Skip to main content

Harry and Meghan sign a deal with Netflix

 According to the New York Times, Harry and Meghan have signed a contract with Netflix to make documentaries, docuseries, feature films, scripted shows and children's programming.  

In a statement quoted in the Times, the couple say, "Our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope. As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us."  

Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer and co-chief exec, added, "We're incredibly proud they have chosen Netflix as their creative home and are excited about telling stories with them that can help build resilience and increase understanding for audiences everywhere."

What do you make of this development?

Comments

NeutralObserver said…
Well, I said sometime last year that Megs' natural customers were naive teens & tweeners in Africa & Asia. If you make money from mass marketing, ya gotta go where the masses are. Netflix, like Conde Nast, & the New York Times, wants to position itself as a global company. Prior to Covid-19, before millions of children & adults were trapped inside their homes, Netflix was bleeding customers in the USA, & their stock was tanking. I get the impression that all of the streaming companies have been doing pretty well recently. According to a quick internet search, a basic Netflix subscription in India costs $2.71, in South Africa, $5.90, in the US, it's $8.99. After Covid-19, we Americans may be having problems paying for Netflix. LOL. I wonder if this move will make it easier or harder for the RF to ditch the Harkles. The RF could say that the Harkles no longer need RF funds, if the Harkles really are pocketing millions, but if the RF severs ties to the Harkles, how will that play in the Commonwealth, whose countries are getting all of those cheap Netflix subscriptions? I just hope Charles' Duchy of Cornwall tenants don't have to keep paying for the Sussex's security. I also hope US taxpayers aren't made to indirectly subsidize internet access in other countries. We have enough access issues here at home.
SwampWoman said…
Seems like a spectacular way to dynamite her bridges to me. If they go to the RF with their hands out begging for money, the RF can say "But we read that you have a $150 million deal from Netflix! It was in the Times! Disney and network television can say "I thought you weren't interested in our low million dollar deals! You said you had a Netflix deal worth $150 million! Why are you asking us?" Meanwhile, Netflix says "Wait, WHAT?"

It had not even occurred to me that she was using the Netflix "deal" to divert attention away from the preschoolers and how their privacy was violated by the sue-happy duo that hates having their privacy invaded. Good catch, Mel.
@Golden Retriever

" don’t believe that Harry has written anything. Meghan is likely submitting her own work under his name because he is a Royal and would therefore have a better shot at getting a script green lighted."

If I was a betting woman (and I am not) I would say that MeMe is soliciting scripts from unknown and very hungry wannabe writers. These are repackaged as being written by Harry and then solicited. Perhaps their new production company should be named

"Ghost Writers R Us" or
"You write, we take credit"

xxxxx said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8694863/Meghan-Markle-sues-picture-agency-photos-walking-son-Archie-park.html

Meghan Markle sues picture agency over photos of her walking with son Archie in a park on Vancouver Island
The Duchess of Sussex is taking legal action against Splash News and Pictures
Her action centres on pictures of Meghan and Archie taken in a park in January
None of the images show her son's face and also feature two of her dogs
They say they misuse private information and breach the Data Protection Act
By DAN SALES FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 12:45 EDT, 3 September 2020


******* She is suing in England for an offense in Canada while she lives in America? And the paps agency seems to be headquartered in America too. Wikipedia says this.
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Um.....

Is it only me, or is NO ONE TALKING ABOUt THIS exept for us.... ?
Elsbeth1847 said…
Piers is really funny. He really nailed it. I loved the parody of The Crown.

Seriously though, one of the comments was something about who would go to Netflix for mental health issues?

When I think of documentaries, the places best known for them tend to be PBS (not the big money channel), BBC (may have burned that bridge), Nat Geo, some Disney/Animal Planet (and that whole linkage). You might get one on food on a food channel but it is more of a one off. So it's (as it always is for them) the need for what ever they will do to make the money and have it replicated multiple times and multiple different ways annually until they retire. So, it's not just a single good idea but an endless supply of ideas, being able to make it into more than just a five minute short, a team to write the script, film it, narrate, edit, colorize, polish, sell, move onto the next one in the list and this takes a number of teams of people who all want to be paid (probably at union rates).

Plus once you get a reputation for being worth watching, you suffer from what do you for the next show to stand out?

Midge said…
@MustySyphone

I seem to remember that Meghan bought the screen rights to a newly published book by a first time author some time ago. I will see if I can find the article.
Midge said…
@MustySyphone

I seem to remember that Meghan bought the screen rights to a newly published book by a first time author some time ago. I will see if I can find the article.
Hikari said…
The one,

As for the BRF, I think they are beyond embarrassed. Why is a Royal now working for netflix? LOL.

Not to mention they are being labelled 'lunatics' in print!

If Netflix well and truly did offer them a production deal, I think Hastings and Co. will retract it shortly if this negative press continues.

I know most of us here relish in picking over how ridiculous Hazmat and Murkletroid are, but surely by now, even people who have been unaware of the chaotic disaster these two are are starting to scratch their heads . . .

Two unemployed and sloppy-looking hermetic individuals, one of them a foreigner, the other a washed-up actress who has not held a regular job for nearly 5 years couch-surf around the North American continent, finally landing at a grandiose mansion on an earthquake fault. They then parade themselves around the L.A. area, inserting themselves into 'charitable' photo ops for press. Isn't this the exact sort of 'work' they had to run away from in England as too much to bear, except that there was ostensibly a 'point' to their appearances in the UK. To wit, the Queen had sent them. Most of the time.

What ARE they doing? Barging into a preschool full of underprivileged American kids to plant flowers in honor of Harry's dead Mum? These children's parents most likely don't know who Diana is either, except as some long-dead lady.

Meg is trying to copy everything Kate is doing, only in Hollywood. What?!?

These two are beyond exhausting. No legitimate organization or company can work with this duo. They are like electrons ping-ponging around--no focus, just frenetic activity.
Maneki Neko said…
"Meghan has launched legal action against Splash News over the pictures, taken in January as she strolled in the woods in Vancouver with eight-month-old Archie strapped to her chest.
......

The legal claim is being brought by the Duchess of Sussex and Archie, with both mother and father acting as litigation friends for their son.

Legal papers will now be served on Splash in the US, giving it a chance to file a defence to the privacy claim." (Evening Standard)
_____________

Considering she was beaming on the photos, made no attempt to hide her face & turn around and order her bodyguards to get rid of the paps, and considering we never saw Archie's face at all, I hope she loses.
Bright on said…
Not sure if this has already been posted and playing catch up :D https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/meghan-harry-may-behollywoods-least-qualified-producers-will/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter

Those worried about the future of television can rest easy, because Harry and Meghan are here to save it. We’re referring, of course, to news that the Blighty-abandoning Sussexes have signed a megabucks production deal to make TV shows for the world’s biggest streaming service, some of which they may even appear in. Forget Netflix and chill. This is Megxit and shill.

The controversial royal couple have founded an as-yet-unnamed production company and signed a multi-year contract to make documentaries, children's programmes, scripted dramas and more. Yes, this is television by Royal Appointment. Harry’s TV Burp and Meghan Behaving Badly, anyone?

The eyebrow-raising move comes eight months after Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back from royal duties and relocated to California with their toddler son Archie. It seems they’re already fully embracing the Hollywood lifestyle. A punch-up with paparazzi and rehab for yoga addiction could be next on the agenda.

They’re following in the illustrious footsteps of the Obamas. In 2018, Netflix signed a similar deal with former US President Barack and his lawyer wife Michelle. The streaming giant clearly enjoys throwing piles of money at people who’ve already got too much of it, to do something that’s not really their job. While it's not known how much the Obamas were paid by Netflix, Penguin Random House reportedly paid the Obamas a $65m advance for their memoirs.

Bright on said…
It’s no coincidence that Harry interviewed Obama while guest-editing Radio 4’s Today programme and that the couple recently signed with the New York-based Harry Walker Agency, which also represents the Obamas and the Clintons. Meghan is said to admire the lucrative-yet-dignified career that the Obamas, especially Michelle, have carved out since leaving the White House.
A totally spontaneous-sounding statement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said: “Our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope. As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us.” Harry and Meghan added that they’re confident that Netflix's "unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action”, whatever that means.

Meanwhile, Netflix head honcho Ted Sarandos said: “We’re incredibly proud they have chosen Netflix as their creative home and are excited about telling stories with them that can help build resilience and increase understanding for audiences everywhere.”

Bright on said…
Because that’s exactly why we all watch TV, right? Pass the remote, dear, I want to build my resilience with another episode of Selling Sunset. Then let’s unlock action with a Friends rerun before bed.

Word is that projects already in development include “an innovative nature docuseries and an animated series that celebrates inspiring women”. Both of which sound OK, if a little worthy. Where is the evidence that the couple are remotely capable of making decent TV? Well, let’s have a look at their respective CVs.

Meghan was a jobbing actress who found success in the subsequently canned legal drama Suits – the role she left in 2018 to marry her ginger prince. Otherwise, she’s done a few Hallmark movies, lifestyle website The Tig (a sort of Poundland knock-off of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop) and was a “briefcase girl” on the US version of Deal Or No Deal.
Her first post-Megxit gig was narrating this spring’s Disney+ docuseries Elephants, landing the job after Harry recommended his wife’s voiceover talents to Disney chairman Bob Iger at a film premiere. In showbiz, after all, it’s not what you know, it's who you collar at red carpet events.

Harry, meanwhile, has done military service, bared his backside in Las Vegas, launched the Invictus Games for wounded veterans and become a fixture in the VIP seats at sporting events. His tentative forays into TV comprise partnering with Oprah Winfrey on an Apple docuseries about mental health and appearing in Rising Phoenix, a recent Netflix documentary about the Paralympic Games. His favourite film is The Lion King, and he's reportedly a keen viewer of The Voice Kids.

In short, actual TV producers will hardly be quaking in their boots. This pair are surely the least qualified TV producers since… well, since their Uncle Edward staged It's a Royal Knockout and later dissolved his Ardent Productions company with assets of just £40.

What might The Sussexes’ production slate look like? It will invariably involve documentaries about endangered animals, “game-changers”, “trail-blazers” and worthy-but-dull charity initiatives. Avocados and rugby might well feature, too.

There might also be the odd drama with a mental health theme, possibly starring the couple's new mate Jameela Jamil – the presenter-cum-actress-cum-“activist” (translation: social media irritant) who visited their $14m Santa Barbara mansion last week. It probably wasn’t to give an estimate on cleaning the gutters. Their meeting came the day after Jamil called Prince Andrew an “alleged paedophile” on Twitter, which must have made for lively smalltalk over the oatmilk lattés and gluten-free mini-muffins
What appears clear is that we can’t expect to gain much insider access – or indeed, see much of the couple on-camera. Meghan has made it clear that her acting career is over. Fly-on-the-wall reality fare is also off the agenda. Bang goes any hope of seeing the pair pottering about their kitchen or reading Archie’s bedtime stories.

It’s likely they will instead follow the Obamas’ example of acting as figureheads and curators, helping to shepherd projects onto the screen before leaving it up to experienced, top-notch producers, rather than getting their hands too dirty with the mucky business of actually making TV. One can imagine Harry exec-producing, possibly even presenting, a documentary about the Invictus Games, while Meghan “does an Attenborough” by breathily narrating a nature series.

Bright on said…
Any appearances on-screen will be ambassadorial and not terribly revealing. Think an eco-conscious travelogue or a talking head-style introduction to a credible documentary. Their promised “inspirational family content” sounds deeply dreary – the sort of thing that try-hard vegan parents try to make their unfortunate children watch instead of PJ Masks and Paw Patrol.

Trouble is, the couple have neither the intellectual credentials nor box office appeal of the Obamas. The former First Couple have successful careers and bestselling books behind them. Indeed, their partnership with Netflix has already yielded its first Oscar nomination.
he ex-President’s support was a major contributor to the momentum behind American Factory - a film following an Ohio auto plant’s takeover by a Chinese billionaire - earning a Best Documentary nod. Their deal also yielded feelgood disability rights documentary Crip Camp, already tipped for the 2021 Oscars.

The Obamas’ projects cover such hot-button topics as race, class and civil rights. Harry and Meghan’s are bound to be blander – less political, less contentious, therefore less interesting. Their public interests have so far been largely focused on social issues, environmental concerns and mental health. Such content, worthy as it is, could bore viewers and soon become a turn-off.
Girl with a Hat said…
I have some good ideas about what Meghan and Harry could do. It would be educational and inspirational, but I'm not going to share them here or anywhere else.

Let them do their own work.

In fact, I'm not going to talk about it anymore.
Martha said…
@Mel...you’re right!
Hikari said…
@Bright On

Trouble is, the couple have neither the intellectual credentials nor box office appeal of the Obamas. The former First Couple have successful careers and bestselling books behind them. Indeed, their partnership with Netflix has already yielded its first Oscar nomination. The ex-President’s support was a major contributor to the momentum behind American Factory - a film following an Ohio auto plant’s takeover by a Chinese billionaire - earning a Best Documentary nod. Their deal also yielded feelgood disability rights documentary Crip Camp, already tipped for the 2021 Oscars.

The Obamas’ projects cover such hot-button topics as race, class and civil rights. Harry and Meghan’s are bound to be blander – less political, less contentious, therefore less interesting. Their public interests have so far been largely focused on social issues, environmental concerns and mental health. Such content, worthy as it is, could bore viewers and soon become a turn-off.


Meg is delusional, as we have oft opined here. Not just in an annoying social sense, but I believe, as a bona fide mental disability. Because she seems to truly believe that now that she shares Michelle Obama's speaking agency, there is no difference between herself and the former two-term first lady of the U.S. But this is a woman who was brazenly disrespectful to the 94-year-old Queen of England. If Meg deems herself 'as good as' Mrs. Obama in terms of celebrity clout and 'wokeness'--she deems herself far superior a being to Harry's antiquated Granny with her insistence on hats and tights.

The Obamas have the inestimable marketing cachet now because Barack was President of the United States for 8 years. The HAMS shambolic 18-month tenure as the 'star couple of the Royal Family' (ha) doesn't even qualify them to be taken seriously for a gig opening a new car wash, never mind what Meg has in mind. Beyond the credibility issue, they have zero follow-through. Meg couldn't even last as a Duchess for even six months before creating major problems--ie, the advent of Archie Moonbump Windsor show and subsequent.

They both want to be lavished with the money and attention of status without actually working for it. Let's see what becomes of this 'Netflix deal'. Seems like I recall that Meg was teasing a lavish special this time last year, purporting to give us a tour of the newly-renovated Frogmore Cottage. There was a teaser promo posted on a streaming channel and everything. Nothing came of it. After the debacle of last fall with SmartWorks, the Vogue issue and the South Africa tour, the couple fled to Canada before the 'premiere' of this lavish special. Most likely because the uninhabited Frogmore was still a construction site and there was no baby Sussex to put before the cameras. Perhaps.

Look for this 'deal' to be quietly forgotten within a month. Meg cannot sustain any of her lies for longer than that.
Teasmade said…
I know there's at least one person on here who doesn't respect the Obamas. Apologies in advance.

My friend's brother worked with Michelle at the University of Chicago Medical Center. She was universally adored and respected. I won't get into her education and accomplishments. They should speak for themselves to those who would listen.

Point being . . . there is none of that with MM. Who would speak up for her, years later? What are her accomplishments? What does she bring to the table?

I guess the comparisons between the Obamas and the harkles are inevitable. No, to rephrase: they will continue to be mentioned together in this context, having similar deals. There's no comparison.
Nutty Flavor said…
New piece in today's Spectator. Not one of their stronger pieces, in my opinion, but I'll reproduce it anyway:

https://spectator.us/galling-sussexes-netflix-deal/



What’s galling about the Sussexes’ Netflix deal
If you want to head-up a television production company then what you really need is to be born — or marry — into vast wealth

Joanna Williams

All year, the world has been gripped by one mystery. Exactly how will Harry and Meghan fund the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed? How on earth will they pay for the Californian mansion ($14.6 million), the security detail ($6.6 million a year) and the costs of the Frogmore Cottage refurbishment ($3 million)? Well, now we know.

The couple have signed up to a multi-million dollar deal with Netflix that will see them producing ‘inspirational’ children’s programs and documentaries. Hoping to follow in the footsteps of the Obamas, they will reportedly receive an exclusivity fee of $5 million, up to $2 million each year as a retainer, as well as fees for each show produced. A nature documentary and an animated series on inspirational women are already said to be in the pipeline.

We can only hope, for their sake, that this venture is more successful than a similar project launched by Harry’s Uncle Ed. Ardent Productions, established by the Earl of Wessex in 1993, was voluntarily dissolved 16 years later with assets of just £40 ($97.50 today) and a reputation as ‘an industry laughing stock’. But the Sussexes are different. What they have in mind couldn’t be further from the soft-focused documentaries on royal relatives, royal castles, royal warships and royal retainers made by Ardent.

Harry and Meghan’s yet-to-be-named production company will focus ‘on creating content that informs but also gives hope’. As we recover from a global pandemic, and stare unprecedented economic hardship in the face, it would surely be churlish to be anything other than grateful to the Duke and Duchess for giving us hope. They continue: ‘As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us.’ Inspiration as well as hope: so kind.

But forget, for a moment, our hopes. The Sussexes hope that Netflix’s ‘unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action.’ I would love to elaborate on what is meant by ‘impactful content that unlocks action’ but alas I don’t have a clue. What is clear is that the once-royal duo clearly think there is an appetite for woke TV. I have to confess that when my sons were small they enjoyed watching programs about superheroes, talking trains and a white working class man called Bob who did a bit of building. But perhaps I’m out of touch and today’s tots are all longing for cartoons about inspirational women.

What’s galling about the Sussexes’ Netflix announcement is not the platitudes or even the program proposals — we have come to expect all this from the quote-a-woke twosome. No, as always, it is the gulf between their overblown rhetoric and reality that grates. For all the talk of giving hope and inspiration and building resilience, it turns out that if you want to head-up a television production company then what you really need is to be born — or marry — into vast wealth. A contact book that includes Hollywood’s finest A-listers, world leaders and former presidents seems to help too.

Like his uncle before him, Harry has no experience whatsoever of working in film or media. Meghan’s stint on Suits and voiceover for a Disney documentary on elephants provides her with some familiarity with life front-of-camera. But it’s all a world away from production.

The message this sends to students about to run up huge debts in order to gain a degree in film-making at a third-tier public university is anything but inspirational. They will no doubt be disappointed to discover that no matter how hard they work, how much hope, determination and resilience they have, to achieve their aims they would be better off marrying a Prince.
KC said…
SwampWoman said...

There is a new Lady Colin video up: Chatting with Lady C: The Sussexes and lust, ambition, attacks on Cambridges, and politics. Sounds juicy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUopaaZaGtY

September 3, 2020 at 6:34 PM

You may stop reading here if shock and disgust tire you. Scroll to the next comment, for your peace of mind.

Ok.I watched this video
Man, I would never want to be in Lady C's bad graces.

At one point Lady C says without batting an eye,"Meghan is a tosser, she tosses the salad, she..."

Me: Yikes. Did she just say....yes she DID!

If you don't know, don't ask. Pretty much Not Nice. Wow. Lady C knows how to aim her stiletto blade when she wants to.

People will say anything of course but I don't think Lady C would be like that. She knows the libel and slander laws.
Hi Teasmade,

Here is a list of Netflix deals, of the who's who:

https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/the-definitive-list-of-netflix-output-and-first-look-deals/

They won't keep comparing these idiots to the Obama's. The Obamas earned some things in their lives. No one can knock that, and I'm not even a fan of theirs.
Nutty Flavor said…
Re: the Obamas

I wonder how they feel about their name being mentioned in the same breath as the Sussexes due to the Netflix deal. Not good, I would imagine. Michelle in particular seemed to want to distance herself from Meg.

I agree that the Obamas have great fame and gravitas. Michelle did a very successful tour of Europe last year, promoting her book to big stadiums full of mostly female European fans. (She also had a successful North American tour, which is why I found her recent statement that "White people don't even see me" rather bizarre.)

Barack is busy right now with the election - I think he's one of the many people competing to be the "power behind the throne" to Joe Biden - but he also has nothing to gain from being linked with the Sussexes.
Nutty Flavor said…
Thanks for that list of Netflix deals, @unknown.

I like the idea of Netflix working with real Black film talents, such as Mo Abudu of Nigeria, who seems like a true female film mogel. I'd much rather see real stories of life in Africa - both past and present - than Netflix's annoying insistence on putting Black actors into 16th century British historical dramas. (Yes, I know there were some Moors in Europe at the time, but very few in Scotland, for example.)

They had some more established Hollywood names on there too. Patty Jenkins, Kenny Ortega, etc.

The Sussexes are really out of their league.
Nutty Flavor said…
@Uhura

Is it only me, or is NO ONE TALKING ABOUt THIS except for us.... ?

I think it got some pretty good coverage yesterday, and then of course there's the Spectator piece today, which ran in both the Spectator UK and US.

Other than that, what else is there to say, unless there's more information about the shows they plan to release.
Nutty Flavor said…
@hikari

Seems like I recall that Meg was teasing a lavish special this time last year, purporting to give us a tour of the newly-renovated Frogmore Cottage. There was a teaser promo posted on a streaming channel and everything. Nothing came of it. After the debacle of last fall with SmartWorks, the Vogue issue and the South Africa tour, the couple fled to Canada before the 'premiere' of this lavish special. Most likely because the uninhabited Frogmore was still a construction site and there was no baby Sussex to put before the cameras.

Yes, the Archie situation is still a big question mark. If there is a baby and he's officially 18 months, it's only a matter of time until he'll be expected to go to some kind of preschool. They can only delay for so long.
KC said…
Mel said...
I think the Netflix deal wasn't a done deal yet, but they desperately needed something, anything, to stop people talking about her use of toddlers in her copyrighted photos at the daycare.

And, so, voila! Here's something to talk about. Notice how the toddler uproar completely shut down?

---------
Hmm. Could be. That could be why there is no real $ figure attached, just pie in the sky estimates. As well as it possibly being, they get paid per completed, saleable production.
---------
Golden Retriever said...
I don’t believe that Harry has written anything. Meghan is likely submitting her own work under his name because he is a Royal and would therefore have a better shot at getting a script green lighted

Could be. Then they get a script doctor in to revise and revamp....MM would know script formatting way better than H would. Plot, characterization, setting...i don't know. Maybe she let him add a few lines to her work for credibility, lets him have the byline. Gets most of any profit.

Love your icon, GR!

Nutty Flavor said…
@Bright On

Harry and Meghan added that they’re confident that Netflix's "unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action”, whatever that means.

I'm trying to think of what "content that unlocks action" might be. Besides carefully edited shareable videos of news events that get people out in the street demonstrating (on one side or the other), I can't think of anything in particular.

I suppose there have had some been some documentaries that have had an impact on public opinion - some of Michael Moore's early stuff, maybe Ava Duvernay's documentary on prison reform - but "unlocking action"? No.
Interesting comments as always here. I actually see a lot of positives if the deal is true.

- they will have a real test of their abilities. If by some miracle they have talent, may be they will earn millions, have their adoring fans and be satisfied. And shut up.

- UK will stop funding them altogether. Royals will not be able to justify any more money for them

- By associating themselves with Netflix they remove themselves further from ties with the royal fold.

- By keeping busy they will have less time to be a nuisance for the royal family. The flow of rumours and dirt has already nearly dried since they moved out.

- as they have no original bone between them they may open themselves to plagiarism and be exposed as such at a much bigger scale.

- they will have to compete for attention with much bigger stars.

- if they succeed it will not be big news, there are tons of hugely successful people who don't need titles to be noticed; if they fail though it will be noticed.
xxxxx said…
As posted by @Bright via UK Telegraph>>>
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/meghan-harry-may-behollywoods-least-qualified-producers-will/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter

It’s likely they will instead follow the Obamas’ example of acting as figureheads and curators, helping to shepherd projects onto the screen before leaving it up to experienced, top-notch producers, rather than getting their hands too dirty with the mucky business of actually making TV. One can imagine Harry exec-producing, possibly even presenting, a documentary about the Invictus Games, while Meghan “does an Attenborough” by breathily narrating a nature series.

Obama and Michelle do not know the woke generation that H/M aim at. Netflix wants woke content. H/M just might have enough intelligent wokified sugars to supply them decent content that they can skim off of ($$$) and convey to Netflix. H/M just might be able to pull this off with Netflix if they emulate the Obamas as "figureheads and curators, helping to shepherd projects onto the screen before leaving it up to experienced, top-notch producers"
Sylvia said…
@Midge
Is this what you mean?
https://m.khaleejtimes.com/citytimes/hollywood/meghan-markle-to-produce-film-based-on-politically-motivated-novel

CITY TIMES
Home » City Times » Hollywood
Meghan Markle to produce film based on 'politically motivated' novel
CT Report

Last updated on July 2020
According to a report in The Sun, Meghan Markle is all set to produce a film based on Lloyd Scott's Election Year, a novel being referred to as 'politically motivated'.

Election Year follows Senate staffer Maverick Johnson Malone working for a popular senator, Suni Wainwright, who turns out to be a Russian operative.

A source told The Sun: "Lloyd has been excitedly telling people about the deal. She says Meghan contacted her after being alerted to an internet blog about the book. It would be a great screenplay and Meghan would have all the contacts to make it huge. It contains messages about democracy and standing up for what is right - which Meghan is all about."

Meghan reportedly 'related' to the protagonist of the book and contacted the author. The Sun also reported that both have drawn up non-disclosure agreements and Meghan will oversee script development as producer
@Midge

I remember that too. Don't remember much about it except thinking it was a totally "woke" book/story and I do remember thinking it wouldn't have a very broad appeal. Seems like at the time no one else was interested in said book/author.
KC said…
Lt. Nyota Uhura said...

Um.....

Is it only me, or is NO ONE TALKING ABOUt THIS exept for us.... ?

September 3, 2020 at 9:06 PM
-----------------------------
Maybe everyone else has decided to wait and see, or were not as keenly interested in the first place, and moved on already.
KC said…
Nutty Flavor commented,
"Yes, the Archie situation is still a big question mark. If there is a baby and he's officially 18 months, it's only a matter of time until he'll be expected to go to some kind of preschool. They can only delay for so long."

Oh, they will probably try homeschooling him because there is no good school with a gender fluid curriculum nearby, and his parents, particularly his dear mama, are way too famous.
TTucker said…
I expressed my disgust to Netflix and you can do so too using the chat function and asking them to forward the feedback to higher management level. They did confirm to me the Partnership Agreement in the chat with "The Duke and the Duchess of Sussex" as they put it... I pointed out to them that after the news broke out, their stocks went down nearly 5% - and this on a good day at the stock exchange. And that I'm now considering Amazon Prime.
Midge said…
@Sylvia

Yes that's the book I remember reading about when it was first published and Meghan was interested in making a film from it. I wonder if it will be one of their projects with Netflix?
Cass said…
Midge.....pleeeeeese........”one of their WORKS”!!!!!! (not projects]
Cass said…
I meant....”one of their pieces of work”!
Cass said…
Why don’t they just come out and say what they want their work/projects to be referred to? }”Their masterpieces”!!!!
Sylvia said…
@Midge
If its true maybe ?according to the author of the book
'It would be a great screenplay and Meghan would have all the contacts to make it huge.(!) It contains messages about democracy and standing up for what is right - which Meghan is all about.(!)
Meghan will oversee script development as producer'(!)
Looks like the 'idea' of producing was planned for some time by MM until the next big thing ..
none said…
Does anyone else think the lawsuits over pictures of "Archie" are a coverup tactic to explain why there are no pictures of him, other than the sketchy ones the Harkles release?

In other words, the lack of public pictures isn't because "Archie" doesn't live with them or doesn't exist - No, it's to make us think the lack of pics is because photogs are afraid to be sued.

It's a strategy to explain why "Archie" is never seen and very few pictures of him are released to the public. The latest lawsuit over the Canada pics of Markle hiking with him was a set up for just this purpose.
Sylvia said…
Description of the book fr Election year by Scott Lloyd( Amazon) MM has reportedly bought the book rights some time ago ? MM repotedly intends to produce this film with her production company ?
'It’s election year 2020, never has an election been more critical for the American people. Maverick Johnson Malone, yes her parent’s really did that to her, named her after the character from Top Gun and Magic Johnson, two cultural icons trending at the time of her birth in 1986, is a staffer who works for a popular senatorSuni Wainwright is a thirty-five-year-old woman, who has worked in politics for the past decade and is on track to become America’s youngest and first female president. Maverick is initially overjoyed to work for the beautiful and charismatic Suni; she like the rest of the American people looks forward to a candidate that will bring a new perspective to the White HouseWhen Maverick discovers a grainy video of Suni addressing a group of people in Russian she is shocked to discover that not everything with Suni is what it seems. The senator who everyone believes will be the first female president is actually a Russian operative. As Maverick unravels the mystery and unearths the impetus behind Suni’s actions, she is forced to confront what it means to be an American. Determined to put an end to Suni’s plan and armed with the knowledge of Suni’s deception, but not enough proof,Maverick must risk everything, including her own safety, to secure the welfare of America’s Democracy'
LavenderLady said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
KC said…
 I was on the last post and saw this where Sandie said...

"Are there any Hollywood social events in the near future where they can try to gatecrash to add some glamour to this image of themselves they are cultivating?

"All these rumours of them having all these high-profile friends but no evidence of them socialising with anyone. They were at an outdoor restaurant, but alone (where was Doria?). Even the Queen and Prince Phillip, still in a highly protected bubble, have been to a wedding and have got together with family."

Well, maybe no one wants to be seen with them til they have produced something? In Hollywood it is said "you are only as good as your last picture." The wedding is years ago, the baby is a secret. They have given some speeches but neither was a must-see performer and if she plugged for an honorary degree for herself...true, if ya never ask ya don't get, but still...maybe she is overreaching in a town where a lot, lot, lot of people have waited tables, cleaned offices and toilets, held second jobs to pursue acting, and they take classes and go to workshops to keep their skills sharp....and she just marries some guy and wants, nay, EXPECTS, incredible roles and critical adulation served on a golden plate...confusing fame with popularity, and popularity with bankability.


As for the restaurant pic,Doria was probably babysitting Archie while the young folk had a meal out?


With social distancing, it might not be a good look to go hang near the other famous if they would even let you--more like everyone keeping them at arms' length.....
LavenderLady said…
Deleted to edit:

I have a weird little feeling that the Narckles *might* want to create content for Netflix along the lines of Royalty, since everything Royal these days is very popular. I would not put it past them to attempt to cash in on a Netflix version of the FF book. It wouldn't stop there. Documentaries on Diana, and attempts to revise history. Oh gawd...

The mere thought galls me so I'm putting it out there if anyone more schooled on the subject can talk me out of the tree.

We know Edward tried at producing and that went to you-know-what. But La Markle being the megalomaniac she is, would think hers will excel. I can bet she's writing her acceptance speech for Oscar night.

Since writers are told to write what they know, does anyone think it's possible that Harry's alleged screen scripts are Royal themed? In any event, he definitely will need a ghost writer and *not* his poor excuse of a wife. This could create a massive rift in their already precarious relationship- which would be a huge fight that I would hope leads to more discord there (for the sake of the BRF and the citizenry).

I think by this point, they do not care one flying fig what BP nor the RF would say if they did so. So there's that too.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this.
MusicDSPGuy said…
In my experience, although quite a while ago but not a lot changes in the Biz over the decades, there are "Deals" and there are Deals. The only Deals that are real are the ones where the studio put up very serious money, not just seed development money, the check cleared without bouncing, your agency, your agent, your lawyers, their lawyers have signed everything (and I mean everything) and all the signed and witnessed documents are back in your lawyers locked safe and at least one very senior studio exec (not their p.a) will return your calls immediately. Everything else is just hot-air, talk, and typical Biz Bullsh*tting. Which is about 95% of the "Deals" you generally hear about.

Does anyone know who represents MM? Who's her agent? Which agency is she signed with? One of the top tier ones? Who is her entertainment lawyer? Because unless you are signed with the real heavy hitters in all those categories the probability of a deal actually making money and not being defacto canceled i.e nothing ever picked up for production - is just slightly above zero.

As for Netflix. Even by Silicon Valley standards its always been a very weird vibe around the HQ in Los Gatos. Which is why the CDAN stories about money laundering sounded so plausible. Because the huge amounts of money, many billions, lost by Netflix every year does not make any sense. Even by recent Dot Com Unicorn standards its a bit of an outlier with the size of its losses.


@ Midge

I do not think the "deal" means they will instantly have 100 or 200 mil in their pockets. First of all, this is a multi-year deal. It is stretched over a period of time. Second Netflix will not be blinded by their status enough not to realise they have zero experience in production, so the deal must be conditional. The lack of details suggest it is not as rosy as they want to present. Third it puts a lot of pressure because they have to produce a number of things, not one or two. Animal documentaries are notoriously long and difficult in production requiring expert teams; "inspirational" docs are very rarely interesting enough to hold the audiences attention. When was the last time we wanted to see a "woke" film for pleasure?

Harry may be hoping to cash on some royal initiatives but if the Palace will let him is a big if.

Another factor is financial. To produce something they will need to invest a lot of money.

Billionaire Fayed was able to pay enough to make his son Dody "producer" for films like Chariots of Fire and another one about a special effects guy but Dodi didn't become anything but a name in the credits. His father simply paid for the very talented and experienced crew to do all the work for him. I doubt Harkles have that sort of funds.

It may look like a great success for the Harkles but it is almost certainly not as great as presented.

Teasmade said…
Here's another, but lesser comparison akin to the Obama one I posted above. I was scrolling through Twitter. Remember when harkles changed their Instagram to feature one charity, or one nice thing a month, or something?

Apparently John Krasinski has started a show, @somegoodnews, during the shutdown, which has been well received, and M is miffed because (in so many words) "it was her idea first." Right. She invented good news.

So among the comments on Twitter are: "John "Krasinski has some merit behind his name. MM has destruction behind hers."

If you are interested, searching on @catefortier will bring up the thread eventually. It's short but vicious!

Hikari said…
@Nutty

. . .the Archie situation is still a big question mark. If there is a baby and he's officially 18 months, it's only a matter of time until he'll be expected to go to some kind of preschool. They can only delay for so long.

I think you are with me in the view that the Archie Situation was the impetus for their flight from the BRF. Meg never intended to stay forever, we all knew that, but even though her avarice and thirstiness was plain on the wedding day, I really figured she'd stick it out for 3-5 years in the Firm . . probably on the lower end, but still--she barely managed half of three years. For someone who was going to hit the ground running, Meg's actual rate of appearances during her stint as a Royal was appallingly low, for somebody who loves be 'seen'. Apart from the South Africa tour and popping up at Trooping, she was basically invisible for a year prior to their Megxit tour. Meg must have known that staying longer to establish her 'brand' was imperative, but I knew when they decamped to Canada for 3-4 months--a lot longer than a 'Thanksgiving holiday break' . .and blew off all the family Christmas activities that Something Was Up. Archie was only 6 months old when they left the protection of the Royal family to take him across a distant ocean and the length of a continent besides. With some very visible signs of drug use and emotional fragility being exhibited by the pair, the send-off from the Queen seemed a bit too cavalier to me. Surely the RF would make provision for a baby in that situation, if they know that 1. Harry is not equipped with adult judgement and has a pervasive drug problem and 2. The supposed mother of this baby is neither trustworthy nor maternal.

Their demeanor post-birth was, as you deconstructed in your piece about the Presentation in the White Dress, so very, very odd. Meg was either high as a kite or she was scared out of her wits. Madam apparently can still feel terror at times. The terror of all her frauds being discovered and outed must be intense at times. Something is not kosher here, at all.

Now Archie lives in a sprawling, secluded mansion in Montecito, and she need never bring him into the light of day. She still has at least a year before the issue of his preschool education would come up. No doubt she will volunteer that she's homeschooling 'Arch', in between production meetings for Netflix and charitable visits 'round the greater Los Angeles metro area. She can 'homeschool him' until he's about seven or eight, at which time, he will be sent to Botswana to become fluent in Setswana and Swahili.

I hope someday a light will be shone upon Archie's origins and existence. If Arch is a surrogate baby, I do not care--I just need to know that he's safe, if he exists.
Hikari said…
P.S. Nutty,

How did you like my show proposal up-thread for the Netflix Original series, The Adventures of Archie, the Invisible Boy?

Meg must really think we are all stupid.
JHanoi said…
i agree w/ mel - they announced this and wrapped something up to get out of the MegloMansion news cycle. the costs associated with running that place needed to be swept under the rug by a success story.

the above was interesting 5 million up front and 2 mill retainer per year plus costs to produce projects. if true, that’s not going to be enough to pay for the year mansion costs. plus exclusivity to Netflix? i dont see that as being a fortune and enough to fund their lifestyle, unless they start going down the creative bookkeeping path. then they are opening themselves and the BRF up for grief, but that won’t come for a while, not until Wills is there. of course if they start appearing in or writing their own productions they can pay themselves whatever, with Netflixes blessing.

The Obama’s at least have some real world experience behind themselves now, M - lawyer, hospital exec, Flotus, successful author. B - President, author, plublic speaker. so they have the knowledge to work with the best, follow up on their projects and hopefully, not have any screw-ups. plus they have the good will of 95% of Hollyweird, who doesn’t not want to see them fail. and goodwill of 50% of the population, a good portion of whom will buy hat they are selling.

The Harkles? limited real world experience- M - actress, suitcase girl, blogger, climber; JCMH — military, figurehead/public figure, invictus game head. the invictus games was run by a BRF grey suit, who didnt want to see PH or the BRF fail.
The Harkles need to be careful, they could end up with a bunch of Harvey Weinstins, Brett Ratners, Marc Singer, Ron Perelmans, etc. people that end up scandal ridden and not inline with their Wokenesses.
KC said…
Oh, I had a suggestion for those who create a post but the computer eats it before you can publish. I mean this to be helpful, not to imply Nutties need my help to work a computer. There have been a few "computer ate my post" posts lately.

Especially for longish answers or multiple quotes, I use a note app on my phone or Notepad on my Windows PC. Copy text from Nutty, paste into Note app. Next, edit down to the point(s) to respond to, and add your response. You can add the html the site allows or use quotation marks, or add the @..

Copy all text in the note, paste it into browser's comment box. Click reCaptcha checkbox, preview for html and such if desired (the site flags some errors) and then click Publish Your Comment.

This way you still have your text if it disappears before you post it. Or you can decide not to respond and ditch the text.
KC said…
@LavenderLady

"I think by this point, they do not care one flying fig what BP nor the RF would say if they did so. So there's that too."

I think you are right. I also think they will do at least some royal stuff, probably to "show the error of their ways." Look at all the vlogs on royals that have sprung up over the years. Go to YouTube and search on "royals" or "windsor" and see what you get. There are hours of stuff out there. Because people click on it. How can they resist?

You know, if the BRF got mad about what they said, they probably would say, oh, we touched a nerve there? we are only doing what is right!

I remember the days when I used to like reading about royal families. Now it's like reading Mary Worth or some other soap opera comic. Time passes, things change.....
Grisham said…
When loooking at stocks, you have to look at trends, not just one day. You also have to look at the markets. Today was a sell off frenzy. HAMS did not cause all stocks and stock futures to fall because they signed a Netflix deal.

I mean, it’s funny to suggest they did, but they didn’t. They are not that important.
Grisham said…
Oh, sorry, also in regard to stocks, a huge correction is past due. It can’t keep going up and up and up (although I love that is has been). It’s going to have to go down down down at some point. Today could have been a warning that it’s about to correct. Our stock people have been warning us that it is coming.
Grisham said…
Netflix is just fine. Here is their trend line: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nflx/charts
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Hikari said...

P.S. Nutty,

How did you like my show proposal up-thread for the Netflix Original series, The Adventures of Archie, the Invisible Boy?

Meg must really think we are all stupid.

______________________________


@Hikari,

I am ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING ALMOST LITERALLY heheheheheheh

"Invisible Boy"

Hahahahahahaha

Oh, dear me, LOL You have made my life today, LOL
LavenderLady said…
@KC,
I think you are right. I also think they will do at least some royal stuff, probably to "show the error of their ways." Look at all the vlogs on royals that have sprung up over the years. Go to YouTube and search on "royals" or "windsor" and see what you get. There are hours of stuff out there. Because people click on it. How can they resist?

You know, if the BRF got mad about what they said, they probably would say, oh, we touched a nerve there? we are only doing what is right!
________________________________________________
I'm glad it's not just me who's feeling that they might go Royal on Netflix. Your thought on them using their "work" to justify their actions really resonates with me. I can totally see them doing this. Yes there is unlimited interest in Royalty right now and ripe for the picking to make $$$, which IMO is what she looks for, whether it offends her husband's family or not. It's always about the Benjamins with that one!

Thanks for your input.
HappyDays said…
Holly said... It's a strategy to explain why "Archie" is never seen and very few pictures of him are released to the public. The latest lawsuit over the Canada pics of Markle hiking with him was a set up for just this purpose.

@Holly: I think a possible reason other than Meghan wanting to sell photos of him to the highest bidder (See the Blind Gossip item about her attempts to make money off Archie from August 27, 2020 BG titled Baby Needs To Start Earning) is if Archie has autism or another disorder. If her egg is half of Archie, the DNA in it has had some damage due to her age, which was 37 when he was conceived, either naturally or in vitro.

I think it is highly unlikely Archie has a disorder, but it could be a possibility.

I don’t particularly buy Meghan having a desire for privacy for her child. She’s just too damn thirsty. To keep Harry happy, Meghan might be playing along with Harry’s desire for privacy for Archie that he never had, but I think this lawsuit is a manipulative scheme by Meghan to allow her to have it both ways.

My theory is that getting “ambushed” by paps hiding in the bushes along the hiking trail was a set up by Meghan. We already know Meghan has a history of alerting paps to make sure she is photographed. I believe that one way or another, Meghan MADE SURE the paps knew when and where Meghan would be walking with Archie and the dogs. Oh yes, and two security officers.

She knew Harry might be ticked off if he knew Meghan was tipping off paps, so she had a minion alert the paps. It gave her a barely plausible excuse to feign outrage at being “ambushed” to keep Harry happy while at tye same time generating drama and sympathy for herself and Archie bring victimized by the evil paps.

It also set her up with a convenient reason to stab the photogs and the agency in the back by suing them. Never mind that she had a big shit-eating grin on her face and there is no mention that she asked the two security officers to protect her and little Archie at the time this happened. Remember that narcissists need drama and often play victim. This was a perfect way for her to generate both drama and victimization for herself plus lots of media coverage of the event itself and the continuing coverage of the legal action.

Meghan rarely misses an opportunity to garnet attention for herself. This is premium fuel for her narcissism.
Maybe Netflix is going to force them to do Reality TV.

Which would be great.

Netflix now has complete creative control over these idiots, everything starts and stops with Netflix execs greenlight button. I think we're actually in for a treat.
Portcitygirl said…
https://thedianamusical.com/

Has anyone seen this advertised on Netflix? It is said to have a scene with Di in bed with Hewitt and that in one act the Queen calls her a tart. It is supposedly going to be released sometime in 2021.

Seems odd Harry would not take offense to this musical put out Netflix.
Midge said…
New article n the Mirror:
The Royal Family will be casting a critical eye over Harry and Meghan’s Netflix mega-deal, a source warns.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have inked an agreement said to be worth $100million (£75m) to produce documentaries and films for the streaming giant.

But a palace insider has claimed that while they quit royal duties with everyone’s best wishes, it was made clear future commercial deals would be “subject to discussion”.

One concern is how the lucrative career move will look to the British public while the couple are still repaying £2.4m of taxpayer cash lavished on the refurbishment of their Frogmore Cottage home at Windsor.


Any deal signed by Harry, 35, and Meghan, 39, will be closely scrutinised by the Royal Family, sources say

The source said: “Harry and Meghan did leave as working members of the family with everyone’s best wishes and it is sincerely hoped they find the happiness that appeared to be lacking in their lives.

“However, it goes without saying any deals they are making will be scrutinised by the royal household.

"Under the terms of their deal to forgo their royal duties, they agreed any commercial deals would be subject to discussion.

“This deal with Netflix, any speaking engagements or other corporate work are examples.


Netflix have coughed up big money to get them on board )

“Both the Royal Family and senior courtiers will be aware of how this looks to the public, especially as the couple have not yet paid back the £2.4million they promised to refund to the taxpayer for Frogmore Cottage, which will be their UK base.”

Harry, 35, and Meghan, 39, this week confirmed they will produce documentaries, docu-series, feature films, scripted shows and kids’ programming for Netflix.

It is the first deal announced since stepping down as senior royals earlier this year.

The public purse has not yet paid back the £2.4million for Frogmore Cottage
"But it is not yet clear whether they will use their official titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex for their Netflix work, which will be content that “informs but also gives hope”.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/palace-cast-critical-eye-over-22625803
Wow Nutty!

$5MM exclusivity deal, for what, 5 years?

Up to only $2MM retainer YoY...

And then 'fees' for producing the shows?

Is this a joke?

This is going to be a lot of low budget nature documentaries then.

They cannot subsist on Netflix alone. Wonder who the brand partnership will be...because this is pretty bad for an 'exclusivity deal' with 'whip-smart Meghan, and PRINCE Harry'. Wow, she must be still thinking the fees will be hundreds of millions lol. Wow.

I don't think they realize what they've done. Either that or they have hope it's just the first check of many.

Lt. Nyota Uhura said…

"I don't think they realize what they've done. Either that or they have hope it's just the first check of many."

Milk, milk, milk that teat.
Hikari said…
The latest from According 2Taz...She addresses the Diana memorial and the Netflix deal it’s a good one.

https://youtu.be/VM5nazKoPJA
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Ooh, ouch. Sorry, Harry, LOL
From the Sun

BETRAYAL OF DIANA Netflix will screen sordid Princess Diana musical after signing Harry & Meghan in £112m deal

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12577043/netflix-diana-musical-harry-meghan/#
Fifi LaRue said…
Thank you @MusicDSPGuy and also @Hikari (the real one) for your insightful comments.

Lots of great comments here.

The Harkles can make all the announcements they want, but it boils down to talent, money, contacts, power.

The Harkles have none.

They have a whole lotta nothing.
SwampWoman said…
Oh, MY, Golden Retriever! That seems to me the equivalent of Harry peeing all over his mother's grave. He would do anything for money, it appears.
SwampWoman said…
KC said: Ok.I watched this video
Man, I would never want to be in Lady C's bad graces.

At one point Lady C says without batting an eye,"Meghan is a tosser, she tosses the salad, she..."

Me: Yikes. Did she just say....yes she DID!

If you don't know, don't ask. Pretty much Not Nice. Wow. Lady C knows how to aim her stiletto blade when she wants to.


I particularly liked (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) where she said that Meghan was unhappy because there can only be one angel on top of the Christmas tree. Her son said "or star", but Lady C said Catherine was the angel. Everybody knows from whence the nasty comments about Catherine and William were coming, I *believe* she hinted. I don't think Catherine wants to be THE STAR, or competes against her husband and his family to be THE STAR.

I agree with Lady C about how she susses out male weaknesses and strengths and emotionally manipulates them. She is an emotional vampire sucking out the life forces of her victims. I would scoff at otherwise intelligent men being vulnerable to her BS, but apparently her victims want to believe in the person that they imagined existed, not the person that is.
SwampWoman said…
I am looking forward to Lady C's next video about Funding Freedom and Finding Freebies. Oh, and she is absolutely outraged at the attempted monetizing of the title and the attempt to be a political player while trading on or using her title, both of which are absolute no goes. But, as Lady C points out, MM has no respect for the British people or the Monarchy.
SwampWoman said…
Bright on said...
Any appearances on-screen will be ambassadorial and not terribly revealing. Think an eco-conscious travelogue or a talking head-style introduction to a credible documentary. Their promised “inspirational family content” sounds deeply dreary – the sort of thing that try-hard vegan parents try to make their unfortunate children watch instead of PJ Masks and Paw Patrol.


Heh. Yes, I thought when I read about their "inspirational family content" that they really have no contact with children whatsoever.

Looks like I'm the only one still up (past midnight here), and I'm finishing up a wine glass of red in the hope that I can get 6 whole hours of sleep before youngest grandchild arrives. Good morning, y'all, see you in about 24 hours.
@Lavender Lady,

Remember when MM said on The Tig that her dream job was to be in a show in which she travels the world sampling foods and looking at different cultures, along the lines of an Anthony Bourdain show? I think that she might try to go in that direction as part of the Netflix deal.

Of course, she has no background to do this type of show. Bourdain was a top chef and a very sophisticated and beloved man, and all MM Knows how to cook is a measly roast chicken and to spread avocado on toast. This would, however, allow them to travel on Netflix's dime, use private jets, and dine in the best restaurants in the world while being in front of a camera. MM would love that.
HappyDays said…
It seems all these entertainment people do is scratch each others’s backs and Meghan is making sure she and Harry are getting in on it. Interesting how much networking Meghan does.

Ted Sarandos, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Content Officer at Netflix and Ron Burkle, owner of the SoHo House chain of clubs and hotels among other business interests, seem to cross paths quite a lot, going back to at least 2013.

If you Google their names, you’ll find they frequently pop up together, such as at this 2013 fundraiser. Both are big political supporters of the Democratic Party going back at least to the Obama presidency. And of course, Meghan is BFFs with Michelle Obama.

From: The Hill (a Capitol Hill newspaper)
Sept. 33, 2013
Democratic super donor Ron Burkle is hosting the event at his home, according to the Hollywood Reporter, and tickets cost from $1,000 to $10,000. 

The list of co-hosts for the event is longer than most Hollywood playbills.

Included are actress Jennifer Garner, producers Jerry Weintraub and J.J. Abrams, former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, music mogul Troy Carter, entertainment agency CEO Patrick Whitesell, talent agency head Bob Gersh, Disney exec Sean Bailey, Netflix's Ted Sarandos, and former U.S. Ambassador Nicole Avant.

Nicole Avant is Sarandos’ wife and is former US Ambassador to the Bahamas. She was appointed United States Ambassador to the Bahamas by President Barack Obama on June 16, 2009, and was sworn in on October 22, 2009 and served until November 21, 2011. At 41, she was the first black woman and the youngest US Ambassador to the Bahamas ever.

FYI for Nutties not from the US: Ambassadorships to foreign countries are frequently handed out as rewards to big political donors. These people are generally not career diplomats.
So many great comments on here I don't know where to start!
1. I'm always 100% on the same page as @Hikari and love reading her posts.

2. @Holly said: "Does anyone else think the lawsuits over pictures of "Archie" are a coverup tactic to explain why there are no pictures of him, other than the sketchy ones the Harkles release?
In other words, the lack of public pictures isn't because "Archie" doesn't live with them or doesn't exist - No, it's to make us think the lack of pics is because photogs are afraid to be sued.
It's a strategy to explain why "Archie" is never seen and very few pictures of him are released to the public. The latest lawsuit over the Canada pics of Markle hiking with him was a set up for just this purpose."

Yes! It's all subterfuge. We know she would want to merch a child if she had one and wait for the biggest payout, but that opportunity has well passed. Plus, the way she was gloating at the big reveal in SA made it clear to me that she was relieved to get her hands on whatever baby that was, we would have seen a lot more of "Archie" if she indeed had him. Even her fans must be wondering why that's basically the only picture of him we ever see.

3. Re the Spectator article claiming they got $5 million, isn't that exactly how much they put down on their mansion? And where did the $3 million from Disney go? What about the transfer from the Royal Foundation with William? There was also something a while ago about them having spent $7 million on PR just since they left in January! They're spending far more than they're taking in even with this new deal. I also can't see her wanting to spend much on talent to create the content for Netflix, she's so whip-smart and talented, she'll probably try to create everything herself. /s

Sorry for being all over the place but one more random thought, you know that everyone in HW knows how these deals work and they recognize how much hot air all the talk of $100 million is. They're not getting Obama or Joe Rogan money, period. I think it makes them look even more desperate and pathetic.

4. Wouldn't we all love to know what Trevity Trev Trev thinks of the Hapless Harkles' producing ambitions?



Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
@Lavender Lady,
Remember when MM said on The Tig that her dream job was to be in a show in which she travels the world sampling foods and looking at different cultures, along the lines of an Anthony Bourdain show? I think that she might try to go in that direction as part of the Netflix deal.

Of course, she has no background to do this type of show. Bourdain was a top chef and a very sophisticated and beloved man, and all MM Knows how to cook is a measly roast chicken and to spread avocado on toast. This would, however, allow them to travel on Netflix's dime, use private jets, and dine in the best restaurants in the world while being in front of a camera. MM would love that.

September 4, 2020 at 7:56 AM
Blogger HappyDays said...
It seems all these entertainment people do is scratch each others’s backs and Meghan is making sure she and Harry are getting in on it. Interesting how much networking Meghan does.

Ted Sarandos, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Content Officer at Netflix and Ron Burkle, owner of the SoHo House chain of clubs and hotels among other business interests, seem to cross paths quite a lot, going back to at least 2013.

If you Google their names, you’ll find they frequently pop up together, such as at this 2013 fundraiser. Both are big political supporters of the Democratic Party going back at least to the Obama presidency. And of course, Meghan is BFFs with Michelle Obama.

From: The Hill (a Capitol Hill newspaper)
Sept. 33, 2013
Democratic super donor Ron Burkle is hosting the event at his home, according to the Hollywood Reporter, and tickets cost from $1,000 to $10,000.

The list of co-hosts for the event is longer than most Hollywood playbills.

Included are actress Jennifer Garner, producers Jerry Weintraub and J.J. Abrams, former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, music mogul Troy Carter, entertainment agency CEO Patrick Whitesell, talent agency head Bob Gersh, Disney exec Sean Bailey, Netflix's Ted Sarandos, and former U.S. Ambassador Nicole Avant.

Nicole Avant is Sarandos’ wife and is former US Ambassador to the Bahamas. She was appointed United States Ambassador to the Bahamas by President Barack Obama on June 16, 2009, and was sworn in on October 22, 2009 and served until November 21, 2011. At 41, she was the first black woman and the youngest US Ambassador to the Bahamas ever.

FYI for Nutties not from the US: Ambassadorships to foreign countries are frequently handed out as rewards to big political donors. These people are generally not career diplomats.
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Important that this is saved.
Thank you Sylvia, for this sample of what I take to be Harkle prose, or was it Scott LLoyd's original blurb?.

That first sentence was excruciating. Does it indicate the quality of the material she's supposedly working with? Or is it after she sub-edited it?
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Surely, there's more Megsy fiction in that claim that she wasn't responsible for setting up the `carrying dead-frog' pap photos?

Didn't we see an image of a text saying she'd be at the gate to the Bear Trail at 3pm? or wtte. A wise pap would make sure s/he kept the evidence.

After all, that was one of Di's tricks, wasn't it? If Di did it, it's almost certain that MM would copy her.

No originality, that girl.
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Diana shouldn't have done it.

Meghan shouldn't have done it.


The thing is, we are allowed to LAUGH at this poor specimen and LAUGH WE ARE

You pays your money, and you takes your choices.

You STAND UP in front of the world and YOU TAKES YOUR CHOICES.

Thatisall.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
Tarot reading alert (so scroll on by to those not interested!) ... QueenTT did a long reading on this Netflix deal (talkingtarot.tumblr.com).

Some main points (my paraphrasing and interpretation):

It is Prince Harry Netflix wants, not Meghan. They want the magic of the old charming, empathetic, likeable Harry, Diane's son.

Harry has lots of ideas but his self confidence is very low, and he is struggling to find and be his authentic self, and be a success on his own, outside his family (grow up .. that is his life challenge!).

Meghan is involved with another man and Harry is starting to see the truth about that. QueenTT has always seen the Queen stepping in to rescue Harry from this marriage by giving Meghan a settlement, but it will also include helping him extricate himself from all deals in the US. The legal separation and divorce will be behind the scenes until Meghan makes a public announcement out of spite and to control the narrative. The narrative they will be trying to sell is 'conscious uncoupling' (we all know that Meghan says one thing in lots of word salad but acts he opposite!). Harry and Archie will end up back in the UK with his family. Meghan will have a daughter (or step daughter) with this new man ...

The Netflix deal will not be a huge success and the first project will not be a financial success, but they will produce some projects. Netflix has appointed someone to manage the Sussexes very closely.

There is a lot of detail in the reading. If anyone is interested and picks up something interesting in the reading that I missed ...
Maneki Neko said…
This is a comment by Mark Borowski, a British PR agent, which expands on his comment in the DM I quoted yesterday.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8696295/Royal-officials-examine-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-150m-Netflix-deal.html

I think this puts H&M's enterprise into perspective.

But public relations expert Mark Borowski said the couple had put a lot of pressure on themselves to succeed.

He told MailOnline: 'An old Hollywood friend of mine once told me you can never have too big a hit. But you have got to manage expectations.

'When you switch on the hype machine you have got to deliver. If it's something that lets people down it's going to backfire.

'If you pull it apart, who wouldn't want Harry and Meghan – it's huge publicity for Netflix.

'But for Harry and Meghan, they just understand this media circus. They have been naïve.

'This is a money-raising exercise. They have got this inferiority complex they are going to have to come back cap in hand to the Royal household.

'It all sounds great, but what have you got? What names are attracted, what is the first project?

'It's like someone in the pub saying 'I am going to start making productions for Netflix'.

'This is incredibly dangerous and overhyped, they have got no chance to fail, they have got to succeed. If they lose they have got a lot of egg on their face.

'For Harry and Meghan, this whole shooting match that they get involved with, it heaps a lot of pressure on them.

'They are looking for attention all the time. On this occasion I think they may have overstepped the mark.

'The proof is obviously in the pudding. It's going to be very difficult, hits are very hard to come by. How many Downton Abbeys, The Crowns and Ordinary Peoples are there? They are from British producers who will tell you that you have got to have a few flops to make before you get a hit.

'This is a naïve double-act, who are living on hype.'



Elsbeth1847 said…
Jocelyn'sBellinis @Lavender Lady,

Remember when MM said on The Tig that her dream job was to be in a show in which she travels the world sampling foods and looking at different cultures, along the lines of an Anthony Bourdain show? I think that she might try to go in that direction as part of the Netflix deal.

Of course, she has no background to do this type of show. Bourdain was a top chef and a very sophisticated and beloved man, and all MM Knows how to cook is a measly roast chicken and to spread avocado on toast. This would, however, allow them to travel on Netflix's dime, use private jets, and dine in the best restaurants in the world while being in front of a camera. MM would love that.


Nutty made a good point early on that she could have done something like that where she went around visiting the UK to learn about her new country but did not. Had she, it would have been an easier or, harder pitch now depending on how successful she was at it. It would have given her a lot of options within the BRF (a sort of HW side that no one else was covering as well as being an extension of her acting) and given her the shiny flashy recognition she craves within the new country.

A missed opportunity which would be harder to pull off now without the BRF behind her. That's not working smarter.
Oh my! Jameela Jamil seems to be biting back - article to follow asap.
Jameela Jamil Slams U.K. Reports She's 'Quarantining' with Meghan Markle: 'I've Met This Woman Once'
Stephanie Petit
People3 September 2020

"Jameela Jamil is setting the record straight on her relationship with Meghan Markle.
The Good Place star shared a headline from U.K. outlet the Daily Express, stating that she was quarantining with Meghan and Prince Harry at their new Santa Barbara home.
"I’ve met this woman once ever," Jamil said on Instagram. "Best friends now living together during lockdown?!"
The actress, 34, continued that she and her family have been "harassed" after she condemned the U.K. media's "racist" coverage of the Duchess of Sussex, 39.

"Now they are hyperbolizing some relationship they have decided I have with her to make it seem as if i am saying these things out of 'loyalty' rather than because it’s right to call out misogyny and racism when you see it because an attack against her, is an attack on all WOC/Black women," she continued. "She’s the symbol of hope and power to be deconstructed before any of us get any delusions of grandeur."

Jamil ended her caption: "It's almost as if they don’t have something important to talk about... like a pandemic, global economic crisis, climate disaster, political unrest...."

Jamil most recently supported Meghan after the mother of one encouraged people to vote in the upcoming U.S. election, sparking backlash. Jamil tweeted that the royal family "may be more embarrassed" by Prince Andrew following accusations of a sexual encounter with an underage woman and his ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

"I *THINK* they may be more embarrassed by their alleged resident pedo Andrew who was besties with a sex trafficker, than an American supporting women voting in her own country, and loosely referencing the importance of general democracy which is being threatened here currently," she said.

Jamil also responded to a fan's question asking why people want to "hate" Meghan.

"Because she’s not white," she said. "And because she’s smart, strong, opinionated, rebellious, beautiful, happy and has everything they never will. She’s a terrifying threat to patriarchy because she doesn’t fit the stereotype for women. They discredit her because they can’t kill her."

Meghan handpicked Jamil to be part of the 2019 September issue of British Vogue,
which the Duchess guest-edited.

"She explained that she’d guest-edited the issue, and apologized that the whole thing had been shrouded in so much secrecy," Jamil told Grazia. "She said she had chosen to feature me because she’d seen what I had been doing and was a fan. To know that she had followed my work with I Weigh meant a lot."


I wonder if H & MM will object to `this woman'? That's what happens if one tangles with those two - mind you, it couldn't have happened to a nicer woman...
`She doesn’t fit the stereotype for women' said JJ.

Really???

She's forgotten at least 2 stereotypes beloved of opera and history - bitch and witch. Then there's bunny-boiler, hussy, tart without a heart of gold - I'm sure Nutty's can think of more.
Whoops! `Nutties' of course.
CatEyes said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
CatEyes said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
KCM1212 said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maneki Neko said…
So Jameela Jamil thinks MM is hated/disliked is "Because she’s not white," she said. "And because she’s smart, strong, opinionated, rebellious, beautiful, happy and has everything they never will. She’s a terrifying threat to patriarchy because she doesn’t fit the stereotype for women. They discredit her because they can’t kill her."

If the woman is so deluded as to the reason why MM is so disliked, it's no wonder some Americans think MM is so wonderful (not their fault). I found some of the comments in the NYT yesterday really worrying, for instance this one which I quoted yesterday saying "I don't understand the vitriolic comments. I admire the guts that Harry had to realize their lives in England were being brutalized by the press that didn't like a 'black woman' in the position of being regal." I know these are in the minority but I hope Jameela Jamil is not somebody with influence.
Sandie said…
I live in a country where equal rights for women are enshrined in our Constitution, yet GBV and the exploitation of teenage girls by much older men are HUGE problems. The self-promoting woke (often ill informed and inaccurate) speechifying from the very privileged MM and JJ does nothing to help women practically where it is needed (shelters, helplines, dedicated rescue teams, education, housing, protection ...) and it certainly does nothing to educate, change and rehabilitate men.
KC said…
Margery said...

@KC
Here is the link to the CDAN post

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/08/blind-item-1_31.html


Thanks, Margie! LOTS of comments, and the very first one ends, "I would hate watch."
CatEyes said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid
Thanks for posting the Stephanie Petit article whereupon:

"Jamil also responded to a fan's question asking why people want to "hate" Meghan."

"Because she’s not white," she said. "And because she’s smart, strong, opinionated, rebellious, beautiful, happy and has everything they never will. She’s a terrifying threat to patriarchy because she doesn’t fit the stereotype for women. They discredit her because they can’t kill her."
____________________________________________________

Whoa where do I start...I guess first of all most of us harboring a negative emotion about Meghan is not some pathological 'hate'. It is revulsion, disgust, disapproval, not the kind of sick "hate" that we would want to kill Meghan as Jamil states. My feeling is a deep dislike.

If Jamil's claim Meghan is "not white" is denying her being 'white' it is a boldface lie. In fact she is more white than African American; seeing as how her father is white and Doria has white ancestors. If Jamil is saying she is hated because of her minority amount of 'black' ancestry then that is unfounded as there are thousands of celebrities around the world who are esteemed and well-loved and who are obviously "not white".

As for anyone hating Meghan because she is all these things "smart, strong opinionated, etc...well, many other famous women have the same attributes and are not "hated". Just look at many well-known women in any profession and they are not hated/disliked like Markle. more importantly what is it about Markle that engenders such negative emotion from others? We know why. The list is endless but just for starters, she has no loyalty toward family, she has narcissistic personality traits, she disparages a country's good people, she lacks intrgrity, she is a faux humanitarian, etc,,,

I would take issue with Meghan being smart. I think any smart woman if in the position of a Duchess by marriage would have ensured their behavior as such was a positive one contributing to the family from whence one married in (at least at the 2 yr. mark).

Jamil using a stereotype, a broad undefined segment of the population is a bankrupt technique of argumentation. However I hardly think the so-called patriarchy is losing any sleep over Meghan Markle. Lol. I have not seen "the patriarchy" speaking about Meghan for good or ill. Markle is nothing and certainly not a "terrifying threat"; like what is this two bit actress going to do to the so called patriarchy. I don't even want to speculate how someone can make such bizarre unfounded statements
CatEyes said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hikari said…
Good Morning (in my time zone), Nutties!

I've just scanned over my output of yesterday and I don't see anything under my avatar that I didn't put there, so it appears that I'm still (only) me. That's a relief!

I always find interesting tidbits from our Tumblr bloggers

MARKLE - WEINSTEIN ALERT

Supermodel-about-Town Meg is pictured with Harvey Weinstein's wife, Georgina Chapman (2nd from right) at a fashion launch. According to Enty, the disgraced producer had a laugh while awaiting trial on sexual assault charges in the run-up to the wedding because he'd had sex with the bride apparently, and wasn't shy about letting it be known. Well . . Meg has *always* had her eye on Gwyneth Paltrow's career; what's good for Gwynnie is worth emulating. Paltrow has admitted that as a young ingenue, she provided sexual favors to Mr. Weinstein, head of Miramax, in exchange for roles in films like 'Emma' and the one that would win her an Oscar in 1999, 'Shakepeare in Love'. Hollywood is indeed a rough town if the daughter of bona fide Hollywood royalty has to resort to this. How much more likely it is that Meg, a bona fide nobody from the wrong neighborhood would resort to this . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
https://www.zimbio.com/photos/Georgina+Chapman/Meghan+Markle/Exclusive+Preview+Marchesa+Voyage+ShopStyle/wdSVBWNrKFC


For your Flashback Friday, a snap of the happy coterie leaving the Sussexes' swan song engagement @ Westminster Abbey. Out of several slapped-bum face group shots to choose from, I have selected the one where Megsie appears to be giving the Duke of Cambridge (or the back of his head anyway) the eye. The faces say it all.
------------------------------------------------------
https://www.zimbio.com/photos/Meghan+Markle/Commonwealth+Day+Service+2020/zyDCtTdm8Jl


A recently-unearthed photo of Charles and Anne. Say what you want about Chas, but he loves his little sister.

Big Brother, Little Sister, 1953
https://64.media.tumblr.com/6e8eb8bc50c582eb7aec882f18c5ab2e/edb3ab2eb62c999e-19/s1280x1920/182cbbdd0f8b92094c0bdbbd305a047ca09c28d3.jpg

Big Brother, Little Sister, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYUsVybmlwM

(Can someone post a reminder about how to post live links? Thanks!)
xxxxx said…
Just by default we know that every Hikari post is a supreme perceptive/ In your moments of doubt do not doubt yourself on the M/H combo
Fairy Crocodile said…
@ Maneki Neko

It is glaring that the only ones bringing up Markle's "colour" and race are those who are her supporters and happy to send nasty comments about people not sharing their views.

Everybody else is talking about Markle's hypocritical behavior.

I think it shows who really is judging on race.
Is Meghan gearing up towards suing the Express for publishing misleading articles? I'd have thought Jameela would jump at the chance to bolster her own self image and let it be known that she and Meghan were friends. It's not like it's JJ herself who said it first, and she'd lose nothing by simply staying silent either way on the matter. We've often speculated here whether Meghan feeds articles to the Express, would it be beyond possibility for her to have set them up with that story on purpose and arranged with Jameela to refute it as "proof" the Express lied?
lizzie said…
I agree that JJ's comments are BS. But her style of defense is nothing new. People who disagreed with any policy Pres. Obama put forth were labeled as racists. People who disagreed with anything Candidate HRC said were misogynists. Now with MM we are labeled as both.
HappyDays said…
Headline in today’s DM website:
“Meghan Markle and Prince Harry 'did NOT inform the Queen about $150m Netflix deal' before announcing it to the world - instead she was told the news by her aides, royal source claims”

The following comment seems to sum up the feelings of a lot of people in the comments section for this article that made it past the DM moderators. The floodgates are pretty much open if the DM allows a member of the RF to be described as “filth.” I agree. Harry and Meghan are filth.

ZaraUK86, Southwark, United Kingdom, less than a minute ago

Harry, you are absolute filth for what you've done to your grandmother, without whom you would be a right NOBODY. If this is some sick, twisted vengeance for what happened to your mother, then that is beyond pathetic. No matter what your wife or enablers tell you, your mother would not have wanted this, period.
TheTide said…
Wouldn't this be a part of their official news releases by Netflix investor relations, at a minimum, if it were true? Nothing released by Netflix on their website.

https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases
Unknown said…
Hi Hikari,

I think Unknown was mentioning your posts on 9/4 12:33am and 12:45am. Those posts have your name but not your profile pic. Are they yours?
Midge said…
@Hikari
There were two postings - @12:33 and 12:35 - that did not have your avatar. Perhaps that is what Unknown was referring to.
Midge said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
NeutralObserver said…
I have to agree with MusicDSPGuy that there are a lot of unknowns about this alleged deal, although I'm sure that the Harkles would love to be gifted $150-$200 million for their 'productions.' This could be another story along the lines of Kate throwing a baby shower for Megs, or the queen planning a special birthday party for Megs at Balmoral. Interesting about all of the laundering rumors surrounding Netflix. Hollywood finances have always seemed pretty opaque, but Netflix doesn't even release viewer data on their stuff, so it's hard to tell what productions are really making $$$ for them.

Other blogs are saying the deal might be Netflix paying for some sort of right of first refusal on Harkle proposals. My guess is someone at Netflix thinks that the Harkles could sprinkle some of their 'royal' dross on junk produced for markets in what used to be called the 'third world.' Youngsters in Europe & the US won't be interested in Harkle offerings. Young females in more traditional cultures might be intrigued by ideas from a woman of ambiguous ethnicity who married a famous & very white European prince. In many countries, marriage is still pretty much the best option for females.

On a related topic, interesting that Megs BFF Jamil has labeled Harry's uncle a pedophile. The countries of her family's origins, India & Pakistan, are not so censorious of pedophilia. In India, I believe it is legal, & Pakistan didn't move to outlaw it until 2016. Perhaps she should give the UK credit for its more censorious view of the practice.
Sandie said…
@Hikari

That post by the Tumblr blogger is made up rubbish. Gosh!

Gwyneth Paltrow was with Brad Pitt when she worked with Weinstein. When Weinstein tried to pull a move on her, she told Brad and he physically threatened Weinstein. With 'Hollywood royalty' as parents and Brad Pitt as a boyfriend, Gwyneth did not need to do any sexual favours in that industry. That Weinstein gave her the breakthrough role does not mean she would not have had a career without him.

That Meghan was photographed next to Weinstein's wife is no proof that she ever met him. Megsy had a whole album of posed photographs where she cosied up to a celebrity to promote herself. The claim that Weinstein said he had a liaison with Meghan is not true. Did not happen. Weinstein was a man Meghan would have wanted to seduce and use to give her a HW career but why would he be interested in her (i.e. she would never have got a meeting with him and her social scene was Toronto and then London, not HW)?

If Meghan did get a hook up with Weinstein and gave him sexual favours in hope of an A-list career in HW, she sure failed in that and would never speak of it, and Weinstein is not going to get himself into more of a mess by talking about it, but there would be assistants who would know and they would have sold their story.
Hikari said…
@charade and midge

Yes, those avatar-less posts under my name were mine. No clue why my avatar didn't show up for only those two. I was logged into my Google account as always. Zen zen wakarinai
(I have absolutely no idea!) Never happened before.

Thank you for the link tutorial, too.
Sandie said…
Why are there some posters here who think Meghan is wildly popular and influential with young people, and especially girls and young women, in the 'Third World'?

Nope, most of her supporters (other than bots), are from the US, the UK and Europe. At the very most there may be a million of them so across those huge populations it really is not much at all.

Certainly in Africa there are local celebrities (real black women, and men) who get a lot of media coverage and have a lot of fans. International stars like Zendaya and Rhianna are far more popular than Meghan. Young women and teenagers want to follow the style of those women, not Meghan.
Unknown said…
Here's a link for how to create hyperlinks:

https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_a.asp

I'm having difficulty explaining it without it becoming an actual link.
@ Lurking With Spoon - a very interesting idea, not beyond the bounds of probability.

It's twisted enough for her to have thought of it -just the fact that we think she could be capable of such a scheme says so much about her.

If she does try to frame the Express, perhaps we'd need to raise our voices? I thought that most of what appears in the Express about her came either directly from her or from Scabies anyway.
Maneki Neko said…
@Fairy Crocodile

I agree totally with your comment. While we can easily dismiss some silly sycophantic comments in the DM such as 'Meghan is our beautiful princess' etc, the comments I was referring to were serious. Some people are genuinely convinced that H&M have been hard done by by the nasty, racist, toxic BRF and British public.
Hikari said…
@Sandie

Gwyneth Paltrow was with Brad Pitt when she worked with Weinstein.

Being in a relationship doesn't make a woman immune to sexual harassment. Actually it serves as a bigger incentive for men like Weinstein . . the thrill of 'taking something' that 'belongs' to another man. Married women get hit on all the time, don't they?

In considering what attractive women of modest abilities may do, or feel they have to do to advance their show business careers in a shark pit like Hollywood, you and I are on opposite sides of the fence vis GP and MM. Gwynnie may have sicced her boyfriend on Harvey Weinstein on one occasion, but she was Miramax's 'It Girl' before Brad arrived on the scene in her life, and after he left it. Those two were only an item for a couple of years, 1995-97. Gwyneth made films for Harvey for at least a decade 1994 - 2004. Brad was himself still a rising star when he was with her (1996 - 98) and did not have the industry clout he does today. Not sure he could have afforded to p*ss off Harvey in those days, either. HW was one of 'the' kingpins of Hollywood. Brad was a farmboy from Missouri who'd had a few parts.

GP was so young, 21,22 years old when she started her career. If it happened, she was a vulnerable age.

There are a lot of similarities between Gwyn and Meg. Both, the doted upon only daughters of their fathers, who denied them basically nothing. Tom Markle is no Bruce Paltrow, but he did have Emmy wins in the industry. Gwyneth dropped out of UC Santa Barbara after one semester, and her father wasn't pleased. He told her that he'd pay for her expenses if she stayed in school, but if she dropped out, she'd have to make her own way. I think that was a shock to his princess. I have always felt that Paltrow's career was vastly overflated for her modest abilities as an actress. Her look is odd, definitely not a conventional Hollywood beauty. Her parental connections have helped her tremendously. Plus whatever she may have done for Mr. Weinstein that she didn't tell Brad Pitt about. I wouldn't expect any woman to find it easy to be 100% honest about her casting couch experiences. It's shameful, especially for someone with famous parents.

Apart from her turns as Pepper Potts in the Iron Man/Avengers films Gwyn has basically retired from acting. Her It Girl status in 1990s rom-coms is down to Harvey Weinstein. I think she had to pay for that somehow. "Shakespeare in Love" is a charming comedy, but grossly overrewarded that Oscar season. Best Picture, Best Actress for Gwyn and Best Supporting Actress for Judi Dench's costume. Harvey bought an Oscar for his ingenue and resorted to some strong-arm tactics to ensure a Best Picture win for himself. Cate Blanchett was robbed of the 1998 Best Actress Oscar, in my opinion.

I've enjoyed a lot of Gwyn's films but like Meg, she is way more invested in her aspirational lifestyle blogging empire nowadays. A poll a year or two ago tapped Gwyn as the most ridiculous celeb in Hollywood. She's been spouting word salad and 'woke' lifestyle nonsense since Meg was in high school. That's why it's so funny to me that Meg views her as such a role model to emulate.
NeutralObserver said…
@Sandie, I didn't say I thought Megs was wildly popular in places like Africa, but that maybe she could be, & that perhaps Netflix thinks the same thing. So far, she doesn't seem that popular in the US or Europe. As you mentioned, her name has been linked to bot farms in reputable publications like the Daily Telegraph, and Macleans. Any idiot can buy bots, just as any idiot with connections can get a producer's credit.I obviously don't know much about media tastes in the many countries of Africa, but have read some of the fan-girl articles in the New York Times, written by young African women, whom I assume the Times wanted to present as representing some sort female popular opinion from that continent.
Unknown said…
@charade

'Unknown' said...
"Quoting myself and adding:
Am I the only one noticing something strange going on here?
Now we have another JocelynsBellinis posting under a new blogger profile ID address!"



****************************************************
I am a different "unknown' not the one above obviously:
Very Concerned about this blogger stating they know a poster's ID address!!
A further thought about those horny-handed children of the soil, burrowing away in that school garden:

I don't know much about conditions for gardening in California but perhaps someone better informed can tell me whether it is usual to plant out summer-bedding annuals at the onset of autumn, when the days are getting shorter? The temperature is still balmy I'm sure (no frost risk, I imagine) but, even so, could they be expected to flower all `winter'?

I don't see any difficulty about forget-me-nots - in the UK it's still OK to sow annuals about now for an early display next year.

What I'm getting at ,of course, is whether they did all this ages ago and have been sitting on the pics as ` merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative'? In other words, more of Megsy's whoppers?

Can any US gardeners in the same climate zone as LA help me out on this, please?
Portcitygirl said…
https://mol.im/a/8698123

Just saw this in the DM. Is it just me or do they seem to be using HM as a punching bag. We all know who leaked it to the media and it wasn't HM's camp.
lizzie said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid asked about the plantings at the pre-school:

I'm not in the same climate zone as LA, but I do know it was ok to plant forget me not seeds now. They also reportedly planted tomato plants. In that climate tomatoes can be planted in spring for the usual summer tomatoes as is usual most places including in my NC climate. But in LA it's possible to plant tomatoes for a fall crop too. Not as prolific but they do grow. Petunias also.

The problem is everything listed above except forget me nots will need full sun. Forget me nots will cook in LA sun and will need lots of water. Too much water will drown the petunias and can harm tomatoes (cracked fruit, root rot) Reportedly they also planted "California wildflowers." I would guess, but it's only a guess, that most wildflowers native to that area aren't big water hogs.

So it's unclear how it will all work together. It's also unclear what happens to the forget me nots in spring when the bed needs redoing. While petunias can be perennial in mild climates, so far as I know even LA gets too cold for tomato plants to be perennial. And that quality is unlikely in cultivated varieties anyway.

So I don't think there's a way to know when it was done. But expecting that many people associated with the pre-school to be quiet when it was announced it was done at x time if it really was done at y time seems risky. Usually stuff kept by H&M for later release doesn't have that problem.
Sorry, everybody. I had trouble signing back in the other day and had to change my name slightly here so that I could make a new account. It wouldn't even accept my email address on my old account. All of the posts under my name were made by me. Hopefully, this comment will now show my Hyacinth avatar.

Sorry to have worried any Nutties!
Maneki Neko said…
@Portcitygirl

Was about to post the same! No manners, but we know this is true to form for them.
Anyway, it's not a done deal as the venture has to be approved by the palace. Let's hope they don't approve it...
NeutralObserver said…
Ok, I'm going to do something that's probably very foolish, wade into a difference of opinion between two of my favorite posters, @Hikari, & @Sandie, as to Gwyneth Paltrow's relationship with creepy Harvey Weinstein. Obviously, there is no irrefutable proof as to what happened between GP & HW early in her career, which is true of a lot of 'Me Too' allegations, unfortunately for actual victims. However, in Gwyneth's defense, I remember years ago, long before the Me Too movement, reading an article in the Huffington Post on 'the casting couch.' I believe several young actresses (& actors) were upset by the advances they were always getting from directors, casting directors, producers, etc. The Huffington Post approached GP for a quote, & she said unequivocally that any young actor or actress faced with such behavior should just leave immediately, there was no place for that kind of behavior in their business. This was long before Me Too, the Weinstein scandal, or the story about Brad Pitt defending her. I think if GP didn't sincerely feel this, she would have said something different. JMO. I'm not a GP fan. I'm pretty neutral about her. Her ubiquity a few years ago was mildly irritating, but I respect her hard work & apparent intelligence.
Girl with a Hat said…
As I read it, Gwyneth did not need Weinstein to get roles, but to win the Oscar, which many people feel was undeserved.

As for her fans, I see tons of people from developing countries supporting her on Twitter, on DM, etc.
This DM comment says it all really:

"They are expected to make content including on 'mental health', an animated series about women, a nature documentary and shows on community service. When community service was explained to Meghan a source close to the couple reported she said, 'You mean there are some people who actually work for free and there are no photographers to take the pictures you can sell later?'"
Portcitygirl said…
Happy Days said

"Harry, you are absolute filth for what you've done to your grandmother, without whom you would be a right NOBODY. If this is some sick, twisted vengeance for what happened to your mother, then that is beyond pathetic. No matter what your wife or enablers tell you, your mother would not have wanted this, period."

September 4, 2020 at 5:46 PM

I just saw this up thread and sorry for the double post. I agree with your above statement. I am so perplexed as to why this is. Notice there is no PC bashing. Also, can someone research who the main stockholders are in Netflix.
Unknown said…
Unknown @ 9/4 6:52pm

I understand your concerns about the previous Unknown's comments but IP information is just not readily available with our Blogger accounts. Even with email, you can only disclose it by selecting certain privacy settings.

I believe Unknown just noticed discrepancies in Jocelyn'sBellinis' and Hikari's accounts and called them addresses.
Teasmade said…
@Neutral: Well, I believe what you're saying about GP's not needing help from HW, because GP is the picture book example of nepotism raised to an extreme. She didn't need him, that is. And it was pretty tone deaf of her to say that others, others without famous parents in the business should just walk out. Let's parse that: 1. famous 2. parents (having them at all) 3. rich 4. in the business. A couple recent actresses actually lived in trailer parks, lived in cars for a period, and so forth.

That Oscar win was a travesty. It's always on the lists of greatest award upsets and it's brought out every year when nominees are announced and there are related articles and polls. I do believe he bought that for her but I'm not so sure she "yachted" him for it. More a sympathy gift because her father had recently died.

And if I can be petty for a moment (the forgoing was merely valid criticism : ) the dress she accepted that travesty of an Oscar in was madly unflattering.

Sylvia said…
Might this be whst MM has read and copied ? Confused

https://www.greatcontent.com/read-on-a-powerful-call-to-action-unlocks-business-success/

Read On! A Powerful Call-to-Action Unlocks Business Success
By greatcontent 18. July 2018
call to action
You’ve spent hours on a piece of content marketing. You’ve produced some perfect copy and ticked all the SEO boxes – but you’ve run out of steam with your call-to-action. A CTA that gets people clicking is a vital part of a strong campaign, but it is often overlooked or forgotten.

Maybe you’ve cracked the elements of design, content and SEO use, but your CTA button also needs to be irresistible. Follow our tips to get readers clicking, subscribing, registering, bookmarking and ultimately spending on your site.

What exactly is a CTA?
It’s a short but very powerful piece of content that drives potential customers to your website or landing page. A call-to-action is an effective part of your content marketing arsenal and needs to be clear, brief and direct.

Create an attention-grabbing call-to-action
Every CTA component is vital – from vocabulary and punctuation through to its placement on the page and its colour. Colour? Yes, colour is a vital tool in content marketing. Many brand identities are strongly linked to specific colours, and colour is used to trigger desired actions. Click here for more information on colour branding and its importance for your call-to-action success.

Tell me what to do next
Be commanding: you’ve just read several bossy or imperative verbs: read, follow, create, tell. Tell people exactly what to do and the chances are, they’ll do it.
Play on emotions: target enthusiasms, talk about dreams, say you’ll improve lives or even trigger guilt! Use an exclamation mark for an extra emotional punch.
Get personal: don’t underestimate the power of personal pronouns. I’m talking to ‘you!’ not a nameless face.
Dare to be negative: there’s mileage to be had with a negative CTA. Don’t say ‘Get Fit Now!’, trigger a click with ‘Tired of having no energy?’
Use numbers: the brain loves large discounts and cheap prices. The brain loves the word FREE even more!
Place it effectively: CTAs don’t have to be the last thing seen, put stand-out ones in the middle of a blog text.
Use the power of FOMO: everyone’s afraid of missing out on something life-changing. Pile on the pressure with un-refusable offers or time limits for action.
See if it works: monitor the CTA. Is it working? Trial one CTA for a week or two, then try a different one. See which one triggers more button action for your product.
Use your techie knowledge: customise CTAs for different devices and formats. Use click-throughs on desktops or connections to live phone or chat lines on smartphones. Short and sweet for adverts, longer for blogs but never more than six or seven words.
Let greatcontent breathe new life into your content marketing. Get to know more about it!

Text: Leonie Yeates
Image: johnkalinowski
Brilliant DM Comment:

They are expected to make content including on 'mental health', an animated series about women, a nature documentary and shows on community service. When community service was explained to Meghan a source close to the couple reported she said, 'You mean there are some people who actually work for free and there are no photographers to take the pictures you can sell later?'

If she's not careful, she'll be `doing Community Service' here, picking up litter and dog mess, in full public view, in a natty hi-vis jacket saying `Community Payback'.

Just search images for `community service UK'

Not to be confused with CSV, Community Service Volunteers.

There's nothing voluntary about this kind of `service'- it's the equivalent of the stocks - but she might fake an accident for a claim.
NeutralObserver said…
A July 20, 2020 article on Netflix stock price & finances from Forbes. Forbes probably isn't as reliable as a business news source as it was when it was owned by the Malcolm Forbes family. It's biggest investor these days is some big Chinese media company, but the article seems reasonable when it describes why Netflix content-cost-per-subscriber, plus the competitive subscription costs of its biggest rivals, Disney, Apple & Amazon, might hamper Netflix growth options. It does say, however, that Netflix is handling its international business 'masterfully.' It describes Netflix stock as 'volatile' & 'sensitive to news.'

At the bottom of the fairly negative article is one written on June 16, 2020, which is more optimistic for Netflix.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/07/20/whats-happening-with-netflix-stock/#794ffafa3897
I meant to add:

`If she's not careful, she'll finally end up, when the truth comes out about her financial affarirs, `doing Community Service' here, picking up litter and dog mess, in full public view, in a natty hi-vis jacket saying `Community Payback'.

Just search images for `community service UK'

Not to be confused with CSV, Community Service Volunteers.

There's nothing voluntary about this kind of `service'- it's the equivalent of the stocks - but she might fake an accident for a claim. Still, I'm sure the supervising officers would be only too pleased to let the public take as many pictures as they like!

I expect she prefer to be `secret' in gaol.
Sorry, I got in a muddle with last posts, Himself needed computer help where neither of us knew what we were doing.
Maneki Neko said…
@WBBM

Haha! I had to look at the photos as you suggested (community service UK). I don't know about your neck of the woods but I haven't seen any community service 'workers' in London, and I mean north, south, east, west!
Portcitygirl said…
The blog seems to be having some technical glitches. I know a few days ago that I had not deleted a whole paragraph when I posted. I'm not overly concerned with grammatical errors here, as you all probably know by now, lol, but I do reread my posts before submitting. So just a while ago, I was typing and had not finished and did not hit send and all of sudden my comment is posting? Weird.

Now I see some other Nutties having trouble, too. Hmmm.
Midge said…
@Portcitygirl

Didn't find anything in Hoover, but according to Investopedia:
The top shareholders of Netflix are Leslie J. Kilgore, David Hyman, Greg Peters, Capital Research Group Investors, Vanguard Group Inc., and BlackRock Inc. (BLK).
KC said…
Swamp Woman said: "I particularly liked (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) where she said that Meghan was unhappy because there can only be one angel on top of the Christmas tree. Her son said "or star", but Lady C said Catherine was the angel."

Yes, a lovely metaphor for us.

Maybe Meghan with her vampirish and manipulative tendencies is better suited to Halloween, aka the gimme-gimme-candy holiday.

Thank you, Lizzie, for the `horticultural notes'. I thought it could be faked to some extent, perhaps much earlier in the season, when there were fewer people around, and certainly at their convenience, regardless of the anniversary.

O/T I couldn't cope with the summer heat of California or, worse for me, Arizona (I've been watching films about the Az. Humane Society doing the sort of work done here by the RSPCA, in the sleepless small hours. What an impressive outfit! I'm in awe of their emergency rescue vehicles - such a clever design - and I've learnt how to test if the road surface is too hot for a dog's feet!) Do other states match or surpass the AHS?

Someone in Scotland once said he felt sorry me, gardening in the south. (Gardeners love our county) - his idea of horticultural punishment was all-year-round lawn mowing, such as we have to do.
Ziggy said…
FWIW I have long heard that Gwyneth and Brad broke up because he walked in on her blowing Harvey.
LavenderLady said…
I read a DM comment yesterday that said they thought Narkles are using the Netflix story to deflect from the fiasco they created-by exploiting low income children at the pre-school planting excursion.

Some parents are furious (who could blame them?) for the "event" exposing their children to Covid when the safety measures are strict for anyone not considered "royal". Also the close proximity to the children.

I was furious myself just reading about it; that Thing Harry married waving her muddy claws around like a giant lobster. It just made me livid as I raised children and would be one of those parents who would have had a problem with the whole smelly mess.

Makes me wonder how H&M continue to be given a pass for such careless antics.

I agree with that DM commenter that yes, that Netflx deal will be used twenty ways to Sunday to get any and every possible traction it could get.
KC said…
Portcitygirl said...

"The blog seems to be having some technical glitches. I know a few days ago that I had not deleted a whole paragraph when I posted."

Oh, I've seen that when posting from my phone. Thought i must have "fatfingered" the preview box. Thanks for pointing out it's a systemic thing, not just me.
@Teasmade

A gentle correction about Gwyneth Paltrow. Her Oscar win had nothing to do with her father’s “death” because he was still alive at the time.

“Paltrow died on October 3, 2002, at the age of 58, while vacationing in Rome, Italy, to celebrate his daughter's 30th birthday.” GP won her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love in 1999.

I agree that Saving Private Ryan was robbed that year—it should have swept most of the major categories, IMO—but SIL was a delightful film and although I am decidedly not a GP fan, I thought she was brilliant in it.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger Ziggy said...
FWIW I have long heard that Gwyneth and Brad broke up because he walked in on her blowing Harvey.


Aw, dang. I just had lunch; now I might lose it at the visual picture. I just cannot conceive of anybody being so desperate for fame and/or fortune, yet somehow they are.

/I would rather trap pigeons in the park, forage for wild greens, and cook it all over a wood fire instead of having to touch any of Weinstein's deformed and diseased parts.
Portcitygirl said…
https://youtu.be/JbVUmdEEEz0

I'm not into tarot reading but he has some good points.
LavenderLady said…
I'm a bit behind on the topics. I don't always read regularly so bear with me.

I just caught up on the DM yesterday and saw how Pier's Morgan created a list of future "ventures" for the gruesome twosome. I hadn't seen that article when I mentioned my thought on the Narcs using a royal theme in their Netflix content. It's not too far a stretch to figure Megs wants the dough at any cost and will churn out what ever brings in the most bucks the quickest, with the least effort (since she can't yacht and worse any more)...

I'm afraid Diana as a subject is not safe with Meghan at the helm of a project. Harry will just let her do whatever she wants even if it is questionable because I think he's desperate for money.
Hikari said…
@teasmade

@Neutral: Well, I believe what you're saying about GP's not needing help from HW, because GP is the picture book example of nepotism raised to an extreme. She didn't need him, that is. And it was pretty tone deaf of her to say that others, others without famous parents in the business should just walk out. Let's parse that: 1. famous 2. parents (having them at all) 3. rich 4. in the business. A couple recent actresses actually lived in trailer parks, lived in cars for a period, and so forth.

That Oscar win was a travesty. It's always on the lists of greatest award upsets and it's brought out every year when nominees are announced and there are related articles and polls. I do believe he bought that for her but I'm not so sure she "yachted" him for it. More a sympathy gift because her father had recently died.

And if I can be petty for a moment (the forgoing was merely valid criticism : ) the dress she accepted that travesty of an Oscar in was madly unflattering.


Gwyneth has never been my favorite person. It seemed like she was in 3 movies a year in the 1990s, so it's not like she has not had a successful career, but in her I always get a whiff of dilettantism that seems to afflict the scions of moneyed, successful parents (Hello, Harry). She dropped out of school after a few months. A few supporting parts as 'the girlfriend of . .'. Got 'Emma', which really put her on the map, thanks to Harvey. Milked her British accent which really couldn't be called 'faux' since she did spend a significant part of her childhood in England, back and forth. The accent was fine. Always kind of a brittle, snotty, entitlest vibe off of Gwyneth for me. Her scripts always tended toward the undemanding, ones that showcased her very slender figure in not a lot on. I get why MM is obsessed with her; GP was the It Girl all thorough MM's high school years. Even though Gwyn is lightly educated, with no in-depth technical training in her craft, she does have an sort of inborn patrician quality which gives her an air of intelligence in her roles. If you've heard her give an interview, you learnt that the air of intelligence is reserved for the screen only. She has been roundly mocked, with justification as one of the most self-absorbed and out-of-touch celebs in a town full of 'em. Face cream made of crushed pearls at $3000 an ounce and 'vagina-scented candles' are symbols of her celeb privilege. When the acting roles started to dry up for her patented '90s young thang roles, she ditched acting altogether to become a Coldplay groupie and follow Chris Martin around the world. Her present relationship has a very Minnelli-esque aura to it.

Hikari said…
If MM and GP got together, that'd probably be one black hole of vapid narcissistic cross-talking, wouldn't it?

Re. her Oscar win . . at the time, I was naive about all the cut-throat wheeling and dealing that goes on during an Oscar campaign season. I thought Cate Blanchett gave the performance of the year. 'SiL' was a big-name heavy farce. It was cute, I had fun watching it, but it was like an Elizabethan ride at Disneyland. All flash, no substance. Its saving grace was that Ben Affleck's role was tiny. I will pay Gwyn the compliment of saying she is a far superior actor than is Ben Affleck. The dress was yeah, a bit Pepto-Bismol 'prom'. She had lost a lot of weight and the dress was too big. She'd just broken up with Brad not that long prior. I call Gwyn the Tara Lipinski of the acting world because her Oscar moment was more a fluke than a sign of mature artistic merit. She'd go on to get nominated again (a throwaway nom, 'Country Strong', 2010.) She had one hit record, a duet with Huey Lewis. Her voice is surprisingly good, but we never got a follow-up. I did think that her small role in Stephen Soderbergh's 'Contagion' (2011) was some of her best work. She allowed herself to look really bad and at one point have her scalp peeled down, so kudos for that. I also found her turn in 'A View from the Top' surprisingly self-deprecating. She's playing a really dumb hick girl from a trailer park who becomes a flight attendant.

I owe Samanatha Markle a big apology--I had misidentified MM as 'the only daughter of her father' in my GP analogy. Sammie, of course, is Tom's first daughter, but in the context of the second family Meg was part of, she was the sun, moon and stars for her father. Sammie has got the fuzzy end of the lollipop, so I really hope for her sake that she can profit on a tell-all book about Meg sometime. I wouldn't grudge her a cent.
KC said…
charade posted @Unknown @ 9/4 6:52pm

"I understand your concerns about the previous Unknown's comments but IP information is just not readily available with our Blogger accounts. Even with email, you can only disclose it by selecting certain privacy settings.

I believe Unknown just noticed discrepancies in Jocelyn'sBellinis' and Hikari's accounts and called them addresses"

The previous Unknown also called them ID addresses which I took to mean ID as in user name. Nutty has frequently mentioned she cannot see identifying information. ID address is a technical term.
Portcitygirl said…

Blogger Midge said...
@Portcitygirl

Didn't find anything in Hoover, but according to Investopedia:
The top shareholders of Netflix are Leslie J. Kilgore, David Hyman, Greg Peters, Capital Research Group Investors, Vanguard Group Inc., and BlackRock Inc. (BLK).

September 4, 2020 at 9:15 PM

****************

Thanks, Midge!

Anybody have time and knowledge to break to the ppl in the groups? My guess is it is some names we would recognize.
Nutty Flavor said…
Sorry to hear people are having technical problems. For what it's worth, there are no comments stuck in moderation at the moment. I don't do the programming for Blogger, so I'm not able to fix anything.

I can't see that anyone has posted these two links to the New York Post:

Insiders scoff at Meghan and Harry’s reported $150M Netflix check

https://pagesix.com/2020/09/03/insiders-scoff-at-prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-reported-150m-netflix-pay/

Quibi tried to sign Prince Harry and Meghan Markle before Netflix deal

https://pagesix.com/2020/09/02/quibi-tried-to-sign-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-before-netflix-deal/

Quibi, a streaming service set up by Meg Whitman and Jeffrey Katzenberg that was supposed to rival Netflix, is a big joke in Hollywood, so the Sussexes would have fit in well there.

“Meg and Jeff actually went to see Harry and Meghan to get them to sign … but it’s no surprise they went for Netflix,” the source said.

Ironically, Reese Witherspoon's husband is the head of content at Quibi. Meg could have finally met Reese Witherspoon if she had played her cards right.

Here's a bit more on the mess that is Quibi:

https://pagesix.com/2020/06/02/quibi-staffers-seethe-at-reese-witherspoons-6m-payday-amid-layoffs/
LavenderLady said…
@Hikari,
I owe Samanatha Markle a big apology--I had misidentified MM as 'the only daughter of her father' in my GP analogy. Sammie, of course, is Tom's first daughter, but in the context of the second family Meg was part of, she was the sun, moon and stars for her father. Sammie has got the fuzzy end of the lollipop, so I really hope for her sake that she can profit on a tell-all book about Meg sometime. I wouldn't grudge her a cent.
_______________________________

I agree 100%.

I miss Samantha. I always read her articles with glee, I'm not ashamed to admit. Right from day one I thought Sam was saying it like it is. Someone must have payed her a boat load of cash to keep her silence. I'm still hoping for that book though! What she has to say is far too important to remain unsaid.
DesignDoctor said…
The Sun has an article about Netflix airing a unflattering musical about Diana.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12577043/netflix-diana-musical-harry-meghan/
Ziggy said…
@SwampWoman
Same here! *shudder*
Hikari said…
Lavendar Lady

I miss Samantha. I always read her articles with glee, I'm not ashamed to admit. Right from day one I thought Sam was saying it like it is. Someone must have payed her a boat load of cash to keep her silence. I'm still hoping for that book though! What she has to say is far too important to remain unsaid.

Indeed, those NDAs have a long reach. We wondered how Meg was silencing everyone in her life except her hand-picked celeb shills . . the security services did it.

Shame on the BRF, really, is all I can say. I will question until the end of time why they all laid down for this threat of racist blackmail she used to force the wedding through, when the family was sitting on so much incendiary dirt about Harry's prospective bride. Makes me wonder what other dirt they were afraid would blow back on themselves if they shone a light on any potential sex scandals in her past. But the Firm had the SSs do exact same thing when Harry had his imbroglio in Las Vegas. Anyone with compromising pictures or stories was silenced with payouts, NDAs, coercion . . all three. That was one incident; with Meg there were 15-20 years' worth of past history to erase.

The family is complicit up to their necks. If it was all done to keep Harry in the fold, that's failed spectacularly.

Samantha is battling MS and in her mid-50s, it's just not going to get better, only worse. Particularly if she was saddled with raising Meg's child as goes the rumor, she is entitled to some restitution from Meg, however she can get it. I suspect she'd tell her story for free, just to get her truth out there. It's so galling to watch the two sickening hypocrites seeming to profit from their misdeeds, but I keep telling myself that what we are being shown isn't the whole story. Or maybe even a part of the story.
xxxxx said…
Do not doubt our Gwyneth of the odd name @hikari.
She was great in Country Strong (a treasure actually)
Also in Duets with Huey Lewis. A very likable

And this most recent Amazon rating goes>>>

Judy Jackson
5.0 out of 5 stars Treat yourself to a karaoke night!
Reviewed in the United States on September 1, 2020
Verified Purchase
This video rates among our top ten favorites to watch anytime with anyone regardless of the company or mood and especially if you need a boost. The karaoke entertainment is awesome. It makes you feel like trying it out some night. It contains an all star cast that includes Huey Lewis, Paul Giamatti, and Gwyneth Paltrow. I am leaving one karaoke surprise for you when a black actor sings a great song a cappella it sends chills down your spine. All of the duet karaoke singers have been brought together by some tragic flaw that is resolved through this venue. It's a must have for any video collection.
LavenderLady said…
@Hikari,

Indeed, those NDAs have a long reach. We wondered how Meg was silencing everyone in her life except her hand-picked celeb shills . . the security services did it.

Shame on the BRF, really, is all I can say. I will question until the end of time why they all laid down for this threat of racist blackmail she used to force the wedding through, when the family was sitting on so much incendiary dirt about Harry's prospective bride. Makes me wonder what other dirt they were afraid would blow back on themselves if they shone a light on any potential sex scandals in her past. But the Firm had the SSs do exact same thing when Harry had his imbroglio in Las Vegas. Anyone with compromising pictures or stories was silenced with payouts, NDAs, coercion . . all three. That was one incident; with Meg there were 15-20 years' worth of past history to erase.

The family is complicit up to their necks. If it was all done to keep Harry in the fold, that's failed spectacularly.

Samantha is battling MS and in her mid-50s, it's just not going to get better, only worse. Particularly if she was saddled with raising Meg's child as goes the rumor, she is entitled to some restitution from Meg, however she can get it. I suspect she'd tell her story for free, just to get her truth out there. It's so galling to watch the two sickening hypocrites seeming to profit from their misdeeds, but I keep telling myself that what we are being shown isn't the whole story. Or maybe even a part of the story.
________________

Thanks for your astute thoughts. Always spot on! I've hated to think how the BRF has scrubbed the truth for the sake of their institution yet I suppose it's what institutions do, especially those with great influence.

The question does remain, why was this farce allowed in the first place? I will be long gone when the truth finally comes out-decades, I'm sure...

Agreed. It is galling.
Ziggy said…
Page Six: Insiders Scoff at H&M's reported $150mm Payday

https://pagesix.com/2020/09/03/insiders-scoff-at-prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-reported-150m-netflix-pay/
Sylvia said… A call-to-action is an effective part of your content marketing arsenal and needs to be clear, brief and direct.
(bolding mine)

Well, that's Meghan failed before she even starts :OP
@Hikari,

I think Samantha may be keeping quiet until the lawsuit involving Thomas is over. Often attorneys tell their clients to not engage with the media when they are involved with a trial that is coming up. I think that's why Thomas is being so quiet now, too.
******************
Lady C cleared up the info that HMTQ cannot take away the duke and duchess titles from the Harkles. Only an act of parliament can do that, as he is a blood royal. HMTQ can take away other titles, such as Earl, because they were given to the Harkles by her, though.

So we can't blame the BRF for not taking action on removing the duke and duchess titles, but she can take away their other titles and any of their patronages.
Pantsface said…
Don't know what to think of GP tbh, everyone was so surprised when she ended up with "geeky" Chris, probably a nice bloke but not Hollywood. Was not impressed with the stories about her trying to muscle in on Coldplay and wantingto duet with her husband which almost called time on the band as the other members were not impressed lol, she's a funny one with her goop shite but kudos to them both for their "uncoupling" and keeping their family united, if press reports are true. Perhaps Hollywood and Brits is a bad idea marriage wise, total poles apart despite the best of intentions
Teasmade said…
@Golden: Whoops! I must have been thinking of something else, then. (re Bruce's not-death). But didn't she get Best Actress as well? THAT'S the one I'm thinking was ill-deserved, although the Best Picture was as well of course. A terrible robbery.

Thanks for the correction--and I'll try of think of what I was thinking when I, er, thought that about the sympathy vote : ) Maybe there was another vote.

I don't spend all my time thinking about Hollywood, honest!
Hikari said…
Not sure how to explain differing IPs or URLs showing under my name. I have two separate computer stations that I post from at my workplace and I also post for my phone. All the content from yesterday or any other day under my user name was written by me. I only noticed a few posts did not have my avatar attached. So I have not been hacked if anybody’s worried.
Unknown said…

Thanks @KC :) I really appreciate you pointing out User ID address is a technical term.

@Unknown at 9/4 6:52pm
I can attest to the fact that neither Nutty nor I have access to your IP and Email information.

When Unknown mentioned seeing different "blogger profile ID address[es]" for Jocelyn'sBellinis and Hikari, they were indicating seeing different URLs for their profile pages. They also were pointing out discrepancies they saw in profile pics, user name and/or join dates.

The web page for Blogger profiles are unique. If anyone changes the gmail they use for Blogger, they will generate a new unique profile page. Jocelyn'sBellinis said she had technical difficulties so created a new profile and Blogger subsequently generated a new profile page for her.
Unknown said…
@Nutties and Charade
I see there was some confusion over my post concerning what appeared to be the "takeover" of regular Nutties' blogger identities, and I'm sorry for any problems that occurred. I'm glad this ended up not being the case but I believe my concern was warranted considering all the issues we have had lately.
~~~~~~~~~~~
@Charade said:
Thanks @KC :) I really appreciate you pointing out User ID address is a technical term.
@CatEyes @Unknown at 9/4 6:52pm
I can attest to the fact that neither Nutty nor I have access to your IP and Email information.
When Unknown mentioned seeing different "blogger profile ID address[es]" for Jocelyn'sBellinis and Hikari, they were indicating seeing different URLs for their profile pages. They also were pointing out discrepancies they saw in profile pics, user name and/or join dates.
The web page for Blogger profiles are unique. If anyone changes the gmail they use for Blogger, they will generate a new unique profile page. Jocelyn'sBellinis said she had technical difficulties so created a new profile and Blogger subsequently generated a new profile page for her.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The bolded portion of Charade's quoted message above is exactly what I was talking about.
When you click on your own blogger name or avatar and it brings you to your profile page, you will see the individual blogger profile address (URL) in your browser which has been assigned to your profile. This can be seen by anyone whether your profile has been hidden or not. It does not however reveal any email addresses.

After some of us were accused of being other long-gone posters or multiple different posters, I have become more aware of unusual patterns here. I'm glad Hikari and Jocelyn'sBellinis were not trolled.
Midge said…
It appears Netflix is not the only thing the Harkles are concentrating on. They have added government lobbying to their Travalyst trademark.

Quote from today's Mail Online:

"Not content with being TV producers paid an estimated £100 million by U.S. streaming giant Netflix, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have given a strong hint of their political ambitions.

They have applied to trademark the name of their ‘sustainable travel’ project Travalyst for a vast range of projects including lobbying, or trying to influence, governments.'
SwampWoman said…
Hikari, it wasn't differing IPs or URLs; it was that your avatar didn't show. Since we've had a history of people posting under other people's names, any difference is looked upon suspiciously.

I, uh, was trying to post while a 4-year-old was screaming "LOOK, Grandma, just LOOK AT THAT!" while physically turning my head to the television nature show I had turned on for him. He wanted to watch animals. There was one that he thought looked good on husband's Netflix account. It was one of their wholesome children's entertainment selections for the young. There was even a romantic poem in it, something like "Roses are red, poems are long, why don't you come here and hold my...." followed by a screech and "animal" narration saying "I was going to say 'gong'". Scratch animals, back to Paw Patrol and Word World.

I expect Medusa and JCMH's nature programming will be much like that.
SwampWoman said…
Lobbying can be quite profitable; however, it is usually a lucrative reward for retiring politicians and senior civil servants who know where the bodies are buried, so to speak.

The Harkles are going to have to have a lot of money to spread around to buy influence. Watching them and all their electronic communications closely would be interesting.
CatEyes said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Teasmade

I make these mistakes all the time, so don’t worry about it. I just remember very clearly GP’s cringeworthy, tearful acceptance speech, the ill-fitting pink Ralph Lauren gown (she didn’t have the boobs to fill it out), and the diamond choker she wore that had been gifted her by her parents for the occasion. That’s how I recalled that her dad was alive back then.
SwampWoman said…
Midge said...
It appears Netflix is not the only thing the Harkles are concentrating on. They have added government lobbying to their Travalyst trademark.

Quote from today's Mail Online:

"Not content with being TV producers paid an estimated £100 million by U.S. streaming giant Netflix, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have given a strong hint of their political ambitions.

They have applied to trademark the name of their ‘sustainable travel’ project Travalyst for a vast range of projects including lobbying, or trying to influence, governments.'


My side of the family is known for creativity and ADD/ADHD. Just reading the list of things that she wants to be involved in makes ME say "DAMN, girl, you need to focus!" I understand having diversified streams of income, but she really needs to cut down to a manageable amount that she can keep her full attention on and expand from there.

I'd like to see their business plan, but I don't think they have one.
lucy said…
Business plan? They have to have a name first lol. Can you imagine Meg's To Do list? She probably hands it off to Harry and he doodles on it, bunch of smiley faces and random song lyrics

I am really starting to wonder of this Netflix deal. If they are in some sort of relationship, no way is it for 100+ million
lucy said…
@puds nice find

I heard Meg is now suing over the babe in the woods photos. She is crazed. Is she suing German paper that published Archie and Doria picture too?

What do you all make of the chatter regarding their social media? The rumor HM banned them from using SM for a year. Kind of makes sense given they haven't created anything. Maybe she requested the same of Archie pics and that is why he was nearly naked on "approved" birthday reading. "Sticking it" to The Queen only it just hurts the kid
CatEyes said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
CatEyes said…
It is inconceivable that Meghan and Harry will accomplish all that they say they are going to do. Let's be honest, it is rather doubtful Harry will handle much (either due to laziness, Meghan wanting to maintain complete control or he just doesn't have the wherewithal to handle anything beyond potting on a grey t-shirt. What are the couple's current obligations;
1. Parenting an active toddler.
2. Patron of several charities
3. Harry overseeing Invictus Games
4. Pres.& V.P of Queen's Commonwealth Trust
5. Head of Travalyst (which still needs to be fleshed out)
6. Litigants in 3-4 lawsuits
7. Somewhat managing a household, a mega mansion size household
8. Taking time to get manicures/pedicures/weaves/botox/waxes/massages
9. Doing yoga/surfing/exercising
10. Eating and sleeping and showering
11. Talking with their PR people, business managers, bankers/investment company
12. Time for Meghan and harry to interact together as a couple not as business partners.

New obligations;
1. Creating content for not one show or documentary but many.
2. Producing not one show but many Netflix projects
3. Finding/evaluating financial support for their projects

Let just say they sleep only 6 hrs/night and spend 2 hrs eating and 2 hrs showering and Meghan getting her face and hair on that leaves 10 hrs so maybe Archie gets 2 hrs 0f attention that leaves just 12 hrs of time to devote to all those activities which probably 5 -7 hrs are spent on communicating with others (the nannies, PR, Netflix, attys, etc...) so maybe 5-7 hrs are available for writing, producing and rewriting and handling what most media companies have hundreds of people working on tasks.

I am sure Nutties here who knows the HW biz can add a lot, an awful lot I have overlooked.

Just don't believe Harry and Meghan can pull this off. I do not see how Netflix can put that huge amount of money on two unproven people with their track history of not accomplishing anything and their claim to fame is that they quit everybody and everything.
lucy said…
@Puds I don't think they have a plan. I think their plan was SussexRoyal. At this point they look like complete fools. They follow through on nothing. The only thing that made them unique was being part of the RF. This stuff they are running around doing now is stuff they could have done back in England. I completely believe they thought they would come here and be US royals. So much opportunity wasted

I bet this ticks Meghan off😏

https://www.billboard.com/amp/articles/news/9445298/dc-comics-honors-wonder-women-of-history-beyonce-janelle-monae-ruth-bader-ginsberg-aoc
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Puds

I wonder if Ian Halperin’s book was anticipated by the Royal Family? I’d never heard anything about it myself, though I suppose all the publicity and controversy surrounding the recent books on Harry and Meghan allowed Halperin’s to sneak up on everyone. Or maybe I’m just out of it.

Btw, on Amazon (US) Sex, Lies and Dirty Money is listed as being “#1 in Christian Papacy”—WTH?
@Golden Retriever,

Halperin's book is a six-part series of books, each with a deep dive into the seamy underbellies of various world institutions, the first being the BRF. The last book in the series is about religion so that's probably why it's #1 in the Christian papacy category. The blurb on Amazon specifically mentions Pope Francis.
***************************************
Is Halperin considered to be an respected author? Is his info correct? I haven't read anything of his, so am asking the Nutties what they know about him. I am looking forward to the first book on the BRF, but I'm not sure that I'd want to read the entire series. I think I'd be so depressed by the state of the world today after reading all six books, that I might decide to skip some of them.

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magatha Mistie said…

Up to their usual schticks
They’ve landed a gig with Netflix
The negative reactions
To their global productions
Produced naught but much laughter
Negflix
Magatha Mistie said…

@Unknown

I know, I’m disheartened too. Finding it hard to pen witticisms.
They just sicken me.
I’m hoping that all will be revealed after the MoS court case,
and/or at the end of the year review.
Something has to give, madam can’t get away with it forever.
Magatha Mistie said…

How to be rid of this filth
Is up to the Queen, and her wealth
Cut off their vitals
Including the titles
Then toodle pip Meg
‘ho’s no MILF
Magatha Mistie said…

“Bless ‘Em All” George Formby

Sod ‘Em Both

Sod em both, sod em both
The poisonous dwarf and her sloth
They’ll get no devotion
Either side of the ocean
So cheer up and sing, Sod ‘Em Both





Magatha Mistie said…

DM have done a cheeky preview of “the crowning glories of megflix”
Hahahaha!
LavenderLady said…
@Magatha,
I saw that. Lol. The movie titles in the comments is the best part. Archie starring in Home Alone (Again). Lol...
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
SwampWoman said…
Ian Halperin has written a lot of books that I haven't read about celebrities that I don't care about.
Magatha Mistie said…

Cheers @Unknown @LavenderLady

Was feeling ratty, been baking, I’m a messy cook!!
Everyone scarpered come clean up!!
Miggy said…
Apologies if already posted but some great snippets from the Amanda Platell article in the DM today:

"How different is the path chosen by the woman who still takes care to call herself the ‘Duchess of Sussex’ and served the Royal Family for all of two years before she decamped to Los Angeles.

As Meghan and hapless husband Harry revealed in a toe-curlingly woke statement, their new multi-million-pound deal with Netflix will ‘shine a light on people and causes around the world . . . creating content that informs but also gives hope’.

The truth is Meghan knows that if she’d stayed in the Royal Family, she could have done all those things.

But there might not have been such an enormous pay packet for being the self-appointed saviour of the universe. This former ‘briefcase girl’ on Deal Or No Deal has now become a money-grubbing, international laughing stock.

Meg’s ‘friends’ claim she had to flee the UK because this is a horribly racist country that never appreciated her talents as a brave campaigner.

How I wish Meghan had taken the time to learn something from Camilla, who was once the most vilified woman in Britain. Yet through hard work, duty and, dare I suggest, a sense of humour and a level of self-awareness that Meghan can only dream of, Camilla has gradually transformed herself into someone most of us respect and admire.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8699905/AMANDA-PLATELL-Meghan-Markle-make-millions-Camilla-make-difference.html
Miggy said…
Platell on Harry:

Oh, do scrum off it, Harry

Prince Harry, as patron of the Rugby Football League, Zooms his support from his LA mansion to say he is ‘unbelievably fortunate to have a little outdoor space’ — 5.4 acres to be precise — to teach son Archie the joys of the game.

Crikey, the kid’s 16 months old: that’s some ‘space’.

Archie is, thankfully, too young to hear his sappy dad’s final words: ‘Our little man is our number one priority. Our work is our second . . . to make the world a better place.’

England’s New Zealand rugby foes will be cracking up in their hakas, with uncontrolled laughter.
SwampWoman said…
Ian Halperin is apparently most famous for saying that Michael Jackson was in very poor health and would be dead in six months. He said it six months before Jackson's death, then immediately released his book. If dying of acute profolol and benzodiazepine toxicity overdose administered by a doctor is called poor health, then I suppose he was right. Seriously, Jackson looked really, really frail at that point.

I didn't even know the doc that administered the fatal dose was released from his California prison after two years because of good behavior.
Maneki Neko said...
@WBBM

Haha! I had to look at the photos as you suggested (community service UK). I don't know about your neck of the woods but I haven't seen any community service 'workers' in London, and I mean north, south, east, west!


September 4, 2020 at 8:47 PM

I’ve seen them `working’ in our local nature reserve, litter picking and such like.

Possible reasons for the difference?

More petty crime here, more serious stuff attracting custodial sentences in London?

More open green space here than in London (though London’s remarkably green seen for the air air, it may be down to street trees, the building are hidden. Perhaps they’re kept busy in the really big parks?)

CS sentences are designed to take up their time at weekends, assuming they’re in work 5 days per week; it‘s hoped it keeps them out of mischief/deprived of going to football! That's why many hate those sentences!
Magatha Mistie said…

@Miggy

Former brief case girl has now become an international laughing stock!
Love it!!!
Please say the mittens are off!!!
Miggy said…
@Magatha,

I flipping well hope they are!!

Have scrolled back and now read all your brilliant ditties. You do make me smile! :-)
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
SwampWoman said…
*sigh* Ian Halperin immediately released his book upon Jackson's death which, per the California legal system, was actually homicide. Since doc spent 2 years in jail for "homicide", it was somewhat less serious than killing a dog.
Magatha Mistie said…

@Miggy

England’s Aussie rugby foes will be cracking up even harder, what a pillock!

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

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

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids