I'm on vacation, but here's a space to discuss the developments in the Sussex saga over the past week.
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
- Duke & Duchess of Cambridge give £1.8million (at present exchange rate = $ 1.412 million) to mental health charities from their Foundation.
- Duke and Duchess of Sussex are suing somebody, in California, for `breach of privacy' in drone photo of `Archie'.
Says it all, doesn't it?
More stories about the new book Finding Freedom, not sure the royal family will be surprised by its content like the media suggest they will be. :o/
- Harry displaying behaviour of typical younger/youngest child - yes, but fortunately Wills seems a typical first-born. Given responsibility from a young age, as in `you're going to have a baby sister or brother so you, as Big Brother, have to take care of her/him'.
Eldest children are brought up to be responsible and not dissimilar from many singletons, in that they have far more contact with adults than their younger siblings do. Accordingly, both are credited with being more conscientious and dutiful.
------------
-@Girl with a Hat said…
`A raging sense of bitterness is also quite common in the youngest in many families, especially if their elder brothers and sisters have accomplished something or are more talented.'
Wow! That sent a chill down my spine because it's an exact description of my last narc - although her sister told her, in an all-night row, that she'd always hated her. The sister was distinctly narcissistic as well.
----------
- My apologies, I can't find this comment now to credit who remarked about the current inability/refusal to distinguish between fame and notoriety and
`The inability to distinguish between positive and negative attention is not the conduct of a well-adjusted person.'
More shades of Ireland here? Wasn't that the theme of JM Synge's piece `The Playboy of the Western World' about Christy Mahon who had murdered his father? That was 1907, perhaps it's just got much worse.
As Wikipedia puts it `
----------------------The locals are more interested in vicariously enjoying his story than in condemning the immorality of his murderous deed'.
-------------------
-Girl with a Hat also said… (about the Trudeau scandal)
`The people of Soho House are involved in this charity.'
That is really interesting - Harry Markle fingered that crowd right at the start and suspected conspiracy.
Presumably they expect to win.
If they do have to cough up, they'll try to `borrow' it from the Travalyst account.
Is this why we’ve not heard mention
of Markus Anderson for a while?
Although I cant see him being one of
the Soho big guns.
More of a louche pimp.
Girl with a Hat said…
`The people of Soho House are involved in this charity'.
Harry Markle, on March 24 2018, published a photo of all the usual suspects (DR , MM, JM & MA) at the Invictus games and commented how they looked as if they were lined up in the Dock at our most famous Criminal Court in London.
Better still click on `Crime’ in the Categories menu on the Home page - are the chickens coming home to roost now?
As A is under 16, in theory, he could be entitled to legal aid, subjec to certain conditions:
https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/eligibility
Guess what, were it awarded, it'd be at the expense of the UK Taxpayer.
On the other hand, would they want to reveal the true state of their finances? Or would it all be lies?
Clearly, they regard court action as a nice little earner.
https://boffinbanter.wordpress.com/
It's in the links at the top of the main Harry Markle page, and seems to be brand new (as in started within the last 10 days, only three posts so far). The posts themselves aren't long and seem to be mainly for sharing images (two posts with Artemis Goog pics and one of a "menu", unsure if AG did that one too), but comments are allowed.
@WildBoar
Ghosted Gooseberry Fool, take out, for Harry
They are like a riot in a mental asylum.
They vent their own frustration at not having what they think they deserve and blaming the others for their own failures.
Has it occurred to them that they had total privacy at Frogmore?
It would be good to know if any Nutties live in H&M's neck of the wood (!) or near that part of LA and can take a trip to Beverly Ridge to confirm there are drones/helicopters flying over TP's mansion like flies over you know what.
@Unknown
Very scary mob.
How will they react when the Queen
revokes their Dukedom, which I’m hoping for.
Harry I’m sure will retain his princely title,
Megs, if she’s still around will then be known
as Princess Henry?
I’m sure Megs and her sugars will rejoice in her
role as princess, not realising that a royal
Duke/Duchess outranks a prince.
A yield of approx 5% per year (which is easily possible due to the age of these investments-they weren't created in the last few years) would put his annual income at £750k-£1.5 million per year.
Add on the fact that the RF and most definitely the Markles are experts at charging costs etc to charities/the State.
Add on discretionary income from Prince Charles.
And finally this important last point.
In investing, compound interest built over years, let alone invested, will hugely increase your wealth over 100 years+.
As such it is important to note that the RF DO NOT PAY INHERITANCE TAX. This one perk will massively increase their wealth as nothing is EVER clawed back. And the Queen only recently began paying income tax, and this was voluntary
Their assets have been pooling, growing and earning for over 100 years (200 years?) without ever being touched by taxes. Theycare immune.
Furthermore, all details of wills are sealed.
As such we have no real idea who gets what, and more importantly the sums that are involved.
What I'm getting to is that despite all of our attempts to work out how much money they all have, and how they can afford lawyers etc we need to understand that due to the reasons I have given, their wealth is almost certain to be far higher than what we are told.
I would hazard a guess that it is many multiples higher to levels that we would be amazed.
Using an example from my own life, when my grandparents died we sold off their land/house to pay the inheritance tax bill in about 2001. The land it was built on is now worth about4 times than what we sold it for.
Imagine the multiple holdings the Royals have gradually built up over centuries, and never having to face taxes to claw anything back.
Their private wealth will be huge.
Succubus and Spurious
make all around them furious
Day in and day out
endless drivel they spout
Amid calls that they
“cannot be serious”
“Like a Riot in a mental asylum”...
Ain’t it the truth! Meg is the queen of Arkham.
@Magatha”Notesbfromn
I hope you have been compiling all your brilliant limericks in a notebook, because I would really love to see a thread devoted to your poetic gems. I hope Nutty will agree that that would be a great idea. I’m sure you can come up with an equally pithy title along the lines of “Notes from the Nuthatch” or similar.
Alas @Hikari
I haven’t kept notes, I tend to write as I speak.
Have latest scribbled words, thats it.
I haven’t documented my “jests”
Maybe Nuttie is able to retrieve my comments?
I should have specified the case:
I was thinking of Archie's suit against the Daily Mail for publishing the photo of her with the dogs and doll*, aka `Dead-frog Archie':
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20200624/281994674751971
This will be heard in our High Court, in the Strand, City of Westminster, London, just as the preliminary hearing of their case against the MoS was.
Schillings have a wonderful address in the City: 12 Arthur St, Candlewick, London EC4R 9AB
* The Dogs and Doll - sounds like a pub!
I haven’t kept notes, I tend to write as I speak.
Have latest scribbled words, thats it.
I haven’t documented my “jests”
Maybe Nuttie is able to retrieve my comments?
Even the fascistic primates on d-listed dislike her now. That's quite the accomplishment. Those commenters all share around a dozen braincells.
I hope they're going to sue more people (and lose). They're already unemployable, who wants to work with such sue-happy people?
HM has been paying Income Tax to her own Treasury (via Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, HMRC) since 2001, not as recent as all that.
Long before that, Philip made over the profits of the Royal Estates to HM Inland Revenue - these contributed very substantially to the Civil List as it then was.
The true cost of the RF to each UK adult taxpayer is estimated as about that of a cup of coffee each week. I don't begrudge that.
Much of the wealth of the RF is in physical assets which could only be converted to liquid form with great difficulty.
@Unknown
I’m not happy about my thoughts,
and jests, being printed elsewhere.
As the article at https://www.dinamopress.it/news/tourism-an-ideology-and-an-accumulation-strategy/ says, the clues in the name. It’s an `-ism’.
That is, not just the process of people visiting other places in search of recreation and stimulation but a distinct philosophical category – an ideology. There seems to be quite an extensive academic literature looking at this but I’m pinning my thoughts on just this one article.
Someone (perhaps Marx?) defined ` ideology’ as ` a set of beliefs and values which are presented as a self-evident truth by those with a vested interest in promoting the belief’, or wtte,and I do think that `tourism’ comes under this definition.
MM, I imagine , has pretensions as an intellectual – I do wonder how much she has considered the debate? We can assume Harry hasn’t given it much thought .
I live in a seaside town which, like plenty others, has seen better days. The council secured `regeneration’ funds and, as far we can see, is spending on developing the commercial potential of the seafront to attract more visitors. For locals, though, the joy of the place has been the open, barely-commercialised, low -rise nature of the esplanade. The only demonstration I have ever been on was to oppose these plans, to no avail.
We’ve already been presented with a `marina’, in place of a harbour- blocks of expensive flats just like other developments of its kind, in hope of attracting well-heeled residents prepared to spend lavishly. I haven’t seen much sign of that happening.
Most visitors, though, head for a huge holiday `park’, just out of town, which year by year swallows up acre after acre of greenspace. It's only relatively recently that business rates have been beneficial st the local level - previously, they went straight to local government.
This summer’s different but usually our roads are blocked with traffic, it’s difficult to move in the superstore for families with kids and buggies, especially when the tide's in or it’s raining, and a heavy burden is placed on our water supply, emergency & health services. (When I went to Casualty with an eye problem one evening, I noticed that most of the waiting patients had foot injuries - nearly all were wearing flip-flops, the probable cause, rather than result, of their injuries!)
So there’s a general view that `Tourism’ is a Good Thing, providing employment (seasonal, low-paid), and bringing in money from outside. This is seldom questioned and if I ask who really benefits from tourism, I am shouted down, especially when I say that retired folk bring in their pensions from occupations elsewhere, without taking local jobs!
https://twitter.com/eriqgardner/status/1286427569148047366/photo/1
I'm not too knowledgeable about court cases, but does "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Does 3 through 100 inclusive" listed as defendants mean she's wanting to sue 100 separate people?
Well said WildBoar on all accounts.
I must disagree with some of your points whilst also providing context to others.
"HM has been paying Income Tax to her own Treasury (via Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, HMRC) since 2001."
As I said, this is a mere pinprick when you consider that they have not been paying ANY inheritance taxes for well over 100 years. And not paying any income tax for well over 100 years. Consider someone making a 100k salary for 10 years and paying tax. Then consider that over this 10 years they paid nothing in income tax. Their wealth would be HUGELY boosted in just 10 years. This perk has been going on for over 100 years for the RF! And they never pay ANY inheritance tax either. Look at my own personal example that I gave. If every 10 years the RF bought just 2 properties in a decent area in London since 1950 they would have a portfolio of 14 properties worth millions and NEVER pay any tax on them via inheritance like us plebs.
Oh yeah, also imagine on your 100k salary you can also claim living costs off the govt too for various upkeep of your property (and you also don't have a mortgage to pay).
Also, understand that the Queen pays tax on declared income and assets. Key word here: DECLARED. We have no idea what their private assets really are, and as such she can opt out of that as the public have no idea they exist. And they exist that's for sure. The RF are masters at obscuring assets and confusing public and private wealth. Spend a day researching the subject and you'll come back with similar facts that have all been voluntarily released which all sound logical (like the ones you mention). But as Baquiat's broken window fallacy states, there are always unseen costs and knock on effects and that is what I have been describing. The compounding effects of these tax perks when expanded over 150 years+ are HUGE.
You are making the mistake of focusing on declared assets. If you think that they have declared all of their truly private wealth (not just Duchys etc) then fair enough.
But for the reasons I have stated I would wager large amounts that their real wealth is far higher than released figures show.
If it's all so above board then let's see the details of all the wills shall we? These legal documents have to state quite meticulously specific holdings of land, property and other assets (bank accts, jewellery, paintings, gold, shares, bonds, land, trusts, the list goes on) and who they go to. That's the only way to ascertain real wealth. And strangely enough the wills are all sealed and we only get details of a trust going here or there. So why keep them private?
I think we all know why...
You can use that justification to tax people to nothing. One extra cup here, one cake a week's worth there soon adds up.
And also-how many registered unemployed are there? How many pensioners are there? How many children under the age of 16 are there?
So there are two points:
1) Can we assume that the costs of the RF are being accurately and truthfully reported with no accounting spin. I don't think so but let's say for the sake of argument they are, then...
2) Using the above examples of people who are not working, perhaps the figures should be set against those who are employed. It would be substantially more than a cup of coffee.
The wonders of statistics, one of my favourite nerd subjects...
I agree with Bootsy.
The Queen owns stocks and shares and has offshore accounts. They are swimming in liquid assets.
You know what Bootsy, I don’t care.
I come on this site to disparage
the Harlkles.
Nothing less nothing more.
- the plaintiffs are identified as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". These are not legally recognized names in the USA.
- how can you sue an unknown person?
Is this case real or just PR? I can't imagine the clerk accepting the papers and saying "So your family name is "Duke of Sussex"?"
Seriously, I fail to see how these silly lawsuits do anything to further their profile; in fact, if I were handing out jobs (which I'm not, so the Harkles can just FO), I'd want to stay far away from the crazy. Maybe being crazy in California and filing lawsuits against everybody one can think of that may have money is a daily occurrence and for-profit businesses actually welcome lawsuits for the publicity.
I would think having the occasional picture in a magazine is the only thing they have left to remind the public that they exist, at least the public that has a tepid interest in them.
Maybe you folks in PR can tell me how this is raising their profile; I think it is lowering it, but I'm probably wrong.
NYT story, in case y'all think I've been huffing the whipped cream (but I need all my brain cells): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html?fbclid=IwAR0OO_R-ka35JRv8kr3q7yxIiSCny5GLBONQjoPx1brkrN09BOABz2o4FqM
That'll go down in legal history!
They have not done anything to appear that they want privacy.
Lawsuits look like cash grabs.
It appears manufactured to get more money from PC, justify security costs, and fulfill the "hunted like Diana" fantasy.
Per someone who lives in CA, they are likely calling the paps themselves and no one is actually hounding them.
It appears manufactured to get more money from PC, justify security costs, and fulfill the "hunted like Diana" fantasy.
When people near 40 (or possibly over 40 in MM's case) are trying to extort money from aged parents and grandparents because they do not wish to get a job that suits their abilities (like mowing grass) it is not a good look. If I were in the UK, I would be livid if they expected me to pay them for nothing. Since I'm in the US, well, maybe they can exhaust Harry's fortune on lawfare and go on welfare in California and I will continue to allow them to amuse me.
I actually think that she could do well in the horror movie genre; particularly if the movie features her being murdered in gruesome ways by actors that look like the D and D of Cambridge, maybe with the assistance of an actress that resembles Camilla.
I too have wondered where all the money for legal fees is coming from. I don't think lawyers would handle this kind of case on a contingency basis as it is not a sure win.
Its possible the HAMS fund the initial saber rattle and then wait to see if there is any response.
Its possible that the HAMS have "angels" that will assistant with financials (doubtful).
It is possible that in the Megexit agreement there was a provision for Charles to help with (i.e. pay all) legal expenses.
It was said he paid a year's salary in advance for the Melinda Gates former employee (i.e; HAMS get her for free for the first year) so I would imagine that the HAMS could have easily made some kind of deal like that with Charles never dreaming they would use law suits as a source of funding.
Nothing ever really makes sense with these two. Except they are getting very tiresome.
"The plaintiffs are identified as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". These are not legally recognized names in the USA."
"How can you sue an unknown person?"
I'm not sure those names aren't legally recognized for purposes of a suit. It's true when a foreign citizen holding a title wishes to become a naturalized citizen, titles are given up. And a sitting president can't accept a title without the permission of Congress. But as I said, I'm not sure in this case. I'm curious though, what names should have been used instead? Mountbatten-Windsor? (They do still technically have the HRH though.)
I do know John Doe lawsuits aren't that uncommon. Mostly that's done (I believe) when the ID of the responsible person (or persons) is not known yet but the time clock is running out per the statute of limitations. So John Doe 1, 2, 3 are used instead. Real names are subbed in as discovered and the persons are served. If the IDs aren't found before trial, the suit is dismissed.
In this case, time limit to file wasn't an issue. But I think they wanted the filing to be done so it could be leaked as a "warning" although I've not ruled out M was responsible for the Doria shot. Obviously she was complicit in the Dangling Doll shots in Canada (and it looked liked even the bodyguards went along with it.)
(it's always something with them, isn't it?)
We’ve already been presented with a `marina’, in place of a harbour- blocks of expensive flats just like other developments of its kind, in hope of attracting well-heeled residents prepared to spend lavishly. I haven’t seen much sign of that happening.
Most visitors, though, head for a huge holiday `park’, just out of town, which year by year swallows up acre after acre of greenspace. It's only relatively recently that business rates have been beneficial st the local level - previously, they went straight to local government.
This summer’s different but usually our roads are blocked with traffic, it’s difficult to move in the superstore for families with kids and buggies, especially when the tide's in or it’s raining, and a heavy burden is placed on our water supply, emergency & health services. (When I went to Casualty with an eye problem one evening, I noticed that most of the waiting patients had foot injuries - nearly all were wearing flip-flops, the probable cause, rather than result, of their injuries!)
So there’s a general view that `Tourism’ is a Good Thing, providing employment (seasonal, low-paid), and bringing in money from outside. This is seldom questioned and if I ask who really benefits from tourism, I am shouted down, especially when I say that retired folk bring in their pensions from occupations elsewhere, without taking local jobs!
I feel your pain. I live in Florida, a beautiful (and dangerous) place. Everything scenic is being razed to put in cheap hotels, apartments, and housing developments to accommodate the tourists and economic refugees from the northeast. I'd rather tourists keep away and we invest instead in manufacturing facilities.
They might have been shot with a drone, but perhaps not. That area looks rather hilly and there is a known public walking trail adjacent to the property. Depending in the topography, It could have been shot from a hillside outside of the Perry property.
I believe California has laws about flying drones over people’s private property to take photos, but if it was a drone, it could very well have been shot from a location in the air outside the boundaries of Tyler’s home. The image I saw was shot at an angle, not directly down on Doria and Archie.
I think their litigious nature and victim mentality damages their overall chances of long-term success in their business dealings. If I was head of a large corporation, I’d be very wary of the possibility of Meghan and Harry, but especially Meghan, taking legal action at the drop if a hat. For example, if her toast didn’t have enough avocado on it.
These legal actions are about creating drama, control, victim mentality, image, and greed. All of which are hallmarks of people with narcissistic personality disorder.
Hollywood is full of narcs, but I think Meghan is aiming to top the list there.
It will be interesting to watch what happens with these two for the ensuing decades, whether or not they stay together. Meghan has now had a taste of worldwide fame and attention, which are things she will never voluntarily give up.
Even if Meghan and Harry divorce, Meghan will create a cottage industry out of OTT dramatics being a thorn in the side of Harry and the Cambridges for life as she portrays herself as the perpetual victim. She will be the type of ex who continually hauls Harry into court over custody issues and money while keeping lawyers, pap agencies, and sycophantic journalists on speed dial.
To paraphrase gun rights advocates, fame will have to be pried from her cold, dead hands.
Yes, but as Bootsy explained, them paying any tax is a fairly new phenomenon (compared to how long taxation has been in existence). They’ve had decades and more of not paying anything.
The 1-100 John Doe will cover any number of persons involved in the selling of the pics vs just one person.
It says the pics haven't been published yet so i am wondering if there are more than the 1 i saw of Doria & Archia.
Also - i'll say it again. Why aren't H&M taking pics of the drones buzzing the property? or the helicopters hovering over. Just pull out their cell phone and take their own video showing this?
Why aren't there pics of the damage to the fence alledgely by photogs? Doesn't the property have security cameras?
Major supporters like the Royal Bank of Canada, Telus, the Globe and Mail newspaper and Virgin airlines are pulling their support. The Queen's Commonwealth Trust is also looking into the situation.
Looks like both WE and Trudeau (who is a friend of the Markles) got markled.
Good thing, since Jessica Mulroney needs some company.
got this link off LSA - copy of complete lawsuit papers
It is entirely possible those holes were already there as they would be needed to allow the wind to pass through the fence instead of blowing it over. Very common practice with big sheets of fabric, so common its almost mandatory.
I need to see a picture of the holes to know if by design or .....
Understanding the finances of the RF, how they are funded, and the centuries of capital/material accumulation of assets free from both tax and scrutiny is vital.
It explains why the Markles can live with bodyguards and afford lawsuits. And why PH and MM are not as under as much pressure as we think.
It is correct that the direct line, and the Consort, are free from inheritance tax. When the Queen Mother died she left an estate (that we know of as wills are sealed and not open to the public) of 50 million which was exempt from tax. That saved the RF approximately 15-20 million. This is not small change. Who knows what else was gifted before she died.
Also, how much did Elizabeth get when she inherited her father's wealth? That's another income/asset stream which isn't msntioned. The devil is in the detail. Apparently she inherited 'his stamp collection.' Ok. And remember-no income tax or capital gains on DECLARED assets for over 40 years. Nice.
Also, in terms of tax planning the whole Royal Family have an absolutely phenomenal tax break in the Queen. I'm no tax adviser but even my basic knowledge allied with common sense shows that the tax liabilities of other royals mean nothing. To put it simply, the Queen is legalised entity that shields you from tax.
If I was in charge then I would advise that all trusts etc are put in her name with different beneficiaries. They would therefore be shielded from inheritance tax and by sleight of hand would also avoid income tax. She could state that she is not the beneficiary of these trusts and therefore not volunteer to pay the income tax on them.
Considering their hugely beneficial tax breaks that are enshrined then it's safe to assume that they have things stacked in their favour.
As such, PH and MM are probably just fine for money. It's a lot more than we think so I wouldn't hold out much hope that they'll run out of money and can't afford lawyers etc.
If they get divorced then things might get very interesting, but then again she'll probably just get a huge (much larger than will be made public ) payoff to keep her silence on many things, probably including finances because that will REALLY piss off the Brits.
As for the legal bills - it's interesting and maybe some of our legal ladies have already weighed in but I have a lawyer friend who told me it's not unusual for clients to skip out on paying (!!).
In MM's case, her legal team likely takes work on the presumption of recouping costs through settlement rather than her paying up front. This is the only way I can see it working.
Regardless, back to my friend - so I asked him WTF!?!? How can these big law firms not collect on these fees? And he said it is embarrassing for a firm to admit they are not getting paid, so it is rare to hear about it. Big law firms make their names by winning big cases or representing/defending big cases but he said they get screwed a lot more than the average Joe might think.
This surprised me and I just wanted to share. My pal works in NYC for corporate litigation (companies suing other companies).
It’s an open discussion so any topic on the royals is pertinent. Too many things regarding the royals are hidden or kept from the public. It would be extremely naive to assume we are given all the facts, especially on assets and wealth etc.
If some find this subject boring then they can scroll past. ;o) I find many subjects boring, mostly because they’ve been (repeatedly) discussed to death. I just scroll past till the subject changes. No harm done. ;o)
Some people have suggested they receive an annual income from interest or something, let's imagine it is roughly 200K. That money, as a monthly income is only 16,000 a month - it sounds like a lot but it is not enough with which to purchase a grand home AND continue living their current lifestyle.
While Harry may technically "own" some assets I doubt he has access to liquidating them (such as Frogmore, etc) so they are essentially inaccessible.
The perks of the royal lifestyle are built into the system as long as they live within the royal bubble - the whole thing is funded and caters to the royal family. Bounce outside that bubble and all of a sudden extra costs are everywhere to provide the same in an outside location.
I'm just saying - I really don't think HAMS have that much money. At all. They appear way too desperate.
@WBBM - You sound British because you used "Casualty" instead of Urgent Care but your gentrifying tourist region reminds me of how Hamptonites speak of New Yorkers who flood the region during summer season. They claim to hate us yet many stores make the bulk of their annual sales during those few months of activity - definitely a double-edged sword, good point about the retirees though.
@SwampWoman - no kidding about the Pentagon and the UFOs right? Everybody seems to be like "meh little busy right now" it's wild. I chalk it up to info fatigue and the rise of the absurd being true (Epstein, Weinstein, governments, Covid, etc).
@Lurking - thanks for the link I will check it out
It's ridiculous!! They are suing "John Doe 1" and "John Doe 2" and "John Doe 3-100" ALL OF THEM being unspecified, unknown paparazzi to potentially be identified later.
Is it possible to sue an unknown???
Yes, WBBM is British (I am too), we used to call it Casualty, these days it’s usually called A and E (Accident and Emergency). The American equivalent as far as I’m aware is ER, unless it’s changed too. ;o)
"Is it possible to sue an unknown???"
Yes. Not unusual. John Doe 1-x are used as stand-ins until identities are discovered. If they aren't discovered, then obviously the suit is dropped.
My question would be how detailed subpoenas would have to be. Can it just say "tell us who said they had pics of any of us including Archie? Or who might any time in the future?" Or does it have to say "who has tried to sell pics of Archie claimed to be taken in Malibu between (say) March 15 and this filing on (say) July 22?"
Hmm. That doesn't sound very effective. For example, let's imagine the court rules in the HAMS' favor - how would that be enforced?
If the suit is dropped without identities, it almost sounds more like a PR play than a real lawsuit (no! them?!).
That said, I googled the law firm they are using and they claim "KWIKA is widely regarded as Hollywood’s go-to entertainment litigation law firm. Entertainment litigation is a true specialty practice requiring intimate knowledge of industry players, practices, deals and trends. We are privileged to handle the most sophisticated, cutting-edge entertainment litigation work in the nation."
https://kwikalaw.com/practice-areas/
Who knows, maybe they all say that about themselves.
Re suing a paparazzi. She is either asking for attention or trying to shut the press the same way she tried in Uk. Both strategies will backfire, as more infamous she becomes the more hunted they will be and the higher is the price for paparazzi pics.
Re Harry. I wish I could ask him a simple question face to face. From the beginning of history until 1850 Earth population was just about one billion. By 1961 there were three billion. six billion in 1999, seven billion in 2011. By 2030 there will be 8.6 billion people. How does he imagine "sustainable" tourism with such uncontrollable growth in numbers? Venice, for instance, is overwhelmed already and the locals are becoming very anti - tourism.
There has already been a call for yearly quota of tourists for some popular destinations. In this case there will be no need for the Travelyst at all, as the tourists flow will be regulated by countries themselves.
I personally think Travelyst is a stillborn. Unless they manage to surprise us with something proactive that actually works.
Re holes in the fence at TP house. It is very possible someone has cut holes in the fabric to allow access for photos or just plain spying.
It is entirely possible those holes were already there as they would be needed to allow the wind to pass through the fence instead of blowing it over. Very common practice with big sheets of fabric, so common its almost mandatory.
I need to see a picture of the holes to know if by design or .....
@MustySyphone: From what I’ve read, the “privacy fence” is a cheap fence with fabric covering on it. I am of the same thought as you that the “holes” claimed to be cut are actually holes to allow the wind to pass through so the fence doesn’t turn into a big sail and blow away or blow down. This type of fencing is frequently used around construction sites. The Santa Ana winds that hit LA can be ferocious.
Because narcissists such as Meghan are never on good terms with the truth, exaggeration, hyperbole, misrepresentation, histrionics, and outright lies are pretty much standard operating procedure for people like her.
If Meghan said the sky is blue, I’d still go outside and check to be sure. But then, I often wonder what color the sky is in the world of profound narcissists of her ilk. They just can’t be trusted. EVER.
"Hmm. That doesn't sound very effective. For example, let's imagine the court rules in the HAMS' favor - how would that be enforced?"
That's not how it works. They file and then try to find names through discovery and subpoenas. If they do, they serve those people with notice. If they don't, the suit must be dropped.
Lots of times all names aren't known before extensive discovery. Say someone is hurt in a fight. Names of perps might not be known. Often though John Doe suits are filed to stop the clock from running out re: statute of limitations. That's not the case here so it could be a filing for PR. Or a way to warn pubs in general so H&M "control the narrative." That's what M wants most.
As of 2020 California has laws prohibiting the use of drones for spying on celebs and taking their pics. The law is AB-856 Invasion of privacy
"This law prohibits entering the airspace of an individual in order to capture an image or recording of that individual engaging in a private, personal or familial activity without permission. This legislation is a response to the use of UAS by the press in covering celebrities and other public figures".
So the first step by the Harkles should have been reporting the drone to FAA. Drones in Cali should be registered, and traceable. The drone operator would have been fined. End of story.
They are simply beyond desperate for publicity.
@MustySyphone Very interesting point that H&M can get money for the pap pics through the lawsuit without arousing suspicion they arranged for them. That's an interesting possibility. I could expect Rache to employ such tactics.
First thing I wonder is if Rache is trying to preemptively stop the distribution of damaging pictures. Maybe those German Buggy Archie pics were a distraction? She keeps harping on about privacy but her lawsuits have been in response to humiliating events. Why not these new pics?
Lastly, if Rache is gunning for politics, then privacy as a cause could get her traction. She could shoehorn privacy from paparazzi with Big Tech encroaching on the privacy of us plebs.
Meghan and Harry Are Seriously Fed Up
By Amanda Arnold@aMandolinz
https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/meghan-and-harry-are-suing-over-intrusive-archie-photos.html
“"This law prohibits entering the airspace of an individual in order to capture an image or recording of that individual engaging in a private, personal or familial activity without permission.’”
@FC: Just curious, how is airspace defined for this law? It’s my understanding that airspace for private property is the air directly above the property within the land boundaries of the property.
If there indeed was a drone and it was flying outside of the airspace of Tyler’s property lines and was able to easily see into the back yard area, it might not be invading their airspace. The photo looks like it was shot from an angle above Doria and Archie, not from directly overhead. It depends on how finely the Cali law splits hairs regarding the definition of airspace.
What do you think? You sound like you have a legal background and would know the minutiae of the state laws there.
There’s a banner across the top:
“This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. (April 2020)”
Interesting…
It turns out that Harry Does not own Frogmore Cottage. I’m not English so I did A search
************************************************
Answer from Quora:
“Who owns Frogmore Cottage? Thanks
“The reigning Monarch, in trust for the nation so, effectively, the Crown Estates.
However, the Crown Estates Commissioners do not involve themselves with the management of any any occupied royal property (and I believe also that the only ‘royal park’ they manage is Windsor Great Park).
“Upkeep of Frogmore is the responsibility of the Queen and she receives funding through the Sovereign Grant for this (and of course other occupied royal properties such as Buckingham Palace). In fact funding for the Sovereign Grant was increased from 15% of the profits in the Crown Estate to 25% specifically for this purpose last year, as both these properties, and I believe others too, were in dire need of renovation/refurbishment.
“The Sussexes, as full time working royals, are entitled to accommodation in a royal property free of rent; those members of the family who are not full time working royals (e.g. the York girls, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent) pay rent on their properties.“
***************************
An advantage of not owing FC is that no spouse can ever get the cottage during a divorce. Also, the Harkles will not have to pay market rent since they are no longer Working royals.
Error above comment.
I am sorry, I don't have a background in USA legislation, just happen to know there is a law in Cali that was passed to protect celebrities from privacy violations, including the use of drones.
I looked it up and found this:
A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.
(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the person attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity, through the use of any device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the device was used.
Look like the Harkles are trying to sue for the constructive invasion of privacy.
Violations apparently result in "damages" and fines from $ 5K to $50K.
Proving damages to Archie and Doria would be problematic unless Doria suffered say heart attack and Archie say got frightened by the drone and couldn't sleep at night.
It appears the whole thing is done for pure publicity because the most reasonable action would be a FAA complaint against the drone operator resulting in a fine, without the bells and whistles.
So far, approx 5,800 comments and only a tiny handful are from the completely deluded ejits who long to be subjects of Queen Meghan.
Is this a record?
For awhile in Jan-Feb, DM Markle comments were often 15,000, + or - say, 5,000. The highest # of comments I remember was 32,000, almost all negative. (I was shocked at that large number, but can’t remember which article.) Seems like the comments have become fewer. Maybe we’re all feeling fatigued that this story just keeps dragging on.
My Comment: What a pair or manipulating whiny crybabies who could have been living in privacy on an estate in a rural area outside Wales.
Interesting that no tabloids in the US, to my knowledge, ran the photos. In the lawsuit they allege that the photos are meant to "profit." I think the Sussex team is projecting.
The person made another interesting point which is the courts will eventually tire of receiving all of these suits from Meghan and cite her for nuisance to the court.
Finally, comments about Meghan at CDAN used to run into the 100 range. Now, they get up 15.
"there was a comment on DM from an American lawyer who said that cases against unknown persons/parties were not accepted because who would the papers be served to?"
That's simply not true.
The case can't actually go to court with John Doe defendants, but it can be filed. Here's info from a CA firm that explains it quite well. (John Doe defendants permitted in other states too.)
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/suing-john-doe-defendants/
@Girl With a Hat also wrote:
"The person made another interesting point which is the courts will eventually tire of receiving all of these suits from Meghan and cite her for nuisance to the court."
The point about M being considered a "nuisance to the court" maybe could be true if all the lawsuits were filed in the same place. But I kind of doubt an LA court will hold UK cases against her. But I don't know that for sure. I haven't heard anyone say they think this case has NO basis in law though. So to be a nuisance, I'd think cases would have to be frivolous not just numerous. Of course, if cases are a setup by M...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/07/24/harry-meghan-distance-tell-all-royal-book-finding-freedom/
Harry and Meghan distance themselves from tell-all royal book 'Finding Freedom'
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex say they did not 'contribute' to Finding Freedom
By Hannah Furness, Royal Correspondent
24 July 2020 • 7:52pm
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have distanced themselves from a tell-all book about their time in the Royal Family, which promises the inside story on how they “broke up the Firm”.
The book, called Finding Freedom is out in August, and is set to reveal details of their frustrations with the palace and press, and their conviction that the institution had failed to support them properly.
Fans have been eagerly awaiting the Sussexes “side of the story”, told through friends and royal insiders but widely believed to represent their own thoughts on life inside palace walls and so-called “Megxit”.
They hope it will add detail to a string of reported stories about the Duke and Duchess, from allegations about “difficult” behaviour, to the Royal Wedding and the final Sandringham Summit which saw them negotiate their departure from the UK with the Queen herself.
The book’s marketing has promised it would dispel “the many rumours and misconceptions that plague the couple” with a newspaper advertisement this week calling it “Harry and Meghan’s new book” about how they “broke up The Firm”.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their first public outing in Toronto
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their first public outing in Toronto Credit: PA
A spokesman for the Duke and Duchess said: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not interviewed and did not contribute to ‘Finding Freedom’.
“This book is based on the authors’ own experiences as members of the royal press corps and their own independent reporting.”
The biography, by Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie, is expected to portray the Sussexes as pioneering forces with the ability to modernise the monarchy, thwarted by “grey suits” at the palace who they feel failed to support them as well as a hostile tabloid press.
The Royal Wedding in May 2018
The Royal Wedding in May 2018 Credit: Getty
Loyal royal insiders fear it could compromise the long-held convention of never repeating “sacrosanct” private conversations within the Royal Family, as well as revealing personal details of their relationships to anyone outside a trusted circle.
“It would be disappointing,” said one.
It will cover Meghan Markle’s arrival as Prince Harry’s girlfriend and dramatic events ever since, from the Sussexes’ household split from the Cambridges to their decision to forge a new life in America.
Royal-watchers will be particularly keen to see the extent to which the Duke and Duchess’s friends, staff and confidantes have cooperated with the book, ahead of the Duchess’s high-profile privacy trial.
Your Royal Appointment
Everything you need to know about the Royal family with exclusive analysis and content.
I'd wager most of us here have never sued anyone for anything, in a lifetime of many years.
It wasn't a lawsuit but there was the IPSO complaint about the work with elephants Harry lost against the MoS.
Staying out of the limelight would've been staying on the PRIVATE island in Canada where Paps couldn't get within a mile of them. H&M's cruise on HMS "VICTIM" is lost to sea and sinking. They're too arrogant/ignorant to put on a life vest. The ship is sinking
I can not stand either of them any more. It is all a lie. They both really have some Very Serious Mental Issues. MeGain is a psycho wack job and Hapless has no backbone. An ugly puppy following his mean mommy
love the DM’s headline about the Harkles were jealous of Wills&Kate because they they felt W&K got the best Royal assignments..... and the courtiers stressed “service to the crown’ above all.......well DUH! thats the job! JCMH knew that ! he knew W&K are next in line for the crown after PC? he really is ridiculous
Interesting points.
I'm not at all convinced the lawsuit involves the already-published Doria photos (assuming it involves real photos at all.) It's easy enough to see the stone in the published photo matches TP's and conclude it was probably taken near the front fountain. But the lawsuit says something about the activities involved in the shopped description of the photos make it clear they were taken in the backyard. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the pool in the backyard? And doesn't that lawsuit language make it sound like H&M are acting as though they haven't seen the shopped photos?
I think there could be other photos out there that are unflattering in some way or make it quite clear Archie is older than stated. I also think as I've said before it's just an attempt to get in the news and an attempt to threaten the press and an attempt to get possible subpoenas into press organizations. Not sure how that latter bit will work out.
Extracts from a new biography of the couple reveal Harry’s anger with the Palace’s 'men in grey suits' rather than fellow Royals
By Camilla Tominey,
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
24 July 2020 • 7:48pm
Finding Freedom biography expected to reveal Prince Harry - more than Meghan - wanted 'out' of the Royal Family
http://archive.ph/Axzsv#selection-65.36-65.112
Now, Extracts of Finding Freedom, published this weekend, will claim the Sussexes felt stifled and ignored in the Royal Family, as reported by The Sun. says the DM.
The book will also outline that the couple were upset that William and Kate got more prestigious royal duties than they did.
...
The authors boast the book published next month has been written 'with the participation of those closest to the couple'.
Jealousy pure and simple. In another article, I thought I read that our gruesome twosome didn't have anything to do with the book. It's difficult to keep up with these two. It sounds like they perpetually feel hard done by. Never happy, always whingeing. And MM wants to run for president?? Where will their privacy be then? I hope things come to a head soon as I don't think we can put up with more of their shenanigans.
They could have found out about shopped photos given they've got "connections" with some press outlets. Maybe not enough to know who was selling them though. Plus, if the lawsuit is really for PR and/or threat value, they want it to be broad...if a threat, sort of like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's reported joke telegram sent to 12 upstanding friends saying "flee, all is discovered" (& all supposedly left the country.)
Does anyone else wonder if this silly lawsuit is a distraction from the Sussex Royal/ Travelyst complaint?
1. Those photos were either taken by M herself or were "commissioned." Of course, I think the Canada ones were commissioned too but...
2. Wouldn't bringing a lawsuit about the buggy and/or pool photos mean Doria and/or Harry might have to be deposed? Whereas for Canada they don't and only M might be? Maybe they don't want either Doria or Harry to have to testify (for different reasons)
Don’t believe everything you read about Dr. Jane Goodall's relationship with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the famed conservationist tells PEOPLE.
"There's all this stuff in the press about being best friends, which is absolutely stupid," Goodall, 86, tells PEOPLE.
Found here >>>> https://jerseydeanne.com/
Re: Omid. I thought it was him as the source (but I have been wrong).
Someone was going on about how the planning to leave began before the wedding.
I thought it was Omid but it could have easily been Lady C.
I knew someone had been talking about that it was more than a casual discussion point before the wedding. I also didn't remember who that someone was and was willing to say so. I thought it Omid (which might have made some sense but I was willing to say I did not remember exactly who but I did remember that it was something bandied about (existed). I'm sorry that I didn't remember specifically who and had a direct link for you.
I don't have her book yet (counting down the days). She did a great job at the Queen Mother (fyi: why didn't HM have a more complete education: because the QM didn't think her daughters needed that because she didn't get that plus her husband was not expected to become King).
M& nondescript husband wanted W&K love and adoration without the 10 years of work plus they put in
Husband; that chicks got a major attitude problem.
Sums it up.
the truth is they want paparazzai and atention, for themselves and Archie. without it they are nothing, just another one of the rich, entitled, sanctimonius snobs telling the poor folk how to live.
and the drivel about releasing photos of archie on instagram rotfl, to prevent the paps from taking snaps.
the cambridges have managed it fine, wonder why they were so inept at it.
Holy Smokes!
Thanks. While I'm sure it will become much more fawning, that's not quite the haliography I expected.
Thank you Wullie's Bucket.
I am impressed with how people view themselves as very important in the overall view of things. Sort of like thinking this play in chess is a good one without thinking all the possible ways the other side might take advantage of your moves.
And, also how they expect to get a response (the one they want) immediately and the idea of being asked for specifics (in writing no less) might actually be helpful to everyone instead of being viewed as some sort of forewarning of the negative to come later in response to the whole idea.
(I am reminded of the phrase: Just because it is a crisis on your side does not make it a crisis on my side.)
thanks again
Let us review the truly devastating incidents in the lives of their Royal highnesses
Losing her beloved papa at the age of 25 devastated Elizabeth. I imagine also the deaths of her mother and her sister were quietly devastating as well. The Suez crisis in 1956 and a gradual chipping away of what remained of her empire, devastating. Watching her grandsons grieve the loss of their mother as young teens. Windsor Castle catching on fire. I’d say the deaths of each one of her beloved dogs and horses over the years are each one more devastating then the loss of a granddaughter in law who she barely knew for two years.
Philip lost his home and the daily care of both his parents when he was a baby. He lost his mother to years from insanity. He lost eight members of his extended family In a plane crash when he was a teen, Including all his sisters, and his sister’s newborn child. He was probably pretty devastated when his ship went down during the war and he rest his own life to save shipmates from certain death. I think even in his presently frail condition, Philip would have a different word, or many words, all of them choice, in response to Harry’s to fiction for the family along with his “actress”. Were Philip A bit younger, perhaps several nearby household objects may have been devastated when he heard the Farkle manifesto.
That’s the Farkles for you...Such legends in their own minds they are.
My feelings when they left the royal business behind to go to Canada was that they were not going to be as successful as they thought because COVID-19 was coming. The KungFlu would be far more important to everybody's lives than the whinings of a spare heir and his gold-digger wife who was upset because nobody ever asked her how she was, and so it proved. It still is. Cold and flu season will be very interesting this year; 1/3 of our schoolteachers and virtually all of the bus drivers, aides, and other support staff are in the danger zone ages for the virus. I doubt that anybody is going to care about any gripes from spoiled middle-aged children about how the royal family did not kiss their backsides sufficiently.
They better pray nightly on their knees that 3 Gorges Dam holds. If that fails, there won't be any interest in the Harkles for quite awhile, if ever.
My thoughts:
1. The fawning, breathless parts are hysterical.
2. It’s a bit more balanced than I anticipated. Perhaps the authors decided to temper their comments so as to maintain relationships with the palace.
3. Meghan will NOT be pleased. She cannot bear the slightest hint of negativity and/or accountability for her own actions. Expect to soon hear that she is further victimized by inaccuracies in this narrative.
"The couple say they have 'done everything in their power to stay out of the limelight' except in relation to their work, which they accept is newsworthy."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8558705/Courtiers-resented-having-serve-actress-cable-bombshell-book-claims.html
I feel bad that ERII’s long and distinguished reign is entering it’s closing years with this monstrosity of two people nipping at her heels. I hope she steps on them and squashes them like the cockroaches many of us knew they would turn out to be.
And the excerpts said the Harkles are trying to distance themselves from this book. It is passive-aggressive behavior aimed at deflecting the sh!t that is likely to hit the royal fan after HMTQ, PC, and W&K read it or read the excerpts.
I hope they are stripped of everything possible. This is beyond disgusting behavior. Family or not, if anyone in my family acted like the Harkles, they wouldn’t be welcomed back into the family easily. The RF know that even if the Harkles break up and Harry returns to the UK with Archie ( if Harry manages to escape Meghan and remain alive) Harry can never ever be trusted.
Harry apparently never heard the adage “Don’t sh!t where you eat.”
That said, I agree that it's less sugary, with less sycophancy, more balanced than one might have expected. Has he detected a change in the wind with regard to their popularity? Hedging his bets?
Do you think it meets with M's approval? I find it difficult to believe that the H$Ms didn't intend to make money out it - or to control what was said. Some of his points, like the one about courtiers not liking having to serve a very minor actress, surely would have been expressed differently had he been using his previous toadying tone?
A statement said: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not interviewed and did not contribute to Finding Freedom.
"This book is based on the authors' own experiences as members of the royal press corps and their own independent reporting."
That doesn’t rule out the possibility that they tried to intervene – didn’t we get the impression that she didn’t care for that delay?
Was the `first Final Draft’ replaced by a `Second Final Draft’? Could there have been a falling out? Scooby Doo ghosted?
All smoke and mirrors, folks!
The book Finding Freedom clearly shows they believe in their own hype, totally delusional and should be sectioned.
I feel this pap lawsuit is just a ruse. I would be surprised if there really are unauthorized photos of Archie being shopped around. I think it is just excuse as to why we never see him or her with him for that matter. MM seems to thrive in state of perpetual drama and utter chaos with grandiose illusion of importance. . Probably heard all the chatter of where the heck is he and we can't play in yard because of drones blather. Excuses, if he is actually in house with them I bet it is 90% nanny as BOTH of them looked really uneasy around him the two or three times we got a glimpse
DuckRabbit reading was abhorrent. You could tell she has no patience for baby.
Latest lawsuit too takes away from the chatter on People magazine lawsuit. How embarrassing all these lawsuits
Just wanted to say hello. Hope everyone is well and I have been enjoying all your musings :)
Was the `first Final Draft’ replaced by a `Second Final Draft’? Could there have been a falling out? Scooby Doo ghosted?
Ghosted or not. The book is and will be from the Sussex’s perspective and a tit-for-tat book.
He could also be setting the tone for his/their argument she was treated differently by couriers and it ends with an ism.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have denied contributing to a new book about their life in the Royal Family.
The book, Finding Freedom - which is being serialised in the Times - has claimed the Sussexes and Cambridges were barely speaking by March.
It also says friends of Prince Harry and Meghan referred to some Palace officials as "vipers".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53535221
I know you’re foreign so I don’t expect you to know. ;o) Hertfordshire and Herefordshire are both counties, not towns. Wales is a country and part of the UK. I personally only read of the estate offered in Hertfordshire, but I don’t read the Sun, it’s another comic like the Star and Express papers. ;o)
You've found the same BBC article as me re H&M not contributing to Finding Freedom. I knew I'd read it somewhere, looked for it and posted the same at 8am before reading your post. Apologies for saying the same.
Thank you for taking the time to post these illuminating exceprts from Finding Freedom (sounds like they were slaves). Not quite as sycophantic as I expected but still shows H&M as entitled and petulant. For 'they' and 'their decisions'etc, read 'M' and 'her decisions'.
@RaspberryRuffle I know you’re foreign so I don’t expect you to know. ;o) Hertfordshire and Herefordshire are both counties, not towns. Wales is a country and part of the UK. I personally only read of the estate offered in Hertfordshire, but I don’t read the Sun, it’s another comic like the Star and Express papers. ;o)
Do you know how supercilious you seem. Wullie's Bucket is correct the reports wer of an estate in Herefordshire some reports did say Hertfordshire but since they placed this county on the Welsh borders obviouslu mixed up their counties
The endless confusion of Hertfordshire and Herefordshire.:
Hertfordshire is a small, county to the immediate north of London - the northern parts are still largely rural but the south is suburban/urban, County town is Hertford. A county sadly plagued by New Towns and motorways. Very busy.
Its major historical city is St.Albans, site of the martyrdom of St Alban, (died c 209AD at the hands of the Romans - Verulamium is its important archaeological site)
I was born in Hertfordshire, so I am a `Hertfordshire Hedgehog'
The only significant Royal connections I can think of are:
- Hatfield House, Lord Salisbury's place. Once a Royal Palace, it is said James I & VI exchanged it for Theobalds. also in Herts.
- and St Paul's Walden, birthplace (according to the Registrar General) of HM's mother, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Despite what some Scots like to believe, there's no evidence that she was born at Glamis. Her father may have gone up for the grouse shooting (which would account for him being late to register the birth at Hitchin.) We don't know for certain where her mother was at the time. (This is for those who may have read the speculation about the Queen Mum.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_House and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobalds_House
and:
https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl -for a transcript of the Begister of Births:
Surname First name(s) District Vol Page
Births Sep 1900 (>99%)
Bowes-Lyon Elizabeth A M Hitchin 3a 667
She was born 4 August 1900 - this volume of the Register covers July, August and September.
Herefordshire is remote, on the border with Wales, rural, agricultural, once best known for cider production, original home of the red beef cattle with white faces.
County town = Hereford, its cathedral is home of the Mappa Mundi, a medieval map with Jerusalem at the centre.
My most vivid experience of this county is of being taken 25 miles through winding country lanes to Hereford hospital, feeling like death from vertigo, in the back of an emergency ambulance.
This is where the Harkles could have lived a secluded life of comfort, with as much privacy as they could desire. The only problems I can imagine would be H's frustration at not being allowed to go shooting and M's fury when nobody invited them to dinner, not of course that any of the local upper classes and gentry would have been good enough for her.
The only notable resident I can think of is Sir Roy Strong - the thought of them in dinner party conversation is surreal.
Hertfordshire might have suited her better but if she couldn't stand Frog Cott...
PS:
Like Hampshire, both of these counties are `where Hurricanes Hardly ever Happen'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQpoyfbWJ0 roy strong
We've had the Herts/Herefords discussion before - I didn't then bother answer the poster in the States who assumed I didn't know the difference between Connecticut and Cicinnatti, nor where they are located - I do, and didn't have to look it up.
There are lots of people, especially newspaper hacks, on this side of the Atlantic who should damn' well know better, get it wrong.
I once picked up an old map(c1811) map of Hertfordshire at auction, wrongly catalogued. It came with an even older one listed as `Isla Skiana' - not in Greece but in fact a 17th century map of the Isle of Skye (Scotland)- I got them for a song.
When in the US, my husband was asked where he came from. In response to the answer `Scotland' the questioner said `Did you drive?'
Never mind, few people on the other side of the Channel don't understand the term `United Kingdom' either- and the shortest distance between us and France is only 21 miles.
A lot of modern PR is based on perception and the creation of 'buzz' around a product. If people say you're cool, hot, popular and in the news then guess what, you are. Indifference is the real killer of a brand, not hatred (because that shows people care enough).
To me this smells of them trying to create a buzz around themselves (their brand) to create the impression that 'we're important, people want to know about us, take pictures etc because we're a hot product.' Basically another take on a pap walk.
Imagine if they hadn't have done this. Where's the hype? It's all they have. What happens if they don't so anything to show they're popular every week/few weeks? The answer is that people will then know they're not popular, that nobody cares and then nobody WILL care. They'll move onto the next product.
Did you think H&M had@any input in this book?
Yes
94%
No
6%
201 votes · 23 hours left
Have you heard of the Battle of St Albans which started off the War of the Roses? Am reading Conn Igulden's excellent and highly entertaining trilogy on these tumultuous times. Really brings it all to life and well worth a read if you find these things interesting.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7414843/Meghan-Harry-speed-plans-Los-Angeles-private-jet-press.html
Whether it is true or not, I have no clue. That being said, the UK tabloids have been a rich resource on a lot of true H&M shenanigans. The Sun broke the story of their SussexRoyal House of Cards.
I’m not confused with Hertfordshire or Herefordshire. ;o) I have friends and family who reside in Hertfordshire.
I’m British and currently reside in Norfolk, and I’ve lived in many counties in the UK, including Hampshire where my ancestors come from and my roots have been traced back to 1066 (we’re mentioned in The Doomsday Book). ;o)
I too read the confusion regarding the two counties on this blog (Ava C who is British was one who did). The article I read stated the estate was in Hertfordshire and obviously no mention of Wales because it doesn’t boarder it.
This is an end to this discussion for me.
I second @lizzie's Holy Smokes!
I also remember reports that H&M were highly involved in the book. I think Omid Scobie was the source for that info. He said something along the lines that they wanted to have their side of the story told. Then there were those reports of the BRF fearing the book would put all blame on them and mostly Prince William for the rift and fallout. My memory is fuzzier on this aspect but I do remember something along the lines of Omid Scobie working on the book before H&M's wedding. That was a surprising tidbit which gave the impression that Megxit happening was in the cards. I'll see if I can find links/sources of what I remember.
I'm not sure I believe it will be a balanced account but I am interested in reading the book now. I want to see all the drivel Meg has been whispering in Scobie's ears. I see a lot of Meg's unfiltered input in those passages.
I never said I did know, only what I read, just like what you’ve read. Neither of us know if this is fact anyhow. As far as we know nothing was offered to the duo.
I was only stating my British ancestry inasmuch I didn’t need a history lesson about my own country.
This thread is far too argumentative for me. I don’t come here for that, better and healthier to be lurker.
The Charlotte Griffiths' MOS article is cited as the original source wherever I look though.
Knowing that PC offered that to JCMHFKAP indicates to me that PC knows about JCMH's mental problems and his need for quiet and privacy and wanted to help; sadly, the GDKAM (gold digger known as Meghan) is concerned about herself and her need for constant adulation, not JCMH's mental stability.
The dear ole DM. It was before Harry was married that I read it. Again, I’m not stating this as a fact, just what I read, just like everyone else here. :o/
I’m off to do fun stuff. ;o)
`What's the difference between Iceland and Ireland?'
`One letter and about 6 months!'
Anyway, as far as I can make out, the only connection between Herts and Duchy/Duke of Cornwall is Berkhamsted Castle:
" King John spent some time here in 1216 shortly before his death, strengthening the defences against threatened revolts of the barons. His widowed queen was here when the castle surrendered to Prince Louis of France in December 1216 after two weeks’ siege. In 1226 Richard, Earl of Cornwall, was granted the honour and Manor of Berkhamsted and made the castle the administrative centre of the entire earldom of Cornwall. His son, Edmund, later founder of the College of the Bonhommes at Ashridge, was born here. The Black Prince hunted regularly in the deer park and he and his wife, Joan, the fair Maid of Kent, honeymooned at the castle. Later, after the battle of Poitiers in 1356 King John of France was imprisoned at the castle. The Black Prince was created Duke of Cornwall and Berkhamsted Castle has remained part of the Duchy of Cornwall to this day."
On the other hand, if you look at this:
https://whoownsengland.org/2017/03/15/what-land-does-the-duchy-of-cornwall-own/
It suggests a land holding at Northchurch, outside B'sted but I can't vouch for the reliability of the info on this map (put together by critics of large land holdings, it seems)
Also, you'll see a number of markers indicating the whereabouts of presumed Duchy properties in Herefordshire.
There's a big `health warning' with this website though - the authors seem to conflate Duchy holdings with land Charles owns personally (most notably Highgrove). Duchy lands are not his personal `property'. The dots for Scilly represent individual islands I imagine - but there are other private landowners there, like Dartmoor; I don't know about the manor in Wales.
I guess I'm on the Herefordshire-bandwagon then. Could be wrong but I think the location was meant to be reported as that county. @WBBM also makes my confirmation bias happy when she brings up the BRF having tangible links to Herefordshire and none for Hertfordshire.
Darn QWERTY keyboards. I blame them for this kerfuffle. Mistyping an 'e' for a 't' is just too easy on them. Personally, I've always been partial to DVORAK keyboards.
Ladies, please do we need to have infighting again? We've ascertained which county it was, I find all this quibbling unpleasant. Read the articles in the DM and, more to the point, the comments, for a bit a light-hearted relief 😄.
Thanks for sharing the excerpt!
It's definitely not as sugary as expected. Heck, some parts that supposedly present the Sussexes' side of things actually make them look worse! Having an important project and not wanting to wait their turn behind Prince Charles and Prince William? It stinks of entitlement. Saying that someone in the palace had leaked their plans early (and pinned it on them!) in order to justify putting out a statement that blindsided their own communications team? They're hardly the supportive team players they claim they want to be.
With all the text says about the chaos that followed the release of the statement, I expected a line or two saying that the Sussexes were sorry about causing emotional distress to two nonagenarians or creating a big headache for staff. That they had had no choice but to do what they had done but they wished it hadn't hurt or inconvenienced others so much. But nothing! Which is a surprise, considering the early sugary PR about Meghan and the hand warmers for palace guards and what was in the statement itself.
Meghan Markle tearfully told a friend 'I gave up my entire life for this family' and said she was 'willing to do whatever it takes' to avoid quitting, according to a bombshell biography.
Extracts from Finding Freedom claim an emotional Meghan made the confession in March, months after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced they would step down as senior royals.
'I was willing to do whatever it takes. But here we are,' she told a friend. 'It's very sad.'
Read the rest: Meghan Markle told a friend, 'I gave up my entire life for this family' . . .
Willing to do whatever it takes? She couldn't even let the Queen get into a car first.
A DM commenter has a new nickname for them - Griper and Viper. Spot on.
Thanks @Enbrethiliel for the link. Whenever I think of Rache, this following adage comes to mind: "I don't trust words, even I question actions. but I never doubt patterns."
What exactly does she think she achieves by saying she is not the one who decided to leave the BRF? Shows to me cracks in their relationship. I think it was her but regardless, she's married to JCMHFKAP. Married couples act on decisions jointly. Goes to show you she has no clue what it means to be married.
Watch out JH! Rache has had way too many practice runs of throwing you under the bus for you not to be worried.
A laugh a minute.
The idea that they (through their own star power) were the ones who made the wedding a success and re-energized the monarchy into a world renown entity (before, apparently it was not) that then should somehow equate to we can do what we want because the world loves us and not you ... is very wishful thinking at best and choosing to ignore the centuries of traditions of how things run but being mad that the rules don't even bend, let alone break for even princes or princesses.
There is a lot of her friends commenting so my take is that Omid could be a friend. And that the loose friends commenting has that same smell as friends in the People article.
(snort: not even letting the Queen into the car first - nice comment.)
So I just noticed this poll on Murky Meg, which I of course promptly participated in:
Did you think H&M had@any input in this book?
Yes
94%
No
6%
Megs lies about everything so she will lie about this too. Of course Megs had direct input to the two authors. Harry was more in the background. My opinion is Harry does not go around lying. He is very mistaken on some matters but not a liar.
my take is that Omid could be a friend.
________________________
I'm sure he was a friend. The question is, is he still a friend? They thought the book would restore (?)/enhance their image, as well as bringing in money. Nothing could, certainly not this book. I think then they'll blame Scobie and I wouldn't be surprised if he was markled soon.
I was going to write a bunch of stuff related to this excerpt, but why bother. I don't think Harry is capable of being happy because that takes work and he wants to be handed everything.
I agree,its less cringing than I thought it would be.
But there is still time, 😁
Very, very apt! I like it!
The Duchy owns it,and Charles has been refurbishing it since 2000.
If this is the property, Charles had it in mind for Willuam and Kate first. They eventually got Anmer Hall.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451125/Revealed-The-renovated-estate-meant-Prince-William-Kates-lovenest.html
So of course, it wouldnt do for the Harkles. Its very very cool, but I' m sure madame would turn up her nose. She was expecting something like Bagshot Park.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5122039/Harrys-40m-personal-wealth.html
"The biography was rumoured to have been put together with the co-operation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex." Newsweek
"The authors were granted “unique access” to the couple and their team, which means that we may learn more on their decision to step down as senior royals." Parade
"Meghan Markle and her husband Prince Harry reportedly spoke to two journalists for a tell-all that details their departure as senior members of the British royal family, Page Six reported on Monday.
According to the outlet, the royal couple cooperated with Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand for the upcoming book titled “Finding Freedom,” which is set to be released by Dey Street Books on August 11." Fox News.com
Also - i am positive Omid gave the illusion that M&H were very involved in the writing of this book. And yes, he said it was started before the wedding. My impression all along is he was connected to Meg for quite a while before the wedding and had regular contact with both of them.
jeez people, let it go. or don’t respond if someone trolls you.
lots of places have same or similar sounding names all over the world.
it’s much more fun to analyze the scoobie excerpts.
thank you for. posting them!
1- i think scoobie was playing it safe for himself and his own future access to the BRF, after all, he still lives there and thats where he makes a living. he shouldn’t go full pro-fawning MM, could risk his and his newpapers access to BRF tips even if he loves/loved MM. maybe he’s finally sees her ‘authentic’ self .
2 - the timeline he gives comes from her camp. they were distressed and left for a break in the fall for canada thru the holidays with every intention of trying to make it work, boohoo. then used the time to discuss how to make it work, lie!...rather how to make the BRF work for them. they actually used the time to get a new website set up and create their manifesto or their list of demands. i think cdan had a blind on that too.
3 - they complain about being blocked from seeing HM. they both know she has a strict schedule that books quickly, heck they didnt plan Archie’s christening in time and HM had a conflict by the time they scheduled it. And he never bothered to pick up the phone? I fnd it hard to believe he doesnt have acces to one. he could have called his Gram, or Dad directly! and had they attended Christmas at Sandringham they could have spoken to her directly! I call BS on that.
4 - so he emails PC the manifesto/hostage demands right before they leave for england , without Archie. and fears it will leak.
5 - there is a gossip journalist with a tidbitwhen they arrive, So the Harkles strike back and publicise their manifesto/demands on their new website....and their communications team was in the dark about it. total BS it was planned from day 1 or day 2.
and the harkles DO read the news commenters... heck i ‘m sure they read the gossip sites too!
if they weren’t so arrogant, entitled, sanctimonious, narcissitc , and supposedly smart, i’d almost feel sorry for them and their constant bumbling/failed plans to dominate the world.
By Ian Gallagher For The Mail On Sunday
17:00 EDT 25 Apr 2020 , updated 19:35 EDT 25 Apr 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8257177/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-interviews-two-journalists-writing-flattering-biography.html
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 'give interviews to two journalists writing flattering biography
14hrs agog
Little wonder that he was one of the few favoured journalists invited to witness Meghan's tearful farewell to staff at Buckingham Palace. In what must have delighted Meghan and Harry, he has written about the 'almost daily mistruths' of the British press.
Scobie teamed up with another Sussex-friendly journalist, Carolyn Durand. Well respected, she is a former producer with US broadcaster ABC and has covered the Royals for more than 15 years. Ms Durand now writes about the Royal Family for Elle magazine.
Biographer and journalist Omid Scobie planted his flag firmly in Meghan's camp soon after she became linked to Harry
Biographer and journalist Omid Scobie planted his flag firmly in Meghan's camp soon after she became linked to Harry
Scobie and Durand's biography promises to tell the couple's 'real' story. For that we must wait.
There are parallels with Princess Diana's story. Like Meghan, she felt like a 'prisoner in the palace' and, desperate to express her torment, chose a biographer, Andrew Morton, to tell her story.
But unlike Scobie, there was nothing remotely 'woke' about Morton, a straight-talking Yorkshireman and seasoned Fleet Street operator.
I am telling you this story to show you that this is common among younger people - to see any slight towards them as more important than anything that may have made them deserve the slight. However, Meghan and Harry are a bit old to fit the demographic. Perhaps their upbringing contributed to it?
One of the most striking aspects of the marriage between the Griper and the Viper (thank you Barbara from Montreal for alerting us to a great nickname) is their lack of committment to something basic and necessary as creating a home together, something that most newlyweds accomplish within months of their marriage. Building a home together, whether it is an apartment, cottage or even one room - size is not the issue here - is the emotional groundwork to a relationship. But look at these two: married for over two years with a toddler and a dog or two in tow. but they are still bouncing from one borrowed opulent place to the other. Doesn't seem to bother them at all. Hapless continues to air his jealousy and hatred and his narc wife is chasing a freebie birthday party while launching yet another suit against phantom paparazzi. It is not that they are penniless or didn't have the chance to set up their base either. Frogmore was precisely that, a gift of a home, but it was not grandiose enough apparently. It's telling how emotionally uninvested they are in making a secure nest for their child. A shallow, sad and selfish duo!
It also illustrates their hypocrisy re: Their commitment to environmental ideals. If they were really interested in reducing their footprints (but they aren't, they want the peasants to reduce THEIR footprints and not look at those multi-million $ mansion flophouses), they would be building a small earthship-type house of of recycled materials in Taos, New Mexico, where they collect all their water from rainfall, recycle it 3 times, grow their own food, generate their own electricity, and then help others build theirs.