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
Wouldn't a studio also expect you to work with *all* media as well? Excluding four media outlets can't be helpful.
Besides, this is the beginning. The will continue to refuse to work with critical papers until they only have a few luvvies who print what they want.
Cementing their slide into obscurity.
The Telegraph piece was totally insulting. And the author forgets that "winning the lottery" through marrying a Prince happened in Britain, not America. The British Prince was star-struck. We mostly ignored her.
But thank you you for the copy and paste @Rebecca!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-white-knight-syndrome/200905/white-knight-commonalities
Considering his parents' divorce and his mother's death, he might just well have a touch of white knight syndrome. However, two of his long-standing girlfriends did not fit the pattern at all of women who needed rescuing or protecting in any way (and there were rumours of him being the actual opposite with them). Would it be possible for Meghan to create this in him by opening up wounds about his mother, playing on his insecurities and the worst of his petulance? (William was also a brat when he was young but I don't think Catherine would have played this up, indulged it or used it, kind and caring as she is, so William had to grow up when he got married and started a family.)
There seems to be a series of articles on White Knight Syndrome on the link you gave so I am going to dive in ...
I was thinking yesterday if only the BRF had ensured Kate had had someone as good as Catherine Quinn at a much earlier stage. That was the turning point. Employing Catherine Quinn. Kate improved immeasurably after that. Quinn is no longer with her, but Kate is strong enough now to no longer need her. Quinn was like stabilisers on a children's bike. Kate is now flying down the road independently.
However, even Quinn would have failed with Meghan as Meghan of course is always right and doesn't need to listen to anyone. All praise to Kate for being willing to learn, for maintaining such high standards in behaviour and dress and most of all for smiling and being visibly happy to meet people and listen to them.
The way the Harkes have cold-shouldered the British people is one of the most wounding aspects I find. It's less tangible than the £2.4m froggy renovations or untold millions for the wedding and security, but it runs deep.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-white-knight-syndrome/200908/temporary-white-knights
Very interesting, thank you. Don't you think the article in the People and its circumstances directly relate to the expectation of privacy argument? Sharing a letter with five people is one thing speaking about expectation of privacy. I don't see how they can avoid this article during litigation.
I agree C. Quinn seemed to make a real difference in Kate's gravitas and professionalism. It could be a chicken/egg thing though. Quinn was the right person for Kate because of where Kate was at the time. In other words, Kate was already prepared to "take the next step" whereas she wasn't when she employed Rebecca Deacon. I have to say though, while I'm sure she was a very nice person, I didn't think Rebecca was always the best person for the job...too often her clothing was iffy--wrinkled, too tight, hems too short (hmm, sounds familiar), she came across almost as Kate's "girlfriend" in public and was too often standing in prominent spots in pictures. But maybe that's what Kate needed/wanted at the time.
I had read though W&K were determined to hire their own staff from the start and weren't taking advice from the RF early on either (although never "not listening" as obnoxiously and as overtly as H&M.) For example, supposedly there was a RF suggestion Sophie W could "mentor" Kate but Will said no, he would do it himself. Don't know if that's true, but if it is, it was kind of silly. Kate's initial duties were more like Sophie's than like Will's. And definitely the requirements for on-duty clothing were!
I'm sure C. Quinn would have been entirely too "stuffy" for M though. And "whip smart" M might have been threatened by Quinn's level of education and professional background. So it could have been ugly.
It's close to `All he needs is the love of a good woman' - ie Me!.
I’m giving new weight to Charles’ comment about Harry being “cunt” struck.
Will we ever know who TP is? Will their identity always be a mystery? Is Meghan Markle quaking in her shoes? These are the "Days Of Our Lives."
lol what a soap opera this is, indeed.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex both repeatedly begged Meghan Markle’s father to talk to them after he announced that he would not attend their wedding, according to court papers.
The duchess has revealed intimate details of their attempts to “make it right” during the traumatic days after Thomas Markle was exposed for staging fake paparazzo photographs, pleading with him by text to pick up the phone.
The conversations were disclosed in court papers filed as part of the duchess’s legal action against the Mail on Sunday newspaper, which she is suing over publication of a letter she wrote to Mr Markle.
The papers, which include a message from Harry urging Mr Markle not to talk to the media as they were responsible for the situation, were filed as the couple announced that they were withdrawing cooperation from Britain’s tabloid newspapers.
Letters have been sent to editors saying that the couple would no longer talk to them or “offer themselves up as currency for an economy of click bait and distortion”.
The court papers filed by the duchess’s lawyers, released before the first hearing in the High Court on Friday, described how Mr Markle, 75, sent her a text message on May 14, five days before the ceremony at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, saying he would not be there.
Harry then sent Mr Markle a text, saying: “Tom, it’s Harry and I’m going to call you right now. Please pick up, thank you”.
In a further text he said: “Tom, Harry again! Really need to speak to u. U do not need to apologize, we understand the circumstances but ‘going public’ will only make the situation worse. If u love Meg and want to make it right please call me as there are two other options which don’t involve u having to speak to the media, who incidentally created this whole situation. So please call me so I can explain. Meg and I are not angry, we just need to speak to u. Thanks”
He added in another message: “Oh any speaking to the press WILL backfire, trust me Tom. Only we can help u, as we have been trying from day 1”.
However, instead of talking to them Mr Markle issued a public statement through the website celebrity news website TMZ that he had gone to hospital after a heart attack. That was the first that Ms Markle knew about it, the papers said.
The following day Mr Markle sent his daughter a message asking her to call.
She responded by text: “I’ve been reaching out to you all weekend but you’re not taking any of our calls or replying to any texts . . .Very concerned about your health and safety and have taken every measure to protect you but not sure what more we can do if you don’t respond . . .Do you need help? Can we send the security team down again? I’m very sorry to hear you’re in the hospital but need you to please get in touch with us... What hospital are you at?”
Ten minutes later she said she was sending him a security team, which he had already turned away. He replied by saying he would be in hospital for a few days, but was okay and refused the offer of security.
Mr Sherborne said: “The claimant's husband pleaded with Mr Markle to let them help him.
“While Mr Markle responded later that evening to say that he appreciated the offer but did not feel in danger and would instead recover at a motel, the claimant responded 10 minutes later to make a further request for the hospital details so that she would know where he was.
“The claimant will refer to the fact that the defendant's description of this exchange intentionally omits any reference to the claimant or her husband attempting to protect Mr Markle and ensure that he was safe.”
By the way, most Brits don’t think the tabloids killed Diana, they were a factor but not the cause. The inquest released a lot of details surrounding her death and the cause. She got into a car with a drunk driver, she was not wearing a seat belt or had any RPO’s (her choice). Even if the paps were chasing her, if she still had her RPO’s, and a sober driver etc., she’d more than likely still be alive today. 🤔
The document states: “He told the claimant he loved her and wished her the best. He sent a follow-up message asking who would ‘be giving [her] away?’ and saying that if she really needed him he would come, and that he was sorry ‘about all this’.”
In response, according to the publisher, he received a message signed “love M and H” which read as if it was from Harry. It admonished him for talking to the press and told him to stop causing hurt to his daughter.
Mr Markle replied: “I’ve done nothing to hurt you Meghan or anyone else I know nothing about 20 phone calls I’m sorry my heart attack is there any inconvenience for you”.
In the duchess’s papers it was suggested that the “deeply unpleasant” message could have been from someone pretending to be her father.
She called him four times within five minutes, but he did not pick up.
Harry texted him: “Tom, it’s Harry, please answer your phone. I need to know this is actually you because it doesn’t sound like you at all”. There was no reply.
They did not speak again before the wedding, although her phone received a missed call at 4.57am on the morning of the wedding. They have not been in contact since.
Mr Markle claims he sent a text message on November 25, saying: “I want to reach out to you or try to reach out to you one more time.
“You apparently have just written me off and now it's telling me I guess for the rest of my life?”
The duchess denies receiving it.
She is suing the publisher over an article which reproduced parts of a handwritten letter sent to her father, the headline of which read: “Revealed: The letter showing true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with a father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces’.”
Sections of the letter were published in the newspaper and online in February last year, after an article in People magazine in which five friends of the duchess spoke in her defence, and referred to the letter she had sent her father. Mr Markle has claimed that he felt pressured to share the letter after its contents were misrepresented in the article.
In an interview with The Mail On Sunday, he said: “I have to defend myself. I only released parts of the letter because other parts were so painful. The letter didn't seem loving to me. I found it hurtful.”
It was announced the duchess would be bringing legal action in October.
Meghan's lawyers say the letter was “obviously private correspondence” which detailed “her intimate thoughts and feelings about her father's health and her relationship with him at that time”.
They also allege that the newspaper “chose to deliberately omit or suppress” parts of the letter, which “intentionally distorted or manipulated” its meaning, and gave her no warning it was due to be published.
The duchess is seeking damages for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.
Associated Newspapers wholly denies the allegations — particularly the claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning — and says it will hotly contest the case.
In its defence, lawyers for the publisher said: “The contents of the letter were not private or confidential, self-evidently or at all.”
This week’s preliminary hearing, which will be conducted remotely, will deal with an application by Associated Newspapers to strike out parts of the duchess’s case before a full trial of the issues.
The flurry of text messages
May 14, Harry to Thomas Markle
“Tom, it’s Harry and I’m going to call you right now. Please pick up, thank you . . . Tom, Harry again! Really need to speak to u. U do not need to apologize, we understand the circumstances but “going public” will only make the situation worse. If u love Meg and want to make it right please call me as there are two other options which don’t involve u having to speak to the media, who incidentally created this whole situation . . . Meg and I are not angry, we just need to speak to u . . . Oh any speaking to the press WILL backfire, trust me Tom. Only we can help u, as we have been trying from day 1.”
May 15, Meghan to Thomas Markle
“I’ve been reaching out to you all weekend but you’re not taking any of our calls or replying to any texts . . . have taken every measure to protect you but not sure what more we can do if you don’t respond . . . Do you need help? Can we send the security team down again? I’m very sorry to hear you’re in the hospital but need you to please get in touch with us.”
Meghan to Thomas Markle
“Harry and I made a decision earlier today and are dispatching the same security guys you turned away this weekend to be a presence on the ground to make sure you’re safe . . . All of this is incredibly concerning but your health is most important.”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex spoke to Her Majesty on a video call as she turned 94 today, a spokesman for the couple has said…
Their baby son, who turns one in a fortnight, was with them during the call.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11448573/meghan-markle-prince-harry-queen-birthday/
1. I know there was a time difference, but to communicate with texts alone is definitely going to leave the door wide open for misunderstandings. I wonder when the last time was that Thomas and Meghan actually spoke to each other.
2. They were supposedly sending all these people to talk to Thomas, but is there proof that any of them really existed? Did anyone see these people knocking on his door? Who were these people? Who were the security that they supposedly arranged for Thomas?
3. There did seem to be a turning point for Thomas. We can speculate but sometimes something that seems inconsequential to others is a big deal for someone. Thomas got upset/hurt about something ...
4. Meghan and Harry are trashing her father just to prove they are right, in a very public way. Awful people! Not kind people at all, no matter what Thomas did or did not do.
5. Why did Doria do nothing to try and heal the rift/sort out the misunderstandings and quarrel, even though Thomas reached out to her? What kind of ruthless cold woman is she? Did Meghan threaten her if she had any contact with her father?
6. Harry is lost - completely crossed over to the dark side. (My opinion.)
So the question was and is could MoS publish fragments of the letter voluntarily provided by Thomas Markle in self-defense against accusations by her friends.
I have read the MoS article again very carefully and it does center around accusations her "friends" aimed at her father. He responds to each of them using her letter to prove his points. At one point he even dials her number and gets response that the number is restricted. It is an interview Thomas gave, not an opinion piece by the MoS.
I am positively confident the MoS contacted BP (as Megs proper mouthpiece of the time) for comments on the interview, and BP denied to comment. Did BP object to using the letter in the story? apparently not.
What do we have in People?
Quote: "He's (Thomas) never called and he's never texted; It is super painful" - Lies.
Quote: "If I am thrown some kind of curveball I always think "I've got to talk to Meg" We talk daily" - so, we are invited to believe this close friend went to talk to the People without her knowledge?
She may win this particular battle but she has lost the war. The papers will put each and every piece of dirt on the table.
“Harry and I made a decision earlier today and are dispatching the same security guys you turned away this weekend to be a presence on the ground to make sure you’re safe . . . All of this is incredibly concerning but your health is most important.”
This sounds fake, and written for public consumption.
Thank you, I have read your reply and it is much appreciated.
Are we to believe Meghan when she lies about her friends participating in the People feature without her knowledge, in essence blindsiding her? No way did she not know well in advance if not actively planned it with her friends. Does she really expect us to believe that her friends planned the People article as surprise present? It's so farfetched and in fact the opposite fits what we know of Meghan and her friends, that is they have coordinated with media outlets to plant favorable stories from the very beginning. Not only favorable stories for Meghan but attacks on other members of the RF particularly Kate and William in order to make Meghan look even good in comparison.
Regarding that article about American celebrity culture, it has some underlying assumptions that are wrong. The influx of no-talent celebrities like the Kardashians closely mirrors the rising dominance of social media. Social media is the gauge for pop culture today. Pop culture and celebrities go hand in hand. But today the fascination with it isn't so much about admiration as it is about celebrities being a reference point for the most asinine aspects of pop culture. Kardashians don't mind that they're regarded as a joke, in fact that's the whole schtick to their popularity. They don't pretend to be humanitarians or prop themselves up to achieve higher social status. They don't sue the media or go on self-entitled rants against the media because they don't have any pretense of being anything other than shallow celebrities. Americans are fine with that, but the minute they and other celebs overreach then that's when we turn on them. So go on Meghan and Harry, spew crap about the lack of deference shown to you or become even more sanctimonious and self-referential with charity work. Americans don't want that, we want stupid, shallow celebs we can laugh at or provide us with moments of entertainment.
after looking at Megsy I begin to actually appreciate the Kardashians. At least they do not pretend to be what they are not and speak at UN and fat banks. Oh, and Kardashians made themselves.
Isn't the Sun one of the papers banned by the super sensitive sussexes? I guess their mystery "sources" can talk to them.
Although I call BS on the story. No way they would dare call the Queen this week. They have been up to way too much silliness and have the court case at the end off the week.
She probably called them and said "One wants you to knock it off, you silly gits. And also, don't walk on Louis' birthday."
As part of the lawsuit, aren't the "friends" going to have to testify at some point?
They probably weren't randomly dialing in hopes they got MOS.
@A very Sunshiny Day
Yes! BEAutiful!
The Kardashians aren't hypocrites. Unlike some sussexes we could name.
anonymoushouseplantfan answered:
LOL, I wonder if anyone will ask about all the tabloid charitable endeavors Meghan has been involved in. The Mail’s parent is a big contributor to the National Theater, The Telegraph is a big Smartworks supporter, and the Grenfell kitchen project is sponsored by the Evening Standard.
And those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I bet there are more.
I bet these charities back away from her ASAP plus any patronages will try to figure out a way to distance themselves from her. HMTQ will surely have to end up revoking her patronages. They are a walking PR disaster, it does these charities no good to be associated with them -- indeed, it could cost them other supporters and money. They have obligations to their donors, board of directors, legally as part of their non-profit charter...
https://www.lilongwewildlife.org/2016/12/02/amanda-lee-salb-improving-welfare-wildlife-across-malawi/
Some say the man is not Harry either but Mike Chase, director of Elephants Without Borders http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/the-team
I do not believe People will disclose who the "friends" were and they themselves will run a mile from the lawsuit because they will be scared witless.
Unless Megsy tells who she showed the letter to or they come forward themselves I do not see them in the deposition box. It will be her word only.
Oh, and why does Omid Scobie keep on using Duchess Meghan? It is incorrect and displays a huge ignorance or disrespect (or both). If he wants to give her a title it is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Meghan has not been given any titles whatsoever. She may use the title Duchess of Sussex by virtue of being married to Harry. There is NO Duchess Meghan just as there is NO Duke Meghan.
The thing is we do not know if this is a completely made-up story or not ... it kind if sounds authentic.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/serena-williams-shades-meghan-markle-i-dont-know-her.3432815/page-14#post-56997558
What do you think?
There is a follow-up here:
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/serena-williams-shades-meghan-markle-i-dont-know-her.3432815/page-14#post-56997917
This is a long post on a LSA thread that is most interesting. It is supposedly written by a person who has had dealings with Meghan and if this is true ... Meghan might have some serious mental health issues, or ?
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/serena-williams-shades-meghan-markle-i-dont-know-her.3432815/page-14#post-56997558
There is a follow-up here:
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/serena-williams-shades-meghan-markle-i-dont-know-her.3432815/page-14#post-56997917
This looks like a truthful account to me and it's good stuff on Megsy. Megsy cannot be that cray cray crazy so I will blame her behavior on illegal drugs.
Sounds like it could be real to me.
If it is, it the first part of it sounds like M was trying to get side jobs without her agent finding out so she didn't have to pay her a cut. Hence, she played her PR person by email. The freakout happened because the social media post made it more likely her agent would find out before the shoot happened. (If found out afterwards M figured she could make something up) I know the account says the PR person okayed the SM post but things can be misunderstood by email.
Having not seen it, I can't say what the all caps pages and pages of stuff indicated. My best guess is not a brief psychosis but frustration and anger. Like a toddler who is thwarted.
My best guess about Part 2 and the nonexistent pictures...M forgot the truth. Something I suspect she often does.
I would believe 100% her behavior could be due to drugs or next-level controlling. How many ridiculous "manifestos" have been fired off by her or Harry since she came on the scene? If they were super private people they would just act that way. Whenever someone challenges her on details, like Archie's birth or the Christmas card, suddenly wires get crossed, miscommunications ensue, "picture kill" orders are issued, friends speak to the press, etc etc....
She is nearly 40 years old and not one, not two, but 5 friends got so compelled to speak to the press on her behalf they did it without her knowing but managed to get direct quotes from the letter? Are we supposed to believe that? When have you ever shared anything with five people at the same time? Did she call them up one by one and say "this is what my Dad is doing, how dare he!" I don't think any of my friends have talked to me about their parents since we were in school, and certainly not to the detailed level that I would have verbatim quotes about their situation.
Finally, if any of this is true, it takes away from her "whip smart" mentality she seems to want to cultivate. Famous people have family members sell them out all the time. She wrote a letter to her father who shared it with a newspaper, it seems. Bad judgement for both of them, but I can't see the lawsuit.
Epic shade! A sample of some paragraphs:
It has been months since she held her youngest great-grandson.
So it was a real birthday treat indeed for the Queen to catch a glimpse of 11-month-old Archie yesterday – even if it was only over video call.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex called the monarch from their new home in California to wish her a happy 94th birthday.
But it was hardly an intimate affair. The privacy obsessed couple were so keen to tell the world about the afternoon chat that they instructed their spokesman to email a selection of hand-picked publications to share the news shortly afterwards.
It comes after the pair were forced to suspend their own Sussex Royal website and Instagram page after quitting royal duties.
Harry and Meghan’s rush to make the news public was at odds with the wishes of Buckingham Palace, which had expressly stated that details of any calls between the Queen and her family on the occasion of her ‘low-key’ birthday should be private.
Last week a spokesman announced the monarch would – for the first time in her reign – scale down birthday celebrations such as the traditional gun salutes and flag flying because of coronavirus, saying: ‘Her Majesty’s birthday will not be marked in a special way – and calls, video calls, with family will be private and kept so.
Going around her PR so she did not have to share the fee sounds like the kind of thing she may do and expect to get away with. And I suppose there could be many explanations for a crazy letter (drunk, narcissistic rage, pretending it is from a PR person). If the story is true, that email did not come from her PR person. But the apology only came after this person ran into Meghan at a later date, and why would this person accept what was said in such a crazy letter and not contact Meghan (supposedly the person she had been dealing with)?
I'm not sure it is true, but stories of erratic behaviour from Meghan are out there ... each on its own can be explained away or debunked but they kind of all add up and one starts to wonder if there is a problem and if this somehow explains Harry's behaviour.
It is all very odd!
Anyway, still looking for the People article and suspect that the 5 friends who spoke to People are mentioned in this article. Which 5?
https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/meghan-markle-friend-guide-a4097036.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8242911/SARAH-VINE-Dear-Meghan-Harry-dont-worry-not-worried-you.html
Fairy,
Can't she be cross-examined (compelled to testify) on whom she shared the letter with?
I agree, very odd.
You said, "If the story is true, that email did not come from her PR person. But the apology only came after this person ran into Meghan at a later date, and why would this person accept what was said in such a crazy letter and not contact Meghan (supposedly the person she had been dealing with)?"
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the LSA posts but I thought the poster had only an email contact for the mysterious "PR woman." Never met her, never talked to her by phone. Which is odd. No texting even. But while the poster talked with M, she also dealt with the PR person by email re: getting things set up and finalized. Seems some of M's "outrageous demands" might have come through the PR person too.
Only later when comparing the origin of M's apology email did the poster realize the PR ranting email and the M apology email came from the same location (IP address?) I'm assuming the PR ranting email AND the other emails from the PR person
came from that same address (although the post doesn't say one way or the other.)
I assume M was the PR person all along. And was pretending to be the agent so she could rip off her actual agent/PR person's fees by doing off the books jobs. ("I'm such a fraud.")
It could be M didn't have a PR person but wanted to look like she did. But this happened a year before she met Harry and I do think she had all kinds of contracts for publicity by then so I don't buy that.
If I had been the poster, I wouldn't have called M to tell her about her nutty PR person. Even though it meant I'd have to scramble, I'd not want to touch M with a 10-ft pole after that. Just not worth the potential trouble even though I'd have had no idea of M's relationship to the rant then. Still, the rant likely did invoke M's name (e.g., Ms. Markle was quite distressed to discover you buffoons...") So no thanks.
That's my take. IF the story is true.
Lightbulb! I understand what you are saying. The person thought she was talking to the PR person all along. Did she even have contact details for Meghan? And as you say, things had become very messy and I must admit I would walk away at that point as well. You just want the job done. You don't want messy crazy drama.
Thanks for your patience in explaining the obvious to me.
This is a long post on a LSA...It is supposedly written by a person who has had dealings with Meghan and if this is true ... Meghan might have some serious mental health issues or...
xxxxx said...
This looks like a truthful account to me and it's good stuff on Megsy. Megsy cannot be that cray cray crazy so I will blame her behavior on illegal drugs.
I remember reading a while back -- I truly no longer remember where -- that MM did have mental health issues, beyond any hypothesized character disorder (i.e., narcissism), that she took meds for. I can't remember why I thought the source was credible, but I remember automatically thinking "bipolar," just because it would explain her alleged use of both stimulants (e.g., cocaine) and tranquilizers (i.e., booze).
I also find this LSA source credible. Although we're all making different assumptions about what the 5 or 10 pages of "crazy" were, most educated people, as this exec seems to be, still have some degree of dread or fear of out-and-out "crazy." I try to override it when I have to deal with someone having a mental health crisis, but it's still there, and those feelings also seem to ring true in this account.
I think that MM and PH probably initially bonded over some shared issues (e.g., drug addiction, baldness), and this would have been one more: that they were both on psychoactive medications. It might have been one of the things making PH feel like "all the stars were aligned" during their Botswana love-in. Given how obvious PH's depression is, he had to have been on medication at some point in time.
Happy Birthday Queen Elizabeth!!
https://youtu.be/jK_3WIM3M1c
Although a practicing professional in LA (who prescribes all sorts of things on a PRN basis), I only addressed Meg’s adult behavior as it related to questions from patients (as described in another thread). And I certainly cannot observe from afar to offer any diagnosis based on others’ unusual experiences they encountered with Megs.
What I can offer, though, is personal experience from a sibling. My younger sister went to school with Megs (that’s what she was called then), and found herself the object of cruel bullying. On the surface, Megs appeared polite and dutiful. But scratch that same surface, and Megs was unnecessarily mean to those who were unique or eclectic. Ironic that.
So those that state Megs flew off the handle may have a thread of truth. I spent much time consoling my sib and encouraging her in the face of ringleader Megs. Such cruelty at a young age. To this day still have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. Perhaps it’s related to sensitivities of those of us who gravitate toward the healing professions. Different from the Pretend World of Hollywood or Social Climbing SoHo.
Perhaps more than either of these descriptors, she was CHARMING. Thus she could SEEM polite and dutiful to teachers, administrators and those high on the social hierarchy. But she was anything BUT polite or dutiful to others.
Wished to clarify to avoid any confusion.
No problem! Of course, my take may be quite wrong :)
IF the story is true, I bet the poster had an email address for M initially. And maybe later on a cell #. But only had an email address for the PR person. (An email address that was different from M's.)
And IF M was doing stuff "off the books" behind her agent's back when the opportunity arose but wanted to look like she had an agent (because not having one says "amateur" plus "an agent" can push for a better deal while the client stays above it all), M could have easily set up different emails in advance for her different "roles." I have a couple of different email addresses although not for nefarious purposes.
IF M was playing the part of the PR person she couldn't risk doing it by phone. Disguising one's voice isn't easy. Plus, having two cell phones would be a huge hassle while having two email accts is a piece of cake. And whether this happened during the part of the year Suits was being filmed or not, M likely wasn't sitting around answering her phone 9-5 the way a business agent or the agent's sec'y would.
The use of only email to contact the PR person/agent is what convinces me M was the PR person all along. No one would hire a PR person who could only be reached by email. At least not IMO. Those folks need to be available at the drop of a hat if they are to be effective selling their clients to buyers in a fast-paced market. And these days that means they need to be available by phone and text. Not just email. I still use email alot but in many business situations, email is almost like snail mail these days.
Former Telegraph editor Charles Moore says “Please extend to me the ‘zero engagement’ you have offered my tabloid brothers. At present, the big story is a global virus, killing tens of thousands of people and decimating economies. In these circumstances, I would quite like to be released from an opportunity to cover the activities of your new non-profit empire, Archewell and whatever you may find to do in Los Angeles.”
Henrietta -
Although a practicing professional in LA (who prescribes all sorts of things on a PRN basis), I only addressed Meg’s adult behavior as it related to questions from patients (as described in another thread). And I certainly cannot observe from afar to offer any diagnosis based on others’ unusual experiences they encountered with Megs...What I can offer, though, is personal experience..."
S, I'm not a helping professional. I've never "pretended" to be. I'm not bound by your ethics. We're all just spit-balling. This allusion you make -- "I only addressed Meg’s adult behavior as it related to questions from patients (as described in another thread)" -- isn't ringing any bells for me. I take it you made a previous post that you think I'm responding to. But I'm not. Maybe you can give a link or more detailed instructions on where to find it? Nutty's posts and this blog have gotten pretty huge.
"Such cruelty at a young age" and "she was CHARMING. Thus she could SEEM polite and dutiful to teachers, administrators...But she was anything BUT polite or dutiful to others."
You're dropping some pretty big hints about a different character disorder than I've mentioned (e.g., narcissism) while also saying, "I certainly cannot observe from afar to offer any diagnosis..." I hope you come to trust the anonymity of this blog enough to jump into the fun.
If you feel comfortable answering, did your sibling witness or learn of any actionable things "Megs" did during these years of shared schooling?
That era was awkward and painful for my sister. She has grown through it, fortunately. But difficult remembrances.
There was some hope that M had changed: successful. Prominent. Well-to-do.
But, alas, it appears that not to be the case.
If she is (as an adult) as she was when younger, eventually there will be a tipping point. And all those who struggled as a result of Megs may come forward. (NDAs be damned.)
She seems, though, to be devolving quite quickly. At what seems her (and H’s) own hands.
Fascinating to watch this from afar given my sister’s history.
I first posted a couple of threads ago in response to Meg’s pregnancy. Someone had asked for medical professionals’ opinions. And I was happy to oblige. I apologize for any confusion alluding to this earlier.
This ties in with the shared history of Megs. Until the above post, have not mentioned it. I only met her once (and briefly at that) picking my sister up at school. But I heard about her frequently. I’ve attempted to maintain some sense of balance in following her, as I know how kids can be towards their classmates. And as they grow, so do their perspectives, and actions. Some adults have looked back to their younger years and recognized their folly. But not all.
According to my sister, Megs was a “Queen Bee”. Again ironic. Neither of us watched the movie, Mean Girls (perhaps because it cut a bit close to the bone), but that was the sense that was conveyed.
There were accusations of tirades (for appearing “different”), name-calling and ostracism; the general bullying stuff.
But it became a bit more involved when my sister was accused of something she adamantly denies and was later vindicated of such by a 3rd party. This took approximately 4 months time, though, and she insisted Megs and her gang lied and planted “evidence” to the contrary. (Involving drugs). (My sister maintains to this day that Megs had access to substances via her parents.)
(Our folks were strict, and both my sister and I were “good kids”; if a bit introverted and shy.)
To spare the details, a third party provided evidence that overwhelmingly cleared my sister. But Megs and her friends were not punished. They were “popular” and threatening. And she got along well with staff.
As mentioned above, she was apparently VERY charming.
I’ll conclude with something that is complete conjecture: Doria is enigmatic for a reason. I find there is little about her, and she remains a pivotal, yet mysterious figure in relation to all that has transpired in regards to Meghan: now and when she was younger.
FYI reminder: Wednesday night is the next doc about JH&M. For those not able to view it, it is supposed to be streamable the next day.
I don't know how much I will be able to see (I have a work conflict) but I am interested to see what "new" and exciting revelations will come out versus how much is recycled from all the earlier shows.
Paula - the post by Charles Moore - cutting
@TLT that Janetti post was terrific! So well executed!
I prefer it when he leaves George out of things and goes after adults who deserve it.
@wizard wench
I do agree with you regarding Dominic Green. I was deeply offended by his frankly ignorant and biased pontificating.
People Presents Harry & Meghan: A Royal Rebellion
on CW station at 8 Eastern
2 hours
Although, always did appreciate the name Samantha (from reruns of Bewitched!)
https://66.media.tumblr.com/cfb493e12eafb73c15a4aea0458d03d9/3692786c8150bb1f-b4/s500x750/775338792143dc4597a2cf80e2eddc5a69e60474.jpg
This woman and her lawyers are tone deaf. This is not going to end well.
The BRF are probably dreading having finances dragged up yet again, but if they calm down they must see that Meghan is harming herself and what will be exposed is just how much she was given (already known but will be rehashed) and how much she demanded (already known but will be rehashed) and she is just not going to look good.
Really Meghan? You want to open up the books so the public can see yet again how much you spent on a dress for a photo shoot (or was that a merching deal and if so, won't the exposure of that be tacky), or how much of the sovereign grant/Duchy income was used for your demanding remodelling of Frogmore (I doubt you spent your own money and then just abandoned it, or are you going to claim you did and demand a refund), how much was spent on an extravagant wedding for a divorced woman who's husband is still alive (and how your demands pushed up the cost of catering and stressed out the Windsor staff) ... in the time of coronavirus and lockdown when livelihoods have been shattered and thousands of people are grieving for lost loved ones, you are so tone deaf that you think your tactics in this court case are going to go well for you?
In the time of coronavirus she is using a court case about copyright infringement to air all her grievances about everything ... and she is coming across as a deluded grandiose entitled self-centred brat.