The Telegraph.co.uk has announced new details about Prince Harry's project Travalyst.
From behind the paywall:
"The Duke of Sussex is to launch an online scoring system to show travellers how eco-friendly their flights are, as he embarks on the first major project of his new working life.
The Duke, who will return to the UK from Canada next week for the event, will share details of a prototype scheme to “bring more transparency around carbon emissions for individual flights” and make holidays as environmentally-friendly as possible.
The Travalyst project, which he unveiled in the summer, will be the first of several engagements in his 12-day visit to the UK, which will include a recording session with musician Jon Bon Jovi.
In a social media post yesterday, in which the Sussexes’ team mocked up a text conversation with Bon Jovi, Prince Harry hinted he would be joining in the singing on a single to benefit the Invictus Games Choir on February 28th.
The Telegraph has learned the Duke will also be travelling to Edinburgh during his trip home, for a day of work with his Travalyst project.
Testing out plans for a scoring system
It will see him welcome around 100 people from the tourist and travel industry in Scotland to a working summit to test out plans for scoring systems across the three themes of accommodation, aviation and travel experiences.
“It’s not telling consumers and people what they should and shouldn’t be doing,” a source said of the project. “We want to create an industry where people’s choices will automatically be better for the planet."
The Duke himself has received painful criticism over the last year for his own flights, and will continue to travel between the UK and North America in the coming months as the Sussexes split their time across continents.
In September, he answered critics over his use of private jets, saying the “unique circumstances” of his family’s safety made it sometimes essential and promising to "balance out the impact that I have" by offsetting the CO2.
"In my mind it's the right thing to do,” he said. “We need to make it cool. It can't just be a ticking-the-box exercise.”
An interesting project - and Duchess Meghan's name is not mentioned at all.
What do you think of Harry's idea?
Comments
As is almost always the case with these things, do as I say and not as I do. Climate scores are for the little people.
Exactly. It's ridiculous.
I am a green freak but even software illiterate me is capable of doing my own research into locations I want to visit and book with companies that follow eco route. Have done this for years. I can tell you a thing or two about Japanese with their world top recycling and Norwegians with their ground-breaking green technology on cruise ships. VS a shack somewhere in a garbage covered hole we are supposed to support with out vacation money.
Travelist is just another smoke screen.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11011250/prince-harry-travel-system-private-jets/
Spotted this - "Local communities should enjoy the economic benefits of hosting visitors". LOL. So transparent.
Harry reminds me the lyrics in Evita: “Don’t look down. It is a long, long way to fall”. Harkles will get what they deserve eventually.
It reminds me of some of the discussions right after the Berlin Wall came down, when Eastern Europeans wanted to have their first look at Paris, Rome, etc., and came in big belching Soviet-made buses, where they also slept, plus brought their own food. No benefit to the local hotels or restaurants, and therefore not very welcome.
I seem to remember, back when "jetgate" was happening, that a lot of news media ran their own comparisons and the consensus was basically that a commercial flight is always going to have a lower carbon footprint per person simply because of the number of people on it. Using this logic, I think I could figure out how to generate the smallest personal footprint all on my own just by choosing a flight with the most people on it. Not that I fly often mind you, the first and last time I was on a plane was for a school trip to Jersey when I was about 10.
I can only speak for myself but I find the amount of hypocrisy by Harry is staggering. I doubt he even understands how it looks to the people.
Take promoting eco tourism. A good idea as such, but only if it is promoted by somebody who actually follows his own preaching.
Harry doesn't, that is why all his efforts will be in vain. Previously covered by the Palace he is used to living a certain way and doesn't even get it that without Palace's smoke and mirrors he is open to scrutiny and criticism, especially after going to war with media.
Press will keep him under magnifying glass and his stupidity will make it easy for them to continue exposing him as a hypocrite. The only way for him is to crawl back to daddy and granny but I doubt they will accept his wife.
Ticking the boxes is exactly what it will be. The Dumped Dumbartons think they can make money off this pseudo do-gooder-ism? They are just burning up the £2 million Charles sends yearly.
The new Harry Markle post is great. The only thing I don't agree with her about is the "Queen may be blowing it" tone that the post seems to take, in terms of how much supposed latitude the queen is giving to the Harkles with the renew things in one year clause and so forth.
Agree with your take on this. Although it first seemed the Queen may have been to generous with H&M, her slow and steady pace in handling them seems to effective. Compared the Queen's approach to H&M dramatic and chaotic handling of affairs.
As far as DAVOS goes that's a year away. I 'll believe it when I see it.
This Travalyst scoring scam is the first step to redirect travel to impoverished communities. People will be "giving back" by staying in a grass hut instead of a 5 star resort and dining on grilled goat instead of filet mignon.
It's a way to redistribute wealth around the globe. "And the locals will enjoy the economic benefits of hosting visitors."
And again this Travelyst thing sounds so odd. Doesn't it mainly have corporate sponsors, most of them in the travel industry? Ie, the very people who profit from us travelling as much and as often as possible. As for "It will see him welcome around 100 people from the tourist and travel industry in Scotland".... who are these ''100 people''? Do they all run eco-friendly guesthouses you can only reach by train and which serve only organic local produce? I doubt it. This is ex-royal greenwashing.
On another note, I have heard that Jon Bon Jovi is represented by, yes you've guessed it, SS. These two are just SO very predictable and dull, are they not?
That said, newer airliners are usually more fuel-efficient than older ones - but how do I know which airliner will be used when I book my trip?
Airlines sometimes have that information - ie, we use Dreamliners on this-or-that-route - but there don't seem to be any airline partners among Harry's Travalyst friends: Booking.com, Skyscanner, Tripadvisor, Trip.com and Visa.
In general, rich-world airlines tend to have newer planes and be much more fuel-efficient than developing-world airlines. (See the list here - African airlines in particular tend to be using old equipment.)
Better postpone that trip to Kenya or Botswana?
I know that a lot of the discussion of green travel is in jest and am only throwing in my two cents.
When you consider the "green value" of a new plane vs an old plane because of fuel efficiency and whatnot - also consider the environmental cost of making the new plane.
A lot of people get hung up on how environmentally-friendly electric cars are - forgetting the cost of production and disposal of batteries, use of plastics and such.
Not that you would have a choice in flying to a developing world...just saying keeping that old car (or plane) may not be so bad for the environment as long as it is safe.
I believe that a lot of the planes flying in the developing world, specifically Africa, are "used cars" from the rich world.
I suppose how safe they are, at any age, is related to how well they are maintained.
They're also brilliant at waste management (only a small percentage goes to landfills). They burn their rubbish and use the heat from that for thermal-energy.
It's pretty amazing: https://www.japanfs.org/sp/en/news/archives/news_id025127.html
I worked in an aid programme as a day job for 6 years, one of the sectors we dealt with was waste management, and I've never seen anything so impressive.
There are solutions everywhere (can't wait for them to get the plastic-eating bacteria right).
But people get to feel more important when they act as alarmists. Zzzzzzzz.....
Just do your bit.
I wonder whether these communities realise what the impact tourists will have? (or even want them?) Even if numbers are kept small, I suspect there'll still be issues. I'm thinking about holiday hotspots who are actively trying to discourage tourists, I know it's different because they literally do get hordes of visitors, but I'd imagine even a dozen or so tourists would still be a big change and a possible culture clash for a small impoverished village who's never had to deal with them before.
@Nutty, what a headache. I think I'll stick with holidaying at my favourite UK campsite lol
Meghan Markle declares war on Queen telling pals ‘nothing stopping her’ using Sussex Royal.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1245597/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-the-Queen-Sussex-Royal-latest-Royal-Family-news
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8021867/Defiant-Meghan-says-theres-legally-stopping-using-Sussex-Royal-name.html
It sounds nice but when push comes to shove, will the great masses of people be willing to spend extra of their hard earned money to throw at this to do the right thing?
I think not.
As a kid, I did a paper about recycling with drinks into bottles versus just into new cans. I was told that the bottles were a problem all the way around. Getting them back. checking for chips and cracks. Cleaning them was a nightmare. Every so often one would break which then would shut down the whole line before it could restart. And, this happened frequently (at least weekly if not more). They wanted to do the right thing way, way back then but it wasn't all that economical.
Most just want to go from point A to point B at about this time on this day. I think it will be kind of like the hybrid car. Sounds eco, reasonable and the math looked good especially when there were still tax credits for buying (it also seemed to have a lighter metal panels which helped with the gas mileage which made me wonder why they wouldn't do that for all their cars). However, what was not as obvious was that you still needed a little starter battery, the trunk was small to fit the battery in and you had be careful about not getting into deep (ie flooded) water to avoid electrocution.
Sure, I think there will be some celebs who will make a big deal about it (see how wonderful I am). If they can make inroads with biz class, then it has a greater chance of getting traction in the market place to become sustainable with the average I'm on vacation traveler.
Actually, supposedly Prince Charles loves to pick up trash.
In a documentary - perhaps the one for the Queen's 90th birthday - William and Harry tell about how he made them go along the beach as teenagers, picking up trash. So embarrassing at that age!
A narc will never take NO for an answer.
Practicing personal responsibility for your immediate environment isn't nearly as sexy (or lucrative) as being a global jetsetter on a lecture the peons tour!
Personally - I am NOT an environmentalist in a "green technology" sense - I just try to reuse plastic containers at least once, reuse paper stuff when I can, reuse bags, repurpose old things...compost etc. It's just sensible for my own environment.
Exactly. Helping the environment isn't rocket science. And we don't need hypocrites to tell us how to do things.
@Himmy
I agree -- the Harkles very much have a Fergie 2.0 vibe to them.
@Animal Love
Yeah, I love the way the Queen is handling things. Just look at Meg's apparent meltdown about the situation today. Great stuff. And the Queen is just sitting back and chilling, taking it all in.
I would love to see Meg melt down right as the Quitter Final Tour Of Shame takes place in March. That would be incredible. Remember like a day ago we were hearing lies like "they only took out Sussex Royal trademarks to prevent others from using them" or whatever the spin was. Guess not! Meg's scheme is falling apart fast. And the royal family will only have more and more leverage as time goes on.
Meg is impulsive, that seems fairly clear. She doesn't think things through, she just makes rash decisions and then tries to bully everyone into accepting her way. Good luck, girl. Good luck. I think the Queen is about done with you and your nonsense.
Davos is Woke World. Nothing would surprise me with that place. Still, my guess is that if the Harkles go there, it wont be a recurrent thing. And it is a long way away from today.
Maybe the Queen will take the Sussex away, too, in that case, with Parliament's approval if necessary.
Just let Meg and Harry use "Dumbarton Royal" instead and see how it goes.
By the way, did Meg *ever* actually visit Sussex? Has she, like, ever set foot in the place?
I believe they visited Sussex once.
.EXCLUSIVE: Defiant Meghan tells friends there's nothing 'legally stopping' her and Prince Harry from using their Sussex Royal name, despite Queen banning them from using it.
I kept saying the same thing yesterday but the discussion kept coming around to the legal ramifications of using the name inside of the UK.
Meghan doesn't freaking care about what happens inside of the UK and she doesn't care what the Queen or any of those stuffy legal people say...
Meghan gets what Meghan wants!
She will try to do what she wants. She will succeed at least for a while - everywhere, and though they can stop her in the UK. Mark my words - the courts will not stop her in the US.
The "woke" courts do NOT care about (white, elite) British royalty.
However, looking at the 'Partnership' page, one thing is clear: other than the (for now....) HRH, every single one of the 'partners' is a profit making business which can only make those profits by people travelling as much and as often as possible. Skyscanner, a site whose sole purpose is to get a cut out of people booking flights, are worried about the environmental impact of said flights? 100% pure greenwash.
https://travalyst.org/
I am telling you again, it doesn't matter the law, there is simply no real political will to curb MM's soft abuse of following it's guidelines. We are seeing exactly the same disregard within the United States.
Meghan Markle is laughing at the empty threats; as if HMTQ or Charles are really going to do anything of consequence to punish them. Like Charles will cut off their funding? Please.
Raspberry Ruffle said…
@Tea Cup and Tatty, the dubious duo are most importantly up against the UK government and U.K. laws, it’s not the Queen they just need to worry about.
Copied and pasted again...especially for you two. 😜
‘Harry and Meghan 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.’
lol at "Dumbarton royal". I love it.
Meg just does not get it. You don't try to muscle the Queen. She runs the show. This reminds me of that idiotic Enty blind the other day (obviously from Team Meg) suggesting Kate had a surrogate for George.
You lost Meg. You quit. Not only does no one give a darn about you any longer, they will go nuclear on you if you continue to disparage the Queen and Kate.
Honestly, if I didn't know better, I'd almost think the Queen did this on purpose now. Just to set Meg off and lead her into more mistakes ahead of the Quitter Final Tour Of Shame. What better way to crush the Harkles from a PR perspective than to have them flying off the handle right as they are supposed to head back to the UK? Very nice.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45719964
The nauseating hypocrisy surrounding the dodgy dubious duo
is gross,and absolutely shameless! 😖
Meg should have learned from Megxit. Remember all the "Oprah is advising them....no she's not" and "the Obamas are advising them.....not they're not" stuff that came out then?
No person of authority or celebrity wants to be seen as disrespecting the 93 year old Queen. They are way too smart for that. It's fine if they like Meg, sure, but not to the point where they are going to take Meg's side against the Queen openly. Only small time players are dumb enough to try that.
If Meg gets into a war with the Queen now, right as the clown duo heads back to the UK, that could be brand death for the Harkles. As I said, it almost feels like a trap set by the palace. And I'm loving it!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1245537/prince-harry-news-meghan-markle-backlash-australia-wasteful-bills-royal-family-spt
It's mainly a throwback to what was spent on Harry during his gap year (In 2003, his visit to Australia was met by “outrage” as his round-the-clock security cost a whopping £250,000.), but this quote stood out to me:
It now appears the couple will pay the money back in “debt-free sums” after it emerged the Queen demanded they drop the term “royal” from their brand Sussex Royal.
Have we heard the term "debt-free sums" used in relation to the Froggy payments before now? To me it's a weird choice of words, is it a non-UK way of saying "interest free payments"?
Harry could urge everyone to carry a paper bag in the boot of their cars, and pick up trash in parking lots, etc. He could call his enterprise PUP--Pick Up Plastic. He could award $$ to communities/businesses etc. with the cleanest, trash-free areas. Well, that's my idea for my next life when I reincarnate and am wealthy enough to be a philanthropist.
This could be leveraged into some humorous TV adverts - a British citizen tosses out a crumpled empty pack of ciggies, only for it to be caught by a disapproving Duke of Sussex.
Cut to the two of them picking up trash together - "Keep the UK beautiful", or something along those lines.
Littering is one of those things that is very susceptible to peer pressure and social control. When people see litter, they make more litter. When they see everyone else calmly placing things in the bin, they do that instead.
As @Miggy's link shows, H&M did visit Sussex. The visit was NINE DAYS before Eugenie's wedding. Note that in Sussex Meghan wore a fitted lambskin leather skirt with a tucked in blouse. Certainly no indication she'd be in a maternity-style outfit a little over a week later.
In the past, she's frequently competed for coverage with the Cambridges and Prince Charles.
Now she's stepping on Harry's events too.
Meghan's "pals" saying Markle sees no legal reason why she can't use SussexRoyal is yet another example of Meghan's narcissism. Their plan for SussexRoyal isn't just for US consumption, it's global, and at that point the Queen may have legal standing. I don't know enough about the law as a whole to discuss it in detail, but I think CatEyes' example of "McDonalds vs MacDonalds" was a good one. Besides, if they are not Royal, why would they use Royal? Further, as Nutty said, if they continue with their defiance, the Queen just may petition Parliament to remove Sussex as well. Again, sounds like a defiant, whiney teenager who has no clue about the real world.
As for Harry and Travelyst, this is just one big joke. He's doing more harm to the environment with his constant traveling back and forth then many citizens of the world will ever do, so who is he to tell anyone about eco-travel? Once he curbs his own travel in favor of the environment, then maybe I'll consider it.
EXCLUSIVE: Defiant Meghan tells friends there's nothing 'legally stopping' her and Prince Harry from using their Sussex Royal name, despite Queen banning them from using it.
I am pretty sure the BRF cannot enforce this ban in America. But the BRF can sue the Disgraceful Duo and keep them tangled in American legal processes for years. In fact the BRF should make this widely known in advance to deter businesses from signing up with Dumbartons. The BFR can enforce the Sussex Royal ban in the UK and I would think Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth nations.
If Megsy defies then start stripping titles
that has been my point. People in the UK keep getting caught up in UK/commonwealth definitions of "royal" and meghan's plans for global domination...
but the Kardashians didn't make their money off of "global" interest - her influencer/merching plans are intended for the US consumer - the woke urban wannabe hottie.
the foundation is a separate issue - but meghan wants to be a "brand" in her own celebrity world - which is the US.
She may be stopped but not by "laws" and royal definitions.
Megan, you're a true feminist, desperate to keep hold of the title that you were given for marrying a man .
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8021867/Defiant-Meghan-says-theres-legally-stopping-using-Sussex-Royal-name.html
She's 100% "that bitch..."
Anyone who continues to do business with them will be fully aware of this fact, US or otherwise.
This is getting good.
I will have my adult beverage and popcorn ready for those final engagements.
I suspect that something will happen and I'm praying that it's catastrophic enough for the queen to finally wipe the floor with The Dumbartons.
Tough love... pull the funding and the titles... learn to earn a living like the rest of us. Harry will be back knocking on Grandma's door in a month.
The law states overseas including the UK, that means global, the world...it says nothing about just being within the Commonwealth. This is not just about the royals, it’s about the UK government and UK laws too. The dubious duo will be head butting with both. 🙄
If Harry's camp doesn't come out and refute this then it is a real slap in the face to the Monarchy. It's actually incredible.
It's as if she really believes she is on the same level as HM.
This chick is full on cray cray.
I was actually feeling a little better momentarily with the ban and poof with one article all that good feeling vanished!
This is indeed the war of the Windsors. Your Majesty, time to stop soft peddling these two bird brains. I can understand narc
MM bc I have lived with one, but for Harry to disrespect Her Majesty and his father like this is unprecedented in TBRF as far as I know.
Ha!!
Every time she pulls something like this, a few more people on the fence come to the "light side" (we have Marmite)
I hope
They will have to bring suit, yes? To protect the "brand"?
I kind of hope this is another of her ridiculous trial balloons to prevent more stress for the RF
On the other hand, I would love to see Megs slapped down, and slapped down hard. I swear she has crossed into psychosis.
She will sneak into town for Vogue event, then immediately sneak home to "take care of Archie" and drop the Vogue photos 3days later.
I agree with this, which is why I started chuckling this morning. I think in my mind we’ve reached the point where people who were not seeing her for what she is will now wake to it and when that happens, it’s inevitably game over.
It reminds me of my narc ex Sister in Law who had loads of sugars who wouldn’t believe anything I said, but when the narc sent a company headed letter full of vile rants telling me I’d never see my nieces if I didn’t desist truthfully from talking about what she’d done (whole other story) signed in her hand, she’d literally of course then overplayed her hand. Which as others have said, they all do, they just can’t help themselves.
Meghan is playing the game of chicken with the Queen. She's either 1) extremely stupid, 2) somebody has her back, or 3) both.
This quote is particularly interesting:
'Meghan said the name of their brand pales in comparison to the foundation they are building and the enormously positive impact it will have on people and the environment.'
She wants to convince people that the name of their brand, i.e. royal, i.e. the BRF, is weaker than their future foundation (*eyeroll*), and "enormously positive impact on people and the environment" is there to mask the lack of not even one definite goal of the foundation. She still hasn't given up on ruling the world LOL. She also plans to cling to the Commonwealth because she's incredibly patronising and thinks most of the CWTH is so backward and naive that they will regard her as their empress and fund her lifestyle. Harry probably wouldn't mind that either.
Also this:
'She said regardless of the name, Harry and Archie have royal blood and no one can take that away. And that as a family, they will always be considered royalty.'
Important words here are: royal blood, family, royalty, which she believes are contagious and will somehow transfer to her if she keeps repeating it. She was a working royal for 5 seconds, and even if she bowed out gracefully, no one would ever consider her royalty. Blood ties with the royals are ten a penny in Britain anyway. But this is also very telling: "that as a family, they will always be considered royalty". She has no intention of leaving Harry because she loses her only cachet. At least she's aware of that.
Travalyst will be a money laundering front, nothing more.
>>.Littering is one of those things that is very susceptible to peer pressure and social control. When people see litter, they make more litter. When they see everyone else calmly placing things in the bin, they do that instead. <<
Decades ago the State of Texas started and continued a campaign called "Don't mess with Texas" and it was highly successful and being such a large state we were proud to keep our vast state clean (or at least cleaner than what it could have been). This campais]gn slogan was put on everything and everywhere (from mugs to roadway signs to sports facility billboards, etc..). One of probably the most successful endeavors in marketing history (for anything remotely similar). Too bad the stupid Dumbarton;s can't think of a similar enterprise.
Sometimes I think places like Blind Gossip and other forums actually feed into some of the headlines, as others have suggested before. This defiant storyline comes a day or so after BG discusses their inside info about Meghan being WTF over using Sussex Royal.
I think there’s truth to it, just because I’ve had an ex narcissist sister-in-law who would have done that too. They know no shame, they really do think the world revolves around them and they are always right.
I agree with everyone who said they should have never taken up this green travel cause with their habits.
It also comes to no surprise to me that she/he/they/whoever says nothing is legally stopping them from using Sussex Royal. There were no leaks that they planned to rebrand, no announcements etc... so I suspected as much. (IF this is true because as @liver bird says tabloids so make up stuff and once one publishes something, other articles pop up quoting that one article). But, yes, Narcs don’t take no for an answer. But also the original articles to me seemed to intimate there could be a loophole or a way around it....
Also, did any palace spokesman every confirm HM said no. Last I remember there were no official sources for that. Please correct me if I’m wrong,
Thank you to everyone who doesn’t like my posts and so skips over them. Bless you. Thank you for being an adult and not turning this into a blog about me. I don’t read certain people either (though obviously I have to add more to my list) and I sometimes read something, in my head go hum, and then NOT REPLY and scroll on by.
And at this point in the game, why do we have to say such and such is an anti or such and such is a sugar? What does it matter now? They are still married. We presume they have a son named Archie; they are still in Canada; they still have the HRH but after 3/31 it’s placed in a closet. They are still launching a foundation. They are still having meetings. They are still getting paid for speeches.
I,r spectfully say @Vince had it wrong (I think it was Vince) when he said it’s a ration of 95/5 anti vs sugar. I think there are plenty of middle of the road people here who aren’t an anti or a sugar. Reading along. Trying to figure out like everyone here how this will end, if it will end, will they be successful, will HM take custody of Archie next month etc. People who don’t necessarily have strong opinions either way, but who are intrigued by this coupling and interested (at least for now) in people watching to see how this progresses.
Good morning.
I think there’s truth to it, just because I’ve had an ex narcissist sister-in-law who would have done that too. They know no shame, they really do think the world revolves around them and they are always right.’
I’ve thought the same and agree, glad someone pointed it out. 🤗
Some people appear to believe the world revolves around America and its laws, I find that incredulous and insular. Maybe Megs has this mentality too. 😉
She Will Have To Step Up Her Acting
Speaking of performers who try to avoid embarrassing situations by claiming they are ill or injured, we have another one to tell you about!
For a variety of reasons, this married actress is extremely uncomfortable with the prospect of traveling to her husband’s hometown and seeing her husband’s family.
Her husband knows that she would rather simply skip all of this. However, people would definitely notice if one or both of them didn’t show up.
They have to figure out as a couple which events are absolutely obligatory, which ones can be skipped, and what excuse they would use.
She refuses to come out of this looking like the evil one. They are reviewing their options.
Fortunately for them, if they choose to go with an excuse, there are so many excuse options from which to chose!
* Prior obligation
* Home emergency
* Transportation problem
* Family illness
* Family injury
* Baby
* The dog ate my private jet ticket
They did use a baby excuse in the past to avoid his family, but no one bought it.
Whatever they choose to do, she is really going to have to step up her acting on this one.
She will either have to go and pretend to be incredibly happy to be there… or convincingly sell whatever excuse they come up with!
Acting!
https://blindgossip.com/she-will-have-to-step-up-her-acting/
Diana used this set-up a lot, and William still does.
Thank you! ❤️ We’re not too bad where I am, we’ve had tons of rain, but not flooded. A friend in another part of the country, has lost her home though, and the building has subsidence now. It’s 100’s of years old, but no one on the council thought to open the storm drains, so when the river breached its banks, their village flooded. 😟
@nutty flavor yes, but I find it hard to believe they would leak to an entity they are suing? Plausible deniability maybe? 🤷🏼♀️
I'm very much looking forward to the Quitter Final Tour Of Shame, also. Glad you enjoyed the name!
I'm hoping for some boos, and I think there's a real chance we'll get our wish on that. Particularly if the Harkles step even one inch out of proper protocol in their remarks. The UK citizens are not going to tolerate anything from these clowns any longer, I'm sure of that. The bond is broken. People want them gone, and gone with as little hassle as possible.
"Thing is, if the QUEEN OF ENGLAND says "they're not royal" then they aren't. Full stop."
"Anyone who continues to do business with them will be fully aware of this fact, US or otherwise."
"This is getting good."
It really is. And I LOVE the Queen drawing the line in the sand -- it's me or her. All celebrities better take note.
The palace is getting it done.
I don't neccessarily find it implausible that Meghan would indeed throw her toys from pram in such a manner so it might be true. Or it might not be. I just think we need to maintain caution about stories based on unnamed 'sources'.
Title: Can Harry and Meghan keep ‘Sussex Royal’ brand after giving up royal responsibilities?
(Snip)
The Daily Mail ran with the headline: “Queen BANS Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from using lucrative ‘Sussex Royal’ brand that they hoped to use to build new lives because ‘they simply cannot sell themselves as Royals.’ ”
But the situation is hardly simple.
Robert Lacey, a royal biographer, said a distinction is being teased out between “Royal” with a capital R and “royal” with a small r.
Harry and Meghan aim to ‘step back’ as senior royals and split time between Britain and North America
Technically, the couple will still be royals. Prince Harry will still be a prince. He will still be sixth in line to inherit the throne from his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II.
(Snip)
People who claim they dislike her or dislike what she writes give her an infinite amount of power by fighting so hard over what she says, and objecting to her mere presence. It's absurd.
Never turn an opponent into a martyr. That's like level 1 Sun Tzu-type stuff. The goal is to muffle your foe's voice, not amplify it.
Tatty disagreed with me on the composition of this board (I said I think it's like 95/5 Anti-Sugar/Sugar), just earlier today (I guess). And? I'm not flipping out about it, I don't feel bullied because she disagreed, and I don't have to run and tell Nutty to ban Tatty because I think she's mean. I also won't be fleeing the blog because I don't like Tatty being here.
We're all grown ups. Not only does this pettiness make things harder for Nutty (she has to clean up the messes), it just makes no objective sense. Some people will dissent with what we think, on any topic. And the world will keep spinning, and the birds will keep singing.
Tatty -- I will probably almost never agree with you on the Harkles, but I accept you being here. And if I didn't, it wouldn't matter. Because it's Nutty's blog, not mine.
--Ban on use of Sussex Royal by H&M (done and effective in UK and Commonwealth nations)
Megsy+H keep using Royal Sussex in the USA?
--Strip their Sussex titles. If this takes an act of Parliament then start the process.
--BFR sues them thus tangling them up in American legal system for years
--Charles cuts of all money to Harry THUS they have no money for lawyers and PR agents
Harry dips into his inheritance trusts to pay for legal team and PR and to fund Megzy Sussex Royal schemes?
-- BRF doubles down on it legal efforts against using Sussex Royal brand in the USA
My immediate reaction it is the Crown. Who represents the Crown? The Queen. Now, do members of the royal family own "royal" part? No. They are members of the family of the reigning monarch.
He/she is the custodian of the brand supported by a number of laws including one generally known as House Law, which settles things like titles, marriages, HRH grants and etc.
I would be interested to see how Megsy defies the Queen on this in the States. Thankfully the Crown has enough money and enough tough lawyers to litigate until Megsy and Harry are left in their underwear.
Amen.
I would be fine with a 100/0 Anti-Sugar/Sugar site, but that's not the case here. Ok. I can handle it.
@Liver Bird
@PaulaMP
Agreed.
And you're welcome. We don't have to agree, but we can be nice to each other here.
I misread that as "the dog ate my private jet" and I got coffee up my nose LOL
@Tatty, thank you :O) it makes me smile too. Thankfully my real life budgies are perfectly normal, if rather vocal and opinionated.
The "Prince Andrew bus", I try not to get involved with this one but I'd like to say a short piece which I do feel is important. There was a segment on BBC's Question Time last night that discussed the Caroline Flack situation and it was mentioned that nowadays we seem to have lost sight of "innocent until proven guilty" and we get trial by media rather than trial by jury. I do wonder how all of this "publicity" will affect a trial; how on earth are they going to find a jury who hasn't already been influenced by this if it ever does get that far?
@SwampWoman, luckily I live on top of a hill so the worst I've had personally is a soggy lawn (and a few things broken in the garden from the wind), but my nearest town had it quite bad during Ciara, although not as bad as the towns further out. I haven't seen much on the local news regarding Dennis compared to what we had with Ciara, so I think my local area may have got away with that one. My thoughts and sympathy also go out to anyone adversely affected, we lived in the valley back in 2007 for that year's floods and had a bit of a rough time of it back then so I can understand what people are going through.
@Sir: That quote about "royal wherever they ho"
Coffee up the nose... again! LOL talk about a Freudian slip! haha
I'm going to have to remember to put beverages down while reading...
And finally....
Watch out, Meghan, there's a couple of new kids on the block, and they've picked a better cause to champion than who does the washing up...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1245504/Kelloggs-change-farm-policy-save-orangutans
Asha Kirkpatrick, 12, and 10-year-old Jia stopped eating cereals and petitioned the firm, claiming the way it harvested the oil devastates the natural habitat of the giant apes.
Their efforts attracted more than 780,000 signatures in 18 months and caught the eye of Kellogg’s chiefs, who in 2018 asked to meet the schoolgirls from Leighton Buzzard, Beds.
Now the multi-national group has pledged to switch to segregated palm oil, a more sustainable form of the substance used in food and cosmetics.
It will also partner with non-governmental organisations and work with smallholders to “combat deforestation and support forest restoration”.
I hadn't thought of the DM as a tabloid before, but now that you mention it you are correct. I've clicked on my last DM link.
https://www.insider.com/man-claims-instagram-took-his-handle-gave-it-to-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-2019-4
@lurking with a spoon it reminds me of when someone put google eyes on historical statues. 😃
"BRF options:
--Ban on use of Sussex Royal by H&M (done and effective in UK and Commonwealth nations)
Megsy+H keep using Royal Sussex in the USA?"
I'm certainly no expert on such matters but I don't think it works that way.
Firstly, the royals have no special powers outside the UK, including in the Commonwealth. They are titular heads of state in some of these countries, but they don't have any influence on the legal system.
Secondly, it's not about this or that country. The Harkles want to establish a global 'philanthropic' brand which in their delusional minds is going to challenge the house of Windsor. It's not about opening a coffee shop in Los Angeles or selling Duchess bedlinen to housewives in Iowa. They want to establish their own pseudo court. That's why they cannot and will not be allowed to use the term 'royal' and why copyright laws will likely be called upon should they attempt to do so. And those laws apply globally.
No, for the simple reason that the Harkles just aren't that important. They are dispensable. As we have seen.
Glad you said that because that crossed my mind too. Clever move if true.
I ignore people's comments here all the time. It can be done.
I know a fair amount about public relations and the digital aspect of it (bots, trolls, etc). I understand what people are trying to say when they write things like "she writes so much, and it goes against what the rest of the blog is trying to do (in their minds)."
It doesn't matter. First of all, people are creating like a 20-foot-tall super person that doesn't exist. And, again, the more you focus attention on the person's comments the larger they 'grow.' It is both silly and self-defeating, if you don't like the message that person is putting out.
Secondly, this blog is not part of a "destroy the Harkles at all costs" network. I think Nutty's feelings on the Harkles are fairly clear, but the site is not dedicated to helping to manufacture a universal (negative) consensus about the Harkles. And to be honest, no site needs to do that. The Harkles have pretty much done that to their own brand.
Yes, trolls or sugars or bots or whatever name you prefer DO go on to certain sites (unfavorable ones) and try to alter the feelings of those who post and read there. Of course. That happens every day, all the time. Is it happening here? I don't know. But it doesn't matter if it is, in my opinion. This isn't the final battle for the soul of the universe, it's a discussion of two cornball used-to-be royals who are trying to cash-out and grift now.
One of the most important things any author, performer, media worker or public relations agent can learn is to trust the audience. The audience is almost always smarter than you think they are. Thus, if you are picking up on a sugar's feelings or supposed techniques, there is a very good chance that everyone else is picking up on it, too. So, don't sweat it.
It seems to me the reason they went nuclear is because Harry was trying to talk to granny who pushed him off to a Charles who slowed it all down and sent him back to granny etc so Harry Or Meghan or HAMS together dropped the bomb to make them hear him.
So maybe they have wanted to get rid of the royalty part totally with HM and Charles wanting them to be more tepid and more temperate and keep this half in half out situation and this is HAMS going nuclear again??
Although this conflicts with the idea that Harry wants the perks of royalty without the duty of royalty.
Thinking aloud... this seems deliberate by HAMS, threatening to HM’s generosity, and working against themselves, so it makes me wonder WHY and what is going on with them.
Can't we all just get along?
Cheers! Yeah, we could grab some beer if we lived close.
Oh Harry, people will immediately be scoring your travel. This is not going to go well for him.
Well, exactly.
We're discussing a D list actress/grifter and her dumb 2 A levels husband. In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that important, however fascinating it may be to watch these two ex-royal chancers make even bigger fools of themselves on the global stage.
Well said.
All this squabbling is so childish. Time to put your big pants on girls and learn to scroll on by... :)
Very interesting take! 😍
So go ahead and take it all away, they are still going to use Sussex Royal free and clear?
Did you miss the bit on their 'manifesto' about keeping their 'royal' residence, their taxpayer funded security and also the bits of royal 'duties' that they liked?
Of course they wanted to stay 'royal'. What else do they have?
Archie is not a prince.
"This isn't the final battle for the soul of the universe, it's a discussion of two cornball used-to-be royals who are trying to cash-out and grift now."
Well, exactly.
We're discussing a D list actress/grifter and her dumb 2 A levels husband. In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that important, however fascinating it may be to watch these two ex-royal chancers make even bigger fools of themselves on the global stage”
———————————
The problem is, there are apparently a few posters here who think they ARE saving the world from HAMS and ARE taking down MM and all of that and it’s personal to them.
I misspoke yesterday when I said isn’t an anti MM site. I mean we can all see that Nutty was on to her from the beginning. I mean to say Nutty has been gracious and has made it clear that ALL are welcome here. Just have something to say and don’t be mean.
————————————
I really wonder what this is about today regarding this idea that MM said all of this about blood prince, always will be a prince etc. I can totally see them blowing up all the titles in order to be the most philanthropic of all the philanthropic organizations in all the world.
Meglomania will bulldoze through anything in the way. Is that what is happening here?
You are right Archie isn’t a blood prince. I mean he has royal blood, and to the rest of the world, since he is Prince Harry’s son, he is like an unofficial prince. Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
I'm here to enjoy the gossip and learn from intelligent people. I don't read everything, because I'm not interested in EVERYTHING that is said. I think if we were all together in one pub, drinking a pint, there wouldn't be this squabbling.
That's funny.
Just let Meg and Harry use "Dumbarton Royal" instead and see how it goes.
Ah, yes. Funny how neither Meg nor Harry is kicking up a fuss over the potential loss of 'Dumbarton', innit.
I feel sorry for the residents of Dumbarton and Sussex. While Dumbarton is a rather unfortunate name for a hamlet, due to Harry's mental deficiencies making it seem like a cruel joke, there are real, hard-working citizens of the realm living there and raising their families and perhaps, initially excited for Prince Harry to be their liege lord in a manner of speaking. He's not even chucked a rock at the place, for which the citizens of Dumbarton should be grateful and probably have come to be so, now.
The more vocal Sussex contingent gets all my best wishes that neither of the Dumbarkles darken their thresholds again, either.
***********
And to the poster, whoever you are that wrote "Wherever you ho", whether accidentally or not, the scone of your choice to you!
I can see the new brand slogan now: "The Duke 'n Duchess of Sussex: Royals R Us wherever we ho, baby!"
Seriously, I can't wait to see which influential causes, corporations and celebrities will be flocking to be associated with Royals R Us wherever we ho.
Perhaps the Dumbarkles lasting legacy will be creating raftloads of new international jurisprudence. This is more or less an unprecedented situation they are creating. We've had other Americans marry into foreign royalty, like Queen Noor of Jordan and of course, Her Serene Highness Grace of Monaco. Other royal houses boast spouses from other nations . . this is always how royalty has consolidated their powers. But never before has an American wed into a the royal house of another country and refused to stay put and join the home team. Meg is utterly unique here, and it is a near certainty that she will test and break every limit of law and common decency ever before imposed.
xxxx says 'these laws apply globally' . . but by which authority will the Dumbarkles be prosecuted for copyright infringement in the United States, once that is their permanent home? Interpol? The Crown lawyers? You also pointed out that the Queen has no influence upon the legal system. Who else but she is injured by unauthorized use of 'Sussex Royal'? Our FBI/CIA will not get involved in a copyright dispute, I am pretty sure. I don't *know*, though, so I'm asking for more information. In short, which authority is going to *make* Meg comply? Extradition to the UK would only be called for in a grave criminal felony case, which this is not. Arrest, ditto. There will be no prison time even on the table. Fines and economic sanctions is all that can be applied and if Meg has little money, then she's got little to lose by defiance. She'll milk this ride as long as she can. In this game of chicken with the Queen of England, MM is willing to go all in . . unlike the Queen, she doesn't care what happens to Harry. The Queen does. Three, four centuries ago, a traitorous grandson & his traitorous consort would have most likely lost their heads for this kind of behavior, regretful as that would have been, it would have been done to protect the monarchy.
We live in more civilized times now, which means that a grifter married to a royal grandson has the Crown over something of a barrel. I think the Queen will prevail eventually, but not as swiftly and definitively as she would have once upon a time.
The Queen can, and should, level sanctions against any companies/individuals and media outlets in her own dominions who aid and abet the treasonous Dumbarkles by getting into bed with them with business deals or giving them favorable coverage, or lending them money, private jets, accommodations, what have you. Starve out this traitorous splinter court by a complete blackout on their activities at home. The Queen won't do this and doesn't have the power to, anyway, but it would be worth a shot.
Meg's name should really be Pandora because she has opened a box of such toxic f*ckery that it's going to take years to sort out.
Meg will eventually be shut down through lack of funds, I imagine but until that day she's going to fight
Not complaining, glad to be alive. Two years ago, I couldn't breathe without oxygen. Couldn't sleep without waking up choking feeling like I was being strangled. All caused by hidden mold in a rental house. Headed south to FL to stay with a friend to recover.
Been sick since January when the HOA ripped off the roof discovering molded roofing. They ripped it off without remediation or concern. Nothing to be done. Home hunting again before recovering any savings.
The noblesse oblige of this couple ....
Families have to save so carefully before even going on a holiday. There are so many things to consider , meals, accommodation , travel expenses etc. Most are looking for the best value , not necessarily the eco-friendliest value. Its a bit too rich coming from Harry who never knows what the concept " save " means. Usually if you have spare cash, you can holiday, or fly now pay later. But if you have never been through the hassles of checking flight prices, times , connecting flights, distance from airport and other myriad of factors, who is he to talk?
As for Booking.com , let me tell you, I am still trying to get a refund of a car cancellation done under duress, and nothing on their website gives information on who to contact and email addresses. So easy to book, but getting refunded is a no mans land.
It does not conjure up an image of what it's trying to sell . . people feeling good about themselves by vacationing green and discovering less trodden byways in a "Lonely Planet" style kumbayah wokefest . . . hemp sandals and friendship bracelets for everybody!
It sounds like an item in a stock portfolio, or maybe travel insurance or something. Or perhaps some kind of medical condition picked up while traveling . . rhymes with 'cyst'.
Altogether, not appealing. Not even comprehensible.
"I can totally see them blowing up all the titles in order to be the most philanthropic of all the philanthropic organizations in all the world."
On what is their 'philanthropy' to be based though? The best known philanthropists - from Carnegie to Bill Gates - have been fabulously rich. The money they gave away for their 'good works' is a small fraction of their overall wealth. Even at the highest estimate of their 'independent' wealth, the Harkles are nowhere near that level. charity Nor do they have any solid background in philantropy. Yes, they've done the usual royal stuff, but that's expected of them in their position. And all of the leg-work would have been done by other people, including Harry's 'own' initiatives like Invictus.
So once more, it all boils down to the same thing - their royal (now ex-royal) status. That's simply not enough.
@Nutty, I think your Harry catching someone's thrown litter is a very cute one. Not a Harry fan, but I would enjoy that ad. They could make Harry look very athletic with trick photography, making an impossible catch or something.
Once again so impressed with Nutty posters, this time with their green cred.
That's why she's putting out there that it doesn't matter if we have the title, because at the end of the day, Harry is the son of a future King and will ALWAYS be truly "Royal" because of that connection.
Everyday working people just don't think that way for the most part. They want value... a good return on the investment... a good time, for a good price.. whether that be alone or with their family.
I just don't see his "holier than thou" project taking off with the masses.
SussExRoyal
Why didn't we think of that? Utterly brilliant.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lightsout/status/1224799915546677253?lang=en
Listen to the sniggering when 'Meghan' appears. That's where she is now.
Here, I've found a place to vent about a minor irritation, as well as to communicate with many others whom I would probably find fun to chat with if we ever wound up sitting next to one another on an airplane or something.
I managed to deal with my cable issue by finally pretty much cutting the cord. I won't have deal with the Harkles. I think they'll fizzle out on their own. I feel that in time the only way they'll manage to generate headlines will be in self-inflicted disasters, like so many Hollywood 'stars who never were.'
"That's why she's putting out there that it doesn't matter if we have the title, because at the end of the day, Harry is the son of a future King and will ALWAYS be truly "Royal" because of that connection."
Plus while HARRY will always be royal, she won't be.
Another of her many stupidities is the fact that she was way too impatient and didn't give hersel a chance to really build up a 'royal' persona. Whirlwind 'romance' and engagement, and less than 2 years after that fancy wedding, she buggers off to Canada, right back where she started from. Just a handful of engagements, no real opportunity to soak in the 'aura' of royalty and now she's back to grovelling for attention and cash.
Harry is famously stupid but really she is not much better.
https://twitter.com/MaxFosterCNN/status/1230932989992996864
https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1230932981440749568?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Harry's Travelyst project is very odd. Firstly, it is being championed by a member of the elite who doesn't practise what he preaches. Secondly, very few people are going to spend the time and go through the complicated process of finding a holiday destination that has the lowest carbon footprint. It is a virtue-signalling exercise.
If I was advising him, I would launch a website and documentary series. Highlight destinations/travel experiences that support the local community and are least damaging to the environment, but also ask the difficult questions and get people to think (plus a few catchy campaigns about littering and so on).
Personally I am not a fan of this focus on carbon emissions and the solution of taxes and restricting the activities of most of the population. I am a fan of William's approach of a prize for the most innovate solutions, not from the wealthy elite but from ordinary people all over the world.
"Do not intend to use Sussex Royal".... ho hum!
Does that translate as "Were told in no uncertain terms not to even THINK about using Sussex Royal"?
"Travelyst" is one of the stupider brand names ever created. Its even stupider than you imagine: the actual spelling is Travalyst, which no one gets right. Thats a marketing "don't" if I've ever seen one!
@Lighthealer Astrid
Interesting take on the "opposition" releasing the tidbit about MM saying she'll damn well use Royal if she wants to. Things that make me go hmmmmm..
I have a question though - to anyone who knows of such things - are the papers being careful about what they print about MM due to the impending lawsuit? If they are just making up stories out of thin air, or attributing comments to MM that actual come from her in-laws, isn't that just adding ammunition to her claims that papers are making stuff up about her?
So I guess I can be smug about my lack of environmental impact.
If only I was well enough off to have to worry about the carbon emissions from my numerous flights- unfortunately I worry about silly things like keeping the lights on and keeping a roof over my children's heads.
So yes, I think this is a great venture for an out of touch elitist such as Harry.
Exactly. Just ignore. Scroll by. Not a huge deal
@Liver Bird
Well said!
@Tatty
Yes, there are people here who seem to think they are battling for the fate of the universe in discussing the Harkles. I just don't look at it that way.
@Jen
Thanks. And agreed, were we all in a pub talking, there would likely be less squabbling.
@Ava C
"SussExRoyal"
That's brilliant. Thanks for sharing.
I wonder who leaked the story this morning that nothing is going to stop her.
"The name Travelyst belonged to a very successful travel blogger."
IIRC the name is very slightly different in spelling.
Still, stupid name and stupid initiative. Obvious greenwash is obvious.
That tarot reader I follow saw in a reading months ago that they would lose the HRH and the Sussex Royal. She also picked up that there would be some kind of financial compensation from the Queen/Prince Charles.
There is a rumour (there have been many and they have not panned out) that the Dumbartons (love that!) are eyeing property in Malibu (of course they are ... Megsy is setting up her post-divorce mansion). What if that was the price of the bribe (along with a threat to keep them locked up in expensive legal wrangling for decades)?
I know it sounds insane. They haven't even paid for Frogmore Cottage (and all kinds of gymnastics about that ... instalments, interest free) and now they are going to get a more expensive home - a mansion in the USA? Maybe they are playing a long game and know that a mansion in LA will hasten the separation and divorce. We'll see how this pans out ...
Get used to it, Harkles. That's how things work in a monarchy. The top of the food chain (king or queen) calls the shots. The rest of the royals (or ex-royals) only matter insomuch as they relate to the monarch.
If I could give Meg two pieces of PR advice, they would be
- do not fight with or challenge the monarch (or her/his spouse)
- do not try to undermine queen-to-be Kate
Those are fights Meg can't win. And the more your team resists that reality, the worse things will end up for Team Harkle.
Came here to say this!
"What if that was the price of the bribe (along with a threat to keep them locked up in expensive legal wrangling for decades)?"
I don't see the need for either a bribe or a threat. The 'royal' trademark belongs to HM the queen. It was only ever 'on loan' to the Harkles, so to speak. If the queen says they don't get to use it, that's it. The Harkles really have very few cards to play. That is becoming ever clearer, surely even to them?
it’s hard enough IMO to find which airline you want and then the itinerary and then the amount of stops. Then you have to decide which seat you want, check how many pounds of luggage you can check or not, any hidden extras, etc etc. Then every time you check, the price changes. It’s really burdensome (first world problems) and time consuming, and now I’m supposed to check how green my flight is? Oh and some airlines give you the round trip price and some (like BA)make it appear like you are looking at a round trip price and you go to check out and surprise! That was one way prices so it’s double what you thought you were paying.
I mean, look, I’ll be lucky if the kid behind me doesn’t bang my chair the whole time, or a poor baby whose ears hurt cries all the time, or a “service dog” in a dog wheel chair (I kid you not) is growling on the aisle. Or my plane gets delayed so I have to end up with a planes, trains and automobiles situation.... or I have to sleep on the floor in Dallas because we got in at 2 am and all hotels were booked and my next flight got changed to 6 am because of the delays.
I hate flying.
I’m sorry, but no, on a good year, I may fly 2-3 times so I honestly don’t care how green my flight is.
The monarchy is about the monarch. The clue's in the name. All other members of the royal family only matter in the sense that a) they may also be monarch in the future and/or b) they support the monarch. That's it. That's all. The sooner Charles gets rid of the hangers-on and makes the monarchy about the head of state and his heirs, the better.
Meghan's arrogance and stupidity (lethal combination!) led her to believe she has 'regal' value in her own right. Well, she doesn't. As my avatar says - the Crown must always win.
Which brings me to my next questions: IF she is a malignant narcissist than that makes her mental ill. Yes or no? If she is mentally ill, then is she responsible for her actions? Yes or no?
As much as I want to think my relative is evil (because it really feels that way sometimes) or I want to think he/she is just a jerk (so many discussions in my family about how much of his/her person is ill and how much is ahole), I have slowly had to accept that my relative is bat chit crazy and therefore, not responsible for his/her actions, which are textbook. He/she is the kind of mentally ill that refuses to believe or accept he/she is mentally ill, so there is not much we can do about that.
Just something I was thinking about... and curious to read what people think about this.
Let’s take bets on the new name.
Someone on twitter said just take off Suss and make it Ex Royal.
I thought I saw Sussex Regal somewhere, but I didn’t get far with that search. I don’t like it anyway.
The brand Skims was named by a person on IG or Twitter, so let’s have a go at it.
We already saw:
Ex Royal foundation
Suss Ex Royal foundation
What else?
So what's next for them? Now that she can't brand herself as 'royal' is the divorce coming sooner rather than later?
>>>why is anybody surprised when Meghan doesn't follow the rules? Gurl is gonna bend it like Beckham with her plans. I will say again, until HM (or the Lord Chamberlain's office, the cabinet, etc.) show some bite in their authority, Meghan is going to do as she damn well pleases.
I am telling you again, it doesn't matter the law, there is simply no real political will to curb MM's soft abuse of following its guidelines. We are seeing exactly the same disregard within the United States.
Meghan Markle is laughing at the empty threats; as if HMTQ or Charles are really going to do anything of consequence to punish them. Like Charles will cut off their funding? Please.<<<
I'm assured that copyright law is international, which I agree is true; however, the entire process of 'law' rests upon people recognizing its authority and paying the consequences if it's broken. For most sane people of conscience, merely the threat of a lawsuit, a strongly-worded letter from a firm of attorneys . .is enough to make them desist in whatever they are doing that brought that on.
And then there's Markle.
So my question of earlier remains: in a matter of international law across borders, exactly *which* agencies have the authority to assert compliance with the law/mete out the punishments? The Queen would be the wronged party here; would she not have to lodge suit against the Dumbarkles in the courts of every country in which the flagrant copyright infringement is happening? Not just the U.S., but wherever Suxxit merchandise is sold . . wherever SuxxitRoyal media postings reach out to; every global corporation/organization that would host the Suxxits or contribute to the SuxxitFoundation? This reach is truly global. Her Majesty would be tied up in litigation for years, far exceeding her and Philip's lifetimes, which means that Charles would be taking over as chief plaintiff against his own son.
I do not see that happening. The Crown does have the resources to grind the rogue faction into nothing eventually, but imagine how bitterly this fight would play out in the world media and the court of public opinion for the next decade, probably.
The Crown may decide to cut its losses and tacitly allow, though not approve of, Suxxit Inc. The cachet of this couple had its high water mark at their wedding and has been steadily eroding since. They are now international buffoons with delusions of grandeur, but this David & Goliath fight they are engaged in adds fuel to their narrative of being hounded out of Harry's family by bullies and feeds whatever is left of their supporters. I do not think, after a modest amount of interest the first year that Suxxit Inc is going to stay afloat. Harry and Meghan are individually too dumb and self-absorbed and greedy to be interesting in and of themselves and their combined toxic narcissism would obliterate the oxygen in any room in which they are whinging/speaking.
I think a few big wig groups will invite them at first as a curiosity show, much like JP Morgan Chase did, I imagine . . let's host the Dummies Who Ran Away from Home for a good laugh over some drinks. We heard what Harry whined about during his 15 minutes but not how it was received.
This duo is toxically stupid, with their heads up their own asses and not a single coherent thought between the both of them. Word will get around about what a nightmarish snoozefest they are and that will be the end of the SuxxitShow. Without the power of the Crown behind them, it doesn't matter what they call themselves. They could call themselves the Pope and St. Mary Magdalene . . it don't make it true.
The Queen should do what she does so well . . ignore that which is beneath her but issue periodic reminders to the world press and potential donors that Harry and Meghan no longer represent the Crown and are in fact nothing to Us at all.
1. If overseas visitors really want to stay in a grass hut or visit a remote village (for what - to have woke photos taken with local kids or 'tribes people'? ... please stop doing that), it could be arranged, but why? We have huge game parks (just one of many in my country is bigger than the entire UK ... folk don't realise how big Africa is because the Mercator Projection distorts size) but also a lot of smaller (well, small for Africa) ones as well. We have eco-friendly comfortable to luxurious lodges (built from local materials), but also self-catering cottages, luxury tented camps and now even a converted old train parked on a high bridge).
2. Admittedly some ethic groups do exploit traditions for tourism (model villages, craft markets, indigenous festivals ...) but the people who participate in that choose to do so as a job.
3. The problem is not having enough wildlife tourist destinations, so you have to book well in advance (the Chinese especially overrun the place ... and all experience the entire trip from behind a camera). To build too many more would be to contradict the very purpose of having game reserves - to have vast habitats where wildlife can live freely. Did you know that the biggest threat to the existence of lions is habitat loss?
I think an eco-friendly travel series presented by Harry is a great idea (mine) and it would get him out of the house and away from that human wrecking ball. But it should be one that also asks the difficult questions and gets people thinking instead of preaching because environmental issues are very complex and there are no easy answers.
I feel sorry for Harry because under the guidance/domination of Meghan he is really doing some stupid stuff. He needs the guidance of superb courtiers like ELF. The Invictus Games was not a new concept (it started with the Warrior Games in the USA) but it was inspirational to create the same for the UK/Europe. From that came many other superb initiatives. Now, Harry's involvement seems to be reduced to hanging out with Jon Bon Jovi (a great guy, by the way) and the odd parachute appearance, with Meghan in tow for the photo op and speech.
Or "The Harry Windsor Meghan Markle Foundation" / "The Meghan Markle Harry Windsor Foundation"
One of their initiatives can be to support PBS. And then whenever the list of sponsors is announced, the name of their foundation slides nicely in with the rest.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong. I don’t have to be right.
I just don’t see this causing a divorce. Maybe it’s causing a lot of fighting between them, as any stressful situation would, but at this point I think any anger would still be directed at the RF and not each other. (Unless the various and sundry rumors are true about them sleeping in different rooms and fighting all the time and her throwing tea pots etc...)
"Now, Harry's involvement seems to be reduced to hanging out with Jon Bon Jovi (a great guy, by the way) and the odd parachute appearance, with Meghan in tow for the photo op and speech."
I'm not sure it was ever much more than that. Harry is the figurehead. Others did the heavy lifting behind the scenes.
Do you think either one of the gruesome twosome could even spell PBS, let alone know what it stands for?
Sorry, it just popped into my head.. I couldn't resist. :)
@sandie who is your tarot reader? Thanks.
@tea cup I agree about your name choices. Just name the foundation after themselves.
Or what about the Sussex foundation if they have to include that name?
"I just don’t see this causing a divorce. Maybe it’s causing a lot of fighting between them, as any stressful situation would, but at this point I think any anger would still be directed at the RF and not each other."
Probably. But.... what use is Harry to Meghan now if she can't cash in on the 'royal' connection? On the other hand, she doesn't strike me as the type who's happy being single so she'd only leave him if she had something 'better' lined up. And she comes with so much baggage now that I can't see any rich and/or famous man going near her.
Considering Harry is worth $30-40 million trust fund. On addition to speaking fees and Royal allowances, I think they could swing a loan on a house. Whether it be from the Russian billionaire or JPM bank
>>>Narcissistic Personality Disorder was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013. <<<
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is still in DSM. What was removed in 2013 was Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder. But having a disorder doesn't automatically mean a person isn't responsible for her behavior.
Unless she finds a way to make money on her own. She amassed 10 times the number of followers on sussexroyal IG than she had on The Tig. How many would she lose if she left Harry? How many would she gain? How many more connections does she now have to be a brand ambassador/influencer? She lived a lavish lifestyle with the influencer Tig - lots of freebies and entry tickets into everywhere, almost ... she was at Wimbledon, the UN, Soho House, on TV shows, featured in magazines, at woke conferences (not as rich as being royal but it was good enough to put her in the path of a royal).
I think she has already met the next Mr Markle. He is kind of like Trevor (a behind the scenes kind of guy) but wealthier and more influential in helping her get deals, and he will give her a lot more freedom than she had with the BRF or even with Harry out of the BRF.
"As Charles Zanor reports in today’s Science Times, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — due out in 2013 and known as D.S.M.-5 — has eliminated five of the 10 personality disorders that are listed in the current edition. The best known of these is narcissistic personality disorder."
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/views/30mind.html
" In fact, because of the limited research literature, narcissistic personality disorder was initially slated to be omitted from DSM-5. However, in response to feedback from the clinical and research community (e.g., 4–8) this decision was reversed, and narcissistic personality disorder was included in Section II of DSM-5 (Diagnostic Criteria and Codes) and also reconstructed in Section III (Emerging Measures and Models)."
As @Louise's link shows, NPD is in DSM.
The NYT article was written before DSM-5 was released. A number of reported changes didn't become reality.
Here's a link showing what's in DSM-5
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/
I just don't see any rich or influential man wanting to take on Meghan and all her baggage. What does she have to offer them? She's pushing 40 (not saying that's old as I've got a decade on her but men who want trophy wives want 'em young!), has a child, she isn't that pretty, rich or succesful in her own right. Any royal connections she had have been ruined. And while she might have been able to hide her obnoxious personality when she was a nobody, now the whole world knows what she's like. So I think it will be hard for her to upgrade. So she might hang on to Harry for the moment and seek to 'rebrand'.
It's a heck of a day, isn't it? :)
@Liver Bird
Indeed, the crown must always win. I do hope Charles gets some guts and cleans house. It's way overdue. And I agree, this is a big loss for the Harkles on not using Sussex Royal.
@Tatty
If you keep punching a brick wall, at some point you would think that you'd realize you're only damaging your own hand. I think Meg believed she was calling the shots in this game. That might change after today. If she's lucky, someone got to Meg and told her to back down from the Queen as fast as she can. It was a smart move, however it happened. To let go of this fight.
@Luxem
If the Harkles tussle with Trump, they almost certainly will regret that. Ask Rosie O'Donnell, Megyn Kelly and others. Amazon was in line to potentially get something like a 10 billion dollar contract with the Pentagon. Trump doesn't like Bezos. Pentagon contract disappears for Amazon. You always have to be careful messing with the top of the food chain (monarch, president). They can make you pay.
My mom is a malignant narc and yes it is a mental illness. However, that doesn't excuse her or MM for destroying everyone around them. There are plenty of people with mental illnesses who do good in this world. I think it was the Dalai Lama who said, " Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them".
Look at all those MM has hurt, least of which is Harry and he doesn't even know it yet. But he will. Luckily for him and Archie, the Queen is waiting for him to come home with open arms.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/26/trump-mattis-screw-amazon-10-billion-pentagon-cloud-contract-jedi.html
Trump is a bitter old guy. Rough. Fighter. He'll hurt you, and laugh while he does it. That's not a guy you want to tangle with, particularly if you're basically chump change (ex-royals and nobodies) and he's the president.
And yes, Trump likes the Queen and that admiration seems to be reciprocated. So if the Harkles get into it with Trump, they're probably on their own.
I do not think that HAMS will have much, if any, support from the British establishment, sports “heroes” and wanbbees like the Beckhams who know which side their bread is buttered. David Beckham has spent millions chasing a knighthood. For every person connected to the HAMS PR company, SS, who come to “praise” them, there are many more people who will drop the duo like a hot potato, and “bury” their association. Harry’s “friendship” was and is a facade, a means to an end - access to the Monarchy, its glamour, pagentry, and award system. The Queen has final say, after all, in the gongs,
Where is the magic now, that Harry harped upon? The “magic” kept him from being, court-martialed. He endangered lives in California and Nevada, on his motorcycle, going over 100 mph, escaping U.S. Army camp to party. These near misses of lives were settled out of court. Harry does not have the protection any more. The American soldiers he trained with have spoken about his complete incompetence, his talking back to his American officer superiors, and much more. He was sent back to the UK with his tail between his legs, despite contrary reports.
Harry has always been a spoiled brat. He believed in his own covered-up press. He has nothing to offer anymore. His magic is gone, and the ridicule is beginning to heap on him every time he speaks (or will try in the future) to make money off his mother’s bones. What does he offer, in terms of pay offs, now that he is not even allowed to use the word royal to his name?
Harry, not Meghan, is the one who lived an entire lifetime always taking, never giving. To blame Meghan is to blame the pilot of an air crash when the plane itself falls apart from lack of competent mechanics. She might have tried to fly high, no pun intended, but Harry was and is her means of transportation. The Eagle has not landed - it crapped in mid air.
Best name yet!