Many Nutties also enjoy the Tumblr blog I'll refer to as Plant, since the blogger is keen on privacy and hides her blog address from searches.
Plant, who has blogged about the Sussexes since early 2017, claimed yesterday to have a special insight into Meghan's merching prices via a business connection to a fashion company that booked Meghan for a job.
According to Plant, Meghan received "$20k per item before the engagement, $150k per item after the engagement, $250k per item after the wedding" while carrying out Royal engagements.
She pointed out that each event required several items, including handbag, shoes, clothes and jewelry, and added that the $250k figure was for "an item worn during an official event (daytime, casual, non-luxury brand) during a tour."
According to Plant, Harry was also paid for wearing some items.
But she looks awful!
These seem like hefty figures, particularly since Meghan often appears wrinkled, messy, poorly tailored, and otherwise poorly styled.
"The company I talked to didn't care what she looked like," Plant states. "The Royal connection was enough."
Plant described the brand in question as "not a high-fashion brand....one that used basic cable actresses from wholesome family shows for product placements and sponsorships.
"Meghan appeared on the availability list, they got approval to pay her fee which was higher than what they usually paid, and they booked her and sent her the product. I imagine this was the agency she used when she was in Suits and she just never stopped working with them. They had no interaction with Meghan at all."
Prices have fallen
Now that Meghan is no longer a Royal, however, her prices have fallen, according to Plant.
"I think she's back to $20k an item now, which is what she got before the engagement."
And despite Meg's income, Plant doubts she's rolling in cash. "Her PR/lawyer expenses are even bigger than her merching money."
What do you think of these figures - do they sound plausible to you?
What benefit do you think the brands got from being associated with Meghan - was the visibility worth it?
Were you introduced to any other brands you hadn't previously heard of when Meghan wore them?
_____
Addendum: It's no secret that we've been having problems with difficult posters recently. I am looking at a few alternatives, and will put up a poll sometime soon to see what Nutties think of the various options.
Comments
I had not heard of Aquazurra before MM.
If she made $$ merching, it explains the poorly fitting and wildly expensive choices. I did notice she often wore sleeveless dresses for casual royal engagements, which I thought was verboten.
If you look at pictures of her at events, you can spot some pretty suspect poses. It definitely looked like she was downright posing for the camera.
Re: their Omid book. How TF is she saying her father and the MOS over some paragraphs, but a book she reportedly had nothing to do with has her blessing?!
I liked the response from the RF this week. In essence, what MM says does not reflect anything on them at all. She has removed herself from their orbit.
Looking forward to seeing her hawk QVC stuff when I'm at the gym or flipping on the hotel TV.
Oops you bear me to it ; )
Point is...as their image continues to fade who is gonna want to merch w. her/them?? Thx again nutties!
I suppose I was introduced to brands I hadn't heard of because of M. But I'm not much into trendy fashions so I'm not the target audience for merching. And I didn't like most of what M wore.
Some things she wore I thought were truly awful and would be no matter who was wearing them. (The green army tent, the poop hat, the teeny-tiny white hat worn with the blue and white bedspread dress, the straightjacket/caped dress worn when with TQ, the "scrubs" dress worn to the Trooping) Others I thought were awful on her body type. (The many bathrobe coats, the men's shirt with rolled up sleeves and the hiked up black skirt while pregnant) And then some outfits might have been ok if they had fit properly, weren't wrinkled, were worn in more casual settings than a royal visit, had been in season, and/or were worn with undergarments that fit. (Just about everything else.)
One dress by Self Portrait (a green print worn with a jacket during the engagement) looked like the kind of thing I might possibly wear, but then I saw it without the jacket. It was a "cold shoulder" style with thick black shoulder straps and had lighter greener ruffles that weren't so obvious with the jacket on. Ugh. Not my taste.
I didn't care much for any of her many handbags, never wear stilleto heels, don't wear leather garments, and am many decades beyond wearing tiny jewelry that looks like it's from Claire's.
Who'd pay $250k for that?
It's funny. Until Meghan came along I loved delicate, modern jewellery. She's totally changed my aesthetic as I can't stand anything that reminds me of her. I ended up going back to my jewellery from several decades ago, similar to Kate's engagement ring but an emerald, and my old-fashioned garnets. I'm even careful how I put my hair up, avoiding Meghan's '90s thing. (Must add I'd never have bought the rings she wore at Eugenie's wedding. That was straight out of the old UK show 'Only Fools and Horses' about two dodgy market traders.)
So for me, Meghan would innoculate me against a jeweller or designer forever, if she wore their products. Not just products, but that entire style, so it would affect similar businesses in the same field, not just that specific Meghan 'sponsor'. No more itty-bitty jewellery. No big shirts. No bathrobes sorry coats. The only businesses that would benefit from Meghan's example are those providing excellent shapewear and bras, as she showed us quite frequently what happens when you get that wrong.
The only thing I agree with Meghan on is mascara. She reportedly uses the same one as me, and I wouldn't be without it. Mind you I was using it before I knew she did. Otherwise I'd never have bought it!
Basically, if a company used Meghan to merch, I would question their entire outlook and reputation. I would be disappointed. As I was with those 72 female MPs who supported her. As I am with Adele now. If companies and famous people want to keep the loyalty of their customers and followers, they need to think about this. If their names become linked with the Harkles but it's not true (which may apply to Adele), they need to visibly step away. I'm not advocating a witch hunt. Just a polite correction. It's not enough to do nothing and assume people will keep thinking well of you.
But the whole thing is very much against the royal protocol and staff would have known and informed the Queen's officials and probably the Queen herself. Unless the operation had been hidden and money paid to an account outside of the royal household. In this case it would have taken longer to learn about.
Queen's prohibition of the use of HRH and "Royal" points to her knowing something that made her distrust the Harkles. I am sure the red dress with the label attached got noticed, analysed and filed as "suspicious".
Perhaps the whole family is now happy that Harry's idiocy took him and his grifter wife outside of the royal fold. Imagine how much damage she could have done if less then two years effected royal brand in such negative way.
There is one ensemble I liked - the cream she were at Charles and Camilla garden party. She managed to ruin it with a "slut is always working even when she isn't" walk. But at least there was some promise of well fitting, appropriate for the occasion dress and hat.
And her shoes...no, I won't go there.
I’m no fashion maven, but a lot of the clothes Anna Wintour wears are hideous IMO. So her calling Meghan a fashion icon makes sense.
Information in the media made it clear people would be keeping close tabs on the foundation while she was involved. Waiting for the financial reporting. Intending to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Maybe that was one of the motivating factors for Meghan to get out as she was under a spotlight.
"Her disregard for $$$ was blatant, starting with the engagement photo dress from R&R."
True. But at least that dress fit! ;-)
I have to admit, I don’t know if it’s because of my opinion of MM and her tackiness, or whether it’s the fact that I haven’t been feeling well for the past few days, but when I first read your post, I read it as $250 which I found quite reasonable!!! But seriously, I think there’s only been a few times since the wedding where Meghan looked good. Once was when she was wearing the Stella McCartney halter dress for the evening wedding reception, another when she attended the fashion awards (despite the constant belly-cupping, she did look good), and the third was when she attended (and was removed from Charles’ garden party’). I loved that dress, and remember thinking, despite the wedding, ‘Maybe she can actually pull this Royal thing off’, directly followed by them getting tossed and her sulking in the car. In all three cases, she was very well-groomed and pulled-together. But she wouldn’t have been compensated for most of these, given the guidelines that you gave. I agree with @Lizzie: I did like the green Self Portrait dress, but would never wear it now that I just saw it without the jacket. IIRC, this was another event with muddy shoes. The final dress that I liked (and most will probably disagree), was the banana signing dress. Most of my wardrobe is rather simple & streamlined, but I love having a few quirky pieces, and I could see myself wearing that dress with a pair of boots, as she did, or with a pair of sandals in a warmer season. I’m also 5’8”, so can easily pull off a dress like that. Same with the pompom dress that she wore on tour (when she was escorted out of the market.) It dwarfed her, but I would totally wear that dress to a beach party, probably with bare feet and a nice pedi (although I am blessed with nice feet.) There were a few earlier outfits that I liked—I remember a nautical outfit (ha! ha!) where she was wearing a pair of navy sailor pants (and a few similar outfits.)
As for her jewelry, I am not into twee gold pieces so would not even consider wearing her choices. As for shoes, who would even consider compensating her for wearing them. Enough said.
Getting back to the fees. The only thing that I have to base this on is a recent article that I read which said that Kendall Jenner was paid $275,000 for promoting the sketchy Fyre Festival online. And this was actually promoting something, not just wearing something. Given Kendall's popularity as a model, I’d have to say that the idea of Meghan being paid $250,000 just to wear something, (and usually not well) seems very implausible to me. (BTW, Kendall has to pay $90,000 of that money in a settlement due to the fraud surrounding that event.)
I didn't mean to offend J-Lo fans or Walmart shoppers in my post the other thread. J-Lo is very good at marketing herself as a glamorous, pop, triple threat diva, & her entertainment chops are way beyond Megs'. No way could Megs pull off something like a Super Bowl half-time show, & J-Lo is the star in all of the movies she's made, unlike Megs. J-Lo isn't the greatest actress, singer, dancer out there, but she' proficient at all of those things & has been successful in staying pretty popular. If I made something to sell, I wouldn't mind having J-Lo's name on it, even now, if it suited the demographic I was selling to.
Megs' doesn't have J-Lo's talent, but she may be even more famous globally because of her marriage. The question has always been, could Megs spin that fame into gold?
I would ask Nutty, & the pr & marketing experts here, if Covid hadn't happened, & Megs had been able to turn her life into one continuous replay of her baby shower, for example, Megs being papped going in & out of fashionable venues, with famous & glamorous friends, could she have leveraged that into a lucrative career as an 'influencer,' or some equivalent of that? I don't see her being successful as an actress, not when there are so many black actresses of talent who aren't beefing about how racist & sexist everyone is. Those things are a given, you just have to soldier on. Megs' 'talent' is the RF star dust, can she make it stick to her long enough to become rich? I thought she had a chance to do so, at least for a bit, but that may no longer be true. Harry, without the RF, could be a liability, remember the 'Greta interview.' J-Lo has the advantage that no one asks A-Rod for his opinion on much of anything. For the record, post Covid, we all might be shopping at Walmart, or Amazon, retail stores are dropping like flies. The Covid economy might be affecting Megs' fees as much as Megxit.
That's so funny...the "bedspread" dress was the one thing I liked that she has worn - but I like that hippie, loose style myself. People have pointed out that it was apparently way too big for her...but I thought - at least you cant see lumpy, ill-fitting undergarments.
In my opinion...most everything is just poorly tailored and she either won't take advice on "foundation" garments...or no one cares enough to tell her. Just icky.
Even $20k for wearing something....the thought of it makes me ill. People are struggling so badly and losing the roof over their head, and $20k would change their lives forever.
Perhaps MM could have become a Kardashian-style influencer without COVID. I think the momentum is gone now, and as someone in her target demographic, she would not attract my business.
MM is not relatable. The Kardashians are rich but they are also a family and understand branding. What would her brand be? She is forever badmouthing others and complaining. I believe the "David Foster is a father figure" quote from Katherine was meant to hurt Charles after the palace downplayed the book.
She also looked so sloppy at times as a Royal and badly styled. As an influencer I think she would insist on doing everything herself, and we see how many PR fiascos she's been a part of.
The digital Christmas card was an exercise in being an Instagram influencer. When commenters mentioned photoshop, a Kill Picture order was issued and it became a complete snafu. Much more so than if they had simply sent cards.
She badmouths too much. Domino's pizza wouldn't put up with being called toxic in the press by an employee 🍕
"@lizzie
That's so funny...the "bedspread" dress was the one thing I liked that she has worn - but I like that hippie, loose style myself."
I think I wasn't clear---I didn't hate the "bedspread dress." Many years ago I might have worn something similar myself (not that Laura Ashley-type print though) but don't think the style would look right on me now.
It was that teensy white hat/fascinator thingy worn with it that I thought was weird and that I put in my "wouldn't look good on anyone" category although now that I think about it, maybe it would have looked ok on a younger teenager (like Lady Louise a few years ago when she first started wearing hats.) But IMO the hat didn't go with the style of the flowy dress and a solid-colored white hat looked odd to me with the blues in the dress.
But I'm one of the ones who thought the dress didn't fit M. She's short-waisted so the top part seemed too big, like the top was too long so the waist was falling lower than it should and/or the top part was just all over too big. Loose is one thing, but it just seemed too big. So it would have gone in either into category #2 (not for M's body) or category #3 (ok if it fit.)
I don’t know that she would have fared as well as Fergie. Fergie initially was able to secure several lucrative deals- weight watchers, she wrote books. Fergie was/is a mess, but she has a certain well meaning charm and was quite popular she n the US post divorce.
Nobody is interested n Meghan.
I wondered what was going on inside the head of a person who seriously believed she looked good in a white "nurse" cap. That was ridiculous and she didn't seem to realize how stupid she looked.
I remember thinking what on Earth Harry felt standing next to her, or was he permanently stoned to care?
Some hats can look good on her but not the wide brimmed one she wore for the remembrance service. That was a UFO landing, not a hat. My mom burst out laughing when she saw the pic.
@Ava what mascara do you and MM like? I've used Definicils for years but I think they changed the formula as it dries up in tube so fast now, no longer worth it
And her fangirl Omid.
Do I believe the story? yes the numbers? yeah I could see someone thinking it would be worth it to get the exposure although I am not certain I would all that happy when I saw how she wore it though.
It would be interesting to see if she got repeat business or if it always turned into a one off? In the Suits show, they dressed her well so I could see how some photos in a look book would tilt to her favor compared to what we saw once she started as a fiancee into married.
What would be interesting to know is how the money changed hands? Anyone know anything?
She isn't selling anything I'm interested in.
And, I wonder how firm her price is now? How negotiable is she?
re the firm price. Ok, I'm tired right now, exhausted really, because I thought you were referring to her yacheting.....
The rest of her was a mess...that blue bathrobe looking thing with the belt that had no business being worn with it and the way too much hair as always!
Blind Item #11
It isn't really paying back money to the government if you are getting money from a person who is getting it from the government, or at least money that should have gone to the government in the first place. So, it looks good when the alliterate former actress has her team put out a statement, but you have to look at more than just the headline.
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 11:15 AM 73 COMMENTS
EMAIL THIS
BLOGTHIS!
SHARE TO TWITTER
SHARE TO FACEBOOK
SHARE TO PINTEREST
Didn’t she have 70 visits as a royal? That only is over $17 million. I would think the RF would have a huge problem with that and that high amount would be noticed. And if that’s the case, why penny pinch the British people over security and Frogmore?
I don’t even believe the amounts when she was on Suits. 25k (Sadly I watched the first couple seasons of Suits, so I knew who she was. The show wasn’t very popular here in the US.)I don’t remember seeing ANY pap photo or any photo of her published in a tabloid / celebrity magazine before she started dating Harry.
Kendall Jenner has nearly 130 million followers on Instagram. At the height, Sussex Royal had 11 million. That’s a significant difference that is important for companies that merch.
Holly, MustySyphone and any others unhappy with the video always playing
If you have Chrome (or it may be available in other formats) google
Video Autoplay Blocker Robert Sulkowski
If you want to see a video, there is a spot on the screen which says play video. If they have a ad, you still have to watch the ad and then press the watch video spot again to see the video ...
also posted on the last post
The BRF should have auditioned her for the part of royal based on her ability to wear a hat; she would have failed, and a lot of time and money would have been saved!
Meghan must also know how and where to “hide” whatever money she was or is making that would catch the IRS’s eyes!
I had hundreds of thousands transferred into my account at one single time and the IRS did not look into my affairs.
IRS general rule is that you must file Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business, if your business receives more than $10,000 in cash from one buyer as a result of a single transaction or two or more related transactions.
The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
In addition to this, gifts to qualifying charities are deductible from the value of the gift(s) made.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes#2
When you are shorter and slim, it is easy to be overwhelmed by what you are wearing above or below the neck. To be a fashion influencer, one must look flawless all the time. It is OK to wear something that might be disliked due to colour or form but it is never OK to display ill-fitting shoes, bras that are plain wrong for your shape, poo-hats, VPLs and (gasp!) underarms behaving moistly (with apologies to Justin Trudeau). Most importantly, one must pay attention to and exhibit knowledge of one's own limitations/advantages and dress accordingly.
Reminds me of the engagement interview when Harry blithely said he'd never heard of her before, when someone set up their 'blind date'. You should see Meghan's jaw tighten when he said that! She really thought she was the business.
I'd never heard of her and I don't know anyone who had. Her reported wealth just made no sense to me. All smoke and mirrors.
Her reaction when Harry said that he’d never heard of her before was priceless. As was the whole interview. Two people who barely knew each other but were planning to change the world.
I've actually liked a lot of the clothes Meg has worn BUT just not on her. Like others have mentioned, the VPLs, dirty shoes, dirty hair, and clownish makeup is a huge turn off. She almost always wears clothes sized for someone much taller so her proportions look odd.
Another thing Meg does badly is she does not dress appropriately for the occasion. That's something you cannot manage without paying attention to details.
One of my favorite looks: Meg's Oscar De La Renta Bird Dress. However, the dress was completely inappropriate to the occasion she wore it.
One thing that I think every fashion house notices is Kate is always better put together than Meg during their rare joint appearances. They probably started discounting Meg's rates soon enough which is why she seemed to become so frantic after the Ireland Tour.
"Supposedly she includes the value of Doria’s house in her net worth. (I can’t remember where I read that, as it was awhile ago.)"
I had read the house Doria inherited from her father was put in Meghan's name because of Doria's bankruptcy. But that doesn't make any sense to me.
While Doria could have had another more recent bankruptcy (definitely had one in 2003 or so) Doria's father didn't die until 2011. Even if she'd been in the midst of applying for bankruptcy again, I doubt Doria could have hidden a real estate transfer from the court (and if the father left the house to Doria, it couldn't have just been "put in M's name," I wouldn't think.) It's not that I'd put it past either of them to try to pull something hinky, and I do think estimates of M's personal wealth were vastly inflated, but I don't see how that particular hinky thing could have occurred.
There's space in the BRF for a sleek, elegant royal as long as that royal worked hard and behaved well. I'm really thinking of a 21st-century Princess Marina, who was later the Duchess of Kent, wife of the present Queen's uncle, Prince George. She was beautiful and dressed meticulously and far more stylishly than anyone else apart from Wallis Simpson. As royal as you could be and very high maintenance but the public loved her. She did her royal duties right to the end of her life.
Although this is a more egalitarian time, I do think the public would have accepted a high maintenance Duchess of Sussex as long as our faces weren't rubbed in her extravagance and we weren't made to feel spurned and disrespected. You know, the way Meghan made us all feel when she wouldn't tell where she had spent her honeymoon or refused to follow modern royal traditions to share newly-born Archie with the nation for just a few moments. The nation that bankrolls her family.
She really has poisoned the well for the BRF. Now we have an unprecedented recession approaching, they had better cast her off for good by the transitional year's end. Public tolerance is dangerously low.
One thing she got consistently wrong was her choice of coats: she loved wrap coats which looked like bathrobes and, with their bulky fabrics and huge lapels, just overwhelmed her figure.
As for the merching, I remember reading about it as a blind item in BG about a year ago - he said it was all done behind the BRF's back, and they had no idea she was doing it. It's just not done in royal circles, so it probably didn't occur to them that she would actually do something like this. I'm also wondering - why? I can understand she did it when she was a struggling actress trying to earn as much money as she could any way possible, but why did she continue once she married into the royal family, where all her expenses would be taken care of? Is she just very greedy, or did she figure she needed to build a secret nest egg for the time she would not longer be a member of the BRF?
In the meantime....scroll down...read...scroll past...read...scroll...scroll !!! And thank you for allowing us into YOUR space to meet up and chat.
I just looked at archives and appears to be Frogmore Cottage post. One year now, hmm I wasn't here from beginning,I lied but I read it
since cdan switched to disqus I rarely read. it was quite a while I thought Tricia was dead until I switched to view older comments first
too difficult to maneuver on a phone. I usually read the blinds but rarely the comments
Nutty made me want to follow Meghan and Royal Family stuff, the posters allowed me to learn. it's a cool spot but the crazy is huge drag and I would welcome a fix
Oh I agree there probably was something pretty slimey done re: the half-brother's legitimate share of the house.
But the story about the house being in Meghan's name because of Doria's bankruptcy doesn't ring true to me. I don't see how that could have been done or even why it would have been done in 2011 because of a 2003 bankruptcy. It's true Chap 7 could have been filed again in 8 years (although who would have given her credit during that time?), so Doria could have been bankrupt in 2003 and again in 2011 or later. But I'd think bankruptcy courts would be well aware people may try to hide property. And I wouldn't think hiding a house would be easy but maybe I'm wrong.
I've not heard of this tumblr blog is there anyway to post the link or give another hint to do a search for it? thank you.
It just is not good business sense to pay such exorbitant amounts for someone to wear your product as an indirect form of adverting. I have worked in business and for a short while in the fashion industry and the amounts given make no sense at all, even the lower amounts. She never formed an iconic relationship as the Queen did with Norman Hartnell. I think she was given freebies in the anticipation that such a relationship would be formed, but Megsy is not reliable (she bolts, she changes her mind, she does not follow through ...) so this is no brand that one associates with her.
We know from the revelations about Victoria Beckham's fashion line that Meghan did try and get freebies and then major discounts from them and there was a major falling out over that, which was then repaired because I assume that Meghan realised she might need Victoria in the future. The thing is, it is against royal policy to ask for or accept freebies or discounts. There are formal guidelines on the BRF website. It is not a secret. The fact that Meghan ignored these 'rules' makes it believable that she did do merching while she was representing the BRF. She kept all her contacts in North America (the USA and Canada), including business managers, used very few British brands (the very brands that would not want to go against BRF policy) and could easily have funnelled money straight into hidden accounts in the USA and Canada. Why else did she need to keep those business managers in the USA and all the other contacts? I just doubt the amounts quoted.
I think she thought once she was free of BRF restrictions (being the part-time royal she wanted to be) she could then be brand ambassador and then get paid the major money.
The face of Givenchy? Nope, that relationship went south and I wonder what was behind that? When did Meghan stop wearing Givenchy and how did that coincide with Clair Wright Weller (sp?) leaving?
The bits of jewellery are small fry in terms of merching but I reckon she took a lot of freebies. Unfortunately she does not have iconic pieces that would be worth a huge fortune.
She could still get a brand ambassador gig. Even though her IG numbers were much smaller than a Kardashian or Jenner, she is very well known. The Chinese might find her useful as a brand ambassador, especially after the COVID-19 fallout with the West.
Or should she be paying tax on it to the IRS?
I know it's complicated.
The revelations come as the royal couple are the subject of a highly anticipated book, due for publication in August, which its authors have said they want to be a "definitive story" about the couple.
If they want it to be "definitive", can we run with this definition and look forward to a nice future silence (or at the very least no more books from them)? :OP
definitive adjective
de·fin·i·tive | \ di-ˈfi-nə-tiv \
Definition of definitive (Entry 1 of 2)
1: serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definitive
The best and most consistent looks Meg ever had as a BRF member was on that tour. Unfortunately, she still didn't have any slam dunks because of indiscriminate finishing details.
That Ireland Tour was shortly after the wedding and very short. It was probably a huge risk they made because having a royal merch was unchartered territory. Unfortunately, it did not pay off. After that tour, Meg never looked as nice.
It defies logic that they will pay her so much and not take the pains to ensure she turns out well. She always looks bad in most of her outfits so I really doubt these figures.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/78a80db7972f272006bdf62eb8c11287/tumblr_qajmwlfZx21wfiwkmo1_400.gifv
Maybe someone could write a role for her in a soap: the annoying, bitchy woman desperately trying to look young, vamping and producing a lot of word salad. It should not be a major role so that she gets lots of time off, but she should be a regular so that she has an open door to interviews, guest spots, and so on.
Maybe it was a combination of security restrictions and keeping Meg's merching secret. I doubt the BRF would have allowed outsiders to accompany H&M on a Royal Tour when they have their courtiers. Even if Meg insisted, they would have forced a vetting which would have unearthed Meg's plan of merching. In that scenario, the BRF would have certainly stopped it. Meg couldn't have the designer reps come along without jeopardizing everything.
The fashion house most likely was forced to depend on royal courtiers to do their job. They probably imagined if Kate always looks flawless, why not Meg? The results were a disaster and I think the fashion houses learned their lesson on that tour.
How many outfits actually looked like they fitted her, or more importantly appropriate for the occasion? Could this be the reason why, because they were never specifically made for her or any specific occasion.
She’s like a walking advertisement on too many occasions, I agree with Ava C her body language gave it alway. Looking at the camera flashing an earring here, a neckline there. Or rings, so many rings all at once which is a truly tacky look.
We've got Meg pre-Harry. Then that coat flicking Meg post-Harry. Enough said about the Duchess of Sussex.
I bet the BRF are regretting that they took their eye off the ball as far as Harry's teenaged upbringing was concerned, after William went to university. Then that he was allowed to drift after leaving the army. They say the BRF views itself as a firm and their lives as jobs. If that's the case, Harry should have been on his second written warning when he met Meghan.
Meg really missed her opportunity to be a true fashionista. Like you I also think if she had managed to look good consistently, many would have bought the fantasy and have overlooked Meg's "personality."
Or should she be paying tax on it to the IRS?
I know it's complicated.
For her to owe tax, the income first needs to be declared but declaring it would raise serious questions. I doubt very much it was declared (even worse), and even if it was, probably not in her name. :o(
Of course. I should have said `Has she got a UK tax liability' with regard to HMRC /should she be paying UK tax?' - ie what's the rule?
Not declaring it = tax evasion!
We all know that she believes that rules don't apply to her because she's so special.
Has she got `glamour modelling' on her cv?
I always thought it was odd how MM wore almost no British designers. I was under the impression that wearing British designs was a rule. The Queen wears British fashion and also her accessories - especially her handbags are famously British.
Whilst I believe MM received some payments I can't believe that she received £250k per item. That is millions of pounds. Did the Hollywood jewellery designer Jennifer Mayer(?)pay MM so much? I would have thought with her connections it would be better to use a genuine Hollywood star. Most younger people look to pop singers and influencers and not royalty for makeup/fashion.
Did Harry also received payments? I wonder if he got a special deal for that grey top be always wears.
Paid influencing doesn't really work that way. You don't get paid Everytime you wear or use a product. Those products that influencers merch ie., Gown, jewellary, horrible shade of lipstick, handbag, shoes etc are usually freebies sent to them.by the brand. Mostly as part of the brands promotional/marketing budget. Usually at the launch of a new product line.
More often than not, the influencer/celebrity rents a super fancy brand - Gown at a gala, diamond earrings etc at a discounted price and make up for the discount by promoting the brand. In other cases they rent this stuff from the brand and get the publicity for themselves for looking so good/beautiful/fashion forward etc and that publicity is a good bargain.for paying an insane amount for the brand.
Knowing what we know of Megs she was looking for the praise and publicity for being able to afford expensive brands. So she likely spent a crazy amount on herself. The times she merched we're more or less obvious. It seemed like she was given a freebie or sent samples and had to wear them in return.
What exactly was the 250k for? It's not like she was selling us the latest iPhone in her Instagram stories!
I believe she rented most of her stuff and harassed brands for discounts. Any dollars she earned probably came from clicks on Meghan's Mirror. Which is why the BRF we're so nasty about shutting everything down.
The lesser appearances and private dressing much much less regulated.There is a certain dress code expected of everybody even at family events. For instance in Diana's days people were expected to change several times a day when staying with the Queen.
The whole thing is rather complicated. The bottom line is it is unlikely that any royal deals with it him or herself. There is at least one person in charge of the wardrobe dealing with procurement, maintenance, cleaning, organising and disposing of clothes. When garments are no longer needed they are donated to certain unspecified charities.
I doubt very much Megsy as a wife of brother to the future king could merch at official engagements. They are too strictly regulated. She would choose the outfit but its origins would be known.
Private charity visits is another matter. Her private dressing are much less regulated and gives more chances for shady deals.
I doubt very much she could have earned big money unnoticed.
I also happened to see some merching activity around Kate, with sites offering copies of her outfits. Kate is definitely not involved with merching, it is just businesses making money on her.
Perhaps that would explain peculiar dress choices Kate sometimes makes. She doesn't want to encourage this industry.
I wonder if Harry has picked up on what some, well-publicised, members of the public said and appropriated it as his own?
First, there was criticism of them being `made' to go to Church at Crathie on that Sunday.
The boys usually went to church at Balmoral. What were they to do? Stay in the castle and cry? Were the critics projecting their own abhorrence of church?
The Express said 'Show us you care'- the queen had stayed in Scotland longer than the Press thought right - my feeling was `For Goodness sake, it's a family tragedy'
I saw the funeral on TV as a historic event, aware that the death averted some future problems (mainly through her influence on the boys.)
The walk - yes, it must have been tough but I read that it was the DoE who saw that a major gesture was needed. The boys eventually agreed.
Diana's eulogy was given by her brother, earl Spencer, full text at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/spencerfull.html
The sting in the tail-
"My own and only explanation is that genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum. It is a point to remember that of all the ironies about Diana, perhaps the greatest was this - a girl given the name of the ancient goddess of hunting was, in the end, the most hunted person of the modern age.
"She would want us today to pledge ourselves to protecting her beloved boys William and Harry from a similar fate and I do this here Diana on your behalf. We will not allow them to suffer the anguish that used regularly to drive you to tearful despair.
"Blood Family Will Protect Sons"
"And beyond that, on behalf of your mother and sisters, I pledge that we, your blood family, will do all we can to continue the imaginative way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men so that their souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition but can sing openly as you planned.
"We fully respect the heritage into which they have both been born and will always respect and encourage them in their royal role but we, like you, recognise the need for them to experience as many different aspects of life as possible to arm them spiritually and emotionally for the years ahead. I know you would have expected nothing less from us.
"William and Harry, we all cared desperately for you today. We are all chewed up with the sadness at the loss of a woman who was not even our mother. How great your suffering is, we cannot even imagine."
H applauded enthusiastically - did he realise what Spencer said? I can't recall how W reacted. The others were stony faced.
It strikes me that H swallowed the lot, even the things we know now to be untrue -calling the paps for eg. He absorbed it into his very being. Wills seems to have been more adult about it, discarding the dross and moving on.
It was a horrible time, thanks to the public reaction. I can remember when King George VI died, after less than 16 years on the throne. He was seen as inadequate but stepped up when his brother deserted. He was tested by the war, earning profound respect. The stress undoubtedly shortened his life and the public mood at his death was sombre, best summed up, I think, by this photo
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/three-queens-in-mourning/
Excellent comment.
Diana's death precipitated an entirely different reaction. My mother had just died but, had she still been alive, I'm sure she would have harked back to the death of Velantino
http://www.the13thfloor.tv/2016/07/11/the-life-death-afterlife-and-curse-of-rudolph-valentino/
In 1952, we all tried to be stoical. How much is down to Diana herself and how much to other factors (generational differences? less deference? more people from more emotional cultures - it's anybody's guess).
I'm not looking forward to the next royal funeral. God willing, Markle will be kept well away.
All that said, little has fitted her properly or suited her or the occasion . My only other conclusion is that she must have constantly gone against advice, and this is what we are hearing and reading.
Urgh, I can’t go through Diana’s funeral again. More behind the scenes facts have slowly come out since that terrible time, and an awful lot has been rather enlightening. Truth isn’t always how you see it or how it’s presented.
Anyone no matter where they are resident is liable to UK tax on income arising in the UK.People failing to declare income have been caught out when the person or organisation making the payments has had their tax return queried by HMRC - the Inspector most definitely would require full details of persons to whom any other than minor payments had been made. I worked for HMRC as an Inspector conducting in-depth investigations
I suppose she'd argue it was all done in the US... could that explain the reluctance to merch UK brands?
Not declaring it = tax evasion! .
It’s an anomaly. She can’t declare an income she wasn’t supposed to have in the first place. She’d have to hide that income. So no tax liability in that sense, but tax evasion in another.
It’s against protocol for royals to borrow items or clothing, they are paid for, therefore owned. They most certainly can’t accept payment for wearing them. If Megsy was being paid to wear outfits etc. when it wasn’t permitted to, how would or she declare it as any (taxable) income? Which is why I said serious questions would be raised. Any financial transactions would have to be paid to another person. :o/
We now know certain mental problems are hereditary. Unfortunately Diana's side is not exactly free of problems, especially on her mother's side, with at least one suicide. Near royal circles described this as "bad Fermoy blood". Diana's sister Sarah suffered from drinking problems and a severe eating disorder she had been able to control only after her mother checked her into a clinic. Diana herself suffered from episodes of extreme moods, erratic behavior, extended periods of weeping, depression, self-harm, bulimia and even half- baked suicide attempts.
Harry may be suffering from similar condition. I firmly believe he is incapable of critical evaluation and can't accept responsibility for his own actions.
Like his mother he functions best in organised and well controlled environment. Like his mother he can't appreciate this and wants to leave what he sees as oppression and control. Like Diana he started unravelling fast once he got his wish.
Genetics can be spooky.
The BRF were understandably restive about that as they were already being hammered in the court of public opinion. So it ended up with all the senior royal males taking part, William only agreeing in the end because Prince Philip said he would walk with him.
I've never heard anything about Prince Harry's view, but he was only 13. Basically they were forced into it by Charles Spencer, who went on to use the funeral service for grandstanding, via his famous eulogy. I was moved by it at the time, and very unhappy with the royal family, but now we know he refused Diana's request to be given a cottage on the Althorp estate when she needed sanctuary and, far more importantly to me, did not go on to play the really active role in his nephews' lives that he dramatically and publicly promised at the funeral service, I see it all as grandstanding now.
Yes he had lost his sister in tragic circumstances, but he didn't behave well at all. I now find that eulogy cruel and unfair to the royal family sitting there before him. Diana encouraged and worked with those hunters he referred to. Not all the time but often enough. She was unwise and divisive in life, and so was he at her funeral.
So I find it very plausible that he was behind that walk. He wanted to sow discord. To mark a dramatic separation from the royal family. Never mind that it was his nephews' family too. I think he had a lot in common with Diana. That walk was intended to be his version of sitting alone in front of the Taj Mahal before the world's media to make a point that would go down in history. The Spencers were always drama queens. That reputation goes back at least 200 years.
https://catherinezoraida.com/collections/duchess-of-cambridge
No picture of Kate but the descriptions of designs say "as seen on DoC."
https://www.instagram.com/emiliawickstead/
She has pictures of both Meghan and Kate wearing her designs, even bespoke designs.
and every one else - if you need a laugh check out the characters of the Duke & Duchess of Plaza-Toro for `The Gondoliers' (G&S), if you haven't already done so. WS Gilbert really nailed it.
I'll put up references later, when I've sorted out the best ones.
I agree re Diana's brother. I know little about him but what I know is not nice. He treated his first wife badly, he is arrogant and he attempted to make money on his sister's memory. It was somehow put under control.
I found his eulogy theatrical and cringe. It was not time and place for accusations and finger pointing. And it resulted in the strained relations with the royal family, hardly surprising.
May be he would like to influence future King his nephew but I am glad he wasn't given a chance to do this. And rightly so.
The 10k rule is for cash only, any bills going out or coming in over the counter. The Currency Transaction Report isn’t automatically sent to the IRS, it’s stored in-house and the CTR department reviews it if it comes up and then can report anything suspicious if needed. They are also available to the IRS on demand should the IRS determine the need to inspect someone’s activity.
ACH, paper check deposits, wires are not subject to the 10k rule. However banking systems have fraud indicators built in and unusual activity is reported to the fraud department for review.
MM was likely part of a Premier banking category...for higher net worth clients. Many of those indicators are relaxed for these clients (not the 10k cash rule though).
In reality, on any given day there are hundreds of thousands of large deposits, it’s normal in banking. Likely if Doria had large deposits suddenly coming in, the only real bank personnel interested would be the investment advisors, wanting to get her business.
Re: Duke & Duchess of Plaza-Toro for `The Gondoliers' (G&S).
I’ve found a few links on YouTube, though after your recommendation of Passport to Pimlico yesterday I asked my Mum about it, she was as enthused as you, so another on my list to watch. ;o)
This aspect always made me wonder about the York sisters. Presumably if they step up as working royals after Harry's departure there will be no chance for career for them. But what about their husbands? Both are career men. They will have to walk very carefully to avoid accusations of profiteering from their wives royal connections. It is a minefield.
Remember also that they were becoming more 'Windsor' before Diana died. She didn't like that. Her sons preferred to be at Balmoral doing all the traditional pursuits than on a playboy's yacht. She was definitely heading down a dodgy path and they didn't want her to continue that way. If she did, they certainly didn't want to accompany her.
There might be some understandable but unjustifiable guilt on their part, especially as they've said themselves that they rushed through her final phone call to them from the South of France, because they wanted to get on with what they were doing in Scotland. Just like any other family who loses someone in a crash going to work and they'd forgotten their usual kiss goodbye that morning. All very human. You have to focus on the love you always had to get through that.
I mention this because it is also very human, to be tortured by thoughts of things left unsaid or peremptory behaviour and then to rebound onto others in your anger with yourself. I think Harry may be tortured by the last week his mother was alive and that he doesn't remember much about her now, and so punishes the rest of the world in misplaced retaliation.
There is no need to retaliate at all. He wasn't to blame. But reason has no place in this. I would recommend CBT as a way for him to get his own life back. It provides practical tools to deal with the here and now, and helps you progress rather than remain stuck in your most unhappy past. Therapy that continues to analyse and dwell on the past and harrows your soul over and over again, is no good to anyone. I've experienced both approaches and I remain profoundly grateful to those who developed CBT. I'm still not sympathetic to Harry, but I do want him to put his life in order rather than dragging his family and country to share the analyst's couch with him, over and over again.
Spot on. William was very weary of Fayeds and did not approve Diana's association with them. She was able to drag both boys into Fayed's environment and Wills was unimpressed. Don't know about Harry's reaction.
Like you I would like to see Harry eventually overcoming his problems, mostly because watching him sink is not a nice show. His gloomy untidy current image is causing sort of disgusted pity.
If he continues descending into depression, resentment and substance abuse he will become an embarrassment and liability for Charles and William.
Every royal generation has a black sheep but today it would be more difficult to hine it. Wills will have enough on his plate already to have to deal with a half wit alcoholic or stoner brother.
And now he's disappeared.
If it reappears I shall still refuse to click on it.
"As a "senior" member of the royal family Megsy would not be allowed to earn money. At this level royals can not be participating in any commercial activity."
M would still likely have "earned" income and "unearned" income (dividends, etc.) Those would be subject to US tax or at least be sufficient to require the filing of a US federal return. Leaving aside merching, she likely gets Suits residuals, and unless she was really totally flat-broke when she met Harry, she likely has some investments that pay interest/dividends. I don't think she had millions locked away but I expect she had some money.
People can also be paid for non-commercial activity. Will was paid by the air ambulance company, for example. KP said he donated his salary but wouldn't say where. (Might have eventually said he donated it back to the EAAA but that was after years of no comment. And maybe KP didn't say that but a "source" said so.) Of course, at that time he wasn't considered a full-time working royal but he wasn't in the "non-working" category the York princesses are in either.
I don't think the Yorks will be allowed to do royal work. IMO they would be good at it.
I get that being paid to wear something is a royal no no as are freebies. But it's a slippery slope. For example, see below. (And tell me how these are different from what the Hollywood-connected jewelry designer did-- wonder if it wasn't BP who shot her down? Maybe she didn't want to pay?)
https://catherinezoraida.com/collections/duchess-of-cambridge
No picture of Kate but the descriptions of designs say "as seen on DoC."
https://www.instagram.com/emiliawickstead/
She has pictures of both Meghan and Kate wearing her designs, even bespoke designs.
Emilia Wickstead: The photographs of Catherine and Meghan are on the IG account (news) and not the website (branding and advertising and sales). The lines are blurred though and all the images used on the IG account are a form of advertising. There are a lot of photos of celebrities on the IG account, and celebrities need to be seen to be relevant! I suppose that royals wear British fashion to promote British fashion. So, none of them object to their images being used on the IG account (and there are a few of celebrities on the Events section of the website as well), but they could.
Catherine Zoraida: Blatant use of the Duchess of Cambridge to advertise on the website. Have a look at this on their website:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0110/1062/files/popsugar.jpg?4864823661004732634
I am surprised that the Cambridge's staff have not had this removed from their website. Supporting local by being seen wearing the brand is one thing but to be used in advertising is another. I think it is just an oversight that nothing has been done about this.
The Jennifer Meyer debacle is perhaps an example of how batsh1t crazy the Markles are. If Meyer crossed a line, then why was she called out for it and not Emilia Wickstead (lots of photographs of Meghan on her IG account)? The story of a non-disclosure agreement makes no sense as the jewellery can be identified, but not much that Meghan does makes sense!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7774667/Palace-orders-Meghan-Markles-jewelry-designer-friend-remove-damaging-photos-Duchess.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
As for the $250k merch payments, I am likely out of it, but I can’t imagine for the life of me why someone would pay that. Or any fee. It seems very outrageous (the amount). But maybe vendors do... I find it truly hard to believe.
Maybe. She's worn them alot recently. But I can see M might think there is a double standard (not that anyone suspects Kate got paid.)
I do remember the plastic surgeon who used Kate's face was made to remove it! (He was implying she was a client.)
https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/tara-reid-wants-meghan-markle-to-star-in-her-movie-mashas-mushroom/
That was probably their own personal choice trying to make him look.cute or whatever. You know how all those Johnsons & Johnson's ads have gurgling babies in diapers because that's how cute babies are supposed to look. Lol
Archie in diapers is the baby version of Meg in a messy bun/loose tendrils/white boyfriend linen shirt/white shorts/ripped jeans ... That's an influencers way of being relatable.
I thought Archie was wearing a white t-shirt not a onesie. His diaper was in full view. Vest is the British term for those white undershirts people wear under their regular proper shirt. So it's basically underwear.
This bit made me LOL:
I've never endured an episode of Suits but I've seen enough clips of Rachel Zane getting banged in the file room to classify it as not a wholesome family show. Okay, going to test this and see if my tags worked this time before I continue,
Somebody please walk me though how to get text to be bolded or italicized? I am not doing the tags correctly. I did it once but can't remember how. That was pre-Corona, so I need a tutorial again.
I suspect she was merching when she came to watch Serena play in the States. There are just too many perfectly captured shots of the jewelry. Wouldn't surprise me if she thought as long as she was in the US, she could technically merch. I believe after this Jennifer Meyer jewelry was chastised by the palace, and this started the "step down" scheme. Except she never wanted to be out of the Firm totally.
Her ego and pathology, I believe, prevent her from seeing that it is absurd for a Royal to make money shilling clothes and jewelry. But I believe she would enjoy the attention, because this is what she was trying to get for so long as an actress.
At some point, Harry probably decided his family should have "protected him" better and then started blaming them for making him walk behind the casket.
"Protecting" is such a big theme with Harry - his mom, Meghan, Archie, himself - and everyone is the enemy. If he could just make peace with the perceived "enemies", he'd be a lot happier.
Oh, have you guys read Blind Gossip? look at the item about MM - "switcheroo" 🤔😯 It makes total sense to me, I knew she'd no intention of ever living in Africa, she only ever says anything to get herself ahead. Harry fell for all her lies 🤦♀️
The ironic thing is that Chelsey Davy part owns & runs an eco travel company & destination in Africa, beautiful lodges to holiday in, take a look at Chelsey's IG, I can't remember the name of the Company she co-founded but on looking it over I couldn't help thinking how happy Harry would've been with Chelsey running this travel company with her in Africa & i'm sure the Queen etc would've been happy for him too.
Use <B> to bold a sentence but you must remember to close it with </B> at the end of the sentence. You must close <I> and <B> otherwise you get rejected by Blogger
I believe you are thinking of Swamp Woman in Florida. I miss her, too.
Sorry, this went off track! I just wanted to say that yes, preteens have attitudes! And yes, they do what they're told, mostly. Most of us get over it.
Yes, I forgot Wills pilot job. But I always assumed it had been routinely donated to one of Wills charities, as the Palace said.
Funny how nobody questioned what happened to Harry's wages as Colonel. The rank of Colonel means the payment wouldn't be peanuts. He served in the military however shambolic it was. Ministry of Defense has always maintained his treatment was no different to any another army man, so he must have been paid. Unlike Wills' payroll I don't recall a pip about where Harry donated his money.
May be he kept them for himself. One more reason to dislike him
I always thought it was odd how MM wore almost no British designers. I was under the impression that wearing British designs was a rule. The Queen wears British fashion and also her accessories - especially her handbags are famously British.
With British designers, they have some allegiance to the Monarchy, or are afraid of BRF retaliation so did not and will not be merching with Meghan. Designers outside the UK are who MM had merching deals with.
"In the US they don't take your house in any bankruptcy filing. They also leave one car if you use it for work....Doris most likely was able to keep her house when she filed."
That's not entirely true. It depends. And CA has its own rules and doesn't follow fed rules in bankruptcy exemptions. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-bankruptcy-exemptions-property-assets.html
But certainly at the time of the 2003 bankruptcy Doria didn't own a house as she had recently been evicted from an apt. And we don't know if she ever had another bankruptcy after that. If she did after she inherited the house, her age could have helped since she turned 55 in 2011 but she'd also need to have been earning under $25K/yr to get a big homestead exemption. The house she inherited is worth $900K-$1.1 million on real estate sites now so I'm not sure it would have been exempted. But I don't see how she could have put it in M's name either to hide it from the bankruptcy court.
My best guess is she didn't go bankrupt after 2003. If the house is in M's name, it's for some other reason, working some other angle.
Kind of makes Travalyst seem like a knock off, doesn't it?
This is the part of Nutty's entry I LOL'd at the most.
Plant described the brand in question as "not a high-fashion brand....one that used basic cable actresses from wholesome family shows for product placements and sponsorships.
Suits, definitely wholesome family entertainment in which slutty paralegals get routinely banged in the copy room.
Thanks to xxxx if this works.
Raspberry Ruffle
Knowing senior working royals aren’t allowed to borrow outfits etc because it’s against protocol, is the very reason why I’ve struggled to believe she was ever paid to wear items.
All that said, little has fitted her properly or suited her or the occasion . My only other conclusion is that she must have constantly gone against advice, and this is what we are hearing and reading.
Being told that something is against the rules is like an aphrodisiac to Meg. Any person with a normal psychology entering into the British Royal family with its weight of history and codes of behavior would be awed and very cautious about violating the rules, even unknowingly. To violate such rules *knowingly* is a whole other category of brass but it's one Meg specializes in. She was no doubt counting on getting away with flouting the dress codes because being a just a little doe-eyed orphan girl from California, she couldn't be expected to immediately be perfect at all these arcane rules governing hosiery and hats and never turning one's back on the monarch. "Give Meghan some slack!" was the cry and by God, did she ever get slack. I'm not sure how being told expressly by the Queen of England to cover her head with a hat could be misconstrued, but there she was in Chesire, blundering around like a myopic baby hippo, masses of purchased hair blowing in the wind and forcing her way into the car (twice) in front of the Queen--even opening the door herself in her rush to get in there first.
**WHO DOES THIS???*** Any normal person would hang back and stay glued to the spot until being instructed to move. Meg acted like she was on this engagement alone and the waving crowds were there to see *Her*. The little old lady tagging along behind her was of no consequence.
I have heard of people who genuinely think they are Napoleon. Such individuals are confined to lockdown mental institutions generally. One supposes that even Boney, were he in Chesire that day would have made way for the 92-year-old Queen, despite his feelings about the English monarchy. He was French and they make way for les grandes dames.
Not Meghan. Meg believes herself to be the Most Important Person in the World. It's really breathtaking to behold, but not in a good way.
"How could she have gotten this so wrong?" I wondered. Surely a memo had been sent to everyone from BP instructing them how to dress for the occasion. Completely disregarded by Meghan in a blatant show of FU-manship. The dress was not even attractive, being extremely similar in color to that couture delight she 'wore' at the polo match. (It wore her, but bivouac tents tend to do that.)
As the nascent Harkle marriage wore on and Megs consistently showed up in clothing that was ridiculously out-of-season and inappropriate compared to everyone else's, not to mention her constantly holding her hands in front of her face in a most unnatural manner, or 'shrobing'--wearing a huge boxy coat on her shoulders like a cape instead of putting her arms in the sleeves .. or wearing dark leather gloves in June . . I began to understand what 'merching' was. The price tag dangling off the red dress was suddenly illuminated.
But here is Meghan's pathological greed exposed . . Not just that she was accepting money to wear the items, but evidently wearing/returning them unaltered just to keep every last cent of what she was being offered--in addition to soaking Charles for the bills. She had to bill Clarence House for the stuff or else everyone would have immediately wondered where she was getting clothes from. Unless Charles is stupid enough just to give his kids blank checks without oversight . . I can't help thinking so, considering what happened with Frogmore. Charles is a man who cares about his clothes. He always looks super natty. If I were him, I would have been questioning why my new daughter-in-law always looked so poorly dressed despite the hundreds of thousands of pounds I was shilling out for her clothes. Apart from a few big-name designer gowns, the stuff she wore for her more everyday engagements was mid-level in price point, like the simple day dresses. If she were getting paid tens of thousands of dollars to wear an outfit, why not purchase the items and have them properly tailored to fit? That would have been a minuscule amount off her proceeds if she was double-dipping.
Meg has spent her entire life from middle school on hustling to fit into elite celebrity circles of the obscenely rich. She did whatever she needed to 'front' in this world--beg, borrow, steal, sell sexual favors, whatever--being one of the rich elite was her goal that she sought like a heat-seeking missile. She achieved her lifelong dream, but even as a Royal Duchess with access to all the top designers paid for her, she can't stop with the hustling. It's too hard-wired in her. Hence why the Duchess of Sussex cannot pass up a VIP swag table, though it is beyond gauche to the point of horrifying for her to even notice it, never mind touch it . . . never mind list her hoard on Ebay when she gets home, and she probably did that, too. She is so money-obsessed that she can't resist a chance to grift a few more bucks out of every situation even though she no longer needed to and was in fact banned from doing so.
If this deep-seated deficiency in Meg could not be filled by marrying a royal Prince, nothing is going to do it.
Megsy can't help it. Merching is like crack for her, in addition to whatever other substances she uses.
Of course, they are compelled to be in the same domicile NOW, of course . . Unless they aren't.
Harry is so ineffectual where Meg is concerned, it likely would have made zero difference.
Scene: Nottingham Cottage, Day of Louis's christening (In July)
Meghan blows into the foyer where Haz is impatiently waiting like a pea-scented ill wind
M: OK, I'm ready . .Let's motor.
H (stares, tries to gather speech): Uh . . . my petal . . are you wearing .. *that*?
M (gives him the death glare): Obviously.
H: Um . . but the note from Pa said it had to be blue or white. They are pretty ticklish about these things. . The pictures, historical records and all that.
M (laughs): I do not give two f**ks, darling. Now let's *go*. I promised Omid I would FaceTime with him as soon as it's over.
H. trails behind his wife to the car.
Exeunt.
Archie was probably too old to be shown in his original Birth Day Suit and I've hard that taking those once-nearly-mandatory photos of a bare baby on a bear skin is now frowned upon.
Harry's rank - when he was serving, the best he managed was as a subaltern, and an insubordinate subaltern too, if reports are true.
Commissioned officer ranks in British Army:
The subaltern ranks:
Lowest: Second Lieutenant (pron. `Leff-ten-ant', not Loo-tennant')immediately after getting Queen's Commission.
Then : First Lieutenant
Finally:Captain - this is as far as H got before he was kicked out - a terrible disgrace for any one else.
Then Field Officers:
Major (this is the usual bottle-neck for promotion, when those passed over retire)
Lieutenant Colonel (popularly called `a half-colonel)
Colonel
Brigadier -British Army (not really a General, an in-between rank)
General Officers
Major General etc.
The Colonel bit in Harry's case is honorary, he certainly wasn't promoted to it. Ditto the naval equivalent of Colonel in Chief, Captain general for the Marines.
The Colonel-in-Chief rank that individual royals hold are ceremonial and a focus for loyalty, as they represent the Queen. Given that it can be argued that the British Army `borrowed' its structures from the vanquished Highland clans after 1746, the C-in-C rank is like a Clan Chief.
“I know you lot won’t accept anything that conflicts with your world view, but I’ve actually seen the car in the drive, windows open, the lawn being watered, the couple driving out, oh and the castle mews has electric car charging points. I wrote a planning store about them.”
(Responding to the idea that HAMS didn’t live at Frogmore and that it was deserted)
Holding the Royal Warrant is a great honour - it must be used with care. There are strict rules about it. It may be displayed only under certain conditions and may be removed, as happened to Harrods.
The whole business of Megsie's merching has a very bad smell about it when one bears this in mind. Still, if she can't grasp why political comments are a no-no she wouldn't understand this.
Or else she knows but...
I agree Tatty about the we need to be careful about writing that she did offer or participate in some sort of sexual activity with people, especially naming names.
Unless we have proof ... then yeah. Do it think things are possible? yeah. But do I have anything proving my case? nope.
I not it
slight conversation shift: Do you think the shrobing was to look more regal? like coronation robes?
Not entirely sure what sort of date this is, lol is it other worldly or futuristic? ;o)
Beyond the verifiable fact that Harry and Meghan met somehow and got married at St. George's Chapel in Windsor on May 19, 2018, everything else about her is pretty well shrouded in mystery, and she has taken extreme pains to make sure this is so. What we do not know for a certainly about Meg and therefore can only speculate upon would fill more volumes than the works of Proust. That is quite a (dubious) achievement for a woman who isn't yet 40.
Despite the ongoing debate about Meg's age, in her case I am not a birther--I think she was born in 1981. Meg is fond of sun worshipping and the party lifestyle that tends to accelerate aging, so I think she's as old as she says. She got a lot of sun on those yachts she used to frequent. It is common knowledge in those circles that 'yacht girl' is synonymous with 'floating escort'. Do you believe that wealthy men of the yachting class would pay thousands of dollars to hire nubile actresses and models to spend the day(s) on their boats at parties for their friends just to be decorative? In the same manner that escorts who visit men in their hotel rooms are just there for conversation and to save him from having to eat dinner alone?
Short of a gander at an arrest record for Meghan Markle or a signed affidavit from one of Meghan's companions aboard ship, which may or may not have included Prince Andrew, I am never going to get 'proof' that her yachting included special favors. We do not have any proofs either about Meghan's merching or what she did with that money. Another thing we *do* have proof about is her being sued by the IRS for tax evasion and losing in court before she married Harry. I'd say past performance is a good indicator of future behavior.
Even *if* she were a paid escort on yachts, that is not the worst thing she or anyone else could do. The real criminality is what she has done to Harry and to the fabric of his family by her patterns of deceit and divisiveness. Everything we discuss about her here can only be speculation. Even the most basic facts of her early life, schooling and work is under clouds of doubt, so if we confined our remarks to what is *provable* about her, this blog would have petered out after a couple of entries.
"Surely a memo had been sent to everyone from BP instructing them how to dress for the occasion. Completely disregarded by Meghan in a blatant show of FU-manship."
In your post I think you've described Meghan's pathology perfectly. But, I do disagree a bit about Louis's christening in the above blurb.
I agree Meghan looked pretty dreadful. And who carries suede gloves in July?? But I'm not sure there would have been a memo, much less one from BP.
We've been told repeatedly that royal christenings are private family affairs. So if a dress code memo were to go out, it seems it would have been sent by W&K. Not by TQ or her staff especially as TQ was not even attending the event. (Plus I just don't think TQ or her staff excessively micromanage people's wardrobes--she expects people to have some sense and to want to follow protocol. Which has been a mistake with Meghan.)
I can't quite imagine Charles or Charles and Camilla sending a memo or directing their staff to do it either. That would have been an overbearing thing to do to W&K. Kate likely would have talked with Carole and Pippa about what they planned to wear as family members everywhere do before big events. But I doubt she'd have wanted to appear to dictate to Meghan, especially if the stories about Charlotte's dress fitting have any truth to them.
Somehow though Harry figured out it was a good idea to wear a blue tie to a baby boy's christening but I'm not sure it's because he was given a memo. Even he could probably figure that out on his own (although maybe not given he wore a grey suit with brown suede shoes to Archie's christening!)
If M had cared what others were wearing to the event she could have asked. Or she could have gotten a pretty good idea what to wear to a July 2018 christening by looking at pictures of Charlotte's July 2015 christening. All the women wore light pastels to Charlotte's event too.
I think M was merching and I think she wanted to stand out. But I don't think she ignored a memo that time.
She stated Meghan stole and prostitued herself as facts, which isn’t ok. All I asked her to do was go back and maybe add “IMO” or “*speculation*” or “allegedly” and she replied basically saying her post was speculation so now it’s ok. Get it?
I’m just watching out for everyone and this blog.
You, on the other hand, are an attention whore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYIS_k0Ejwk
chatting with Lady C (Lady Colin Campbell) - contacted by Meghan's Team, Diana.Meghan, Narcissism
fascinating about Diana/Meghan etc
Fair point. Since every other single person in the group shot besides Meghan was dressed in coordinated colors, there was definitely some sort of prior arrangement made about the color scheme, followed by communication to the invited guests about said scheme. From whom it originated we can't say for sure. As the parents, William and Kate should of course had input about their son's day. What I meant to convey was not that the Queen would have dictated that unilaterally, but rather that the new parents would have probably coordinated some kind of round-robin that included the Palace and Clarence House in their intentions. They had to clear things with the Queen about their own wedding, so I suppose she likes to be kept in the loop about other family events that are happening. It's a private family occasion, but the photos are going to be a matter of public record forever, so keeping on brand would be an important consideration. HM isn't in the picture; it is my understanding that she was unable to attend due to illness, though the christening day was just a few days prior to Archie's the following year for which she was absent in Balmoral owing to previously scheduled garden parties up there.
The situations of Archie and William and Kate's third child defy comparison in so many ways. I wouldn't expect the Queen to miss a christening of one of William's children in favor of a garden party, or anything other than illness to have kept her away. The following summer citing immoveable engagements at Balmoral that July weekend gave HMTQ a much-needed regal remove from the whole Archie Harkle circus.
I'm sure asking others what she ought to wear would not occur to Meghan in a million years, and we know how she reacts to being *told* what to wear. At this point she was such a new bride . . where the bridges already so irrevocably burnt that Kate wouldn't have called her and told her the color scheme? Harry was appropriately attired that day, but he's attended a lot more of these events than Meg, and furthermore only has the two suits. What a relief he didn't turn up in that baggy crumpled gray number again.
At this point in the marriage, I was still trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but this day was a glaring indication of just how out of step she was with everyone else in her new family. I would not want it to transpire that she arrived dressed very wrong for the occasion because all of the women in the RF had pointedly NOT told her on purpose to exclude her. Everyone else was faultlessly coordinated to match . . surely they did not all absorb by osmosis what they were to wear? Blue and white are safe bets for a summer christening, but to have those two colors *only* be worn by everyone else in the room is very specific. Only one outlier in the room either did not get the word or refused to comply. Meg's MO would be more in keeping with the latter.
Diana made it a point to make sure everyone knew how at sea she felt in her first weeks and months of Royal marriage when, according to Di, "absolutely no one helped me" . .vis. what to wear and how otherwise to comport herself as a princess. I thought that was the entire point of having her move in with the Queen Mum at Clarence House for the engagement, but it was probably more like to preserve her virginity. Otherwise they seemed to let her flounder. Diana was an Earl's daughter and had grown up in aristo circles and still floundered. How much more ignorant of the expectations a recently arrived immigrant from California would be.
I do believe several protocol advisors were engaged for Meghan, but they soon learned they were redundant since Meg's Way is the only way as far as she is concerned!
One of the things about Meg is she keeps followers on their toes. Things close down and disappear fast if you are late to the party. Thankfully there are some smart sleuths on the trail of her escapades.
For new Nutties, the old posts are worth a perusal:
https://nuttyflavor88.blogspot.com/2019/01/yachting-tweet-screen-shot.html?m=1
That is hardly evidence (but I get that you believe she was and I don’t know if she was or not)...
You were right to point out that some of my assertions about Meghan were too assertive in the absence of facts. I get on a roll and just keep going.
Just to head off future misunderstandings as to my intent, please assume up front that everything I write about Meghan here, what makes her tick, why she might do what she does, the progression of her relationship with Harry & how she got him to the altar and the current status of their relationship and their activities is all imaginative speculation on my part. You provide a service by reminding us to be moderate in our remarks, but I think we have considerably more leeway in the context of this blog than we would in a mainstream newspaper. Obviously the standards for journalistic integrity are far more stringent for publication. Can this be considered publication? I don't think so, not in the same sense.
Though in the interests of protecting Nutty, let me just state for the record that my opinions do not reflect those of the blog creator. I think we should all carry on as though we are writing about a fictional person, because even after nearly 3 years, I have no idea who the real 'Meghan Markle' is, and I doubt she does, either.
As for 'stealing' .. she has a penchant for stealing intellectual ideas in the form of copying them, and we've got evidence of that. How about her appropriation of a fraudulent membership in the Screen Actors Guild which she did not in fact possess? She admitted from her own mouth (while laughing about it) that she was 'a fraud'. It was indeed fraud, and constituted a form of theft against anyone who would have hired her under these false pretenses. In fact they would have faced severe legal and financial penalties for hiring a non-SAG member, and even presuming that non-SAG might be eligible for some work, Meg's lie meant that she'd be paid at higher SAG rates than non-members. Is that not theft?
But for the purposes of this space, I will admit that I have no hard proof that any yacht girls including Meghan ever did anything more than accept free drinks and look cute in bikinis. These are not crimes. Anything beyond this is sheer guesswork.
she was pretty funny talking about it.
Still watching...
@Unknown Yes, @Nutty's old posts are great. I've been lurking since before the blog started when @Nutty was just on CDAN. It took me a very long time to start posting.
The old Nutties brought life to this place and I am so grateful for the laughs and insights. I miss them and wish them all the best. I also really appreciate the new Nutties that have made it fun for me to read. I don't bring much to the table but it's been fun to shoot the breeze with a lot of cool people here.
Someone (@Charade?) had mentioned that perhaps MM was paid for what she wore on the Ireland tour. Most of what she wore was Givenchy, and she also wore an Emilia Wickstead dress. These wouldn’t qualify as mid-range brands. She did wear a white t-shirt. I went to the brand’s website and it does qualify as ‘mid-range’ and they do appear to use cable models (or people along those lines.) But their yearly sales are only $3,000,000, so clearly they didn’t pay MM $250,000 to wear a white t-shirt that was hidden under a Givenchy suit. She also wore many pieces of Birk’s jewelry, but again, that wouldn’t classify as mid-range. Also, I think she had a prior relationship with them, so they wouldn’t have needed to go through a third party. That leaves the shoes and handbags, which were also quite expensive, so I can’t see it being any of those brands either. The total wardrobe cost listed for this tour is roughly $40,000 (for 4 outfits.) The green sweater worn with the famous green leather skirt (Finding Freedom cover) is listed as ‘custom’. Why would such a simple, basic piece need to be ‘custom’? To drive up the prices on her Givenchy pieces, perhaps?
For me her 1 min Hollywood roles before Suites are much more revealing. Knowing what sort of place Hollywood is I don't believe for a second a talent-less not particularly attractive actress can get that sort of "resume building roles" in more or less serious films without granting certain favors. There are many in California, all eager to get a break into stardom. Perhaps I am wrong and Hollywood changed, although recent scandals with moguls say otherwise.
What is absolutely clear if she does have the history like that her current "Duchess" persona and feminist aspirations will cause laughter and Harry will be ridiculed behind his back.
Your comments are banal and you are a disruptive force. We don’t care what you think! Get it? Get over yourself. Seriously.
I forget when exactly I first dropped by here, but I wasn't here from the beginning. More like the middle. :) I had a lot of reading to catch up on. I wasted a lot of time when I should have been working catching up here. The Harry Markle archives consumed a lot of my time and were a fascinating deep dive into the Harkle Debacle, so much I hadn't known previously . . like Meg stalking Haz relentlessly around the globe for a year after he broke up with her. That was news to me. I was such a rube, I swallowed the entire Hallmark movie story about their romance whole & assumed they'd been a couple for 18 months before getting engaged. The actors portraying this couple were a lot more appealing than the real things.
'Doria' is presented as a wise counsellor who encourages her daughter to follow her heart and choose Harry despite the sacrifices, leading to that Hollywood romantic film trope in which the hero or heroine makes a desperate 11th hour run to the airport to declare his/her undying love. This one had it too . . Meg tears off to the airport where H. is in the process of boarding his private plane back to the UK. 'Meg' runs out onto the tarmac for the emotional reunion scene. Just like Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr in 'An Affair to Remember' . . though she was actually hit by a car and killed while trying to reach her man, but you know what I mean. Gee, maybe I should check out this movie again for some comedy entertainment over this long holiday weekend, what do you think?
********
Megsy was a bit of hot mess from the very start, but I was chalking it up to the cultural clash and being new/nervous in her new role, rather than any calculated desire on her part to be a chaos agent. I been schooled since then. I can pinpoint exactly when I turned against her and realized that Harry had married a provocateur with potentially unstable mental health . . in the December visit to the old actors' home. It was her very first solo engagement as the Duchess of Sussex and I couldn't believe my friggin' eyes at what I was seeing. I probably need to back it up and say that I started to get a really bad, uneasy feeling about her with her appearance at Eugenie's wedding and the flamboyant maternity ensemble. But--I couldn't be *sure* then that she wasn't actually pregnant. We hadn't seen a great deal of her in pictures between July and October, so I thought it was *possible* just, that she might be that pregnant.
In that black and white number with the square bump, and her ostentatious announcement about how pregnant she was feeling .. I knew she was playing a game. The game of a disturbed person with an agenda.
For the benefit of Tatty, I did not have *proof*. But I had my certainty. Some things you can just *feel*. Her subsequent behavior over Archie has only bolstered my belief that Something is Not Right about that whole situation. My belief is not proof, mind you, but it works for me and I have grown fond of it.
Whoa! I’ve always wondered where the yachting thing started. ;o) I’ve seen loads of people ask, but no-one had the answer. Kinda shocking, and shockingly believable Megsy would be up for that.
Nah, I think you’re spot on, I think Hollywood is a pretty morally derelict place where anything goes. :o/
I didn't want to make any trouble for Nutty, so I backtracked on some of my more provocative statements about Meg. I feel in my waters that I am not wrong about what she and her fellow yacht girls got up to at sea, but Tatty was right to remind us that this is not proven, or provable . . .nobody involved is going to admit to criminal activity . .and could be actionable. We see how MM's agents shut down certain bloggers who were saying unflattering things about her. I think she's a bit too preoccupado (not to mention broke) to expend time on hunting down hobby bloggers at present, but I'd hate for Nutty to suffer consequences as a result of anything I or any other poster writes here.
I'm thinking I must have started coming here sometime after Eugenie's wedding. Before then, I didn't really have any cause to mistrust the version of Meghan that was being put out for public consumption. To think I actually had a lot of sympathy for her before the wedding over the situation with her father and the papp photos. Samantha, Tom, Jr. . .the nephews who run a pot farm . . the whole Markle family seemed like a real freak show.
They are rough-edged to be sure but I now feel very certain that Thomas was set up over those photos, and by his own daughter, in the same way he was over the release of the letter. It is in Meghan's interests to entirely discredit the man who gave her everything growing up because he doesn't fit the image she wants.
A lot of water under the bridge in these two years . . .I'm exhausted! Harkle Fatigue is afflicting a lot of people these days. Between the Harkles and COVID-19, it's sometimes hard to determine which is the bigger scourge. I guess Haz and Mess haven't actually killed anyone. But they may be a thorn in our sides even longer than this virus.
It was confirmed, I think, that she was told not to post anything to distract from Cam's speech, but she did anyway. What will happen if she pulls this in LA?
Showbiz folks don't show the same kind of restraint the RF does. If she is told to please wear abc or do xyz and she doesn't, then what?
A second chance at the big time. Will MM finally listen to advice?
>>>We may never know if she went on yachts as "escort" or in any other capacity. There are pictures of her on yachts, so speculation will never die. There are people who know for sure, may be one day they will speak.<<<
Let's hope Tom Bower finds some of those people. He would probably have to protect their anonymity, but I trust that he is going to do a meticulous job of research and uncover many of Megsy's little secrets. He will have to be careful though. Even if people were willing to speak about this with their real names, whether partygoer or fellow yachtie (doubtful), Meg could still sue for defamation. It's not like there are going to be written records about what went on at those yacht parties. Meg is litigation-happy, even when her chances of winning are not good. The Daily Mail is currently handing the Duchess her royal butt-pads in court.
>>For me her 1 min Hollywood roles before Suites are much more revealing. Knowing what sort of place Hollywood is I don't believe for a second a talent-less not particularly attractive actress can get that sort of "resume building roles" in more or less serious films without granting certain favors. There are many in California, all eager to get a break into stardom. Perhaps I am wrong and Hollywood changed, although recent scandals with moguls say otherwise.<<<
I think the old casting couch is alive and well in Hollywood. Post-Weinstein they are going to have to be even more clandestine about it. If bona fide Hollywood royalty like Gwyneth Paltrow succumbed to that sort of pressure to advance her career, how much more would someone at Meg's level be expected to/feel the pressure to participate in that underground economy?
Hollywood is a hard town and a lot of ingenues flock to town with stars in their eyes and dreams of show business only to get a rude awakening and find themselves making transactions they never dreamt they would just to eat. This is why PP counseled Harry that actresses are just not the best bet for royal brides. I think now we have had that confirmed.
>>>What is absolutely clear if she does have the history like that her current "Duchess" persona and feminist aspirations will cause laughter and Harry will be ridiculed behind his back.<<<
True. This seems like it could have possibly been the source of the fracturing of Harry's relationship with his oldest mate from school, Tom 'Skippy' Inskip. It is pure conjecture that Skippy might have been acquainted with MM's yachting activities and warned his mate about them; we don't have receipts on that. We *do* have the photos from Skippy's wedding which do not depict a relationship in paradise. Skippy & Harry's other friends in attendance must have been aghast when they heard that Hazza intended to marry *that* woman, the one who'd crashed Skippy's wedding looking like one of the Greek Furies.
It's gone beyond ridicule now. Anyone who has ever cared about Harry even a tiny bit has got to be beyond perplexed at his recent decisions and sick with worry over his future.