Enty ran another of his blind items on the Sussexes the other day, to wit:
"This alliterate former actress has the best, if not the best team you could hire in town. Apparently though she has sent word out through her media mouthpiece to the north that she isn't happy with them. Why? No one wants to hire her at the rate she thinks she deserves. Her demands are much higher than reality. Oh, and as a side note. Since she can't use the title any longer, the movie studio asked her if she wanted to change the name under which she is credited. She said of course not and that is who she is even if she "can't use" it any longer."
Enty, as usual, mixes fact and fiction.
Meg can certainly use "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex," which is how she was credited in her Disney elephants documentary. The only thing she has agreed not to use is her HRH - and she didn't.
The "media mouthpiece to the north" is clearly Lainey Gossip.
But the "best team you could hire in town" - who is that? And why would they want to work with Meghan? And how could she pay them?
Enty's royal sources are not good, but his Hollywood industry sources tend to be excellent. What do you think?
"This alliterate former actress has the best, if not the best team you could hire in town. Apparently though she has sent word out through her media mouthpiece to the north that she isn't happy with them. Why? No one wants to hire her at the rate she thinks she deserves. Her demands are much higher than reality. Oh, and as a side note. Since she can't use the title any longer, the movie studio asked her if she wanted to change the name under which she is credited. She said of course not and that is who she is even if she "can't use" it any longer."
Enty, as usual, mixes fact and fiction.
Meg can certainly use "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex," which is how she was credited in her Disney elephants documentary. The only thing she has agreed not to use is her HRH - and she didn't.
The "media mouthpiece to the north" is clearly Lainey Gossip.
But the "best team you could hire in town" - who is that? And why would they want to work with Meghan? And how could she pay them?
Enty's royal sources are not good, but his Hollywood industry sources tend to be excellent. What do you think?
Comments
I also cleared myself in those places. About time to check again. I think they are an incredible invasion of privacy. The Internet makes information you used to have to go to a county clerk’s office, recorder of deeds, etc., in order to get info. Now you are just a couple of clicks away.
@Jocelyn
I’m sure they scrubbed MM and they did a good job. I bet MM folks check for information to see if it pops back. The Tig seems to be the big source for photos.
Oops! You were ahead of me in posting about the veracity of those sites. Sorry! Yes, I agree that everybody should opt out of those sites. It's all public info, but it takes time to search everything individually, and laws on public info vary from state to state.
I just figure that nobody really cares enough to look me up anyway!
Congratulations @Elle :) So glad to hear the good news especially during days like this. I send my best wishes and lots of good luck for the new job. Your field sounds so interesting to me and I'm just curious what kind of background you have.
@Mel in SoCal Love the dish and analysis you had. Hope you come around more often but I understand if you can't.
I'm finding that for my mental health, I'm going to have skip the Virus Blog for similar reasons you avoid this blog. I found myself writing for an hour an econometric analysis of the pandemic and pointing out why "opening the economy back up" isn't straightforward and realistically aligns more closely to what health officials are proposing. I finally deleted it. I just can't after another neighbor passed away Sat.
Le sigh. Anyways, I'm sticking to Harry & Meg. It's easier being from the Left-Coast on here.
@Elle Pretty please, bring on the contemptinis and make mine a double to take the edge off the Left-Coast PLUS Millennial side-eye.
No way Megs and Harry would be hidden from paps in Malibu. Malibu, anywhere, has no protection. I also think they are staying in someone else’s house. I cant see them living in Calabasas or the like, it’s too far out for Megs. Lake Arrowhead/Big Bear is wayyy too far. I guess they could be in Los Feliz or Silver Lake or HH or even Brentwood, but my money is on Bel Air.
Maybe it's time for a "quarantini"
@Elle
Congratulations! Good news is especially nice right now
Thanks for all of the insider info.
I think MM just floated Malibu as a location because it has a hip, cool vibe for the youth market she is trying to appeal to. Harry would be dazzled by the thought of living on the ocean in CA and would love the surf and sand life, but I agree that they cannot afford that area at all. Besides, the houses are so close together and open to the ocean so that they would have no privacy at all. Imagine the mess on the PCH if they tried to drive anywhere.
I never thought that they would want Mel Gibson's house. It's not their style. My guess is that they would want the sleek, glass-walled, all-white look mixed with mid-century modern that is so popular now with their age group.
MM has sold Just Harry on the Malibu lifestyle that is a merely a fairy tale. It doesn't exist, but Harry will picture himself drinking on the deck as the sun goes down, surfing, boating and hanging out at Nobu and the SoHo house every day, the whole Beach Boys Surfin' Safari lifestyle fantasy, and that's just not in the cards for them financially, because, eventually, Daddy's gonna take the T-Bird away!
Regarding her criminal record, yes it was in Riverside County, I think the listed city was Indio. It didn't specify what the criminal action was but it did give a case number and it was NOT dismissed. Meaning she was convicted of pleaded guilty of something, unfortunately it didn't provide details. I know that if a case had been dismissed or the person served a sentence, it would have details relating to those things under the listed case with the same case number. So this leads me to believe that she was convicted and served some sort of sentence not excluding jail time. But most likely probation. Then she had her records expunged of details, which is different from clearing your profiles from these background sites. She had to have gone to court and paid lawyers to do the official expungement.
I just typed in Doria's name and in an article it said her stepmother lives in Indio. Hmmm. Maybe she was living with her stepmother when her legal troubles began? Indio is in Riverside County.
Offhand subject, if you want to expunge all your public profile and don't want to keep checking and clearing every few months with the sites that you've been deleted from. Sign up for an comprehensive service to do that for you, you get a report every 4 months and pay annual fee of somewhere in the $200 range. I had to resort to that after my identity was stolen 6 years ago and used for credit card fraud. Now I don't take any chances.
Interesting post about Doria’s having records and now doesn’t. I had not heard of Truthfinders.
Wednesday april 22
People presents Harry & Meghan: A Royal Rebellion
By royal decree (or maybe ex-royal decree), there'll be no Riverdale or Nancy Drew this ewek, as the Duke & duchess of sussex (who do get to keep their title despite stepping away from Buckingham Palace) take over with a two hour special, from 8pm to 10pm, that breaks down their love story and surprising exit from royal life. People magazine reporters in New York & London help tell the story chronologically through interviews, archival footage, animations and graphics. Find out what a "duchess" is anyway! Fun Fact: did you know Meghan Markle once player Jill on General Hospital in 2002?
Tuesday, April 21st: Queen Elizabeth's 94th birthday
Wednesday, April 22nd: Harry & Meghan: A Royal Rebellion (LOOK at what they did to US! Feel SORRY for US!)
Thursday, April 23rd: Prince Louis's 2nd birthday (also, St. George's Day)
Is it just me or does one feel like Meghan is trying to (once again) take the spotlight away from the BRF? Of course, Meghan inserts her "poor-me special" between the Queen's birthday and Will & Kate's youngest child's birthday! Probably a deliberate attempt on her part to draw media attention away from both birthdays and onto herself? I agree with @abbyh if this contains new material, then this 2 hour special had to be in the works for some time (factoring in the shelter in place orders from COVID-19 which began in earnest mid-March) unless the reporters filmed their segments via Skype and their interviews have been edited into the show. Another thought is that perhaps the 2 hour special is just a giant compilation of past interviews assembled into chronological order and is nothing more than re-packaged "same old stuff" just with graphics and animations. (By the way, WTF are the "animations"? clips from Disney's Cinderella? or the animated clips from the Russian YouTube pranksters?)
Maybe Meghan does have the best team in town? Where's Archie? No mention of him in the summary?
For $20 you can make a “court runner request” where an actual person goes and gets the hard copy records for you, “in 2-3 days”.
Based on a Google Maps search, DR’s current address matches up with the photos of her house that have appeared in the press.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-3454#post-56763245
I don't really believe they have much of a team. Best or otherwise. There's simply too much about her so called team, and them being top-notch etc going around lately for that to be completely true. Empty vessels make more noise!
I believe there is a PR team but apart from keeping their names in the articles we don't see them doing much. And frankly, in the current world scenario this strategy is tacky.
Any PR team's job, first and foremost is to help build or rebuild a client's image. To give them character and personality that the general public, who is never going to actually meet the, can relate to. But here in the Sussexes case it seems like their PR strategy is steering in preemtive damage control mode. And so we hear about how Meg is string, ambitious, driven, looking for work, willing to Japanese commericals, has made a move to LA to be able to do work, is unfazed by criticism yada yada yada...
While Harry is miserable, lost, seething, resentful, missing home, has been told by Meghan to get a job, is reqchiout to and finding strength from his old pals, talking to fake greta, sharing his feelings and now talking to Jane Goodall FFS!
Also, blogger @Sandie mentioned her tarot reader friend.d says Harry's reaching out to some other woman who is helping him out now?? Well more of his mummy issues at play. Maybe she is just sensing Fake Greta and Jane Goodall. Who knows!
On topic: I believe Enty has excellent sources, but that doesn't mean his sources can't be misinformed.
https://www.krugercowne.com/an-american-princess/
Elle, you asked whether I as a journalist would use some of the sites you mention. If I were working in the US, I suppose I would use them only as directions to a more authoritative source.
In Northern Europe, government generally collects everyone's info in a single database. (Here's Estonia's.)
Not all of that information is available to everyone, of course, but the information you do get is reliable.
Daily Star today - main headline regarding challenge of living in luxury in LA:
`Ah, Diddums'
The juxtaposition brings home just how despicable he and his wife are
Excuse me while I scrape my shoes.
@Elle, congrats on your new job.
Re the Harkles and the People item, have you noticed the date it is due to go out?
It's another nasty trick by MM - the next day (23 April) is Prince Louis' second birthday. Wouldn't you know it - Catherine will probably post some pics of the little lad, as she usually does on the kids' birthdays, and MM is hoping to knock Louis off the number one spot with pics/articles about the People show.
Trying to outshine a two-year old - how low can you go?
Well, whenever we say that, she goes even lower. She must regard it as a challenge. I suspect that the depths to which she is prepared to sink are unfathomable.
She's lower than a snakes's belly.
Is Harry incapable of drawing a line? Sadly, I think the answer is `yes'.
Pathetic.
Btw, 3rd April is also St George's Day and Shakespeare's birthday - so she's also cocking a snook at England as a whole.
It's very difficult, though not impossible, to not have your data mined unless you're disengaged from online activities. There are protective strategies though but that takes discipline and vigilance. Sometimes you're made to sign up for accounts for certain purposes, like the time when I was doing post-doc work and a project involved having a LInkedIn account and membership in professional organizations. People are too trusting with social media. My ex-BF works for Facebook and he told me that despite what they say publicly, they do own and keep whatever you upload on FB even if you've canceled your account. This is why I don't have FB anymore due to that and a lot of other things he's told me about the company.
High profile and extremely wealthy individuals all subscribe to professional services that scrub personal details from background sites. They don't want to be targets or easy marks for those with criminal intents. It doesn't mean that their public records are not available, just that they're not easily accessible online.
I think they'll end up staying longer than 6th months in Malibu, seeing as how they've not been able to fully enjoy the Malibu experience during lockdown. California still has state lockdown as being indefinitely, and we're hearing mostly likely until late May at the earliest. That means Hollywood won't be back to usual business until possibly June. So no publicity and no projects to keep their names out there. I don't think Meghan could personally stand to not be papped for that long. She'll probably make a papped outing running errands or hiking very soon.
"Re the Harkles and the People item, have you noticed the date it is due to go out? It's another nasty trick by MM - the next day (23 April) is Prince Louis' second birthday. "
It's also the day after HMTQ's birthday. With no Trooping this year, I do hope her 94th birthday is recognized and doesn't have to compete with that show. That would almost be worse than competing with a 2-year old who won't know the difference.
To be fair though, I'm not sure how much influence M had on the exact scheduling. I can see her (and the producers) trying to take advantage of the fact people are probably watching more TV while staying home. I get that channel but don't think I have EVER watched it....not starting now either.
Thank you @Elle @Scandi @KCM1212 for the kind thoughts. I am so grateful for your posts. May you be happy and healthy. I'm in a weird place emotionally and I'm trying my best to keep going. My neighbor was in his 80s and very ill. I just hope he can rest in peace.
I apologize if I missed anyone.
You guys light up my day. 💜💜
So Quarantinis should meet those standards also 🍸
Vanity Fair chose to focus on Princess Anne for May ...
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/04/princess-anne-opens-up-about-her-lifetime-as-a-royal
Thank you for the post re Doria. I remember seeing the same sort of info. It may have been deleted but her files are still in existence and a seriously determined person (writing a book for instance) will be able to dig it out. A common enough way is hiring a private investigator; they often have connections in law enforcement and court circles. If there is something of interest it will surface. Although it is likely people will lose interest first.
It's hard to muster up sympathy for these two, while I go to work to wear two masks, goggles, fumble around trying to help patients, go for hours without eating or drinking...stay late because we are short-staffed... worry about patients all night...wonder when or if I will contract COVID....
Nope...still not feeling sorry for them
I agree for sophisticate research one would want to use several sources and certainly not the common people finder sites. But so far I have had a 100% success in finding people and where they live (even relatives, neighbors and their criminal convictions), which serves my purposes. Some sites are better than others no doubt and it helps if you have 2 identifying pieces of info to start with , their full name and age (and maybe a city where they may have lived at one time. But if they have a very, very common name you will definitely need some 3rd piece of info (if your looking at a big city .like LA good luck). Like in all things one must be responsible in what you are going to do with the info; like in my case if I file suit on someone I am 100% certain I have the right person identified (but then again I already know so much to start off with).
Someone here posted that companies don't check these sites for financial reasons, well depending on the reason for the check your bad history of getting sued or having judgements against you, or bankruptcies can and do matter. That info can be found and if there is derogatory history like that it can affect the outcome of maybe getting a loan, even a tiny loan. But that is why I said, keep a close eye on your credit status/reports from Experian, Transunion and Equifax. You are entitled in the US to get a report from these. free, once a year. This is vital IMO as there are mistakes that happen and not too infrequently. For example, I found out a woman used my Social Sec# to try to buy a car. And frequently people will have a 'hard' pull of data done ('credit check) by some company you did not authorize. Too many of these and it can lower your credit worthiness.
I know this is a little OT but since it was brought up by some other poster I thought I would be helpful and clarify why these sites can be important.
Is it possible to pull a cover and use another at the last minute?
The rumour, supposedly started by her hairdresser, was that she was going to be on the cover of/featured in 3 magazines: Vanity Fair, Vogue and I do not remember the third. The time line given in this rumour indicated that May would be the latest date for such magazine features.
Vogue has different covers for different markets. Rhianna was used for the UK cover and Gal Gadot for the US cover.
Vanity Fair has Princess Anne on the cover for May 2020 (and the Hollywood edition does not feature Meghan Markle at all).
None of these covers would have been planned at the last minute or switched at the last minute.
Perhaps Meghan 'talked up' a small piece and gave the impression that she was going to be featured and on the cover? If this was a completely fake story put out there and then spread, why did the Sussexes not put out a press release and state that it is not true (the magazines would not have confirmed or denied as they like to keep their covers and features a secret)?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1269205/Kate-Middleton-news-Prince-William-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-funding-duchy-of-cornwall
* If Charles chooses to use funds from the Duchy of Cornwall to fund a billionaire lifestyle for the Harkles, it does NOT set a precedent for William to continue doing so once he becomes Prince of Wales.
* All leaks and reports on such leaks have stuck to the same story: Charles will assist the Sussexes financially for a limited period; he will be digging into his own personal wealth to do so and will NOT be using income from the Duchy of Cornwall; he is not happy about having to pay from his own wealth (don't blame hi considering all things about the couple).
Do you think the Express just makes up these stories (mostly flattering or supportive of) or are the Harkles behind such a story to try and 'force' lifelong funding from the BRF?
Your site has been scammed. Unless you decided not to let me reply?