well as at other events). He actually has something to give to the NFL beyond his presence. So the NFL working with him makes sense.
Why would a company hire Meg? What credentials does she bring? What assets does she bring to the table?
We all know the answers here.
@Lindy, I was in the South, and was just surprised to see Meg's face so much as I passed through the checkout line in Target.
Tell me more about the Camilla interview - it sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
And yeah, I agree that the Royals are doing a bad news dump covered up by happy Cambridge coverage. The Armstrong-Jones divorce seems to have been years in the making. Wasn't he involved in a gay blackmail scandal about 10 years ago? At any rate, the wife looks angry and bitter. A sad contrast when you look at her pretty wedding photos vs her facial expression now.
>>> you can make a lot of money off of 1% of the US population. That's 3.5 million people>>>
The problem is that there are many female and male musicians, black comedians, sports figures, actors in black-oriented movies, Kardashians etc who will compete for that 3.5 million of people and throw in some males but what does Meg have to offer....a Big Fat Nothing. Even the Brits didn't like her well enough. What in the world is Meg going to do...reprise her role in Suits (they were axing her too). She is an aging, not particularly pretty woman with lousy fashion sense and can't string a sensible speech together.
>>>That said, I don't know that it's only Black women with an interest in Meghan; there are plenty of "woke" white women who see her as a symbol of resistance to patriarchy.<<<
No offense, but a symbol of resistance to patriarchy, like her living off men all her life, her career centered on being a 'Hot Girl'. debasing herself by simulating sex for a male audience, for pushing Harry around (oh wait yes women love that). and clinging on Harry like a schoolgirl, etc...
Yeah as a feminist myself, I really admire Meghan, NOT. I don't know of one American woman who even cares enough to dislike her.
Cosign on @sadie_sunshine and @hunter’s comments. Re woke capitalism yes but remember the NFL is not a public company, the league and its teams are owned privately. So the idea of MM sitting on the board of Proctor & Gamble for example even when there is such a push for board diversity is beyond not realistic. Public markets generally don’t allow for shielding, the stock price takes care of that.
And fwiw since she stepped into my world I’ll say again loudly yes banks pay a lot of $$ for speaking but the #s of half a million or more don’t ring true - nor does the idea that JPMorgan is somehow competing w Goldman over them that Lainey put out there.... those sound more like the types of things you say, lying, hoping others will believe and repeat as soon as possible, bc you need to close your deal.
You may be right about the hyper-politicization in America but at the end of the day, I still believe these decisions come down to money. If Meg is to “thrive, not survive,” she not only needs to get a slice of the population interested, she needs them to become repeat customers. She burns bridges so fast that there is no way she could ever get that kind of engagement.
Meg wants worship from the people who give her money. Something she could have learned by being a “whip-smart” royal is that the people who follow you want something in return. It’s not crappy merch (although quality helps), it is payoff for emotional investment. She should have looked to pop stars/music icons, not Hollywood for some pointers.
Yeah. The reason why I'm harping so much on this magazine covers stuff (in the USA) is that you do not live here and thus can only get a snapshot of what is happening here when you travel here. And I don't mean that as any kind of putdown. I mean it as your instincts about the situation are correct -- the Harkles are not particularly popular here and are not in demand, regardless of how many magazine covers they may be on. In this instance, the variable (covers) is a tainted one and cannot be relied upon to give accurate information.
Melania Trump, like her or dislike her, is a beautiful and fashionable woman. Many women admire her and want to know more about her and what she wears, but the USA media gatekeepers simply refuse to address that demand. For political reasons. So if a person came here and looked at magazine covers, they would think Melania Trump is a non-entity whom no one likes. And that's exactly the impression the people who run those magazines want to give the audience. And the flip side if true for how they want people to see Meg.
Toby Young is correct. DIE. The media is dead.
Diversity is good. Helping historically oppressed people is good. However, when the cart gets put before the horse we all lose (except those grifting off of woke culture). A very good example of this kind of thing can be seen in movies where the agenda is put before the story. It never, ever works. You can have a great story with a great and politically correct lead character (Wonder Woman, for example), but you have to write a good, inclusive script. If you lead with the agenda, failure will quickly follow.
Yeah, I'm happy for Jay.
Agreed, all decisions come down to money. The woke corporations who pay off the grifters do so in order to protect the corporations so they can keep making money without interference. There is no other reason.
I agree with you on Meg. She wants adulation, and money. And she seems to have little to offer in return to her would-be sponsors. Once again, she seems to have wildly overestimated her value and skill set. That does seem to be a recurring theme with her.
You and the other commenters make a great point re: a Board position at publicly-held companies.
I guess Meg's natural home, were she to join a board, would be one of the shadowy companies/organizations favored by Prince Andrew.
Good point about agenda-driven movies.
On my long transatlantic plane flight recently, I got a chance to see several of the Oscar Best Picture nominees. To my surprise my favorite was an expected nominee that was snubbed - Jennifer Lopez's "Hustlers", which turned out to be a movie about female friendship, although it did have an anti Wall Street message tacked on.
I enjoyed it much more than "Joker," "Once Upon a Time In Hollywood" "Harriet" and "Judy".
It could be that both used surrogates in their pregnancies.
Anyway, I think there are a lot of fights breaking out in Harry's household after the news they cant use Sussex Royal.
Yes, that was something else, firing all those people especially when the HAMS were plotting for as much as a year ago
If I was an employee I would try to sue their arses for fraudulent business practices. If I couldn't do that I would reveal some dirty secrets on them thru clandestine channels. Eventually, they are going to screw with the wrong person and they will have to face consequences, At least the Queen is number one and I hope she continues with a tough approach. Also, I hope the lawsuit Meg has with the MOS exposes some nasty info on her.
@Nutty
I live in the South and there is no love lost for Meghan I can tell you. She has no appeal that I can see. The magazines you see are national rags and do not reflect the values here. People are family-oriented and despise the kind of behavior Meg has done. No self-respecting Southern would treat their adoring father that way. Heck parents still whip their kids routinely for disobedience and children love and respect their Momma and Daddy and expect others to do the same. Of course, some may be different but they are the exception not the rule. Also, we don't 'cotton' to uppity folks like Meghan who comes across as arrogant and affected in her mannerisms and behaviors (the optics of her not letting people sit near her at the Tennis match was horrible). We are down to earth and she is the antithesis of that, Harry also. We are not going to listen to no royalty coming here and telling us how to live especially now that Meghan seems to have a subtle British accent (we would say she is puttin on airs)_.
If people are willing to throw a lot of money at her for her mere presence, then good luck to her, but I will certainly be discerning about where I invest and what I support. At least it looks like she is being deprived of a royal platform to do her hustling. I hope the Commonwealth platform is also taken away from her.
Has it occurred to anyone that the rumours about these huge deals for Meghan are spin she is putting out there to raise her value? Harry seems to be believing the spin because for the first time for a long time he looks happy. What an awful insult to his family and the UK, who have generously supported him his whole life.
Perhaps there are enough shallow narcissists in the world to make Meghan and Harry wealthy in their own right, but to assume that her support would be all black Americans is to assume that black people have no ethics and discernment.
How many followers did Meghan have for the Tig? 'More than a million' cold be just a few more and is not nearly 2 million. With that support, she grifted her way into a freebie high flying celebrity lifestyle. Susseroyal had more than 10 times the number of followers. Assuming she continues to grift with Harry, she is set up to be more successful than she was with the Tig. The 'charity' work is to keep Harry happy - she did some profile-raising gigs for charity but there was never follow through or commitment. She wants travel, food, clothes, accessories, lifestyle, pithy quotes she finds on the Internet ... a la the Tig but 10 times more successful.
Further, I noticed she doesn't get many covers that she is solo. It is usually half a cover that she is sharing space with either Kate or Harry.
I don't see "folding" either in the video. I watched it a couple times.
I would doubt Kate would go surrogate because she really comes off as someone who follows the rules and then dots her i's and crosses her t's.
I do agree that I think that there is a lot unhappiness in the H&M house at the moment.
Bow most of us normal sane people, and some of us who have been follythe BRF for tears would vouch for the pregnancy to be real, there is actual evidence and receipts to rpove that if need be. But what it does do (the rumour) is to undermine Kate's latest Early tears project and definitely her image as the maternal, down to earth authentic person she is. The moniker "childreiprincess" is being used for her more n more in the media lately. Herwhole PR is now centered around her live for and work with children. So that has to grate Mm. Spreading this rumour also allows her to atta k George, and we know for a fact that his being the heir is sour spot for her and Harry. The 3heirs pic with the Queen was what started all this nonsense in December after all. So attacking the credibility of the future heir/Kings birth is the mountain she wants to die on.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7997417/Duchess-tells-REBECCA-ENGLISH-friends-suffered-domestic-violence.html
I absolutely do not believe the surrogacy blind is about Kate. At all. George is the heir, no way would they muck with that. I actually thought it could be referring to Autumn Phillips.
@Vince and all...
What delicious news, so SuccEXciting! Just yesterday in the DM there was the Edward Enninful announcement re Forces for Change event in London just days before the Commonwealth Service. I wonder if this is a setup for MM to return [and of course take away publicity from the BRF], hang out with stars and other tiny party hat wearing people and perhaps announce that she will be a British Vogue creative editor or something like that. Now that Enninful has broken off his friendship with Naomi Campbell, perhaps MM intends to slide right in...gets to have a big name, influence and power in the fashion world, a nice salary, and of course, disembark from her fly ins in a vehicle surrounded by agents and photographers! Of course, she would have to be on the cover this time! And, perhaps every month, like Oprah does on her magazine! Yours truly, Crumpet aka an unknown at the moment!
A common strategy used by narcissists to attempt to discredit an enemy and deflect criticism of themselves is to accuse the enemy of doing the very same thing they are actually doing themselves.
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Haste makes waste.
Don’t “sh!t” where you eat.
You can’t go home again.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure.
Think with your big head, not the little head, Harry.
That Russian guy won’t let you couch surf at his place forever.
Don’t f—- with grandma. Especially if she’s the Queen of England.
Meghan counts as woman and black, double minority points in board math. Perhaps a board of a small fashion/ cosmetics/ baby products. She would be super annoying at board meetings, but a lot of fun at company parties especially those thrown 9n yachts.
Camilla's comments are interesting.
Tax time is coming...
https://youtu.be/91mzDVlpqOI
But wistfully, who among us wouldn't put up our feet and cradle our mugs to watch Harry and Meghan sue Granny for the "Royal" label only for the firm further revoke their Sussex title out of spite?
I can’t see the folding in that video, even after zooming in and rewatching a few times. I could see Beyonce’s though. I agree with @charade and @abbyh, that video didn’t show me anything like the suspicious MM pics and videos. I don’t think Kate used a surrogate, for many reasons, and definitely suspect MM of being a pushing force of these rumors, if they continue.
I am ssooo relieved that Royal is being taken from them, and bet anything that MM is trying to sue to use it. I don’t quite know who she’d go after, legally. But, the schadenfreude is delicious!
And yes, the popcorn delight, should they sue and then get Sussex taken as well...
Still laughing at this. Somebody
I think Meghan is quite pretty despite what some of you big meanies say about her and her yak hair. She had a completely normal amount of natural (straightened) hair before her yak attack (so you know that shit's new). I definitely think her top layer and crown are real and not a wig.
It is completely tonedeaf and unwoke of me to declare "she's not even black!!" but it bugs me so much. My woke black friend sees her as a black woman of color and identifies with her cries of racism (which white people can't see). I don't argue with her but I think other black women, such as the girl at my post office and perhaps the women on LSA - Meghan just isn't really "black". She's just not. The women in South Africa certainly didn't think so.
I watched the Kate belly video (thank you for posting) - I didn't see anything suspicious and I looked really hard. After she sat down her belly seemed to settle into her a bit but she wasn't super pregnant either. I have to agree with everyone else - Kate's pregnancy looked real through her face and ankles, etc - she put on some weight and became normal person sized.
There is NO WAY Kate would have done everything perfect for all those years and then ABRA-CADABRA a DNA baby for her firstborn and heir to the throne, no frigging way. No how, no way - Kate's a pantyhose wearer through & through. I love the point that narcissists accuse those of that which they are guilty. Excellent excellent point.
Someone asked about losing "Royal" vs losing "Sussex" -
Their HRH ("His Royal Highness") title is what confers royalty, without it they cannot accurately call themselves Royal.
They will remain Duke and Duchess of Sussex (for now). The Queen has not removed these titles and hasn't expressed a consideration to do so that I know of.
Brits to confirm but - titled nobility (Duke/Duchess) is nobility. It is not ROYALTY. There are scads of noblemen and titled nobility throughout all of Europe and everyone's brother's neighbor is some kind of duke, nobody really cares it doesn't mean much on its own.
Someone said SussexOfficial - yes this would be an excellent and acceptable handle. They should snap it u-- ohhhhhh TOOO LAAATEEEE because the castle was already built. Aw. Super sad Megsy.
House slippers, for lounging.
The duchess says she never ceases to be amazed by the bravery of the survivors: ‘To actually leave your home and somebody you have probably been with a long time is actually very brave. And it is not only women, it is men as well. People haven’t really acknowledged the issues of coercive control, which can be terrifying, it really is one person’s word against another.’ As our interview draws to a close, the passion that the duchess feels in highlighting the issue of domestic abuse couldn’t be clearer.
Crown Royal was introduced in 1939 by Samuel Bronfman, president of Seagram, as a tribute to the royal visit of King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth, the first of a reigning monarch to Canada. It was available only in Canada until 1964 being introduced to the United States in the 1960s.
It predates them by just a little. :)
Autumn makes more sense, she’s a foreign born royal too. 😀
Off to read Nutty’s post properly. 😀
I was like yes, Good for the Queen.
I don't expect the marriage to last much longer if Megs can't get what she wants--a brand name out of it.
I could very easily see Harry going to England for Bea's wedding--and while he's watching his cousin promise to love and cherish Edo until death do them part, Meg is out dropping the headline that they're getting divorced.
If Megs really tries to sue to still use it, she's a bigger moron then I thought. She really does seem to lack the long game vision.
The royal part only at this point. The DM etc., did state this and why. 😀
Well said, have been saying this for a while now. A lot of people on here don't seem to understand that MM does have an appeal to this demographic and that will most likely be enough to sustain her. It isn't superstardom or the level of influence that she wants, but it's most likely enough for a decent career/social standing. The US is a big market after all.
Of course, I don't think anyone gets the irony of a strong independent woman owing her new found status to a man but hey, let's not worry about that awkward sort of thing:)
I hear what you're saying but I'm not so sure she has the natural draw or charisma to sustain a following. She seems very canned and even today I found, courtesy of the posters here, proof that her own wedding dress was fashioned after the only other recent woman of color to marry into a royal family. Mind, blown.
Someone else pointed out how she is awkward at small talk (she doesn't care and lacks empathy), this will make her difficult to continue selling once she has fallen flat a number of times. Especially if she treats all the people "beneath" her so poorly - those people talk.
I think it will be interesting, can't wait to see what happens next.
Fair point, it seems a lot of people were wary of MM after the engagement interview, and someone made an excellent point that photos always do a good job of hiding (or simply not being able to show) a real personality.
If she gives the odd JP Morgan style talk, maybe two a month, and with photos popping up etc then she will be fine and will have enough to sustain her, especially with these rules r.e. paying for photos that you post online.
Also, she can always have training, she is an actress after all! And PH is generally affable so I do think they will be fine.
I work in finance and always refer to Macmillan's quote "events dear boy, events." If bad, unfavourable news hits the couple then they'll be in trouble. But the RF need to tread carefully too as MM/PH could label themselves as victims even more than they have already.
Being a victim is good business with the woke brigade!
Having said all that, in these fast moving times, things will have to play out on a longer timescale than day by day, week by week etc despite our thirst for info and wanting to see what happens next.
I'd have two doubts about that.
Firstly, how large exactly is the demographic that admires Meghan? It's hard to estimate. She has a very vocal SM following but what does that translate to in real life?
Secondly, what is Meghan's 'hook'? Think of any celeb with a successful brand, and all of them have something they can offer other than simply themselves. Even the Kardashians have a popular TV show. If she's no longer royal, what exactly does Meghan bring to the celebrity marketplace?
It's natural for the bump to move when you sit down - there's a lot of fluid weight in the womb and gravity forces the other organs out of the way. That's what makes pregnancy so uncomfortable, particularly as one squashed organ is generally the bladder.
There are a lot of cues about pregnancy that are recognisable to anyone who has been pregnant but invisible if you haven't. For example the discomfort of growing boobs, the backache, the indigestion and nausea, the desperate need to wee every five minutes when baby sits on your bladder- all these things are noticeable in microexpressions which can't be faked.
Looking at Kate I can feel the discomfort of fluid retention which is normal in a pregnancy whereas Meghan never retained any fluid.
As to Meghan's weight gain whilst out of the public eye, medication for IVF, steriods to mimic pregnancy, there are a number of theories.
To suggest Kate didn't carry her own children is ridiculous. LSA has a strong and vocal contingent of Kate haters whose opinions are less than worthless.
Guardian readers,
anyone on the Left,
faux liberals,
anyone who prides themselves on being `reasonable',
those who automatically slings mud at the Mail & anyone who reads it,
who hasn't bothered to look closely at what MM does,
who has never been up against a narcissist
or, if they have, hasn't had a clue what been going on,
who tells someone who has been got at by a narcissist that they are `over-reacting',
who feels that they took are `victims' of patriarchy,
or racism,
or sexism,
or the System,
or older people,
or who disapproves of the Monarchy,
or people with more money than they have,
believes in intersectionality,
and anyone who sees discrimination in everything ...
Fair point. The thing is that the entertainment world is full of 'talking heads'-people with no real discernible talent but who are presenters, or just pop up everywhere to add their 'commentary.' Their only brand is themselves. Caroline Flack is a good (and sad) example of this phenomenon.
As has been mentioned, MM does most likely not have that affable personality but she does have a semi royal status (arguable how much effect that will have in the US), and she has a compelling victim narrative that some people buy into.
Thinking about it, I'm wondering if we have missed another potential, and possibly more lucrative potential money stream?
We are focusing on the US but the last time I checked there were lots of countries consisting of tinpot dictators with vast amounts of wealth. PA arguably sold his royal status for access, MM/PH could sell themselves as being good PR for these individuals, turning up at events etc and adding legitimacy/good international coverage. Never underestimate the ego of politicians/people in power who want to look good!
There are many ways they could monetise themselves with these sorts of clients beyond the one I've listed here. They would need to be careful and not make it look too grubby, or be seen siding with a homicidal maniac, but there is definitely a hugely lucrative market there.
Of course this is all up in the air as we don't know how strong their brand will be, this is all going to take a loooong time to see how this all plays out:)
The bar is set pretty low these days, isn't it? The Kardashians have fans.
By default, of course Meghan has fans. Just naturally.
The "Woke" crowd project the hell out of themselves on her.
It's not even hard for her to *retain* fans.
Even when you alienate your fanbase, you'll still have aspirational followers who will want what you have.
There are two types of people in this world: people who are capable of being happy for others, and people who have chips on their shoulders who are incapable of being happy for other people's success.
Most fangirls/fanboys have the former personality. Most actors (95%) I've met in person are the latter, they're a bit narcissistic like that.
No matter how unrelatable H&M's behaviour, from private jets to vegan paint, somebody will still love them for it.
The deal-breaker (at least for me personally when I fangirl someone) is when I realise that someone I admired would have despised me if they met me in person. THAT is my breaking point.
Here's an example: I used to really like an British social media personality before I understood enough British culture. But the more I understood the British class system and all the power dynamics that come with it, I realised that he hates a segment of society I belong to (within my own country). I realised that if he ever met a girl who didn't know how to cook properly because of her background, instead of giving her a chance to *learn* how to cook, he would just continue to berate her entire social class/upbringing. That's when I couldn't be a fangirl anymore. It's emotionally taxing to fangirl/support someone who you know would hate you if they met you in person in a social setting. The guy I'm talking about is very real and says it like it is, for sure if we were equals (not celebrity/fangirl) in a social setting he would hate me simply for who I am.
That's like the extreme opposite end of the fandom spectrum:
- Ideal: You're a relatable celebrity.
- Worst case scenario: The public think you look down on them.
Meghan's too busy cosplaying her late mother-in-law & Mother Theresa, projecting an image of "kindness" and "Wokeness" to ever show that level of contempt toward any social group that publicly. Plus, she's all about the image. She'll never be as real as the guy I just described above.
We're mostly irritated by her hypocrisy but she's one of the PC crowd and knows how to be inoffensive. She's fake and inoffensive, she manages to be inoffensive because she's fake AF.
She's too fake to fall from grace.
She'll fall when she starts being real.
She'd never openly said anything about hating posh people, for example.
(I use poshness as an example because it's a primordial trait, which is a sure way to make someone feel rejected.)
She picks the edgy "sexy causes" (not the universal/practical but unpretentious ones like early childhood, quietly cleaning your plate to prevent food waste, simply *not* buying things, or local homelessness). People like that. It's so exciting to see people stand for refugees than London's homeless. Or working class white people. She likes to play with identity politics instead of universal struggles (such as raising small children). The things she hates are still the trendy things to hate: like Trump.
You can be the most problematic person in Hollywood but as long as you hate Trump, you're redeemed because all of the sudden you're the lesser of what Woke Hollywood considers "The Ultimate Evil".
Maybe she'll lose fans if a video of her treating house staff badly leaks.
Or when Americans finally get a better understanding of the monarchy as an institution. Right now she benefits from their ignorance about British culture.
I'm not an expert on fan behaviour, I just speak from experience.
Secondly, what is Meghan's 'hook'? Think of any celeb with a successful brand, and all of them have something they can offer other than simply themselves. Even the Kardashians have a popular TV show. If she's no longer royal, what exactly does Meghan bring to the celebrity marketplace?
crickets...
I disagree about Caroline Flack. She was a presenter for many years on several very popular TV programmes. She may not have been massively talented but she wasn't just famous for being famous - she did actually DO something.
What does Meghan do?
"PA arguably sold his royal status for access, MM/PH could sell themselves as being good PR for these individuals, turning up at events etc and adding legitimacy/good international coverage"
Again though, however despicable his behaviour, Andrew did actually have something to offer. He was the queen's favourite son and head of a British trade board - currying favour with him could get you tangible benefits. The Harkles have nothing to compare. And if it's known that the real royals disapprove of their behaviour and being seen to consort with them could damage your links to the actual royal family, then even the grubbiest of dictators would be careful how they tread.
"Of course this is all up in the air as we don't know how strong their brand will be, this is all going to take a loooong time to see how this all plays out:)"
Time isn't on their side though. People are already losing interest and it's barely a month since Mexit. A few banal 'pap' photos aren't going to keep the world interested in them.
Note I'm not saying that they'll be broke - I'm sure they'll be able to earn what would be a huge income by most people's standards. But that won't be enough for them, esp for Meghan, who seems to want global fame and prestige. Which she already had, but threw it all away to hole up in some dodgy billionaire's mansion and merch suitcases.
Is the PR fight back by the dubious duo beginning already? 🙄
‘Billionaire business leaders are in a 'gold rush' to work with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry - and the couple are set to be invited to speak at Davos in 2021, source claims’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8019803/Billionaire-business-leaders-gold-rush-work-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry.html
You are correct. There are dukes who are not royal. HRH is normally equivalent of "prince" so, HRH the Duke of Edinburgh means literally "a royal who holds the title of the Duke".
Harry is still a prince by birth but he cant remind people about it by using HRH.
Harry's special topic Turning Grief into Gold - Monetizing a Parent's Death
The DM comments are all negative for the Royally Dumped Duo.
_____________________________
JohnSmith4, London, United Kingdom, 23 minutes ago
Fake news. These two keep getting sources to say they might be able to earn lots of money. Well then, do it already. You were meant to 'hit the ground running'. You've been setting up deals for months now. All you've got to show for it is a defunct brand, a poorly-executed website, an Instagram account with no engagement power to show for it, and a single speech that didn't go down well. For the work you tried to set up, one was through ambushing the head of Disney, another is being done by Oprah and a professional team under the auspices of your royal connection which is no longer available. It's all future talk and plans, nothing has really happened. You have to think of something, and fast to cobble together a rescue from here because, face it: you didn't think this through, Sussex Royal collapsed in a heap, and it's over.
I find these stories interesting not because I believe they are true but because they show us the direction in which the Harkles want to market themselves - as 'prestige' speakers on the corporate and fauxminitarian circuit. Just like all those nonsense stories about the ridiculous fees - $1 million was mentioned at one point - Harry was supposed to have got for talking about his 'trauma' 2 weeks ago.
Trouble is, as I've said above, they really don't have anything to offer to allow them to compete in the same market as Obama or Clinton. Not near.
That comment is comedy gold. "JohnSmith4" is exactly right - people who are going to make money don't need to tell you they're going to make money. They're far too busy doing whatever it is that brings in the dosh. Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings, "You talk about what you don't have."
@Narc's daughter
That's very interesting, about the less than 20% sales. I wonder how that compares to other magazines, or the same magazines when the Harkles are on the cover. Is 20% the usual sell-through for supermarket magazines?
I find these stories interesting not because I believe they are true but because they show us the direction in which the Harkles want to market themselves - as 'prestige' speakers on the corporate and fauxminitarian circuit. Just like all those nonsense stories about the ridiculous fees - $1 million was mentioned at one point - Harry was supposed to have got for talking about his 'trauma' 2 weeks ago.
What if the Harkles actually did JP Morgan for free, or for only a token payment, just so they could market themselves as high-end speakers?
Ha good to see we agree on something!! Communicating on this board is so tough because subtleties that can be fleshed out in a conversation take ages in writing.
Yes I agree that MM/PH will certainly make a decent/good living for themselves. Most likely not to the lofty heights that they expected but decent enough, especially with Harry's own fortune of approximately 25-40 million $/£ and any income from that (5% yield would be 1.25-2 million $/ £ per year) so they're never going to be destitute.
My point r.e. Caroline Flack is that she was adept at being amenable, fun and a talking head. That was her talent and she made a good career out of it, as do many others. Nothing spectacular required.
As stated, MM/PH could use their media profile quite easily and monetise it e.g. Promoting the good works of a Kazakhstan/Dubai/name your despot charity, set up for PR purposes to make the ruler look good and to garner positive stories. Not a direct link to any dictator to look too grubby, they're just supporting a charity which so happens to bring good publicity to the country/ruler/large corporation etc.
Please note that this is just one idea, there will be numerous others that could work.
Of course all this depends on whether their brand is strong enough and garners enough attention. That remains to be seen. Hence why the constant PR barrage is so important to them.
Either way I understand your points and tend to agree with them too.
We all don't want them to win, and I just try to get out of this mindset as some people do agree with them and their victim status. We find that hard to comprehend, so perhaps might overlook where they might be 'successful' (with the caveat once again that success is a VERY wide ranging term).
I think they have little or nothing in the pipeline, especially now their ‘brand’ Sussex royal has been thwarted, I think they are pretty much stuffed, in the least in a very tight corner.😁
"What if the Harkles actually did JP Morgan for free, or for only a token payment, just so they could market themselves as high-end speakers?"
I thought the same thing. If I were to guess, I would say they didn't actually receive a penny for that 'speech', just an all expenses paid trip to Miami, complete with private jet and posh hotel (I don't think they stayed with Serena Williams), with the added bonus of establishing their reputation as prestige speakers, or so at least they'd hoped.
Also, I read somewhere that the alleged owner of the Canadian mansion they're holed up in has links to JPM, so it could have been some sort of quid pro quo. I'm not sure if that's true, but I am certain that whoever owns the Canadian pad will definitely want something in return for his largesse. Billionaires don't lend out their homes to strangers - even if otherwise unoccupied - without there being something in it for them.
I have run into him at my local grocery store on occasion, there's always one or two full grocery carts of mags that didn't sell that he's removing and replacing with new issues, so there's a lot of them.
The woke culture just doesn't sell here, even though my county votes Dem. I live in a city that has about 750K people, including the 'burbs. Probably not a good picture of what sells in the rest of the country.
So true though. People who constantly talk about how much they make, could make, how much they are worth financiiare more often than not harking themselves up because they aren't worth that much. This "bugging" oneself up is typical of tech startups and new money wannabes (sorry I'm being snarky but true)
If we know anything about the Harkles by now it's that Meghan's persona, talents and financial worth (and by extension even Harry's) is basically a figment of her own imagination. She is so caught up in this PR war of worths that if an article we're to come out tomorrow quoting their Jpm earning as 100k instead of the hyped up 1 mil she would throw a hissy fit on Instagram.
Which leads me to believe that the latest BRF jab of banning them from using royal has to have been the result of something! Something major must have gone down.
I also think they did JMP for free. Remember, Omid tweeted thatas well. There have been so.many conflicting figures thrown around about their fees but no formal/credible confirmation. It's almost how a lot of freelancers start off, do a gig some good work to get the word around, hype up their fees and let people talk about it so that the next potential clients get the impression that their rates are actually as high as claimed. It's one reason why the terms "boutique" ""bespoke" "specially curated" are thrown around by new businesses so much. I've used it myself, so I'd know.
There was just too much publicity around this JPM gig -thier fees, the content of their speech, the fact that they were flown over on a private jet, and that MM introduced Harry. It was all too crass and vulgar a display of their so called first step towards financial Independence.
"My point r.e. Caroline Flack is that she was adept at being amenable, fun and a talking head. That was her talent and she made a good career out of it, as do many others. Nothing spectacular required."
No, but like I say, she did actually DO something. Ask someone who Caroline Flack was and their answer will be clear - she was a TV presenter. She had a job, a tangible reason for being in the public eye. The Harkles have nothing other than their increasingly tarnished ex-royal status, and it's unclear how marketable that will prove to be.
"We all don't want them to win, and I just try to get out of this mindset as some people do agree with them and their victim status. We find that hard to comprehend, so perhaps might overlook where they might be 'successful' (with the caveat once again that success is a VERY wide ranging term)."
Oh I agree that they appeal to a certain demographic, mostly in the US but on this side of the Atlantic too. Question remains though - how are they going to translate that into cold hard cash? I don't see Guardian reader types shelling out for Away suitcases or whatever it is that Meghan is currently merching. And the corporate folks with the big money aren't going to part with it to hear Harry whining about how hard his life is. So I'm really not sure how they can successfully market themselves to get the lifestyle they feel they deserve.
"Which leads me to believe that the latest BRF jab of banning them from using royal has to have been the result of something! Something major must have gone down."
I disagree. This was inevitable once the 'hard Mexit' was announced. There was no way that the Harkles could be allowed to market themselves as 'royal' when they are no longer resident in the UK and no longer undertaking royal duties. It was always obvious, as spring approaches and the Harkles are officially out, that this was in the works. Though I'd caution that there hasn't actually been an official announcement from the palace as of yet.
- They hate the monarchy
- They hate posh people in general because they have a chip on their shoulder, the type of people who hate all "Etonian politicians" (and Meghan wasn't born posh, but the royal family are)
These are the same people who will make you feel like they "hate people like me", they claim all the hate is racially-motivated but they themselves will hate others based on primordial traits.
It's a thing.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether tv presenters/talking heads are 'talented.'
Your last paragraph says it all and is the big question. PR is an odd world, and if they pick a good strategist then they might do ok/well in keeping a decent image and being able to monetise it.
But as you and others have said, time is short in a cluttered world of multiple celebs. And the shuttering of the Sussex Royal brand narrows their options even further.
Don't know if you read the DM article that has a section that is quite technical and discusses copyright and the intricacies of using the Royal name. Good proper journalism that informs the reader rather than engaging in, or prompting further speculation.
I'm wondering about the lack of official statement as well. This is in the DM. It was announced on Twitter by RRs a few hours before it was supoyto be. So this is very much America war, let's just be very clear about that. And yes, this was all going to happen anyway. So why now?
And has anyone seen Charles latest video on insta? He is celebrayiyghe 59 tear anniversary of his first speech on environmentalism. This gets more and more bizarre everyday. Charles should consider hmself above this silly PR war surely. BRF prnos getting too agressive in the wake of the Harkle debacle(in my opinion)
Megsy shows signs of classic projection. This is:
"Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others".
Every time her "camp" throws mud at somebody else I can confidently expect her being guilty of what she accusing the others of.
"And yes, this was all going to happen anyway. So why now?"
Why not now? It's been a month since Mexit and spring is fast approaching. At this stage, we're only talking about 'leaks' (intentional or otherwise). Also, since this is an 'internal' royal matter we may never get an official statement at all.
Archie is listed as 7th in line to the throne on the official royal website.
https://www.royal.uk/succession
You make a good point about Kate's changing appearance during her pregnancies. I would add to it severe morning sickness every time, so bad she had to spend time in hospital. This is impossible to fake. Plus signatures of obstetricians on all her birth announcements. I happen to know the name of one of the doctors who signed, he is a consultant in a major London hospital, so they are definitely real people and high level professionals.
We can put rumors of Kate's deception firmly to rest.
My immediate reaction was "change to what?" so far all their changes are for the worse.
Also, the whole 'change' thing is so vapid. Change isn't neccessarily a good thing. Change is bad as often as it is good.
spot on.
https://www.royal.uk/archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor
Just visited SussexRoyal.com and saw that all of Harry’s patronage’s were still listed, including the Royal Marines.
I promise I'm not just saying that because you're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. I genuinely think only some people are good at it. 💜
*although I did wonder how to get on "Love Island" at one point since Tinder/dating sites sucks until I realised I'd need to hire a cat-sitter.
@HappyDays
Megsy shows signs of classic projection. This is:
"Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others".
@Fairy Crocodile: You are 100% right. Absolutely! To watch a profoundly narcissistic person in action on a world stage like this is incredibly interesting. People who are paying attention to this are getting a view of how she not only behaves on a public level, which is generally what most people see, we are seeing at least part of her behavior on personal level with people, as she manipulates, controls, uses and disposes to only benefit herself. She was unmasked so quickly by many in the public, due to the extremes of her actions.
As you probably know, narcs often self-destruct, so it will be interesting to watch how this plays out. Her greed, arrogance, entitlement, and grandiosity have gotten the best of her so far.
Unfortunately, there is already a lot of collateral damage, which will continue to pile up along her trail of past wreckage. And that’s just the stuff we KNOW about. This woman must have more skeletons than Arlington National Cemetery. (Arlington is a national cemetery near Washington DC, where tens of thousands of deceased members of the military are buried. It has existed since the Civil War and is a HUGE place.)
Prince Harry, 35, and Meghan Markle, 38, have stepped back from royal life
Source told ET the Duke of Sussex is 'really taking to the West Coast lifestyle'
Said the Californian Duchess' 'healthy habits' are 'rubbing off' on her husband
Prince Harry is said to have followed Meghan's lead to take an interest in cooking
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8019681/Meghan-Markles-Californian-habits-rubbing-Prince-Harry.html?offset=79&max=100&jumpTo=comment-514736905#comment-514736905
Has he ever cooked thing in his life? Perhaps warmed up some rations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>>>*although I did wonder how to get on "Love Island" at one point since Tinder/dating sites sucks until I realised I'd need to hire a cat-sitter.<<<
Oh, you should have tried it. I went to try out for the famous TV show The Dating Game (in 1973), well I washed out at the interview and never got on. However, I caught the eye of the show's photographer, who asked me out and we started dating which was better than landing some sight unseen show prospect! lol
@bootsy
Your idea of the Harkles getting connected with some tin pot dictator is certainly viable and could be fabulously enriching. I had the occasion to look up the wealthiest Christian pastors in the world and like 6 out of 10 were Nigerian (we're talking multimulti-millionaires). Nigeria is so wealthy (because of their oil) and corrupt to boot. They could use some polishing of their image for sure. Since the Harkles left the BRF that may align well with the anticolonialism sentiment of the country.
And Hunter Biden (Democratic Presidential Candidate Biden's son) has made a massive fortune serving on board's of I believe, both the Ukraine oil company and had some dodgy connection with China, where he literally brought home bags of cash in an airplane (or so it was reported).
Here is an excellent project for the Dumbartons. "Cooking up a storm" with duke and duchess of SusSEX.
Series one.
How to boil an egg from scratch.
Two
Not every avocado sandwich is good. How to choose correct fruit for lunch.
Three
The Basics of Macrobiotic diet and how to tell the royal chef off for not following it.
Four
Fighting cooking smells in your rooms. Difference between atomizers, diffusers and aromatic candles. Interview with G. Paltrow about her vagina scented candle and it's use in your home.
Five
The connection between burgers and Man's Health. Your underwear as cooking uniform - easy and hygienic.
Six
Roasted chicken and vegetarianism. Birds have their uses.
Seven.
Baby food sourcing and storage. What to do if you will not see your baby for weeks in a row. How not to lose money feeding a nanny.
Eight.
Wigs are excellent as cook hats. Washable, reusable, always looks good even if your husbands comes in unexpected. Demonstration by the duchess.
Nine
Wines and their comparability with cocaine. Duchess recommends.
Ten
What to cook on a yacht. Easy high energy food to save you time for other pastimes.
It will be a hit.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/13/for-harry-and-meghan-the-fairy-tale-is-over-and-th/
Nigeria is a member of the Commonwealth. Why would they want ersatz royals when they can have real royals? There have been two official royal visits to Nigeria this century - Charles and Camila were there the year before last and HM visited in 2003. The Harkles aren't needed.
Also, I'm not sure how the Harkles would really benefit anyone's image. Outside of the small circle of Wokerati they provoke either indifference or disdain. If you've got milions to throw at famous folk for PR, why not invite an A list celeb (many of whom wouldn't turn up their redone noses at such jobs) or some politician or business figure with actual influence? The Harkles simply have nada.
https://www.disneyinstitute.com/disney-institute-summits/?CMP=SAC-FY20_DI_ACT_DOM_PDI_1432674_2.1_2.29_FebSummitSeries2020Static%7CTW%7C1165729.DI.SM.01.05%7CM0OSX6W%7CUPP%7C&dclid=CjkKEQiA1rPyBRDMh8m1gNqokvQBEiQAS-w6CAbbYTu5jD5K-S2Pm9LEg4U4nLBN-5SkKXKsVIyUJOTw_wcB
lol...your comment made me blush, and at 67 I don't think I've blushed in decades! Thank you!
I was commenting on @bootsy's comment. As for my example of Nigeria...well i used to work for Nigerians and I feel they have a love/hate opinion regarding the British. It doesn't matter whether royals visit the country...we have all kinds of rulers visiting the US over the ages, some of whom were brutal despots, so? Both friends and foes. Evidently they were a hit on the SA tour...did SA need them, no but they were happy to have them!
Why would they need the Harkles? What do they have to offer? Well evidently many professionals in the PR world think their appearance is worth millions. Mark Cuban, the billionaire on the recent special said they are "worth gold"/ So many better than I answered your question. JP Morgan put down some good money allegedly for their appearance. Your question has been answered over and over already if you have read the articles out there.
No William and Kate are not going to get a divorce. They have a stable and happy marriage.
No, William has not had affairs and to repeat this gossip is to knowingly spread nasty lies.
Although you have not mentioned it, here is another no .. surrogates were not used for the pregnancy and birth of the Cambridge children.
Now think about it. Who would be so dysfunctional that they would throw shade at someone who has what they don't have (classic projection)?
Meghan had a very odd pregnancy and birth: misinformation aplenty, secrecy in buckets, a baby bump that seemed to change shape and size and jiggle about and was prominently displayed even in the beginning when it was not there and she was simply arching her back and sticking out her tummy (her go-to sexy stance).
Harry has a history of going through a lot of women (everyone just talks about his two long-term girl friends but there were plenty of short-term women in between) and his natural self is a very flirtatious one; Meghan actively looks for the next man while she is still with the present man.
The Sussex marriage is founded on infatuation in a long-distance relationship, a lot of lies from Meghan, and a car crash in terms of destroying everything in Harry's life (he has given up his family for her and if you want to know if he loves them just have a look at how he looked at Kate in that engagement they did together when Meghan was on pregnancy leave and look at him goofing around with his brother, and grandmother, and the many photos and videos of him with his father). Plus Meghan is a bolter. Toxic co-dependent relationships can and do last a lifetime, but, as I have just said, Meghan is a bolter.
Here is a summary:
The Cambridges have a stable and happy marriage and family life.
William has not had affairs.
Kate did not use a surrogate.
The Sussex marriage does not have a good chance of lasting.
It is just the 'royal', and the logo with the coronet may also be a problem.
>>>Question remains though - how are they going to translate that into cold hard cash? I don't see Guardian reader types shelling out for Away suitcases or whatever it is that Meghan is currently merching. And the corporate folks with the big money aren't going to part with it to hear Harry whining about how hard his life is. So I'm really not sure how they can successfully market themselves to get the lifestyle they feel they deserve.<<<
What would Prevent them from making money.on any of the following???
1 By a tell all book
2. By an interview with Ellen
3. By an interview with Oprah
4. A collarboration with Oprah on Mental Illness
5. Being on the Board of Dorectors for a potential gazillion Boards?
6. By producing documentaries on a number of potential subjects
7. By Meghan being a talk show persona (ie. The View)
8. Meghan returning to acting
The list goes on and on...so how can they Not make money?
Regardless of whether they are working royals it has been reported that many agents are trying to represent them. I believe there is a shred of truth in this. Besides Harry has already appeared as a speaker at Davos and more recently JP Morgan. Do you think that was not true? So there is proof that Harry's attendance at events is sought after. So how can they not make money?
The Cambridges have a stable and happy marriage and family life.
William has not had affairs.
Kate did not use a surrogate.
The Sussex marriage does not have a good chance of lasting
Bravo! Well said!!
Us regular folk may have been initially interested in the Vogue edit, but it's almost a year now and who really cares? It is a MAGAZINE that ran a story about well-to-do women. Not nurses in a hospital, providing life-saving rescue compressions to patients. Not dedicated mothers, getting up at 4:00 AM to soothe their babies and pack lunches. Not air traffic controllers, ensuring safe travel for thousands of people. Not law enforcement, not fire fighters, not teachers in school...etc etc. There is so much outside of MM's world but I wonder if she is too self-centered to see it. I think it frustrates her that the magazine didn't get the reception she believed it deserved, and doesn't this reflect her tenure with the RF?
A good list and should keep the Dumbartons busy and out of mischief.
All the legal reasons and the laws that forced the Queen to ban their use of Sussex Royal
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8018043/Queen-BANS-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-using-Sussex-Royal-brand-cost-thousands.html
A detailed read, you must scroll down a bit to read this by Robert Hardman.
ROBERT HARDMAN: The Queen loves Harry and Meghan...but she has to stand firm
ByRobert Hardman for the Daily Mail
Lol!!!
This is the wittiest crowd! I admit I come here for the laughs.
I wonder if the "upholding the Queens values" was inserted into the Megxit agreement precisely to prevent the dodgy dictators scenario. Andrew got himself into so trouble with that one. They probably should have consulted him when drafting the agreement. He knows all the tricks.
Fergie is probably laughing her @ss off while updating her Duchess website.
"What would Prevent them from making money.on any of the following???
1 By a tell all book
2. By an interview with Ellen
3. By an interview with Oprah
4. A collarboration with Oprah on Mental Illness
5. Being on the Board of Dorectors for a potential gazillion Boards?
6. By producing documentaries on a number of potential subjects
7. By Meghan being a talk show persona (ie. The View)
8. Meghan returning to acting"
As I said above, I'm sure they'll be able to make what by most people's standards is very very good money. However, I don't think they'll be able to get the income and global reach they think they deserve.
Regarding your list above, yeah, sure they can give interviews, but that's kind of a once-off. Once they've done the 'tell-all' they can't really tell it all again, can they? As for producing documentaries, neither of them has any background whatsoever in TV or film production, and both of their TV 'specials' had lacklustre audiences, so I don't think that has any great potential. As for acting, Meghan was never very good or very succesful, so while she may get the odd 'stunt' role, she won't make a career out of it. And I really don't see them being on any Boards of Directors as they have nothing to offer now that they are no longer royal and have no real influence.
Again, I'm not saying they won't be able to make money. Just that I don't think their appeal is anything like as wide as they would like to think.
" Besides Harry has already appeared as a speaker at Davos and more recently JP Morgan. Do you think that was not true? So there is proof that Harry's attendance at events is sought after."
I've not heard about Harry speaking at Davos, but if he did, it was as HRH Prince Harry Duke of Sussex. Not as Harry Markle. Very significant difference. As for the JPM 'speech' I do think it happened, but as I wrote above, I am very doubtful of the claims made about how much he was paid and am inclined to think he wasn't paid at all and it was done as some sort of favour. Besides, how many times can Harry give the 'woe is me' speech and what else does he have to offer?
I'd imagine the vast majority of South Africans were more concerned about the low level civil confict then going on in their country, but we have no real way of knowing how the majority felt. And if they did welcome them, it was as members of the royal family representing the queen, not as an ex-royal duo who dumped their royal duties in order to merch suitcases.
" JP Morgan put down some good money allegedly for their appearance"
We have absolutely no solid evidence whatsoever that JP Morgan paid a single penny for their appearance. The fact that such a wide number of figures were bandied about makes it clear to me that nobody has a clue how much - or even if - they were paid. How many 'PR professionals' with no links to the Harkles have said they're worth millions? Let's see how it pans out. As of now all we have is speculation - including on my part - and strategic 'leaks'. If a year from now we see them jetting off on private jets to give speeches for massive sums I'll happily admit I was wrong. But I don't think I will be.
answer - as soon as they open their mouth and talk.
These two are fascinating to people now because of the obvious: they had it ALL and they gave it up, not because they left the royal family. The majority of attendees at the JPMorgan event were self made millionaires. They know what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck.
MM may have a university degree, and has nothing of substance to merit her an expert on anything except posing for a camera.
Harry is clueless. He gave up the one vocation (the army and his military patronage) that made his relevant in Today's world. I am sorry that he lost his mom. I lost my mom 36 years ago today. The British stiff upper lip is true of Life: we gather it together and soldier on and focus on what is important serving others (our family, our children, our work, and for those in the faith community, our Lord).
Good for Harry taking an interest in cooking. He will need this life skill. I give the marriage a year tops.
Sorry about that, it wasn’t implied that way. 😊
There is no way a US court would uphold a British claim about a word and a shape...not gonna happen.
the problem for them is that the public fight would demean the value of the name/logo and force them to do two lines of whatever it is...
On the JP Morgan front - for people objecting over the claim that they were paid $1mil for an appearance...saying that is too much, they shouldn't have gotten/probably didn't get paid at all - you are seriously underestimating the amount of money these people (big banks) waste - and OVER estimating the value that they consider a million dollars to be.
It's like a dime to them.
Seriously - they got paid that much for this visit. Yes.
It may not happen again - but it DID happen.
Harry and Meghan will then attend the Endeavour Fund awards on March 5, and Harry will be at Silverstone with racing driver Lewis Hamilton on March 6.
They will then both be at the Mountbatten Festival of Music on March 7, and Meghan will mark International Women's Day on March 8.
The couple will then join the Queen and the Royal Family for the Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey on March 9.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8021217/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-lose-Buckingham-Palace-office-April.html#comments
And this was all so unnecessary, frankly. They could have departed without all this brouhaha. This is Markle’s fault. She is a drama whore. She thrives on it. .She is bringing a penknife to a knife fight while HRM has a bazooka on her shoulder. To undercut ALL the negative stories about their decamping in the most insulting way possible, Markle could have (and should have) gone on Oprah and said extremely nice things about Queen, Kate, Prince Charles, and Camilla. Emphasized that as she began to get deeper into royal life, she realized that what she and Harry wanted to do would not be in keeping with the restrictions that are, naturally, part of royal life. That she was naive about it. She could even go so far as to debunk the majority of the nonsense that these tabloids are selling. Except she hasn’t and won’t. Because I believe that she and her PR hacks are the font of 75% of the garbage being printed. Kate had a surrogate? Please. Continuously she has played this ALL WRONG. Her narc-self is her biggest problem. She sees everything in terms of predator or prey. She must dominate the entire narrative. And when she finds she can’t, she starts getting nasty and combative as she tries to assert her dominance.
Interesting that they have some appearances in the UK lined up. I really didn't think Meghan would show her face in public in Britain again and I'm still not entirely convinced she will in fact appear but I did notice the 'International Women's Day' appearance being mentioned. I doubt this is an official royal event so perhaps Meghan saw an opportunity for a bit of performative wokism and couldnt' resist?
Also seems the official start of their new ex-royal life of 'freedom' is April 1st (!)
I'm still on the fence as to if she'll make an appearance.
The April 1st date has been noted and remarked on in the comment section many times already.
They are a joke, so how appropriate!
The coronet on their IG is from their joint coat of arms – “coronet laid down by a Royal warrant of 1917 for the sons and daughters of the heir Apparent Composed of two crosses pate, four fleurs de lys and two strawberry leaves”
All is explained at:
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ7B2jak1eIDwAHXtWBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBtdXBkbHJyBHNlYwNmcC1hdHRyaWIEc2xrA3J1cmw-/RV=2/RE=1582160675/RO=11/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pinterest.com%2felizabethyeung1%2fworld-events-history%2f/RK=2/RS=c658TMuxQ0Htsj9Bk7b.NJKKGCU-
I found the info by googling `duke of sussex coat of arms’ and having a shufti at the images. There’s a very nice annotated image, spoiled by Ol’ Gurning Chops.
Btw, the Duke of Windsor appears to have kept a form of his regal coat of arms but he did go before he actually did anything more than plan to marry a divorcee.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hilary-swank-apologizes-attending-chechen-leader-birthday-party-248182
I think even Beyonce has gotten flack for entertaining some tinpot dictator in the Middle East or Africa at one time. The Harkles could wind up even more radioactive than they are now under your money-making scenario.
Back in 2019 before Archie was birthed, MM was trying to put rumors out there disguised as an April Fool's day joke, that he was William's child. The cheek of that vile witch.
The rumor/joke went something like this.
The fab 4 we hanging out one night at the Norfolk estate getting drunk. Harry and Kate went upstairs to check on sleeping G, C and baby L , conveniently leaving M and W alone. One drink led to another thing. Boom alliterate former actress finds out she is pregnant a few weeks later. The wronged husband knows he is not the father, but he will do the noble thing and raise the child as his to spare his beloved SIL the embarrassment of yet another affair. Poor thing, no wonder she has been looking so peaky and strained lately.
Give me a break!! Just when you think this woman has hit absolute rock bottom, she finds another level. It really chaps her ass that Archie isnt a Prince and she just wants to destroy a happy home. Destroying happy homes and happy families is her raison d'etre.
There is no way a US court would uphold a British claim about a word and a shape...not gonna happen.'
Contrary to the spin put out there, the USA does not control the entire globe and everything in it.
The Sussexes have a website and an IG account, so their reach is global, including the UK. As I said before, they can open a 'Royal Sussex Fish and Chips' restaurant in the USA and there is nothing that the BRF and the UK government can do about it. But, British law does have jurisdiction over what is put out there on the Internet and thus reaches a UK and Commonwealth audience.
The law on the Internet is tricky but it is not ineffective. I published a book online that was 'stolen' and published for free on a website based in China. I had that website taken down and it took one email to do so.
The Sussexes will be required to have a formal agreement. To refuse would be to embark on a long and costly and messy legal challenge. That agreement can be used to take down their website and IG account if they continue to use the HRH, susseroyal and perhaps even the coronet logo.
As for Meghan making appearances in the UK in the near future ... she will give word salad speeches, cling to and look adoringly at Harry, and put on her best acting face (sad and strong but difficult to mask the smugness, the latter because she lives in a state of delusion and refuses to reasonably and rationally and objectively consider a situation but clings to her fantasies). For purely shallow gossip value, I am looking froward to what she wears and how much new jewellery she has, and, gosh, I am looking forward to award-winning performances from everyone. Will William do some scarfing or will he greet and smile engagingly as Her Maj has done for decades (sometimes being required to host some pretty despicable political figures at BP). How will Kate stop herself from crying ... she will have to step up as a queen in waiting. How much will Charles fiddle with his ring? Will Camilla avoid them altogether? Will anyone in the public turn up to boo them and throw vegetables at them?
@ Alice James Surrey
Oh yes, I remember that.
Another tactic of the terminally envious/narcissistic - if someone has something you want but can't have, destroy it for them, or at least destroy their joy in it.
if you can't have it, make damn' sure that they can't either.
It's not "spin" to say that US courts control what does and does not happen in the US. Which I was careful to state. US courts will not uphold an objection from UK royals - leaving them "technically" free to sell their trash in the US with whatever mark they want.
I carefully said that the queen could stop it in the UK AND the commonwealth.
And since I WASN'T addressing my comments to you - I don't get the snark.
All that said - the queen cannot legally stop them from using the name inside of the US - and perhaps other countries (ASIDE FROM THE UK AND COMMONWEALTH)
but she can take away their titles...and hence the reason for the name in the first place - and PC can take away their money.
There is no value in this fight - but she may not see it that way as she has evidenced a lack of foresight. She may be so focused on "my way" that she takes up the fight regardless.
Our Nellie opened her window and is supposed to have yelled
`'Ere! I'll 'ave you know I'm not 'is French 'ore! I'm 'is English 'ore!'
I gather the barrage stopped immediately.
If only...
Their "list of appearances" is a simple reminder for me not to read the press and not to watch TV in March. I may come here to enjoy the witty comments though.
Not sure I would be able to tolerate the outward friendliness towards her by the royals in order not to alienate the woke crowd.
On the other hand royals are excellent at giving the cold shoulder to somebody they don't view as their own any more. That'll give her several highly unpleasant minutes. Hope they will be confined to the back row near the curtains again.
The only woman in this group that I know who's still a big time Meghan fan is a woke self-described Bernie fan. She's sort of a nut job herself, she brags about returning used clothing and shoes to Nordstrom's for full refund AFTER she and her daughter have used these items. She brags about it to everyone because she thinks how easily it's done due to Nordstrom's customer-centered, lenient return policy. Even her husband is ashamed by her doing it. She doesn't have to do it, as they own a million+ home in Berkeley, drive Teslas, and her husband rakes in bank working as exec in a biotech firm. Last month she and I happened to converse during down time in things royal as she'd brought up how much she loves Meghan, LOL. I quickly ran down a list of shady things that the Sussexes did, but she didn't believe them or had an excuse for them. I gave up finally.
So really in the grand scheme of things, a lot of Meghan's fans are only fans in name only. They'll read about her but they won't. actually follow her brand and buy shit she's selling or shilling to sell. Only a small number of women with money to burn would ever buy into her brand. The marketplace is saturated with celebrity lifestyle brands, they're competing with younger and more identifiable celebs who are popular now and celebs who'll come along to occupy that mantle. For a soon to be 40 year-old actress and her dim husband who are both now viewed under unflattering lights, it's going to be a struggle to sustain the sort of brand that'll bring in the amount of wealth needed to live the super-rich lifestyle. Gravitas is earned, say what you will about Hillary Clinton, she had the bonafides starting as college student and throughout public life as lawyer then politician. Meghan is using very slim set of accomplishments to propel herself into the same stratosphere where Oprah, Hillary, and Michelle occupy. But she also wants to be one of those break the internet tacky celebs like Kim or offer self-satisfied social commentary a la Chrissy Tiegen. She should focus on just one, she'd probably have more chance of succeeding at least for a short while. Eventually her incessant lies and social climbing will be her downfall.
Official leave date, breaking news on Express.
1 By a tell all book
2. By an interview with Ellen
3. By an interview with Oprah
4. A collarboration with Oprah on Mental Illness
5. Being on the Board of Dorectors for a potential gazillion Boards?
6. By producing documentaries on a number of potential subjects
7. By Meghan being a talk show persona (ie. The View)
8. Meghan returning to acting
The list goes on and on...so how can they Not make money?'
I think that is a reasonable list. Meghan is an experienced hustler and she will need to be to keep a steady stream of ka-ching coming in from all those sources, but she likes hustling and dipping into lots of things. She was moderately successful in the past (the reports of her accumulated wealth were grossly exaggerated). Her brief foray into the BRF via marriage to Harry has probably increased her value tenfold. Also, Meghan has always been good at getting freebies that allowed her to travel and socialise with the rich and famous at high-end places. (One thing she did not get, and ironically after marrying Harry as well, was the freebie designer clothes that she was always hustling for.)
I believe HM isn’t as invested in an “us vs them” as people who post on blogs are.
Would there be repercussions from the crown if they used these words and symbols? Would HAMS care? I don’t know.
I have only posted a couple of times but this is my top blog watch,I would like to offer something up.Iv always thought that MM had political leanings,she seems to understand Power perfectly. all this seems a hidden agenda of her going into politics and Harry in her narrative was the perfect stepping stone as I believe you can not have any titles for American politics.
I could be overreaching but to me it seems the way she is going.
I would like also to say the DOC never had a surrogate,look back into her pregnancy with George she had terrible morning sickness that admitted her to hospital.
My friends and I met her on a visit when she was very pregnant and you could clearly see the baby moving around in her belly under her spotted maternity dress, she even at one point rubbed her belly when the baby was visibly kicking looked at us and smiled.
It’s the law of the land, that is the UK. It’s done to protect the Queen etc. The act covers all overseas business (which is the world), so it includes the USA.
I don’t think the Sussex’s are that stupid (arrogant) to go against the British government. They’d lose everything and more than likely all their royal perks. 😉
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8018137/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Queen-loves-Harry-Meghan-stand-firm.html
I’ve copied the important parts of Robert Hardman’s article which goes into detail the legalities.
For the definition of what is and what is not 'royal' is not just a matter of regal whim. The Queen is actually governed by several pieces of legislation, including the Trade Marks Act 1994 and even the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883.
The Sussexes 'get' the importance of brand protection, which is why they have been so busy registering 'Sussex Royal' for every sort of potential commercial use (including, we are told, pyjamas).
So they can hardly object when the Queen and her officials, representing an institution which has been protecting its own brand for centuries, lay down what is very well-established law to protect their own 'intellectual property'.
Perhaps Harry and Meghan should switch their attention from their own elegantly constructed website to the rather more arcane recesses of the official Royal Household website.
There, they will find exhaustive guidance from the Lord Chamberlain's Office on how businesses can lay claim to any sort of 'royal' status. Much of it, in any case, is governed not by the Palace but by the Cabinet Office.
In other words, Harry and Meghan are going to have to square their plans with Michael Gove as well as Granny.
The official royal website might not have the beautiful arty shots like those on sussexroyal.com, but it is pretty precise.
For example: 'Sections 55 and 1047 of the Companies Act 2006 and Regulation 8 of the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2009 prohibits companies (including overseas companies)… from being registered under a name which includes any of the sensitive words specified in the Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2014, unless the approval of the Secretary of State has been obtained.'
"she likes hustling and dipping into lots of things"
And this to me is part of her problem. That, and her complete lack of patience.
She lacks the focus and the patience to build a coherent brand. Runs away from the role of her life after less than 2 years because she couldn't stand the plebs criticising the cost of her clothes and hated the fact that most royal duties are pretty dull. Publishes a staggeringly stupid 'manifesto' claiming to want 'independence' yet also demanding the right to pick and choose the glamourous bits of being royal. Leaks a whole load of stories about how 'toxic' the royal family are, yet is apparently heading back for more royal appearances. Wants to be taken seriously as a 'prestige' speaker yet also merches earrings and luggage on the side (do you see the Obamas doing that?) Promotes a different fasionable cause every month, instead of choosing one or two to focus on and build up some sort of credibility in. Markles people and organisations the minute they are no longer useful to her.
And so on.
If she were clever, she'd have given this a couple of years, played along with all the royal stuff, worn tights and hats when needed, made sure to be seen in moderately priced British brands and slowly, without any fanfare, built up a reputation as a humanitarian with a special focus on one or two causes. However shallow this might hae been in reality, it would at least have been coherent and semi-plausible. But no, she had to go and ruin it because she wants it all and she wants it now. Hence the mess the Harkles are in.
I would like to actually hear the Camilla interview because the DM article posted here in a couple of places is NOT reflecting how it was laid out in the video I attached above, which is more of a “RF is distressed” and it’s very recent.
Meghan and Harry depend on the Internet for their global reach. For now, they do so through IG and a website (plus media interest). It is huge for them if they cannot use HRH or the word 'royal' and maybe even the coronet logo. They want far more than a fish and chips shop in the USA - they want a global wealth-making, change-making enterprise.
The BRF and the UK government will not bother to act if the Sussexes open a 'Sussex Royal Fish and Chips' restaurant in the USA (and, as you say, they can't). But as soon as they take that business online (and the same goes for TV that reaches a global audience or a book that is sold internationally ...) they have crossed a line and will be forced to retract or be taken down. When a website gets taken down, the entire thing is gone and not just the parts that are violating a legal agreement or copyright. ISPs based in the USA serve a global audience and they do not ignore copyright ownership for people outside the USA, even the country where the website owner resides does not have the same copyright laws, because they are actually a global business.
It will be far easier and safer for them to rebrand ASAP.
That they have not taken down their website with that bizarre and meaningless manifesto is perhaps an indication that they are not going to be sensible.
The BRF do not want to lose Harry so they are keeping as many doors open for him as possible, but they must avoid another Andrew debacle, and the Queen, through her advisers, must uphold the traditions and value of the monarchy.
And what Andrew scandal should they avoid? The cute little baby in the pic today? The man with the 60th birthday party coming up who accompanies his mum to church smiling?
I agree they should rebrand immediately but with them.... probably nah... draw the line, push the envelope...
I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with one of your points… I wholeheartedly believe that the Dumbartons are in fact arrogant enough and stupid enough to defy the Queen and the British Parliament over the matter of the use of “HRH Royal” Whether it be divorced from Sussex or not. Meg will completely disregard orders and defy “laws” she does not recognize as applying to her, and Harry is totally complicit. Bringing repeated lawsuits against a couple who has no shame and couldn’t pay the damages anyway is like trying to get blood out of a stone. Meg is going to merch herself as a Royal Highness until she’s dead or given a lobotomy. But her power to cash in on Royal can be starved at the root by the couple’s own reckless toxicity. The queen and Charles should cut off every penny of Duchy and personal support, including security. Let H pay for his own like Andy has paid for his family’s. The pallet should issue periodic statements, every week if need be that Harry and Meghan are no longer Royals and no longer represent the royal family in any capacity. It should also be regularly suggested in official statements that any UK media outlets covering the tawdry activities of the rogue pair will lose their place in the royal Rota and any access to the remaining legitimate Royals. That ought to wind some clocks.
Of note, the article also states that Harried WILL retain ranks of Major, Lieutenant Commander and Squadron leader BUT WILL NOT USE THEM for ONE YEAR. One whole year. Oh, the humanity!
So--- HRH but not HRH, Major, but not Major.
This has crossed into comedy.
I think Meghan has had the great good fortune of finding the perfect target in Harry. An emotionally and intellectually stunted man-child with a deep resentment of his family and no clue about life in the real world. And probably getting slightly desperate to find a wife, all of which adds up to the perfect storm. He no doubt fell hook, line and sinker too for her sob story of being 'bullied' by the press (just like mummy) and about how unfair it was that William got all the perks just because he was born first (leaving out the fact that an idiot like Harry also gets to enjoy massive perks simply by being born, but never mind) and as a result, went along with all her shenanigans. I reckon - because of the above-mentioned lack of intellect and worldliness - he think Meghan is much more clever than she actually is, and has allowed her to take the lead in this.
So while I certainly don't think he's innocent in this mess, she is the prime mover.
"This has crossed into comedy."
Au contraire, it is a very elegant move by the palace.
Yes, Harry technically still holds his military titles, but what use is a title if you can't use it? None. By doing it this way, the royals are leaving the door open to Harry to come crawling back after what they, we and everyone else with any sense knows to be inevitable - divorce. He can then transition back into royal life with all his titles intact. Repairing his reputation with the British people will be an altogether tougher task, however.
“ Talks black. Lives white. Thinks green.”
Green as in $$$$
This is what I find too. I went to brunch last week where the subject came up, they were flabbergasted at some of the actual provable things I told them about the Harkles, mostly MM, but the main comment was "Poor Harry." I think the main sentiment here is poor Harry found someone, they had a baby, now they left, hope they're happy. No one I know cares at all and if they do they're just mildly interested because Harry is Diana's son and take everything the media says at face value.
Meghan cares none at all for what people in the UK - or anywhere in the commonwealth think about her, not even the Queen...not really around the world
She ONLY cares about how famous and important she is in her own world - which is inside the US...in and around the "important people".
She may say she wants "global"...whatever - in reality, she doesn't care. As long as the "right" people tell her how great she is and give her enough money and attention.
She wants Tig 2.0 but bigger with far more wealth and more A-list celebrities and more TV appearances and magazine spreads and more holidays (and for her ego, plus an Angelina Jolie appearance in some poor country for a photo shoot now and then and to get her that invite to be a guest speaker at a huge conference).
She probably does have some interest in women's empowerment and education but she does not live what she preaches and it is all about an image of herself that is not really who she is, and she won't do the work required or focus on the right thing to make any difference. (e.g. Meghan gives a speech and does a photo op on a visit; Oprah established an elite academy for black girls who come from poor backgrounds in Johannesburg so that women can overcome the old boys' network disadvantage.)
The authentic Meghan wants to be an influencer not a creator or a hard-working humanitarian.
Unfortunately, she is married to Harry who wants to help injured vets and save the elephants and help HIV-affected children in Africa.
They are an odd couple!
The Daily Mail is not particularly known for their analyses.
LiverBird"This is a very elegant move by the palace".
The problem with the palace is that since the death of his mother the palace has, and continues to, coddle him as though he was forever a young boy. With the result that he has never matured into a man.
Whether it is a teacher doing his school projects for him or the palace trying to erase his nazi stupidities, he has never been left to stand on his own two feet.
This "temporary" non royal, non military business is more of the same. It's a 36 year old balding man with a child who is treated as though he was teenager leaving for a gap year away from school. No work obligations, but keeps the titles, the allowance and the tax payer funded security.
Even if they striped him of his military titles and HRH, he would still come back to the UK if Markle kicks him to the curb. What else is he going to do? He is a man child with no education, no skills and a seemingly low intellect.
This has crossed into comedy.'
The 'protect the monarchy by shutting doors on the narc but keep all doors open for Harry' project has become so convoluted that it makes a pretzel look amateur.
Oh, I think they are aware that Meghan may stick to Harry like a barnacle for the rest of his life, but if he wants back in and Meghan is part of that package, the conditions have been clearly set ... the rules are being written on stone.
It's like saying to your most irresponsible child 'you can bake that very elaborate cake but you have to clean up afterwards and put everything back where you found it (before you can eat the cake), and you will have to buy all the ingredients yourself'.
"This "temporary" non royal, non military business is more of the same. It's a 36 year old balding man with a child who is treated as though he was teenager leaving for a gap year away from school. No work obligations, but keeps the titles, the allowance and the tax payer funded security."
Let's see if he keeps the taxpayer funded security (that will be up to the govt, not the royals) or the allowance. As for the titles, it is a huge deal to remove a royal dukedom. It's not even with the queen's power to do so, as it requires an act of parliament. So forbidding them from using the HRH, the honourary military titles and the Sussex Royal brand are about as far as the royals could reasonably be expected to do.
As far as they're concerned, it's much better to give Harry the option of coming back rather than having him go completely rogue with nothing to lose. He's still their son/grandson. Why let him play the Diana card and whine about the vindictive royals when they can effectively prevent him using his royal titles at little risk to themselves? I think they've played this very smartly. It's not about publish punishment. It's about depriving the Harkles of the few cards they have to play.
It really doesn’t matter whether you disagree with me or not, I’m not the one whose going to look completely and utterly deluded like Meghan and Harry will if they ignore the ban. The royals etc., can inflict far more pain on these too, they only need to keep pushing their luck to find out. 🥴
CatEyes, made an excellent analogy with the MacDonald’s brand name etc. 🤗
"It's like saying to your most irresponsible child 'you can bake that very elaborate cake but you have to clean up afterwards and put everything back where you found it (before you can eat the cake), and you will have to buy all the ingredients yourself'."
I will have to disagree as I don't see that Harry has to do anything at all except have a good time. He left with an allowance and a tax payer funded security team, with all his titles intact. He hasn't given up one single thing.
"It's like saying to your most irresponsible child 'you can bake that very elaborate cake but you have to clean up afterwards and put everything back where you found it (before you can eat the cake), and you will have to buy all the ingredients yourself'."
........ but if you don't, we'll clean up the mess for you. And what time does the security team stop by to fetch you and drive you to the market, dear? Don't worry, they have the cash.
I had an ex-coworker who bought a suit at Nordstrom, wore it to a job interview and then returned it. And she didn't get the job. I think they have revised their return policy in recent years. Kathy Griffin used to say in her act that her Mom could return ANYTHING to Nordstrom for cash.
So I am awaiting someone to give me a legal citation from a reliable source to say Sussex can legally go against the Queen. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, will wait.
Don't you think the Queen and the UK government have better barristers than the Dumbarton Duo?
Please don't tell me you still believe Harry is a great humanitarian who wants to help. He lost it the moment he whined about his super difficult life while in Africa.
Being a humanitarian requires much more than sob speeches to chewing bankers. And this is exactly what he can't do. All his great works have been arranged by somebody for him. Those little invisible men did all the job so Great Humanitarian Harry could sail in, take a photo and claim how much he cared.
I didn't simply lose respect for him, I despise him for his hypocrisy, lies, betrayals and playing endless mommy card. He is a Infusoria Regalia.
Perhaps an analysis will be done when the report is confirmed by official sources.
I know the RF is banking on Harry and Megs divorcing within a year, but this temporary loss of The military titles is really weird, IMO. At least announcing it is. As mean as that divorce is going to be, they will be years in just a settlement.
And why either one of those nitwits would show up to anything public is beyond me. No way they will be welcomed with cheers, although I would love it.
She'll carry Archie as a human shield.
"As I said earlier, if Markle dumps him, Harry would come back even if stripped of his HRH and military titles."
Right. But what would the royals have to gain by 'stripping' Harry of his HRH? It might be satisfying to people who want to see Harry publically punished, but it's not going to strategically benefit the royals in any way, and could indeed harm them. It's unprecedented - at least in modern times - for that to happen to a blood royal. Even Uncle David kept the HRH after abdicating. And he didn't have the legacy of mummy being 'stripped' of her HRH by the evil vindictive royals to whine to the media about. Much much better to 'strip' Harry of the few cards he has to play - 'mummy' being one of his favourites - while at the same time drastically limiting his and Meghan's ability to market themselves as 'royal'. The royals are all about the long game, sometihng Meghan will never understand.
M will still be involved with the National Theatre according to the Telegraph
The Duchess of Sussex has promised the National Theatre her work as patron will be "business as usual", its Artistic Director has said, as he disclosed they are exploring projects to use her "star reach" for good.
Rufus Norris said the Duchess had not told him she and the Duke of Sussex planned to step down from royal duties ahead of the couple's announcement in January but had also given no indication that her work with them would change.
Describing reports that executives were left "fuming" at the revelation their royal patron would be leaving Britain to build a new life in North America as "total fiction", he said: "She is still very engaged, the conversations are regular and ongoing, there are ideas we are exploring."
It is understood the Duchess will liaise further with the theatre in March, when she and the Duke make a brief visit to Britain for the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey.
In an interview with the Telegraph, in which Norris confirmed he has renewed his own contract to stay at the theatre for five more years, he said the theatre is "very happy" with its relationship with its royal patron, who took over the role from the Queen.
Rufus Norris, artistic director of the National Theatre, told the Telegraph he and the Duchess of Sussex have "ideas" they are exploring CREDIT: Nick Ansel/PA
The Duchess was photographed leaving a private meeting with Norris in January, just hours before the Sussexes announced they were leaving Britain to pursue "financial independence". But Norris said the Duchess gave no hint that a "bombshell" was about to drop. "There was no mention of that when we met the Duchess on that occasion, and one or two activities that we both attended. There was no mention of that change.
"That is completely their business about how they [the Duke and Duchess] manage what is undoubtedly a very complicated situation for them.
"From our perspective, I don’t think it's going to change anything.
"She is still very engaged, the conversations are regular and ongoing, there are ideas we are exploring.
"There has been no indication at all from her that her engagement with us would be anything other than business as usual – she has proven to be a very engaged patron, and we look forward to working with her.
I am sure the Queen will fight them if they try to challenge her. Also, I don't think they hold the right of the trademark in the USA yet. I think it is pending.
In terms of fanbase, I think MM's fanbase are left leaning women as some have mentioned earlier. At least, the ones I know still do like her and admire her for leaving the racist family. Now, if she can be more than a victim it will be up to her and her team. One downside I see is that this segment of the population a very into the cancellation culture. I think without the palace help she will eventually do something that will be make her cancelled. It is just a matter of time.
"She has star reach, she understands the nature of what we’re trying to do. She has been interested in the learning work, the work in communities, the work around the country.
"She’s less interested in coming here and going to a string of press nights.
"It's a really in-depth engagement with the range of work we do."
Asked about a tabloid newspaper report that suggested theatre bosses were left"fuming" about their patron’s departure from the Royal Family, Norris said: "That’s a total fiction – there was no fuming. We are very happy with the relationship."
So far, the Duchess has only made one official visit to the theatre outside of private meetings, visiting young trainees in the rehearsal room in January 2019.
The Duchess of Sussex on an official visit to the National Theatre in January 2019, when she met with apprentices and trainees CREDIT: Jon Bond/News Group Newspapers
Those in the industry had high hopes that her experience as an actress, as well as her appeal to young people, would help attract a diverse and dynamic new audience to the theatre to boost its drive to feel accessible to all.
Last night, a royal source confirmed that there are provisional plans for a "much more substantive project" to come.
The Duchess is expected to meet again with National Theatre executives when she is in the UK next month, to "further those conversations and continue to make plans for 2020".
It's not neccessarily a 'temporary loss'. It's just that whatever 'deal' the Harkles have arranged with the queen is due to be renegotiated, so to speak, after a year. This was mentioned in the initial 'Mexit' statement last month. My guess is that if the Harkles don't behave, more drastic measures - possibly incl the permanent removal of at least some of Harry's titles - would be contemplated. The reality is that the palace holds almost all of the cards, and the Harkles, however delusional they may be, have very little to bargain with. The Crown always wins.
Think it would be very wise of the Palace (if they truly want them there) to point out how PC and HM are SOOOOO looking forward to seeing Archie--since they've not seen him since his christening.
Will the HaMS continue to use Royal? I could see it. She is quite insightful in that she realized early on there are no significant consequences to misbehaving. She tested the waters with no tights, hats, pushing ahead of Harry, etc. No major punishments (lack of access to Crown jewels--big deal).
Question is how will the movers and shakers in HW and DC respond to a blatant two fingers to the Crown. If you side with the Harkles, you risk alienating the Crown. Don't believe that there is sufficient money in the Harkles narrative to risk that. I dunno. Maybe Oprah can tell us.
Exactly!
No "royal"? Simples! Let them be "Duke'n Duchess" or even "Duke in Duchess". No use of the Crown? No probs! It can be replaced by a nice image of a weaved eco-friendly basket full of dollars.
Sounds great, Duke'n Duchess tea towel, Duke'n Duchess underwear, Duke'n Duchess Mental Health counseling. It has potential.
Would the Queen sue them? I bet yes (to make certain no one else tries something similar). And, yes. I do believe HM does have better barristers who offered clear advise before the Megexit meeting was held so she understood her cards (in hand and what was still in the deck).
The real questions for me:
It sorta sounds like she could be a debutante maybe yes and maybe no for showing up in the UK. So, is her lawsuit against MOS on the court docket? If so, when? Where does that fall in the schedule of events?
Would Charles fund their side of a suit against his mother and the country?
This would be a tough one ... It is extremely painful to watch someone you love reinvent the wheel and or self destruct.
It probably goes against all their military training for a "Major" to pop in and out of his role while exhibiting no loyalty, duty or courage. (I mean, he contacted his grandmother, the Queen, via an Instagram manifesto..)