Twenty-four hours before broadcast, Duchess Meghan's first television interview since her departure as a senior Royal is the top story on the New York Post online version.
(This may be because it's easy for the Post to run ads on stories that have no relation to the corona virus. Many advertisers refuse to have their ads next to corona-related stories.)
The interview will be broadcast on Good Morning America, which is on the ABC Network, owned by Disney.
FWIW, Meg's old friend Jess Mulroney also does fashion segments on GMA.
The topic will supposedly be the elephant documentary Meg narrated for the new Disney+ network. Importantly, she is being billed as Meghan Markle, not the Duchess of Sussex.
Or will she broadcast from home, and appear next to the brown 1990s-style cabinetry that appears in all of Harry's videos? (It's the same cabinet, whether the video is supposedly being sent from "Canada" or "California.")
And will the GMA people do Meg's makeup and hair?
What are you expecting from Meg's TV appearance?
(This may be because it's easy for the Post to run ads on stories that have no relation to the corona virus. Many advertisers refuse to have their ads next to corona-related stories.)
The interview will be broadcast on Good Morning America, which is on the ABC Network, owned by Disney.
FWIW, Meg's old friend Jess Mulroney also does fashion segments on GMA.
The topic will supposedly be the elephant documentary Meg narrated for the new Disney+ network. Importantly, she is being billed as Meghan Markle, not the Duchess of Sussex.
Studio or home interview?
It's not clear when and where the interview was recorded. Presumably Meg will not be flying to the GMA studios in New York, but what about being driven in one of her multiple rental cars to the ABC studios in Los Angeles?Or will she broadcast from home, and appear next to the brown 1990s-style cabinetry that appears in all of Harry's videos? (It's the same cabinet, whether the video is supposedly being sent from "Canada" or "California.")
And will the GMA people do Meg's makeup and hair?
What are you expecting from Meg's TV appearance?
Comments
"Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh?"
Why Celebs seem to live with this notion that they are a persecuted people is mind-boggling!
The way the Malibu Dumbartons (whoever coined that name, thank you!) keep criticizing everything British, you would think they were commenting on North Korea. First it's the BRF, then the British Rota System, and now the British Tabloids. Then there is all their passive aggressiveness towards British Plebs telling them they lack good, holier-than-thou "woke" character when they complain about their egregious spending and rude, selfish disregard of British customs.
The Brits are America's oldest Allies. What in the world are H&M doing insulting them constantly? Are American tabloids that different? Oh, I forgot, Meg isn't aware American tabs exist. Not going to happen but the Malibu Dumbartons should be stripped of their titles. Such a step would finish their British Exodus.
argothinktank.org › 2017/05PDF
The Economy of Clickbait
1 Mar 2017 · “Economy of Clickbait” portrays the changing laws of the media market, acknowledging ... In the new media economy, the currency is clicks ... content
Try Chambord over vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Delicious!
I must admit, I liked Meghan at first because I didn't know anything about her. After watching video of her it became apparent that she really was 3 steps above trailer trash. I can't pinpoint the exact moment I said "Nope, she's trash." It was the event when she stuck her tongue out at the pheasants at her first joint engagement with William and Kate. Meghan wore the poop hat outfit. I have never liked Harry. He has always come across as a spoilt petulant brat. Sorry, not sorry. Too many people make excuses for him.
It has been said many times, this is a train wreck you just can't look away from.
https://mobile.twitter.com/danwootton/status/1252149410387111936
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are looking forward to working with ... young, up-and-coming journalists
Have they ever met a young, up-and-coming journalist? They're looking for one big scoop that can establish their careers.
If Meg makes the smallest suggestion that things were imperfect during her time with the Royal family, they're going to jump on that and exploit it to the max.
I think she has this idea that young journalists will be so pleased to meet her that they will be generous and flattering to her. Good luck.
Yes, that's pretty funny!
For those who can't click through to the Tweet, the Sun's Dan Wootton is replying to Scobie, saying:
"You might have to stop selling lots of stories to the tabloids now you’re Meghan’s PR rep, er, I mean favourite “journalist”!
Wow, if they're staying at the Marmont that would really be on-brand.
The hotel has a great history - Marilyn Monroe, Led Zeppelin, etc. - but its last glamour days were in the 1990s, which is the decade in which Meghan appears to be stuck.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Loretta61505338/status/1252177987480346624
Look at Natalie Portman, who also did a voice over for Disney's Dolphin film. She hasn't promoted herself for it, but just promoted the movie a few times, which probably was in her contract.
The comment that Disney got that many viewers because of MM is ridiculous. I'm sure many parents under lockdown with their children have signed up as a form of entertainment for their kids.
@Silvia,
I'm sure that MM got that phrase from somewhere else and probably from the link you provided. Does anybody really think "economy of clickbait" is in her lexicon? And we all know that she steals her phrases from others. There are numerous examples of this.
I wonder is they are using SS at all. She once said she had not hired them, but is a friend of Ken Sunshine, and was asking for his advice. If a reputable PR agency made up a PR plan for a client, and then had the client go rogue from the script, as MM has done so many times, they would have let the client go, as it brings a bad reputation to the firm.
I know that SS had had less than stellar clients, but they need some sort of control over their clients. Besides, The Harkles can't afford their fees, and the PR releases are so poorly written, they can't have come from a pro.
Did anyone else see this on Twitter? Apparently JCMH FKAP filmed those videos in Nottingham Cottage...
https://mobile.twitter.com/Loretta61505338/status/1252177987480346624
Eugenie got dressed for her wedding at the Royal Lodge, her parents' home (that is where the photo was taken). I doubt that Harry has been hiding out with the Yorks in Windsor Great Park, and he has been papped with Megsy in LA! It makes for a great story though!
I love the idea of Chateaus Marmot - fat little blighters who could probably knock spots off those Compare-the-Meerkats. Rodents are an appropriate level for her.
And 'just call me' Philip comes out of retirement to release a statement!
Meghan and Harry are always going to be on the wrong side of trashy and just never have the gravitas of an on-point typed statement released by (or on behalf of) HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, AKA 'just call me' Philip!
Just-Call-Me-Phillip's burn is epic and I love how he ends with: "... and those ensuring the rubbish continues to be collected."
Thank you on the info about the Eugenie pic. I never saw it before. Any sources for the original? Talk about coincidences. The fact that Harry used Nottingham Cottage to film those Ed Sheeran videos adds ammunition to the rumor.
`The Economy of Clickbait'?
Yer 'tez:
http://argothinktank.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ARGO-Note-Clickbait_Eng.pdf
Interesting messages. I wonder if Thomas will confirm having received them.
I know that the "Do I not bleed," is a bungled Shakespeare quote. Many of us had to memorize that portion in middle school. But it was a ridiculous thing to say about a drunken fight with the cops. To have said nothing would have been better.
@Nutty,
The Chateau Marmont is also where Lindsay Lohan lived for many months without paying the huge bill for both her villa and food. Finally, the management had to kick her out of the hotel for the unpaid bill. Usually, they don't have to pay until they move out, which could be after living there for months. Also, it's owned by Andre Balazs, who also owns the Chiltern Firehouse in London where Harry has been papped many times. Meghan has been spotted there, too, and wrote about it in The Tig. They may be getting free food and boarding through him.
If they're living in one of the bungalows, and not eating in the restaurant, where people go to be seen, they could live there anonymously quite easily. There are back ways to get off of the property, and the staff protects the guests from scrutiny.
Your comment about young journalists looking for that big story is spot on. MM is delusional if she thinks she can con them for free and positive PR. They'll turn on her in an instant if they get a good story.
If (and I doubt that this is the full unbiased truth of what happened) Meghan and Harry were reaching out to Thomas with texts and he was not responding, and they then knew he was hospitalised, why did they not get someone to go and see him in person? Doria? Her business manager? One of her friends? Meghan's half-siblings? One of her uncles? (In my family, in such a situation you call family, neighbours, whoever ... I was in a situation where we phoned the local consulate when we could not get hold of a relative in a foreign country after an earthquake ... admittedly, there was no natural disaster, but why was not more effort made?)
Meghan was too busy to talk to her father on the hone? She could not spare 5 minutes to speak to her father? I would make sure I put aside those 5 minutes every day to have that conversation until he was safely on British soil.
I do hope the court case exposes her deceit, and Harry's collusion, but I suspect that the court will focus on the copyright aspect and the rest will be dismissed (but Megsy is playing it up to make sure it makes headlines and gives her sympathetic and positive press as allegations of victim hood that are never tested in court).
"Longstanding royal correspondents have previously told the Guardian that the Duke of Sussex, whose mother, Princess Diana, was fatally injured in a car crash while being chased by paparazzi, has had an increasingly antagonistic relationship with the media.
On one royal tour he told journalists covering it: “Thanks for coming, even though you weren’t invited.” (italics added)
I thought press coverage was a good thing during a royal tour.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/20/harry-and-meghan-uk-tabloids-duke-duchess-sussex-sun-daily-mail
The documents state that Meghan was not able to talk to her father before the wedding day, although she did receive a missed call from him at 04:57am on the morning of her wedding.
The documents also confirm that Meghan and Harry have not spoken to Thomas Markle since the wedding.
There is something very sad about that ... and, knowing that Thomas stayed up that night to watch the wedding on TV (it would have been late at night for him).
Why is she lying?
Also, I can see that meghan's appearance on NBC came after Mike Jordan. How was it? Jordan and Pippen have been trending since morning.
I still can’t see what’s in this for the Harkles. Now tabloids are free to say whatever the hell they want. I don’t see that it gives Meg even the illusion/delusion of control.
So, given they appear to have just freed those tabloids to release whatever: The Harkles did say no “corroboration” in their statement. That would seem to also mean no denials. So, could they be attempting to set up a victimization defense here? That is nothing new for them, but are they trying to get ahead of and diminish an upcoming story with this “we won’t corroborate” angle? I find their use of that particular word interesting.
Any journalists able to speak on that perspective? Would they have a leg to stand on if, after this statement, the tabloids were to float some previously royally-protected truth and the Harkles filed suit, claiming victimhood after their having said they would not engage or corroborate (which obviously includes the reverse, which is to deny)?
IDK. (And: I love Prince P!)
Or the British consul for that area.
Frankly, some hand-holder from the Royal Family should have been sent to Thomas' home in Mexico long before the event.
Did she step on her own publicity by picking a fight with the UK media? There are only 45 minutes left in today’s program, so it will be interesting.
Yes, nice of him to come out of retirement to show what Royalty is really about, which is inspiring and ennobling (sometimes literally) the citizens of the country.
Too bad they ran such terrible photos of him with the story, those ones from Christmas where he is slightly unshaven.
Only WE can help you???? Oh, come on!
Dad, we haven't heard from you? Are you in the hospital? Well, if he's in the hospital, he's not going to be answering the phone. Did they call the hospital to check if he was there? What if he was lying on the floor, unable to get up because of a heart attack?
Should we send security? How about jumping on one of those private jets and actually visiting your father to make sure he's OK? Any good daughter would do that if their very ill father wasn't answering her calls.
Love that Philip just signed it Philip, and he's getting a lot of good comments for that.
Between Philip and Captain Tom, two 99-year-old men are whipping Harry's pathetic, snowflake ass.
Have a look at the series of tweets here to get an inside look to how Meghan and Harry think and why they feel justified.
Will the judge be 'bowled over' by Meghan and believe her (once she gets on the stand ... she who can cry on cue)?
If I was the judge, I would want to know:
* Why Meghan's friends who spoke to People magazine were able to quote the letter word-by-word.
* Why Meghan made no attempt to contact her father once the letter had been exposed.
* Why she is not suing People magazine. (It is because it is NOT the breach of copyright but what was leaked that made her angry. OK for her friends to do it if it makes her look like a victim and earns her sympathy in the war with her father; not OK if it is parts of the letter that make her motives and character questionable and lead to bad press about her.)
Personally I find her sense of entitlement and victimhood very unpleasant. I suppose it is in Harry's subconscious (such behaviour) as his parents embarked on a vicious and very salacious media war before, during and after their separation and divorce (he must have known about it but could do nothing about it at the time). They never actually sued each other or any of the press or any friends who spoke to the press, but I suppose Meghan's time as a minor character on Suits has led her to believe that she is some kind of uber successful legal person?
The tabloids being sued are not going to back off or try to settle this case because it gives them material for hundreds of stories to keep their millions of customers amused/entertained. Meghan is feeding that which she is attacking.
Hope Her Maj is keeping score!!
Agree with all that you said.
Also, now that the Harkles have publicly cut all ties with some British press organizations, they don't have to ask them for verification of any story they write. The Harkles just Markled themselves.
It also isn't going to look good at court that they have completely and with vindictive wording, cut ties, furthering a combative relationship with the press, which started with Harry's first missive about the mean, mean press people who write about the poor little snowflakes.
Byline Investigates is an extremely suspect news outlet. Anybody can write for it, if they can raise the funds for the article, whatever that means. It also has a press release writing service and sells one-day online journalism classes that cost hundreds of dollars. No reputable news organization works that way.
They call it "journalism crowd sourcing", but mot of their writers are not trained journalists. You can be trained, they say, by taking their one-day online journalism courses.
Most journalists have a four-year university journalism degree, and many have their masters in journalism. You can't teach journalism with one-day courses.
I doubt that anybody hired by Sunshine Sachs would write so badly.
Excellent points made by Society of Editors in https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235215/Harry-Meghan-announce-refuse-talk-four-UK-newspapers-groups.html, and Dickie Arbiter’s calling H not the “brightest bunny” is a highlight.
The Prince Philip note is now the DM UK website’s lead story. @Nutty, I rather appreciate that they used photos of the Duke at his most frail and fragile. The physical contrast with the Harkles could not be sharper, yet he is the cogent, culturally sensitive one. I like it, though I am sure he agrees with you and wishes those photos of him did not exist.
Anyway, I just cant with this two. They are just delusional at this point.
Ill be M. A.
The video is dated March 20, 2020 and features Zsuzsi, in her first-ever on camera interview about her time with the Prince. She claims the BRF was terrified of their relationship and that was why their relationship ended.
Interesting that the video comes out now. Talks about marrying for reasons from the heart and not for royal protocol. Tin foil hat theories aside it's an interesting video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyDU4bq8IdM&t=1993s
Sandie,
Byline Investigates is an extremely suspect news outlet. Anybody can write for it, if they can raise the funds for the article, whatever that means. It also has a press release writing service and sells one-day online journalism classes that cost hundreds of dollars. No reputable news organization works that way.
They call it "journalism crowd sourcing", but mot of their writers are not trained journalists. You can be trained, they say, by taking their one-day online journalism courses.
Most journalists have a four-year university journalism degree, and many have their masters in journalism. You can't teach journalism with one-day courses.
Thanks for the info. It is clear that they are pushing the Harkles narrative, but why? Are they being paid to do so, and if so, by whom?
I get the sense that Harry's fight with the media (over something that happened many years ago and where he was hardly affected but Kate was targeted in a huge way) is backed by a group of people and I have always suspected it is luvvies such as Hugh Grant (that have a long-standing grudge).
Who would be bankrolling this kind of PR for Meghan?
Later in the clip, they show the photo of Harry and the doctor tending to the elephant, which MM has allowed people to believe is her, not the doctor. GMA didn't correct that misconception.
Listen to the next clip on there about The Harkles cutting ties with the media. Look at the face of the reporter from London. She is almost sighing at their stupidity. Ha!
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/video/meghan-markle-talks-disney-elephant-documentary-70240414
Now on to Mr. Markle and the upcoming hearing: Do any of you remember an article the Express printed when Meg’s anonymous friends tried to vilify her father by quoting bits of the letter in question? I keep telling myself that I’ll go back through their archives and find it but I decided to have a root canal instead. The reporter assured us that her friends had her permission to discuss that particular bit of correspondence. I know it was in the Express which should tell me that maybe I should have read it with an entire salt lick however I just can’t help but think that whoever authored that article would make a very good witness for the MoS.
When will someone have the cajones to out the Harkles? They are all but begging for it (see my earlier pondering).
(Side note: I’ve avoided listening to her narration but GMA forced me to hear it. You all were not kidding when you said Meghan’s performance stinks. It’s really awful. Exaggerated pauses, new phoney voice, and that irrepressible smugness that even creeps into audio.)
The sheer short-sightedness of this banning the tabs move is outstanding. I am not a journalist but dated one who was “up there” before I left the U.K. He worked on Fleet Street and took me to a pub there to meet his friends. I recall being surprised that they were so close since there was so much competition. If someone broke a story, it was drinks all round. So now we have the tabs and Piers - a formidable wall - not on the side of the grifters. The public loves its journalists and the tabs so who will suffer here? Contacting the grifters or their team for details won’t matter one bit. They can still turn out stories and might even be sticking together to come up with some solid investigative journalism on what is really going on with these two or three. I for one certainly hope so. If they are staying at the Marmont, where is the baby? Why hasn’t anyone seen them out and about with him? It’s way more public than a house.
Also waking early in a sweat due to having nightmares about the white pants.
@Elle thanks for the link to Capt. Tom’s You’ll Never Walk Alone. That was my mum’s favourite song.
I think all roads lead to Soho House. Hugh Grant is a member. I've yet to figure out just what their agenda is, beyond money.
BTW, SoHo House is losing money and closing some of their properties, including the WeWorks office spaces that Harry rented. They expanded too fast, got into debt, and tried to do an IPO, but that failed. Their valuation is high because of the physical assets, but they have huge debt- more than 60 million. One article I read about SoHo House is that they wanted to be the cool, hip, place in town, so they didn't want the stuffy lawyers and bankers, and they even wont allow men to wear a tie. Now, their original membership is ageing out into their 40s and up, and they aren't as interested in the SoHo House lifestyle anymore. Now, they're tryng to re-do everything to relate to a younger base. And after laughing at the stuffy lawyers and bankers, the bankers are not really that interested in loaning them money to refurbish and expand on an investment that is already losing money. As one financial writer said, "Does St. Louis really need a SoHo House?"
Because they opened more houses, it lost it's cache, and is not considered a top-tier private club anymore. I was surprised that their prices to join were in line with a local mid-level country club, not the highly exclusive ones.
The last name of their CEO is McPhee. Any relation to Katherine McPhee, David Foster's wife (and American Idol alum)?
Of course, COVID is causing even more financial problems for them.
https://spectator.us/meghan-harry-show-end-tears/
I just popped over to the Sussex Royal website (yes, it is still up) and went to the "Media" section and here is a copy and paste of the section Will they continue to have a social media platform?
Yes, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to have a social media platform. They look forward to continuing their use of social media and believe that their updated media approach will enable them to share more, with you, directly.
Historically, the understanding with the Royal Rota expects that if Their Royal Highnesses were to release a photo that has never been seen, they would be expected to give the image to The Rota (of which four of the seven are UK tabloids) simultaneously or in advance of their own release. This formula enables these select publications to profit by publishing these images on their websites/front pages. Any breach in this understanding creates long term repercussions.
The current structure makes it challenging for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to personally share moments in their lives directly with members of the public (via social media for example), without first going through the filter of the Royal Rota. For more information on the rota system, please see top of this section.
Another section worth noting is How will The Duke and Duchess of Sussex handle media relations in the future?
In the spring of 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be adopting a revised media approach to ensure diverse and open access to their work. This adjustment will be a phased approach as they settle into the new normality of their updated roles. This updated approach aims to:
-Engage with grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalists;
-Invite specialist media to specific events/engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities, widening the spectrum of news coverage;
-Provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events;
-Continue to share information directly to the wider public via their official communications channels;
-No longer participate in the Royal Rota system.
How do the Sussexes believe they will go about circumventing 4 of the 7 members of the Royal Rota? Who knows? I sincerely hope those two are not fanciful enough to believe that they can set up some kind of Media tab on their new charity website that is basically their own personal positive news aggregator-- can you imagine a Sussex "Drudge Report" that spotlights their charitable endeavors, up-and-coming journalists who prattle on about woke agendas, Meghan's merching, and copyright photos that the Frick and Frack of Sussex graciously decide to share with their loyal supporters (for a small fee, of course--Bitcoin being the ideal form of payment).
Ugh, what if they try an app? They would make a fortune selling their subscribers data! Yikes!
Well, folks it might be worth looking at the twitter account of Saffy, she of Royal Roundup fame:
https://twitter.com/CrownOfSapphire
Not least, she's included a Murky Meg video that's very interesting re the whereabouts of the Diabolical Duo.
I wasn't at first sure about those cabinets being the same (the LHS didn't appear to match up) but I can see now that the camera angle is slightly different and what I took to be a groove in the moulding is the gap on the hinge line.
So, yes, I'd say they are two shots of the same cabinetry but, like Murky Meg, I'm convinced the 2 videos were filmed within a couple of inches of each other, though I wouldn't like to guess where they are geographically.
Btw, Saffy says her next RR should be appearing very soon.
I remember reading, too, that she gave her friends permission to talk to the magazine, but can't remember where.
@IEschew and gabes,
I agree! What is it about her voice that is so annoying? It just grates on my nerves so badly. A fake lilt, syrupy, overly condescending? Child-like tone? The voice over was outstandingly horrible. Elephants are majestic animals, and MM turned a doc on them into a cartoon. Her voice showed no real love or concern for the animals, making their dangerous journey a light-hearted joke.
This is what makes me believe nobody advises them on media relations. The textbook advice during the most basic media training is never alienate the media, never humiliate them and never ever tell lies. The advice is always treat them with respect. They will never respect you in return but they will give you a chance to tell your side of the story. Megsy and Harry are just two baby goats in the sea of sharks who know way better how to play the game.
I think The Harkles *think* it was a strategic move, but it comes across as petty and childish. They tend to think a shoot-from-the-hip reaction is strategic. The only strategy I can see is if they thought they might score points for the lawsuit, but that has backfired on them, too.
It's difficult to determine what their goal is because they don't think or act as normal people do. I'm sure that all journalists are shaking their heads at this, and really don't know what to make of it, except that they now know that they can write just about anything, and not be sued, as The Harkles have told them they will never engage with them again, even to deny what is written about them. It just doesn't make sense. But what has made sense with them right from the very beginning, including Archie, the bashing of Britain and its people, the horrible way they've treated their families, etc?
That long letter is so poorly written, and the Harkles haven't learned that short, to-the point letters are more powerful. They seem to believe that a high word count will make a greater impact when the opposite is true.
I think the BRF will recover just fine from this ordeal. Harry won't though. We all know who he is now. Only fools still make excuses for him and this disrespectful behavior towards the Queen and British people.
I remember that he took her to the elephant reserve, but that's not hands on experience. That's looking at elephants. She wasn't working with them as a volunteer or a as a veterinarian, as she implied.
I could say that I have hands-on experience with geese, but that's because one attacked me a when I was a kid while visiting a petting zoo!
Yeah, Harry was a little boring at his dating game- taking the two women to the same elephant reserve in the same country. I'd be a bit miffed at that, if I found out that a BF took me to his old girlfriend's turf.
Oooh...some tea on TCD. Supposedly George Clooney has been having multiple convos with MM and Amal is upset.
@The Cat’s Meow:
Were you aware of this March 29, 2020 blind from enty on Crazy Days and Nights that was revealed on April 7, 2020?
George apparently test drove wannabe Meghan sometime prior to 2011 when he began a two-year relationship with Stacy Keibler that broke up about June 2013.
Meghan would have been a true Hollywood nobody and living with Trevor at the time she was also seeing George, but she cheated on Cory the chef to move on to Harry. So it would be no surprise if she called upon George under the guise of seeking his assistance with re-launching her career and launched herself into bed with him.
Narcissists are notorious cheaters in their relationships, especially if the bloom has faded from their current relationship. The narc will often start shopping around for their next prize so they can make a smooth transition from their current Intimate Partner Primary Source (IPPS) fuel to their next IPPS.
If being with Harry is not opening the Hollywood doors she thought would open for her, Meghan could very well be shopping around. However, I can’t see George dumping Amal for a lowlife like Meghan. She just might be a side piece for George.
Here’s the reveal:
TUESDAY, APRIL 07, 2020
Blind Items Revealed #4
March 29, 2020
This A+/A list mostly movie actor has a much closer connection to this former B+ list actress than was previously known. As was his custom back in the day, he would often test out barely there celebrities. The actress was one of those, but he didn't enjoy his time with her and instead, started hooking up with the former wrestler turned host.
George Clooney/Meghan Markle/Stacy Keibler
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 9:40 AM
I agree. Rational people see the wisdom in this advice, but it appears that Harry and Meghan have opted to "tear up the rule book". The Sussexes newest manifesto is hell bent on ending their interactions with the tabloid media in their defiant attempt to "stand up" to their perceived public enemy #1... What H&M fail to discern is that the tabloid media does not deserve all of the blame for the negativity that envelopes them, the blame falls upon their own shoulders.
@SirStinxAlot can't help but wonder how Edward Lane Fox is doing. He must have ulcers from watching the public image he created be turned into dust after just a few years. Not just any dust either, kitty litter. Meghan is shitting all over his life and any chance to return to the UK and be welcomed back by the people.
Edward Lane Fox has too much respect for the BRF and would never lower himself to the level where Harry and Meghan are now. If H&M had any sense at all, they would hire a media brawler with no sense of loyalty to the BRF (especially Charles). If they wish to stop the negative press and rehabilitate their public perception, I'd suggest ringing up Charles's former spin doctor, Mark Bolland. In Rebel Prince, Tom Bower does an excellent job of explaining how Bolland was tasked with one job: transforming Camilla from Charles's "fox-hunting" mistress into a woman that the public would accept as Charles's wife and future queen. It took longer than 5 years, but Bolland did the seemingly impossible- he became a Pygmalion effect maestro-- and Bolland's skillful (oftentimes sneaky) manipulation of the media resulted in the marriage of Charles to Camilla.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5524635/Charles-Camillas-plot-slur-Diana-SCHEMING-HYSTERIC.html
1. Just Call Me Phillip's letter thanking those who continue to collect the "rubbish"
2. Prince Charles video for a new hospital opening in Cardiff while he sits in front of shelves of so many beautiful books
3. Cambridge's new Mental Health Advert
It's hard not to take it as a concerted effort to crowd out news of the Malibu Dumbartons' letter. The BRF seem to be throwing shade their way too. We have Prince Phillip leaving out his title and have his last words be about disposing rubbish. Prince Charles seemed upset and distracted but all those books highlight a stark contrast from him to Harry and his lackluster education and recent video backgrounds. Then we have the Cambridges who have a solid working marriage and are pros when it comes to charity work.
Malibu Dumbartons look amateurish, petty, and childish when you compare them to the BRF rallying up Brits during the pandemic.
Meg, you're just so classy with a capital "K." I'd say the BRF pulled off a Golden Match.
It that the Dumbartons think they can sue if they write about them?
This just seems like such a stupid move. Especially for Sunshine Sachs. It seems pretty clear that they aren't listening to them. They sure aren't making SS look good.
And I keep seeing SS referred to as their "new" PR firm. What's with that? Again, an easily provable lie without much upside.
Andrew Neil, a prominent BBC presenter, wrote: “As the world grapples with Covid-19, do they really think people care what media they deal with? Their solipsism is amazing. Can’t they just consign themselves to oblivion for a while? Or at least hire someone who can write a press release in clear, decent English.”
“Scroll through for an interesting snapshot of those who are not buying the BS from the Sussexes”
This one :) :
#HarryandMeghan haven’t just disappeared to LA they’ve managed to vanish up their own bums at the same time. Quite a feat really..
The video is dated March 20, 2020 and features Zsuzsi, in her first-ever on camera interview about her time with the Prince. She claims the BRF was terrified of their relationship and that was why their relationship ended.
Interesting that the video comes out now. Talks about marrying for reasons from the heart and not for royal protocol. Tin foil hat theories aside it's an interesting video.
It isn’t new. She was interviewed for a documentary (called The Other Prince William) about their relationship which aired in the UK in August 2015, someone has just uploaded it to YouTube in March 2020 tis all. It was an excellent documentary though (I still have saved on my Sky box).
I think I might have more experience than Meghan has with elephants. Back in the mid-'80s when I was about 6, my parents took me to Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey circus. A short while after we got settled in our seats, one of the circus staff members approached my parents and asked them if I could take part in the elephant portion of the show. I insisted!
So, my parents agreed (my mother often reminds me that I was a very precocious child and fearless) and according to the story they tell, about 1/2 way through the show, the staff member returns to take me to the elephants. My parents only had to wait mere minutes before I re-appeared wearing a crown and a red velvet robe with faux ermine trim, perched in an elaborately decorated basket on top of my very own elephant who was parading into the center ring! The ringleader introduced me as "Queen of the Circus" and he mispronounced my name so I hollered down at him and politely corrected him... much to my parents horror and the delight of the crowd. My most vivid recollection is realizing how high up in the air I was on the elephant's back and how the basket I was in swayed side to side as the elephant walked. It was an amazing once in a lifetime opportunity!
I agree and what bothers me is that Meghan's normal voice is devoid of an accent and that her attempt at inflection is all wrong. Disney might as well have had Siri or Alexa narrate that documentary.
Thank you for the link to the US Spectator piece. Highly recommended to those who haven’t yet read it. The last lines could be prophetic:
Harry’s mother Diana died in large part because of a fatal co-dependency with the paparazzi. Harry seems determined to construct a similarly intimate antagonism with the media. This will not end well.
Maybe Meghan is trying to get George Clooney to wish Archie a "Happy 1st Birthday" (apparently Archie shares Clooney's birthday)
Now THAT is first-hand experience with an elephant!
I was on DM and noticed something. I think the issue with Harry's clothing, esp the shirt, is some tangible evidence that Harry isn't doing too well. For both food deliveries that H & M did, and for their dog walk pics, Harry is wearing the exact same (or nearly identical copies) of the same rumpled gray pullover shirt. I mean, WHY doesn't he change his shirt? Beyond it being a joke, it definitely means something. I know of a few people that were clinically depressed and a BIG sign is lack of concern about appearance. He knows that he'll be papped and he just wears the same, wrinkled shirt?! Also, no belt so his pants are sagging? Suprising that Meghan doesn't force him to wear something else?
Also, the look in his eyes made my heart sink but he made his bed and he has to lie in it. I wonder just how controlled he is? I think that it's frankly, a lot. I so wish his father would intervene. But what really can he do.
We're always happy to have fresh blood. Just to get you comfortable, the rule here is that polite disagreement is welcome - you're also welcome to disagree with me! - but name calling or wishing violence/illness on anybody gets deleted.
If you have a moment, consider giving yourself a photo avatar (by clicking on your name and following the instructions). It makes the blog so nice to look at!
Finally, if you'd like to discuss the coronavirus, we have a separate blog for that: https://nuttyflavorvirus.blogspot.com .
Welcome!
My guess is that they are trying to pretend someone else is issuing it on their behalf, pretending they still have a staff.
That statement certainly didn't go through Sunshine Sachs. Which, oddly, the Spectator US spelled as "Sunshine Sacks" throughout their otherwise good article.
Are all the world's copy editors in social isolation?
Meghan Markle’s ‘GMA’ style sends a message
For her first TV appearance since her departure from royal life, Meghan Markle wore an outfit that subtly underscored her commitment to both charity and family.
The 38-year-old spoke about the new Disney documentary “Elephant,” which she narrates, in a pre-recorded interview on “Good Morning America” Monday, clad in a crisp white Misha Nonoo shirt from her clothing line for Smart Works.
Released in September 2019 as part of a five-piece capsule collection benefiting the organization, which provides outfits and job interview training for women re-entering the workforce, the “Smart Set” shirt was originally priced at $125, but quickly sold out.
While Markle is no longer identified as a royal on Smart Works’ website, in accordance with her and Prince Harry‘s transition out of the monarchy, she remains an official patron of the charity.
On “GMA,” the Duchess also sported a pair of gold zodiac necklaces from Canadian brand Suetables: one adorned with a Virgo pendant ($56) in honor of 35-year-old Prince Harry, the other outfitted with a Taurus charm ($113) for baby Archie.
Markle first debuted the pendants last November. “We are thrilled she chose to keep her loved ones close to her heart by wearing @suetables,” the jewelry company wrote on Instagram at the time.
The Sussexes officially began their post-royal lives on April 1, and are now living in Los Angeles with 11-month-old Archie.
To be honest I can't quite figure out if Dumbartons are just plain stupid beyond belief or they try to play a multi-dimensional chess game with the media which is so complicated they forgot where they started and what the goal was. The poor darlings appear to believe that if they snub some media outlets they will be able to dictate the rules of the game to all of them.
The most glaring illustration if why this strategy will backfire is Pierce Morgan. He always openly said Meghan snubbed him when she thought she no longer needed him. Did it make him a sycophant? Au contraire. Like Pierce many of the royal reporters are experienced, intelligent, know their audience well and can read and manipulate public opinion to perfection.
I am going to give just one argument why Dumbartons will lose the game. She is in the area where she doesn't exist when she is not visible. During the climb to stardom one needs media to create the star, then the stardom works to keep him or her visible. Megs is nearly 39 and her only claim to stardom is her marriage. They have nothing else to keep people interested.
So, if the media wants to sell them at all it will dissect the marriage. USA is no different, scandal sells minor starlets like Megsy better than pompous pretentious good deeds. She is in for a rude awakening.
I have read an article about clinical psychiatry that among other things said referring to yourself in third person is a very bad clinical sign. Especially if the persons are no longer playing any official role that would justify it. Remember Diana's "She won't go quietly, that is the problem" remark about herself during the Panorama? She was very disturbed then and basically just went on a free fall later.
"Duke and Duchess believe" instead of simple "we believe" tells me everything I need to know about their state of mind.
Thank you for the welcome!
It fun to find people to discuss this thing. Im nor from the UK, nor from USA but Ive been follow both and they are definitely going for the international public. Here we mostly get fluff and poor me pieces, and even then people kinda dislike her. Im sure they are not listening to their pr team anymore. Well, probably they never did. They always know best apparently.
(2) If I were a media baron (which, obviously, I’m not), I wouldn’t touch Markle with a ten-foot pole. She is a chaos agent. She is not talented enough to put up with the chaos that she creates without even half-breathing. She has become truly unhinged. She will NEVER get a role big enough, or pay her enough, or laud her enough. She has entered a prison of her own narcissism. Hollywood is full of actors who were are talented enough to put up with their nonsense, but once they even start to wobble on their perch, then it’s not worth the hassle of dealing with their pathology. Markle’s pathology is out there front and center. At what point will Soho wake up and smell the coffee, and start distancing themselves from her?
Do you think the public would go off on the Harkles?
What about the BRF? Plausible deniability?
The Sussex’s can’t stop the 4 British newspapers from printing articles about them nor stop comments (unless they pay for them to be moderated, which they won’t do because truly can they afford it?!). I wish the British media would ignore them completely and of course the dubious duo would hate that. They just want to control the narrative, which they can’t.
There is nothing that M&H can do to to stop the comments, nor the bad press. I would imagine that their memo is a sad attempt to discredit the tabloids so people wont believe the stories, a lame attemp of intimidation AND claim victimhood for them, all three at the same time. I think that the most hurt that it does to DM is that they wont have "exclusive" content and will have to buy it from a third party.
In reality its a waste of pixels as people that believe the stories wont care about the opinion, the people that follows M&H are already boycotting those news outlets and they have a lot less power that they believe they have.
And the basics of a good beet salad is to simmer or steam whole beets. Do not cut them up! 20 minutes or so but longer if they started off cold from the refrigerator. Drink the simmer water hot like tea. Never toss simmering water.
You can then cut up the beets hot or cold and toss/mix with the other salad vegetables. Only use a basic dressing such as olive oil and a good vinegar or lemon juice. Any kind of store bought Ranch or Thousand Islands or so called "French" will be a crime against the beets.
I have no beets on hand but I have their cousin spinach, to eat raw tonight in a salad.
"On the eve of the Queen's birthday. You really are the devil."
True that.
There are strong rumors the baby is in the UK and she has not had custody of him (ever).
Has no one commented on how weird she looks here? Not like herself at all.
Oh get lost, Harry and Meghan
"Even during the Covid-19 crisis, these woke royals can't stop droning on about themselves."
Also, I'd like some ideas on how BP will react to the Duke and Duchess of Malibu using official Sussex Royal account and repeatedly (seven times!) referring to themselves as the Duke and Duchess. Is this not what they were told they could not do if they "stepped back" from being Royal? And what (if any, sadly) will the consequences be? I think no consequences as that is the game MeGain has played all along. She understood from the start that she could break rules, flaunt protocol, etc because there really would not be any meaningful consequences. I'll give her that.
Other random thoughts: They are not essential workers. Why are they swanning about in LA? Why are they not worried about infecting Archie? I wondered if there tirade against the tabloids was timed so that they can either 1) cry "sour grapes" if they receive bad press, or 2) claim "everything the press prints about us is a lie, we told you so" in the future. All of this bad behavior drowned out HMTQ's birthday, and W&K's video this week.
'We're stunned… They have not taken any of our advice': Palace officials slam Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's huff against Britain's most-popular newspapers
Palace insider said staff were 'stunned' and couple have 'not taken any advice'
Those close to Queen were angry announcement came on eve of her birthday
Sussexes announced yesterday they would not be engaging with Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Daily Express and The Daily Mirror
Harry and Meghan yesterday launched an unprecedented boycott of sections of the British Press in a protest over the way their lives have been covered.
In a move that stunned Buckingham Palace courtiers and prompted allegations of 'censorship', the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have decided to withdraw all forms of co-operation from many of the country's most popular titles, including the Daily Mail.
Last night one Palace insider said: 'We have been left stunned. They have not taken any of our advice.'
Those close to the Queen were angered that the couple chose to release details of their new media policy on the eve of her birthday – today – and at a time when Britain remains in the grip of the coronavirus crisis.
At the weekend, the duke even claimed that the coronavirus situation in the UK was 'better than we are led to believe from certain corners of the media'.
Hours later the couple released a lengthy statement explaining their decision to no longer deal with The Sun, the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, the Express and the Mirror – as well as their online outlets.
Yesterday Ian Murray, of the Society of Editors, said the decision was a 'clear attempt to undermine certain sections of the UK media who often ask uncomfortable questions'.
He added: 'Although the duke and duchess say they support a free press, there is no escaping their actions here amount to censorship and they are setting an unfortunate example.
'By appearing to dictate which media they will work with and which they will ignore they, no doubt unintentionally, give succour to the rich and powerful everywhere to use their example as an excuse to attack the media when it suits them.'
He noted that many of the news outlets had produced a 'huge amount' of positive coverage about the couple, and warned that 'the answer should never be to shun individual titles and their millions of readers'.
I believe it’s part of their strategy to eliminate as much of the negative comments as possible, and it’s obvious that the DM is a font of riches in terms of slamming them for their grossly selfish and entitled behavior. They don’t see it like that. They are trying to cull the herd in a way.
What is obvious to me is that the only “legitimate” audience that they have are the readers who follow the tabloids because their actions are only tabloid worthy! This is why the New Yorker article on them was so bizarre. What are they doing that millions of other people aren’t also doing? They are NOT newsworthy, but they are certainly tabloid worthy!
I think Markle has convinced herself (Harry doesn’t have to brain cells to rub together obviously) is now convinced that the reason why Hollywood isn’t bowing to her greatness is because of all the negative press she’s getting. Newsflash. Ms. Markle, you are not getting positive press because you are, like you have for the last three years, unable to judge events through anything but your narc glasses. This isn’t about you, and it won’t be about you for about the next 12 months. And, perhaps, if we are lucky, never.
Also, I'd like some ideas on how BP will react to the Duke and Duchess of Malibu using official Sussex Royal account and repeatedly (seven times!) referring to themselves as the Duke and Duchess. Is this not what they were told they could not do if they "stepped back" from being Royal?
No, they are not allow to use the style HRH and the word royal in any commercial endeavor, but the Duke and Duchess they could keep. You dont need to be royal for a tittle duke, they are non royal dukes in the UK, most notably George's godfather whose name I don't know.
The royalsussex on the other hand they cannot use. They were very defiant about being forbidden to use that. I want to believe that HM and Charles can penalize them taking money for them. They stupidly show all the cards too soon, so I like tk believe that now BRF is just waiting for them to fail.
Harry’s arrogance & condescending tone here is astounding. He is speaking to a man who is at least 40 years older than himself yet speaking to him as if Thomas is a child. “If you love Meg and want to make it right..” How dare he question Thomas as to whether or not he loves his daughter or set conditions around “being forgiven”. Real love is unconditional. The sheer nerve of Harry, the little twit, especially given the fact that he didn’t respect his FIL to actually meet him in person during their courtship. No wonder Thomas didn’t return their calls or texts.
Ian's Girl An 11 mo child would need a governess so the devil that passes for its mother could say "my child's governess". It's just a status thing for her. "
OMG, I am snorting-laughing here!
@Genia
My favorite beet salad is this one from Ina Garten:
Balsamic Roasted Beet Salad
8 medium-size beets, tops removed and scrubbed.
1/2 cup balsamic vinegar.
1/2 cup good olive oil.
2 teaspoons Dijon mustard, such as Grey Poupon.
Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper.
4 ounces baby arugula.
1/3 cup roasted, salted Marcona almonds, toasted.
4 ounces soft goat cheese, such as Montrachet, crumbled.
Preheat the oven to 400 degrees.
Wrap the beets individually in aluminum foil and place them on a sheet pan. Roast them for 50 minutes to 1 hour, depending on their size, until a small sharp knife inserted in the middle indicates that they are tender. Unwrap each beet and set aside for 10 minutes, until cool enough to handle. Peel the beets with a small, sharp knife over a piece of parchment paper to prevent staining your cutting board.
Meanwhile, whisk together the vinegar, olive oil, mustard, 2 teaspoons salt, and 1 teaspoon pepper and set aside. While the beets are still warm, cut each one in half and then each half into 4 to 6 wedges and place them in a large mixing bowl. As you’re cutting the beets, toss them with half of the vinaigrette (warm beets absorb more vinaigrette), 1 teaspoon salt, and 1/4 teaspoon pepper. Taste for seasonings.
Place the arugula in a separate bowl and toss it with enough vinaigrette to moisten. Put the arugula on a serving platter and then arrange the beets, almonds, and goat cheese on top. Drizzle with additional vinaigrette, if desired, sprinkle with salt and pepper, and serve warm or at room temperature.
I mean, who else is going to show pictures of her (one-gloved at that, god, this woman is crazy) holding her dog with more awareness and care than she showed toward holding her (alleged) son, and Harry wearing a shirt four days in a row? She will be emotionally starved because no one else is picking up the slack. She’s not getting the interviews she thought she’d get. How is she going to get her name out there? No one with any respectability will touch her now.
Don't apologize. I believe that with more beet salad made worldwide we get more world peace. Not to mention that it immunizes against Covid X
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8238803/Serena-Williams-jokes-shes-never-heard-Meghan-Markle-video-chat-Naomi-Campbell.html
When Naomi, laughing, pressed her on it again, she said: 'Never seen her, never heard of her, don't know her.'
And I found extremely hard to believe that five close frienes just decided to randomly talk the family drama of a the super famous friend to a magazine, and just forgot to tell said friend.
So, you know, chances are both sides are lying. I feel extremely optimist today :/
"I dont think MM learn her ways from the thin air, she was raise by her father after all."
True. But she was also raised by her mother--Doria who purportedly taught her don't do anything for others unless they can do something for you. (A weird perversion of the Golden Rule?)
Both sides probably are lying although there's no excuse for JH not to have met TM before the wedding.
But for those five friends to know months after the fact *exactly* what was said by MM in her summer letter to TM and *exactly* what was said by TM in his response to MM...after all, everything had been quiet on the TM front for many many weeks when the "anonymous friends" up and went to People for the Feb story. Plus there were other things like the air freshener in the chapel and M's relationship with the kooky Welby and M's love for her dogs where the friends also wanted to "set the record straight." It was a checklist of stuff to offset well-known stories. Yeah, M didn't know. Sure.
It's almost as if he knew that text would be used in evidence.
Steven Glover from article in the DM gets it right.
https://people.com/sports/serena-williams-avoids-talking-about-friend-meghan-markle-with-mariah-carey-line/
https://66.media.tumblr.com/10e7b0817960430a33d3af773a99bcbf/6e2ff315361b9fca-fa/s1280x1920/b0faca10538e22946ed51d40fd54d41f20c3b5a7.jpg
Saying they have signed an exclusive deal with US Weekly and NY Post.
Celeb-obsessed America is utterly perplexed by British outrage against Meghan and Harry
DOMINIC GREEN
20 APRIL 2020 • 9:00PM
Part 1:
The couple superbly epitomises the ethics and values of modern America
The British and the Americans are two peoples divided by their common preoccupation with the professional development of an unemployed ex-royal and a Disney voiceover artiste. In British eyes, Meghan and Harry’s Hollywood makeover is a toe-curling case of “selling England by the pound”. To see Meghan and Harry picking fights with the British tabloids and driving a Porsche to a food bank would be embarrassing at any time. It is positively disgraceful when the country is in lockdown and the rest of Harry’s family are conducting themselves with thoughtful grace.
To Americans, however, Meghan and Harry are the ones doing things the right way. That, as usual, is indistinguishable from the American way. In a nation of immigrants, all riches are preceded by rags. Most Americans see a young couple bootstrapping themselves up the ladder of celebrity, from humble beginnings in Frogmore Cottage to a mansion in Malibu, while remembering their ethical duty to offset their raging cupidity with ostentatious acts of charity.
Where the class-bound Brit resents Meghan and Harry for grandstanding on the shoulders of the poor, the optimistic American sees two winners of life’s lottery offering a helping hand up. America remains a land of opportunity. Where else can a game show hostess become a duchess?
Since the Sixties and the decline of the WASP establishment, the closest Americans have to a common culture is the cult of celebrity. It is more important to be celebrated than to be good, but it is necessary to be seen to be good in order to be truly important.
This, like most of the sanctimonies that interrupt Americans’ strenuous enjoyment of their material bounty, is a legacy of the Puritans. The old faith in rebirth and redemption survives in secular habits such as an unusually generous bankruptcy code and a deliberately unexamined faith in the value of good deeds. Where the British see vulgar self-promotion and narcissism, the Americans see honest citizenship and healthy self-esteem.
This code has its merits: compared to the lavishly philanthropic Americans, the British are a nation of Scrooges. But the game of appearances is easily exploited.
Success depends on maintaining and exploiting the right profile – or, given the couple’s proclivity for environmental lectures, the left profile that will secure them donations from their new and overwhelmingly pro-Democratic friends in Hollywood. Meghan and Harry have taken their fate out of the hands of the royal family’s aides, only to place it in the hands of a PR agency, Sunshine Sachs. To the British, this is an offence against the amateur ethic. To Americans, this is nothing more than common sense.
It’s Meghan and Harry’s ethical duty to maximize their talent and market value by lining up soft interviews with the Good Morning America breakfast show and doing syrupy voiceovers for Disney. If they don’t, they may end up sleeping on the street or, worse, back on daytime TV. The real test of Meghan and Harry in America isn’t whether they’re selling out the Windsor brand. It’s whether they can raise their game high enough to compete in the Hollywood virtue stakes.
Americans struggle to conceive of value systems different to their own: they are even worse at learning languages than the British are. Though Americans are highly sensitive to Old World snobbery, they retain an atavistic attraction to the mystique of hereditary power and royalty. Crucially, where the British see class, the Americans see race. Vulgarity is less of an obstacle to success in America than skin colour. Many Americans, especially the young and the woke, assume that Meghan failed to thrive in Britain because the British are all racists. After all, their teenagers do go to fancy dress parties in Nazi uniforms.
These complex and contradictory feelings mean that most Americans are proud of Meghan, welcoming to Harry, and honestly perplexed by the ferocity of British outrage. They are likely to respond to it by defending their equivalent of monarchy, the Hollywood star system. The more outraged the British become, the more Americans will see Meghan and Harry as two of their own. After all, they must have done something right to be so famous.
But that's a reason why manipulative people eventually get their comeuppance. One manipulation leads to multiples threads of further lies that eventually catch up to the manipulator. The house of cards will tumble down and become obvious to those who once believed in those manipulative lies. Interesting that no one in their celeb inner circle came to their defense today. Where's Clooney and his indignation that he'd expressed last year? Where's Ellen? Elton?
Rebecca B, I'm going to make your beet recipe. I've always just roasted them and topped them with sour cream with oj and orange zest mixed in.
The four tabloids that Megsy has ghosted still have access to people who know Megsy (and Harry) ... who have worked with her, were at school with her, served her in a shop, restaurant, etc. I think Meghan has a habit of not treating people well, of having grandiose ideas about herself and she still leaves a trail behind her. Not everyone is enthralled with the celebrity culture, giving mindless adoration to a person who they do not know nor will ever know* and just accept behaviour that is actually appalling. Meghan hustled so much before Harry - it was what she did, and she had success: interviews with Larry King and Ferguson; a speech at some international women's event with the UN; interviews and regular gigs on TV; magazine photo shoots galore ... BUT she was not famous. Meghan who? Never heard of Suits nor this Meghan Markle! She got that international recognition and fame through Harry. She never had the IT factor to get that kind of fame on her own.
* A blog I followed because she did occasional tarot readings that were insightful and accurate has just been deleted from my favourites list and I will visit no more. Why? A commentator on the blog has developed an obsessive crush on Hugh Grosvenor (Duke of Westminster), which is not only being indulged but is getting quite creepy (do a tarot reading for me ... will we get married, when will we meet, and so on, which the blog owner then indulges and does the readings!). I am a great fan of fantasy, but when a person cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality ... creepy! Meghan's obsessive fans do worry me ... they share her unrealistic view of herself.
re: Harry's texts to Mr. Markle
I second what @Elle has to say about those texts to Mr. Markle. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities of what happened between Meg and her father. One possibility is that they coordinated to some degree on the pap shots TOGETHER.
If Meg and Tom colluded, Meg has opportunities to omit information, give spin to events that are difficult to impossible to verify, and she may have implemented contingency plans for plausible deniability. Given what we know of Meg's patterns, I see all those things happening.
All those texts show are messages Harry sent to a phone number they are asserting is Mr. Markle's. Verifying if Mr. Markle actually received, read, and understood those messages is a whole different thing entirely. For all we know, H&M could have sent those texts which did not match what they were actually discussing off-record with Mr. Markle to manufacture a "paper trail" for their narrative.
Just proving Mr. Markle received those messages will likely require contacting Phone/ISP providers. Most will only cooperate if demanded by the court. Not saying this happened but for all we know, Mr. Markle could have accidentally dropped/destroyed his phone when he had his heart attack making it impossible to read the messages sent to it.
I am not fully versed in how texts are transmitted but imagine there is some similarity to emails. The information the Phone/ISP providers will be able to provide is the number contacted, time & date information, and the cell towers/servers that would have transmitted the message. That information does not prove Mr. Markle read it. The Phone/ISP providers usually cannot verify the actual message sent either. That information comes from the sender and their actual phone.
Even in this day and age, the unopened certified/registered letter is the best way to prove you attempted to send a message but was refused a response. I can only imagine the complications that arise from H&M contacting Mr. Markle over international waters.
I have lapses in my knowledge so I hope @Ozmanda can provide some thoughts and insights.
How many stupid people will just not see the hypocrisy of Meghan (and Harry):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8238423/JAN-MOIR-view-sofa-Meghans-Elephant-Good-Morning-America-appearance.html
I think the rumours about Sunshine Sachs and 'staff' are hugely exaggerated, or the people the Harkles are paying are taking the money knowing that the Harkles will go ahead and mess up no matter what they say or try to do (what is obvious to me is that Meghan was never 'royal' material:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8238401/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-leave-Buckingham-Palace-staff-stunned-media-decision.html
Bad press for Harry:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8238431/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-newspaper-announcement.html
The rumour is that Meghan and Harry have signed deals with US Weekly and NY Post to give them exclusive content if they only publish positive R for the Sussexes. I can kind of believe this.
More reading for the day, from Harry Markle blog.
If Meghan and Harry thought that their statement to the tabloids they targeted (using the Sussex Royal branding, which they agreed not to) was a win, they were wrong.
Release the kraken?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11437872/harry-meghan-media-coronavirus/
https://66.media.tumblr.com/99a3af06333261e3ca95df3e79ddf197/7d688b154eaca053-e0/s640x960/101492ed9578b1ad3ad2a26d0f7a6d984e02f3e3.gif
I love this clip! Does anyone know what they were looking at?
I also find that column insulting. It’s ludicrous. Americans admire the Royal Family but have no clue who MM is. I don’t actually know anyone who cares about Hollywood celebrities. I can’t imagine where the write came up with that drivel.
"Most Americans see a young couple bootstrapping themselves up the ladder of celebrity, from humble beginnings in Frogmore Cottage to a mansion in Malibu, while remembering their ethical duty to offset their raging cupidity with ostentatious acts of charity."
He's doing what many European journalists do, particularly during Corona times with limited travel, and reporting on the US via its media.
This drives me crazy when I open my country's high-end media and see them basically parroting whatever ran in the NYT or WaPo the day before.
To me, she is playing the Amber Heard's game. Get her team to release text messages which surprisingly, are not presented as evidence in court (because they are fake).
The Meg and Harry text messages look too clean and too convenient - from my point of view - to be real. "Only we can help u, as we have been trying from day 1". Sure.
Although "I'm very sorry to hear you're in the hospital but need you to please get in touch with us" does sound quite Meg-esque.
That gif is from 2012, when they visited Fortnum and Mason. Apparently, the were side-eyeing somebody who was speaking to them. Wouldn't you just want to just disappear into oblivion after all three of them looked at you that way? How embarrassing!
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/this-royal-side-eye-gif-is-amazing
They don't seem to have the income to pay a big legal bill, so they're either counting on winning or having Harry's family come to the rescue if necessary.
His young godfather is the Duke of Westminster, and he’s a hereditary aristocrat. The title (or titles) are passed down to the eldest son. Harry was bestowed the Dukedom on his wedding day and could be revoked.
Also, I know we have discussed this to death, but what was wrong with Mr. Markle going to the press for some good press pics before the wedding? HAMS offered him nothing and turned on him for this? I actually agree with others who have suggested he may have been set up for this by Meg's camera guy- the same one they are using now. Thomas may have even been in on it knowing Meh, typo but decided it fit, wanted Charles to do the honor. However, I don't think he expected her to vilify him through her friends in People Mag. And how did her friends gain access to the letter? I hope we get some answers.
Happy Birthday to Her Majesty. I pray she lives long enough to see the end of this train wreck.
Agree with all you've written.
I'm convinced it was an intentional setup of TM. While MM was trying to make it in Hollywood, even if he was overweight, having an "award-winning lighting director" for a father was potentially useful and he was often mentioned on the Tig. (Find your light, draw your own box, mixed race doll family for Christmas, go to the craft room Meg, this Married w/Children script is a little much for your 11-year old ears, Catholic girls school uniform on the set, best father ever, Bean...) Once she met JH, TM was no longer useful but the long-absent woke Doria gained value. Long absent from the Tig anyway except for a couple of mentions (travel agent, clinical therapist-- a job Doria didn't have until a year before M met H)
I also find it a bit ironic that M and JH are blasting the tabs for printing "lies" and inaccuracies yet when DM published an actual letter (hard to get more accurate than that) they sue.
Looks like the magazine will be even more dependent on Meg's press releases now.
https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/people-better-homes-and-gardens-owner-meredith-to-impose-pay-cuts-and-furloughs-on-3000-employees/
Exactly. It doesn't seem very logical, nor does it seem like it will hold up in court. I think I read here? or elsewhere that she tried to back out and the DM wouldn't drop it. In any case, it should be interesting. I can't wait to hear Mr. Marine's side.
Of course that should read Markle, not Marine. Sigh. Plus I've been up since 3ish.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/was-kensington-palace-markled-again/
There was an interesting analysis on the Harry Markle blog about the letter ... but I can't find the letter or the analysis of who the 5 friends were.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/20/celeb-obsessed-america-utterly-perplexed-british-outrage-against/
A public plea to Harry and Meghan by former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore.
Comments are worth reading:
https://twitter.com/richardaeden/status/1252502012522045440
On the Queen's birthday folks ... remember that!
Arche-Nemesis
If only Prince Harry had done his ancient-Greek homework …
BY HARRY MOUNT
READING TIME: 1 MINUTE
EMAIL
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are about to launch their new charitable foundation, called Archewell, after they were prevented by Buckingham Palace from using the term ‘Sussex Royal’. The problem is, the new name is full of royal overtones, too - they just happen to be in ancient Greek.
The Sussexes have said, ‘Before Sussex Royal, came the idea of Arche – the Greek word meaning source of action. We connected to this concept for the charitable organisation we hoped to build one day, and it became the inspiration for our son’s name. To do something of meaning, to do something that matters. Archewell is a name that combines an ancient word for strength and action, and another that evokes the deep resources we each must draw upon.’
The problem is, the new name is full of royal overtones, too.
Yes, they’re right. ‘Arche’ in Greek does mean ‘beginning, origin, first cause’, according to Liddell & Scott, the great Greek dictionary. But it also means ‘sovereignty, empire, realm, power, dominion, command’.
It’s also the root of the word ‘monarchy’ - which literally means ‘the rule of one’ - and ‘oligarchy’, which means ‘the rule of a few’.
If only Prince Harry had done his Greek homework at Eton, he’d have known that the Sussexes have just dropped one royal name for another.
I'm confused about how the lawsuit came about. Her friends published excerpts of a letter she wrote her dad in People Mag painting him in a bad light. He then takes HIS letter and publishes the whole thing, which the DM printed to clear his name? And Meghan is suing the DM for copyright infringement?
And why aren't they also suing People Magazine for printing the excerpts? Is People Magazine getting pulled into the lawsuit also? It will be interesting to see who the five friends are, and if they are still friends after this mess is over. Jill Lindsay Roth and Genevieve Hillis must be two of the five.
Friends of royals simply don't do that, or you stop being a friend faster than a blink of an eye.
@Rebecca
Thanks for sharing that article by Dominic Green. If I was a journalist and British, I would post a counter article to that. That article was loaded with dynamite bombs. That being said, I am neither British nor American.
Meghan is not a nice person.
I guess Harry's prolonged adolescence, into his 30s, plays well for him now in a way. Critics' teeth aren't quite as sharp as they might be, for Harry specifically, because whether they realise it or not, they're judging him through his own eyes.
An ordinary man his age would usually have a mortgage (if they could afford it sans rich daddy), children to care for properly (sans nanny), a job usually demanding long hours, as your third decade is usually a time when you're at full stretch.
Harry's life of floating between other people's houses supported by other people's money makes many people think of him as a confused young man who will come right in the end. The way you would for an angst-ridden teenaged son. A lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. He's 35.
Of course she is not a nice person. However Thomas is not defenceless. The article in question contains messages and phone calls records illustrating his point, which makes them relevant to the case. He can use his own records and reveal the timing, for instance when he was in the hospital. He can also prove his phone calls went unanswered or that they even changed the number. If DoM has any brains it will request the full log from his phone number.
@Portcitygirl said...
I'm confused about how the lawsuit came about. Her friends published excerpts of a letter she wrote her dad in People Mag painting him in a bad light. He then takes HIS letter and publishes the whole thing, which the DM printed to clear his name? And Meghan is suing the DM for copyright infringement?
And why aren't they also suing People Magazine for printing the excerpts? Is People Magazine getting pulled into the lawsuit also? It will be interesting to see who the five friends are, and if they are still friends after this mess is over. Jill Lindsay Roth and Genevieve Hillis must be two of the five.
People did not publish excerpts of the letter that were presented as excerpts/quotes. Daily Mail did.
From my recollection of the People article, not all 5 friends discussed the letter but all 5 had a 'poor persecuted Meghan' narrative. What was said about the letter was not published as quotes (no quotation marks even) but they were verbatim exactly, to the letter, what was in the letter. Memory does not work that way. (Did you know that every time we tell a story, something changes and it takes about 5 telling/passing on for a substantial change in detail to enter the story?) The 'friends' either had the letter in front of them when they spoke to People and were asked for and gave a quotation from the letter, or People itself was shown a copy of the letter and constructed the article around it by leading the interviews with 5 friends.
IOW Friends told People magazine what Thomas said in the letter but in doing so they actually gave an exact quote (wording, punctuation ... all exactly as was in the letter but not presented as a quote but more like gossip in as 'and you know she said ... to him ...) of a couple or few sentences and this was some time after the letter was sent. It is highly suspicious.
I wish I could find the original article and the analysis of who the friends were. Whoever they were, they were used and they either do not realise that or do not mind or would prefer to walk away and have no more involvement. From another People article, it seems as if the weepy make-up article is one of the friends. An actor from Suits is said to be another (perhaps Abigail Spencer?) and there is supposedly a friend from Los Angeles. I don't know who the other two are (was Serena Williams one?).
Can one be a close friend of Meghan's and not know that she manipulates and lies? I suppose she has friends who don't mind. But, if Meghan is questioned about it (and the People article WILL be part of the case because it set a precedent to publish excerpts of the letter), she will throw friends under the bus and it will be interesting to see how many friends she can retain in her life ...
Meghan is going to be a witness from hell: wrapping everyone up in word salad that actually makes no sense but sounds impressive; then using the trembling lip and tears on cue to look vulnerable; then dragging in Hairless for no reason whatsoever other than to remind everyone that she is married to the Queen's grandson and the future king's son ... In the time of COVID-19 it is going to be the best entertainment around, but that depends on when the actual trial happens as lockdown may have ended and people may be too busy getting back to their lives (socialising again at last!) to pay the trial much attention.
I don't disagree with your point about calling JH a "young man" (forget "a fine young man"...he's not.) But many people have also referred to Will and Kate as "young royals" (which they are in comparison to TQ, PP, C&C, PAndrew, PAnne, TQ's cousins, and sort of in comparison to the Wessexes.) But I've also seen Kate referred to as a "young woman" on a blog. When I commented she was really already in or very close to the period middle age, several people got huffy and said middle age doesn't start until age 50. Yeah, I guess we're all going to live to be over 100.
So I don't think infantilizing occurs only with Harry. And we do see it with people besides celebs and royals. I don't know if anyone from the US remembers the Duke Lacrosse rape accusations from 2006. As it turns out, the charge was completely fabricated but an "exotic dancer" claimed she had been raped at a team party involving players aged 19-22. At first no one knew what was true but one could tell a reporter's sympathies from the terms used. "These men", very probably guilty. "These young men", maybe they did it, maybe not. "These boys", totally innocent.
And as a "young man" of 35, JH isn't considered to be responsible as you say.
@Sandie.
Of course she is not a nice person. However Thomas is not defenceless. The article in question contains messages and phone calls records illustrating his point, which makes them relevant to the case. He can use his own records and reveal the timing, for instance when he was in the hospital. He can also prove his phone calls went unanswered or that they even changed the number. If DoM has any brains it will request the full log from his phone number.
The text messages that Meghan has attached to the court submission have not been published before. They have nothing to do with if the DM infringed her copyright rights for the letter when they published excerpts. She is supposedly suing for:
* misuse of private information (this is a common law tort but she violated her own privacy through the People article)
* infringement of copyright (she has copyright protection for a letter she wrote but see above)
* breach of the Data Protection Act of 2018 (this law is actually about how government, business and organisations use your private information)
Meghan is throwing a lot of mud at the wall in a hissy fit!
If she is trying to prove that the article changed public perception of her and caused her emotional anguish and other harm, well ... we are going to be hearing evidence (supporting and opposing) forever! She was not in an elected position nor did her financial support depend on public support so the only harm she can cite is that her feelings were hurt. It really is a crazy luvvie defence and a very spiteful attack on her father.
Since there is no jury, it all depends on the judge, but I would throw out the breach of the Data Protection Act charge immediately as irrelevant and the text messages are also not relevant, especially when stand alone and not seen in the context of evidence from Thomas. But, they have nothing to do with the DM violating her privacy or copyright claims on a letter she wrote and sent to her father.
I used to work in publishing. Here is how a copyright challenge works:
* Here is what you published.
* This portion is my work for which copyright law gives me ownership (and you did indeed acknowledge me as author of the work).
* You did not have my permission to publish this, and did not even seek my permission.
* You must pay damages to me (and this would be related to the fee you should have paid to me as the owner of copyright work, the cost of the court case to me*, and any financial harm caused to my ability to earn money from this copyright work by misrepresenting it in any way ...).
Most copyright issues get solved between the two parties without ever reaching court, in my experience. *If DM offered to settle and she refused, she could not claim legal costs, but I do not think either side tried to settle. She was in Suits so she wants the court case because she is a legal expert and a victim here; the DM want the dozens of articles about the court case that are going to hugely boost their readership and income.
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-shares-letter-confirming-her-friends-account/
That they did not inform BP staff or even give Charles a warning - does this mean they are no longer getting funding from Charles?
BTW I doubt the story about phoning the Queen for her birthday (before her birthday, way before) and briefing her on what they were going to do and why.
The fact that BP seemed stunned and caught unawares I think is their way of saying that the phone call to the Queen never happened.
Couldn't the newspaper announcement have waited for a day or two?
The LSA commenter made the excellent point that movie industry people expect you to put a great deal of effort into promoting your projects. Meghan overshadowing her own "Elephant" promo with another announcement will be yet another nail in the coffin of her Hollywood career.
Basically a repeat of what she did in South Africa - stepped on what was (strangely) considered to be a successful tour with the original announcement of the lawsuit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/g57zd5/the_worst_part_about_being_strong_is_that_no_one/
Serena's lack of comment could also be because she knows no matter what she says, it will garner negative press for her. Even this "no comment" comment is getting her negative press because everyone assumes Meghan "ghosted" her.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-white-knight-syndrome/200905/white-knight-commonalities