"We have got to all put our stock in something that is true and we need to have reliable media and news sources that are telling us the truth," the Duchess of Sussex told Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit in a video message on Tuesday.
If award shows still meant anything, that statement might win Meg a Best Irony award.
Fortune is no longer "Fortune Magazine"
First of all, Fortune is no longer the glossy Fortune Magazine that once lay on every CEO's mahogany desk.
It was purchased by the Iowa-based Meredith Corporation in 2017 as part of its takeover of Time, Inc. Meredith is best known as the publisher of Better Homes and Gardens, and it quickly went about selling off most of the Time Inc. magazine titles piece by piece to the highest bidder.
Fortune went to Thai billionaire Chatchaval Jiaravanon, head of the Chaoren Pokphand Group, a conglomerate with pharma, agriculture, and telecommunications interests.
The $150 million price was cheap for an established brand name. And the main asset was not Fortune Magazine's collapsing circulation and declining ad buys, but the Fortune 500 list of America's largest corporations.
Visit Fortune Magazine's website now and you'll find a sad little set of stories written by journalists who appear to be no-hopers. The stories have a strong pro-China and pro-Biden slant, which perhaps reflects the opinions of its Thai owner.
Meg wants flattering stories
Secondly, if anyone isn't interested in "reliable media and news sources that are telling us the truth" it is Meghan, who has lied to the media more times than most people can count, as well as lying to her own family, the Royal Family, to her past employers (I'm such a fraud!), past friends, past partners...the list goes on, and may or may not soon include the British judiciary if she is called to testify in person.
Meg wants media willing to tell flattering stories about her, and if necessary paid to tell flattering stories about her. Telling the truth isn't really a top parameter.
"It's about being authentic," Meg tells the interviewer from fake Fortune Magazine as part of a "summit" at which her PR people quite possibly have paid for her to be featured.
The (very light-skinned) interviewer, who writes "a newsletter on race", notes that Meg is one of many women who have had "a sitting president come after you, mobs come after you, powerful forces, try to take you down, try to disparage your message."
(What the hell is Meghan's message?)
A purpose-driven life, lived with authenticity
Anyway, Meghan responds: "If you don't notice all the noise out there, and just focus on living a purpose-driven life....the moment you are liberated from all these other opinions by what you know to be true...then I think it is very easy to live with authenticity."
Is this the person suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing a letter from her father, suggesting that it chose excerpts that put her in a bad light?
Is this the person suing a paparazzi agency for taking photos she clearly set up herself?
Is this the person who pays for bots to praise her?
A purpose-driven life, liberated from other opinions. Authentic. True.
That's worth the 2020 Best Irony award.
Comments
https://www.her.ie/celeb/meghan-markles-old-cv-emerged-seems-lies-like-rest-us-377827
Meghan Markle's old CV has emerged - and it seems she lies like the rest of us!
A working proficiency in Portuguese; a love of theatre; a keen triathlete.
It's not that we lie per say on our CVs... but when it comes to job-hunting, most of us, ahem, *embellish* our skill set.
And it seems that Meghan Markle is no different.
Yup, an old resumé of the actress and princess-in-waiting has now surfaced... and it's made us love her even more.
The document was obtained by TMZ, and appears to date from a period before she landed her role in Suits.
On it, she lists her acting credits on Fringe, Cuts, and A Lot Like Love.
So far so standard. However, it's within the 'skills' section (that old gem) that Ms Markle really goes to town.
She says she's proficient in the likes of "baseball, golf, swimming, horseback riding, snowboarding, and even baton twirling".
TMZ adds: "Meghan also claims she's well-versed in more than a dozen forms of dance, speaks three languages, sings pop and country, and plays guitar, drums... and finger cymbals."
Finally, the California-born star says she can juggle and has further talents as a DJ, masseuse... and a stripper.
Fair play.
Meghan, 36, and Harry, 33, will marry next May at Windsor Castle in front of 800 guests from around the world.
I found this today; isn't it interesting to look at all the accomplishments she claims and to compare them with what we know now?
Thank you for the update and the link but it doesn't work for the EU folk. Can you please give us a brief summary?
@Happy Days, that’s a good idea for a blog. Maybe this weekend or early next week.
@Ziggy - thanks for the link! Would you mind cutting and pasting? It is blocked in the EU.
https://heavy.com/news/althea-bernstein-video/
Case closed, no evidence it ever happened.
Thank you so much for the link. "Case closed due to the lack of evidence". In other words police was not able to find a single fact supporting her claims. It was not a case of not being able to identify or find the men; there is no evidence that the attack ever happened at all.
Just another liar who spreads hate. And of course her lies will have no consequences.
I think by releasing the footage the police is inviting us to reach our own conclusions.
DM:
“The Duchess of Cambridge’s uncle Gary Goldsmith tells Harry and Meghan to ‘shut the F*** up’ as he brands them “muppets craving attention” and say the prince has lost all our respect’ after ‘structural racism speech’.
In a post on LinkedIn he wrote, “With so much going on in the world, still these two muppets are craving attention!”
.
Consistently denied her black heritage for years.
Posed as Italian or Hispanic to her school friends.
Let friends and school personnel assume her black mother was the household help.
Reiterated the hurtful story that her wealthy white neighbors assumed that Doria was a nanny pushing Megsie in her stroller.
Surgically altered her birth features to make them less African.
Straightened and bleached her natural hair until she decided to start wearing wigs made from the sold hair of oppressed Third World women (of color)
Dated, married and presumably slept with solely Caucasian men.
Listed herself as 'Caucasian' on her professional resume
Was willing to market herself as 'Latina' if necessary but not as African-American
_____
Amen to this.
I went to school with kids that did this same thing. I found it disgusting then as I do now. But they were kids! Anyone who claims to be woke, aware and "authentic", yet denies their heritage and DNA, is nothing but an emotionally underdeveloped, dysfunctional individual who doesn't know who they are. It's very important to know who you are. Especially by a certain age.
Yet, she is making "a name" for herself by doing the opposite now. Hijacking Black culture! Just shows what a chameleon that woman is...
By this stage in her life, La Markle should have a solid identity. Instead, she sucks out the identity of everyone she admires and wants to be like, of those who share her life, and of those she wishes to use for financial gain and notoriety.
How exhausting. For her and for them...
EXCLUSIVE: The Duchess of Cambridge's uncle Gary Goldsmith tells Harry and Meghan to 'shut the F up' as he brands them 'muppets craving attention' and says prince has lost 'all our respect' after 'structural racism in Britain' speech....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8799419/Duchess-Cambridge-Kates-uncle-Gary-Goldsmith-brands-Harry-Meghan-two-muppets.html
"Scoobie’s tweeted today:
“The real question is....why is ending racism such a triggering topic?”
***********************************
Well, Scoobie, let me explain it to you. In a perfect world, most of us would love to see absolutely no racism, but we do not live in a perfect world, and we never will.
We also don't like to be preached to by two people who are so uneducated that MM didn't know (or bother to research) that there was a Black History Month in the UK. We did not see one mention of Black History Month in the US by either Meghan OR Harry, so why should we listen to a word that they have to say on the subject? Harry seems to be completely confused on a wide variety of subjects, including black history, the Commonwealth and even penguins. His talk with "Greta" let us finally understand the gravity and depth of the lack of intelligence that we are dealing with when it comes to Harry. Chunga-Changa, anyone?
I'd love to hear Harry give a 10-minute speech, off-the-cuff, on the leaders in black history in the UK and the US, because, as most of us suspect, he only knows what he reads off of cue cards and is fed to him by his wife, who made her name and position in life by appearing as close to a white woman as possible, even down to her listing on her acting CV that she is Caucasion.
So, Scoobie, it has nothing to do with how much we would love to see positive changes, but this lackluster, over-hyped and under-educated duo, who have self-appointed themselves as some sort of world saviors, have nothing to offer to the cause, except for the same empty words that they have used for months on any cause that will bring them publicity or money, BLM included.
In other words, their past actions have caused us to mistrust them and their integrity, so their lame attempts at being crusaders fall on deaf ears, and they have come to the point that they are world laughingstocks. Those are not great credentials to lead anybody, except for maybe Guy the Beagle, and many of us have doubts about their ability to handle owning a pet, let alone being leaders of a movement of which they obviously have no real interest in, except for how to cash in on it.
Does that answer your question, Scoobie?
I agree with you. Not only she appears to be lying about the attack; it also begs a question: where from did she get the burns if not from the mystical white men in Hawaiian shirts? Which takes us right to the night in question with violent rioting and burning of the public buildings. Could it just be that certain AB took part in the riots and got burned there?
I am now concerned for Catherine. Just imagine the amount of hatred that will be poured on her. Her uncle should have kept his mouth shut; Kate did despite she has plenty to say on the matter.
His use of swear words does nothing to improve it either. I am sad to say it was a wrong move that gives more ammunition to the crazy Markle squadron.
Uncle Gary wasn’t interviewed, it was just a LinkedIn post he wrote.
His comments were well intended, but I agree with Fairy the backlash will be on Catherine and her family.
Could it just be that certain AB took part in the riots and got burned there?
___________
That's been my thought from the start. It's disappointing that those in charge don't seem to be asking the necessary questions.
Yes, Alex Belfield is quite the lad, isn't he? I just love that his videos are so non-PC and that he just says what I believe the majority are thinking. Perhaps he and Laurence Fox should get together.
That's why they got so pissed off and launched their Sussex Royal Manifesto that night.
Wowwwwwwww... how reactive and petty and short sighted.
I'm not done reading yet, it's on the DM, link is here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8799867/British-Royals-hopping-mad-Meghan-Harrys-says-devastating-new-book.html
@Enbrethiliel, I agree, Joan Rivers was authentic, & based her humor on making fun of herself. She was very brave, & faced much more sexism & bias than Megs or her fans ever have. Trump is an entitled, white male, but weirdly, he has a similar authenticity. Although he does like to send his haters up with brazen falsehoods now & again, he's completely unapologetic about things like his womanizing & love of tax loopholes, which makes him a refreshing contrast to many celebs' false piety & hypocrisy.
@Murphy, I don't get the doll thing. Back in the 80s, a charity I helped raise funds for had it's annual fund-raising fair, which sold antiques, among other things. One item was an enchanting hand-made doll portraying a little black girl. Our fair was in a local church, which had a much beloved kitchen supervisor who was African American. She indicated that the little antique black doll made her feel uncomfortable, so we immediately removed it from the sale. It all gets confusing. So now we're supposed to embrace black dolls? Whatever.
Spot on! I found myself reaching for the 'like' button.
These people want power with a capital "P" and they do not intend to surrender it at the end of a term of office. They want it permanently.
Could be both, she might have backers, but she might just be using them to promote herself. Yes, she's done a lot of gaslighting of the BRF, & it's made her unpopular in the UK. Here in the US, we're pretty ignorant of royal protocol & traditions, so, more likely to buy into her guff, but we're just not that into the Harkles. America has a lot of other stuff to amuse ourselves with, or worry about.
If Megs can topple the BRF, they must have been on shaky ground before she ever arrived in Britain. The Harkles are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Don't worry about it, or don't do that thing with your knickers that Brits are always harping on.
Starting with the three Musketeers - I hadn't noticed how often Catherine was in the middle. That can make some sense (with the parts about how we don't see photos on JH with their kids.
Ant - two biscuits you say. What (the horror) if it were three? seriously, if that is as bad as the dirt can muddy things, how infuriating it must be to try to come up with something to throw as a distraction from your own behavior, right?
SwampWoman - I love your stories fit for confession. Somehow I suspect there could be more(hopefully).
Hikari - nice strategic thinking (as always).
thanks Hunter for the link. It saved time.
The part about the photographs determining who is in and who is out reminds me of Life and Death in Shanghai where she used old newspapers to try to figure out what was happening politically.
Clearly they come off as petty, short sighted in the planning and unable to view how to work within the system to get their goals (reminds me of Through the Looking Glass when she hasn't figured out yet why she is getting farther from where she wants to be).
The last sentence in that post at the very bottom:
They see the world as hostile and start behaving in self-destructive ways that make that hostility come to pass.
This is true and sadly a very self fulfilling prophecy.
Indeed he did not tweet all day today until the video posted this evening.
Authenticity is important and Meghan doesn't have it - Harry does/did.
That said, I disagree with the author's take that she "channelled Rachel Zane." Pff, that character never did anything she just hung out around the office and simped, she wasn't exactly a badass nor was she a lawyer, she was an office girl.
My first reaction was honestly to laugh at out loud: at last someone took a glove off, even if crudely. I don’t think treating aggressive bullies with poetic phrasing and gracious dialogue works today.
My second reaction was, ugh, that was pretty crude, though......and then —- oh god, poor Kate, she will be under sugar attack now
BUT:
My third response was a sudden A HA moment, as dear Oprah used to say in her magazines ——- because I wonder if Uncle Gary, in the business he has been in, in the part of the party world he inhabited, with the people he knew, almost certainly knows A LOT about Meghan, her background, backers or pals, yachting and forays into other worlds, shall we say.
And so was this his shot over the bow, via a little well placed, well timed comment on a worldwide business social platform, to remind her that he is among the guys who know The Big Things?
Because I think he does, and here’s why: because before the wedding, someone with connections I know in London laughed, “Gary Goldsmith must be laughing is head off” with a wink. I had zero idea that she was this fishy back then, and forgot about that remark until today.
And frankly, though I know many will disagree with me, I think that if a canny uncle wants to defend his niece and her family from scorpions, I say, have at it. We have no idea what happens behind the scenes. The BRF aren’t stepping up. And all the “golly, you really ought not to” pearls rolled at them are being ignored.
They are dangerous, and Uncle Gary knows it.
What is it Sir Sean Connery said in The Untouchables about the mob:
“You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun.” Uncle Gary knows how to find a way to apply that theory, I think.
I hope this REAL slap in the face (by the uncle) teaches her that eventually someone is going to tell her what’s what and she will lay off Catherine who never deserved the shit she has had to put up with from that water moccasin!!!!!!!!!
@Unknown, you know, I may ask him the next time we speak. But as I recall it, my sense is he was not comparing relatives or referencing the odd shabby Markles compared to the old tattle about Uncle G.
It was more in the vein of she came out of nowhere (me), and the view that she was a player known to a few around town (him, and another man dining with us after a meeting).
By the way, I am absolutely not referencing actual weapons, in case someone has the wrong idea. I mean the theory of being ready to outplay the opponent. They drop hints and shade, Uncle drops a bucket of facts and photos.
Whatever crap is going on with her behind the scenes, she manages to keep it there. She is under tremendous pressure as the future Queen consort but manages to do what is expected of her.
For Meghan, Catherine is the epitome of all she ever wanted in life....to be beautiful, white, adored and some day be THEE Queen consort.
She ended up with the “court jester” and having to lie and spend tons of money to make herself look like one of the elite.
Sorry Meghan, your inner ugliness cannot be hidden behind filler, botox, scalped yak wigs, designer clothes, and a persona that radiates unadulterated fakeness.
You are a nasty person and you and Hairy deserve each other...you are two of a kind.
Please stick to the topic at hand.
It is eating her alive that she cannot say or do anything that will make people dislike Catherine!
Is it also the case that if Harry's Dukedom is removed he can be given another by Charles or William in few years or is that dependant on if he remarries as it appears to be offered on marriage by the Sovereign or can it be given at anytime? Because surely if he can be offered another it should not be such trauma to remove his current Dukedom particularly as his main residence is abroad.
----------------------------------
@Puds
Hard to tell, under normal circumstances when a title is revoked or given up , the person cannot regain that title or be given an equivalent one. However if Harry’s HRH style is still in play that rule may not apply to Harry as the giving and taking of all titles and styles of an HRH is up to the Monarch.
If Harry was parted from all but the ‘Prince Henry of Wales' style. Meg would then become Princess Henry of Wales , in the same way that Princess Michael of Kent gets her title. (Michaels elder brother is Duke of Kent).
If by any chance the Queen sees fit to remove even the style of Prince from Harry (unlikely) ‘Sir Henry Mountbatten Windsor KCVO ’ would be his highest title in the future - he is Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO). Theoretically the Queen could also revoke that (ironically it’s for service to the RF).
One important thing to keep in mind regarding Harry’s titles, if all his titles are removed he becomes a commoner, which could be a danger in itself.
Edward VII, after his abdication had as his only claim to fame the style ‘Prince’, he had no other titles, meaning in law he was a commoner, everyone who does not have their own title (Duke/Earl etc.) is legally a commoner , which means they are eligible to sit in the House of Commons, once someone has a title they can no longer be an MP and are only eligible sit in the House of Lords and even then the Ho’L seats are limited.
Hard to believe now but at the time Edward was quite popular and the government and the RF were afraid that he might be talked into standing for parliament or even starting his own party, so he was promptly given the title ‘Duke of Windsor’ to prevent him from entering parliament.
I don’t think anyone savours the possibility of Harry as an MP so I think he will keep at least one title, perhaps Baron Dumbarseton .
Regarding the jewellery: yes I think Meg has it and will keep it. One interesting thing is that Diana owned quite a bit of costume jewellery, I think it was Rosa Monckton who said she delighted in buying pieces that looked real and then turn up at various events where she knew the press would be, wearing them prominently so they would go into a frenzy over her new jewels, all the while laughing up her sleeve at them. So maybe Meg has a few pieces she thinks are real, intending to cash in on them later.......is she in for a surprise.
She is THE Queen, she does not have to go through parliament to get them to STOP using those titles.
It's rather worrying to realise that Meghan Markle is Harry's idea of an intelligent person.
LOL. True!!
This whole comment thread got me thinking about Doria. Her daughter is out of control for her age. Her daughter is publicly disrespectful and shameful. Does Doria even care? Or are both these women so low-rent that they cannot see the forest through the trees?
If Doria had such a hard knock life, you'd think she learnt a few things about respect along the way. She was invited into the QUEEN's home. When did these two women stop learning about diplomacy?
Why won't Doria get a handle on her whack-job daughter? Really. What is in it for her? A deranged daughter and shored up Prince? Her complicit-ness in all of this ALSO screams, uneducated and poorly handled.
I agree Meghan's mode is 1)chaos 2)divide 3)control 4)rebuild in her image
She did it to Harry and is now trying to do it to the world. Sociopath!
@Mimi....
(did you mean me or one of the up thread comments?)
Yes, as long as Harry is HRH, the Queen has the sole prerogative over all his styles and titles. If he loses the HRH (which only she can remove) then she has washed her hands of him and he is then entirely at the mercy of Parliament.
My reason is that she is too old and too bonkers.
I really think Meghan the 'Video Queen' is literally her old dream of being a MEGA-Influencer combined with accidentally marrying a dumb-as-rocks Prince who spent his life influencing as apart of the RF.
So here we have her, out of control with nowhere to go except for any internet Zoom she can crash. Wonderful.
When you really take the hoopla out of Meghan and her PR and the RF, there's just not much there but a deluded freak who is still trying to live her fantasy.
It's very uncomfortable to watch someone do what she is doing. She had a lot going for her with the RF- the best gig she ever got, without applying.
I don't think she has realized yet that Netflix is laughing at her on the way to the bank, not with her. Once she realizes Hollywood is laughing at her, there might be trouble in paradise for her and Harry. Hollywood will make THEIR money out of the story, but Meghan won't.
She wails on about online toxicity but then personally contacts and talks to a bully (who participated in threatening Harry's family online) from the Sussex squad. That is exposed and she simply ignores the inconvenient truth.
She jumps in to phone and support AB without any verification of her story and then ignores the truth when it is revealed, albeit diplomatically by a 'decline to prosecute' statement.
She goes on and on about 'using her voice' but wants to control the media and the online community.
She often talks about 'being kind' but is incredibly cruel to those who fall for her glib charm and then incur her displeasure or cease to be useful to her.
Ironically, she ran away from the UK, where, because of who she married, she was shown deference, had access to huge wealth and massive government-funded perks/privileges, got constant media attention (the same media she lashes out called her a global style icon!), and was given platforms for speechifying without having to hustle for any of it. Those platforms were not only in the UK and the coverage was guaranteed and her audience was more than 10 times what she struggles to get now. What kind of psychology is at work for a person to behave like that?
As for Harry, the term toxic co-dependency comes to mind. Unlike my favourite tarot reader, I think the Sussexes will stick together. He has cut himself from anyone or anything that could break the spell and provide an escape route, and the deprogramming and a lot of assistance in growing up and learning to be a decent person. She enjoys the power of 'a husband' that she can control, dominate, manipulate, and who is still her access to wealth and those platforms she craves. (HG Tudor reckons that her narcissism makes her unable to see the grease stain on the shirt. I would take that further and say she does not see what does not align with the narrative in her head, and when she does, she labels it as an enemy.)
By the way, Meghan must have been furious when she was not allowed to join the group via video link.
While some of the information has been published previously, Lacey presents it in a cohesive and entertaining manner.
He’s the boy who can’t grow up and she acts as if she `dies' psychologically unless her existence is acknowledged and applauded.
“…every time a child says 'I don't believe in fairies' there is a fairy somewhere that falls down dead."
Her backers and sources? Can Harry have known enough truly damaging information and then blabbed it to her?
A future title for him, to keep him out of Parliament?
Possibly. I hadn’t heard that about the Windsors. Wasn’t there enough difficulty in finding the first ducal title for Harry?
Some of the previous ones are very badly tainted (eg Windsor, Cumberland), others refer to places no longer under Royal sway – (eg Connaught in Ireland, Clarence in France) and most counties already have a noble title attached to them already. (Devonshire is the exception - it has an earl and a duke because, it is said, the Heralds slipped up. The duke should have been Duke of Derbyshire (location of Chatsworth).
A new dukedom might have to be created for Harry.
May I suggest `Duke of Basingstoke’? It’s a London Overspill development, from a former market town in Hampshire. It gets a mention, however, in the G&S comic opera Ruddigore as a magic word, ` full of hidden meaning’ to bring Mad Margaret (`Daft Madge! Crazy Meg! Mad Margaret! Poor Peg!) to her senses. Apparently, this was originally a political joke but it still gets a laugh, mainly from those who don’t live there.
Perhaps , though, the residents of anywhere referenced in a future title would be upset by the association?
Somewhere uninhabited perhaps? Duke of Frogmore?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8800863/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-not-ready-return-UK-Christmas-source-claims.html
“Suits Yourself”
A British court keeps rejecting Meghan’s pre-trial arguments in a privacy case that could cost her more than $2.3 million
This week, during one of her quasi-inspirational online interviews, Meghan Markle relayed a Georgia O’Keeffe quote to Fortune magazine’s virtual audience, telling them that “I have already settled it for myself so flattery and criticism go down the same drain and I am quite free.”
However, some criticism is harder to rinse down the drain than others. When it comes from the High Court, for example, and is immediately followed by a $230,000 legal bill, then not even O’Keeffe could rise above it.
But such is the position that Markle finds herself in this week. As part of her endless, grinding pre-trial process ahead of January’s court battle with Associated Newspapers Ltd., Meghan had attempted to get Finding Freedom, the recently published account of her and Harry’s break with the royal family, struck from the defense material. The fact that the judge rejected her request is not only costly; it’s also potentially hugely embarrassing for Markle.
The publication of Finding Freedom appears to have boxed her into a corner somewhat. Although not a fully authorized biography, the book was written with such an intense level of fawning-insider detail that one could be forgiven for thinking it had been published with the explicit cooperation of both her and Prince Harry. (Markle has denied that she and her husband collaborated with the authors.)
There were certainly signs that this was the case. As far back as May, a friend of Markle’s stated to the Daily Mail: “If Meghan had it her way, the book would be released tomorrow. She said the book will finally set the record straight,” which suggests that, at the very least, she was aware that the contents would be favorable. And, indeed, authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand mention in the authors’ note that they spoke “when appropriate” with “the couple themselves.”
And if it’s the case that the book was written with the help of Harry and Meghan, much in the style of Andrew Morton’s Diana: Her True Story, then that rips a whopping great hole in the side of her argument. She claims that her privacy is sacred, but you can’t have it both ways. It’s hard to sue a newspaper for printing a letter to your father if you willingly contributed to a book that contains the contents of your phone messages with him.
That isn’t to say that Markle didn’t put up a fight. Upon learning that Associated Newspapers planned to use Finding Freedom in its defense, she quickly claimed that it was actually a very bad book whose authors didn’t know the first thing about her. It was full of inaccuracies, she argued.
Among the inaccuracies? The section describing her first date with Harry included false details of what they drank and discussed. It said that Harry texted Prince Charles about the birth of his son even though Prince Charles doesn’t own a mobile phone. Most importantly of all, it said Harry told Meghan, “You look amazing. I missed you,” at the altar during their wedding, when this was not the case. Exactly what he did say remains unknown; some lip-readers have claimed that he said, “You look amazing. I’m so lucky,” although we cannot discount the possibility that his words were in fact “Let’s ditch these losers and get a Netflix deal.”
Nevertheless, the court sided against Markle. On Tuesday, Judge Francesca Kaye determined that the book simply represented “further particulars” as opposed to “new defences.” She added that Meghan “knows the case she has to meet” and that “there is no suggestion that she is in fact unable to do so.”
And, as a result, she has been lumbered with a new six-figure legal bill. Nor is this the first time that she has stumbled at a preliminary hearing. Five months ago, several parts of Markle’s initial claim were thrown out as “irrelevant,” and she agreed to pay $87,000 as a result. The trial is still three months away, and it has already become staggeringly expensive. Her legal fees alone are expected to be in the region of $2.3 million. That’s not small change. It’s three-quarters of a Frogmore Cottage renovation.
On Wednesday, emboldened by its victory, The Mail on Sunday filed more court papers, claiming that Meghan had passed “information to the media and to [Finding Freedom’s] authors herself, using her friends as her de facto media relations agents,” according to The Sun. It went on to provide a list of 49 instances in the book that it alleges came either from Markle or her friends, including her university routine, her birth plan, and her feelings about a 2008 sex scene of hers that was subsequently uploaded to Pornhub.
Markle’s losses may also explain her recent decision to switch lawyers. Previously she had been represented by David Sherborne, whose other big job involves the almost impossible task of making Johnny Depp seem marginally less awful than Amber Heard claims. Now her case is being fought by Justin Rushbrooke, a man who, perhaps dramatically, has been referred to as Sherborne’s rival at the firm.
It has been suggested by sources at The Sun that this about-face in legal representation was meant to demonstrate solidarity with Heard. But given Markle’s punishing journey so far, it could simply be a sign of abject desperation. At this rate, it will be a miracle if she doesn’t settle before her day in court.
Stuart Heritage is a Writer at Large for AIR MAIL based in Kent, U.K.
Apologies, I misunderstood, when you said ‘excuse me’ I thought you were talking to someone in particular.
Interesting point you made though about the Queen just ordering them not to use the Sussex title, I shot a quick email off to someone who knows about these things and it appears that....
The Queen can certainly remove Harry’s title ‘Duke of Sussex’ at any time if she cares to , but unfortunately as long as he is Duke of Sussex she cannot tell him not to use the title because it no longer belongs to the Monarchy/Crown , it is now his.
To complicate matters even more Harry can’t even give it up because there is only a limited amount of time (12month) that someone has to refuse a title. It can now only be removed by the Monarch or Parliament. Even if Harry were to refute the title for himself it will simply sit there in the lists, in his name , until he dies and then it will pass automatically to Archie.
The HRH is a different story because it is just a ‘style’ granted by the Queen and she can order someone not to use it because it does not actually belong to them, they use it only with the Monarch’s permission.
When Meg got her knickers in a knot over using the word Royal , she had no idea (as usual) that legally the Queen can refuse their use of the word Royal, not because she owns it but because around 122 countries (including all Commonwealth Countries and the USA) have signed agreements with the UK that a person or entity may not register or use the word ‘Royal’ if it is being used to give the impression of or imply that the person/entity is connected to the British Monarchy or Crown in any way, without the relevant bodies permission. They could probably still use ‘Sussex Royal’ in Russia or China if they like.
So basically Harry has four types of ‘title’ (the other being the Military ones) which all come under different rules and laws.
@Nutty,
You’re welcome. There are so many rules and counter rules with the RF it’s like a 3D game of chess played with all the pieces threaded together on a string, move one piece and three other pieces move with it. That maybe why the palace is being very cautious , one seemingly simple move can have many unintended consequences.
When will Harry and Meghan stop hectoring us?
By Tom Slater
2 October 2020, 8:41am
Another day, another Zoom missive from the Duke and Duchess of Woke. Hot on the heels of their thinly-veiled intervention in the US election, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have called for an ‘end to structural racism’ in the UK, via a new initiative they’ve launched in collaboration with the Evening Standard.
To mark the beginning of Black History Month in the UK, Harry and Meghan have unveiled a list of ‘BHM Next Gen Trailblazers’ – that is, black Brits who are making a difference in arts, politics and culture, chosen in turn by some of the Sussexes’ favourite black British artists, politicians and cultural figures.
Scratch beneath the surface, though, and this initiative seems as much about celebrating black British talent as it is about ‘educating’ the supposedly uneducated population, who the royal couple seem to think are insufficiently aware of the contributions made by Brits of African and Caribbean backgrounds.
The couple gave a Zoom interview to the Standard from their £11m mansion in California, all in the cringeworthy style to which we’ve become accustomed: Harry recites tired talking points in the manner of a man reading a hostage letter, while Meghan stares at him, smiling.
The list, Harry says, is an ‘opportunity to introduce Brits to other Brits that they might not know about’, adding that even in London 'if you actually get out on the streets and talk to people... it doesn't feel as diverse as it actually is'. Meghan goes on to defend Black Lives Matter against accusations it is ‘inflammatory’.
As ever with Harry and Meghan it is not just the right-on bromides about privilege and race that irk. Indeed, they are at the tamer end of the woke-celeb spectrum. It is also who is uttering them: a couple who are not only eye-wateringly rich, but also using a platform lent to them by a monarchy they have since ditched.
Harry and Meghan abandoning their royal duties, but not their royal titles, had nothing to do with press racism, of which there is no real evidence. They wanted to have all the privileges of monarchy (status, deference, public money) but none of the obligations (smiling, waving, keeping their mouths shut).
This is what really gets people’s backs up. Indeed, just days before Harry and Meghan made their call to end 'structural racism' in Britain a poll suggested Brits want nothing to do with them. According to YouGov, 48 per cent want them stripped of their royal titles, as opposed to 27 per cent who think they should keep them.
That Harry and Meghan barrel on regardless, to the applause of the metropolitan set and the supreme irritation of almost everyone else, speaks to their own vanity. But it also speaks to the elitism of woke politics; a movement that poses as fighting for the underdog but most often takes the form of hectoring the little people.
It’s no wonder that woke politics has so easily been co-opted by corporations, cash-stuffed celebrities and even royals. It allows filthy rich people to pose as being on the side of the oppressed, all while leaving their material wealth untouched.
If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were that committed to tackling structural inequality, of the class or race variety, they probably wouldn’t be so keen on hanging on to their royal titles – that is, hanging on to an institution that continues to confer prestige on the basis of bloodline and inherited privilege.
This latest intervention, like all their other interventions, has little to do with tackling real oppression and everything to do with boosting their egos and their increasingly lucrative brand. That two literal royals have been able to claim the mantle of progressivism shows how elitist and shallow that wing of politics has become.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-will-harry-and-meghan-stop-hectoring-us
As for Harry, the term toxic co-dependency comes to mind. Unlike my favourite tarot reader, I think the Sussexes will stick together. He has cut himself from anyone or anything that could break the spell and provide an escape route, and the deprogramming and a lot of assistance in growing up and learning to be a decent person. She enjoys the power of 'a husband' that she can control, dominate, manipulate, and who is still her access to wealth and those platforms she craves.
________
This!! May I add to co- dependant, immeshed, entwined, etc. I know couples like this. He can't go for a damn walk without her tagging along and vice versa. People looking in say they are "so bonded and connected". Psychologists say they are co-depenant, which we know is unhealthy and yes at times, toxic. 24/7 with the partner is not a good sign IMO.
I stated in my last post upthread how she sucks the very identity out of people and is doing so to her husband (not a very modern word for such a woke feminist).
Thanks for that! It got me going on couples connected at the hip which just the thought of someone doing that to me, would make me almost homicidal :)
She was also mightily offended when the Duchess of Cambridge refused to even acknowledge her at the Commonwealth Service this past March - even though she had spent the last two years upstaging and undermining Kate at every turn. She treats people like Sh*t yet expects them to be friendly and act as if nothing happened? There's something seriously wrong with her.
Yes, I'd say it's part of narcissism - when I tried `Grey Rock' on my now-former SiL, she demanded to know why I'd become so `cold' towards her (didn't Rache say Catherine was `cold'?).
Then after what I decided was going the be the very last time she raged at me, but before I went `No Contact', I had to go to the same event as her. She greeted me as enthusiastically as ever, having in her own mind presumably `forgiven' me.
I got through the event but never want to see her again, ever.
Because I know a few, unfortunately very close to me, members of my own family.
There is a big difference between a smart narc and a stupid narc: a smart narc has charm. They can read a room, they can manipulate people (not just dim-witted Harry) and they sense when it's time to leave a party.
A stupid narc however, which is what MM is, knows nothing of those things. Her behaviour, albeit shocking to people who posses common sense and self awareness, is completely standard. MM is a narc 101. A textbook one. A common, standard, ordinary narc, and nothing about her surprises me. She has no backers. Everything she does, as shockingly cretinous as it might seem to us, is completely standard and expected for those of us who have had the misfortune of being close to a stupid narc.
Just when you think, they cannot sink any lower, and can't make an even dumber move than the one before, they will surprise you. It's what they do, their entire life is one misstep after the other. One more imbecilic decision after the other.
Harry is a classic enabler. Although I do see narc tendencies in him as well, especially his seething jealousy of William points to this.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8800981/Prince-Harry-sends-wishes-45-000-people-participating-London-Marathon.html
everyone who does not have their own title (Duke/Earl etc.) is legally a commoner , which means they are eligible to sit in the House of Commons, once someone has a title they can no longer be an MP and are only eligible sit in the House of Lords and even then the Ho’L seats are limited.
______
Ooohh, very good point indeed! Thank you!
A new dukedom might have to be created for Harry.
May I suggest `Duke of Basingstoke’? It’s a London Overspill development, from a former market town in Hampshire. It gets a mention, however, in the G&S comic opera Ruddigore as a magic word, ` full of hidden meaning’ to bring Mad Margaret (`Daft Madge! Crazy Meg! Mad Margaret! Poor Peg!) to her senses. Apparently, this was originally a political joke but it still gets a laugh, mainly from those who don’t live there.
Perhaps , though, the residents of anywhere referenced in a future title would be upset by the association?
Somewhere uninhabited perhaps? Duke of Frogmore?
_______
Excellent suggestions! I vote for Duke and Duchess of Frogmore. Something tells me she would want less miles on the Duchess of Frogs Lol!
"This relationship is starting to feel a bit abusive. Look at how Meghan stares at Harry to make sure he gets it right as he talks about horrible his own race is ... there is some type of sick manipulation going on here."
If journalists started writing about it then things must be bad.
I don't like Harry but perhaps his way out of it is a breakdown, hospital, medevac to UK and divorce. Accompanied by masterful PR feeds about his "controlling and manipulative" wife with gruesome details like sex if he performed well and abusive treatment if he didn't.
I predict we will see Harry on screen telling us how he survived his sadistic wife and importance of the family in his struggles.
I had just come here to ask if anyone else had seen the video of the Cambridge children! This is the first time, I believe, that we are hearing Prince Louis's voice!
https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/documents/2020-227434-CaseDocuments.pdf
Now, to recap the case: The police did go through traffic cameras, business cameras, her phone records, her boyfriend's texts, her mother's phone in order to establish a timeline and route. At no time did they see anybody resembling her reported attackers on camera, or her even in the lane that she reported that she was in (left lane); she was in the right lane with window up. At no point did a camera catch her in flames.
An accelerant-sniffing dog was brought in to sniff the car. The dog did not alert that its nose had caught the whiff of accelerants in the vehicle. The vehicle interior was swabbed for the presence of accelerants. None were found. Her clothes from the ER in a bag were examined; they tested positive for something like lighter fluid.
The medical testimony from the ER people was redacted; we are not able to read through the differences that they perceived between flash burns, friction burns (hey, she was at her boyfriend's house and I doubt they were playing battleship), and chemical burns and why the hospital personnel thought it was one over the other. Regardless, the injuries were not serious enough for the hospital to do a mandatory report (and they were expecting patients due to the rioting). They expected her to do so.
Her phone established that she was not present at the rioting (note: In an abundance of caution I should add "unless she left it at her boyfriend's house while she was out" but I have the feeling this was a booty call, not a looty call).
From the end of the police investigation reports, they seem to be leaning toward some sort of domestic violence scenario involving her boyfriend or her brother but, unless she's willing to talk further, there's nothing they can do. Based on her testimony, they could find no corroborating evidence even though the widened the search as to area and time. Surprisingly, there were no white college boys in Hawaiian shirts found wandering around lighting random black women on fire while they were driving. But we already knew that.
Thank you, you did a good job looking at the files.
Just another liar in a long queue to the Good Morning America.
Here’s a video of the the Cambridge kids asking Sir David questions. It’s absolutely precious! https://www.instagram.com/tv/CF4dvUDFPEK/?igshid=14b9969zzohor
Thank you for my "squeeeeee" moment this morning! Sir David really can communicate well with the young and retains his childlike wonder at the world. I love that he doesn't talk down to the children but meets them at each of their levels. What a great educator!
I am *very* impressed with Charlotte's composure at such a young age. Young George is so very earnest with a touch of shy, and Louis is just so darned cute it should be illegal.
Prince George's question was really thoughtful. All he has been learning about the natural world has clearly made an impression, and he is now looking forward. And Sir David had an excellent answer for him -- and for all children who might be worried about losing another species. You're so right that he can meet children at their level and respect them as thinkers and allies in the fight to protect wildlife.
I thought Princess Charlotte was a bit mischievous with her question. She knows that her love for spiders is a little unusual! And I think she appreciated Sir David's whimsical thought about their eight legs!
As for Prince Louis . . . Scorpiotwentythree has predicted since his infancy that he will be the BRF's heartbreaker when he grows up. I must agree. He is too adorable for words!
Headed out for a few days but wanted to wish a happy amd healthy weekend to everyone!
And to Hikari, Happy Birthday Eve!1😉
There's a short Fame Vixen video that says the two of the Meghans we've seen recently are really body doubles. One is the Meghan of the AGT video.
I don't know if I want to go all-in on this theory. The plastic surgery explanation made more sense. I also think Meghan is enough of a narc that she'd want to be the only one in front of the camera at all times. Besides, once we start seeing doubles, we'll keep seeing them everywhere!
Thanks for the link to the AB docs. Wow. Law enforcement did a ton on work on that "case." I haven't read everything as carefully as you have but I found it interesting that near the end of the 150+ pages of docs when told no evidence of the attack could be found, AB said she had heard the police knew there would be "white supremacists" in town the night it happened. She said the community should have been warned. That she wouldn't have gone out if she'd known. Good grief, surely she knew there were riots going on! (The person writing the report told her he didn't know anything about the specific white supremacist reports she described.)
Who was it a while ago who said that Meghan looks different every time we see her? @Hikari?
There's a short Fame Vixen.
here is the fifth hit on bing for "fame vixen" ======= With our Duchess
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24fDuMoAJf4
90 thousand views at you tube
It's even shorter when you recall her intro is almost two minutes long and her last slide stays on even longer than that! It's such a meaty topic, too, that she could have kept going.
I liked Fame Vixen's analysis of the engagement interview, so I'm a little disappointed that she just floated the topic and left it at that.
@SwampWoman,
Thanks for the link to the AB docs. Wow. Law enforcement did a ton on work on that "case." I haven't read everything as carefully as you have but I found it interesting that near the end of the 150+ pages of docs when told no evidence of the attack could be found, AB said she had heard the police knew there would be "white supremacists" in town the night it happened. She said the community should have been warned. That she wouldn't have gone out if she'd known. Good grief, surely she knew there were riots going on! (The person writing the report told her he didn't know anything about the specific white supremacist reports she described.)
There was a lot of material that I left out that I wasn't sure pertained or was important, such as people reporting on people that they heard may have done it. I was thinking that semi-accusation at the police was in case there was a lawsuit to accuse the police of negligence (grin) about failure to warn people about roving bands of white boys in Hawaiian shirts.
"Hypocrites Meghan and Harry beg for privacy---but are hungry for attention"
PART 1
It's only been ten months since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced they were leaving the British royal family in search of "privacy"-yet they have never been so much in our faces, sanctimoniously and hypocritically telling us how to live and who to vote for, all while signing a reported $100 million deal with Netflix.
Also Markle is reportedly eyeing a run for president of the United States in 2024.
Yes, this formerly unknown C-list actress who couldn't hack the cosseted existence of a senior royal, whose entire adult life has been spent in search of a spotlight she now claims to disdain, thinks she has the grit, intellect and real-world experience necessary for the top job.
"She would seriously consider running for president," a close friend of Markle's told Vanity Fair last month. This short-term goal was, the source said, "one of the reasons she was so keen not to give up her American citizenship" upon marrying into the royal family two years ago.
Does anyone remotely think Harry is running this show? Not even our current president buys that.
"Not a fan," Trump said at a recent WH press conference. "I wish a lot of luck to Harry, because he's going to need it."
To look at Harry's posture and facial expressions in any of the numerous videos he and Meghan keep foisting on a nation in lockdown-- truly, what have we done to deserve this? -- is to see a hostage situation.
Take a recent video from Sept. 23, produced in conjunction with Time magazine: Harry and Meghan in their vast backyard, a sleek black dog gamboling through lush background greenery, Harry twitching as Meghan explains to us, in gobbledygook-Oprah-speak, why this presidential election is more important than any other (not-so-subtle subtext: Don't vote for Donald Trump).
{Inset of video}
Also, how voting can raise our self-esteem.
"When we vote, our values are put into action and our voices are heard," says Meghan, that ever-present expression of smug, beatific self-satisfaction fixed on her face. "Your voice is a reminder that you matter. Because you do, and you deserve to be heard."
Thanks for that.
An uncomfortable-looking Harry follows us by telling us he's "not going to be able to vote here in the U.S."
You don't say.
This get-out-the-vote video is just one example of how exhausting these two have quickly become. Their hypocrisy, like their lack of self-awareness, is limitless. Hey---who would you most like to hear speak about Black Lives Matter? It's got to be Harry and Megs, sitting in front of three well-placed bird's nest prints ($350 per) in their $14 million mansion in Montecito, right?
Here's Harry describing the "awakening" he's undergone since marrying the biracial Meghan. "You know, when you go in to a shop with your children and you only see white dolls, do you even think, 'That's weird, there is not a black doll there?"
This insufferable brain trust has been rendered more so by greed. It's not enough that Harry has a reported net worth of $25-to-$40 mullion, or that Prince Charles was, until very recently, reportedly funding them, or that pre-pandemic they were demanding $1 million in speaking fees, or that they embarrassed themselves by publicly ambushing Bob Iger and Jon Favreau at a movie premiere, begging for an acting gig for Meghan. To say nothing of a biography called "Finding Freedom," a book so detailed and so pro-Sussex it's hard to believe the couple, despite their denials, didn't fully cooperate with the authors.
All the while, peddling the line that they just want to be private philanthropists.
To that end, Meghan showed up on "America's Got Talent" last week for no discernible reason, and Harry and Meghan just announced that $100 million deal with Netflix.
"Making inspirational family programming," they said in a statement, "is important to us." Uh-huh. They droned on about "the power of the human spirit: of courage, resilience, and the need for connection. Through our work with diverse communities and their environments, to shining a light on people and causes around the world, our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope."
In other words, stuff no one wants to watch. Let's get real: The most buzzed-about doc on Netflix right now is about a South African man who falls in love with an octopus ("My Octopus Teacher," truly a must-see).
Meghan may be many things, but she's no dummy. She knows what the people want to see. Is it any surprise that Meghan and Harry secretly filmed behind palace walls, pre-Megxit, with an eye toward a Netflix deal, as the Daily Mail reported last week?
But no reality show, never.
"Netflix obviously want their pound of flesh," a source told The Sun, adding that the couple agreed to be filmed for three months to give people a glimpse into their lives."
Not so, say Harry and Meghan-- and of course, why not believe them? All they want--really, they swear--is privacy.
##
The vid of Sir David and the Cambridge children is the sweetest thing I've seen in a long time.
For those able to view this link to the NY Post Maureen Callahan opinion piece I posted above,
the visual graphic included in her article is definitely worth a peek! :-)
https://nypost.com/2020/10/03/meghan-and-harry-beg-for-privacy-but-are-hungry-for-attention/
I laughed out loud at the first graphic.
The article yo posted was the best read of my day. Thank you.
There's a short Fame Vixen video that says the two of the Meghans we've seen recently are really body doubles. One is the Meghan of the AGT video.
I don't know if I want to go all-in on this theory. The plastic surgery explanation made more sense. I also think Meghan is enough of a narc that she'd want to be the only one in front of the camera at all times. Besides, once we start seeing doubles, we'll keep seeing them everywhere!
I didn't see the FV vid about the body doubles but I am fresh from her analysis of Meg's plastic surgery. I lol'd at the bit where she said the post-brow lift MM of the Smartworks video looked like an avatar. Yes, and avatar that bears a striking resemblance to 1990s Mariah Carey. Add the inevitable filter and her face has that blurry animated quality to it.
I think Megs has employed body doubles a few times for herself and Harry, but only for the fuzzy, long-distance shots of 'them' getting on/off private jets or, through a window, taking their plastic baby to a pub. If we recall, these types of shots usually appear after the fact in order to bolster some fiction she's had put out about their activities. (cf. Ghost Pub Bank Holiday Lunch) There were no pictures released the day or the day after this supposed Royal visit to a local watering hole with an infant. Some 5 days to a week later (after the proprietors themselves had gone on record as saying they had refused the Sussex reservation due to their outlandish security demands) this photo pops up.
This is what the gaslighting of a Narc is like, to an extreme.
Pub Landlord: No, we categorically did NOT host Harry and Meghan over Bank Holiday week-end. It's our busiest weekend of the year--we are always absolutely slammed. They wanted us to clear out the entire dining room for them. We had to say no. There was a lot of whinging at the other end about Do you know who we are and grandson of the Queen and all, but I had to put the phone down because we just had an entire rugger team come in.
5 days later . . .
Blurry photo of two fuzzy figures taken from the back through some random window.
Meg's PR: Oh, yes you did, you liar! You did too host us! We stayed for three hours, just bonding as a family! Just H. had the roast lunch and a beer. (Well, it was actually 6 beers but we say one . .). Meg ordered a cup of morning dew and a plate of air because she doesn't like to feel overstuffed when she's nursing. She did a little yoga at the table and nibbled on a bag of kale chips. But they were definitely there, so retract your lies!
From The Express:
“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are nervous about the demands that Netflix could make of the royal couple. Harry and Meghan signed a massive deal thought to be worth £112million last month with the streaming giant to produce TV series and films. However, royal experts now suggest that Netflix expects "Harry and Meghan to pay their price in return - pay in a pound of flesh".
Well duh! What did these two think?
Oh that’s right, they’re royals and companies should just throw buckets of cash at them because they exist.
Has anybody else wondered why the Sussexes' WiFi connection and technology in general is such shite? They are supposedly living in this $14 million dollar mansion in Montecito, and Meg is never short dosh for cosmetic surgery procedures . . but all of their home broadcasts look they they are shot in a detention center with dial-up Internet on a 1990s model Windows. The figures of Harry and Megs are blurred and fuzzy and the video quality is very jerky and poor.
Is this to further obfuscate where they actually are and how they actually look? For two people who act so furtive and clandestine like they are WitSec, they are certainly crammed down our faces every 5 minutes. If they can afford this palatial home and a Cadillac Escalade, why can't they have at least one tech-savvy assistant to operate the camera and keep the WiFi up to scratch?
Notice we haven't heard anything in yonks about their security . . .and when was the last time they were actually photographed outside of their 'mansion enclave' . . at the school supplies drop off in August? They might actually have turned into holograms.
This is the hands-down weirdest celebrity situation I have ever seen. These two make Greta Garbo look like the life of the party. Yet for two folks who are invisible in the real world, they sure do clutter up the virtual world with their gobshite.
I liked the article about how royalty stack up UK to the others. I specifically noticed that it stated that they were most likely to do local events, not just the big flashy ones.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8774623/British-Royals-Queen-family-work-harder-cost-taxpayers-European-counterparts.html
Glad you did! Thank you and welcome :)
YES! I have wondered about the poor quality of their videos as well. The structural racism video is extra strange.
Notice how small Markle's head looks compared to Harry's. He's sitting slightly forward, but not that much because their knees are at about the same level. Her head even looks too small for her body. Here's the link for a quick look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1kbJYsNOaQ
The Prince moved to Los Angeles with his wife Meghan and their baby son Archie in early May after leaving a rented mansion in Vancouver, Canada, in March.
The couple were first reported to be staying at a sprawling Beverly Hills mansion owned by TV producer Tyler Perry on May 7 – meaning that, as of today, Harry has been in the US for at least 151 days. If he reaches 183 days he is legally liable to pay taxes there.
Top LA tax lawyer David Holtz last night said: 'You can safely assume that someone at the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] is looking very closely at him. This is a big deal.'
Top LA tax lawyer David Holtz last night said: 'You can safely assume that someone at the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] is looking very closely at him. This is a big deal.'
Harry, 36, faces paying both US federal and Californian state taxes under the 'substantial presence test' that requires any foreigner who spends 183 days in the country during a three-year period to pay US taxes on worldwide earnings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8801963/Prince-Harry-faces-monumental-tax-bill-unless-takes-break-Los-Angeles-mansion.html#comments
Hahaha ha, notice it says THREE YEAR PERIOD. If he leaves, H can only come back for a few more weeks over the next 2+ years. My mom works for the IRS, yes, yes, yes they are watching!!!! The IRS would love to get into the RF finances. Since Granny and Charles have been subsidizing their lifestyle, they would be open audit also. Including businesses and charities, since people like to float their personal expenses through those types of organizations and try to write it off. Write offs are allowed, but the IRS has a "reasonable" set amount, not unlimited. $100K dress only worn once and a new gown for every event won't cut it for the taxman. Someone should tell Phonics," he ain't in Britian anymore Toto".
Thanks for the tax article link. The article says he needs to leave next month as he's now been in the US at least 151 days. According to the article though, they left the Russian's house in Canada in March but maybe weren't in the US until May 7 when they were reported to be at Tyler's???? What about having to flee to the US before the borders closed? They were in the UK in March though. But I think he's already hit the deadline unless those stories of Harry sneaking off to the UK in the summer were true. But even if they were, he can only be here 183 days in three years...not an infinite number of 183-day spreads as long as there are breaks between. At least I think that's how it works.
Maybe he's traveling on a diplomatic passport...but he really shouldn't be. If he is, the RF deserves whatever IRS trouble comes their way. (I'm pretty sure TQ can have a diplomatic passport removed, can't she?)
Now M....that's another story. You can bet she is working hard to shelter all earnings. I'm wondering what her status on her attempt to become a British citizen is.
If everything is being funded through some off shore account.
Were present in the United States less than 183 days during the year, and
Had a closer connection during the year to one foreign country in which you have a tax home than to the United States (unless you have a closer connection to two foreign countries, discussed next), and
Maintained a tax home in that foreign country during the entire year (see Chapter 28 of Publication 17 for a discussion of the tax home concept), and
Had not taken steps toward, and did not have an application pending for, lawful permanent resident status (green card).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1343406/Prince-Harry-heartbreak-prince-william-marines-royal-feud-latest
Since, M has been audited before,she is more likely to be audited again. H too since he is her husband and all their businesses and charities. Any gifts or $$ even from family members will have to accounted for also. I'm sure it would take years to audit them and the UK taxman would be drug in to help with verifying everything. It certainly doesn't help a "presidential hopeful" who has a dodgy financial past when running for office. My mother doesn't follow royals, but back during the baby shower, she had a lot to say about celebrities and flaunting wealth to the media. The IRS is definitely keeping track and will demand receipts.
How will Meg counter darling Louis
“heard speaking for the first time”
A video of Doria “heard speaking for the first time”
I’ve not heard her speak once?
Makes sense then that Frogmore Cottage had to be retained as their residence. Plus Harry needed to be "domiciled" in the UK for other reasons (counselor of state.) Guess that's the reason for the repayment too (whatever fraction it really was.) The RF couldn't allow him to give up FC. Makes it much more likely IMO what was paid wasn't paid by Harry.
From https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/closer-connection-exception-to-the-substantial-presence-test
Italics added by me.
"It does not matter whether your permanent home is a house, an apartment, or a furnished room. It also does not matter whether you rent or own it. It is important, however, that your home be available at all times, continuously, and not solely for short stays.
A home in the foreign country relates to whether the person had a closer connection to a foreign country than to the United States.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/feds-close-investigation-yet-another-hate-crime-hoax
Thanks for the info.
Isn't it possible though for Harry to qualify for an exception to the "substantial presence" test as @Jdubya described? (More than 183 days but different tax home, closer connection to foreign country, not applying for green card) And not be using a diplomatic passport?
I do recall at the time of the Sandringham Summit "sources" said tax implications of H&M's plan were discussed.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/03/meghan-and-harry-beg-for-privacy-but-are-hungry-for-attention/
and now this one
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/49-details-in-finding-freedom-that-could-have-only-come-from-meghan-markle/news-story/2e03401c2f3a7370e26ffe86ccfef04e
Thank you for the interesting discussion of the Sussexes’ tax liabilities.
Remember that it was tax evasion that finally got famed mob boss Al Capone imprisoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone
Apparently, these tax issues were something that a lot of people could see coming from miles and miles away! And there hadn't even been a whiff of Megxit on the horizon!
If the Royal Family had been more organized, they would have insisted that Meg give up her US citizenship before marrying into the family. (I realize that denunciation ordinarily takes several years, but perhaps they could have made a special arrangement)
Not Meghan, nor Joseph P. Kennedy III, nor the team at Good Morning America, nor the NFL for allowing players to wear Althea's name on their helmets as an example of "system racism and police brutality."
Nobody is apologizing for jumping to conclusions and defaming the city of Madison or unnecessarily adding to racial tensions. The whole thing is just memory-holed.
The sad part of this is that it ruins the credibility of the media in general so that when news and information is vitally important - as with the current medical crisis in the White House - nobody believes what they are saying.
That the BRF decided to go through with it and just run damage control supports the theory that Prince and Princess Harry had already married in secret. So it was kind of a done deal.
Before this, I would have said that Prince Louis of Luxembourg was the dumbest royal on the planet. But he is now a distant second to poor Hapless.
(Prince Louis didn't tell anyone he was dating his now ex-wife Tessy until after she was already pregnant. It was quite a scandal, because they couldn't get married before the baby was born. And since the baby wouldn't be born to married parents, he wouldn't be in the line of succession. But any younger siblings born after the wedding would, which would have been awful. Prince Louis ended up renouncing his, his children's and all their children's succession rights, so that they would all be equal.)
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/10/03/why-is-mm-afraid-of-finding-freedom-master-kaye-rules-for-the-defence/
since married, he'd do nothing but wince
a z-listed nutter
pulled him into her gutter
and turn him into laughing stock mince
There once was a couple the Cringe
who on their own farts, they would binge
they'd preach condescending
while spending and spending
their safe spot in the lunatic fringe
There once was an actress, z-listed
who thought she was smart and insisted
her husband, the moron
they'd make us all yawn yawn
his berries she held onto tightfisted
MM does not/did not meet the residency requirements for British citizenship and although the BRF never mentioned her taking, never mind passing, the Life in the UK test, she cannot/could not apply for British citizenship.
If the Royal Family had been more organized, they would have insisted that Meg give up her US citizenship before marrying into the family. (I realize that denunciation ordinarily takes several years, but perhaps they could have made a special arrangement).
---------------
But Meg would have had to apply for British citizenship first, which takes time, or else she would have ended up stateless. Would/could they have waited?
I’m hoping they’re found
Laundering dollar, and pound
Also proof ‘Loving Kindness’
Is a front, set to blind us
To the facts
They owe much in back tax
That is she'd have to complete the residency requirements (hmm...) and the British Life exam.
(Not that that is is accurate, it seems. I once had a look at the official guide which seemed to believe that Hadrian's Wall marks the border between Scotland and England. It doesn't now, though the Romans probably thought of it as the line between Imperial Rome and the land of the barbarians - but that was a long time ago. It runs more or less E-W from Wallsend on Tyne Segedunum Fort) to the Solway Firth; immediately north of it is still England - part of Cumbria and most of Northumberland.)
Here are the basic requirements, from https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-spouse#:~:text=You%20can%20apply%20for%20British,the%20date%20of%20your%20application
You have to :
`- prove you were in the UK exactly 3 years before the day the Home Office receives your application
- prove your knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic
- show you’ve passed the life in the UK test
- be of good character - read the naturalisation guidance'
The 3yrs requirement specifies the maximum time one can be out of the UK.
As far as I know, there has been no report of her having applied.
Thanks so much for that info on requirements to apply for British citizenship.
Yet another lie from Rachel! I do wish this one would be exposed ... that she never applied.
I did not realise that you had to be resident for 3 years before applying. I think she could have only get a visa to stay for 6 months unless she married a British citizen. I think she made a trip back to the US to renew that visa. To Chicago? That was odd, so I wonder what 'personal' business she was taking care of on that trip.
IMO, the BRF, the government and the people were very generous in welcoming her and giving her all the perks and status and wealth (gosh, she did manage to spend a lot of other people's money in a short time) when she remained a foreign citizen, and not even of a Commonwealth country.
IMO, the extent of the fraud of this grifter has not been fully exposed and most people, especially the British, are being way too polite. I wonder if Harry's family have joined all the dots.
Also ta for Sean Lennon tip-off. I saw a link he had to another twitter account. Nandi Bushell, 10 year old mixed-race British girl, thrashing it out on the electric guitar and drums, happily sporting a Union Jack tee-shirt in order to belt out punk anthems by Joy Division and the Sex Pistols, and confident enough to challenge Dave Grohl to a drum off. That's the UK I know and love and the one Megz n Haz should acquaint themselves with.
thank you for the link to 50 proofs Markle cooperated in the book. It is pretty conclusive.
The 51 one: if she didn't talk and was unaware her most intimate friend leaked the details, she should have issued a massive official condemnation of the book's gross envasion of her privacy.
The fact she never did this proves she was happy with the use of the most intimate details.
Maneki Neko replied...
But Meg would have had to apply for British citizenship first, which takes time, or else she would have ended up stateless. Would/could they have waited?
I’d add on to that.....
British Citizenship takes between 3 and 5 years, why should someone who marries into the Royal Family jump the queue when others have to wait? I think this did come up just before her wedding and I’d say the majority of Brits took issue with it, and rightly so.
Here’s his latest YouTube video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a5Bnrpxji8&feature=share
I don't think that would have worked. Jumping to the front of the line/queue would have looked bad. Insisting a couple in their 30s wait 3-5 years to marry would have looked bad. If she didn't jump the line I'm not sure she could have stayed in the UK for more than 6 months if not married to Harry. (Wouldn't she have had to get a job? At least on paper?) And finally, Autumn Phillips wasn't required to renounce her Canadian citizenship. While Peter is in the line of succession (15th I believe followed by his two daughters who hold dual citizenship) unlike Harry he isn't a working royal. But that difference could have been lost in the cries of racism.
Adapted from “Let’s do it” wonderful Victoria Wood
‘Botswana Blues’
Mush and Tush were up all night
His eyes were crossed, and so off sight
The stars were in hiding, the moon half cock
Tush decided to grab Mush’s stock
She flicked her hair, and pursed her lips
And gyrated her non hip hips
Harry cringed, in fear and fright
He meant to sh.g but once, that’s right?
Let’s screw it...
I only meant to sh.g her once, blew it...
@Raspberry
Alex Belfield is spot on!
@TLT
Good choice if it’s true?
Prince Philip served 64 years as Captain General.
Harry managed less than three.
Lest we forget his abandonment of Deal!!
Unforgivable.
Another point brought up by a DM poster (I think). Why would Just Harry put a child, any child, through what he has gone through in regards to his birthright? The questioning of his parentage that continues today. For someone who can’t get out of bed in the morning because he is so sensitive to the pain in the world, how could he do this to his own child? Has the doll been Markled by Harry like the rest of their families?
Good limericks!
She came from across the sea
To find her love Harry
And a princessa to be
But her act wore thin
With the public, alas
So she fled back home
Where sun always shines
Full of grifters and drifters
Now she is never alone
Except that damn X-Box
That Haps is a fool for
He will hole up for hours
While he plays Madden
He's kicked away soccer
He's kicked away rugby
Now is all in for football
"And don't you bug me."
The Duke, 36, and Duchess of Sussex, 39, are set to host their own Christmas soirée in Los Angeles and plan on inviting his 'surrogate' dad, Canadian record producer David, and his wife Katharine McPhee, The Mirror has reported.
'Meghan very much wants to host the first Christmas at their new home with her mum,' a source close to the couple claimed. 'She’s really excited and is planning on doing all the traditions she grew up with as a child, including the cooking.'
Is the 'source' MM herself??
My favourite line from the `Ballad of Barry and Freda'?
"Beat me on the bottom with the `Woman's Weekly!' "
I haven't seen a recent copy but it was such an innocent magazine, the essence of suburban domesticity, `famed for its knitting/fiction' and so on, in the days before it went glossy.
---------------------
@WeeKittylass:
`Merchie's birth certificate' - I've gone on at length about this and how I'm very sceptical about its authenticity - if it's not fake, it may indicate adoption of a child ie even if he was from H's sperm and M's egg they are not automatically his legal parents under our law, unlike US law. He would have to be adopted.
No convincing piece of evidence of anything about his birth has been offered yet, as far as we know -
eg Was he born of her body?
- If not, Who carried him?
-If by surrogacy whose gametes were used?
-where was he born?
-that is, was he born? Has he even existed?
Prince Louis and Tessy's divorce was quite the train wreck . . . for Tessy! Imagine walking away with that paltry sum, after having been married to someone in one of the richest royal families in the world. But I can also see how all those assets would already be tied up in other things, including fixed expenses -- and how even the Luxembourg-Nassaus might not have the freedom they'd like to spend their own money.
On the other hand . . . A friend of mine who is a lawyer once represented a woman who had had a child with a married man. My friend's client naturally wanted support for her child. When they started negotiations, the married man showed up with his attorney, his accountant and his wife [!!!], and proceeded to explain why he could really only afford to give the equivalent of 10 Pounds Sterling a month. It was both insulting and patently untrue. He definitely had more disposable income than that, having paid for dinner dates with her and their hotel room trysts. My friend was able to negotiate something better for her client, but the initial insulting message had been loud and clear: You, an outsider, don't get to milk this family for money.
If regular, upper-middle class folk can go to the mattresses like that, then Meghan has no chance at a divorce settlement that will be anything to her liking. And I think she knew that at the start of the year, which is when her Plan A to divorce Prince Harry turned into the Plan B we all see now. (My personal theory is that Finding Freedom was originally supposed to be all about her, with "H" cast as the besotted but weak husband who couldn't protect her or stand up to Evil William. But when she realized she couldn't be the merry divorcée she envisioned, she had to take a different tack.)
So Foster and McPhee are still friends with them? Or is this a trial balloon that Foster himself will pop come December, when he reveals what splashy celebration he is actually attending?
Also: Isn't it a bit early for Christmas planning? Shouldn't we be hearing about her Thanksgiving plans first? It would be Prince Harry's first Thanksgiving in the US, which is already interesting in and of itself . . . And it took my typing that to see the obvious. Of course she wouldn't want "H" stealing the limelight from her for a second.
Or perhaps Meghan simply wanted another cheap shot at Prince Charles. Of all the celebrity friends she could still name-drop, she picks the "surrogate father."
In the DM, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle plan on spending Christmas in the US with the duke's 'surrogate' father David Foster, a source has claimed.
The Duke, 36, and Duchess of Sussex, 39, are set to host their own Christmas soirée in Los Angeles and plan on inviting his 'surrogate' dad, Canadian record producer David, and his wife Katharine McPhee, The Mirror has reported.
'Meghan very much wants to host the first Christmas at their new home with her mum,' a source close to the couple claimed. 'She’s really excited and is planning on doing all the traditions she grew up with as a child, including the cooking.'
Is the 'source' MM herself??
Sounds like she's trying to evoke sad emotions from Prince Charles that his beloved son is spending a family holiday with his 'surrogate' dad. If I were PC, I'd say "Fine! He can support them, too."
I have a feeling that Harry is not going to be in any Christmas festivities with her, though. He'll probably be at a stripper bar in Vegas.
So Foster and McPhee are still friends with them?
Alas, I don't have the answer to your question. Maybe this is to quash rumours of H&M spending Christmas at Sandringham, although I think that was a non starter.
Obviously, our private couple who dislike peasants poking their noses into their private life don't mind these details being made public (if this latest rumour is true).
Doria will spend Christmas chez H&M.
And what is a "Christmas soirée"? How pretentious...
Or perhaps Meghan simply wanted another cheap shot at Prince Charles. Of all the celebrity friends she could still name-drop, she picks the "surrogate father."
DEFINITELY a cheap shot at Charles. What, did royal big sugar daddy cut off the money? Awwwwwwww. I thought Netflix was the new sugar daddy dispensing largesse. Poor David Foster. I can only imagine how painful squirting coffee through one's nose is if he was reading about himself and found he was hosting Scary and Harry for Christmas. "Jenkins! Get my divorce lawyer on line 1."
Sounds like she's trying to evoke sad emotions from Prince Charles that his beloved son is spending a family holiday with his 'surrogate' dad. If I were PC, I'd say "Fine! He can support them, too."
------------
True and very possible but what about Thomas Markle? He is not very far at all and would enjoy meeting his grandson (if he's with H&M), not to mention a stay in palatial splendour being looked after. But that's never going to happen.
“Harry, 36, faces paying both US federal and Californian state taxes under the 'substantial presence test' that requires any foreigner who spends 183 days in the country during a three-year period to pay US taxes on worldwide earnings.
Another tax expert said: 'Harry's bill could be monumental and could open up a can of worms for the Royal Family because the IRS will want to know all his sources of income.“
I was thinking the 183-day limit was 183 days during any one-year period or any single calendar year, but according to the DM expert on US income taxes it’s a total of 183 days in any THREE -YEAR PERIOD. Does anyone know if this means any amount of 183 days in the US that are sprinkled throughout a three-year period or does the person have to spend 183 CONSECUTIVE days in the US during a three-year period?
It it is any number of days amounting to 183 days sprinkled throughout a three-year period, then it sounds like Harry could truly be in a jam.
Anyone with knowledge of this issue care to comment? I didn’t see an answer to this question earlier in this thread.
Thanks!
And what is a "Christmas soirée"? How pretentious...
Oh, my! Soiree sounds like it could be a fancy shootin' and drinkin' party. Formal attire will be required so jeans and Christmas theme T-shirts should be in reasonably good repair. No flip flops due to fire ants; full shoes only. Alcoholic beverages will be homemade wines, beer, and moonshine, bring enough for sharing. Your soiree may vary.
it's fitting that Harry will spend Christmas with his surrogate father since Harry is a surrogate father himself.
You are the winner of the virtual drink of your choice today. That was savage!
https://www.irstaxapp.com/how-to-find-if-you-are-tax-resident-of-usa/
Harry definitley needs to listen to his accountants to avoid paying us taxes an all his iinternational income.
on the other hand , he is a very woke millenial so should be thrilled to pay whatever us taxes the irs says are due to support his adopted country. after all, it takes a village,
he’d better have that 100 million netxflix deal and not a 3 -5 million deal thats also been reported in the press.
If she had a change of hairstyle, she could have a `soiree with a fringe on top'. (Joke courtesy of either `Round the Horn' or `I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue')
Here's an Early Victorian-style joke (all mine) -
I think they're both in difficulties over tax and visa matters in each country. They're already in a jam or pickle - could the Feds make mincemeat of them as well?
Correct response? A loud groan!
I was required to state the days on which I entered and left the US, and the number of days I was in the country.
Example:
Arrived 1 Feb, left 10 Feb, 10 days.
Arrived 1 Mar, left 15 March, 15 days
Etc.
So I highly doubt they mean 183 consecutive days. That would be pretty easy to cheat, with a quick trip to Mexico or the Caribbean.
IIRC, the were no reports of either parent being seen in the vicinity of the Embassy at the time. I can't believe that she'd give up that particular photo opp. just for the sake of `security/secrecy. She'd have loved rubbing our noses in it.
No one, I mean no one on the internet, can respect Harry pretending to have a new dad now when his own dad is the fucking future King of England.
Is this Harry? Or is Meghan trying to completely ruin this guy. FFS, it's getting nasty now and no one has time for this petulant drama that will end horrifically, I fear.
Who else thinks making claims like this is officially the start of Meghans' slide into oblivion. Her popularity as an adjacent-royal has been declining since August (when they announced they had a grand home, and nothing left to complain about), so is this desperate Meghan?
"I'm inviting a few select guests - only the very best people, of course - to my candlelit Christmas soiree". MM is excluding the Markles, of course, just as Hyacinth would exclude Rose and Onslow and Daisy.
A Christmas soiree" sounds like something Hyacinth Bucket (of Keeping Up Appearances) would say.
"I'm inviting a few select guests - only the very best people, of course - to my candlelit Christmas soiree". MM is excluding the Markles, of course, just as Hyacinth would exclude Rose and Onslow and Daisy.
_____
This is hilarious! My laugh for today!
All I'm getting out of this is that Prince Charles did something else Meghan doesn't like, so she must punish him with that "surrogate" father barb . . . and that the Harkles have made no other friends to name-drop since they landed in California. None. Zip. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Crickets.
Well, there were reports/rumours that it wouldn't be a usual Sandringham Christmas any way, thanks to Covid 19 and staff not being willing to endure protracted isolation as a result.
Heh. I can see HM getting on the phone to Charles and saying something like "I hear that Dear Harry and Meghan are planning on attending Christmas this year. I certainly didn't invite them, did you? The stable manager has notified me that your father has requested that all of his riding whips be brought to the house and muttered something about how it was time that they get the thrashing they so deserve. You need to help me think of some excuse to keep them away quickly. It could be an international incident. What's that? You don't think President Trump would complain? Perhaps not, but I just do not think that this is the kind of exercise that the doctor had in mind for your father when he said that he needed to get some light exercise."
Markle's planned Christmas Soiree reminded me of a "swarry" from Pickwick Papers which Sam Weller (Pickwick's friend and servant) attended in Bath. The hit of the evening was a wave of indignation when one of the footmen declared he had to resign because his boss tried to make him eat cold beef (if I remember correctly).
I can just about imagine Markle complaining during her soiree about equally horrible things done to her by the royal family (can you imagine, they never asked me if I was OK! I had to resign immediately).
But I'm pretty sure if MM used that word she means some sort of general boozy Christmas morning Hollywood brunch-type thing and my editor's heart will break in two is I have to hear the word mis-used like that over and over from now til then.
The High Court and the IRS/Feds are a better bets as their nemesis - much as I'd like to see the RF as the agent of retribution.
What powers do the Feds have this side of the Atlantic?
1. a reveal about her presidential candidate website Meghan2024
2. a blind about her sleeping with David Foster
3. a blind about her netflix documentary from a crew member who says it looks like a reality show about how kind and wonderful they are
Check them out
And now that those blinds are out, Meghan can kiss that "soiree" goodbye!
It will be interesting if she also never name-drops Foster and McPhee again . . .
https://twitter.com/SnowScottish/status/1312824480935350273/photo/1
I thought she didn't have a family.
Re the 'soiree', MM would know it's something held in the evening, she speaks 'fluent' French, remember? 😉
I have really amazing good news. It is available on eBay, for just USD $9,999
The link is very long, but you can find this dress offer if you search in google:
“New Custom Emilia Wickstead Green High Neck Cape Dress Aso Royal USA EBAY”
.
Now the neighbors even see it? lol. sheesh.
https://twitter.com/adrian_sleeman/status/1312349353655312384
I'm sure Harry's accountants are on top of the situation but the pandemic may have changed the game plan. I also wonder when he told them North America meant California not Canada.
Queen had secret plan for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to live in Africa: Her Majesty wanted to offer both honour and responsibility to the couple... in the hope they would find happiness just as she had as a newlywed in Malta.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8804435/Queen-secret-plan-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-live-Africa.html
What Christmas traditions??? I thought she didn't have a family.
Oh, well spotted!
If anyone calls her out on it, she'll probably blame Prince Harry for having completely misunderstood. Of course she told him about all those wonderful Christmases spent cooking with Dora. She has no idea how he got the wrong idea. She was absolutely mortified when she heard that line about "the family she never said." Etc.
Best they can do so far is Xmas with the "surrogate father" - looking forward to tomorrows puff pieces to take the attention away from William! What ar your bets?
The "surrogate" father was a pathetically weak move. I'm actually disappointed in Meghan! If that's the best she can do to counter the photos with Sir David (including the glorious MEGalodon tooth!) AND the children's adorable questions for him, then she's scraping the bottom of a desperate barrel.
The obvious bet is a high-quality photo or video of Archie. Which would be hard to do if she doesn't currently have access to the child from the "Duck Rabbit" video -- or some other child who resembles him.
Harry is so desperate to retain his army titles its as if the Netflix deal depends on it.
Maybe it does? There might already be a lot of footage of him talking about his work with veterans and how much it means to him. Losing his military patronages now would hurt that narrative so badly that they'd have to rescript and reshoot most of his scenes.
When my daughter became an adult and hosted her first holiday feast, she looked me straight in the eye and said "now I know why MaMa was bombed by noon on Christmas Day"....
Yes, I started the turkey and wine at the same time.
Martha Stewart I am not.