The Sussexes see themselves as forces for great social good, and Harry's Invictus games originally seemed to be a great way to inspire wounded veterans.
Travalyst, his poorly-defined follow-up, has so far been less successful, and there have been questions its structure (it is a limited company, not a registered charity) and why it is getting influxes of cash from the Royal Foundation.
But Meg's charity efforts seem to have even been less successful, in part because she flutters from one to the next without much research or much committment.
Smartworks seems to be a well-defined, well-run charity to help women in need achieve a professional working wardrobe, but how much have they benefitted from Meghan's input?
(And now many women need a smart working wardrobe these days, given how many are now working from home?)
She did sponsor a dog kennel in Archie's name at Mayhew, a UK animal charity.
She's also released several charity videos with supportive messages, all so flatteringly blurry that they look like they were shot through the frosted door of her shower stall.
Has Meg actually helped any charities achieve their goals?
Travalyst, his poorly-defined follow-up, has so far been less successful, and there have been questions its structure (it is a limited company, not a registered charity) and why it is getting influxes of cash from the Royal Foundation.
But Meg's charity efforts seem to have even been less successful, in part because she flutters from one to the next without much research or much committment.
Hubb Kitchen the most famous
Hubb Kitchen is one of her most prominent patronages, and it produced a cookbook that sold well - but would they have produced a cookbook with or without Meghan?Smartworks seems to be a well-defined, well-run charity to help women in need achieve a professional working wardrobe, but how much have they benefitted from Meghan's input?
(And now many women need a smart working wardrobe these days, given how many are now working from home?)
She did sponsor a dog kennel in Archie's name at Mayhew, a UK animal charity.
Lots of encouraging videos
Since coming to the US, Meg has done at least one food delivery to homebound persons - not at all for the publicity value.She's also released several charity videos with supportive messages, all so flatteringly blurry that they look like they were shot through the frosted door of her shower stall.
Has Meg actually helped any charities achieve their goals?
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8565937/Meghan-Markles-gossip-columnist-friend-emerges-potential-source-claims-deep-rifts.html#newcomment
Looking back now... I never would have heard anything about Meg had I not specifically read Lainey. Her original post on that subject brought up a lot of hate- "Straight outta Compton" apparently was a headline the press was running with about this woman I had never heard of. I google it now and do see there was in fact a headline in the DM "Harry's girl is (almost) straight outta Compton."
Big effing deal... I remember "Waity Katy" being drug over the coals, I remember how she and mum "plotted" for her to get into the same college as William, I remember the see-through dress she allegedly wore to get William's attention . (shit, which one of us wouldn't have at least tried!)
Kate put up with this shit for 8 years before finally being "accepted" by the press (they still call her Kate Middleton- not Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge... I've seen Meg called duchess many more times than Kate)
If there is one silver lining in this whole harkle debacle it is that Will & Kate have come off smelling of roses.
Of things she did fo, she often made it about herself and took attention away from
the charities. For example, Meghan showing up at the clothes closet program for women to get clothes for job interviews wearing thousands of pounds in designer clothes herself was thoughtless.
The capsule collection she designed got more press about her working with her pal Misha than the charity. I can’t even tell you what the charity was that benefitted from that project.
The guest editing of Vogue was also about her grandstanding by virtue signaling for feminism. I can’t recall any of the women on that cover, an idea which shown to be copied from another source.
And she never got any meaningful projects going with the National Theatre, did she?
Most of what Meghan did were one-off photo ops.
Instead of giving her full attention to being a working royal, Meghan was too busy planning to “hit the ground running” all right, but she was planning to run back to Los Angeles with her newly-minted title with Harry dutifully following behind her. Because she kept her old team of public relations people and others in place after marrying Harry, I believe Meghan never had any intention of staying in the UK as a working royal. It was too small of a stage for her grandiosity.
All her work to get back to LA, including talking Harry into buying deeper into her victim mentality preoccupied Meghan too much to bother with going all in with her charities in the UK.
They let us imagine that they would be fresh and bright, bringing a new, positive dimension to the benefit of the Crown, helping to heal some of the rifts in our society by the very fact of her being a WOC. We allowed ourselves to dream of peaceful future, with perhaps some of the disruptive aspects soothed.
We made excuses for the performance she gave as a Royal Fiancee in the interview - `Can't expect her to get it right first time but I hope she learns... try reading the job description, Miss, your're not up for the CEO's post...'
The stories started seeping out, I thought `Oh dear... way to go yet'.
Narcissist? It's starting to look like it...
Stealing Eugenie's thunder absolutely confirmed it for me, especially as I'd picked up the demonic stare that locked onto the camera and bored its way out my TV as if she were Big Sister watching me. At that moment, I doubted my own sanity. Chilling.
Evil masquerading as good - I googled this phrase and found the site below. Even if you don't accept the premises on which it is based, it's is worth a look. I went through the checklists and mentally ticked every point as applying here, at least to some extent -
https://www.biblestudytools.com/blogs/association-of-biblical-counselors/5-indicators-of-an-evil-and-wicked-heart.html
I think we can all see how great she is on that front.
The Hubb kitchen likely did benefit from her attention. I do think she publicized their cookbook and greatly increased sales although
1. It's my understanding the women were already putting the book together when M came along. Charities, churches, and civic groups manage to put cookbooks together all the time so I don't think M was needed for that to happen.
2. She did manage to steal credit for "writing" the book
3. It's unclear exactly what role the Royal Foundation took...was there a handling fee?
On the other hand, I think Smart Works was probably hurt by her participation. The whole "capsule collection" campaign was just PR for designers like Misha. The "buy one, the charity gets one" promo lasted just two weeks although the limited time was not emphasized in the publicity. Obviously the hope was women would continue to buy those pieces thinking the charity was still benefitting.
The capsule collection clothes weren't good for a variety of body shapes (cigarette trousers?) and most were dry clean only. And most items came in limited sizes. For example, the trousers were available up to only UK size 16. That's equivalent to a size 12 in the US. The "average" woman in the UK weighs around 155 lbs and there's no reason to think all unemployed women are model thin. Plus, in selling the need for the collection M repeatedly and publicly disparaged the kind of clothing donations the charity usually received from employed women. (Lavender blazers--ugh, patterned tops-- the horror, jackets donated without matching skirts or trousers-- the nerve of some people!) If I were in the UK I'd probably send my future donations somewhere besides Smart Works.
Not sure what she's done for the National Theater but there were subscriptions cancelled in protest when she was first named as patron. And I don't think anyone thinks M&H have been a good voice to represent the Commonwealth or the QCT.
That terrier at the Mayhew had a desperate look in its eye. I automatically smile at dogs, like many women respond to babies, and most return the compliment with a tail wag and goo-goo eyes.
Dogs may not like Harry because of his beard - I've known several which unexpectedly snarled at bearded men, when there was no reason to think think they were anything but 100% trustworthy with everyone.
Laugh, years ago, my mother's spaniel feared women in fur coats and would cross the road to avoid them. Perhaps she thought they were bears. I wonder if dogs that have grown up with clean-shaven chaps can't make out what they're looking at when a face is covered with hair? They are unable to read the expression and judge the situation, so react with fear and threat.
MM isn't smart enough to work it out, otherwise she's have had that facial fungus off - that would have been the only action of hers I could approve of. Why does he wear it? He's not a Naval chap nor an army Pioneer Sergeant, so why wasn't he ordered to shave it off? It makes him look an even worse scruff.
Does it tickle her fancy? Perhaps she can't stand stubble?
The Royal Foundation is an umbrella or resource body for various charities. It provides expertise, resources, support for the various groups under its wing including management of donations staff making grants. It develops programmes and charitable projects. will Some charities that started with the Royal Foundation have been transferred to other charities or have gone solo on this year the Endeavour Fund has gone to the Invictus Games Foundation and Coach Core now a stand alone charity
All is well as long as the communal narcissist gets enough social media "likes" or face-to-face admiration. But if they feel that they haven't received enough validation for their actions, they take it out on those closest to them. Doesn't this all sound familiar?!
Dr. Ramani's short series on communal narcissists only came out two months ago and is such an accurate profile of Meg, that it's easy to imagine that she has followed Megxit as closely as we have!
Thanks for the info. I just meant what was the exact role the Foundation took re: the Hubb book and its marketing.
As we have seen, things aren't always clear cut with foundations. And there were some rumblings from some of the mental health charities that they got less being under the umbrella of the Royal Foundation than they had been able to raise as independent entities. Don't know if that's true.
Should an Archie actually exist, however, someday he'll have an advantage that no other child of a communal narcissist has ever had: Hundreds of bloggers and commenters who can assure him, with receipts and with reason, that his mother isn't the second coming of wokeness that she may gaslight him into believing she is.
We are only THREE days away from the Travalyst Virtual Summit.
1)No programme or speakers shared up to now
2)The official event Promo claims it's a Non Profit Org [it's NOT]
3)The registry for Travalyst with Companies House is actually mis-filed
4) Not a Charity, not Non Profit
Nice going, Bonnie and Clyde! (Insert end sarcasm code here, not accepted by Blogger somehow : )
Your link .... biblestudytools .... just WOW. Gave me chills. Had to bookmark it.
This especially jumped out:
3. Evil hearts crave and demand control, and their highest authority is their own self-reference.
They reject feedback, real accountability, and make up their own rules to live by.
It reminded me of a quote from Finding Freedom, where it talks about Meghan working with staff, where she says, "Why should I have to do that?" or, "I'm not going to do that."
Scary.
Tyler's 20 million dollar mansion is turning into Loserville for Harry. Travalyst equals more half baked, nonsense from Harry, who used to be a happy free spirit before Meghan hijacked his mind.
Did they change the standing to a non-profit?
As far as I can see everything she does she does for publicity only.
Thanks for the pointer to Dr Ramani's videos - I'd come across the concept before but hadn't applied it to Megsie. it's so obvious now!
We've got one/a couple next door - very friendly when they first moved in, shortly after we came to this street, but they soon embedded themselves in all the local organisations I was thinking of joining because their subject was interesting - nature, history, gardening, heritage and so on.
They were soon pressurising us to join too, as their lieutenants, but we demurred, feeling that we were being used. Whereupon they dropped us & are are barely civil, should we bump into them when out.
It means that the only group I could join without running into them would be a political party I know they'd rather die than support - but I'm not very party political.
It's sad because I'd appreciate knowing more people locally.
My brother-in-laws like it too - very keen to tell us about his Good Works as part of his Rotary efforts but then spoils it by complaining that he hasn't yet appeared in the Honours List!
`Not for profit' reminds me of when I had words with an admin assistant because when I had good reason to believe this person had diverted funds for their own purposes.
The excuse I was offered for this was that we `weren't supposed to make a profit'. No, any surplus generated had to used for the benefit of the organisation and its clients, not them.
OTOH, perhaps Megsie is yet again assuming that the rules on the east side of the Atlantic are as generous as they are on the west.
I believe I read somewhere her charity work at that time consisted of a few trips where the flights and hotels were comped.
I would be very surprised if she stayed in rural villages or remote areas.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/the-problems-with-travalyst-and-the-sussex-royal-foundation/
https://www.laineygossip.com/putting-the-daily-mails-article-claiming-i-am-pals-with-meghan-markle-into-perspective/66730
For those Nutties who don't want to give Lainey a click:
- Daily Mail started it
- Please stay for her Emmy nomination day coverage
- She's not a "pal" of Meghan Markle
- She has not been in contact with Rache before or after that 2015 dinner
- Photo is not hers and she didn't take any photos that night
- She went to that dinner with her introverted husband to meet Vancouver Canucks player Trevor Linden
- Courtiers have been called vipers since Princess Diana like in Jay Mulvaney’s "Diana & Jackie: Maidens, Mothers, Myths" (2002)
- Her riddle was written Feb 2017 and DM's Emily Andrews wrote a story about Kate not giving Rache a ride in May 2020
- She screencaps the DM story and insinuates they may modify it
- She says royal reporters knew about this story and it was circulating in the bubble of royal gossip
The quote she uses from the Mulvaney book:
"I don't care,” the Queen responded.
"She'll just have to buck up. It was a remark worthy of the imperious Queen from Alice in Wonderland, a remark that showed little, if any, compassion or understanding for the situation and displayed an attitude that would eventually undermine the very monarchy that Elizabeth had devoted most of her life to serving. It was, in the long term, best for the monarchy to welcome Diana into the fold, to prepare her for the role she had taken on, and to adapt itself to make the best use of what she had to offer. Instead, Diana was lost inside a viper’s nest of indifference, strict adherence to antiquated traditions, gossip, and political rivalries cloaked in exquisite manners. There was a huge disconnect between the world of the “establishment” and modern Britain, and when Diana tried to build a bridge between the two worlds, she was continually thwarted, often in petty and demeaning ways.
Invictus was fantastic for Harry. He was doing really good when he was involved and it gave him great optics, big time. I think it was something he could be proud of. As soon as Meglomanic hit the scene, it went to you know what.
As far as Travelyst, it smells of yet another bird brain scheme with no legs which will eventually get tossed in the bin.
Meglomaniac is like the opposite of King Midas. Everything she touches, turns to scrap metal. Unfortunately for Harry, he goes down with that ship and will continue the downward spiral until there is nothing left of him. Sad, really.
I've known people just like La Markle. Let me tell you, they are an absolute nightmare to have any doings with. They flit from one thing to another because they don't have the emotional health to stay with anything. In NO TIME, they are fighting with people, picking things apart, showing diva behavior etc.
The sad thing is, they refuse to admit they need help so their children and spouses go down with everything else.
Best thing to do is leave and never look back.
Harry has quite a job to cut and run especially because of Archie. But he has the RF to help him when he finally sees the light. It will take a good while but I think he will finally leave that situation. If he survives it.
"Meglomaniac is like the opposite of King Midas. Everything she touches, turns to scrap metal."
Love this- so true.
Royals at War Part 5 Chapters 3-4
Part 5 Chapter 3
What Meghan Wants, Meghan Gets
Christmas 2017 was Meghan’s first challenge as soon to be member of the Royal Family. At this point the Queen and Prince Phillip had kept their misgivings about the relationship to themselves.
She did rather well at the staff party that was held. She asked everyone their names and what they did.
They spent the holiday at Amner Hall with William & Catherine. Harry had been angry that William and Kate had not welcomed Meghan as enthusiastically as he felt they should and he knew there was a distinct coolness from William & Kate in regards to Meghan. Charles stepped in and asked William to host Meghan & Harry which he did. Harry was always on guard for any perceived slight of Meghan which caused William’s sense of unease and worry to increase due to Harry’s growing hostility.
She had to curtsy to Kate at the family lunch.
Meghan insisted on the emerald tiara which caused the Queen to “hit the roof.” Even after Harry was summoned by the Queen and told to get a handle on Meghan he still was telling staff that Meghan was to get what she wanted.
Part 5 Chapter 4
Tears and Tiaras
The preparations for the wedding showed the Royals who were in charge and it was made clear that it wasn’t them
Kate was left in tears over a bridesmaid fitting BUT it was during a moment of tension Meghan unleashed a torrent of pent-up emotions in regards to their respective children’s titles.
Alexis Slifer, a presenter for the Canadian show Talko has claimed to have seen a video secretly recorded by a courtier of Meghan raging about the fact her children will “only” be bestowed a Lordship “Meghan was going off about William & Kate’s children. They’re being given HRH’s while Meghan’s children will only be made Lords. People think that she’s having a meltdown because the only reason she married Harry in the first place was to get those titles. We are talking about Meghan being exposed for who she truly is.”
Meghan insisted on controlling every aspect of her day. She ruled that the day had to reflect the sparkly “fun, laughter, and love of their fairy tale” which meant she was making constant demands, rejecting various solutions and plans, ignoring traditions and customs.
When the Queen learned that Harry was still acting like a brat over Meghan’s demands she “put him firmly in his place.” She also spoke to Meghan and gave her a stern admonishment to behave and stop complaining about the musty smell of St George’s Chapel which she had been making a fuss over. She tried to order stacks of her favorite candle, Jo Malone, for the ceremony but this was rejected.
The Queen really did not like that Meghan had a veil for her second marriage.
The Queen sent a message to Meghan that she really need to think about how she spoke to staff and family members and to follow the family protocol.
Harry’s foul mood put the staff at KP on high alert and were walking on eggshells for fear of invoking his wrath.
clicks got up very fast, but my comment disappeared just a minute or so after and I was blocked from commenting.
Somebody in sunny California is throwing another tantrum it appears.
"Kate was left in tears over a bridesmaid fitting BUT it was during a moment of tension Meghan unleashed a torrent of pent-up emotions in regards to their respective children’s titles."
I can certainly believe that!
The possibility of having even the title of `Baron' must have been blown into oblivion by that.
As things stand, he'll be `Master'and then `Mister' all his life, assuming he exists.
`...torrent of pent up emotion' that's a good euphemism! If she was behaving true to type we can take that as a full-blown narc rage. Such outbursts can be very ugly to behold, devastating if one has not seen one before.
@ Pink Peony
"Meglomaniac is like the opposite of King Midas. Everything she touches, turns to scrap metal."
Love this- so true.
Thanks :)
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of her actual charity work pre-Harry?
I believe I read somewhere her charity work at that time consisted of a few trips where the flights and hotels were comped.
I would be very surprised if she stayed in rural villages or remote areas.
@CookieShark: I think I can get a list for you, but I will have to look for it and I’m working right now. Will have to do it this evening US time.
They have filed th memorandum and articles of association and the resolution to adopt these
On the face of it, HM has simply not issued the Letters Patent granting him a title - there's no rule that says she has to. The Letters Patent that allow Catherine & Williams's children to be princess and princess are a privilege, not a right. If HM chooses not to issue them, it's just Hard Cheese to Meghan - she and H have done nothing worthy of being accorded that privilege.
Lady C seems to imply that the whole question of Archie is a can of worms, with no firm evidence one way or the other that he was born legitimately to M&H. Children from surrogate births are not legitimate under English law, even if the egg and sperm come from lawfully married parents. The woman who actually gives birth is the legal mother - that is an observable event. They can, however be legitimised by formal adoption.
How this might play out in Archie's case is anyone's guess. Even in the case of ordinary folk, like my family, only full-blood, legitimate relatives can inherit from someone who had died without making a will. Half-, step-, adopted- and illegitimate siblings or children can't inherit, according to my solicitor, in this instance.
I'm not sure that Archie exists, but if there are any real b*****ds involved, they may not be him.
The present Dukes of Gloucester and Kent both inherited their titles from their fathers; the previous Duke of York was George VI before he was king and the previous Duke of Edinburgh became George III.
Btw- People laughed at Prince Edward taking the title of Earl of Wessex - it sounded too much like something out of Thomas Hardy - but it is a venerable title, from before 1066. The last earl (2nd creation under the Conqueror) died in 1071.
As it was, there was a lack of ducal titles available for Edward: Albany, Clarence and Windsor were all heavily tarnished by their last holders; and as Connaught refers to R of Ireland, a non-starter.
Sussex was not so heavily tarnished although that presumably has changed now.
https://twitter.com/isaguor/status/1288153904459517957
Yeah, most of her charity things are pretty much photos and one shots. That seems to be a constant before and after marriage.
It’s hard to imagine Harry showing his face after the sh*tstorm caused by the book. But he and his wife appear to be shameless, so who knows?
Royal Foundation administers the transfer of funds from the sales of the cook book these profits are treated as restricted funds. Royal Foundation received £557638 in year ended 31 December 2019 and £120325 in year ended 31 December 2019 and has made grants to Al Manaar and Unltd from these funds. Charges made for premises etc are shown in the accounts. The balance held in restricted funds relating to Empowering Communities the name used for this activity is £201620 Al Manaar is the name of the mosque housing the kitchen
Thanks!
1) Members canceled their subscriptions to the National Theater, based on her appointment. And what did she actually do for them besides her private visits with her own photographer in tow?
2) Smart Works probably got hurt the worst. She trashed the organization and their clothing offerings, and then came up with the idea for the ‘capsule collection’ which was not what she said it was. It was not a new line that she designed as she pretended. It consisted of items that hadn’t sold, as well as a new version of the ‘boyfriend shirt’ from Misha. IIRC, the only ‘new’ item was the tote bag. The whole point of a charity such as Smart Works is that people donate clothing—you don’t manufacture new items. I can’t even imagine how much money was spent on the video (with MM hugging the models), the photo shoot, and the launch party. The terms of the ‘promotion’ were so unclear (was it buy an item and the EXACT SAME item would be donated? Or the least expensive item would be donated—which I think was the dress?!) And the two-week time period was not long enough. The whole promotion was based around MM’s ego, and the money could’ve been better spent. I still can’t believe that she was allowed to do this.
3) On her first visit to Mayhew, she showed up an hour late in a tight, short dress, and rolled out of the car looking as though she was quite hungover. The dogs had an aversion to her, and I think the staff did as well. To me, it’s clear whether or not someone is a dog-lover. Imagine being assigned a patron who left one rescue dog behind in Canada (and lied about the reason), and whose other dog was unaccounted for (but presumably hit by a car.) Yikes! But we did get to see MM’s ability to squat in high heels with her legs together while heavily pregnant, and easily return to a standing position without any assistance. We also got to hear her moon bump pop.
4) Actor’s retirement home (not sure of correct name). Show up in a summer dress at Christmas (with a square bump), saying ‘I feel very pregnant today.’ Insult some of the actresses, who had chosen career over family, by asking if they had kids. The pictures of that visit were so awkward that the tension in the room could be cut with a knife.
5) I believe she is also the patron of an education organization, but can’t remember the details.
https://twitter.com/isaguor/status/1288153904459517957
There's some strong tea there - especially about yachting and what Samantha said. As fro Scooby Doo being there as well...!
The thick plottens, so to speak.
Reviewing her ‘work’ for her patronages just shows how out-of-touch her claims in the book are. It seems to me that she was able to work on all the things that she wanted to, including guest-editing Vogue. She wasn’t exactly cutting ribbons at factories. What a whiner!
I have read in more than one place that KP was tipped off that the "shopping trip" was her hoping to get papped with Catherine for her own self-promotion. This book has confirmed that she did sometimes cooperate with the paps.
This seems to cause her so much rage, I don't think it was really about not going shopping with her. I believe it is because Kate or the Palace saw through it and foiled her plans, which would cause white-hot fury for her.
Association of Commonwealth Universities. (ACU)
I don't think the Hubb was an official patronage. No way that would have been assigned given some hot potato issues. I don't believe she was an official patron for the actors retirement home either. (I'm sure they are breathing a sigh of relief.)
Her 4 assigned patronages were
ACU
National Theater
Mayhew (Animal Center)
Smart Works
And, of course, she serves as VP for the QCT.
So yeah, she seemed to do a number of her own things for all of the current whining.
I am not surprised because birds of feather flock together.
It was implied that there were unexplained unauthorised drawings (in the book-keeping sense) resulting in final balances being less than expected. It was hinted that these could have been for expenses.
I can't back this with references/evidence so it must remain as speculation/nasty rumour/untrue/false memory on my part, unless proved otherwise.
Anybody else remember this?
I remember reading that somewhere, not sure where. That's one reason I wondered how the Hubb book sales were handled since that was M's first venture.
Meghan’s Wikipedia entry was altered days before her relationship with Prince Harry was revealed
Online entry was changed to remove a television quiz-show appearance and alter her occupation from model to humanitarian
The Wikipedia entry for Meghan Markle was altered days before her relationship with Prince Harry was made public to remove a television quiz-show appearance and alter her occupation from model to humanitarian.
A reference to her work as a model on the US version of Deal or No Deal was scrubbed from Wikipedia late at night on October 9 2016, three weeks before it was disclosed she was dating the prince.
In a separate change made 10 minutes later on the same day, her occupation was edited so that instead of being listed as an “actress, fashion model and spokesmodel” she became overnight an “actress, activist, humanitarian”.
In the edit, timed at 10.48pm, her entry was drastically altered to include a complete new section under the heading ‘Humanitarian work’ that included a visit to Rwanda for a water charity, her work with “The United Nations Women” and a visit to Afghanistan in 2014.
Under her occupation, the editor also added to the entry that she was “Founder of The TIG”, which was her lifestyle blog at the time.
Wikipedia is meticulous at charting changes to entries and the ones on October 9 were made by an anonymous user giving only an IP computer address 69.75.177.197.
The same user made a further, minor change three minutes letter. An internet database search links the IP address to a public relations company in Los Angeles.
The Telegraph could find no evidence of the public relations company ever representing the Duchess.
The then actress’s blossoming romance with Prince Harry was finally made public at the end of October.
A controversial new biography – Finding Freedom – claims that Meghan and Harry were aware that their relationship was likely to become public after they had first met each other in the summer and that she would become subject to intense scrutiny.
It is possible that friends of the actress chose to make edits to the Wikipedia entry, aware that her life would suddenly become of huge public interest. Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia, is the fifth most popular website in the English-speaking world and one of the first places people will have turned when Meghan first came to public attention. Prior to the changes on October 9, under the heading “Acting career”, the entry stated: “Markle made her debut late in the first season of Deal or No Deal on April 12, 2006. Aside from a single appearance holding case #12, Markle was the regular model carrying case #24. Markle quit the show in early 2007.”
It also says that “Markle also appeared as a 'mob' member and was interviewed on one episode of the game show 1 versus 100.”
The reference is absent after the changes were made and instead extra space is made for her ‘humanitarian work’.
Meghan and Harry subsequently married in 2018 to great fanfare, but the Duke and Duchess have since moved to California.
The duchess is currently suing the Mail on Sunday for breach of privacy after it published part of a letter she had written to her father.
The case resumes in court for a hearing on Wednesday.
But, I read this comment that cracked me up:
Who in the hell leaves a cushy life as a royal to become a travel agent?
Forgot to include this - having discovered that only profits from book were handed over to Royal Foundation I worked out from number sold 130000 period 20 September to 31 December 2018 according to Telegraph article that the profit on each book was £4.28 so just a little less than 50% of sale price
......
Yes, I remember seeing that...I think on Twitter. A while ago.
It was mentioned once, no one ran with it, which I thought interesting. It didn't seem to generate any interest.
Being an accountant, that rang all kinds of bells for me. And a big *red* flag.
Very, very soon after that came the splitting of funds into two funds, and the Sussex's moved offices and homes. To which I thought, hmmmmm......
This is what Harper's Bazaar said about MM and the Hubb kitchen N
'The Food For London Now campaign has been launched by the community kitchen close to Grenfell Tower - The Hubb Community Kitchen - which Meghan supported in her role as Patron of The Royal Foundation.' So she is not a patron of the Hubb kitchen.
What really annoys me is that if you look up the cookbook on google, you could be forgiven for thinking it's her cookbook. Even the Telegraph & the NY Post mention the DoS's cookbook. She only wrote the foreword...
Taken from Sunshine Sacs Wiki page
Career
Wikipedia editing for clientsEdit
In June 2015, Sunshine admitted his firm had employed paid editors to edit clients Wikipedia pages to remove negative material about them, violating the Wikipedia updated terms of service. Sunshine Sachs said its employees failed to make public their relationship with the firm when making edits, and a key employee was unaware of Wikipedia's updated policies on paid editing. All employees engaged in editing Wikipedia now make appropriate disclosures, Sunshine said. Celebrities whose Wikipedia articles were edited by Sunshine Sachs include Naomi Campbell, Mia Farrow and Sarah Brightman.[13] References to the failure of Campbell's 1994 album "Babywoman" were removed, as were her relationship with Mike Tyson and assault convictions.[14] It was unclear if the celebrities themselves were aware of the edits.[13]
The New York Times said an email to clients stated that “Sunshine Sachs has a number of experienced editors on staff that have established profiles on Wikipedia,” and that “the changes we make to existing pages are rarely challenged.” Sunshine said that he believed that his firm's edits to Wikipedia prior to June 2014, when the policy was changed, abided by Wikipedia
I’d read that about Sunshine Sachs, but in the Telegraph article it clearly states:
An internet database search links the IP address to a public relations company in Los Angeles.
The Telegraph could find no evidence of the public relations company ever representing the Duchess.
So it was not Sunshine Sachs.
wow - Meghan liked to party, this is why Harry liked her. She took pictures once when the RPO forgot to grab cell phones and wanted $35 million for the photos. She told Corey she couldn't have kids.
OT but get a load of this... former late-night Hearst Craig Ferguson‘s Hollywood hills home has been slashed in price yet again as he continues to fail to find a buyer. Craig said he got bored with the show business lifestyle and has moved his family back to his hometown of Glasgow since 2019, right before the pandemic. He’s home sounds like just the thing for a growing family with dogs; not as big as Tyler Perry’s place, but it features guest cottages, a home recording studio, a library, 8 or 9 bedrooms and bathrooms, a dog run, a home gym and a pool. Going out for the bargain price of 3,2 mill pounds! I want it!
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/inside-craig-fergusons-luxury-hollywood-22337465
The filing for Travalyst has changed but it's still not registered with the Charities Commission and it's still not clear if it's a not for profit because of the division of shares or some technical issue.
Am I alone in thinking that "love shield" is a great name for a line of condoms?
I know I read over the weekend, and during all the book hullabaloo that something is happening on Wednesday regarding the Markle/MOS case. Actually I think I saw it twice. Now I cant find either, of course.
I wonder if its to do with the five friends.
And I know there was some discussion of using FF against her since she obviously didnt give a tinkers damn about her privacy while she was slamming tequila shots with Mio.
Has anyone seen/heard anything about Wednesday? I didnt see a date, just "Wednesday" so I assume this one.
Could be a response to all the nonsense she filed at the beginning of the month.
There's a new Harry Markle out regarding the liquidation of Sussex Royal.
I looked up the Craig Ferguson interview after the engagement announcement. I started watching Craig show circa 2008 and fell for his zany humor and his genuineness immediately. He got me through some really downtimes circa 2009 when I was laid off, but I got my job back and once I was working full time again I couldn’t stay up so late to see his show. So I missed the arrival of La Markle On our TV screens in 2013 when that interview was live. I think she was promoting the third season of Suits. I had heard the name of the program vaguely but had zero interest in it. I subjected this interview to a forensic examination after I had seen the Oso fake engagement interview, and I had a niggling gut feeling that Harry was about to make a horrendous mistake. Turns out I was not wrong, was I?
Besides his zany and relatable humor, and his self deprecating humility when it comes to discussing his past drug abuse, his career, and his quest to become an American, Craig is Above all an audacious flirt. He really enjoys the attractive female guests that came to his show, but he knew where the line was. He is a consummate interviewer because unlike many of his late night colleagues, one got the sense that he was genuinely interested in his guest, and not just in promoting the latest movie or book or whatever. Meghan Markle marks one of the very few, if ever, times I ever saw Craig visibly uncomfortable With a guest, apart from the time that Russell Brand decapitated Geoff Peterson, the Resident robot skeleton. Craig almost lost his cool on that occasion and Russell Brand was banned from further appearances, As I think, was Meg. She came out in what I can only describe as a black slip, leading Craig to remark on the weird hairlessness of all of the skin on display. She was very very skinny, And either the Adderall or the cocaine had kicked in because she was so hyper. She kind of writhed on the chair in her half naked condition Like a coked up praying mantis, talking too loud too fast, smiling to be and showing way too many teeth. Girl was working it as hard as she knew how and it was so obvious and so repellent.
Craig is a big guy, and he’s used to dominating his space in a jovial manner. As the interview wore on, He incrementally backed up in his chair it seem to me to put as much distance as possible between himself and the guest. Markle flirted so aggressively, Craig was compelled to mention his wife. His wife often gets mentioned in the monologues but usually not in an interview with a new file female guest. I might be extrapolating for Craig here, but by his body language I’m confident saying that he found her repulsive, and was glad the interview is over. So Craig Ferguson dislikes at least two people: Russell Brand and Meghan Markle.
It’s a rare talent to get a man who likes everyone to not like you in the course of a 10 minute chat.
FF = Finding Freedom
Mio= Omid Scobie
Mio is Markus Anderson’s ex, and Mio and MM were/are friends. There was a rumor at one point that she was actually living with Mio in the UK.
(which included stories about her dad), and her overly flirtatious manner.) I agree that Craig is a flirt, but he’s a harmless flirt. She was an aggressive flirt, and, when he mentioned his wife, who is named Megan, she asked if it was spelled with an ‘H’ like hers. Apparently she is obsessed with the letter ‘H’, but Craig’s wife’s name is spelled without an ‘H’. (He joked that her family couldn’t afford the ‘H’.) She also mentioned all her nicknames, including Nutmeg, and really came off as a self-centered asshole, an opinion which I hold until this day about all of her appearances. I never had heard of MM before JH, so besides photos, my only exposure was this & the engagement interview. I then watched the Larry King interview, another self-absorbed appearance by MM, during which she wrote that she loved Larry in ‘calligraphy.’ Her phony, narcissistic behavior is absolutely disgusting, and I am still astonished that she was allowed to marry into the BRF.
That being said, I love Craig’s house but I’m assuming that the Duo wouldn’t buy it as they think that such a house is beneath them.
P.S. Not only was MM quite naked and hairless during her appearance on his show, but she was also quite white.
She used to look decent in some photos (probably re-touched). I think she was most attractive in casual looks when photographed with JH (such as when they were attending IG-related events.)
he tried and lied to make a bid
to blow the lid,
off the palace, yes he did
remaining behind Meghan's skirt he hid.
Mio was not the Harkles hero
he was nothing more than a useless zero.
While Miss Durand was a hungry fan
writing what Meghan didn't want to ban
simply because she can.
Stories were awful but they still ran.
Or as my mother, born in Edwardian times, would have said- `What sights you see when you haven't got a gun!'
I imagine that it goes back to Victorian wildlife shooting days, before cameras were widely used in the field, - an extraordinary specimen has been sighted and you know that your account won't believed unless you can bring back the skin/head/other body parts as evidence.
Mio = Italian for `my', presumably a term of affection, although if what Wally has revealed is true, it could mean `Anybody's'!
FF= Finding Freedom, as opposed to FFS...
I like it!
Thank goodness we can find something to laugh at in all this farcical tragedy.
THE WEDDING OF PRINCE HENRY OF WALES AND MS. MEGHAN MARKLE
Instrument of Consent
At royal.uk/instrument-consent
Btw, Every new Act of Parliament, even today, is recorded on vellum, by hand, in the same manner. Vellum lasts far longer permanent than any paper or parchment.
MM failed completely to grasp how much we value our old, quirky ways.
WBBM said, I can't back this with references/evidence so it must remain as speculation/nasty rumour/untrue/false memory on my part, unless proved otherwise.
I love this and will be borrowing this disclaimer (and adding my own bit) as and when required! Lol Lol ;oD
I laughed at the hideous sleeveless bathrobe monstrosity too. ;o)
I've probably quoted the Anthony Burgess (author of `A Clockwork Orange') before but I've tracked it down to to the NY Times of September 11, 1977, Page 236, in which he's talking about the models in a Paris fashion show:
`... Or. nearly as bad the living reality of the ideal mannequin, all legs and no breasts.... A friend of mine slept with one of these exquisite dream figures and said it was like going to bed with a bicycle.'
It's a terrific article, if you like that sort of thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/09/11/archives/fashion-all-about-yves-fashion-yves.html
I have a question for you. I've always wondered about the adorable children who hand out floral posies and bouquets to the royal woman when they are leaving an event.
Who are these various children and how are they selected to do this charming little job? I love how they make their little curtseys.
I was just viewing some videos and noticed this one young boy in particular who makes an elaborate attempt at doing something that looks like a cross between a bow, a curtsey and a yoga routine as he hands Camilla a posey. It's so cute and funny at the same time!
Here's the video - you can find him at about 0:30...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/femail/video-1880326/Video-Queen-Meghan-Kate-attend-London-Commonwealth-Service.html
This is the video that also contains the mysterious pregnant woman in brown velvet. Too bad she ended up being ruled out as a potential part of the Markle game.
The posy children are always so delightful - remember the one who didn't want to hand over her flowers?
I suppose they could be representatives of local schools? Youth organisations? Children of Abbey clergy? The tall girl is in Scouts uniform, that's all I can deduce.
I wonder what was so interesting on the little girl's tee shirt? Was the pink tracksuit a kind of uniform?
The bowing lad did look confused didn't he? Poor soul, I hope he's allowed to forget it and isn't ragged about it.
The lad in his best suit looked very smart but hadn't anybody told him to take his hand out of his pocket? Or was he trying to keep it clean in order to touch the Holy Meghan?
Bless them!
Can anybody enlighten us further?
She’s clearly used to hanging her way everywhere. I thought women were like this on the regular around Harry, but I guess I’m
Wrong. She is just awful. Lol. So cheap.
Has anyone ever thought they Rushed out of the UK because of Archie?
It’s pretty clear that Meghan is mentally disturbed and narcissistic. They fired like 4 nannies. None of their concerns imo involve the welfare of Archie. This leads me to believe people around were concerned about how she treated the baby. Perhaps unfit.
The rules regarding child rearing are much more strict in the UK, and consider her behavior, perhaps the biggest uncovered fact is that they would have taken Archie away for a while because Meghan was ‘not ok’ (remember, her words).
This is obviously a very serious issue, and this baby has gone from here to there to there. That is unacceptable.
Thoughts?
That.
Idk how they’ve had time to raise a child at all, considering their enormous self interested behavior.
Here are a few gems:
CF: Do you speak Spanish?
MM: I do now. But it's a very different kind of Spanish, it's castejano.
?? I have studied Spanish (not the South American variety) extensively and have never hear of 'castejano'. When I googled it, I was referred to Castellano, which is what I thought she meant but this is Spanish spoken in Spain, not South America. She pronounces it like castedjano but it should be like casteyano (do correct me if I'm wrong on this variety of SA Spanish!)
MM: I studied French for 8 years and now I can't remember anything, it's deplorable!
I thought she said elsewhere she spoke fluent French??
MM: You can touch me, I'm real!
CF: you are absolutely hair free!
At which MM appears coy and seemingly slightly embarrassed and guffaws loudly.
I couldn't watch any more.
The bowing boy was absolutely adorable in his eagerness! I loved how Camilla gave him a reassuring pat. I'm not sure what he was trying to do. At first I thought he was falling over but I think he was trying to take a very deep bow.
The posey presentations outside events/cathedrals always seem well planned. They decide ahead of time which child presents to each of the royal women. It's not the same as giving bouquets out during a walkabout....so I just wonder how they are organized and also where they get the flowers from?
The Queen has certainly accepted many many lovely bouquets and posies over many decades!
Or they don’t have a child at all
Hard to say
No good outcomes, though
She was mentioning the variety of Spanish spoken in South America so I'm not sure what she was talking about.
As for French, I was being sarcastic, I do know she has boasted of speaking fluent French - trust me, she doesn't. It's schoolgirl French at best.
She can't remember all her lies.
I firmly believe what I’ve stated above, which makes it even crazier to me when I think about the things that MM is doing—such as suing on behalf of Archie. Clearly that’s part of her personality disorder/mental illness. Instead of not drawing attention to a baby that you don’t even have, you draw more attention to it. She’s also stated recently that she thinks he’s being brought up without enough ‘friends’/interaction with other kids. This is something that they could easily remedy, if they did have custody of a child, yet she still throws this idea out there. Just like the ‘Mommy & Me’ excuse. I’m beginning to think that she’s certifiably crazy.
Princess Anne discusses fly-tipping, pigs and small nuclear reactors as she guest edits Country Life to mark her 70th birthday - after Meghan Markle's ultra-woke 'Forces for Change' edition of Vogue
'Princess Anne discussed green energy, her irritation with fly-tippers and a deep-rooted passion for the environment that stems from her mother the Queen in a leader article for Country Life magazine this week - almost a year after Meghan Markle guest edited British Vogue.
Princess Anne guest-edited Country Life magazine this week to mark her 70th birthday on August 15'
Unlike another one who guest-edited Vogue.
There's a photo of her petting a pig at her farm. Can you see MM doing the same? Our great 'humanitarian' and environment activist could have done something similar but I guess it wasn't not glamorous enough.
Ha! I was expecting that kind of joke!😆
CatEyes my dear old mucker
let’s join hands together to chuck her
As Scurand and Dobie
are not up to tea
they may just as well say
oh F... her!
@Maneki, She meant flying pigs 😉
@Catlady@Aquagirl@Unknown
As I recall M&S & John Lewis were already
sponsors of Smart Works?
All megs did was to bring in a cheap dress/jacket
knock off handbag and promote Nonoos white shirt.
We have a similar charity here.
I went to a fundraiser, clothes were fabulous,
all sizes and many designer items.
I would have been very happy to be “kitted out”
"I have just re-read the article on Harry Markle dated 15th Sept 2019, about the launch of Smart Works."
I re-read the Harry Markle article-- I think it's about the "launch" of the M's dumb "capsule collection" not the launch of Smart Works. From the Smart Works webpage (bold added) https://smartworks.org.uk/who-we-are/
"Smart Works started in North London, which remains our HQ and busiest location. In November 2013, we opened our second centre in West London. We then set up the Smart Works model so that we could support more women across the UK."
The webpage does discuss donating used clothes as individuals and new clothes from businesses.
The Harry Markle article-- makes several great points about how ill-advised the capsule collection promo was.
Disproving it was Meghan
Peony@blub59999 twitter
'
'In this photo you can clearly see the vet it's not Meghan and the guy with the baseball cap who looks a bit like Harry.
Harry is the one spraying something on the elephant .'
Megs and her belted bathrobe
are plastered allover the globe
Her pointy witch shoes
make her legs look like screws
Whilst her eyes are looking straight
for the strobe
@Aquagirl 😘
On another note, H&M have changed Sussex cause to MWX Foundation (Markle Windsor).
'The papers also show the Sussex Royal Foundation had £99,000 in the bank and how it will cost £16,000 to wind up the good cause.
They also show that the charity was owed £200,00 from an unknown source.
Financial expert Robert Leach, who looked over the publicly available documents, told MailOnline: 'I have never heard of a company changing its name while it is being would up.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8571677/The-Markle-Windsor-Foundation-Harry-Meghan-let-slip-new-ventures-MWX-filing.html
I agree M wanted to launch her own "line." I do remember she criticized lavender blazers because I had one too and loved it! (Also had a deeper purple one that was my favorite jacket of all time.) And I also have been guilty of the terrible act she mentioned of donating jackets without matching trousers. As M apparently does not know, for those of us who actually wear our clothes multiple times, trousers tend to wear out faster than jackets. So even if matching trousers once existed (and they may not have) matching trousers can't always be donated.
The things she said were amazingly tone-deaf. And to top it all off, her "collection" was awful. Trousers cut too short and too fitted for many women, trousers that require dry-cleaning (and as tight as those are, they will require frequent cleaning), trousers than come no larger than UK size 16/US size 12, trousers that require a belt (not everyone has a nice belt or looks good in belted styles-- M should know that), a dress that some recipients said was so low cut in front either a new camisole underneath or brooch to pin it closed was needed, an ordinary-looking white blouse that requires dry-cleaning...
@Catlady
Unbelievable, every time I google Smart Works,
John Lewis etc, it comes up with Megs!!
However I did come across an article
that stated John Lewis collaboration started
in 2018, before Megs meddling.
I don’t recall which site?
I’m claiming WildBoars disclaimer !!
Speaking of @WildBoar
Thank you for Anthony Burgess.
Interesting life!!
And thank you for making me laugh/think
with every post you make.
You are a Treasure X
"John Lewis & Partners launched their partnership with Smart Works in mid 2018."
https://smartworks.org.uk/our-supporters/
`Twas an evening in November, as I very well remember,
I was rolling down the street in drunken pride.
But my knees were all a-flutter and I landed in the gutter,
and a pig came up and lay down by side.
So I lay there in the gutter, thinking thoughts I could not utter,
When a colleen passing by did softly say -
`Ye can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses',
And the pig got up and quickly walked away.
Anon.
In an Irish accent as here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctus5ZMTL6M
lots of other versions - Fozzie bear at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsQ6Xevng24
I have just had another trawl through Royal Foundation (Cambridge variety) accounts. These show a grant to Sussex Royal of £145000 and a payment to Sussex Royal of £100000 for Travalyst in y/e 30/12/2019 and further payment for Travalyst of £44901 in January 2020 and £6906 in April 2020 total being £296856. Anyone still wondering where money for law suits etc came from?
Pigs are clever, unlike our swhiney pair
What really matters through this
Is that we feel they’re taking the piss
I’m so sick and so tired
of being told they’re fired
Whilst they’re laughing and living in bliss!
Amazon just delivered my copy of LCC's Meghan and Harry book.
This is hilarious - if you go to the most highly rated comment, it's a thread about gardening vegetables as people are sick and tired of hearing about these two. About 50 responses.
Sorry, Wullies! I was in the land if nod. And thanks to the ever-astute Aquagirl for leaping in.
I loved the video of the little lad bowing!!! What a little sweetheart!
I read in the DM posies will probably go away in the "new normal" as will walkabouts and indoor settings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8427489/How-post-lockdown-royal-outings-look.html
Abigail O'Leary
10:41, 27 JUL 2020UPDATED11:12, 27 JUL 2020
Meghan and Harry given 'secret warning' by Charles ahead of bombshell royal split
Online comments are scathing.
Oh the comments are funny.
Just below the gardening one is a comment about how MWX might mean Moaning, Whining, EX-Royals.
re Daily mail 's piece on MWX
My favourite comment:
"BigD99, london, United Kingdom, moments ago
MWX? Isn't that a bicycle? The wheels came off a long time ago."
- especially when on recalls the dig `Oh yes? Isn't she the camp bike?'
I wonder how many girls have stopped kissing frogs.
Bob Morane, Cardiff, United Kingdom, 16 minutes ago
Why the X in MWX? Archie's father name?
Or the My Wallet Foundation
oh man, people are not happy, not happy at all
/No doubt I will be feeling much better once I print out MM's picture for archery practice or maybe I'll set a bucket of eggs outside in the sun and hit the picture with rotten eggs.
Thanks for the mention!
'We're just two old poets,
trying to write the HAMS, into the toilets'
It's an easy task
which no has to ask
we must make it fast and no one will be aghast
while we're having such a blast!
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1288408926610837504
William is the head of the Football Association and does a lot of these videos for the FA
Harry is the patron of the Rugby Association and I don't see a lot of involvement from him.
I wonder how many girls have stopped kissing frogs.
Witty!
Little girls are disillusioned too thanks to Meg-lo-maniac... :(
Maybe Fergie should make a children's book about the wicked witch that ruined fairy tales for children. LOL...
As long as she mentions me in the acknowledgements :)
@Wullie's Bucket,
Thinking of pigs and poetry, princes and (alleged) prozzies, is anyone familiar with this priceless piece, believed to have originated in Dublin?
`Twas an evening in November, as I very well remember,
I was rolling down the street in drunken pride.
But my knees were all a-flutter and I landed in the gutter,
and a pig came up and lay down by side.
So I lay there in the gutter, thinking thoughts I could not utter,
When a colleen passing by did softly say -
`Ye can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses',
And the pig got up and quickly walked away.
Oh I hadn't heard that since my Ireland Era. Thanks for giving me a larf this morning, Wullie! I've needed it.
@Hikari,
Love the Craig F house! It's gorgeous. Of course I'd take bets The Duchess of Doobie (there I said it!) would think it's not grand enough for her and her Prince. I'd live there quite contented if I liked L.A. which I don't. I've lived there and it's a bit of an alternative reality. Phony. Perfect for H&M. L.A. and the house, practically speaking.
Any thoughts on the DM piece yesterday that the DoD (see above) changed her Wiki page occupation from Model and Spokesmodel to Activist and Humanitarian? What a joke!!!
I suppose Spokesmodel is the poor man's version of Supermodel. Ha!
Meghan and Harry given 'secret warning' by Charles ahead of bombshell royal split...
I’ve looked and scrolled all the way down, but they don’t show, well not in my phone. :o/
He is stuck in that mess more due to his stubbornness than a great love for Meghan. He is simply unable to admit he failed and made the wrong choices.
He is actually quite haughty and I am waiting for the moment when he gets fed up with trailing an obscure ex actress.
Forcing Meghan Markle to name friends in case is "unacceptable price" court told.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/forcing-meghan-markle-name-friends-22435918
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8571723/Meghan-Markle-launches-bid-five-friends-identities-secret.html
I can’t find any comments under the article in The Mirror....
I can see them on my laptop. I've not had time to catch up on previous posts here but are you looking for something in particular? (in the comments section)
`As God is my witness, I am not guilty!'
To which the judge is said to have replied:
`He's not, I am, you are!'
Comments are some way down, after a large clutch of photos, and take time to appear om screen of my desktop.
1 DAY AGOEWSS
The more that comes out, the more self seeking and narcistic this couple sound.
We are well shot of them.
"1 DAY AGOSailorsgirl
Meghan has made her joining not work, instead of choosing to learn the traditonial protocols cistoms etc she went in with the attitude that all that was not good enough , too restrictive. Charles will be proved right you watch. I think our Queen shud of given legal papersto them ststing they were jot allowed to talk about life in the palace . She will have a script being wrote now to tell all.. you watch.
2 DAYS AGOapallentin
No one to blame but themselves for their current pathetic predicament, can't "claim" they weren't "advised" & "left to fend for themselves", total drivel & rot
2 DAYS AGOmarybonet
People think MeGain is the whole problem but it is also Harry Hewitt too....the mean gingerbread man."
That's strange - suddenly the article seems to have been replaced by
Meghan Markle and Harry 'have damaged royal family' and 'should be exiled' amid backlash
Controversial bombshell biography Finding Freedom enraged the majority of people who found the public rift disrespectful to the Queen and the Royal Family, according to a poll
They quote a poll that suggests a substantial number of people - 37% - (Mirror readers or a wider group?) would favour a republic, still not 50% though. The Mirror traditionally was read by less affluent Labour voters than the Grauniad readership.
https://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/UK/Royal+Family/Meghan+Markle
It promises hours of happy reading!
Also not sure what to make of that article today on Prince George and how he's treated differently? Could be Markle PR because she is oh so jealous of the Cambridge's children's treatment esp Prince George. Or is it Palace PR to show the dominance of the Cambridge's in the Queen's life? Can quite put this story on one side or another.
I’m sorry it clashes with your fantasy that Archie is a doll.
Oh and PS: Harry lives in LA also.
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1288408926610837504
Totally. I used to think JH was good looking, now, not so much. His eyes seem smaller and sunken, his nose is turning into a Markle nose, and his smurk is not becoming. Wills is both physically and emotionally, way more attractive!
It's like Wills has developed confidence. It first started to show when he took that trip to the Middle East. He looked and acted very well. I know being a King is William's birthright but he's actually a born Statesman, the good kind.
I'll be hanging on the line waiting for that decision about the 5 friends. I'm sure we all will be.
"A UK judge will today rule on whether Meghan Markle's "5 friends" who demonised her own father in @people can remain anonymous. Markle is worried about the "emotional and mental wellbeing" of these tabloid gossips, but not her own father's, or those humiliated by her new book."
He is on fire this week in regards to the Sussex debacle, I did read on twitter earlier that arguments have been heard but there will be no judgement today. Does anyone else know anything about this?
I think all of Markles' charities have been worse off by the Sussex association, they certainly haven't put any heavy lifting or time into them despite wittering on about their altruistic intentions. I'd like to know how many of their charities have had to sign non-disclosures, she slaps them on everything - I'm sure many would talk about her behavior otherwise.
Just saw the article in the DM, re the tiara-- Mega Whinge SusseX blame Angela Kelly, the Queen's dresser (and close friend). Not a good blame to put out in the FFS book.
It makes no sense to me at all to blame TQ's dresser for dragged her feet in deciding which top pick (this being after the emerald was off the table and JH was told M will get what I choose) - as if somehow Angela would go against TQ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8573043/Queen-DID-slap-Meghan-Markle-choice-wedding-day-tiara-book-reveals.html
Any ideas of how to explain this part?
weather crummy but I have the LCC book.
Get a load of this. Meghan is trying really hard to keep the names of the five People magazine friends names out of the public record. She is claiming in a court document today they are entitled to "super-charged confidentiality."
WTF IS THAT?!!!
Is “super-charged confidentiality” an actual legal term in the UK?
How is her legal representation able to keep a straight face while spewing this drivel in court documents? However, I am glad Meghan is already on the hook to pay nearly £68,000 of Associated Newspapers legal costs so far. It is noted at the end of this article.
HEADLINE: Meghan’s friends entitled to ‘super-charged confidentiality’, high court told
Sub-head:
Duchess of Sussex suing owner of Mail on Sunday and Mail Online in privacy battle
Caroline Davies
Wed 29 Jul 2020 10.16 EDT
Lawyers for the Duchess of Sussex have claimed five female friends who spoke anonymously to a US magazine to defend her against British tabloid bullying are entitled to a “super-charged right of confidentiality” as she fought to protect their identities in her privacy battle against the Mail on Sunday.
Forcing her to make public their names was an “unacceptable price to pay” for pursuing her legal action over publication of extracts from a private letter she wrote to her estranged father, Thomas Markle, 75, the high court in London heard.
The duchess, 38, is seeking damages from Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), the publisher of the newspaper and Mail Online website, for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.
Justin Rushbrooke QC, for Meghan, told Mr Justice Warby the five women were entitled to “a very high level of super-charged right of confidentiality” both as confidential journalistic sources and under their own privacy rights.
They were not parties to the action, only witnesses, he said. “Publicity leads to intrusion, the less publicity the less intrusion.”
The publisher is contesting the case, and denies the allegations, in particular that the letter was edited to change its meaning.
It claims the US magazine interviews first made mention of the existence and content of the handwritten letter, thus putting it into the public domain. It is seeking to publicly identify the friends, which Meghan has named in a confidential court schedule.
Meghan has argued she did not know the People magazine article of February 2019 was due to appear, would not have agreed to the letter’s contents being revealed, and after its publication in February 2019 she phoned “friend A” to express her distress.
Neither she, nor Prince Harry, who are based in Los Angeles, were present in court for the hearing.
Rushbrooke said only one of the five had “made a passing reference to the letter written by the claimant to her father, which lies at the heart of this claim for invasion of privacy”.
He said ANL’s case was that Meghan had “compromised” her friends’ right to privacy “by putting their names into a public court document”.
This was a “grotesque perversion” of what had happened, said Rushbrooke. She had been “forced” to identify the names following a legal request from ANL, and had done “what she reasonably and sensibly could to protect their confidentiality and privacy rights”.
In a witness statement, Meghan said Associated Newspapers Ltd “is threatening to publish the names of five women – five private citizens – who made a choice on their own to speak anonymously with a US media outlet more than a year ago, to defend me from the bullying behaviour of Britain’s tabloid media.
“These five women are not on trial, and nor am I. The publisher of the Mail on Sunday is the one on trial. It is this publisher that acted unlawfully and is attempting to evade accountability; to create a circus and distract from the point of this case – that the Mail on Sunday unlawfully published my private letter.”
She said that the women were private citizens and had “a basic right to privacy”.
The duchess is suing over five articles, two in the Mail on Sunday and three on Mail Online, published in February 2019, which reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to her father in August 2018. The headline read: “Revealed: The letter showing true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with a father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces’.”
Antony White QC, for ANL, told the judge there was “no risk of reprisal” against the friends . They were important potential witnesses on the key issue of to what extent “did the claimant seek or permit publicity for the letter she claims is private”.
The duchess “has herself, freely, without being compelled” disclosed the names, ANL argued.
Part of Meghan’s claim was struck out by the judge earlier this year, leaving her to pay ANL’s costs of £67,888, documents reveal.
Judgment is to be given at a later date.
Again, another stupid move on the part of H&M to put that story in Finding Freedom. Makes Meghan look like a bitch and Harry look like a spoiled, petulant brat.
Queen DID slap down Meghan Markle over her choice of wedding day tiara but duchess blames Her Majesty’s dresser Angela Kelly for the bust-up, book reveals
Not too smart of Meghan to attack HM’s close confidante/friend/dresser!!
Everyone should be accountable to the law for their actions and to seen to be so.
They have to convince the judge etc that they are innocent, shouldn't be difficult if it's true. People not giving Meghan the right of reply is very telling - had they'd already got it straight from the horse's mouth?
Here. I'll share the pain.
http://meghanmarklereview.com/2017/05/tig-archives-meghans-how-to-be-both-article/
Interesting point re the tiara, Eugenie and revenge pregnancy announcement. Makes sense. Just like every time Mega has to announce something to overshadow George's birthday.
Hmmm, in direct contradiction to the above quote, Omid Scobie has admitted on record (video) that MM KNEW her letter to her father WOULD be published and what's more, she wanted it to be made public.
I really hope MOS lawyers put the Omid video up as exhibit "A".
What I've learnt from my court dealings is:
- The Law isn't what the ordinary person thinks it is
- The Law isn't what the ordinary person thinks it ought to be, even if it isn't
- Even if the ordinary person gets one point right, they don't know about the layer upon layer of hidden conditions and exceptions, based on previous rulings and case law.
Over and above everything else, don't try telling a judge what the Law is or how to do his job whether you are a Plaintiff or Defendant.
That is the way to losing the case - you are telling the world that you are from Planet Stupid (Thank you, `Judge' Rinder).
I'd add - especially if your `understanding' is based on what you picked up when playing a paralegal under a foreign system (or, in the case of my historian/narc ex, on English Matrimonial law as it stood until 1882 and the Married Women's Property Act. A husband then ceased to own a woman's personal property and, by extension, the woman herself)
They remember everything they perceive as a slight or insult (they look for them, even manufacturing incidents to provoke them) with a view to getting their own back in the future.
Yet memories of their own misdemeanours and rages are wiped totally from the memory.
I think the judge may grant confidentiality to her "friends" on the grounds on "sensitivity", but that would be highly unusual. They are technically witnesses in the court case and granting anonymity to all five witnesses has to be very seriously justified.
What to you think?
I hung around right down the bottom of the page like before, but nothing loaded. It could be just a blip on the mobile version of the site. Nevermind. Thank you for posting some. ;o)
Tiara -
I have a much better understanding of this after 5 pages of Lady C's book.
more or less the timeline
Princess Eugenie sets wedding date, picks emerald diamond kokoshnik for her tiara<HM ok
JH, being senior, bumps PE from the set date, has a lot of WMwants,Mgets and generally starts to begin to lose his knowledge of how things work in the BRF and clearly does not educate M in how to tone things down/not upset staff.
M does not realize that HM's jewelry is not an open choice buffet, doesn't understand that the tiara M wanted was already promised to PE wedding, rule of cannot have same tiara in a row (plus was already promised to a granddaughter versus marrying in granddaughter to be who doesn't have the precedence for that level of jewelry yet) and that the Vladimir (emerald/pearl) is only worn by TQ or future Q or the Greville is worn by Camilla (which is why those were not options).
TQ passes onto Angela to pass on to JH/M that you will accept what is offered and cannot demand what is not.
this is where in FF, it is started that somehow Angela was dragging her feet about the decision (as if HM was going to toss out PE over someone marrying in) and how they wound up with the less than what they or she wanted.
Not a good long term move or look
Unknown said:
Markle is ridiculous for expecting us to believe she is trying to protect her friends.
Those who are paying attention to the story very well know she doesn't care about anyone but herself.
The statements show that the Mail on Sunday does have the names of the five but Markle is fighting the release of the names to the public.
This is interesting considering her self-absorbed nature.
There must be some reason she doesn't want those names known to us.
Did she lie to the MOS when she gave the names? Is she afraid making the names public will influence how the friends may testify?
Markle is claiming that she neither knew about her 'friends' plans to 'separately but together' all contact People Magazine to defend her, nor encouraged them in any such plan.
Since she is now filing a lawsuit and they are embroiled in it, having acted without her knowledge or consent (she claims), why would she now, after the fact, strive so hard to preserve their identities? Meg knew d@mn well that as a member of the Firm she couldn't speak directly to the press, so her fingerprints couldn't be anywhere near this. But if she's an innocent as claimed, why not let the friends' names be revealed, since they have gotten her in hot water with this story, no matter how good their intentions? And what would be the huge deal if their names were released anyway? Most of us have easily guessed at least 4 of the 5 'friends' anyhow. It's not like Megatron is swimming in real, genuine friends whose names we haven't heard before.
OF COURSE she not only cooperated; she coached them through what to say. She just reeks of collusion. However, the release of her 5 collaborators' names would not serve the court case, but only feed the court of public opinion. Therefore, if the judge rules that in the interests of justice, the names of the 5 are known to the court only, I'm OK with that. I'm more interested in the reasons she wants them to be shielded. Maybe . . . because once they get grilled on the stand (even virtually) MM's direct involvement is going to come to light? If so, I hope the judge nails her to the wall. THAT I want released to the public--the judge's ruling and reasoning.
The 'friends', if they exist, are not on trial here; giving an anonymous interview to a magazine in support of a friend is not a crime, not even if they were paid. It only becomes a criminal matter if they lie in court when asked directly if Meg put them up to this.
Don't lie, ladies--the truth will set you free.
I was just unfortunate enough to read this old blog entry from Meghan Markle that was linked on the DM. It's almost insanely narcissitic and cloying. How could Harry fall for this.
Here. I'll share the pain.
http://meghanmarklereview.com/2017/05/tig-archives-meghans-how-to-be-both-article/
FROM -- Tig Archives series is Meghan’s How To Be Both article, published on October 24, 2016.
I skimmed and read about a third. Lots of cliches, chock full of bragging + humble bragging, and Meghan has a ghost writer there. It could even be a more literate friend. Some of the words and turns of phrase are beyond Megsy's skill set. Fun to see a Megsy blast from the past. "Legend in her own mind" applies here in the Nov 2016 Tig blog, all the way to Tyler's mansion. Nothing has changed with Megsy's toxic levels of self esteem.
In fact, it’s like she’s doing the same exact tactic of hiding these 5 friends.
Bizarre doesn’t even begin to explain it. You know, Megs doesn’t realize if her behavior was a once or twice mess up. Ok. We can live with that. It’s her Reputation, at this point, to be a total screw ball.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8573365/Meghan-Markle-pay-67-000-legal-costs-losing-round-legal-battle-against-Mail.html