When the Daily Beast, one of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's favorite PR outlets, reported yesterday that the duo had been bothered by drones over their current couchsurf in Los Angeles, I rolled my eyes.
Yet another fabrication, courtesy Duchess Meghan. Who really cares enough about these people to fly drones over their residence?
Unauthorized drone photos generally can't be sold to commercial publications for legal reasons, so there's not much financial incentive to take photos from above.
(The Beast suggested that some recent blurry photos of Harry playing with a dog outdoors were taken by a drone; other bloggers calculated angles that suggest the photographer was inside the house.)
Even if drone photos were publishable, who cares about the Sussexes sitting by their pool? That's not an exciting photograph. Who can use that?
In addition, if the drones were to catch Meghan topless - as they once caught Kate with long-lens cameras - the photos wouldn't have much news value.
Most of us have already seen Meghan nude from the waist up.
It sounds a lot about the lies she told about paparazzi terrorizing her in Toronto - no police report was ever filed - and in London, where it was claimed she was the subject of a "wave of harassment and abuse" because she is (a little bit) Black.
Meg has lied about so many things, it made me think:
What about Meghan do we know to be true?
Yet another fabrication, courtesy Duchess Meghan. Who really cares enough about these people to fly drones over their residence?
Unauthorized drone photos generally can't be sold to commercial publications for legal reasons, so there's not much financial incentive to take photos from above.
(The Beast suggested that some recent blurry photos of Harry playing with a dog outdoors were taken by a drone; other bloggers calculated angles that suggest the photographer was inside the house.)
Even if drone photos were publishable, who cares about the Sussexes sitting by their pool? That's not an exciting photograph. Who can use that?
In addition, if the drones were to catch Meghan topless - as they once caught Kate with long-lens cameras - the photos wouldn't have much news value.
Most of us have already seen Meghan nude from the waist up.
Yet another lie
My assumption is that Meghan was lying about the drones, as well as the "unimaginable" levels of intrusion in Los Angeles that has the Sussexes "followed every day" (at a time when California is still mostly under lockdown) leaving them "rattled" at the cars "being driven very erratically" behind them.It sounds a lot about the lies she told about paparazzi terrorizing her in Toronto - no police report was ever filed - and in London, where it was claimed she was the subject of a "wave of harassment and abuse" because she is (a little bit) Black.
Meg has lied about so many things, it made me think:
What about Meghan do we know to be true?
A few basics
There's never been any question, to my knowledge, that Doria and Thomas are Meg's parents, and that she grew up in the Los Angeles area, although there is some dispute about her age.
We know that Meg was married to Trevor Engelson from 2011-2013.
Her tenure on "Suits" from 2011-2017 cannot be denied, nor can her blog "The Tig", which lasted from 2014-2017.
Then, of course, we all saw Meghan get married for the second (third?) time on May 19, 2018, and there were a few documented Royal engagements during her 18-odd months in the United Kingdom.
What else about Meghan is absolutely known to be true?
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_Inn,_Topsham
----- Hey Granny look! I am performing my Royal duties. Me and Meghan have quite a few projects in the works with the Hollywood people. Love you! See you soon at Balmoral, though Megsy and Arch probably cannot make it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8370011/Prince-Harry-praises-young-volunteers-Sports-Heart-London.html
Interesting to see how people fall prey to Pasternak's distant family connection. Hewitt said he cooperated with her book because he hoped she was a "serious" writer who would tell the story "respectfully" and "gently". Instead the press jumped at the juicy bits that were aplenty, and published them. Like "They did it in a bathroom" and "She begged him to do it in a car" or something like that. No wonder he was called love rat after that.
Looks like Tatler made the same mistake and allowed her to write the article that backfired badly too. It is now seen as an open attack on the Middletons and Kate specifically. I don't see what Tatler won in a long run by doing this, they lost more.
Making a prognostication that may become a "fact": Tatler will loss their press access to the Royal Family.
I hadn't come across any statement about it, though.
"Spicing on the ache". There is a country song in that one Fairy. I love it!
That didn't take long.
They are like spoiled toddlers. The more they hear "no", the louder they talk to make us "understand". Sound familiar?
I sure hope HM and Philip lie in bed and giggle over the zany exploits of the half-wit Harkles and what they think they are going to make the BRF do.
It would only be fair.
I just had a vision of Harry, dressed in green tights, earnestly asking the audience to clap "if you believe".
Maybe that's the Markle Sparkle!
Fairy Dust!
(No offense, dearest Fairy Crocodile. Which just made sense to me for the very first time. I can be very slow sometimes)
And OT, Octavia correct, have you seen "Bad Peter Pan"? Hilarious!
*If that is correct
Sheesh. I have poltergeists.
Typing poltergeists.
It is an obvious hit job at the DoC. I don’t care how many glossy adjectives Anna Pasternack threw in, it at least borders on, if not crosses the line to, bullying. I’m wondering if the tone of the article changed because KP declined (so it appears) to participate.
I know that most of us believe that MM is behind this because of Pasternack’s connection back to Jessica Mulroney. However, there are several articles (behind the Telegraph’s pay wall) about MM that don’t appear to be very flattering.
I realize it is possible she’s not a fan of either woman, but something feels off. As someone mentioned earlier, Tatler could easily lose access to KP for this. I don't understand how they could think this article is flattering. Something just seems off about the whole thing.
Sorry if this has been asked for before.
I love that show!
And then the weight gain in the face, arms, and belly AFTER the baby was "born", very unlikely. Most women immediately after delivery, lose the water they were retaining in the late stages of pregnancy.
"Something just seems off about the whole thing."
I agree.
I'm in the minority because I'm not convinced MM is behind the article much less contributed to the specifics in it. Except for the tights story and maybe the psychic story (I say maybe because I could have sworn I read something along those lines years ago about Will & Kate) there's really nothing new. And even the tights story isn't a big revelation if it even happened. Lots of people were posting about the lack of tights (and the clunky shoes MM gave the kids to wear) the day after the wedding.
Yeah, supposedly Kate is wilting because H&M aren't around to save the day (yeah, sure) but the other stuff is stuff that was published lots of places years ago. It's mean but not new. Kate's lazy, Kate's boring, Kate's too thin, Kate got a new accent, Kate's family isn't blueblooded, etc. And none of the stuff about Carole was new either. One attack that was left out-- her Jewish heritage (which wasn't true but was raised as an anti-Semitic attack before the wedding because her maiden name was Goldsmith.)
It reads more like a personal issue of the author's to me and not from MM because it IS old stuff. I think the author has a bone to pick (for whatever reason I do not know) and maybe a Kate "former associate/former friend" helped. I definitely do not believe any of the text in the article was MM's. But I guess it's possible MM or her team convinced the author to do a hit job. I think it's also possible the staff at KP was dismissive to the author ("Do you know who I am?") in a way that offended her.
SS is so aggressive and blatantly political. I think the Harkles took a real downswing when they brought SS in.
Oddly, everything they do seems to boomerang into more bad press. At least in the comments. Nobody is fooled by the tsunami of sugary, banal articles. Which is why they try to keep to the tabs that either don't allow, or moderate the comments. Heavens forfend we enjoy free speech.
The Duke and Duchess have no clothes it seems.
Or they have insanely expensive ones with the tags hanging out, and one sadly rumpled grey suit and matching grey polo shirt.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7437193/Meghans-Mr-Sunshine-Manhattan-PR-employs-bare-knuckle-tactics-protect-clients.html
Thanks for the answer. I know I read there might have been some improper thing going on with Doria's dad's house after he died.
(I'll just be over here enjoying my popcorn and Coke behind a very solid bunker wall while the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge toss hand grenades my way....)
“I think it's also possible the staff at KP was dismissive to the author ("Do you know who I am?") in a way that offended her.”
I just checked to see when her book about Diana and Hewitt was published. It was published in the spring of 1995- right before William started Eton. He would have been 12. Can you imagine the embarrassment he must have suffered when this was published?
Now that I think about it, Pasternack must have some pretty big brass ones. I can’t believe she actually thought KP, Kate specifically, would collaborate.
as mentioned before Tatler s part of the Conde Nast family and i’m just speculating here, but Anna Wintour is the Creative director for all CN titles. i see her hands in this slanted article too, not just the Tatler editors. Anna W always came off as an MM sugar to me.
She knew/ knows MM would return back to LA / US and if she can get access to MM for the States VF/Vogue, thats a big audience. she could be gambling MM will end up having the star appeal in the US that Di did.
And i think thats part of MM’s plan, she doesnt care if she’s hated in the UK, it’s all about selling her victim story to the US public and getting their sympathy, support and dollars.
Fact: Journalist Victoria Mather (on MSNBC) stated that Meghan Skidmarkle was 5 clicks up from Trailer Trash.
Opinion: Only 1 click up, IMO
It seems they pop in whenever they need fuel to boost their ego. Vampires.
@CookieShark: You hit the nail squarely on the head. People with narcissistic personality disorder are nicknamed “emotional vampires” in the psychology field. They drain the life from their targets and move on,
It's even funnier, because Diana was a Spencer too! In trying to be a second Diana Spencer, she made herself into Octavia Spencer, playing Minny Jackson, in `The Help'.(I think it's when Minny wears her pillbox hat, with the bun hairstyle, that the effect is strongest. There's also the fact of MM's chubbier face).
Which reminds me-
We know her face is extraordinary variable, both in expression and structure.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8370011/Prince-Harry-praises-young-volunteers-Sports-Heart-London.html
What is the connection here? Harry is not and has not been connected with either of these organisations? He is not an official member of the BRF or the government, i.e. he holds no position that makes him a spokesperson. He has no personal wealth nor a Foundation that manages wealth to donate to any organisation. Does anyone else find this a bit embarrassing, as if he has someone (perhaps the two employees he still has in London) looking for anyone who will talk to him and give him some publicity?
Sport at the Heart is not a charity. You pay a membership fee to join the organisation. Harry is not connected with them in any way. Here is the info on them:
https://www.sportattheheart.org/Home
StreetGames is a charity that seeks and solicits donations and funding. Harry has never been associated with them either:
https://www.streetgames.org/our-history
faewyn, Yore An Anus, Niue, moments ago
It's sad really and pathetic. Harry fled his stifling life in Britain. Quit being a working royal. Felt he was trapped, claimed Britain is toxic yet here he is...doing a zoom call with British citizens, pretending he cares. Why leave Britain, if all it did was get him back to square one? So there he is, looking a mess, in LA desperately grasping onto what little relevancy he has left....doing the very thing he could be doing in the relative safety and privacy of Frogmore with his dignity in tact, surrounded by caring family and friends...if only he din't make suck a mess of life after getting married. Talk about making bad choices and taking the privileged life he had for granted
What we DON'T KNOW. How do Harry and Meghan decide which charity meetings ( phone, video,zoom) they keep secret and which ones they publicize. We do know Prince Charles and Doria signed the wedding certificate and had the children in the bridal party there to be witness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they publicise any meeting that they can arrange. Either they are doing it themselves or they do have some staff members looking for suitable organisations that will talk to them.
It is odd that they are not having 'meaningful' or fundraising' Zoom meetings with the organisations and charities to whom they are officially linked.
The story about Meghan working in secret with Mayhew is very suspicious. Doing what? Why a secret? Why not put a name to the person who spoke to the press?
Children cannot legally be witnesses to wedding vows or signing of the register unless special arrangements have been made. Unless special permission is granted, a person has to be 18 before they can serve as a legal witness. Meghan and Harry met the bare minimum legal requirements (and the requirements for the Church of England) in their marriage ceremony (highly unusual for a royal wedding and completely unnecessary as there were plenty of people in the church that day who could have served as witnesses):
* All Church of England weddings legally require two witnesses.
* Witnesses might have another role in the marriage ceremony, such as the best man or a bridesmaid, or, being a witness might be the only role in the ceremony.
* A witness must be present when the bride, groom make the declarations and exchange vows.
* After the marriage has taken place the vicar, the couple and the witnesses sign the marriage register.
* Virtually any responsible adult can be a witness – all that’s required of you is being capable of writing a signature, and understanding what you have signed.
The wedding was legal and did happen. It was odd, but it was real.
Daily Mail sayes H and M have new pal Rick Caruso a super-rich property tycoon - lining up a new house maybe?
DM having missed out on Archie's birthday have a centre page spread on the first birthday of Dylan the Dog - resident at 10 Downing Street with PM Boris and his girlfriend Carrie
The pub at Topsham looks lovely.
Many years ago I went to Keith Floyd’s pub in Totnes.
Great spot on the river, bugger to get to.
Bar was painted deep red, & was empty, Rolling Stones belting out.
After a couple of drinks I asked the friendly barman, his son
“Where’s Keith?” He was in Australia!!
The subscription is not unusual - I belong to a number of organisations in which this happens - National Trust for example.
Where I would take issue is that it's quite tricky to get to its details. It's hardly Sport England (OK, I didn't look at its Go Fund Me page) It operates only in part of London - the Borough of Brent and its immediate area.
Its website is rather cagey - no `About Us' or `Who We Are'. It's been going about 3 or 4 years, judging from what's on the Charity Commissioners' site.
I'm dubious about some of the smaller charities that spring up, again a matter of how much the organisers pay themselves is the issue (some of the big ones are very generous to their senior staff as well).
Here are the demographics of LBofB -
Population (mid-2019 est.)
• Total 329,771
• Rank 27th (of 317)
• Density 20,000/sq mi (7,600/km2)
• Ethnicity[2] 18% White British
4% White Irish
0.1% White Gypsy or Irish Traveller
14.3% Other White
1.4% White & Black Caribbean
0.9% White & Black African
1.2% White & Asian
1.6% Other Mixed
18.6% Indian
4.6% Pakistani
0.6% Bangladeshi
1% Chinese
9.2% Other Asian
7.8% Black African
7.6% Black Caribbean
3.4% Other Black
3.7% Arab
2.1% Other
This is from Wikipedia.
I offer no comment beyond suggesting that the motive for H$M targeting them is as least as much about the H$M's motives as it is about the extent of the need in this community. Meghan doubtless approves.
It will be interesting to see whether they support any endeavours operating in other deprived places, such as the Metropolitan Borough of Sunderland in the North East of England. This has a very different ethnic structure.
Have they examined their `unconscious bias'?
OT - Oh yes, Keith Floyd's pub! It had quite a reputation. One of those pubs where you had to watch the tide if you'd parked in a silly place, like the foreshore.
Pasternak wouldn't happen to be a client of Kruger Cowne, by any chance? Like Jane Goodall & Desmond Tutu?
To our dismay, old Megs is at play
To take down our Kate, er, no way!
She’s vile and she’s cunning
And in no way stunning
But nothing will get in her way
She will get her comeuppance
And be left with mere tuppence
If only she’d learned not to prey
I think the LAPD has more pressing concerns than the complaints of two attention-seeking spoiled brats.
The law I was quoting was secular law, the law of the land, which makes `sham' and `fraudulent marriages' punishable. Ecclesiastical law of the C of E doesn't come into it; the service makes no difference. It would depend on a trial in the same kind of court as any other fraud or deception case.
Were they Roman Catholic an annulment might be possible, but I think a couple could still need a Divorce (a Civil case) to be granted in secular law. An RC priest may conduct a Nuptial Mass but, but it's the presence of the Registrar that makes it a marriage in the eyes of the State.
All depends on the evidence, whether there is anything predating the marriage where he, she, or they, gave the game away, that their intentions were fraudulent.In which case, even their wedding presents might be seen as `gaining property by deception', like people who fake having cancer and dupe people into giving them money for `treatment'.
The case 'd be fascinating but I doubt if it'll come that. All speculation of course.
This was a C of E ceremony.
Why remove your comment?
Thank you for asking. :)
Love your latest poem, sums things up very well. You're on flying form! Keep it up 😉
Kudos to you on the poem! I used to contribute poems but certainly couldn't handle saying anything to rhyme with comeuppance, lol.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage
But I forgot one thing (sorry to raise your hopes)
Unfortunately, there's a time limit and I think the Harkles time is up. Pity she didn't dump him within the first year. After that, it's seen as having accepting the situation, however hellish
It might affect a divorce settlement though. Here's hoping.
who fought in the First World War, followed by paternal Grandfathers who are Welsh /English?
I composed this on my phone a couple of days ago when the thread was fresh and much of what I came up with has already been mentioned as 'facts we know about Meghan'. I have trouble posting from my phone as I sometimes go over the word limit (I know . .what??!) and then I'm pretty well stuffed. So here it is now, with any last-minute inspirations that strike.
*************
Well, there is little danger of this entry going past 1000 comments because there is just not that much verifiably true information about Meg, which is pretty sad.
Can I get an Amen?
I think the facts as we have them about her early life and schooling in LA are legitimate. We know that she is the only child of Doria Ragland and Thomas Markle, Sr. We know that Thomas left his first wife for that much younger Doria, who he met when she had a minor functionary role on one of his sets. We know that this created a lot of bad feeling among his older children, not least because Meg, being much younger, was relentlessly spoiled by her father. We know that Meg was featured at age 11 in a video for Nickelodeon, Discussing her “activism” and getting Procter & Gamble to change the wording on one of their dish soap ads. We know that Meg erroneously attributed this early feminist stance entirely to herself and her own initiative, even though this was part of a class project and other students were also featured in said video. We also know without question that Meg has dined out on this early experience, Using it to burnish her resume and her humanitarian credentials for the last nearly 30 years.
We know that from her earliest days as an aspiring actress, That she has employed various PR firms to get her name and image in the press to create a persona that makes her appear far more successful than she in fact ever was. We know that most of the celebrities she counts as “friends“ were introduced to her through these PR agencies. We know that her “humanitarian work“ with children in the Third World consists exclusively of photo shoots with cute brown and black children. We have seen her photographed on yachts with other young actresses and models where nobody had much on. We know Meg is fond of a particular white panama hat that she uses as her signature prop. We know at least one of her nephews is part owner of a pot farm, and that several of her family members, including Meg herself, are recreational cannabis enthusiasts. Meg in her white hat has been photographed smoking a joint in the company of Jessica Mulroney, and we also know for a fact that she and Trevor passed out bags of marijuana as wedding favors to their guests at their Jamaican wedding.
We also know that she interprets the meaning of calligraphy very loosely.
Also that she is equally fond of avocados, and that at one time she learned how to do yoga. She says that her mother taught her, but that is not a verifiable fact . We also do not know whether she practices yoga currently as enthusiastically as she would like us to believe.
We know that her appearance changes drastically every few weeks or months in photographs, but whether it’s due to plastic surgery, weight gain or loss, drug use or just digital manipulation, we cannot be sure.
We know from observation and from the trajectory of her path thus far, that she tends to leave schools, jobs, housing, and relationships on a two year cycle or less.
We know that her long-term friendships are scarce to nonexistent, but there are a couple of women from her school days Who are still willing to be photographed with her.
It has been documented that a paid PR firm was actually responsible for the look of her Tig blog and Meg just posed for the pictures.
We know that Canadian fashion chain Reitmans hired her as a spokesmodel for their catalog campaign. We also know that she did not complete her professional obligation to them, because she quit her contract early.
We know that she was briefcase girl number 24 on Deal or No Deal, though she held that post less than one season.
We know that she fraudulently claimed to have a SAG member card because she has admitted it herself.
We know she did a number of risqué photo shoots for men’s magazines, including a by now infamous video for Men’s Health in which she wore micro shorts while pretending to grill burgers, and licking her own fingers.
We know that she often appears in clothing which is unseasonal, untailored, unsuited to her body and usually all three.
We know that she is sometimes photographed with live dogs or a live baby, but never at the same time.
We know that she is very fond of pretentious quotes on Instagram.
We know that there is insurmountable tension between her and her in-laws, and that she has been open about hating Britain and the British way of life.
We know that she has an innate Spidey sense as to where cameras are in her vicinity.
I'd say that we know she looks bilious in green, but that is just my personal opinion.
Have I left much out?
we have a very similar sense of humor. After your description of a possible exchange between Q and PP it immediately came to mind:
PP How much longer is Harry gonna pretend he can do anything by himself?
Q Not much. He's nearly finished.
You make a great point that she has been open about her disdain for the UK. I actually see a pattern of her criticizing people/opportunities that appear to care for her.
We know she has cut her Dad off in a very public way. This is the person other family members say went into financial ruin in order to provide for her.
She has criticized Deal or No Deal and being a "working actress" in general, speaking negatively of the audition process, having a car that didn't work, etc. If this were me, why not find a job you like that pays more reliably?
She has criticized the Royal family, but they've provided her housing/clothing/security.
She criticized the inventory at SmartWorks, but her association with them provided her opportunity to launch her "capsule collection" last summer.
All of this from the person who decrees that we should be kind and "impactful" people.
Why is she so bitter/angry at people/things that ostensibly provide for her?
`Why is she so bitter/angry at people/things that ostensibly provide for her?'
Is it because they don't show her enough `respect'?
They don't come crawling to her on their bellies and rolling over to show submission?
Is it because their obsequiousness isn't nauseating enough?
Because the goodies they provide are her due anyway, so there's no reason to show gratitude, genuine or otherwise?
Is it because she's going to be the Most Important Woman in the World?
She has criticized Deal or No Deal and being a "working actress" in general, speaking negatively of the audition process, having a car that didn't work, etc. If this were me, why not find a job you like that pays more reliably?
Most aspiring actress/supermodels, as Meg marketed herself on the fantasy document known as her resume would be thrilled to be selected for Deal or No Deal. Sure, all that's required is T&A and a fake outburst of enthusiasm or mock sadness every time you open a briefcase, but it's a bit like being a Miss America pageant contestant every night. No lines to learn, just hit your marks and look pretty while standing on slippery risers in 5 inch heels and a negligee. It was an opportunity to be on television and beamed into millions of homes every week. Meg was really fortunate to be included in this coterie. I haven't seen all the other briefcase girls lined up but they seemed to be like Rockettes with an average height of 5'8" - 5'11", before stiletto heels.
No doubt, acting is a very harsh business, with something like perpetual 95% unemployment. It is definitely not a haven for the emotionally fragile who cannot stand rejection or criticism, nor the lazy. Successful actors and show business performers work incredibly hard in addition to a certain amount of luck in getting auditions and having the right look to be offered a certain role. Our Meg would object to being a 'working actress' . . she objects to being a 'working' anything, including a working Royal. Unlike her acting days, after she won the 'audition' of being Harry's wife, all the subsequent 'jobs' were arranged for her. *All* she had to do was turn up, look nice, accept some flowers, smile and perhaps say a few words. Not terribly difficult in exchange for free housing in an historic building, free couture wardrobe, a $50 million dollar televised wedding, free travel, and a place in history.
But it was too much 'work' for Meg. It was 'soul-crushing' to have to turn up for photocalls a few times a month. For someone of whom we are continually being told "She's got hustle" . . I don't see any evidence of it. Meghan is a 'hustler' and that's quite different.
There is no job that Meg will ever like, on principle. I guess she liked sailing on the yachts well enough. Beat waiting on tables like so many other aspiring actresses want to do.
I will accept Magatha that it isn't you, sorry that 'Unknown' has done this to both of us.
Thoughts?
Here is an excerpt from the new post at Harry-Markle blog>>
Whenever the Sussexes ‘leak’ a story, or con a charity into posting a publicity video clip for them on social media, there’s alway a reason for it. Usually it’s to drum up publicity for some stunt or announcement they are going to pull, or is an attempt to take attention away from the work of other members of the Royal Family. Which was it this time? When Newsweek announced an exclusive, that MM was, you guessed it, in ‘secret talks’ again with a charity, it coincided with the airing of William’s documentary on ‘Football, Prince William, and Our Mental Health’ on Thursday 28 May, 2020.
I have always been put off by the two brothers going on about mental health/ meaning their mental health and I suppose secondarily, everyone elses. It is unbecoming for Royalty to go out advertising their weaknesses. Harry and William should have done it/taken care of their problems in private and this is all.
I was thinking this is how Megsy was successful in hooking her Royal fish. Haps had a big billboard out there saying, "I got mental problems". Megsy saw an opening, a vulnerability and pounced. Megsy is certifiable crazy, do you think she ever went out admitting it?
I cannot say for Wills, but for the floundering fish Haps, his mental business is depression.
Of course Harry didn’t want to be left out, but there are slim pickings left from the charities that he can use for publicity these days. How ironic that once upon a time, it was charities that used members of the RF to help boost their profile and causes, and now those tables have been turned and Harry appears to want payback. It’s their turn to help raise his profile and popularity that has plummeted that even Scobie only mustered up 1k likes and less than 50 comments/emojis for the post, and Durand managed a paltry 8 comments!
AKA - Reversal of fortune. Hapless needs the charities more than they need the non-Royal Harry. The Malibu Two are hanging on for dear life to Old Blighty, The RF and the good graces of his Granny, The Queen. Method is zoom bombing unwitting UK charities. I will credit them for keeping their back up plan B in motion. Which is to skedaddle back to Frog Cottage if things don't work out in LA.
"See you in late July in Balmoral, Granny!"
Ye auld half in/half out plan that KCM refers to
Other thing of note... Harry looks like he hasn't gotten a good night's sleep in weeks. Was this taken in the early morning hours right after he was pulled out of bed? He looks pasty and pale.
Onno! So sorry!
The demon that autoccorectsfor me changed the phrase
"In case that is correct"
To "Octavia"
I was fussin' at it.
I didnt even notice you had used the name.
I listened to the video, nothing of substance was said...
Great poem! You are so clever!
@Fairy
You lips to God's ear (on the "he's almost finished")
@Hikari
Amen! Another great summary
Have we discussed that Anna Paternak is pals or a work colleague of Jessica Mulroneys sister? And I we know JM meddles.
And @Indy yes! On the weird secrecy. Harry Markle said the charity Harry "shined a light on" (gag) has three employees.
Thanks all....great commentary as usual.
Now I want to go to those pubs!
Can you see the space launch?
That grey polo is looking nasty.
Not today; there was heavy cloud cover as afternoon thundershowers were firing up here. Usually I can see it. Hopefully this is the first of many and I will get additional opportunities. The people on the beach should have been able to see it; I'll ask the daughter and the former DIL (who both live at beaches in different counties).
I cheered them on while watching NASA live!
well spotted! The comments are very supportive.
OT I saw the SpaceX Rocket 🚀!
He helped plan gap years abroad, attended Harry's Sandhurst passing-out ceremonies and was a driving force in establishing his Sentebale charity in Africa.
Described as 'one of the few people who talks some sense into Harry', he is godfather to the Prince's son Archie, while in turn Harry is godfather to Dyer's eight-year-son, Jasper, who was a pageboy at the Sussexes' wedding.
Finally, we get to know who ONE god parent is! *faints*
This is quite different from M's lawsuit. In M's case, she knows who the sources are. She claims she didn't know they'd talk to PEOPLE but she admits knowing who they are (or at least admits knowing who one is if not all 5.)
Another Markled?
According to the DM, James Chau, a friend of Who Know Who, is being investigated by WHO.
As protecting his family is key for FKAPH will there be a return to UK anytime soon ??? Thoughts Nutties
And about the Cambridge suing the Tatler I think it has to do with the king of magazine it is. If it was a an obvious gossip magazine like in touch or even DM they may have let it pass. But Tatler does have certain reputation and it dont usually write think like that. There are more people willing to believe it because of that.
Described as 'one of the few people who talks some sense into Harry', he is godfather to the Prince's son Archie, while in turn Harry is godfather to Dyer's eight-year-son, Jasper, who was a pageboy at the Sussexes' wedding.I
---
Great find, Miggy!
Interesting that he is described as "one of the few people who talks some sense to Harry". It confirms what we suspected about Harry's impulsive and rather fat-headed approach to life. Megative made it worse, but she didn't create his problems.
@Indy
He did look wasted. I'm afraid he may end up a cautionary tale of someone doesn't help him.
I wonder if the estrangement from William was more than just his rush to the altar. There have been stories that Harry was not allowed at Apt 1 KP because of his drinking and W&C didn't want him around the kids.
Perhaps there was a dual cause: Concern about Me g and an intervention.
I keep thinking the BRF is going to step in and help him, but unless he wants help...And let's face it, he's easier to manage wasted, and an early death would leave her free, wealthy and a professional widow...a scene she could play to the hilt.
It's her town, she has the contacts for the drugs.
Although it fits!
@ Piroshka: Good point about `Kate' rather than `Catherine'.
Pasternak wouldn't happen to be a client of Kruger Cowne, by any chance? Like Jane Goodall & Desmond Tutu?
@WBBM: You probably already know this, but after her divorce from her last husband, Meghan engaged Kruger Cowne to raise her profile in the UK and most likely hook her up with more people in Harry’s social circle as Meghan continued stalking her way into Harry’s life.
She was all buddy-buddy with Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne, but then dumped her as soon as she succeeded in hooking up with her target Harry. I’m not even sure if Gina got an invite to the wedding.
See these DM articles . You’ll have to search them by their headlines, I can’t get the links to appear:
It's Meghan and Haz! Royal bride-to-be gave Harry his new nickname weeks after their first meeting - and it WASN'T a blind date, says her friend and advisor
'Save it. I don't wanna hear it': How Meghan dismissed concerns from her friend and business adviser about marrying Harry because she was 'on a mission to bag THE prince and RULE the world'
Anna Pasternak is repped by 42 Management and Production. Here's the blurb about her on their page. Notice that the last sentence says she is "researching her next woman to reposition."
That means she is researching a new book about a famous woman, and what if it is MM??? Or Catherine??? Could the Tatler article be just the first shot across the bow which leads to a book?
https://www.42mp.com/authors/anna-pasternak
Anna P researching her new book's subject. Could it be Carol M?
Mm or Catherine would be too controversial for her. No direct/credible source would be willing to put their name on it. The subjects are currently alive, Wallis was easy. She lived forever ago and is already a much hated figure shrouded in intrigue so anything can be worst ten about her. Carol is a private citizen, and people in the certain circle that Anna P is catering to hate her for her success and like to believe that she must be Machiavellian to have reached the level of prominence that she has.
Anyway, just a speculation on my part. But seems a much better subject esp for Anna that either Catherine or Megs.
I also feel that KP suing Tatler is indicative of this having nothing to do with MM directly. If this article was commissioned by M they wouldn't have sued Tatler and made such a big deal about it.
“Anna decided to dedicate her career to rehabilitating women whom history has mistreated.”
Well, if the Tatler article is an initial first shot across the bow to toss mud on Kate in preparation of elevating Meghan, you could very well be onto something. Perhaps Meghan has even asked or encouraged Ms. Pasternak to take up the unjustly-maligned-in-her-mind-only DOS Meghan as her next image rehab project.
If Meghan is her next subject, then good luck to Anna with making the move to the fiction category.
I do not think Harry will use the riots in America to go home with his tail between his legs.
As far as I can see, Meghan still holds the power.
Harry can't go back while he is under Meghan.
As much as I want to joke about that, the fact is- that is a hard place to be.
He may even know that he has been played for a fool, but he can't admit it because that would be admitting everything everyone has told him. How embarrassing.
She sure does like guns when it suits her. No pun intended ;)
Why would Pasternak lend her name and reputation to something she didn’t write? Have you seen some of her other articles or books? I’m not 100% sure she’s a royalist and I don’t think she’s a nice person. Her book about the love affair between James Hewitt and Diana was truly awful, and Diana saw it as gross betrayal by Hewitt.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7179381/amp/Author-Anna-Pasternak-tells-story-1994-book-Princess-Love.html
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257828/amp/Anna-Pasternak-The-ridiculed-writer-linked-Dianas-lover.html
Couple have hired security team dubbed 'the secret service for famous people'
are thought to be paying an eye-watering £7,000 a day for their protection
It is unclear who is footing the bill, though friends insisted couple would pay it
Harry and Meghan, with their son Archie, are living in Tyler Perry's LA mansion
By DANYAL HUSSAIN FOR MAILONLINE
30 May 2020
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have hired an exclusive A-list security firm to protect them for £7,000 per day, according to sources.
The couple, who are now living at Hollywood tycoon Tyler Perry's mansion in Los Angeles with their son Archie, are using the firm also used by a slew of A-listers, including Jeff Bezos and Tom Hanks.
The team watching the royals in LA is believed to have been handpicked by Gavin de Becker, 65 – a former security chief for President Ronald Reagan.
His firm GDBA claims to protect thousands of clients and has boasted of working with the CIA and FBI.
It is unclear who is paying for the security bill, though friends of the Sussexes claimed this week that the couple would be paying for protecting out of their own pocket.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8373213/Harry-Meghan-hire-LA-security-firm-charges-7-000-day.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L173wbF4g4c
Some of the lyrics:
Hey, hang your red gloves up,
coz theres nothing left to prove now.
Hey, hang your red gloves up, baby
no one cares but you.
What planet are you from?
Accuse me of things that I never done,
Listen to you carrying on
Cheating another love song
If i were in your shoes,
Id whisper before I shout
There you go playing that record again
Find somebody else to talk about
If I were in your shoes
I'd worry of the effects
You've had your say now it's my turn
Sweet dreams my LA ex
Sorry, I was asking if anyone knew who Pasternak's agent was - I don't know. I was speculating.
-------------
@Ziggy:
Tails between legs as he/they return? I doubt it very much.
The Zoom call to the Brentford charity may be a taste of things to come. Way back, when she did her cookbook stunt, there was a comment about possible bias in her choice of charities, as opposed to those of which she has been given the patronage.
Did she have any pre-existing link with the Dagenham school? Had she seen `Made in Dagenham' and how it `shone a light' on female power at the Ford plant, so `her people' were instructed to set it up? I can't remember if it was a `secret' visit or not?
How does she define `secret'? In my book, that's something done without publicity, and as few people as possible knowing, before, during or after. Does `secret', in her sense, however, mean something done without any other part of the RF organisation knowing until its too late to stop it?
Her modus operandi, if continued in the UK, could be very dangerous if she deliberately builds support in one part of the population, rather than another..
Last night, I watched a film about how George VI contributed to the efforts to mislead Hitler about where, on the coast the D-Day landings were to happen. The underlying theme though, was about the relationship between MI5 and the RF. For example, Edward VIII (D of Windsor) had given them cause for concern but, as the war went on, a great deal of trust was built up. The good relationship that exists now was emphasised right at the end.
HM's visit to MI5 a little while ago can be read as a warning, not that MM would have taken any notice of it. William spent time with the Security Services as well. I sincerely hope a close eye is being kept on her, she's a stirrer.
Wait for Meghan to leak the wining claim that 'it is not fair' - Catherine can sue a tabloid and be supported and praised but when she does, she gets criticised. What she will fail to see is the following:
* Completely different, i.e. her case against the press is not about publishing false stories about her (she tried to sneak that into a case about breach of copyright, which was a spiteful swipe against her father).
* Meghan has never used the law to threaten or sue a tabloid (or any media outlet) for publishing false stories about her. Catherine and William have. (I actually disagree with Charles and believe that if you let the media get away with it, they will become more bold.)
* It is the true stories about her (as Richard Palmer has pointed out) that have been most damaging to Meghan's reputation.
Anyway, with William and Catherine, things are usually professional and powerful so I expect them to win this legal challenge without too much fuss. (I suspect that Tatler will say they were simply quoting sources and the sources wanted to remain anonymous and thus they cannot reveal their names.) With Harry and Meghan, we could count on a messy and very public affair.
A significant number of Polish young men, who managed to get out of Poland before it was too late in '39, flew with the RAF. They were very highly respected for their flying skills and their contribution to the war effort. Many married English girls and settled here.
Many Polish people have settled here over the years.
-In the late 19thC there were refugees fleeing from Tsarist persecution - often they were put ashore in London, having taken ship on the understanding they had bought passage to NY!
- Poles fought as part of the British Army in WWI.
- After 1945, `Displaced Persons' who had lost everything, including ones who had been in concentration camps, came.
- many have arrived more recently for work. Whether they will stay and be assimilated, as their predecessors were, remains to be seen.
`Anna Pasternak is repped by 42 Management and Production.'
--------------
Thank you, that's less incestuous than I thought it might be!
Male rats havevery conspicuous signs of their masculinity - Harry Rat's ones are strikingly absent!
————————————————————————————————
Speaking of the Harry Markle blog, she has a very specific policy to not cut-and-paste from her blog. Reblogging is fine, but cutting and pasting is not, so I hope that everyone here can adhere to her policy.
If the dynamic were straightforward narc and victim his family wouldn't so obviously distance themselves from HIM.
2 months and this is going to turn into a shit fest, mudslinging like we have never seen before.
She is a mean girl, but he is the scheming Disney villian.
I love 'em.
`Wokers'! Brilliant!
Thinking of wokers and rats, our neighbour complained about rats coming through the boundary hedge from our garden. Legally, they are wild animals, owned by nobody but he insisted they were `ours'. Every so often he chucked a dead one, (cold, stiff with rigor mortis!) over the hedge. So we call him `The Tosser'.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harrys-exit-has-not-heaped-more-work-on-william-23tgnxzc7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prince Harry’s exit has not heaped more work on William
Jack Malvern
Saturday May 30 2020, 12.00am BST, The Times
It was a claim that drew an unprecedented rebuttal from Kensington Palace: the Sussexes left the Cambridges in the lurch when they withdrew from royal duties.
While the story was flatly denied, it did raise a question: just how much work are William and Kate doing?
Claims from an unnamed friend of the Cambridges in Tatler magazine that the couple cannot be hands-on parents because they are picking up Harry and Meghan’s duties are not borne out by the Court Circular.
Figures compiled for the first quarter of 2020, when the Cambridges were active but the Sussexes had withdrawn to North America, show that William and Kate carried out a similar number of engagements as they had in the same period last year. In Britain, ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is all I could get from behind the paywall!
`It's not as if Harry did much work anyway'.
If the RF was relying on H to do more in the future, it's as well they know now, sooner rather than later, that its not going to happen. Even without M, he probably wouldn't have pulled his weight.
William…………and Meghan Explained Astrologically
You can tell from the number of spelling errors that the blogger was not really keen on looking into this! Nonetheless, I like the way she writes and her honesty in admitting to bias. (Hint: Meghan is very attracted to William, but she really is not his cup of tea, and astrologically they are destined t be enemies!)
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/619583679687262208/submission-williamand-meghan
Harry and Catherine astrological charts compared
She did a reading of the astrological charts of Harry and Catherine as well ... (Hint: Genuine love and compatibility there, and a love that brings out the best in Harry.)
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/619534540455673856/submission-harry-and-kate-explained#notes
Yes, they sent a cease and desist letter to Tatler asking it to pull down the article or face a lawsuit. DMs headline is quite misleading. But the story is quite clear on how it all went down.
Tatler approached KP for Kate to pose on their cover. Kate declined. Asking Kate to pose shows that KP was aware that Tatler wanted to do a profile on her.
Tatler goes ahead with the profile knowing that Kate is aware of it. They use an old picture of Kate on their cover, an indication that Kate didn't pose for them.
Tatler writes the profile and in it makes claims that KP says are inaccurate. Tatler insults Carole Middleton and Pippa in Kate's profile.
KP releases a statement implying that Tatler didn't fact check the content of the article.
Tatler responds saying KP was 'aware they were doing a cover on Kate's and that they 'asked KP for collaboration' so why should KP deny they were not aware (Note the words Tatler used in their defence. 'aware of cover' and 'asked to collaborate').
KP then sends a cease and desist, asking them to pull the story or face a lawsuit.
Bottom line: KP didn't deny not knowing about the cover. They objected to the accuracy of the contents. Tatler said KP was aware that Kate would be on the cover but failed to mention if they fact checked the contents with KP.
There lies the contention. KP has outlined what they say are the 'lies and inaccuracies' in Tatler's article.
It's now left to Tatler to respond. If Tatler refuses to budge, KP would sue. Tatler would then have to defend all the issues KP raised in the article with their own receipts.
The problem Tatler would have is that the article wasn't an opinion. It was a profile written as fact. So Anna has to defend all she said about Kate, Carole and Pippa.
Tatler probably didn't expect such a reaction from KP, so I'm curious to know how they would respond.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-4077#post-58462804
Jan 15
3 events
One was being received in Bradford & doing a walk-about. Then W&K visited 2 other places for a total of 3 events.
Mar 5
Galway, Ireland
4 events (1 of those 4 was arriving back at Heathrow)
If it weren't for these away days, Kate's January-March total would be around 22 events in 3 months. (Of course, away days may interfere with school runs.) With them, according to the press reports, it's 29 events in 3 months. That's not more than last year.
Since the lockdown, there was one day with multiple conference call events for International Nurses Day. Sophie and Kate spoke to nurses in London, India, Australia, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, and the Bahamas for a total of 7 events in one day (each call location = an event in the CC.) I'm sure it was tiring as conference calls can be, but really that was not an unusual work day for many working women.
There are also no engagements for Kate listed between Dec 4, 2019 and January 10, 2020 so it's hard to say there are no vacations as Tatler claimed was said. (Going to church on Christmas Day isn't an official event nor is attending TQ's lunch for extended family at BP.)
______
@Sandie wrote (from LSA)
The problem Tatler would have is that the article wasn't an opinion. It was a profile written as fact. So Anna has to defend all she said about Kate, Carole and Pippa.
Does she? I'm not sure any "profile" piece is 100% fact. I've never read one that was.
AP may have to defend what she said about Will and Carole as that was supposedly told to her. But saying Pippa is "lost" sounds like an opinion, saying Kate is too thin sounds like an opinion, saying many of the unflattering things said about Kate were opinions, saying Carole grew up in a council flat is true (didn't need to be said, but it's true), saying Diana had an eating disorder certainly has some basis in fact...
I'm also not sure W&K can sue in behalf of the Middleton family.
Seems to me what needs defending is what AP wrote "friends" and anonymous court staff said Kate said. And what she's implying Kate is doing like so much more work because of H&M. She's free to say Kate is skinny, lazy, dull, whatever, if she wants to. Not sure why she wanted to but she can legally do it I'm pretty sure.
I alway knew they were square-shaped and so widely spaced apart you could park a small car between them, and this is the best picture of real teeth I’ve ever seen of them before the plastic princess underwent all the work she’s had done. Sorry it is not an actual link, I do not know how to create a link within this blog.
https://www.dailysquib.co.uk/entertainment/35287-meghan-markle-proud-of-her-pre-op-teenage-years.html
@Raspberry Ruffle,
I meant that Pasternak wouldn't write a book (she says her her specialty is telling the stories of maligned women) about Kate or the Middletons after writing a hit piece on them, not that she didn't write the article.
Yes, I've read up on Pasternak. Interesting person, huh.
That link goes to a jokey website. The Megs photo is not real.
Yes, I've read up on Pasternak. Interesting person, huh.
IOW- - - She's a piece of work. An opportunist, to say the least.
Can a royal who grew up third in line to the throne marry a rich American and move over there? Swedes have been here before: Princess Madeleine, sister to the crown princess, did this a few years ago. She now lives in Florida, and her example could be instructive to Prince Harry and Meghan.
Like Harry, she first tried love at home, but it didn’t work out: her 2009 engagement to Jonas Bergström, a lawyer, was broken off after rumors of him cheating on her. The news rocked Sweden and when she moved to New York shortly after, it was seen to be quite understandable.
And then she just stayed there. She worked for a charity her mother, Queen Silvia, had set up, fell in love with American-British financier Chris O’Neill and even gave birth to her daughter overseas (although a lot of people remarked that it is strange indeed that a princess can be born in a country without kings and queens). O’Neill chose not to become a Swedish citizen which would have allowed him to be titled prince.-------excerpt
It is parody. i.e. it is not true (neither the photo nor the text) and is deliberately exaggerated (both photo and text) as parody.
Harry will either have to crawl back or live his choice. When daddy becomes King Harry WILL make an attempt to benefit from it.
Let's see how the rest of the set will react to this.
Yes, the poster at LSA sounded convincing but was challenged by others. However, if Pasternak was simply giving her opinion in the hit piece she wrote on Catherine and her family, why did she quote so many sources?
Oh, she was quoting the opinion of other people.
I am not sure how the media works in the UK, but I live in a country that does defend freedom of the press but you cannot simply state anything about another person and dress it up as an opinion and not be challenged on that.
Some of the article was biased reporting of 'facts', e.g. what was reportedly said by someone who worked on the renovations/refurbishment of Amner Hall. There was no attempt to talk to anyone else who worked on Amner Hall to test these claims (and if there was and no one else chose to speak up, then that should have been in the article).
That Catherine was furious/stressed that her workload was increased and she could no longer take her children to school was reported as fact (i.e. something Catherine actually said).
That Catherine is playing the long game because she wants to be Queen is written as fact.
The author does not clearly own what she says as her opinion, and extensively uses unnamed sources (giving them a context but no names in an attempt at legitimacy) to state her own opinions and present her own bias.
I admit that standards have dropped horrendously and people are perhaps unaware of how to use language to distinguish between fact and opinion or how to do fair reporting. We should not be afraid to express an opinion or show a personal bias, but in doing so we should be clear that it is what we are doing (and that it is subjective and unbalanced) and we will be held accountable if we impinge on others' rights. It is a dance that does not always have clearly known steps!
I can see a huge pile of manure for Harry in the future, possibly even dragging the Crown into international litigation re divorce settlement.
May be this is one reason why Harry is scared witless and looks like a ghost.
He is beyond idiotic if he not signed a pre nup.
I agree saying something is an opinion isn't an automatic defense against defamation. But opinions are protected and I don't think they have to be explicitly flagged as being opinions in writing. And many of the things said
(not all, but many as in the majority) about the Middletons were opinions (including the opinion from the skilled craftsman) OR were factually true. (Carole's background, for example.) The criticism of the Amner Hall decor was mean-spirited but whether a certain decorating style is appropriate for a given home is certainly a matter of opinion. I would think people reading the Tatler would know that.
The post from LSA seemed focused on the Middletons and AP's need to defend what she said about them. That's mainly what I was disagreeing about.
I agree saying Kate said X or saying I know Kate thinks Y isn't an opinion. But, as I said, I don't think there is an expectation a profile will be devoid of opinions. The hope is the piece will be balanced--- neither a hit job or an obsequious fawning PR blurb. But nothing is devoid of opinions. Look at profiles written of historical figures like Anne Boleyn and Marie Antoinette! Even after so many years there are differences of opinion.
_____
@Fairy Crocodile,
I thought pre-nups weren't enforceable in the UK. At least that's what I've read.
As things stand, and barring accidents, Catherine WILL be Queen eventually, whether she likes it or not!
There latest new lie they are now paying 8-10k A DAY for security. She really needs to stop her lies before her dimwitted husband ends up killing someone because of her bullshit.
I agree with you completely.
The fact that Pasternak used "sources" is trying to give her article credibility and gives a false impression that it's journalism.
As a former journalist, that article was NOT journalism.
I'm not British and I've never read Tatler. I'm certainly aware of Tatler that the reputation it used to have. It does seem out-of-the-ordinary for their typical articles. It's surprising Tatler would so boldly attack the future Queen consort of the UK.
I'm curious if Tatler subscriptions were canceled and if readership will decline. Are the subscribers to Tatler just as outraged?
OPM-- other peoples money (Gimme gimme gimme that sweet sweet Duchy money from the Bank of Dad)
My guess is that the case will run and run, with no granting of a Decree Absolute until financial matters are settled. It took me 5 years,IIRC, to go from D.Nisi to D.Absolute and MM could outdo the narcissistic leech I & my solicitor were trying to deal with. No contest.
Only a change in circumstances could speed things up eg M finding a billionaire who offered bigger money, faster, than hanging on to H would yield.
Of course, it wouldn't be tried under English law if they stay in LA. Perhaps that's why HM wants him/them back here? Lesser of 2 evils?
Re Tatler. I bought it once, when I was 21 and wanted to read an article about a particular crew competing at Henley. The newsagent in our little market town simpered as she said `Oh my dear, how nice,!'
The offence the Tatler could be up in court for might be a matter of ignoring a C&D letter, which is a formal, legal, warning. I was prepared to go that way with my most recent narcissist but it didn't prove necessary.
Thank you so much for posting the info on Polish men who fought in WWI and immigrated to the UK (and the US). It confirmed what I had heard as family legend; that my Grandfather was allowed to immigrate due to his military involvement with the Allies during WWI.
Once again you are a wealth of information on historical facts!!
Radio silence from the Sussex humanitarians!
They also chose to run the the article, and didnt bother to do much editiing, thereby reinforcing this was meant to be an underhanded hit peice. their carefully worded statement about ‘awareness’ and ‘collaboration’ again reinforces that. this was not a vogue ‘editing collaboration’. Conde Nast’s publication and revenue has been tanking just like all print media. Do they think their future and competition is the National Enquirer / Star/ TMZ world of celeb culture?
and because CN and Vogue are on the downswing, that makes Anna Wintour vulnerable to be attacked like she has been recently. But does Anna Wintour care about attacks and revenue at this point ? Is she still trying too hard to stay on top like the pathetic Sunset Boulvevard Madonna? or is she now just trying to influence things her way via her still existing position at CN? in other words does she dislike the tradional Wills & Kate, and was putting her support behind the “Royal Changing“ Harkles?
you’d think the Tatler editors would care about future revenues even if AW doesn’t, but people don’t always do whats in their best interest when thy are trying to change the world.
This is even bigger mess than I thought, in its absence we have the questions of applicable law in case of divorce, the question of private assets vs joint assets, custody, child support, wife maintenance, property and a whole lot more.
Harry is not simply an idiot, now I am convinced he is mentally challenged.
Interestingly, there are a boatload of unemployed "journalists" that wrote far-left articles for their newspapers that then folded, and CNN is circling the drain. It wouldn't be the first time.
CNN low viewership is never a problem. CNN is always doing great as far as their financials because the people (at advertising agencies) who make the ad buys for major corporations are left oriented. So they steer advertising $$$$ away from Fox and towards CNN-MSNBC-NBC-ABC-CBS. Fox News always has more viewers than CNN but they have lots of crappy advertising that does not bring in the revenue. From casual tuning in, it seems to me that the only high paying advertisers that Fox gets are drug companies. Fox audience skews older and seasoned citizen so is a good fit for Pharma.
Watch CNN and see what automobile advertisers are on. Then see what Fox gets as far as the same.
Tatler is just another example of the rapid decline of legacy media. They are dinosaurs trying to survive in the digital age. They no longer have the resources or interest in fact checking and chase controversy for clicks.
Another example is the hilarious back tracking of Forbes magazine recently. They have rescinded Kylie Jenner's "billionaire" title. Forbes claim they were duped and that Jenner falsified tax records. It seemed oblivious that Kylie Jenner the world's youngest self-made "billionaire" was all smoke and mirrors but apparantly Forbes has just now decided to investigate, too late damage done.
I don't read or watch most of legacy media, too much click bait, propaganda and lying. They are for the most part irrelevant and Tatler is just another example of why there are dying off.
Re: Charles's decision to remove RPOs for Bea and Eug -
I feel HnM are well aware of that precedent and that was very much kept in mind when they released their manifesto. It's the reason they proposed a so called half in half out plan and continue to act half in half out doing all this secret nonsensical zoom calling business. It's to prove to everyone that they can be half royals, do their duty for the UK and live their own lives so to say.
It's ridiculous, but it seems like that's their plan - To wing it!
Property: Meghan has never owned property and may not want to. Owning property costs money (rates, taxes, insurance, maintenance). Unless she can get a settlement for life that would not only include property but the costs of living in that property, I do not see this as an attractive option for her. I would be surprised if they buy property in LA for the same reasons.
Replacement for Harry: Meghan will want to replace Harry quickly and she will want to upgrade in terms of financial standing. The divorce settlement will be probably couched in terms of providing for Archie rather than Meghan (so that she can freely move on to a very wealthy man). For her it will be balancing to be free completely to move on and being provided for. Her short time as a royal showed that she loves to spend the money of others, and does so in a huge way, but she has also shown that she does not like having any kind of restrictions at all. I think it will be a trade off for her.
Track record: She got no settlement from Trevor when she dumped him and all she got from Corey was a push up the ladder of fame and opportunities to be a celebrity. I suppose she could claim to have the right to live the life she had with Harry and she has already put out the story that it was him who drove Megxit and not her. (He deprived her of the life of luxury that she thought she was marrying into.)
Why do I keep thinking about separation and divorce? I have just questioned my favourite tarot reader and her conviction that separation and divorce are just a matter of time (I think they could stay in a toxic co-dependent relationship with each other for life). Yet, I get the feeling that Meghan is building the connections she needs and making the first moves to separation and divorce. (She has now been connected to three, and maybe more, very wealthy men in the States, and it turns out that the Goldman Sachs opportunity was probably also through a connection of hers. Is Harry just going along for the ride, thinking he is in the driver's seat but actually will turn out he is being taken for a ride? Maybe I am wrong, but I have a feeling ...
GoodVibesEternal says: Another example is the hilarious back tracking of Forbes magazine recently. They have rescinded Kylie Jenner's "billionaire" title. Forbes claim they were duped and that Jenner falsified tax records. It seemed oblivious that Kylie Jenner the world's youngest self-made "billionaire" was all smoke and mirrors but apparantly Forbes has just now decided to investigate, too late damage done.
Yeah, there was a lot of (well-deserved) mockery in the non-mainstream financial blogs about that company valuation. Some people defend it as "puffery"; I would call it outright fraud, but I don't have a horse in that race. I believe it should have been investigated by people that can read a financial statement, dig deeper, and not take it at face value. The damage has been done. Nobody is going to believe their articles.
I wonder why?
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/archive/tagged/submission
(Note that the blogger who's site have referenced is not the astrologer.)
Back to regular programming ...
However, looking at her adult teeth of photos of her when she was younger, the teeth aren’t that far off. Her real teeth under those veneers are/were widely spaced and quite squarish.
Meghan has had more major cosmetic work done than rebuilt ‘57 Chevy.
"if they use his trust money to buy big ticket items such as a home, cars , jewelry , summer homes ,real estate or take it out of trust and invest it, Meghan CAN get half if anything they use it for."
Only if Harry puts her name on the deed or title. If it's purchased with assets form the trust, then it will either be owned by the trust or Harry. If Harry is stupid enough to put her name on it, it will be deemed a gift. If he puts both names on the deed or title, then whatever proportion as to named owners.
She could conceivably get maintenance (child support or spousal support) from any disbursement from the trust. I've seen it claimed he gets the income from the trust each year. Unfortunately for Harry, considered income and reachable.
I think Meghan signed a pre-nup barring her from pretty much anything. Hence, the quick kid (you can go pretty far with IVF, but right at the month of marriage?.., not raise your couple profile for a year or two first?). I think this is what sent her over the edge, realizing the purse strings to her financial life were not in control of her in anyway marrying into the firm.
Why else mention 'Financial Independence'. So, so much. And now as their ultimate 'reason for leaving.'
Sidenote- Which is weird, they could be independent in the UK....that can't be the ultimate reason for leaving. They didn't just leave the Firm, they left the country on top of it.
Further, I think she being more worldy messed with Harry's ego straight away. Comments, pillowtalk, planted the seeds that he's not committed to their life or his best version of himself without 'earning' in the real world.
'Why let your family run your life your whole life?" Hinting that he wasn't 'good enough' for her. Things of that nature. This is why I believe he looks a mess, because he cannot be what she wants him to be. His luck in life, and fortune, is tied to his family. But I do believe she whispered that they could be a power couple without the firm, then he'd 'be a real man, independent and strong.' Also guarantee, she attributed his mental struggles to this dynamic. And he started to firmly believe it. Her manifesto pretty much emphasises these ideas.
This is why I think there was a prenup involved; the kid, the speed of which she/they left, and how he was easily convinced it was the best for 'their family'. I think she was insufferable and insecure in the UK and he assumed this would help, and afterall, he wanted to 'leave' for years.
I think they are both manipulative and cannot sustain both egos in one house for too long. Why do you think we are seeing so much suffering from a couple who literally had it all and it wasn't enough?
Megsy's initial "hit the ground running" propaganda was that her niche in the BRF was going to be to modernize them. To bring them (drag them) up to date on the new multi-cultural UK that is outside their doorsteps. The BRF nixed this along with the British public if you go by DM comments. When the dust settled the Duo are couch surfing near Hollywood. This is why Megs grabbed all the expensive couture while she could. This was displayed to show off to the Hollywood that rejected her at countless auditions. To tell them they were wrong because she married a British Prince.
Getting back to Pimp Mama. She must own at least 25% of Kylie Inc. Pimp Mama don't work for free.
'Track record: She got no settlement from Trevor when she dumped him'
@Cookie Shark
'@ Sandie you make a great point re: no settlement from Trevor.'
I always thought that whatever money MM had came from her divorce settlement (a few millions), NOT her earnings on Suits as her sugars are fond of claiming. I might well be wrong but I'm sure I've read her earnings were not as high as she made out and her money was really from Trevor post divorce.
Happy to stand corrected.
Even if he had considered it, she'd have worked on his guilt over the implication that she was only in it for the dosh. Should have pressed ahead with it - she have shown her true colours.
There'll probably be a custody battle if, that is, there is a child called Archie who is truly their son, in America with them. It shouldn't be difficult to argue that MM is a rotten mother who doesn't give a fig for him except as a handy tool to work her will. Whether H is any better we don't know.
Another point is that the English courts take the duration of the marriage into account when considering how much a spouse gets. One year gets you nothing by way of maintenance/alimony; the aim is to restore each to their original position as far as possible.
My experience: After a little less than a year of trying to make it work with the narc leech, I walked out. I just wanted back what I'd put into buying joint property; he could have paid, having inherited far more than I needed, but wanted to take me for every penny I'd got, even though he would have had sole title to the house. Eventually, I got the money and signed the house over to him.
Moral: the longer the farce drags on, the worse it could be for H.
I think their hastily depart definitely has to do with money. Even without a prenep, Im sure the BRF and courtiers are smart enough to tied up the money anyway. You don't need a prenup if all your properties and money are in trusts the family name. Their house, their income, even their clothes, it didnt belong to them, but to the family. Anything that Harry gets now can be slip 50-50.
Agree, and if a pre-nup is signed before a marriage, they aren’t legally binding in the UK they are for consideration only when it comes to assets and maintenance etc. :o)
For Nutties wanting to read more on this subject, there’s lots of discussion on this topic within other numerous posts. ;o)
I don't think Megsy will have any difficulty convincing the judge she is a great mother. A couple of tearful statements from her friends, a video of her reading that book, the story how she had to remove her mixed race child from the toxic racist UK and horrible UK press combined with witness statements about Harry's temper tantrums and drinking habits will do the trick.
Harry is utterly unprepared to fight the battle of dirt and he is too far removed from the real life to anticipate her moves.
She will win the custody and will use the child to blackmail Harry. Poor kid.
The only thing I am not sure about is what will happen of Queen (God forbid) dies and then Charles doesn't have a long time on the throne, it will make Harry fourth and Archie fifth in line, so this may change the custody rules. I am not very good with finer aspects of Crown and succession rules.
It doesnt mean they didnt get help ivf, or there is a monetary gain or anything like that as well.
"Prenuptial agreements are now legally enforceable in the UK, your aim should be to make an agreement that lays out how you and your partner would divide things fairly. ... The pre-nup is entered into by both parties freely and knowingly - that means you must both understand the agreement fully and agree to it voluntarily".
The further interesting comments the judge at the divorce court is likely to uphold the pre-nup if both parties entered it freely and knowingly.
Both William and Charles never signed a pre-nup, so suppose this was Harry's excuse.
something is only worth what someone else will pay for it.
In my opinion, Coty didnt do their due diligence at all and totally overpaid when buying Kylie, but thats on them imo, not the kartrashians.
haven’t there been a bunch of tech start-ups that were bought up by the big guys and then came to nothing and ended up being a bad buy?
I’m not an expert on fraud and rules around buying companies, but for that amout of money, and a large company like Coty, i’d say it’s buyer beware and on them for not doing their due diligence.
and forbes lists are a bit ridiculous, even i know that. they are only guessing in many cases about the wealth of the people on those lists. they even had an article recently on Kanye, he wants to be labeled a billionaire too (cause Kylie was higher higher than him) and how the valuations are determined is subjective. they only rated him at 900 million. forbes is a joke now since print has died and they were sold off.
For instance, what does Harry actually own himself? what assets does he have that aren't tied up in trusts? I can't imagine it's much.
I'd imagine the Royal Family has ways of protecting their assets in situations like this that doesn't involve a prenup, especially if prenups are an American thing to do.
Even I, who knows nothing about security, could see that that trail was going to be a problem.
Why wouldn't they choose something a little more easy to secure? Something a little more naturally hidden?
All this publicity about lack of security the house can't be making it any easier to sell.
Bet tp isn't happy with them at all. (Besides them putting up that godawful privacy screen thing.)
Blind Item #2
With their recent legal action, this royal couple is pseudo suing the alliterate former royal because it is one of her acquaintances that wrote the article that is causing all the trouble.
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 8:15 AM 22 COMMENTS
SUNDAY, MAY 31, 2020
Blind Item #2
With their recent legal action, this royal couple is pseudo suing the alliterate former royal because it is one of her acquaintances that wrote the article that is causing all the trouble.
Some blind! Even Stevie Wonder could see this one coming. U like my joke? I bet you never heard that one before! Hahhahahha. This is why I like this blog. So many cards here.
"You're such a card!"
The reported wealth that Meghan had when she married Harry was not a fact but an assumption made by the media. Many have exposed that assumption as wildly inaccurate.
1. She did not earn as much from Suits as it is claimed. She was in the supporting cast and not the star, as she is misrepresented, and it was not a top show but a moderately successful cable show.
2. Estimations of her wealth never took into account taxes, payments to PR company and basic living expenses. She asked for freebies everywhere and hustled for gigs to get freebies and to earn extra wherever she could but was still not in the big league. She was doing well but was not worth the many millions that she was reported to have.
She did not get any kind of settlement from Trevor when she divorced him and I doubt that she was entitled to one.
The tarot reader I follow did some readings way back and saw that the marriage would end in divorce but saw the Queen stepping in and giving Meghan a settlement (Meghan would demand more than she is entitled to and the Queen would step in to put an end to an ugly and drawn out divorce).
if they are living rent free or have a sweet deal on ren, it may be all they can afford.
it may work out OK for TP too, having people in a house , presumabley watching and taking care of it, is sometimes better than leaving it empty and having things deteriorate.
Momager reportedly gets 10% of all deals for her managing skills. so she’s very wealthy herself.
From her dumb daughters Momager should be getting 30% cut/management fees. Kim is not dumb since she is studying to be a lawyer. The others are TV and Instagram presentable. Very presentable I suppose, but not nearly as smart as Mom. The show is so scripted/fake but going by DM comments most/many take it for real. Momager has a great deal with DM. Mom must be paying DM some nice money because her daughters are in DM every day.
Kim Kardashian is getting her California law degree via apprenticeship to, and tagging along with a senior lawyer which is clever and interesting. She still has to pass the California bar exam of course.
- After 1945, `Displaced Persons' who had lost everything, including ones who had been in concentration camps, came.
Sorry, OT, but this really hit home for me, as that is how my Polish, Catholic parents-in-law wound up in Canada after WWII. They came over on a ship as Displaced Persons after WWII and were sent where they were needed - no choice. The men on the ship mostly ended up in mines in Northern Ontario, and the women in garment factories. One of our treasured family heirlooms is the ID document my MIL was issued from the Allies after she got out of the Polish concentration work camp.
This is one of the reasons I dislike MM so much - people after WWII were grateful to have survived, and they worked darned hard and made a lot of sacrifices to eventually thrive. She’s a useless marshmallow.
Kim studying law (or saying that) doesn't mean that she is smart, or even to a lesser degree, not dumb.
I'm pretty sure she still doesn't even have a college degree, let alone getting a law degree.
"The reported wealth that Meghan had when she married Harry was not a fact but an assumption made by the media. Many have exposed that assumption as wildly inaccurate."
I agree 100%. I'm often surprised the lengths "sugars" (not here, other places) will go to to inflate M's pre-Harry wealth. Not only is she made the "star" of Suits by which clearly she was not, they insist her Toronto rent was an untaxable perk paid for by the company (quite unlikely. See, for example, https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2015/jul/exclude-employer-provided-meals-and-lodging.html), they claim the company paid all her US taxes (not realizing that even if that were true, the tax payments themselves would also be taxable. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/01/can-someone-else-pay-your-taxes.html)
And the company wouldn't have done it for MM and not for anyone else--that's like giving a 33%+ raise. They claim her travel was all paid for by Suits or paid for by some other company (which when M could wrangle I'm sure it was but not every time), they claim Suits provided all her off-camera clothes for PR, she was so famous she was comped meals everywhere she went in Toronto (not hardly), and her fame gave her free memberships (gym, yoga studio)
___
@Imabug wrote about Kim K:
"I'm pretty sure she still doesn't even have a college degree, let alone getting a law degree."
Kim doesn't have a college degree but she is studying law. CA allows that. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/17/how-kim-kardashian-can-become-a-lawyer-without-getting-a-law-degree.html
BUT I haven't read anything recent about it. To go beyond the first year, those in the alternate path must pass a first year "baby bar." Kim claimed to be preparing for that a year ago and there's been nothing said about her passing. (Most don't be pass. And those who do don't pass the actual bar exam.)
Thank you :). I knew she wasn't as rich as she/the press claimed (as you explained). I don't know why I thought she got her money from Trevor but it makes sense she didn't.
That was the first time I ever heard of her: I used to own stock in the company and sometime in early 2015, I received a press release saying that Reitmans had hired "Meghan Markle, famous actress and star of Suits" as their spokes model. I had never heard of either MM or Suits and I had to Google her. I actually thought she was a good choice: Reitmans has acquired a reputation for frumpy, boring clothes over the past decade, and MM added some needed glamour. The commercials all followed the same basic script: MM would walk into a restaurant or party, looking like a million bucks, and all the other women there would be whispering "Who do you think she's wearing?" MM would then look at them over her shoulder and say "Ladies, it's Reitmans - really". She later designed a capsule of office clothes for them, similar to what she wore on the show, pencil skirts and blouses, for instance.
Unfortunately for Reitmans, her short-lived collaboration did not save the company, which filed for bankruptcy a couple of weeks ago.
Another thing we know about MM: she referred to Tom Markle Jr. as "a distant relative" and "I don't know him" - even though there are lots of pictures (courtesy of their father) showing her as a child and teen, celebrating Christmas and other holidays with her half-brother and other members of the Markle family.
I knew she wasn't as rich as she/the press claimed (as you explained). I don't know why I thought she got her money from Trevor but it makes sense she didn't.
You thought so because it has been written so, and often. That she got a million or two out of Trevor with the divorce. Perhaps she did, with California laws splitting 50/50 all monies earned after the marriage. They were married 2-3 years. Trevor perhaps made 3 million after taxes. I can see Megsy getting 1.5 million out of the poor guy for doing nothing. Not even sex since she was mostly in Canada working in Suits, which Trampled Underfoot Trevor got her this job after all her other failed auditions.
I love this comment posted under CDAN Item #2:
“I swear, Fat Markle stays up nights playing with her voodoo doll of Kate, twirling her hair and sticking the knife in while screaming ‘Why don't you just die?’”
I know multiple phd holders that are dumbs as rocks. You dont need to be smart to be successful in the academia, much less getting a degree. Im moving in that world for the last 10 year. That being said, I dont think that Kim is stupid, she manage to stay somewhat relevant for many years in a very changing and harsh world. Even if she follow someone advise, she was smart enough to get it.
I always laught at the people saying that she was rich and had millions before the marriage. She wasnt, and even if she did the way she spend money pretty much guarantees financial problems.
Probably a quick, no fault divorce that would have held her up if had asked for cash. Wasn't she was already into her next relationship with Corey?
...Kim is not dumb since she is studying to be a lawyer...Kim Kardashian is getting her California law degree via apprenticeship to, and tagging along with a senior lawyer which is clever and interesting. She still has to pass the California bar exam of course.
Oh please. That entire family thinks that just saying something is enough to make it true.
Another fine comment at the same CDAN #2. A reasonable explanation as to why the Kate/Wills lawsuit against the UK Tattler. Tattler which looks to me in far off America, that they are aimless, inept clowns going up against the, not just the BRF but the young shining lights of it. Zero upside to this. Why? I suppose they has some group giggles after work at a trendy wine bar.
-----
Tenley • an hour ago
Well it's a shot across the bow at any tabloid that publishes anything that is in any way inaccurate by a demonstrably biased source. Even in the USA, where it's extremely hard for public figures to win libel or defamation cases, one key defense for the press in a libel suit is it's not libel if it's true. If it's untrue, there goes a major piece of protection, and if the person can prove malice, they have a shot of a case even here. I don't know UK law except that it's more friendly to even public figures. My guess is the whole point is to discourage any press from just printing whatever Meghan and her friends want without preparing to spend good money in court for every false statement printed.