Prince Harry is 36 years old today, roughly halfway through his time on this mortal coil, if you go by the average life expectancy for a British male.
99-year-old Prince Philip is really an outlier; most of the men in Elizabeth's family didn't make it past their mid-70s, and Diana's father died at 68.
Thirty-six has a special poignancy for Harry, of course, because it is also the age at which his mother died.
The cult of celebrity
Diana helped create the turn-of-the-century cult of celebrity and the media to support it. Harry, ironically, has exposed its emptiness.
Once-respected establishment media names like Vanity Fair and USA Today are coo-ing over Harry's fabulous new Hollywood mansion, generous Netflix producing deal, satisfying marriage to an intelligent and glamorous woman, and proud fatherhood to a red-haired baby boy.
Does anyone really believe this? And even if they do, do they care?
In a time of pandemic, mass demonstrations, and violence, the problems of two little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
And while Diana was constantly pursued by the media, Harry has to pay PR people to pay establishment media outlets to run news about him and Meghan.
(You can see some of those pay-to-play outlets in today's run of Prince Harry birthday stories, like Yahoo Entertainment and Tulsa World.)
The role of social media
Another difference between Diana at 36 and Harry at 36 is the role of social media. In 1997, social media wasn't much more than a few AOL chatrooms and a few random message boards.
Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit were all almost a decade away, and the Daily Mail existed only on paper.
Before her death, Diana was experiencing a dip in popularity. The public was tired of her drama, and didn't particularly like her boyfriend of the moment, Dodi Fayed.
But if you were around at that time and followed Diana, there were not many people you could talk with about it. There were your friends and family, maybe your barber or beautician.
You could choose to buy or not buy magazine or newspapers with Di's face on them, which was a way for the media industry to gauge her popularity.
(I don't even want to think about what Twitter trolls would have done with Di's many romances with married men, or how they would have handled her gruesome death.)
Transparency changes the world
Today, of course, we can all share our opinions of Meghan and Harry through this blog and many other outlets.
We can find many other people out there who share our opinion of the Sussexes, and amplify it. We can can share information and speculate together about things that are hidden.
Diana felt that she was not in control of the media intrusion into her life, but at least there were a limited number of outlets that could publish gossip about her or photos.
Harry has no such control. Almost everyone in the Western world has access to platforms that reach an international audience.
Bad news about him travels fast, and it's easy to point out his hypocrisies and broken promises by linking to earlier stories.
The transparency and access to information that has developed over the past twenty years has changed society in many ways - who would have imagined that we would all be watching the deaths of individuals on police bodycams or from multiple cellphone angles? - but it has also taken much of the awe and mystery away from celebrities and royals.
Celebrity and royal glamour are what Harry and Meghan need to sell in order to support their lavish living.
It's not a hot product at the moment the way it was in 1997, when Diana was 36 years old.
Comments
My comment - Could the deal being referenced be the Netflix one? And if so - LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
@Wullie’sBucket: When I read this Blind Gossip post part at the end that described a female, I immediately thought of Meghan.
Return to the post and read through the comments. A large majority of the commenters name Meghan as the second person described in the blind item.
Someone else here on this thread described Meghan’s to Hollywood perfectly in that in public, Hollywood is polite to her, but in private they discuss how she has nothing beyond being a royal to offer.
I think Harry and Meghan will initially make SOME money, but not hundreds of millions of dollars. Right now, they are a curiosity and the latest bright, shiny object dangled in front of the public as an amusement. But people like that have no staying power no matter how many connections they have, those connections will not want to keep propping them up.
They will actually have to produce something of VALUE that produces a decent PROFIT to stay on the A-List.
If they don’t, they will become like the Windsors, who were invited to parties because they were royals and served a purpose of not being much more than a decoration on a Christmas tree.
Any money they do manage to make will be spent before the check is cashed. Narcissists like Meghan use material goods and living a luxury lifestyle to maintain their fraudulent self-esteem. They are always keeping up with the Joneses.
The problem the Sussexes face (actually Meghan faces because Harry lived a relatively modest life prior to Meghan) is that Meghan will be trying to keep up appearances with some of the wealthiest people on the planet.
My best guess is after the novelty of the Sussexes wears off, if they haven’t been able to produce anything profitable, their income will drop, but Meghan will keep spending to maintain the facade. She and Harry will end up in deep financial distress in a short period of time. Harry will be forced to ask his family to bail them out. I hope by then, the RF will be so fed up with their antics and attacks on the monarchy and the UK they will refuse to help. Somewhere in there will be a nasty divorce, but Meghan will spend the rest of her life bitterly taking potshots at them.
Re Megsy's scary photo, 1993
Yes, that is a really unflattering one. She looks like a thug, like she could cut you if you crossed her path. The head-on shot and the way she's scrunching her head down make her look quite big as well as much older than 11 years old. The lighting isn't good, either. Twitter commentators are saying she looks 14 or 15 in this picture, which she does.
Meg's a liar, so fudging her age would be in character considering her ageist industry, but in addition to what the California Dept. of Records says, Nickelodeon aired this interview with Meg and her classmates in 1993, where they were identified as 'elementary school students'. 5th grade. With her summer birthday, Meg would have turned 12 just prior to starting 6th grade and I think that's when she moved to Immaculate Heart.
This clip aired on Inside Edition after the engagement. They have included the clip where Megalo is snarling and looking like she wants to kill somebody, probably because another child was permitted to talk. In a piece that was intended to be glossy PR for Harry's new fiancee, I find that hilarious. Even back then Baby Narc could not hide her true nature all the time. That was the mask slipping, and it chills the blood. In that moment Meg looks like a child serial killer in a horror movie.
---------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfaGleA4qYo
Considering Meg's childhood looks, we can see just how early she started in with the plastic surgery. She'd already transformed herself completely before she finished high school. I think as soon as she turned 16, Tom started paying for procedures. Her birth face was never going to get her into show business because Meg lacked the talent to be a character actress. All children are beautiful to their loving parents, I guess--maybe Tom started doing the photo shoots with Meg to bolster her self-esteem after people said cruel things about her appearance? If a personality is fully formed by the age of 7, then her Narcissism and cruelty was not a result of her doting dad taking her pictures as a pre-teen, but would have started earlier. Get a load of how the voiceover says how Meggie, age 11, was 'winning everyone over with her charm and intelligence.' The young girl depicted in this piece was not charming, and the handwriting looks virtually unchanged from then to now. More evidence to me that Meg's emotional development halted somewhere in adolescence.
She does look a bit sweeter and more middle class on TV than in that picture. Had her father not been connected in show business and been able to provide her with a top education one wonders what would have become of Meg. Her unadulterated face puts me in mind of any number of welfare single moms in my town. Or Walmart cashiers. My community is roughly 60-40 in terms of racial demographics and so we have a LOT of mixed-race children here. A lot of girls who look like Meg would have looked if she'd grown up natural and without her advantages.
Lady Colin Campbell made an excellent point in her latest video - that the fluctuation in size of Meghan's baby bump was deliberate in order to garner her more press and notoriety.
I hadn't thought of it that way. You have to be very devious to think of such things.
Another poster here expressed the same thing on one of the previous discussions . . I can't remember who now, sorry! If you recognize yourself, please put up your hand.
Those of us on Team Pillow think that Meg deliberately staged a pregnancy for the attention, and that the ensuing sh*tshow surrounding 'the birth' was a scramble because she hadn't actually given birth and something had gone awry with her surrogacy arrangement. Some of our members believe that she is the natural mother of a baby called Archie and she gave birth to him herself. I can understand the appeal of crediting her with being normal in this regard . . but she is not normal. She is profoundly psychologically disturbed.
But her disturbance is even more insidious than we thought if not only did she stage a pregnancy and birth circus but that she staged them very badly ON PURPOSE simply to get more buzz around herself. So those 'wardrobe malfunctions' and 'communication snafus' were all engineered by Meg for MAXIMUM chaos and confusion. That is truly chilling to contemplate, but that is how malignant Narcs roll. To her negative attention is as good as positive attention. Most normal people seek to avoid notoriety; they do not intentionally set out to screw things up on purpose just so to keep everyone watching in a state of confusion or stress. People usually become notorious by accident, not design--UNLESS they are sociopaths with a criminal bent.
Porne Micheals found a cash payments only (shell) company registered in Delaware under Doria’s name in July 2019 by Meg’s lawyer and is posting documents online.
MM is like that. Remember the infamous shot of her sitting in a car on the way to the Royal Marines concert in March? At first I didn't recognize her, wondering who is that hateful-looking woman with Prince Harry - then I noticed the red dress and realized it was MM, her face distorted with rage. What a contrast to the ever-present wide smile whenever she knew that cameras were on her. Like the 1993 photograph, the picture in the car revealed the real person.
I agree with your analysis, but would like to add my opinion (such as it is) that it could very well also be a thumbing of the nose at the royal family. She may have been flaunting because she knew very well that the BRF is helpless to do anything about her because they do not want to expose Harry to public condemnation; therefore, she is free to be as ridiculous in public as she wants and they can't do a damned thing about it. In fact, they will have to protect Harry (and by extension, her). Then, when they can barely conceal their rage over her bad behavior, she is all doe-eyed and pouty and sad about how badly they treat her because of their racism and being mean to poor widdle new mommy her.
I'm not a movie professional, but even *I* know that anything made for distribution is going to be pirated and watched *for free* in China and that making a movie expecting to profit there is stupid.
I agree with this. Hence, I believe that the Chinese references in American movies are only ostensibly to woo the Chinese market. I think the real goal is to influence the rest of the world into seeing China as the next big, scary villain -- the role the Soviet Union and the Middle East also took turns playing. Though this time, it's a little more meta: Instead of Chinese bad guys in the movies, we are told of Chinese executives and censors in real life. And when we're told that they may be behind, say, the removal of the Taiwanese flag patch from Maverick's jacket in the new Top Gun, well, it rubs us the wrong way.
It's just necessary to have an international boogeyman at all times. We've always been at war with Eastasia. And war is big business, among other things.
If Meghan really wanted to signal to the in-crowds in movies and politics, then she should have hinted that she has Chinese backers!
Or she could take a completely different tack, albeit in the same direction, and speak out against the Chinese government's treatment of the Muslim Uyghur community.
I'd assumed that her going for the spotlight was a manifestation of her belief that she was superior in every way, to everyone else. For example, the balcony scene where she tried to place herself immediately behind HM, until Anne shoved her out of the way.
Perhaps it wasn't just her sense of her intrinsic worth that made her do it but a conscious ploy to demonstrate to her US audience of just how significant she was.
That is, it wasn't just some inner drive but that it was a means to an end in the external world.
Ignoring the National Anthem striking up was perhaps something she felt entitled to do but Harry apparently telling her turn round in no uncertain terms was a big public humiliation in front of the real people she hoped to influence ie not the British. Hence the tears.
*Brilliant name! Respect to who thought of it!
"But her disturbance is even more insidious than we thought if not only did she stage a pregnancy and birth circus but that she staged them very badly ON PURPOSE simply to get more buzz around herself. So those 'wardrobe malfunctions' and 'communication snafus' were all engineered by Meg for MAXIMUM chaos and confusion."
If that's what happened, I agree with you 100%.
But I'm not sure the "sloppiness" around the seemingly longest-ever pregnancy was deliberate.
There are many other examples of sloppiness (for lack of a better word) not connected with her pregnancy. Globs of visible eyelash glue, sweat stains, wrinkled clothes, mud-caked shoes (worn on a dry day), visible undergarments (and usually not visible in a way even a horny teenager would find sexy)... I find it hard to believe someone as seemingly into her looks as M is would deliberately do those things. Maybe to show her total disdain towards the more "formal" expectations of the BRF and disdain towards her role? But she wore that ridiculous linen shift after she "found freedom" in LA. (The one with fold lines that looked like it had been taken out of a mail order envelope that morning. Even tossing it dry into a dryer with a damp cloth for 10 minutes would have taken some of those fold lines out.) And super Earth Mother Meghan featuring Archie on video wearing a loaded diaper? (If they had a nanny by then I expect she wasn't present during filming. Too much risk Archie might reach for or call out for her.)
I think she's just got so much narcisstic plotting and planning to ruin others going on her head she can't manage to even dress properly.
Many moons ago, Harry Markle foresaw her, and her lieutenants, ending up behind bars
Here's hoping.
==============
re the idea that our two are reincarnations of a Tudor king and his second wife:
Henry VIII & Anne Boleyn - I'm not so sure about this, beyond H being ginger and the marriage on the date of A's execution.
Both `Bluff King Hal' and AB were well educated and intelligent, cultured and intellectual
He was shrewd, even intellectual, she quick-witted. How well do Ginge and Minge match that?
According to Shane Watson in Telegraph -
If the rumours are true, David Foster, the 70-year-old, five-times married Canadian songwriter and producer, was designated party organiser...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/beatrice-eugenie-oprah-gloria-steinem-prince-harry-marks-36th/
https://twitter.com/superscuba83/status/1306703998876102658
Hilarious!
So those 'wardrobe malfunctions' and 'communication snafus' were all engineered by Meg for MAXIMUM chaos and confusion. That is truly chilling to contemplate, but that is how malignant Narcs roll.
And if you've never met a malignant narcissist, it's really, really hard to believe a human being would have it in her to do such a thing. Two friends of mine who happened to get pregnant around the time Meghan got her moonbump were appalled at my defense of Team Pillow. No woman in her right mind would do such a thing, they said -- but they also didn't think a lunatic would ever get as far as Meghan did in both Hollywood and marriage.
There are also people who still think her father deserved to be ghosted, because it's easier to believe that a frustrated daughter cut off a toxic dad than that a cold-blooded daughter cut off a loving father. The sin Thomas Markle is accused of is somehow more human that what Meghan actually did to him.
Has anyone else had the impression that Meghan's rise to fame has been accompanied by greater awareness of narcissism? Before she came on the scene, most people seemed to think that narcissists were one in a billion. But Meghan's behavior on the world stage, particularly toward her family and her in-laws, has been a mirror to a lot of people who have been victims of someone like her. And now they have a word for what their abusers actually were.
Reproducing the link to the photo again, because I have read further into the comments and they are pretty scathing.
Meg's got a high school varsity jacket on in the photo, and it looks big on her like it might be a boy's jacket. Doesn't really look like an item her Catholic girls' school would have issued, so it might have been borrowed from a friend or sibling . . I'm trying, and failing, to imagine MM willingly wearing a hand me down from Tom Jr. or Sammie. This is not 'baby hooker' era Megsie yet, so I wouldn't credit her with having had an upperclassman boyfriend at this stage. The timestamp on the photo says April 5, 1993. Going by her birth certificate, that would have made her 11 years old--4 months before turning 12 and entering 6th grade. The photo is around the same time that Meg would have appeared on Nickelodeon for the dish soap ad piece. She does look older than she did on TV, but her hair is piled on top of her head, the lighting is murky and she looks to be wearing an older student's letter jacket. My school sold these school jackets to middle schoolers (5-8th grades), so just the fact that she's wearing a letter jacket doesn't mean she was in high school or even that it's her jacket. The photo looks like a mug shot for a juvenile detention center. Despite MI-6's best efforts, there are still many unflattering photos of Meg floating around. She must feel fresh humiliation and Narc rage when she comes across one of these and is reminded that no matter how much plastic surgery she gets and how much stuff she injects into her face and how much yak hair she buys, echoes of that homely little girl she was are ALWAYS going to be around.
Does anyone here recall Thomas Markle saying on the record that Meg was born in 1977? There is this persistent rumor that she is 4 years older than she is claiming and is in fact 43. I am agnostic about this, but wondering how easy or difficult it might be to get a replacement birth certificate with altered dates? Presumably Meg did not know as a child that she was going to become an actress so it'd be desirable to hide her real birthdate, so if this were done, it would have been more recent. Can anyone confirm her father saying this in print or on video?
Not saying I believe it, but if Meg *is* in fact in her forties, her chances of conceiving a baby naturally within 8 weeks of her wedding are pretty slender. Not totally impossible, but it would be pretty unusual to 'succeed' so fast at her age. There are interventions that can be done to increase fertility. I just keep coming back to Meg's ego being unwilling to endure pregnancy herself if she could get someone else to do all the heavy lifting for her.
I also came across that information about the company registered in Doria's name, at LSA.
The company is called Loving Kindness Senior Care Management Inc, but it gives the nature of business as entertainment.
Someone posted all the documents on the Team Cambridge All The Way Tumblr account (best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com). Scroll through the pages to find the post.
Anyone who can explain those documents and what the Sussexes might be up to?
Netflix is on to you
When you don't produce
They will reduce
Your payment down to one sou (old Canadian penny coin)
I am still outraged, however, at his feet on the Resolute desk, especially coming from one who grew up in a Muslim country. It was a definite insult to have his feet on such an historical piece, and it was intentional.
I also think Harry might have been worse if Diana were still living. I think she would have sympathized with him being second fiddle (maybe not even being aware of it herself, since I do think she was very traditional and extremely proud of William's position in the succession.) and demanded attention for him equal to the attention on William.
It was her duty as Harry's mother to prepare him almost from birth to deal with his position as The Spare, and she clearly didn't. Maybe she thought his military career would suffice, but she ought to have been encouraging him from the time he was was a wee tot to find things he was interested in and could make his own mark on the world with, rather than encouraging his jealousy.
I think her spiteful nature would have enjoyed seeing Charles jump through hoops trying to please Harry's ego, and she'd also have enjoyed knowing she was throwing a spike in the wheels of the BRF by having Harry act out.
I agree that she'd have sent Meghan packing, but you never know; she might have enjoyed seeing the BRF and all The Grey Men squirm. She would certainly have enjoyed the Santa Barbara climate, and the Netflix deal would have been off the charts if she'd thrown her oar in with her youngest spawn.
IF there is indeed no baby, and I realize that's a big if....how would that impact the likelihood of a divorce?
Would H be too humiliated to have to admit to his family that there's no baby? Would he rather stay married to mm than have to endure the humiliation of admitting to a hoax?
How would one admit to a pregnancy and/or baby hoax to the *queen*??
Would a hoax in any of the ways cause H to delay a divorce longer than he otherwise might? Because he doesn't want to face the public outcry to a hoax?
Also, there were obviously varying sizes of moon bumps, some of the baby outings were clearly not a real baby, and some of the outings have the potential to be a rental/borrowed baby. How will he explain all that to his family?
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
If H does divorce, will we ever hear the real story behind some of the crazy things we've seen?
What was going on with her that day at polo? In the middle of a manic episode? Drugs? Was that a doll?
What about the baby reveal? Was that a doll? What happened that he couldn't find the button to press to make the doll move? Did mm screech at him later about that?
What about the doll in the carrier on the woods walk? Did she really think that no one was going to notice that she'd tied the doll's hand to her neck with a shoelace to keep it up?
Why did she think it was a good idea to clear out all those seats at Wimbledon? Linked not ranked and all...
Why did the baby appear to not know either of them in S.Africa? Why didn't H show *any* interest in that baby?
How do you manage rental babies? Is there a contract? Do you get the same baby over and over so it's age appropriate? Have you always had a boy rental or was it a girl sometimes?
How's he going to explain no baby if he goes back to his family?
Will it be too hard to fathom, and so he stays married?
If the family already knows about pregnancy and/or baby hoax, do we think it was a topic at the megxit meeting in Sandringham? Or do we think he maybe confessed it then? Is that why mm bolted? Because she knew it was going to be a topic?
She couldn't face the music on the baby topic?
She sure beat it out of town in a hurry.
Thus, possibly one explanation of Catherine's utter disgust with them at the Commonwealth Service (as in she'd just found out)? Whatever happened there, they had crossed a line in the sand with her. She was done with them. There's no redeeming themselves with her, I don't think.
There are many other examples of sloppiness (for lack of a better word) not connected with her pregnancy. Globs of visible eyelash glue, sweat stains, wrinkled clothes, mud-caked shoes (worn on a dry day), visible undergarments (and usually not visible in a way even a horny teenager would find sexy)... I find it hard to believe someone as seemingly into her looks as M is would deliberately do those things.
I found it hard to believe, too. Meg was capable of looking very nice when styled by others, and I figured that once she had the resources of the BRF behind her, that she'd take full advantage of all the style help, protocol help available to her. I figured that someone as competitive as Meg would do everything in her power to 'prove' that she was as glamorous and Royal as Catherine. I have a feeling that her first few appearances that first summer (Chas's garden party; TOC; the black and white My Fair Lady number at Ascot) were her making an effort. All those outfits were properly fitting and looked appropriate (the off the shoulder bit notwithstanding--not a flaw of the dress as such because it was constructed to be able to wear both ways). When Mugsy makes the effort, she can dress the part. But all of these outings were marked by major gaffes of deportment--her behavior at Charles's party, resulting in them being hustled to the car pronto; the skin and the smirking and sniggering on the balcony and at Ascot, the gaucheness of turning her back on the Queen. After receiving criticism for her conduct and some of her sartorial choices--from inside the Firm rather than in the press for whom she could do no wrong at this stage, I think it dawned on La Markle that being Royal was not as simple a matter as wearing a hat and the 'right' dress; that standards of behavior were expected that underlined her 'inferiority' to senior royals & that these events bored her. Too much small talk and pretending to be interested in other people; too much fawning over The Queen or the Cambridges when *she* deserved all the attention as the 'new star of the family'. Her response was to stop trying altogether, and actually look bad on purpose.
Catherine has a glam squad to style her for big events but I don't think that's a daily occurrence. Mugsy may have expected daily Princess Treatment by having all sorts of personal stylists that didn't materialize. Any help that was offered she probably alienated with diva demands or else had created the impression that she was expert in all matters of style, since she'd had a lifestyle blog and had walked red carpets (in her own mind). So it must have come as a shock to find out that she'd be expected to get herself ready for engagements. Looking slovenly-put together in ill-fitting clothing that was dirty, with sub-amateur makeup application and some bona fide hair disasters was all peevish revenge from somebody who knew she couldn't play at this level, and she was laying the groundwork for her "Mean, Racist Bullies" victim narrative. Look how the family allowed her to flounder and not get her any help with wardrobe or ask her if she was OK!
But out in the media landscape, she was being celebrated as a 'Style Icon' and one of the world's most fashionable women!!! Meg paid for a lot of those articles but her PR is always two-sided schizo like this .. She's a strong, confident, stylish fearless successful woman who is an aspirational figure for women and girls to look up to . . . while at the same time being a tearful, persecuted victim of racist bullies who did not treat her every day like the Princess she is.
After she "Found Freedom", the wrinkled schmattes & trailer trash family reading video hardly painted a picture of "Living the Hollywood Dream", even if that wrinkled schmatte did get into a Cadillac Escalade paid for by Charles, who presumably also provided the colored help who opened the door to Miz Daisy. Was this meant to convey "I'm a Super-Involved Humanitarian/Mom who doesn't have time to waste on my appearance because I'm so busy promoting early literacy and bringing food to the disadvantaged" or was it a message to the Bank of Dad to 'Send Money!' Your guess is as good as mine.
Meg would rather be in the news for being ridiculous, or pitiful or hypocritical or potentially unhinged than not be in the news at all. It's hard for us to conceive why someone would *intentionally* sabotage themselves this way but in her (warped) mind, if she's getting coverage, she's Winning!
Thanks for Althea Bernstein update. Re Althea's name, I am sure MM is scheming that her name will be next on the approved list of victim names on football helmets!
@Magatha, the Imagine poem, exquisite!
BTW, I now remember that it was you I was quoting as the poster who pointed out before Lady C. did that all of Meg's pregnancy shenanigans were very intentionally designed to hype herself up to the max. I also recall that you think Meg did indeed get swiftly preggers and gave birth to Archie herself, and the use of her accessories were just extra. Even if I overlook the bouncing up and down in heels like a rubber ball unassisted into her 8th month, and the complete lack of visible weight gain or puffiness on her person until *after* she had delivered, and that all of the secrecy and theatrics around the birth and the announcements et. al were in fact to hide the arrival of a healthy baby boy who arrived via the natural means, I still struggle with two big BUTS:
1. Could Meg's shallow Narc ego really sustain getting pregnant herself, even assuming there were no complications or obstacles to her conceiving naturally at 37 6-8 weeks after her wedding, in terms of the wear and tear on her body--the weight gain, stretch marks, losing her perky breasts, et al? This was a major preoccupation of hers when she was with Trevor and she was 10 years younger then. Swiftly producing an heir was really important to her plans but I can't help thinking that Meg would try to find a way around putting her body through the rigors of pregnancy if she could somehow avoid it while still getting what she wanted--a baby to call her and Harry's.
2. If Meghan did indeed have Harry's baby out of her own body, then there is no hindrance to him having a title. Despite the Harkles' insistence that they didn't want a title for their son and just wanted him to be 'normal'--I do not buy this for one New York minute. Look how desperately and brazenly they cling to and shill their titles--being Duke and Duchess of Sussex is their only ace in the hole to fund this glittering new lifestyle. Wouldn't a titled baby, who was *seen*--proof of life, as it were, even better if he were *seen* with his Royal cousins as part of the Royal family serve Meg's agenda better? Being, without question, the mother of a Royal baby, from Harry's line, titled and with the same style as William's children would have been a huge coup for her. Her refusal to show the baby off for the traditional photo call outside the hospital and the lack of any Royal doctors--along with no title, no gun salute--they all point to the arrival of this baby being bogus to my mind. . . wouldn't Meg have eaten all this baby fuss up, normally? A gun salute for her baby boy and London Bridge awash in blue? That's what other Royal babies get, even those not in direct succession. The nation and the world were thrilled for Harry to become a father. Yet the way they handled the pregnancy and their son's debut and the very very miserly cache of images they have shown (incidentally at least 4 different babies, in my opinion) cast grave doubts over the legitimacy of Archie. If she continues to hide the origins and person of her legitimate child, for whom she endured the travails of bringing him into the world . . I gotta say, I call this plan a FAIL.
If we were writing a thriller, horror movie, or a Californian-noir crime novel, is there any way we could have a perpetrator who claims to be four years younger than her actual age - even able to use state records to back the claim? I suppose I'm thinking of something like `Day of the Jackal' (1973), where the perp. assumes the identity of someone who died in childhood.
Anyone could have a fake certificate made that might stand up to scrutiny to most eyes but the official records present a real obstacle.
The Jackal's method was to find the grave of a young person and steal his DoB. Then apply for a passport etc in his name. Otherwise, the only way I can think of it being done, for the sake of our `novel', is for the `real' RMM, born 1982 to have `disappeared', or have been a clerical fiction in the first place, and to have been `replaced' by someone 5 yrs older, using her ID. That would mean at least some of the Markle family knowing the truth.
Quite what the point would have been at that stage, I don't know.
Yes, the idea's bonkers but not much more so than what we've seen for ourselves, with the Woman of a Hundred Faces and Archie, the Invisible Toddler.
If that horrible photo really is of her, were the photos we've seen purporting to be her as a baby really of her? Or what could account for her appearance in that photo if she really was 11?
It sure beats me!
They would need independent witnesses - wasn't a name suggested for one of the doctors, who then refused to confirm or deny it? It's been suggested that M had sworn the medics to secrecy, assuming that any of it did happen.
If she hand-picked her attendants, would they be seen as independent parties or acting in MM's interests?
wouldn't Meg have eaten all this baby fuss up, normally? A gun salute for her baby boy and London Bridge awash in blue? That's what other Royal babies get, even those not in direct succession. The nation and the world were thrilled for Harry to become a father.
My guesses are: 1) Meghan had really wanted a girl. To name Diana. And to merch the heck out of. (Girl children are much better for merching than boy children.) She was in no mood to celebrate the birth of a boy. Especially one who wasn't getting a title. Perhaps she was even punishing him for being such a disappointment. He would never be able to look back and see a national celebration of his birth because his mother didn't think he deserved it.
2) She was also already jealous of the attention that would switch from her to the baby. And from her to Harry. You're right, Hikari, that everyone was happy to see Prince Harry, whom they had known since he himself was a baby, become a father at last. Meghan would have been just another new mother. The chaotic media circus around his birth may have been negative publicity, but at least it kept the focus on her. Where she has always believed it belongs.
"BTW, I now remember that it was you I was quoting as the poster who pointed out before Lady C. did that all of Meg's pregnancy shenanigans were very intentionally designed to hype herself up to the max. I also recall that you think Meg did indeed get swiftly preggers and gave birth to Archie herself, and the use of her accessories were just extra."
I don't quite remember thinking all of that much less writing it. Maybe I did but it doesn't sound quite like me!
I've gone back and forth in my mind (and probably my posts) as to whether M gave birth to Archie. I'm mostly on the fence. IF she did give birth, I've been more on the side of "assisted" conception through some sort of fertility treatment. But part of me is still thinking surrogate. One thing I've always found odd was her sudden solo trip to Canada about 2 months after the wedding to "visit friends." Why wouldn't she have arranged to visit after the wedding in the UK? She and Harry weren't leaving on a honeymoon, after all.
Regardless, I definitely think (and have said) she wore pregnancy "accessories." Her stomach was flat as a pancake in a leather pencil skirt with tucked-in blouse in Sussex on Oct 3. (Photo on FF cover taken that day.) Then she was in maternity wear for Eugenie's wedding on the 12th. Finally in Fiji on Oct 23---a mere 20 days after the Sussex visit-- she looked more than 4 months along with a fairly large (and "long") prominent belly in the blue caped evening dress. And, of course, there are the falling bump, folding bump, popping bump, swaying bump, square bump, & disappearing bump photos.
I'm not sure she was trying to create chaos and confusion. She could have been. But she also could have just been bad at faking a pregnancy or enhancing a real pregnancy. She'd probably never been interested in the stages of pregnancy before.
She's also been bad at talking about Archie's development as has Harry. Too early we hear he's crawling over to "play with" other red-haired babies at playgroup. As if he'd have been likely to have been a proficient crawler by Oct/Nov if his birthday is really in May (possible albeit very unlikely), but 5-6 month old babies don't seek out other babies to "play with," especially based on hair color!
We also heard he'd been imitating animal sounds he learned in South Africa. Yeah, right. Not at 4-5 months he wasn't.
So I don't know. I agree she likely believes negative attention is preferable to no attention. But I still think she doesn't intend to create so much negative attention. But she can't manage not to. Either they both are doing lots of drugs or she's got too many plans for world domination spinning around in her head to manage details.
Is the deal supposed to have been in the works as they left the BRF? I don't see why it was still offered, given how little interest the grifters have generated since then.
I find the situation odd. I am admittedly quick to think the worse of them, but I just don't see what these two have that makes anyone think they're going to be any good at anything in the entertainment industry. I'd be happy to assign some nefarious reason to Netflix AND the D&D of Sucks, but I can't imagine what on Earth it could be. I wouldn't trust Nutmeg with any kind of important role, regardless of what I had planned.
As to the pregnancy--team surrogate for many reasons. The trip to Canada, solo, 2 months after marriage. The ever changing moon bump. The upstaging at Eugenie's wedding. The sh*te show that was (or wasn't) the birth. And finally, no nursing mother on the face of the earth wears a bra like the itty bitty one she wore under a sheer shirt to Wimbelton (while "appearing" extremely under the influence)
OT but..... under terms of most visas, shouldn't Handbag be headed back to the UK very soon? I was always under the impression that you had to go back every six months.
a) publicity
b) activism and alter/group liberal ethos figureheads
c) access to Will
That's it.
Harry is the person for sale, and Megs has commodified 'Prince Harry'.
The problem with all of this here is that Harry will not be able to speak out about the things any ORG WANTS him to say for the big bucks $$$- such as denounce Monarchism, the Queen, traditional societies and the like.
The Queen already made clear they had to stick to Monarchy principles. And I can't imagine Harry ever giving up his family's Royal POWER for 250k, by starting to go THAT ROGUE.
Remember, these two thought they'd MERCH Royal Mugs and Hats. They never thought they'd get mixed up with, 'we will hand you 500 million if you say you denounce Monarchism' and create a British reckoning.
This is the world they are now playing in, whether they realize it or not.
Nothing else is for sale. No one cares about Harrys African activism. No one cares about Royals meddling in US politics, no one cares about his washed up wife. No. One. CARES.
The only thing for sale is Harry's potential power to divide Britain, and access to Will's events, and influence.
Harry could have used grandma's fortune to make and distribute African and activist content, which he never once did. He's lazy.
I can imagine Meghan has been severely let down with what she assumed was going to get her A-list Riches and Popularity. I bet she never lets a day go by without reminding him of how much she gave up for this sucky life she lives with him.
Suppose an enquirer wanted to check the DofB of a new employee, say `Freda Bloggs, born 19th September, 1985' - they're likely to quote the DofB they've been given, which would turn up the false record and all would look in order.
Had they asked for searches for all Fred Bloggses born between September 1975 and 1985, they might have got a different answer.
If anybody would like to use this idea for their own work of fiction, be my guest. I've no idea of the checks that go on to prevent tampering with official records.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-5374#post-62768860
Although the Cambridges balance professionalism with approachability, it is the Sussexes who are well known for PDA and that between the Cambridges is not the first thing that comes to mind about the couple. To me, their PDA is about image and control (the Sussexes), especially the way she stares at him when he is talking. I cannot recall a photograph when they genuinely looked at each other in a shared moment of emotion such as amusement, and they have never teased each other the way that the Cambridges do. There have been gestures like that from Harry but they just annoyed her.
Anyway, I thought that retrospective was very telling and a good example of what manufactured hype does and how people buy into that even when evidence clearly does not support it.
@MM thanks so much for sharing your verse with us. It really is brilliant, and in a few lines, you capture what takes me many paragraphs to say!
@Miggy, Crumpet, Sandie
Thank you 😊
Many thanks for the link to the LAS post on the Cambridges - It brings a very emotional lump to my throat to see the love and tenderness between them. Wonderful.
-----------------------------
`Modernising the Monarchy'
The Megster clearly stated before marriage that she intended to `modernise’ the monarchy, a sentiment which I think should have been examined very closely.
The RF has been very conscious of that need for many years but realises that this has to be done very gently as it can backfire spectacularly, as it did over the `Knock Out’ business. Even the BBC 1969 documentary the Royal Family was, in retrospect, as perhaps a step too far at that time.
I have not yet found, however, any record of the future Princess Pee being asked:
How did she think the Monarchy should be modernised?
Why did she, as an outsider, assume that she had any business meddling in this? Or making pronouncements about UK demographics or the relationship with the EU?
Why did she think that she, as the future wife of the then-5th in line (and shortly to become 6th , all being well) was the right person to do this and not HM, Prince Philip, or Princes Charles or William?
Such a pity nobody dared to stick their neck out.
According to Paul Burrell, HM made reference, at the time of Diana's death, to `dark forces' being at work. Assuming he was correct, I doubt if HM meant anything paranormal. The general atmosphere was very tense, so if HM did say it, I imagine she meant those aimed at overturning the monarchy.
Whether those `dark forces' are at work behind Princess Pee, we don't know. Whether she is unwittingly being used remains to be seen.
Re Markle's age. I specifically checked if the birthdate can be changed to fit your wishes. The answer is no. You are born when you are born and the official record exists for the rest of your life. You can only change it legally through court and only if there is a proved mistake with the records. The comment was judges are very reluctant to change a birthdate. If you fake it on your documents you are guilty of fraud.
Markle really is 39 and she is terrified of the upcoming round figure next year. Those who rely on looks to advance in life usually are. Hence her stupid morphing into surgical Kardashian.
Meghan and Harry will earn fees of 'only' $250k to $400k for speeches because 'level of control' requested by the couple will 'put clients off'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8749219/Meghan-Harry-earn-fees-250k-400k-speeches.html
Re the baby . I think the Queen "welcoming" him into the family publicly means there is a child with Harry's genes. How he was born is another matter.
Tin foil hat idea...H's genes yes. We've been assuming H and mm as the happy new parents. What if she was welcoming a baby or child whose parents were no longer a couple? As in H and some woman not his wife, but not a surrogate either?
Thanks for linking to that article.
It might be a Harkle cover story, but it feels like a double-edged sword. They don't sound like VIPS, but like divas.
They don't sound like VIPS, but like divas.
Ha! Great point!
Prince Harry has reportedly joined a helicopter club in California in order to take Meghan Markle and his son Archie out on family trips.
The Duke of Sussex, 36, needs to practice flying in order to to keep his helicopter licence current, a royal insider told the Sun.
...
'He's hardly likely to be recalled for military service in England again but he wants to keep the hours up for personal use, so he and Meghan can just take off for expeditions if they want to,' the friend of Harry told the paper.
While it is believed Harry doesn't own his own helicopter yet, the source added that there will be 'plenty of rich benefactors' who would be happy to lend Harry their choppers because they would 'love the royal association'.
If this is true, so much for their claims of being concerned about the environment. And then they want to preach to us.
"Is Harry's helicopter pilot's license still current, though?"
I doubt it. He left the military in 2015. Plus, his military license (whatever he actually earned--that's unclear to me) won't translate to a civilian license in another country automatically. Remember Will had to do a training program (think it was around 6 months?) to qualify to fly for the civilan air ambulance company and that was pretty much immediately after flying for RAF rescue. He then had to serve as a co-pilot for additional hours before he could be a pilot.
This story sounds like BS to me.
I could be wrong.
https://twitter.com/richardaeden/status/1307229455639863303/photo/1
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/12712932/prince-harry-deeply-hurt-meghan-markle-birthday-messages/
Yes, in England and Wales, what is entered in the register is a once-and for all thing.
Thus both parents of stillborn children and trans-sexual people have an issue with this once-and-for-all register of live births.
In the former case, the birth is not recorded. In the latter, people have the embarrassment of being stuck with a birth certificate revealing the old sex/gender, although the court may have found a remedy for this by now - I did read one report which wasn't particularly clear.
My enquiry, for purposes of crime fiction, was could a new, fraudulent, date might be added to a digital record as a criminal act? (There were clues in the words `bribery' and `blackmail'). Obviously it couldn't be added to paper indexes without being obvious, nor could the earlier one be deleted.
I was wondering if it might be possible to hack into digital records and create a new entry, without deleting the old one, in hope of escaping detection.
This is my understanding of the law in England and Wales. I've no idea what happens elsewhere.
Let me be clear, I was speculating and hypothesising but as yet I’m not going to say it’s impossible.
In the past, when infant mortality was high, it wasn't that unusual for a couple to produce 2 or more children with the same name, the second being a replacement for the deceased first one. So a repeat of details, apart from the change of date, might not be instantly recognised as criminal.
btw, Did I read that `Doris' served time for some sort of fraud? Anyone know the details?
`I’m such a fraud! Ha! Ha! Ha!’
----------------
These reports show how easy it was for criminals to work the `Day of the Jackal scam':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3098104.stm
https://metro.co.uk/2007/03/04/day-of-jackal-identity-scam-ended-130911/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1398823/Passport-scam-straight-out-of-Day-of-the-Jackal.html
` Tin foil hat on and this sounds like a story laying the groundwork for some type of tragic event.'
September 19, 2020 at 5:39 PM
---------------------
A suicide cum murder???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1_o-TjGW2I
How to traumatize the family that still loves you, in one easy move-
Yes, the thought of flying a helicopter with Harry Markle is frightening. By the way, all pilots have regular checks including drug and alcohol tests. I wonder how Mr. Markle manages them, probably by staying sober for a week prior.
I have just recalled that the conspiracy theorists thought Diana's driver blood test was tempered with because he was a pilot and had passed his check with flying colours shortly before. It didn't stop him crushing the car under influence.
The French coroner (sorry, don't know how they are called in France) was extremely meticulous and arranged at least two sets of blood tests, and the second run showed the high level of alcohol and drugs exactly as the first one did.
The thought of Harry with his "can't get out of bed", "depression and mental issues", "cameral flashes giving him PSTD" flying a copter is just spooky. Who the heck approved his license?
First, the US doesn't do benefactors...that's a royal thing.
Second, if you did own a helicopter would you let the sue happy Harkles anywhere near it?
That coronet is spooky - using the fleur de lys suggests she's claiming equality with both Charles (traditional PoWs coronets had 'em) and, worse still, HM (as in St Edwards's and the Imperial State Crown (plus a number of European monarchs used them, not least the French ones).
They should be strawberry leaves.
Or may be she thinks they're a form of PoW Feathers?
Either way, they point to her hubris and the fact that she just can't let go.
https://jerseydeanne.com/2020/09/19/meagain-markle-uses-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-for-pr/
Good link. Markle said, "She has been a true inspiration to me since I was a girl. Honour her, remember her, act for her."
Aside from the absurdity of this statement coming from The Markle, she again is calling on people to "act".
Alicia Brunker 2 hrs ago
Ginsburg v. cancer was a 'remarkable fight': RBG battled four bouts of…
Following the heartbreaking news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death on Friday, tributes honoring her legacy as a champion for women's rights began to flood the internet — including a personal tribute from fellow feminist Meghan Markle.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/meghan-markle-honored-ruth-bader-ginsburg-with-a-personal-tribute/ar-BB19cX7B
*********** Megsy does not need social media/ She has her PR people blasting her into the media-shere and placing her every day in various media. The DM being number one and functions as Megsy's Instagram. But the above one was placed into Instyle.com to where it rocketed into MSM which has much better distribution. All done via Megsy's PR.
It's because they do not want to provide a direct forum for their detractors to 'push back'.
I imagine Megsy Baby spent a lot of time deleting the negative comments from their Instagram account and we must remember how the negative comments upset the Ginger ManChild.
Daily Mail appears to be one of the few remaining platforms where anyone can comment about their antics.
The platform they want is to broadcast their message without any negative feedback. They are 'tellers' not listeners.
To call it "cringey" would be charitable.
Has any other celebrity received coverage like this? Others have probably made similar statements on their personal social media accounts, but what I mean is, were articles written about their statements? Is there another "Celebrity X has released a personal tribute to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg" headline?
I would think that in a place like Hollywood, where age can make or break a person, there may well be companies that have people working inside official governmental agencies that can change a troublesome date or exchange one document for another for a price. Let's face it, changing a DOB less than 5 years for an aspiring actress doesn't seem like a very big deal.
"That can't be done!" you may say. "The US government would never allow it!" Pffft. Illegals have been getting documents for YEARS that they aren't supposed to have.
Lots of governments have their own false documentations that they create for people in witness protection programs that have to stand up to scrutiny.
Do I think that MM changed her DOB? I don't know. Do I think that it can be done? Yes, I do.
Lady C - analyses Meg & H's inconsistencies/deceptions/contradictions/manipulations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0mtfbmzLxs
Pregnant! No, the article says nothing about a pregnancy, but ...!
Meg is publicity wh×re. She wouldn't blink twice at hiring fulltimer with finger on delete button. She cannot have it at this time, in my humble opionion of course. Same goes with pictures/merching of Archie
I was starting think I was barking mad when it seemed so obvious to me but not anyone else!
My experience working with `claimants' revealed just how many had multiple identities, all backed up with the `right' documents.
------------
@ Willie's Bucket:
Our posts must have crossed during moderation. I've commented on the insta a/c, assuming it is theirs.
Are they hoovering the RF?
Are they facing the ugly reality (for them, as well as us!) that they may have to return to the UK as everything's about to go pear-shaped for them in HW? They've been busy with the smoke and mirrors but maybe they can see there's nothing for them there? It's all hollow and hopes are turning to ashes?
Headline: Meghan Markle calls RBG the 'Justice of Courage' as she pays tribute to the 'incomparable' SCOTUS icon after her death and says she has been an 'inspiration to me since I was a girl'
__________________
What a crock of horse manure. I'll bet she didn't even know who RBG was when she was a girl...
The lies she spews... smh.
Dang! So now they're dragging around the dead body of RBG as well as Princess Di. Don't that beat all. I'm surprised Harry isn't out speechifying about how Ruth inspired him when **he was a little girl, too.**
__________________
Ha ha that bites! :D
"I'll bet she didn't even know who RBG was when she was a girl..."
Well, RBG wasn't appointed to SCOTUS until MM was 12 (or 16 if she's really 4 years older :-) I think it's a safe bet M didn't know of RBG before that.
On the other hand, the first woman appointed to SCOTUS, Sandra Day O'Connor, was appointed in 1981 in the month MM was born by a former governor of the state she was born in (Reagan, of course.)
I guess I am in the minority in thinking they would have social media account if they could. I feel something beyond their control is preventing it (agreed uponn deal with HM?)
Meg is publicity wh×re. She wouldn't blink twice at hiring fulltimer with finger on delete button. She cannot have it at this time, in my humble opionion of course. Same goes with pictures/merching of Archie
I think this, too.
No way would she not do Instagram if she could.
Maybe waiting for the queen to die and then go right back to using SR? Daring Charles to make her stop? She might have a pretty long wait, though.
It must be killing her not having her own social media account. Although someone else had pointed out that she doesn't like being directly accountable for what she says, so maybe not.
They also seem to have a hard time with comments, taking each one personally. But they would get dinged if they had comments turned off on their personal instagram?
Like being a little girl is in the very recent past. Trying to make herself sound young in a subtle way.
Bogus. Our girl is almost middle aged.
Her personal quote under her picture is "Women are like teabags; they don't realize how strong they are until they're in hot water" ~ Eleanor Roosevelt.
Yes, Ninaki is also a senior. Her quote is "No matter how your heart is grieving, if you keep on believing, the dreams that you wish will come true" ~ Cinderella.
The 1998 yearbook is also available for viewing. I'll take a look to see if there's anything 'Markle strange' in it.
I care very deeply.
I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty.
I love my country and understand the place of the monarchy within the Constitution.
If you don't, are you sure this is the right place for you?
In the 1998 yearbook she is listed as Rachel Markle. In the 1999 yearbook she is listed as Meghan Markle. So name change from junior to senior year. Odd time to do that. There's some Markle strange!
Honestly... who cares. RGB just died. So what if they are a scam or Meg is evil. Who cares. What are they hurting any one of us personally? If they bring down the Monarchy ... so be it. Andrew should have. But so be it.
How very odd that you do not know that she was RBG, not RGB. I've seen that mistake online many times by people that aren't aware of who she was.
@Wullie'sBucket
In the 1998 yearbook she is listed as Rachel Markle. In the 1999 yearbook she is listed as Meghan Markle. So name change from junior to senior year. Odd time to do that. There's some Markle strange!
It is fairly common at that age for a teen to decide to switch to using a middle name or, if previously called by their middle name (as is common in the southern US) to switch to the first name as they transition from childhood to adult if they feel that it more accurately represents who they wish to be. In her case, I believe that she decided that Meghan sounded more glamorous than Rachel.
Strange that someone who seems not to care should have spent time posting here.
@unknown, great point about activism and alter/group liberal ethos figureheads
and access to William, especially the activism, and especially any anti-Momarch groups.
Fair enough, but I believe schools are required to use the student's legal name, not their chosen or nickname. I wonder if she had her name changed legally or she just goes by Meghan.
@Jess:
I care very deeply.
I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty.
I love my country and understand the place of the monarchy within the Constitution.
---------------
I'll second that.
"Fair enough, but I believe schools are required to use the student's legal name, not their chosen or nickname. I wonder if she had her name changed legally or she just goes by Meghan."
I'm not sure there's such a requirement for a yearbook (versus maybe a transcript.) My high school yearbooks used the nickname I've always been called by friends and family, a shortened version of my first name. And I suspect some of us wouldn't have known fellow students by their full names!
While I agree emerging adults sometimes do decide to go by a different name, I also wonder if the use of "Rachel" wasn't just a mistake in the 1998 yearbook. I may be wrong, but I don't think we've ever heard a family member refer to Meghan as Rachel. I'd kind of think at least one might have if she was Rachel for the first 16-17 years of her life.
Thanks, Swamp Woman!
I was starting think I was barking mad when it seemed so obvious to me but not anyone else!
My experience working with `claimants' revealed just how many had multiple identities, all backed up with the `right' documents.
Heh. I may or may not have checked the statute of limitations before offering my opinion because I, too, am experienced with people working in an extralegal fashion.
@SwampWoman
Fair enough, but I believe schools are required to use the student's legal name, not their chosen or nickname. I wonder if she had her name changed legally or she just goes by Meghan.
My kids were in the yearbook under their nicknames. Daughter was on the yearbook committee, so there's that.
https://time.com/5591120/royal-baby-archie-birth-certificate/
I just meant that if they had a new Instagram account account for their own use and didn't allow comments that people would fuss about it.
And we all know mm and H can't handle anyone fussing.
Back in my day we were required to use our legal names. I remember looking through the yearbook and being shocked to see what some of the students' given names were. I suppose that was then and this is now as the saying goes and I'm showing my age.
@wullie,
A school yearbook is not a legal document. Your parents enroll you in school with your full legal name, and that is what goes in your school files. Using a nickname for a yearbook is very common. I used my nickname, a derivative of my full first name, but all of my school records are under my full and legal name.
@holly,
Perhaps MM switched to using Meghan as her name between junior and senior year because that's when she decided to become an actress?
It could be a regional difference, too, or just the difference between large and small districts. My kids attended school in a small school district and everybody knew them from K - 12. When I used their actual names, nobody knew who I was talking about.
Does anyone know where to find the original infamous dish soap tape? All I see in my (admittedly quick) search are post-engagement videos showing parts of that. I'm pretty sure I've seen the original though. Was she Rachel then?
Ahhh good point. I grew up in the Midwest and graduated with almost 1,000.
I've been clicking around looking at old Markle pictures - sorry eyes. Wow has she ever changed looks-wise. I did find an article about her at 11 and going by Meghan then. The article identified her father as a former TV lighting director. He would have been a bit young to retire. Wonder what he did after that.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/young-meghan-markle-shows-star-12323034
Victory for Kate Middleton as society bible Tatler caves in on its 'cruel, snobbish, woman-shaming demolition job' – by deleting barbs about Carole, Pippa… and a poster of Prince William on the future Duchess's bedroom wall.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8751405/Victory-Kate-Middleton-society-bible-Tatler-caves.html
Tatler has cut huge swathes from its online profile of the Duchess of Cambridge after the society bible was accused of publishing a 'string of lies'.
The magazine has caved in and removed almost a quarter of the piece – in particular 'cruel' and 'snobby' barbs aimed at Kate's mother Carole Middleton and sister Pippa.
It comes after Kensington Palace instructed its lawyers to demand the 'inaccuracies and false representations' be removed.
Some interesting pics. Not sure I've ever seen that article.
Re: Thomas-- The article was written in April 2018. So I think the "former lighting director" part reflects his 2018 status. So far as I can tell from Wikipedia, he retired after 2011 as he won an Emmy that year for work on General Hospital.
I think the use of "Meghan" also reflects her 2018 name status too, not necessarily her age 11 name. And so far as I can tell, the cake that included "Meghan" was during her senior year graduation. So it's not definitive. What we need is something published earlier or filmed earlier.
Was Meghan a popular name when she changed from Rachael to Meghan? I ask, because a friend of mine changed her name from Linda to Meghan at about the same time that MM did, but she changed her name legally.
Thanks! I had seen that version of the dish soap appearance. But the "voiceover" by Inside Edition on it calling her "Meghan" was done after she hooked up with Harry. What I was looking for is a copy of the original tape as shown on Nickelodeon
back in the day without post-Harry editing. I could have sworn I saw it once but maybe not.
“Sensitive information wouldn’t be made public”
@wullie ok, thanks for the clarify. I haven’t been here much and I read from bottom to top, as others have mentioned. I support you gathering this information. I can’t wait to hear what you come up with.
Let me keep digging. I’m good at tracking down information.
Here is a report from 2013, seems vague: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sovereign-Grant-VFM_10-10-13.pdf
Maybe a nugget of information here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family
Thanks for finding the original! I thought I remembered seeing other kids a bit more but guess I was wrong (although I did think she had been featured more than they had overall.)
At least we now know she went by "Meghan" at age 11! Whew.
Funny that you should say that about the name Meghan. My friend who changed her name was/is a court commissioner. One day shortly after she'd been appointed to the position, I called her through the courthouse switchboard and asked for her office. The operator actually laughed and said, "You mean to tell me that there's a court commissioner named MEGHAN???" She said it in a way that made it clear that she felt it wasn't a very good name for a professional woman.
Interestingly, RBG's real first name was Joan. Her middle name was Ruth. There were several Joans in her elementary school class, so her mother switched to calling her Ruth.
*******************************
Great work on the Frog Cott renovation! And thanks to tatty for providing some info, too. I can't wait to see the post after you've finished digging.
Megan (not Meghan) was the 10th most popular girls' name of the 1990s, according to the Social Security Admin:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/decades/names1990s.html
You just know that Meghan had her nose altered as soon as it was legal for her to do so.
I have a friend who had it done at 16 but not sure if that was the legal age in California at the time.
Meghan using a Supreme Court Justice' death as a platform to make it about herself? This woman has ZERO shame. I can't believe how disgusted I actually am.
What the hell is wrong with this Megalomaniac?
?!?
Good idea! In my school, the girls had their noses straightened around the age of 16, too. Nobody talked about it, but suddenly, all of these girls just happened to have done some damage to their noses which required surgery. :/
won't happen because it would show how few followers they have without the RF.
social media
won't happen because it would show how few followers they have without the RF.
True. I forgot about follower aspect.
Weren't mm and H trying to make it a big competition about who had the most followers? Except that they had purchased a good deal of their followers.
Be pretty funny if they did get an account and it had only limited followers but tons of critical comments. They are so disliked that people go out of their way to leave negative comments.
They just aren't popular and are old news to the Brits who they WERE popular with.
It would make headlines how few followers they had, and it would ruin any deals in the works (their main reason).
They are trying to play the system, and give an illusion to interested deal makers that they are more popular than they are. Also, they are using their $5 million allowance from Charles for the year review, to pay for this very expensive relentless PR.
Meghan is a girl that goes where the wind blows and throws mud at the wall. The thing about that, in Biz, is that is the most expensive way to run a profile, or a biz. It's not sustainable and incredibly stupid.
It's actually interesting to me, watching Megs try to make it as a Masculine Executive Stereotype from 80s America, while raising a baby. If there is anything we can confirm Meghan is, it's dated. In her ethos, 'actions', and desperation.
I have to hand it to her, she was going to be sure to get Harry's assets, whatever little he has now, in her name in Cali before she divorced him, and by god she did. Now she needs to find another husband through 'business' to continue grifting to the 'top'.
What exactly IS the 'top' in Meghan's mind, anyway? She says she admires all these hardworking women, SCOTUS, The Queen, BLM Founder (who is tied to the communist China party, oops megs, etc). That's fine. We all admire these people. Good for them for making something of themselves. But what about the less fortunate women, Megs? Wouldn't that be a good place to focus?
Sorry, bit of a tangent. It's just hard to see how she is going to keep leveling up, when she literally got as far as she was going to go, with idiot Harry. Most people aren't as dumb as they were in their 20s, in their 40s. Safe to say, everyone aruond her has her pegged as a rude idiot (yes, even Sunshine).
So where does she go? What does she do? She can't go out in public and she knows it, she's universally hated. And if anyone recognized her, which is questionable, they'd most likely ignore her or berate her. That's not the popularity she wanted.
I think they are meeting with a sad outcome here in the States. I don't think there is a plan (especially after the SCOTUS blurb today) and she's once again, desperate for something to stick. Now politics. There's no way the Queen can allow her to talk about SCOTUS and 'ACTION' in the same breathe, with her title.
I think the 12 month review is going to go very very badly for Meghan and Harry. I do believe they are stripping her of her titles due to her shenanigans. I think they will let Harry keep his and make a fool of himself publicly defending her. I think they will release a statement that Titled Members of the British Monarchy cannot delve into foreign politics ever, and particulary so outrageously, and be able to quote that Harry hasn't done so.
I think they are letting her hang herself, so that it limits what Harry can even achieve in the US financially and will be forced back to the UK to make money.
It's very sad, but it's also the only thing that can really happen at this point. And all for what?
In the shot of her sitting with kids who are in 2-semicircular rows, she is HUGE, compared with those beside her and even the boys in front. Staged shot?
Thinking back to when I taught teenaged girls, I'd have thought she was what we used to call a `older third-former' - that is, much nearer her fourteenth birthday than thirteenth, or even a fourth former (14-15).
That `little girl' voice irritates me; there are still echoes of it in her adult speech about the soap.
Something else that irritates me is that `h' in her name. `Megan' is a Welsh name with several spellings but I've seen none listed with that intrusive letter.
Perhaps I have looked at enough sites but I see it as pretentious (like Scottish parents,
without the Gaelic, who stick an `h' in Mairi. Mhairi is the vocative case where the `Mh' is pronounced as `V' yet they say it as if it's just an `M'. ( must be odd- I wonder if I was the only English 14yr-old to try to teach herself the Gaelic?)
If you call me pedantic, I'll agree with you!
It'd fit the scenario as described by Unknown.
@unknown......
Unfortunately Meg can't be stripped of her titles, because she doesn't have any, they are all Harry's titles only he can be stripped of them, HRH and Prince included if Her Maj decides it. So only by removing Harry's titles will Meg become just Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor.
It was by `special dispensation' that she got it in the first place. Wallis never had one, Diana had hers removed.
Make Harry Duke of Windsor'? Sounds better for him, whilst leaving her behind. At least it hasn't quite the ghastly resonances of the Cumberland title (although there was another after William Augustus - Ernest Augustus, son of Geo III)
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/blog-posts/
Now CDAN is reporting:
Blind Item #4
"Still no takers for the alliterate one to come speak and tell you things she knows after being on a low rated cable television show for a few seasons. Still no reduction in price either. She should try Cameo."
I almost feel sorry for MM at this point. When she left the BRF, she had such grandiose plans - become a billionaire by merching the Sussex Royal brand, give speeches for which she would be paid millions of dollars in speakers' fees, and have all the Hollywood A-listers welcome her with open arms and offer her prestigious acting roles. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has gone according to plan. She isn't anywhere hear achieving any of her goals.
In one of my longer posts, I asked if they might be Hoovering the RF.
It'd fit the scenario as described by Unknown.
@WBBM: If things get financially rough for the Harkles, which I think will eventually happen and be their comeuppance, I think Meghan will most certainly steer Harry to Hoover the RF.
Neither of them have experience as producers of news or entertainment content, and neither have decent credentials as business managers.
These shortcomings, combined with Meghan likely being an even worse boss on her own than she was while being a difficult, nasty boss to her palace-supplied staff during her brief stint as a working royal (I believe the story about Meghan throwing hot tea at and aide) doesn’t seem to bode well for their future.
Then if you add her seeming inability to take advice from the people she hires because she always thinks she is the smartest person in the room, you have a lot of negatives for creating s successful business.
I think Meghan’s narcissistic personality disorder, which helped her to get where she is today will become a hindrance. Narcissists are notorious overspenders who manage money poorly. Meghan will spend any money they manage to make and then spend far more money beyond that, figuring the RF will bail them out.
Hoovering the RF to try to rehabilitate their shoddy public image and replenish their bank accounts would be natural tactic for them to attempt.
It might work with Elizabeth Ii or Charles, but William will probably tell them to go to hell in a roundabout manner.
The commenter asked an excellent question. If Ruth Bader Ginsberg was such a strong inspiration to Meghan, why didn’t Meghan include her in the Vogue magazine guest editor project of women she admired? I bet she could have tossed out one of those cover headshots in favor of one of Justice Ginsberg.
I wonder if it'll be needed sooner rather than later? Something we haven't chewed over much is H's immgration status in the US - but in a few days, he hits an important date:
From Jerseydeanne
FurHARRY AND MEGHAN
Prince Harry is about to overstay his welcome in the US and become an Illegal Alien
Date: September 2, 2020
Author: jerseydeanne
0 Comments
Prince Harry just THREE weeks away from US residency cut-off
PRINCE HARRY is fast approaching the cut-off point at which he will be considered a resident alien in the US, meaning he could be liable to pay taxes there.
If it were that easy, everyone would do it, but you can’t. You’re an illegal alien after the cut off point.
Do you know how many couples are separated because of immigration laws? These two don’t get a pass, it can take up to 10 years to get a green card, and millions are on the waiting list. Why should we allow this prat to step in front of the line? He is not a prince of the realm here; we don’t have realms. Those two have to follow the law.
at: https://jerseydeanne.com/2020/09/02/prince-harry-is-about-to-overstay-his-welcome-in-the-us-ans-become-an-illegal-alien/
Jerseydeanne has a revised layout that makes it much easier to find the entries on the Dreaded H$Ms: select Meghan, Harry, or Meghan and Harry from the drop-down list.
Meghan and Harry will put it on their resume, but that’s about it. It is a rather forgetful accolade.
Has anyone seen any confirmed reports of any appearances/sighting since he went back after the Commonwealth day Service?
That article is from September 2019, as is the Instagram of the Charity. This was done when they were apart of the RF.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B2B2Pu0hcby/?utm_source=ig_embed
So now I know the meaning, I totally agree. If all their plans fail, The Duo might slowly try and get back in favour with the royal family and might even attempt to become working royals again. I’m highly doubtful that will happen...for one thing the British public are not pushovers, stupid or will ever likely to forgive these two self-entitled, greedy divisive couple who have caused so much damage to a nation. Who have disregarded their families to only throw scorn at them and throw them under a bus in the most public way imaginable.
If the royal family welcome them back, then that’s the end of my support of the monarchy.
Thanks. You're quite right! I saw 20th Sept and somehow missed the year!
I'll delete.
The news of Justice Ginsberg’s passing, her funeral, and all the hubub surrounding a replacement will likely suck up news coverage and eclipse any public relations mileage Harry and Meghan can get out of being chosen for the TIME 100,
May I add that people who are working on worthwhile projects and have long-term goals don't get put off by a small loss in media momentum that comes with the news of an important person's death. They can pause their PR to show respect, because they know their turn will come again. And when it does, their story may be even more interesting!
But Meghan isn't working on anything worthwhile, has no long-term goals, and isn't even telling a coherent story about herself. So when she loses even one day of press attention, it's a day too many.
Always with the 'when she was a little girl.'
Like being a little girl is in the very recent past. Trying to make herself sound young in a subtle way.
Bogus. Our girl is almost middle aged.
I can't decide whether she said that because she's a chronic liar or because she's canny enough in her thirst for attention that she knows she has to frame everything in a certain way. She couldn't admit that she didn't care about Ruth Bader Ginsberg until yesterday, so she made a nebulous claim that can never really be proven or disproven.
LOL! This is HORRIBLE. Is this an actual ad?? 😆😆😆😆🤦♀️
https://64.media.tumblr.com/429e23d1522e3754c31a319e5b62840d/58eb25c4c1458678-b2/s250x400/17a1a17d262e08cebc88402e5deec400ffa003c3.gifv
It is part of my magnetic grocery list. I bought it myself 😂😂😉
https://ibb.co/ctNGZ7R
What exactly IS the 'top' in Meghan's mind, anyway?
I think they are meeting with a sad outcome here in the States. I don't think there is a plan (especially after the SCOTUS blurb today) and she's once again, desperate for something to stick.
I think the 12 month review is going to go very very badly for Meghan and Harry.
________
I think you answered your own questions. Meg's end game is simply...fame. To be in the news and talked about every day. She thought being married to Harry would be enough and appears to be shocked that it isn't, especially in the U.S.
I agree with that last bit x1000.
Yes, interestingly it also occurred to me that anyone else who married Harry, and followed protocol, would have what she desired, which is fame and adulation... for not doing much.
She literally ruined what she wanted, because he is the star and she is not and her massive ego could not handle it. Remember, 'the claw', the pushing and shoving, the plastered smile. She looked like a raving lunatic at every gathering of their family. She had to work hard to get Harry, and then ruined it by forgetting to lay low and maybe just be 'normal' for a while.
Makes me think she really has no long term plan to stay with Harry. He's just an 'of the moment' use for her.
As for the other comment fromo CDAN, I haven't gone there to read it, but she won't be able to re-coup her lawyer fees that way.
She won't be able to take money from the Production company to pay past private debts, as far as I am aware. She could try, but I'm pretty sure Netflix would have a case for fraud.
(I would not be shocked if Meghan ends up getting sued left and right for failing to abide by contracts, and engaging in financial fraudulent activities) She'll probably be the first royal to get arrested. She's not very smart, and lives life at breakneck speed. She's not going to be able to cover all her tracks with the numerous pieces of her charade flying around. Americans don't mess around.
Taylor Swift said the only piece of advice she would give anyone is to hire a good lawyer, and as I get older, I damn well believe it. Meghan needs very expensive lawyers, in the USA, yesterday. That's going to be her primary outgoing expense over the years.
I assume Jerseydeanne was thinking of a bog-standard tourist visa. Why should he have anything special?
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/09/blind-item-7_20.html?m=1
https://www.ccn.com/as-prince-harry-36-woke-joke/
It needs to be read with the accompanying photos, rather than text alone. We may take the flattery about him as a soldier with a large pinch of salt but it still gives a a sad overview of his decline.
Hi Meghan! Are you OK?
even if Netflix isn’t doing something illegal, they (and rich amazon) are currently flush with cash and desperate for original content.
Netflix probably felt the Harkles provided them with goodwill publicity (like the Obamas), if nothing else. and for now, may not be checking the books carefully, at least until they run into difficulties.
I dont think the Harkles got an Obama 100 mill deal, I think it was much, much, less because amounts weren’t announced, just vagueries like could be worth as much as XXXX.
The Pandemic has resulted in more people using streaming and Netflix is probably prospering more now. but that may not last once all the studios get their own streaming rolling with their own libaries, and maybe pull those libaries from Netflix.
She must be pretty confident of victory.
What would she do if it is, as we hope, a crushing defeat? I was going to say `humiliating' as well as `crushing' but of course, she doesn't do `humiliation', except of other people.
The Harkles come off as foolish and easily fall for the biggest $ amount offered, much like PA.
`Up to' doesn't promise anything - it's a maximum, not a minimum. Even nothing, or very little indeed, falls within the specified range! It's not even `about'.
"did anyone see the CDAN comment about Markle making her fight with the Daily Mail on Sunday in the British courts into a Netflix documentary as a fight for privacy for all of us and if her friends don't testify in her favour, they'll be the villains of the story? Smart move as she thinks she can then write off her lawyer fees as an expense for the story. But will Netflix buy this crap?"
I'd actually watch that documentary, although it might be hate-watching.
Nevertheless, her lawyer fees are going to be Titanic. Unless her production budget is as big as James Cameron's was for that movie, she's not going to be able to hide her legal fees in its expense accounts.
So funny to hear Meg raising her voice for RGB the other day.
"She has been a true inspiration to me since I was a girl. Honor her, remember her, act for her," Meghan said in a press release.
Without getting too deeply into Ginsburg's life story, she was a person who maintained a long, happy marriage and many deep friendships, studied hard and excelled in the field of her choice, and was willing to stand up for unorthodox and unpopular opinions now and then.
None of which describe Meghan. Where did that inspiration go?
The latest news I can find about the case is from late July.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/29/meghan-duchess-of-sussex-suing-mail-on-sunday-mail-online-owner-privacy-battle
with friends like MM, ‘the claw’, who needs enemies?
If the Netflix $ laundering rumors are true, it’s interesting that the Obamas got cought up in a shady company, one would think they would do their due diligence/ homework to avoid the look of impropriety. The O’s did accept Malia interning with Weinstein after all....
The Obamas, while both attractive, elegant people, are Chicago politicians. There are very few people of impeccable morals in Chicago politics.
It has frequently been suggested, for example, that Michelle Obama made a phone call to DA Kim Foxx to get the charges against Jussie Smollett suddenly dropped and the case sealed.
Michelle has connections to the Smollett family, as does Kamala Harris.
did anyone see the CDAN comment about Markle making her fight with the Daily Mail on Sunday in the British courts into a Netflix documentary as a fight for privacy for all of us and if her friends don't testify in her favour, they'll be the villains of the story? Smart move as she thinks she can then write off her lawyer fees as an expense for the story. But will Netflix buy this crap?
Why wouldn't Netflix buy it? It sounds like a prime money laundering project!
In all seriousness, this sounds far too clever to be a real idea of Meghan's. (Even if it ultimately wouldn't work, I can't imagine her brainstorming something as complex as this.)
And is anyone else surprised to be reminded of the lawsuit? The Netflix deal may be nothing but hot air, but it successfully distracted people from the case. (The pitch about the BLM leader was also decently on-brand.) The announcement about having repaid the Frogmore Cottage renovation costs had a similar effect. She can spin Netflix for a while yet, and unless the press is willing to go to war on the Frogmore front, she can claim anything she wants. But the lawsuit is a guaranteed disaster, and it was actually good for her that we hadn't been thinking about it for some time.
'With an incomparable and indelible legacy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will forever be known as a woman of brilliance, a Justice of courage, and a human of deep conviction,' Markle said in a statement to the media.
Didn't Meg want to leave the Royal Family to "get her voice back" and "speak out"? And this is what she comes up with?
She's the Florence Foster Jenkins of social justice commentary.
This I believe. I’m pretty sure it was a Blind Gossip piece too....and we know they get so many things right. ;o)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR8HhM3-j4s
Apparently, they'll stream it before it hits Broadway, so it'll reach an even wider audience.
The whole thing sounds dire but it looks they have H. over a barrel. By taking their thirty pieces of silver, this Judas has rendered himself incapable of taking action against them.
I wonder if Will can do anything about it?
James Hewitt's Wikipedia entry contains this:
In 2003, Hewitt tried to sell his 64 personal letters from Diana for £10 million... The act of selling the letters was considered to be a betrayal of trust, and Sarah, Duchess of York, condemned his action. She was reported to have said, "Betrayal, I think, is the most horrible, horrible, disloyal thing you can do to anyone".
Are you listening, Harry?
Re the hoovering term:
I called Markle "A Giant Hoover from Hell" here a few weeks ago - I was referring to the vacuum and Megalo's pattern of sucking up everything she can from everyone she comes into contact with. (I was also thinking of a succubus).
I never saw your comment, I was referring to WBBM and another Nutties comment so I went to look it up, this is what I found when I googled the term:
Hoovering – How The Narcissist Tricks You Into Breaking No Contact
http://blog.melanietoniaevans.com/hoovering-how-the-narcissist-tricks-you-into-breaking-no-contact/
No matter how it’s meant, Megsy does the lot.
I was using it simply in the `narcissist' context of a narc, with whom one has fallen out, who becomes all sweetness and light, apparently, to convince you that she's sorry for being such a bitch and she's really a loving friend...
Done in the hope of `sucking' you back into the relationship - after all you're a reasonable, forgiving, person who makes allowances for the flaws in others (and we're all flawed, of course).
There's the risk that one is tempted to let bygones be bygones, in which case you're back in the dust-bag, ready to be spat out again.
The correct response is a sarcastic `I should bloody coco - on your bike, mate!' Then cut all contact, except through lawyers if absolutely necessary.
Don't give her anything she could come back to you on. `No contact' has to mean `no contact'.
"She must be pretty confident of victory."
I expect she is. And she may win (although I'd be surprised if damages were very large.)
But:
1. M is confident when maybe she shouldn't be-- like going to court rather than pay the IRS a piddling amount. Like insisting her claims (in FF) needed to be heard because she (apparently) thought they made her look better. Yes, some of that was just vindictiveness but I think she was confident everyone would be sympathetic to "her side."
2. IF she has any doubts about the case, she probably thinks turning it into a docudrama (assuming that's even true) will tilt the outcome in her favor.
I don't know if the UK allows cameras in the courtroom (ever, and with COVID...) but I think it's pretty much accepted that in some high profile US cases, cameras have had an effect. For example, while the OJ verdict might have been the same no matter what, certainly the behavior of the attorneys and of Judge Ito was affected by cameras. And the Michael Peterson trial with the French documentary team (The Staircase Murders), eleven days of Jodi Arias televised on the stand...
-----
@Puds wrote about M's university degree and her acting training....
I don't know what's true. But I do know these things about Northwestern:
1. The Theater major is offered within the School of Communication.
2. There are different specialties within the general Theater area. These include Acting, Musical Theater, Playwriting etc.
3. She wouldn't have had "two graduations" with a Theater and an International Studies major. The latter is an adjunct major for one thing (not a stand alone major so she didn't earn two degrees--no one graduates with only that major at Northwestern.) And I'm not sure Northwestern does any graduations by school/college at the undergrad level anyway. The main ceremony includes everyone so far as I know.
4. Northwestern seems to think M double majored in Theater and International Studies. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/
Do you believe this report? The source is Marie Claire
From Woman's Day
Prince William Is Reportedly "Livid" About Harry and Meghan's Netflix Deal
It has to do with The Crown.
By Bianca Rodriguez
Sep 16, 2020
Trigger warning: Descriptions of bulimia.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's newest move in their post-life move is reportedly ratcheting up the tension between the couple and the remaining members of the senior royal family. Earlier this month, the couple announced they have signed a multiyear deal with Netflix, thought to be worth more than $100 million. They'll produce content from feature films, scripted shows, a possible documentary on Princess Diana, children's programming, and a bunch of other binge-worthy content.
Not everyone is exactly thrilled about this, unfortunately. According to The Sun, many senior royals are very much against this new deal and the fact Harry would partner with the same company that produces The Crown.
"William and other senior royals are incredibly uncomfortable about this drama and livid Harry is now in partnership with the company that's airing it," said an insider to the publication. Any good royal fan knows that the royal family isn't exactly keen on The Crown. Still, the latest season, out on November 15, is set to cover Princess Diana's battle with bulimia.
Diana opened up about her struggles with the eating disorder in a 1995 interview with BBC, saying, "It was a symptom of what was going on in my marriage. I was crying out for help, but giving the wrong signals, and people were using my bulimia as a coat on a hanger: They decided that was the problem—Diana was unstable."
The production company Left Bank Pictures, which makes The Crown for Netflix, says they took extra precautions when filming this season and with the eating disorder scenes in particular. In a statement, the production company said, "Producers worked closely with the eating disorder charity, BEAT, to ensure that their portrayal of Princess Diana's bulimia in season four was both ¬accurate to the disorder and sensitively handled."
Regardless the family is still reportedly upset. According to the insider, the royal family "wouldn't expect one of their own to take money made by the profits of shows like this."
Pity we're not given trigger warnings with the reports of the H&Ms nauseating behaviour...
I am bias as I dislike her so immensely, but I do believe as brief as it is , it is awful
I will say her voice is more palatable, maybe she was just really nervous. Those head moves 🤣
Fast forward to 2:06
https://youtu.be/g2M6ZTq9WRU
What I read was that Edward and Sophie enjoyed watching it together.