There's a new CDAN blind item today, suggesting that there are "still no takers for the alliterate one and her ginger boy to speak at an event."
That's hardly surprising; first of all, there aren't many big in-person events or conventions going on right now, and Enty says that "even for virtual speaking they wanted the same fee as in person."
But fees aren't the only problem. What do the Sussexes bring to an event?
Do they have business knowledge, like how to increase an organization's sales, improve its branding, or inspire better product development?
Do they have an inspirational story, like people who have overcome terrible circumstances and excelled?
Or are they extremely popular (and non-controversial) celebrities that almost everyone would enjoy meeting?
Bragging rights
No, they're not any of the above, and for that reason it's difficult for any meeting planner to justify to his or her clients spending a great deal of money hiring the Sussexes. They don't "deliver value."
They also don't deliver prestige. For big-name speaking events, bragging rights are important.
You want someone at the top of their fame - Cardi B, for example, in September 2020 - or someone your attendees could show off to their friends about having met.
(For left wing/progressive organizations, AOC or Ilan Omar would be great "get"s; for conservative groups, attendees might be excited to meet Madison Cawthorne or Kim Klacik).
Not many people are interested in showing off about having met Harry and Meghan; it's not an envy-generator.
Big-time event planners also like an exclusive on someone who isn't doing any similar events. Harry and Meghan gave that up by doing a highly-publicized (and widely-panned) event for JP Morgan.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
Pre-speech conditions
In addition to not having an obvious way of delivering value to a client, the Sussexes are a pain in the behind. The Telegraph (quoted in the New York Post, with no paywall) revealed a long list of pre-speech conditions, including the ability to choose their moderator, a requirement that a list of attendees be provided in advance, and details of any sponsorship arrangements.
That's a lot of headaches for a little word salad.
Comments
Great new post! I see I lost track of the blog for a few critical hours because of work today. So sorry for that Nutties.
In the previous thread, some Nutties were describing Rache's speeches as inflammatory and inciting anarchy. That's a very interesting perspective. Making speeches about "change" cannot be very profitable. Image and story-telling is what sells and the Sussexes have a paper-thin veneer. There is strong irony in Rache being a type of anarchist calling for revolution and trying to "corrupt" the young.
Rache has a platform because old institutions (British Monarchy, Hollywood, and MSM) want to appeal to younger generations and get them to support their continued existence. Her "change" speeches make no sense in that light. If anything, everyone that puts her on a pedestal should hope for no change but with woke speeches, "signal virtue" and give them an unmeasured value that persuades plebs to let them continue living.
Would we be seeing any bit of Rache's face if the BRF didn't feel she was an asset to the firm for being a little bit black? Or how about Hollywood wanting to milk having a black American Princess when Grace Kelly couldn't even return to films for Hitchcock? What about MSM purporting their authority on history and culture?
The only solace I have is I truly do not see Rache being heard by the young. Both Rache and Beyonce are born in 1981. No young millennials or Gen-Z'ers are going to make sure there are college seminars about the pop culture value of Rache. They already do for Beyonce. Beyonce is a cultural institution at this point but even her star has faded. She's an image of an image at this point. Rache never had a chance to make an impact even if she was an excellent BRF member. She would have just ensured she was a well-liked cog in a very big machine.
LOL, I hope what I am saying makes sense.
As always, they put in requirements as if they were A list just like they did with the here's a the list of what kinds of roles I'm willing to accept. Or the right kind of press we are willing to work with in the Manifesto.
And, true to form, they paint themselves into a corner where a very limited number of people are willing to jump through all their hoops.
Contrary to general thought the no brown M&Ms requirement of Van Halen was a safety trigger to let them know that if it missed, there could be other things which might endanger them. In the JH&MM list, there is no reason other than they believe they are worth this list of mandatory requirements.
Billie Eilish, BTS, Harry Styles, Dua Lipa and, uh, Freddie Mercury and Queen were all topics of enthusiasm, but Beyoncé not so much. I think her audience is in their late 20s/30s now.
Funny you bring up the famous no brown M&M requirements from Van Halen! I was going to mention that. Yes, it was something about how they had very specific safety requirements for setting up their mobile stage, and they figured that if a venue hadn't read the M&M clause, they probably hadn't read the safety clause either.
I think people from Meg's past have mentioned this about her - that she was very grandiose and always thought she deserved the best treatment.
Meanwhile people who really are the best - the Paul McCartneys and Warren Buffets of the world - live quiet, modest lives.
Of course, this angle wasn't possible bc a) She's a narcissist and b) can.not.act! MM lacks even an ounce of warmth imo.
Thus, sadly this "blow up" the BRF PR look and continue the grifting is the only card MM could play. Why Harry is still along the MM Titanic escapes me?
As others have noted before, MM could have taken up a theater patronage of sort, marketed a documentary series of her touring England w the angle of learning about her new home while educating other tourists about the country. People would have watched an eager, charming Duchess from a legit commoner background adjusting to royal life. Her foibles would be forgiven as she connected w her audience.
Would have been a great idea, except that Meg has absolutely no sense of humor about herself.
To admit you have foibles, to not take yourself too seriously, is the sign of someone who basically likes themselves. Meg shows no signs of that.
- Be kind.
- You are great as you are
- Ignore authorities and push your own agenda
- Demand attention you deserve it
- You can achieve anything you want
- Vote but vote correctly
- Social media is evil
- Media is evil
- World is evil and badly organised
- You can change the world
- Racism is bad
- As a woman of colour...
- My mother Diana....
I will be very surprised if they can venture outside this box and will be equally surprised if people want more of the same. Looks like a lot of repeats of what is already been said.
Great comment Charade. ;o)
If they were smart, they'd do a couple act with a bit of comedy. Talk about the humorous incidents that arise when you're a couple from two different countries and two different cultures.
A modified Gracie Allen & George Burns act, or a Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz...I can't think of a more contemporary example, but maybe some of the other Nutties can.
Anyone who's ever been in a long-term relationship with someone who is very different from them (romance, friendship, boss-employee, neighbor) could identify with the whole loveable misunderstandings concept.
Everyone would love to hear a Harkle speech, but their royal demands are too much to handle. So no speeches. Pre-emptive move on the Harkles' part.
Great point.
I have feelings about Billie Eilish and Harry Styles. I am with those kids if the subject is BTS. Yeah, I can go on and on about them forever. Huge ARMY here. BTS has a huge very diverse and across the ages fan base. I'm a classically trained musician who loves music of all kinds. I'm glad I could keep up with those kids about who's hot now.
Stars fade fast. Even with her recent collaboration with Blackpink, Selena Gomez is old at this point. Beyonce faded a long time ago. I get her appeal but I was never a fan. I mentioned the seminars because I knew a couple of friends who orchestrated some. The time for Rache to make her mark in Pop-Culture was gone before she said "I do" and it would have only happened if she was a "somebody" in Hollywood.
Rache is a nobody. Her chance of being a slightly shiny cog is officially gone now too. There is too much out there for Rache's "voice" to be ever heard. Just not interesting. Thank you, next.
@Fairy Crocodile Thank you for the shout out earlier :) I'm grateful you think my posts worthwhile. I will answer your question a little later on.
I think all of us in life have the potential to have a bad day, to not be the kind person we are generally known as.
In their case, they don't seem to have the good days where they are the modest, kind to one and all examples which get passed around which counter the rare bad day.
The problem with claiming the this or that "good deed" as evidence of a good deed doer is that they are always one offs with no real long term in depth real help past this example (meaning: not sustained). For the most part, they are real groups with real long term needs which will still need to go on after the photo op*.
*I'll ignore the planting flowers in honor of someone who had no ties to the school unless they replant them frequently because that is how often the plants die.
Or there seems to have an aura of this is canned, not real (just for show).
You don't see a lot of relaxed having fun with this body language in the photos. Or that they are joking as people do to get the job done as you pass the time. Watch people's body language as they are being hugged.
Lastly, there seems to have a lot of questions about why this group for them to suddenly show up, do their photos and go home. Seems like every time. It is a funny smell like the parents not allowed at the school but they and their photographer are not bound by the rules that the families have to follow. Those kinds of things taint the general good deed.
Honestly, I think the only way what they are working on would get that many views is if it were content trying to prove Diana was murdered by the BRF. (As someone mentioned in the last post- @girlwithahat I think)
That would be explosive. That would get people tuning in- heck, even I would.
That the only thing I can see generating the kind of interest that would make them the "most watched."
No, thank YOU. In addition to the Sussex Success, what do you think about Netflix guy insisting the Harkles' videos will be most popular on the platform?
Am I the only one feeling he is making a good face at the bad game? As if Netflix has a buyer's remorse but still trying to convince itself and others it was a brilliant move?
ha
"Abdicated His Responsibilities" for a Life of "Self-Centered Celebrity"
Mehera Bonner
8 September 2020, 4:07 pm BST
From Good Housekeeping
`• Prince Philip thinks Prince Harry has "abdicated his responsibilities" for a life of "self-centered celebrity."
• Harry stepped down as a senior royal and currently lives in California with Meghan Markle and their son Archie.
You know Prince Philip? Queen Elizabeth's husband and man who loves himself a jaunty cap? Well apparently he is not pleased with Prince Harry's decision to step away from senior royal duties and book it to California. In fact, he thinks it's a complete "dereliction" of his responsibilities. Which is a fancy way of saying he's pissed.
According to royal biographer Ingrid Seward's book Prince Philip Revealed (via People), Prince Philip "has struggled greatly" with "what he sees as his grandson Harry’s dereliction of duty, giving up his homeland and everything he cared about for a life of self-centered celebrity in North America.”
And furthermore, Prince Philip "has found it hard to understand exactly what it was that made his grandson’s life so unbearable. As far as Philip was concerned, Harry and Meghan had everything going for them: a beautiful home, a healthy son, and a unique opportunity to make a global impact with their charity work.... For a man whose entire existence has been based on a dedication to doing the right thing, it appeared that his grandson had abdicated his responsibilities for the sake of his marriage to an American divorcée in much the same way as Edward VIII gave up his crown to marry Wallis Simpson in 1937."
Prince Philip Revealed comes out on October 20, so...gonna go ahead and add that to the list of things my credit card has to look forward to...'
Re the Sussex double act - they are not on the same wavelength, are they? .
Cambridges are, though. I recall when they were visiting a care home an elderly resident mistook Kate for somebody else and asked her: Are you his (William's) aid? To which Kate replied with a smile: Yes, I have always been his aid (or something to this effect). It came out naturally, funny and sweet.
Can you imagine our great feminist Megsy degrading herself to admit supporting a (horror!) white man, her husband, in his work?
I happened to watch it with the sound off. He didn't look excited. Or happy. Just mouthing the approved lines. Actually, he looked unhappy.
As far as young people in their 20's...they have no idea who mm is. I asked around amongst my students, and they're like "Who? Those old fogies? Nope, don't know them."
They consider anyone over 30 as old and not worth their time. And anyone royal is definitely not of interest, other than the queen.
First reaction? Immediately looked at the stock price of Netflix.
LMAO!!!
Since they announced their dumb deal against all public opinion, Netflix stock has lost $6 BILLION in market cap. (you only see a CEO run out when something bad is happening to the CO or the Stock). So here he is publicly justifying his miscalculated M&H decision.
I listened to the video, ANOTHER ERROR saying M and H will not be in the productions. The PUBLIC wants to see them in Reality TV.
Expect the stock to drop further.
And LOL Netflix has been MARKLED!! Hope it was worth it Reed!!
I watched him and he didn't look happy, as you say. Netflix is having an identity crisis and it shows. It grew as an entertainment platform where you can watch films easily for a small fee.
The stuff Sussexes aim at is anything BUT entertainment. How many want to pay to listen to lecturing from the two ex-royals on environment? Or learn about Invictus? Or Duke and Duchess view of equality issues?
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but this is in 9/9/20 Wall Street Journal.
*Netflix TV Chief Exits in Shake-Up*
In a major overhaul at Netflix Inc., Bela Bajaria has been put in charge of global television and Cindy Holland, an architect of the streaming giant's original-content strategy, is leaving, the company said Tuesday.
Ms. Bajaria will oversee all original series for Netflix around the globe...joined Netflix in 2016, had previously been in charge of unscripted programming and international content.
Ms. Holland, who has been at Netflix for nearly 20 years, now finds herself out of a job. Ms. Holland was instrumental in developing and greenlighting much of Netflix's original content, including shows such as *House of Cards*, *Orange Is the New Black* and *Stranger Things*.
What do you all think about the timing of this?
This is a bit OT, sorry. But last night I read on DM that the Queen and Prince Phillip are leaving Balmoral a month earlier than usual, and will travel to Wood Farm, Philip’s cottage on the Sandringham estate where they will spend a month together before HM returns to Windsor. The couple are said to be enjoying their time together during the Covid lockdown, but I’m also hoping that PP is advising his wife on the Harkle debacle. It will be interesting to see if anything of note is announced by BP in the Fall.
Can you imagine HM and PP’s reaction to the list of demands given by the Sussexes for their speaking gigs?? Oh, what I wouldn’t give to be a fly on the wall.
In order to break the cycle, families and individuals need to go to therapy and understand their motivations.
IN the case of the BRF, I suggest that they implement a plan for people like Charlotte and Louis going forward.
Last week I asked my college kid if she minded if I stopped our Netflix subscription. She minded very much. I told her it was to do with their decision to engage with Harry and Meghan. Who, she asked, puzzled. This is someone who is very tuned into social media and trends. I explained who they were. Neither she nor her friends she said had any idea or interest in those two. So we are keeping Netflix ( the rest of the familty's reaction was similar to hers) and I'm confident that the Duo are not going to make any big waves in Netflix.
Re: The CDAN comment - Markle will talk about the challenges of being a black woman in the U.S. and Harry will clutch his chest in sympathy. It's not about how many viewers they get. It's about giving her a platform to disseminate her message, create sound bytes, news stories, and increase her exposure. Netflix is just the base they will operate out of.
Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings has revealed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spent time 'shopping' themselves around to 'all the major companies' before inking a deal with the streaming site - which is said to be worth a whopping $100 million.
The 59-year-old, who is also the co-CEO of the streaming company, praised the 'smart' couple for considering all their options before signing a contract with his site, explaining that he believes they ultimately did a deal with Netflix because 'we put together the best complete package'.
'I'm so excited about that deal,' Hastings said during an appearance on CNBC on Wednesday. 'They're smart, they were shopping it around across all the major companies and I think we really put together the best complete package.'
...
...he predicts their content will be 'the most exciting' and 'most viewed' on the site next year.
Basically, what this means is that the Markles touted for business and all they could get was a deal with Netflix - presumably after being turned down by the others. He's very excited but I fear he might be the only one. The Markles have nothing of value to offer.
I don't think Harkles have nothing to offer to Netflix. Anything they do, even if they fart, will be caught up by the media and reported. Look what happened to FF by Scobie. If media didn't serialise stupid passages from the book I doubt many people but die hard fans would have bothered to buy it. Media gave it advertising on a huge scale.
The same will happen to whatever the Harkles produce, however stupid it is. Netflix will be mentioned, furious comments will follow, sugars will flock to watch and upvote. Netflix gets free publicity and its otherwise obscure show gets prominence.
As people pointed many times the only thing that will cancel the Harkles is indifference, and it is not happening at the moment. Any publicity is a good one as far as Netflix is concerned. This is what is in the core of the deal.
Yes, I suppose there might be some interest in the beginning, mainly out of curiosity, but I think it will be a flash in the pan. Personally, I can't see the interest being sustained long term.
I am not a crazy, it sounds like Asylum believes the monarchy is Illuminarie (sp?) Influenced. I just thought if people were saying the monarchy had killed Diana, I wanted to know more about where this came from (Danza Zone Blog (As you).
............
Don't worry! We've heard about the crazy lizard theory before! lol!!! I actually don't think it started with Danza Zone - I think there are others who believe the royal family are cold-blooded reptilians! And I can't believe I just typed that.
No problem - I could see you were stunned by your first introduction to the lizard rumor!
I'm actually curious now to find out just where that silly theory DID actually start, and I will probably end up disappearing down another one of my google rabbit holes!
Will let you know if I find anything but I've got a date with David and Wallis first!
My exposure to the lizard theory came from H.P. Lovecraft. The Call of Cthulhu is a Sci-fi and Fantasy classic.
If Harry dies first, does MeMe retain her title? Kinda worried about his *alledged* recreational hobbies.
As for the Netflix CEO bleating about what a wonderful "get" the Harkles are ..... Well, if that's his best anticipated programming, it sounds like the menu options will become even more dismal than they already. Their development deal sounds like they need to pull together an idea and actually flesh it out with a thorough script/premise before they get additional bucks to actually hire directors, designers.
OR they've discussed some documentary miniseries like Tiger King or Making a Murderer, with Prince Harry divulging the truth about Diana's assassination or some such thing. The final, complete sellout of the BRF by Harry.
I disagree with the other Nutties about they're speech "rider." In this era of crazy America, ALL public figures, especially politically minded ones, but celebrities too, need to know WHO and WHAT organizations they can be associated with via a photo or PR blurb. That aspect of the speaking contract is ordinary, but the idea of actually charging money for their platitude word salad with a side of privilege is, of course, preposterous.
@ WBBM Thanks so much for posting the Prince Phillip quotes. I hope Harry squirms ( if Megs ALLOWS him to read the article).
As for the Netflix CEO bleating about what a wonderful "get" the Harkles are ..... Well, if that's his best anticipated programming, it sounds like the menu options will become even more dismal than they already. Their development deal sounds like they need to pull together an idea and actually flesh it out with a thorough script/premise before they get additional bucks to actually hire directors, designers.
OR they've discussed some documentary miniseries like Tiger King or Making a Murderer, with Prince Harry divulging the truth about Diana's assassination or some such thing. The final, complete sellout of the BRF by Harry.
I disagree with the other Nutties about they're speech "rider." In this era of crazy America, ALL public figures, especially politically minded ones, but celebrities too, need to know WHO and WHAT organizations they can be associated with via a photo or PR blurb. That aspect of the speaking contract is ordinary, but the idea of actually charging money for their platitude word salad with a side of privilege is, of course, preposterous.
Oooh, so many things that I completely agree with here!
Harry can make any number of films about "YOU KILLED MY MUMMY!" but is anybody going to believe it? We know who killed her. A drunk driver lost control of the car fleeing the paps that Diana called to alert and, if she had worn her seatbelt, she'd be alive today. If she had security provided by the royal family (which she turned down), she would be alive today. If she weren't running around Europe with an *extremely* questionable man, she'd be alive today. (Can I get my $100,000,000 Netflix deal now?)
It has also been 23 years. I'm not sure that anybody cares. The accident has been investigated over and over and over until most people roll their eyes when they hear another version of "Diana was KILLED by the RF to SILENCE her!" If Harry wants to be seen as a slimy weasel that will sell lies about his family to enrich himself, oh well. It is, at this point in time, still a free country.
Harry's problems, like Diana's problems, are all self inflicted. Perhaps they could do a documentary about THAT. (I still wouldn't watch it.)
I completely agree about the dismal menu options on Netflix. The Netflix CEO bet the future of the company on "woke" programming as opposed to entertainment. I think that bet was an incredible error.
Harry is for sale.
As long as Harry stays with Meghan, things are going to meet misery.
I think he knows this. He seems like a dark person. I think he's happy to gain off her idiocy and then dump her and move on.
They did find each other after all...birds of a feather and all that.
But yes, let's remember the only thing these companies are trading on is Harry.
Part One
1. The anarchy definition is neither rigid nor exclusive to Wikipedia. Having taking history at one of the top Universities in the nation I know.
2. Using your definition of anarchy meaning "someone who wishes to be divisive and to spread anarchy(chaos). And this..."I do believe she deliberately wishes to spread civil unrest perhaps via racial tensions in this country."
*****The extent of her support of Black Lives Matter remains to be speeled out, The BLM movement itself has ranged from peaceful protests to civil disobedience. I have not seen the Harkles advocate violence in word or deed (no personal appearances even at a protest).
3. You stated "You mock my fears citing one 8 minute speech". Absolutely without merit: as I said no mocking words whatsoever.****Please use quotations next time you impute such things to me (just as I liberally do to be accurate.)
4. You state: "...once during the Girl Up where she did indeed push anarchy rhetoric and another while speaking to students at her old high school when she supported BLM. She is targeting an easily manipulated group." *****Yesterday you said you read her speech but when I asked, you did not quote one sentence of Meghan advocating your version of anarchy(chaos/civil unrest). The speech to the High School girls also did not have any such agitation.
5. You said: "You mention the "good she said". IMO there is never anything "good" in what she spews simply because she is a psychopath who cares only about herself and what she can get out of every action she takes."****Part Two (below) will detail some of her speech that many would say are worthwhile comments with good intemtions.
6. You state: "I have no idea why anyone would defend her brainwashing mind-numbing insidious chaos-agent anarchy-inciting word salad!" ****I try to emulate my Lady Justice avatar and seek truth and fairness and like it or not many bad people can also say or do good things.
7. You stated "If you believe she can't end up in California politics think about Sonny Bono and Arnold Schwarzenegger." ****I lived in Calif, when they were elected and importantly Ronald Reagan and Meghan Markle is no Ronald Reagan!! Lol Besides, haven't you read Here, your fellow Nutties' posts how disinterested everyone is about her. You seem to be the only one who thinks she can get elected at something.
8. Your quote: "If you think they are not dangerous remember a good number of Americans now think the UK is racist and the monarchy itself may be in danger." ****I think you are pulling this out of your er' imagination regarding racist viewpoint. Do you have a poll to support that the monarchy "is in danger" (danger from what?)?
7. Your quote: "I'm not sure why you are complaining about wasting your time when you are the one who made several posts addressed to me asking for receipts and questioning my ideas. ****I made an initial post. You responded so I responded TO YOU.
8. Your quote: "Despite feeling baited I politely gave responses and found the article only to discover your condescending last post which seemed to indicate you feel you have won some sort of argument!!?? Translation - you originally failed to grasp my point, then tried to save face and took a poke at me while you were at it."
Lady ,you and your frequent victimhood reminds me of Meghan. Baited, well you didn't have to fall for it did you, LOL. Now you are a "mind reader" and you know what is in my head. ROTFLOL
Part Two (II)
Here is quotes from Meghan's 'Girl Up' speech which you labeled as bad and anarchist:
"They know that all of you, at a younger age than any modern comparison, are setting the tone for an equitable humanity." Is an "equitable humanity bad to you?
"...you are creating films to encourage your peers to become activist leaders, you are reforming the criminal justice system, you are telling your school boards we need more mental health resources for all ages, you are leading coalitions to end gun violence. Many would find good in this but you don't?"
"Because of that, that path to get there will take all of us: it will take girls and women, it will take men and boys, it will take those that are black and those that are white collectively tackling the inequities and structural problems that we know exist."Is all inclusive participation for change bad you say?
"But we are not meant to be breaking each other down; we are meant to be building each other up. So use your voice both on-and-offline to do just that—build each other up, support each other."Girls supporting girls sounds good to me
"And we can take inspiration from women like Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who brought New Zealand together to swiftly and boldly tackle COVID-19, or Maya Moore, the WNBA star who has sat out from professional basketball since 2019 to free a man who served 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And those are just two examples, as you well know there are so many others."Do you think these two women are not good humans for the work she cited?
"Believing in true equality is not enough—it’s going to take more than belief, we have to work for it every day; even when it's hard, even when it makes others feel uneasy. We have to speak up for ourselves and we have to speak out for others who struggle to be heard."Isn't equality a good goal?
"The Dalai Lama famously said, “Compassion is the radicalism of our time.” Compassion means seeing the pain and suffering of others and knowing it’s our duty to try to help relieve it"Is the Dalai Lama's an aarchist? Is compassion bad in your eyes?
"Continue to believe in yourselves, believe in what makes you unique, and don’t be afraid to do what you know is right even when it’s not popular. Even when it’s never been done before."Is encouraging girls wrong?
"Often, it’s fear that paralyzes us and stops us from being brave and being bold. But don’t underestimate that you have some of those answers within. Don’t underestimate your ability to push through the fear. You have, rooted in your convictions, the ability to craft a world that you know is just and kind."Again, is encouraging girls with these words bad?
"If you look at the breadth of the issues we’re facing right now, it is easy to get overwhelmed, I understand. So be where you are in the moment. The growth and change you’re pursuing might not feel like anything day-to-day, but when you look back, I promise you will see that it all adds up."What is anarchist about this?
******Now Leave me Alone!! You aren't capable of having an intelligent interchange with me without badgering and crying victim***************
I would think if he is still a friend of Meghan's he should be a visitor at their mansion; I bet Megs wants to show it off to all her friends. It is unusual that he has been so quiet but maybe he signed an NDA for a nice sum of money. Ever since the NYC baby shower he has not been spotted?
*The departure of Ms. Holland is a stark reminder of the culture at Netflix, where even the most senior and acclaimed executives are often let go if management decides there is someone better suited for their job waiting in the wings...The decision to jettison Ms. Holland, whose record was admired throughout the entertainment industry, stunned many in Hollywood.*
Others might say that Ms. Holland was *Markled*.
"It’s such a joy to speak to you today. To young women around the world who aren’t just poised to change the world; but have already begun changing the world. Last month I had the chance to speak to the 2020 class at my high school alma mater, which is an all-girls school in Los Angeles. I said that they shouldn’t see their graduation as an ending, but rather the beginning. The beginning of a journey where they can now harness their work, their values, and skills—all the skills they’ve learned—to rebuild the world around them.
Now, many of you have already spent years embodying—and yes, even enacting—the change you’d like to see in the world. Yet the opportunity that lies ahead for you is the same one that those graduates and millions of young women around the world have as well.
I want to share something with you. It’s that those in the halls and corridors and places of power—from lawmakers to world leaders to executives—all of those people, they depend on you more than you will ever depend on them. And here’s the thing: They know this.
They know that all of you, at a younger age than any modern comparison, are setting the tone for an equitable humanity. Not figuratively, literally. This is a humanity that desperately needs you. To push it, to push us, forcefully in a more inclusive, more just, and more empathetic direction. And to not only frame the debate, but be in charge of the debate—on racial justice, gender, climate change, mental health and wellbeing, on civic engagement, on public service, on so much more. That’s the work you’re already out there doing.
Girl Up members are organizing Black Lives Matter protests around the world, you are creating films to encourage your peers to become activist leaders, you are reforming the criminal justice system, you are telling your school boards we need more mental health resources for all ages, you are leading coalitions to end gun violence. You are standing up and demanding to be heard, yes, but you’re also demanding to own the conversation.
Another thing about those lawmakers and leaders and executives I mentioned earlier. Now many of them, better or worse, they don’t listen until they have to because the status quo is easy to excuse and it’s hard to break. But it will pull tightest right before snapping.
Women have always historically gotten a lot of, “Well, that isn’t how it’s done” or “Yeah, that’s an idea, but let’s do this instead.”
But when do we hear that as women? We hear that in the moments we challenge the norms.
So if that’s the case, I say to you, keep challenging, keep pushing, make them a little uncomfortable. Because it’s only in that discomfort that we actually create the conditions to reimagine our standards, our policies, and our leadership; to move towards real representation and meaningful influence over the structures of decision-making and power.
Despite what some might say, this reimagining is not a zero-sum game, where one side wins and the other side loses. Not at all. It is mutually beneficial and better for everyone.
Because of that, that path to get there will take all of us: it will take girls and women, it will take men and boys, it will take those that are black and those that are white collectively tackling the inequities and structural problems that we know exist.
I believe we are on the precipice of transformation. We can accelerate the pace of change, and you know what? We don’t have to be satisfied with the current speed of progress.
What’s more, I think it’s important to acknowledge the paradox of how this progress is both aided and impaired by our digital space. Your generation is often referred to as the digital natives, and you understand that our online world has the power to affirm and support as much as it does to harm. But we are not meant to be breaking each other down; we are meant to be building each other up. So use your voice both on-and-offline to do just that—build each other up, support each other. There will always be negative voices and sometimes those voices can appear to be outsized, and sometimes they can appear to be painfully loud. You can and will use your own voices to drown out the noise. Because that’s what it is—just noise. But your voices are those of truth. And hope. And your voices can and should be much louder.
I know that you have already done so much and made so many people’s lives better. The moment we are living through right now asks all of us to do more. It’s a moment where your voices, and your action, have never been more urgently needed. And we can take inspiration from women like Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who brought New Zealand together to swiftly and boldly tackle COVID-19, or Maya Moore, the WNBA star who has sat out from professional basketball since 2019 to free a man who served 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And those are just two examples, as you well know there are so many others.
Believing in true equality is not enough—it’s going to take more than belief, we have to work for it every day; even when it's hard, even when it makes others feel uneasy. We have to speak up for ourselves and we have to speak out for others who struggle to be heard.
Like them, I know all of you will use your voices courageously. And I also know that all of you will use them compassionately. Compassion doesn’t mean we shouldn’t feel anger and outrage when we see blatant injustice all around us—of course we should. But I challenge you to broaden that feeling. The Dalai Lama famously said, “Compassion is the radicalism of our time.” Compassion means seeing the pain and suffering of others and knowing it’s our duty to try to help relieve it.
Continue to believe in yourselves, believe in what makes you unique, and don’t be afraid to do what you know is right even when it’s not popular. Even when it’s never been done before. Even if it scares people. And even if it scares you.
Under normal circumstances, we would have come together in person for this and I wish we could. Yet there is something interesting about each of you being in your own community right now. Because our communities are a drawing board for change. They’re where your values and beliefs can be manifested and molded into something tangible.
Look, sometimes it’s not obvious what to do. Often, it’s fear that paralyzes us and stops those answers within. Don’t underestimate your ability to push through the fear. You have, rooted in your convictions, the ability to craft a world that you know is just and kind. Your gut will tell you what’s right and what’s wrong; what’s fair and what's unfair. The hardest part—and it was the hardest part for me—is to chase your convictions with action.
We make better communities and a better world for ourselves step-by-step. And the pace of those steps is getting quicker. It’s in looking at the aggregate, looking at the big picture, that you can see how far we’ve progressed. I am extraordinarily proud of what you’ve already accomplished. Please, continue to honor the conviction and compassion that’s awoken within you. I will be cheering you on, so will my husband, so will Archie, as you all continue marching, advocating, and leading the way forward."
In the US, there would have been a guardrail to prevent a vehicle from hitting the pillars head on, but the French put appearance before safety. At the time, I heard no commentator mention that, and at the 10 year anniversary, there were still no guardrails in the tunnel.
Even with guardrails (which certainly would be helpful) Diana might have still died. It was a sad tragic *preventable* death it seems.
Prince Harry and Meghan's Netflix shows will be 'epic entertainment', boss says
The 'smart' Duke and Duchess of Sussex 'shopped' their TV talents around before signing with Netflix, says co-founder and CEO Reed Hastings
By
Hannah Furness,
ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
9 September 2020
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will provide “epic entertainment” in exchange for their Netflix deal, the streaming service’s co-founder has promised, as he says their programmes are expected to be its “most viewed” content next year.
Reed Hastings said the Sussexes had been “smart “ in “shopping” their programme-making talents around “all the major companies” before settling with a Netflix deal.
The couple have previously said they will be creating “impactful content that unlocks action”, in line with their campaigning for gender equality, the environment, and diversity.
In an interview with American business news channel CNBC, Mr Hastings gave a more straight-forward outline of Netflix’s expectations, saying it was going to be “epic entertainment”.
His assessment provides further insight into the Duke and Duchess’ plans, after critics feared their promise to “shine a light on people and causes around the world” to create “content that informs but also gives hope” sounded worthy but lacking in entertainment value.
Industry insiders last week warned that Netflix executives would ultimately control which programmes made it to air on their service.
“It's going to be epic entertainment,” Mr Hastings said, when asked on air about the Sussexes. “I'm so excited about that deal.”
“They're smart, they were shopping it around across all the major companies and I think we really put together the best complete package.
“We're going to do a wide range of entertainment with them.
“I can't tell you anymore than that about it at this point, but I think it will be some of the most exciting, most viewed content next year.”
Asked whether the Duchess would return to her acting days, which saw her take her most prominent role on Netflix drama Suits, he said: “The real focus for them is on being producers and on building that production capacity."
That’s the key thing. They’ve developed a great eye for story and we’ll be working with them on that basis.”
The Duke and Duchess will produce films and television programmes including “scripted series, docu-series, documentaries, features and children’s programming”.
Projects already in development include an “innovative nature docu-series” and an “animated series that celebrates inspiring women”, their team has confirmed.
The Netflix deal will allow them to reach 193m subscribers worldwide.
The multi-year contract has been subject to ever-increasing estimates about its worth, with predictions rising above $150million.
A usual talent deal is more likely to see the couple paid a comparatively small retainer fee, with larger sums being confirmed when the programmes they pitch are given the green light.
Harry can make any number of films about "YOU KILLED MY MUMMY!" but is anybody going to believe it? We know who killed her. A drunk driver lost control of the car fleeing the paps that Diana called to alert and, if she had worn her seatbelt, she'd be alive today. If she had security provided by the royal family (which she turned down), she would be alive today. If she weren't running around Europe with an *extremely* questionable man, she'd be alive today. (Can I get my $100,000,000 Netflix deal now?)
It has also been 23 years. I'm not sure that anybody cares. The accident has been investigated over and over and over until most people roll their eyes when they hear another version of "Diana was KILLED by the RF to SILENCE her!"
----------------
Thank you. I am sick and tired of this conspiracy theory and I just hope Harry is not going to sink any lower and debase himself with such a film.
If he does allege that `Grandpa killed Mummy', or wtte, might that be the final straw? The ultimate treachery as far as HM is concerned?
Regarding the RF's alleged `inner reptile', I wonder if DI got hold of the wrong end of the stick regarding human evolution,especially that of the brain? What goes for the Royal Family goes for all the rest of us too, including Mr Icke.
Appreciate the Furness article. This clarifies things. I had veered off track thinking more of the Harkles and podcasting...hard to keep up.
So they are going to be producers! Imagine how people in the business with real knowledge and talent feel about these two know-nothings getting this deal.
Whatevs...they'll stink...
When and how did that happen? What evidence is there if that?
Their Zoom meetings show no evidence of good story telling, only them lecturing.
Their megxit video sucked. No evidence of good story telling there.
The GS video was just a platform for mm to talk and over emote.
Not seeing what this guy is basing his statement on. Thin air, perhaps?
Anyway, good job!
They're trying to enter a crowded marketplace where the standard question asked of those in that position is `What is your Unique Selling Point?'
The only USP that I can detect is that Harry is a Prince of the Blood/Royal Duke. We know, however, that:
a) he and she have devalued that status into something more like a smelly floor-cloth
b) titles don't cut much ice in the USA and much of elsewhere,
c) any hope of access to the rest of the RF is non-existent
d) he is almost asking to be `reduced to the ranks' once and for all.
Not a good bet - I hope anyone thinking of `supping' with them `uses a long spoon'. Perhaps their list of demands will put most bidders off. Fingers crossed.
I hope to goodness that, when it all comes to nought, that they don't both want to come trotting back to the UK on their little cloven hooves, even if their arrow-headed tails are firmly between their legs. I can't see Welby greeting them with Bell, Book and Candle but I shall have a crucifix at the ready. perhaps garlic as well.
Thanks for sharing that endearing story about Catherine!
It reminds me of a story, shared by Princess Anne, about the time Prince Charles was visiting a Scottish retirement home. He was in a kilt at the time, and one resident with poor eyesight asked rather loudly: "Is that the Princess Royal?" According to Anne, Charles took it like a really good sport.
Having a sense of humor and being able to take oneself lightly can go a long, long way! Not just in winning others over, but in getting through life with grace.
If they were smart, they'd do a couple act with a bit of comedy. Talk about the humorous incidents that arise when you're a couple from two different countries and two different cultures.
If they let themselves be named as producers on a sitcom about a British man who falls in love with an American woman, moves to the US to be with her, and has to grapple with American customs (and Americans' reaction to his own quirks), it might generate a lot of interest. They wouldn't even to do actual work -- just let their names be used. Everyone would get the impression that the episodes are based on real stories that Meghan and good ol' H gladly shared with the writers. And even the Sussexes' biggest critics might be curious enough to watch!
Here is one example: Across the globe, GBV is still a huge problem. Speeches are not going to change that or empower women to protect themselves. Shelters, education, work opportunities, counselling for both men and women would just be a beginning. All that takes money and partners that can get things done. The Sussexes will not build one shelter, provide one bursary, or set up any kind of counselling or help facility. They just make speeches.
It is not surprising that the Harkles have a list of demands for speeches. If anyone did go along with that, plus the ridiculously high fee (and no doubt transport, accommodation and all sorts of extras would be part of the deal), it would be for entertainment value. They have nothing interesting or important to say but to someone with too much money and a propensity to spend wildly on frivolous things, being able to witness the Harkles show first hand would be an experience that would give you something delicious to gossip about on the social scene.
People must speak up. Make a list of what you could do with a $million in your community and the benefits that would come from such a donation. If any company chooses to give that money to a couple of talentless and arrogant grifters, then do the work to try and not support that company in any way, but not before sending your list to that company.
I suspect that any speaking engagements would be 'behind closed doors' like that highly suspect one in Florida. Those present would probably have to sign NDAs and would definitely not get photos with the gruesome twosome. The Sussexes always spoil the fun in anything!
Compare the visit of the Cambridges to HW. Gosh they looked great! There were plenty of photographs and videos. People got to chat to them one-on-one, and were free to talk about it afterwards. The stars lined up to buy tickets and make donations, none of which went into the personal bank accounts of the Cambridges.
Even with titles, the Sussexes just do not have the same class, charisma and gravitas as the Cambridges. Harry had it once (not gravitas, but he did have manners, and sometimes remembered that, and he had loads of charisma) but he threw it all away and sunk to the level of his wife. That is not love. In my opinion, it is abuse.
That’s the key thing. They’ve developed a great eye for story and we’ll be working with them on that basis.”
The Duke and Duchess will produce films and television programmes including “scripted series, docu-series, documentaries, features and children’s programming”.
Projects already in development include an “innovative nature docu-series” and an “animated series that celebrates inspiring women”, their team has confirmed.
My take? (1) Everybody is quite aware of her acting shortcomings. The top management at Netflix appears to think that their royal names/titles will give the dreck that they're going to be slapped on some sort of cachet and will draw in extra eyes. They're probably correct about the extra eyes; I can envision royal drinking parties where everybody downs a drink when "surprise!" is used.
(2) I must be extremely dense because I don't see the entertainment value in being scolded because my moral values are not the same as Hollywood amoral values. This haranguing has been her modus operandi so far as I have seen.
(3) Since there are projects 'already in development', I doubt that the Defective Duo has been anywhere near them.
So perhaps Meghan's courting of the Democrats has found a way to pay off, after all!
Note: I'm not making light of transverse myelitis, a serious complication, just whether I'm going to develop a case of galloping hypochondria.
_____________________________________________________
THIS^^^ Thank you. Excellent point!
I suppose if H&M fail at NF (as we predict they will), they can always fill in the void, with the Kardashian centaurs galloping away into the sunset.
They could pull a sex tape out of their Louis Vuitton. With her Suit Case Grilling Salad Tossing and Yachting CV and his Vegas Public Naked Cavorting, there's bound to be some material there some where.
So much for high class...
"People must speak up. Make a list of what you could do with a $million in your community and the benefits that would come from such a donation. If any company chooses to give that money to a couple of talentless and arrogant grifters, then do the work to try and not support that company in any way, but not before sending your list to that company."
So we should flood Netflix with our suggestions on these worthy organizations or projects in hopes that the Companies help with a hefty donation.. Good idea! and all it would cost is the price of a stamp to send a letter. I think cancelling Netflix and telling a customer service rep good but how much more laudable if we also send a letter to the CEO suggesting they spend some millions on Gender Based Violence (GBV) initiatives. Afterall we all probably spend more time on here in a day or two than it would take to write a quick letter to Mr. Hastings, CEO of Netflix.
Or in lieu of that or additionally, maybe we can suggest that Netflix/Harkles do a docuseries on these worthy organizations and the wonderful work they do. I watch a program on my faith-based TV channel which features organizations doing charitable endeavors and are quite heart-warming and interesting. To try to salvage some good from the Netflix/HAMS situation, maybe the company could feature various entities and their good work and provide a large donation for the organization's efforts (along with contact info in the program's credits so we watchers could follow-up with our own contributions.
I know we would all like the Harkles to get tossed from the Netflix line-up of program content but short of that maybe trying to get something good out of it is possible. I will probably be panned 'as a sugar' as I was last night but I am trying not to spit in the wind. I have already written my letter and am mailing it today.
Netflix CEO contact info:
Reed Hastings, CEO
100 Winchester Circle, Los Gatos, CA, 95032M
Email reed.hastings@netflix.com
Personal Twitter: @reedhastings
I have never been on Netflix. I hear the selection is anywhere from ho-hum to awful these days. The only movie streaming I have done is Amazon. And Comcast where I get internet from. Some of Amazon's original content movies/TV series are good.
Better yet, if one sends a letter with the Post Office most 'restricted delivery' (approx. $12 fee) meaning the addressee has to sign for it. I am not sure if an assistant can be authorized to sign for it but it would get attention if envelope marked 'Personal and Confidential'.
I learned the value of letters getting marked attention when I spoke with one of my congressional rep's office personnel who exclaimed that they count every letter received as indicative of many, many multiple constituents felt the same way. This was about 7-8 yrs ago so the impact of a personal letter undoubtedly has more effect now IMO.
Reed Hastings is very active in politics, from CA, and supports the Democratic Party. He donates personally and thru Netflix for political lobbying. He threatened a fellow Facebook board member with suffering professionally for supporting Trump.
I never heard this before. Seems that Hastings threatened Peter Thiel for his Trump support.
_______________
https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/13/facebook-board-peter-thiel/
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings will not be renominated to Facebook’s board of directors when the members meet in May for the company’s annual stockholder’s meeting, Facebook announced Friday night.
The move comes less than three years after Hastings told fellow board member Peter Thiel that he intended to slam the PayPal co-founder’s performance review over his endorsement of President Donald Trump, who was in the heat of the 2016 campaign at the time. Hastings offered to resign in 2016 following his flare up with Thiel but CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused the offer.
Facebook announced Friday the nomination of PayPal executive Peggy Alford to join the board. She will be the company’s first black woman to sit on Facebook’s board if elected. Erskine Bowles, president emeritus of University of North Carolina, will also not be renominated to Facebook’s board in May. (RELATED: Netflix CEO Called Out Peter Thiel For Trump Support White On Facebook’s Board)
I have shared several times my love for the Queen. I admire her greatly. So no disrespect to her and her sense of duty (which started as a young woman!) Who can forget her speech about devoting her life? And she has! Now there's a real speech by a real feminist. She's one of the most admirable women alive today.
I use carnival barking speech on occasion as parody hoping that SOMEONE in TPTB @BP will happen upon this blog and do something to rid themselves of the stain on HM's legacy. Which has infected the entire world and will now get even more hair pulling mad once the swill grinder that is NF has their claws in her grandson and his detestable spawn of a wife. To use Lt. Uhuru's phrase (yes, Lt. She wasn't born, she was spawned).
No disrespect to my wonderful British cousins that I happen to have great affection for.
Re: NF letter campaign
_________________________________
Very good pro-active suggestion. May I add, a few thousand letters flooding the gates of BP may work too? Thank you for your thoughts!
____________________________________________________
"You never get a second chance to make a first impression".
At first glance this sounds rather appealing. Yet, as it is said, "never say never". I've heard and read so many beautiful redemption stories in my 60+ decades of walking upon this Earth.
(IMO there are only certain people who should NEVER be given any form of redemption in my measly human understanding. The Lord's Prayer would dispute this statement, but I won't go there).
Those individuals are usually in the spawn category of dictators, regardless if they were "voted" in, those who create and/or allow genocide and societal chaos, anarchy, etc. all other types of threats to our human family.
Meghan Markle? As my sister would say, "she's a pimple on the butt of time". As in the OT story of Mordicai, she will be the Haman that hang's herself. Of this I am sure.
The rest of us are just hard working, everyday people with foibles. I can only hope I can redeem myself at some point when I show my humanity in it's darkest place. As long as I don't live there, I'm good.
I understand the sensitivity we all have to our certain heritages. I can say a family member is a low down dirty so and so floosie, but let someone outside of the family say so and a very large can of whoop a$$ is going to get opened up.
I enjoy this blog. I know it will take time before I'm not the fart in church. I get it guys. And I don't judge. I hope you can see my efforts.
Hastings sounds like Megsy's soulmate! QueenTT has seen that Meghan is already involved with another man and that Harry is starting to realize that but still wants to please her to keep her. A lot of people are wondering if Reed Hastings is that man, but she says he is not.
At what stage in his life did Harry decide that he wanted to live in California and be an executive producer for streaming online content? I wonder if he knew that this was the plan when he committed himself to Meghan, and if he knew she would act on that plan so quickly and separate him from family, friends and country to do so?
@SwampWoman: Haha! Don't forget the Harkle's other key word "secret." If we had a drink everytime the Harkles said the word "secret," we'd be non-stop drunk.
OMG, YES! I couldn't remember their other word that they use in their publicity, but you nailed it.
Hey @Nutty :)
Great new post! I see I lost track of the blog for a few critical hours because of work today. So sorry for that Nutties.
In the previous thread, some Nutties were describing Rache's speeches as inflammatory and inciting anarchy. That's a very interesting perspective. Making speeches about "change"
----------------------
Thank you, charade for weighing in on content in Rache's speeches, in between work and home life and then clearing some of the less...
congenial? ... posts. Practicing my power of understatement there. Good to have your perspective too.
Just left this post on the last thread not knowing we had a new one on this very topic!
I posted the entire Tominey article re the Sussexes' speech-giving demands on that thread starting at time-stamp September 9, 2020 at 12:10 AM if anyone is interested in the full story.
`
Thanks for posting it, that is where I read it, and giggled at the demands, then shook my head at the hubris...
#cancelnetflix is majorly trending today as a result of the film "Cuties".
The Harkles must be fuming!!!
I was on the fence about cancelling myself after the Harkles news, but this child porn disguised as social commentary sealed the deal for me. Cancelled today.
Can you imagine our great feminist Megsy degrading herself to admit supporting a (horror!) white man, her husband, in his work?¿
No, for MM it would be, "Oh, no no no, he is MY assistant!"
Can you imagine our great feminist Megsy degrading herself to admit supporting a (horror!) white man, her husband, in his work?¿
No, for MM it would be, "Oh, no no no, he is MY assistant!"
for MM it would be, "Oh, no no no, he is MY assistant!"
You are not far off the mark here. She has already publicly referred to him as "H".
Reminded me of the ridiculous Mrs Elton in "Emma" who called her husband "Mr.E".
@KC,
Thank you, charade for weighing in on content in Rache's speeches, in between work and home life and
*then clearing some of the less...
congenial? ... posts. Practicing my power of understatement there.*
Good to have your perspective too.
_______________________________
I too find it irksome to be one of the few here that have to follow or precede my posts with a disclaimer...
IN the case of the BRF, I suggest that they implement a plan for people like Charlotte and Louis going forward."
An excellent point!
Although William and Kate are level-headed a d may be able to support their younger children better than previous royal parents.
#cancelnetflix is majorly trending today as a result of the film "Cuties".
The Harkles must be fuming!!!
I’ve never heard of the French film so I had to Google it. I see what you mean! Netflix deserve what they get, two bad ill thought out moves in a matter of days. :o(
Good question.
I imagine Megs et al would defend "Cuties" as social commentary that condemns the sexualization of children. But using the sexualization of children to 'condemn' it is a bs excuse.
I think Netflix is going to be in trouble over this one. Perfect timing for the Harkles!!
I agree.
The Harkles signed on to a sinking ship!
Reed Hastings, Ron Buckle , and who else behind the scenes support MM? She has had quiet backers from the start I reckon. Will we ever get the whole story?
With powerful backers MM doesn't need to be successful to the wider public she just needs to keep her backers happy. Perhaps that was the intent all along
Netflix is treading a fine line. The Cuties film is facing a backlash because the trailer/poster promos were extremely disturbing but Netflix didn't remove the film which is far worse.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a33949107/prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-repayment-meaning/
It seems so easy, but based on the past few generations, when combined with no need to earn a living, it must be really difficult. Maybe they need to go live with the Middletons in the summers, do something useful.
So I told granny my view, as above, and added that I knew the child was an attention seeker but she risked getting the wrong kind of attention... That may have registered because I haven't seen her dressed so provocatively since.
It beats me that there's so much concern about protecting children from free-ranging abusers (teaching staff even in post 16 education having to prove they're not on the sex-offender register, as does anyone else employed among children) yet parents don't seem to see sexualisation; no school head dares give a warning about dodgy students going up to the next level; and the Markles walk straight into a school and never mind the rules about photographing other people's kids.
sage14 on Twitter: "Fun fact Ron Burkle from SoHo has ties to ...twitter.com › sage1411 › status
Fun fact Ron Burkle from SoHo has ties to Ted Sarandos of Netflix and the two go back years. 5:30 PM - 2 Sep 2020. 16 Retweets; 170 Likes; Phoebe Dinsmore ...
Thank you for your info re Frog cottage. What you found suggests the decision to decamp Sussexes there was quite sudden; royal household normally plans such moves well in advance, but not this time.
It ties in nicely with our previous conclusion something serious must have happened that resulted in Sussexes being kicked out of Kensington Palace very quickly.
I am absolutely sure now this conflict also contributed to the Sussexes abrupt and chaotic departure from the royal horizon.
The second summit, with Charles, will be to draw up, with Tory and Johnson support, to strip the HAMS permanently of HRS, and to take back the Duke, Earl, etc. titles. Prince Henry will remain Prince Henry. I also think they will discuss stripping Andrew of titles, too, although in all fairness, Andrew broke zero laws, and if stripped, will probably blab about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama’s visits to Epstein’s island, and then everything will come out, to the horror of many people. Andrew knows too much, and might be in hiding. Andrew is the real threat to the powerful and disgusting.
Interesting thoughts about the Queen and Prince Phillip’s move to Sandringham. I could certainly imagine them having discussions with William regarding the Sussexes, but I doubt very much that Harry would be present.
I doubt that Prince Charles would ever agree to strip Harry and Meghan of their dukedom, though perhaps William, the Queen and PP could twist his arm. I’m not holding my breath.
@ Unknown
Thank you for your info re Frog cottage. What you found suggests the decision to decamp Sussexes there was quite sudden; royal household normally plans such moves well in advance, but not this time.
It ties in nicely with our previous conclusion something serious must have happened that resulted in Sussexes being kicked out of Kensington Palace very quickly.
I am absolutely sure now this conflict also contributed to the Sussexes abrupt and chaotic departure from the royal horizon.
IIRC correctly, the announcement that the Sussexes would be taking over Toadstool Towers as their family residence was announced in the press in the middle of the Oceania tour.
Something serious went down, indeed, if their stuff was moved out of Kensington and dumped in the ramshackle half-torn up staff outbuilding while they were out of the country.
Well. Eyewitness reports on the ground in Australia say that Harry had a lot on his mind that trip. When not fighting with his wife over her pregnancy status or apologizing for her behavior, he was often seen sitting by himself, head in hands.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure, sweetheart.
There was a rumor, maybe more than a rumor, that Meg had planted bugs around KP. Were some surveillance devices found? How about a drug bust on KP grounds? Orgies with the underage? (not involving Andrew) . . ? If it was the pregnancy announcement at Eugenie's wedding that did it, the RF worked incredibly fast--the Sussex sh*t was cleared out of KP within days of their departure Down Under.
You could very well be correct. Stripping the titles could potentially appease the British people's anger over the Harkles' antics and spending. It would also free them up to make political statements in the US.
I think Just H will have to be at the discussions of stripping his titles. He will be shown everything he is going to lose, forever, and how soon he will be a nothing, without the Royal family and his titles. Yes, Americans above the age of forty-five still remember Diana, but Harry’s problem is he is not his mother, or his brother, Who Will Be King. Who remembers or cares about the siblings of most Queens and Kings? Just H is also not a cute young man anymore. He has broken front teeth (too much pipe action?) balding head, nose that is growing and drooping, dresses and looks like a homeless person, has dilated pupils in eyes so close together they verge on looking like Cyclops. I hate to bring up how people look, but this is Hollywood, and Just H does not cut it, nor does middle-aged Megs, with her literal pony tail’s hair, moles, and lips so filled with Juvaderm that she should shill the filler, or be in the hall of fame of ‘Plastic Surgery Gone Bad.”
IIRC correctly, the announcement that the Sussexes would be taking over Toadstool Towers as their family residence was announced in the press in the middle of the Oceania tour.
________________
I'm pretty certain it was also in the middle of the Oceania tour that it was announced that the 'Fab Four' would be no more. I remember thinking that it could not have been a mutual decision, the decision appeared to have been taken in H&M's absence. Coincidence?
Frogmore Cottage, Windsor (2.4m)
Frogmore Cottage consisted of the reconfiguration and full refurbishment of five residential units in poor condition to create the official residence for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their family. The works started on-site in November 2018 and were substantially completed by March 2019.
It is vague. For all other expenditure on property, more specific detail is given and is budgeted for ahead, so a major project will be mentioned in more than one annual report. It was the most expensive project for that year.
If the Queen and the Cambridges and everyone else are happy to have details published (e.g. if a roof needs fixing, exactly which roof, what is wrong with it and how it will be fixed), why did the Sussexes get away with such secrecy?
Not likely. They would have bitched about it publicly at some point. MM needed the control of her own foundation.
I believe the Meet The Farkles were going to move into an apartment Flat, home, whatever) at Kensington Palace, next door to William, except for the following (never affirmed, never denied) issues:
Megs was caught taking illegal pictures of EVERYTHING in Catherine and William’s home. She was constantly sneaking around, and staff caught her taking photos (phone confiscated) of the future King’s home, plus photos of one child taking a bath, and more. The staff had to keep an eye on the hands and pockets of Megs. The Cambridges had to “wand” Just H and Megs, for video or phono equipment. Finally, the HAMs were kicked out forever from Kensington Palace. William was beside himself over the everything, but Megs sneaking into the bathing area was the final blow.
Megs was often drunk, especially during her faux pregnancy. She also ate pot, to gain weight, but was a coke head, too, as she had a square body, which she is NOT aware of, and Coke contradicted the pot in brownies she gorged on (and still eats, as she doesn’t like to smell pot, but ingest it instead. Harry’s drug and especially alcohol abuse are well known to most people, even his ‘fans,”
For Prince William and Catherine, they feel they tried their best, with Just H, and understood his feeling being in a goldfish bowl, as a Royal. William himself, in his teens, expressed that he wished he would never be king, it isn’t fair! William quickly learned how powerful his position would be, and how everyone in the world wanted to be him or Catherine. Harry had the best role of all, but his real stupidity and anger management issues, plus pure jealousy, came to be seen by his marriage to his true soulmate - nasty Megs.
I was being puckish to call Froggy Cott the staff outbuilding but that’s what I meant. It seems like plans were well underway to refurbish it into upgraded staff housing until the sudden crisis with the Dumbartons. Forced a quick scramble. I have a feeling that William (nursery school nickname: Basher) pitched a righteous wobbly over the Harkles and the highjacking of Eugenie’s wedding was the final straw. He dissolved the Fab 4, booted them from the Foundation and got them evicted from KP. Perhaps he had some receipts for Gran from his new pals in MI-5 about Meg’s activities relating to this sudden pregnancy.
What if the plans for Megxit were hatched then, from the BRFs side? Harry was out of KP but they had to give him some form of housing by constitutional decree—for the Counsellor Of State which is a paper sinecure only now. Can we imagine her majesty relying upon Harry to step in for her in anything? If Charles ever uses him in this capacity he is a bigger fool then we gave him credit fo
What if they intended all along to only provide Harry with one of the renovated flats at FroggyCott, not the whole thing? After all he only needs a U.K. address. Nothing stipulates that it must be grand, especially since he is neither paying for it nor going to be spending much if any time there. Their “new home” was intended to be so unacceptable that it would hasten their leaving. They left just about a year later. Might have been sooner if she hadn’t had to get through the Pregnancy with max exposure. As to where they actually stayed during this period, it’s dark. I read of numerous reports of Meg being installed in a Kensington flat. Harry bore all the signs of kipping on mates’ Sofas and living out of a gym bag. They’ve both looked like shit practically since they married, Not like a couple living in a luxuriously renovated Royal property with staff. I also don’t believe either of them adore Windsor over London. Being sent to FrogCott was a punishment.
Do you remember all the articles that appeared directly after The birth...About how the Meg was so rapturous to be living in the country, where she was a regular feature every week at the Windsor Farm Market, Long walks with baby Archie in the push chair and becoming a lawn bowls enthusiast because the country was just so fantastic? The Windsor neighbors were not allowed to approach them, or pet their dog or volunteer to babysit the newborn...Which is probably why there is zero anecdotal evidence I’ve ever read that the Sussex is inhabited Frogmore. Someone saw a car and an open window one time but that doesn’t sell me.
Something similar happened when they were still staying in Canada and they wanted to make a reservation at a very trendy restaurant. The owner let it be known that he had to refuse because he "couldn't meet their security requirements". We Canadians later found out just what those "requirements" were - they demanded that not only the staff but the other diners had to sign NDAs, as well. And all diners were to hand over their cell phones and would only get them back after the duo left. No wonder the restaurateur said thanks but no thanks.
Could "canopy" mean "breezeway," usually a roofed, open-sided walkway between two buildings? In some restorations, they are now being enclosed in glass and are used to combine two structures into one.
What you're finding is very interesting. Please keep digging.
I say it is quite possible they could get huge sums for their speeches because Bret Favre, the long time football player was given over a million dollars up front by a not-for-profit organization that was using State of Mississippi welfare funds for the payment. He never even made a speech or appearance or signed autographs and he had that money in hand. What went wrong is that 5 officials were found to have committed 4.4 million dollar fraud and this undid Mr. Favre's agreement and he had to reimburse the money in installments. If a problem had not arose (not his fault) a football celebrity would have had a very nice sum of money.
What is Meghan and Harry worth....more than Bret Favre or any other celebrity? They are worth what someone is willing to pay them. Meghan's Girl Up speech received praise and compliments (although not appreciated here). The Netflix CEO seems to have given them some significant money and at the very least a potentially lucrative deal. With their seed money they can hire an excellent speech writer and turn out something better than the slap dash word salad Meg only knows how to do. But if they get the hang of employing good people and listening and delegating they may be able to 'fake it till they make it'.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
Blind Item #9
Why yes, an employee of this permanent A list celebrity and his actress wife did start to call the police when the couple were screaming at each other for a good 30 minutes and then the celebrity started threatening physical harm to the actress.
Here's what I've found on canopies:
https://www.garden-requisites.co.uk/4867-2/
That's ok. I was gone today and hadn't bothered to read about Frogmore since it is a dead project. They have moved on to their new mansion and I am more interested in how they financed that.
Well at first I thought the speech idea was not workable but it seems even before Covod-19 famous people were doing video speeches.. Some years ago Hilary Clinton did a 5-10 minute speech to Pharmaceutical Industry Conference and was paid $50,000 and ended up making several $$ million in about 1 1/2 yrs.
So video speeches could work for them and easy to do, especially now that they have experience and have money for great speech writers. I originally thought they would not have time due to Netflix commitments bit the help they hire for that endeavor can help them with speech preparation and technical aspects.
"Okay - did any of you see this blind on CDAN? and most importantly, read the comments? Several posters from here were mentioned. Some will be flattered and some feelings will be hurt (sob)."
Just saw it because you mentioned it; only 3rd time for me on the site. I am not into celebrities so I can't guess who the Blind was referring to. Re; Nutty's site...ouch! One named poster is my absolute favorite here (not to incite jealousy but as a compliment to the Renaissance lady).
Sorry Catseyes, we did go off topic for a bit, but it was something interesting for some of us.
.....................
@Puds
Please don't worry about wandering around on Harkle topics. We do it all the time here. As you know the FrogCott info is providing important clues and is current considering they just supposedly paid back the funds. How long can we really discuss the speaker circuit?
Considering some people post about personal topics I think we're ok.
What I'd like to know is where they were originally supposed to live.
I had posted recently about how I didn't think they were ever slated for the KP apartment. It connects to Will and Kate's unit and I had read that since Charles wasn't going to follow the normal living arrangements when he becomes king, Will would use the second apartment as offices and a formal meeting place/reception area as Prince of Wales. I don't remember what Charles was going to do that was different - I think he actually wants to stay where he is.
Agree with you except I think they can make money easier than producing docuseries or narrated shows. I can't stand watching Harry speak as he mumbles and fumbles his words and is so unenergetic, just dull. Meghan over emotes and her word salad is just plain inane.
Goodnight!
Just saw it because you mentioned it; only 3rd time for me on the site. I am not into celebrities so I can't guess who the Blind was referring to. Re; Nutty's site...ouch! One named poster is my absolute favorite here (not to incite jealousy but as a compliment to the Renaissance lady).
____________________
I agree on your favorite poster. Mine too! I aways look forward to her latest.
Thanks @Unknown. Interesting data. It does sound like money got wasted one way or the other on FC. And it sounds like the sugar chant "The FC work was already planned, not a H&M cost" is a bit misleading.
I don't recall ever reading H&M were actually removed from KP while on tour to Oz or shortly after returning. The news of the office split came out then (which was odd timing) and as soon as M announced her pregnancy, talk about their needing larger quarters came up.
There were periodic rumors about whether H&M lived together. And we do pretty much know H rented a Cotswold house (the one with the early lease termination and subject of a later successful lawsuit against paps by H.) But I thought the news they'd rented that house (on a two-year lease) came out when it was already known they'd be moving to FC? And there's the People article..."heavily pregnant" M visited and impetus for the early Feb 2019 article. Article also described Nott Cott as their home...how ballsy if they had been evicted months before.
Finally, while salacious, I don't buy they got tossed from KP because M photographed a Cambridge child there in his/her royal bath. Unless it's quite different in the UK, even parents who don't have lots of staff and don't consider themselves big "hands on" parents don't leave children unattended in the bathtub. In Sept 2018 when the Oz tour occurred, Charlotte would have been not quite 3 1/2 (& by all accounts, a very "active" child.) Even George would have been only a few months past 5. While a parent/nanny might step out with a 5-year old, I can't imagine they'd go far. The story M photographed PG or PC at AH because one of them followed her into a different room where she was taking a phone call makes more sense than the bath story. But that supposedly happened before H&M married.
There's info to be gleaned re: renovations. What happened when, if it happened at all.
I'm very curious about how the harkle move there came to be assigned, and if they did indeed ever move there.
Yet another mystery surrounding them.
Good job so far, ladies!
-------------
That's the piece of missing info I'm *really* curious about.
I had one in my very basic, first, house: a small flat timber roof projecting from the wall, covered with roofing felt, supported on 7'(approx) lengths of painted scaffolding poles. It gave protection from rain falling straight down as I fumbled for my keys but no help under windy conditions.
In earlier, cheap, housing, the `roof' could be a slab of concrete projecting from the wall.
Small, ready made `gables' to fasten over doors can be purchased from catalogues.
A larger `canopy' for keeping a car under = `car port'
ie it's a roof on supports, usually attached to a building, with no other walls.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9698605/fab-four-split-harry-read-riot-act-william-hate-not-supporting-meghan-royal-wedding/
"Also is it common knowledge that the royals house their staff on the grounds in converted stables and cottages?"
I don't know if it's common knowledge but I knew it. Housing is sometimes provided for current staff in lieu of higher wages. And not too long ago longtime retired special staff were often given grace and favor accommodations. I don't believe the latter practice is as common today as it used to be.
So far as using converted stables, I don't think that's weird. Supposedly the luxury house H&M rented in the Cotswolds included a converted barn with huge windows and two kitchens.
Staff working for the royals can have and still do have accommodation provided for them on the grounds of royal residences and sometimes part of a royal residence (but obviously separate and independent). It wasn’t uncommon at all too many years back. The aristocracy still do it, they provide staff with a home, but less salary.
It’s also common knowledge that Frogmore cottage was used by staff working for the royals at the time, it was flats rather then one home. I’ve never seen photos of the interior, so no idea of the layout.
It’s early morning here, so sorry if my comment is a bit garbled. ;o)
I found the annual financial records through a Google search (sovereign grant financial report 2019/2020 and so on). I then opened the PDF documents from the royal website. I could not find the documents by searching the index of the royal website at all.
It is all very odd. If part of the 2.4m work was fixing the roof and redoing the wiring, painting and fixing rotten flooring, then the Sovereign Grant should have paid for that work (maintenance) and it should be reflected in the financials. Even converting 5 units into one house, as it was originally, could be justified as restoration work. It also all seems to have been done in a hurry with no regard to history or a long-term future. In all other projects described in the annual reports, the approach seems to be slow and careful.
Everything associated with the Sussexes is always so secretive, rushed and messy.
Grace and favour homes have been known to the public for decades, they’ve never been hidden. They were very popular at one time. Converted mews and the like are used by staff. Converted mews are found all over the UK and bought privately, you’ll pay millions for one in Mayfair or Belgravia etc. They are lovely.
I’m no where near Windsor so I’ve never been near the cottage, but then again even if I was, I’m not that curious or that nosey.
So far as using converted stables, I don't think that's weird. Supposedly the luxury house H&M rented in the Cotswolds included a converted barn with huge windows and two kitchens.
Heh. I visited a thoroughbred farm and commented on the huge, beautiful house I saw in the distance. "Oh, that's not the HOUSE. Those are the stables for the horses!" I was told.
Providing housing for workers is still done particularly when the person may work long hours or be on call 24/7. (The US military comes to mind.)
Just the security upgrades to a sprawling old house such as that could easily add up to big money without any other work being done. I was reading that panic or safe rooms where the residents can retreat to until help arrives can cost upwards of $500,000, depending on size. It would be considerably easier to begin with new construction than to retrofit.
https://henleyssecuritydoors.co.uk/safe-rooms/
1. It's a familiar coming-of-age story where there's a bit of upheaval in the household and a prepubescent girl with a lot of family responsibilities (cleaning, younger siblings) is thrown into a new school and wants to be accepted. In this case the group she wants to join is a group of dancers entering a contest and, in order to win over older, sexier girls (they are only 11) they introduce raunchier moves that the girl (Amy) finds online. Oh--she's a Senegalese Muslim living in Paris, so a conservative if not repressed household.
2. Then another familiar film trope with the contest (that's where the controversial clips come from), realization, denouement, happy ending.
3. I GUESS that some pedos will be focusing on the few scenes of the way-inappropriate dance moves, online clips, skimpy outfits, one briefly nude breast (online, not of a character). I have learned there are men who freeze-frame brief nude scenes and make collections of them, nude scenes that the rest of us either never noticed or certainly haven't chosen to focus on.
4. But that's not the point of "Cuties." "Representation is not endorsement." The director is arguing AGAINST the early, hyper-sexualization of young girls.
5. Remember, it's French! French-Senegalese, but the French definitely have a different sensibility when it comes to films.
6 .Hard to tell if Netflix's current ills are anti-Meghan or anti-Cuties. I'm guessing its anti-Cuties, and led by people who haven't seen it.
Yeah, it's shocking. So was "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" but no one was advocating war.
It's good that people are shocked and revolted. They should be. But don't blame the messenger.
I wondered how they managed to spend so much so quickly. The 2.4 mil didn't include finishes and fixtures, which the Harkles paid for at the time.
Thank you for watching it and reporting on it with your incisive commentary. I learned something. Based on what you wrote I am not sure I would be up in arms at the movie because it (precisely) has a worthwhile message it sounds like. I am firmly against the sexualization of young girls but many parents/grandparents let their children watch R-rated movies and then they wonder why the kids act the way they do.
It sounds like the film is showing the ills of such behavior (sexualization of young girls and a religious girl at that. Ugh!) of children. If nothing else, the movie has started a conversation and is thought provoking on the subject. These parents/grandparents need to give consideration as to what they are approving when their little darlings participate in what some would think is a healthy activity, dancing.
I am a believer and support things that require us to think even if it is uncomfortable. We need to pass that ability on to our children rather them just be automatic followers who mimic the latest trend/social activity the masses do ('herd mentality). I will dare say it; Meghan's 'Girl Up' speech had some good statements which I believe encouraged the girls to think and act independently and in a compassionate way. I know for myself, I was quite independent minded when quite young and did not follow the masses/trends and was the better person for it I believe. I read thought-provoking novels, studied (not majored) philosophy in college, was an observer of the tumultuous early 70's, had a strong set of ethics and faith-based values. My parents did not 'teach me' these things I sought it out and came to my own conclusions/principles.
panic or safe rooms
I wondered how they managed to spend so much so quickly. The 2.4 mil didn't include finishes and fixtures, which the Harkles paid for at the time.
Heh. Check out the cost of ballistic drywall. At that point, after looking at just window prices and protective drywall, I was saying things like "ONLY $2.4 million? What kind of cut-rate security protection is THAT?"
"Why the Sussexes won't get booked on the speaker circuit
Answer: The Sussex want to talk about equality and women empowerment. The masses want to listen to drywall and wall renovations on their unused home not being lived in. Note to HAMS: Change your subject and you will make millions. Lol
New Harry Markle...
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/09/11/the-sussexes-eternal-debt-their-karmic-moral-debt
I continue to puzzle over the amount and allocation of this FrogCott money.
As a listed building of the Crown Trust, the Sovereign Grant should cover the major structural renovations like roofing, wiring and floors; removing walls for the conversion from flats, the installation of upgraded windows, etc. I would expect a retrofitting job of this magnitude to cost easily three times what the Harkles are said to owe. My understanding is they were responsible for decorating the interiors, probably landscaping work, furniture, appliances, soft furnishings and anything else deemed cosmetic. I would consider this fair, but such an investment only makes sense if the couple was going to stay there long term and really turn it into their home. The timeline just doesn’t work. If the initial application in April of 2018, a month before the wedding, was for the staff housing upgrades, this property was never intended as a Royal residence for H & M. Within 6-8 months later, it is announced they are moving to Frogmore...this is around New Year, 4 months before she’s “due”? So within the space of 4 to 6 months, the building is allegedly completely transformed into a single-family home, and the expectant parents have completely furnished it, including the vegan painted nursery, and are all moved in weeks before the ‘birth’? Archie was by conservative estimate, about three weeks late, and during that time I read several articles about how the glowing, nesting mother to be was taking the air in the garden at her new home with Doria and was “so happy”.
Then of course, they were all the Royal and celebrity visitors dropping by both before and after the birth.
How was all this accomplished in just a few months without elvish intervention? The timeline is far too rushed to be authentic.
I would consider 2,400,000 pounds to be a reasonable amount if it were legitimately spent on the house. H & M should not be responsible for repayment of the Sovereign Grant taxpayer funded portion for structural repairs that were already in the works. But this is a very insistent part of their Megxit conditions. One wonders what really went down and what that money went to. BRF should have carried on with the staff flat renovations and found somewhere else to stick the whiners. It should’ve been obvious from the get go that they would never stay at Frogmore. But I don’t understand how any extensive renovation could’ve been completed, never mind all the decorating in a period that was about four months, Most of that occurring over winter weather.
To think that Harry could’ve had his own estate on the Welsh border for free...The moron quotient is high with these two. Who’s tending that property now, and will Grandpa Wales be able to keep it in the family for George? That’s 20 years off at least. Harry is such an idiot.
I wonder about the speaker circuit. Do the TED Talks count? It seems to me that everyone who is invited to give one also has very personal stories to share. Off the top of my head, I recall a swimmer who failed to make a difficult crossing at night . . . a neuroscientist who observed her own stroke . . . an introvert who wrote a book on introversion . . . the author of a book on psychopathy who realized he had psychopathic behaviors himself . . . a university professor who cried recounting the time she nearly dropped out . . . a former White House intern who managed to survive the sort of public notoriety most of us can never even imagine. And what they all have in common is rich personal experience.
And Meghan has totally blown it on that aspect. The only thing I'd book her for is her perspective on being biracial. Her Tig post about the mixed family of dolls that her dad put together for her was actually pretty sweet. But she can't tell it anymore, can she? There isn't a single story from her childhood that she can share without a basic fact-check exposing it as a lie. I almost feel sorry for her. The doll story would have become doubly interesting now that she is in the position her parents were. (Or now that she has another sort of doll. Pick one.)
For the same reason, she can't talk about her royal life, either. Plus, her version of events, as told through Scobie and Durand, was widely panned. If she had seen Finding Freedom as the album to launch her concert tour, well, both sales and critical reception were so disappointing, she already knows she'd never sell out a stadium. (Apologies if that metaphor was too clumsy!)
And what could she say about being a boots-on-the-ground volunteer in California? For one, many celebrities put in some kind of volunteer work these days; she's nothing special. For another, you can't get many stories or insights when you only stay at an event for five minutes.
As for producing . . . My impression is that you get into producing because you want to tell stories and (cough) shine a light through the media of film/television/streaming. Not through the speaker circuit. And I'm pretty sure that a producer would need to have many years and at least one big hit under his or her belt to be a sought-after speaker.
Meghan has nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I can think of two examples of very famous speeches from the USA:
The Gettysburg Address. Lincoln was president. He not only had a legitimate platform as presiden, but also led the government in war and in the emancipation of slaves.
JFK's 'we choose to go to the Moon' speech. Once again, he was president and was in the centre of the government that could influence programmes and budgets.
A rousing speech may inspire marches and riots, but the speeches that actually create change are made by people who can actually make change happen, from a legitimate platform, and they are not paid to make those speeches.
Telling girls to empower themselves does not make them safe from violent men or win them equal treatment in the workplace. It may inspire someone to commit to the long road of actually doing something but I think that would be unlikely, and someone exceptional like that would have chosen that path in life anyway.
We should all be free to express our opinion (and the limits to that depend on where you are in the world), but it is absurd that a person's opinion is worth a million bucks. By the way, I forgot about the virus, so a million bucks for a speech delivered via Zoom is even more absurd.
The A332 (public road) runs through the Park but goes nowhere near Frogmore, that was, presumably, been how my father was able to poach a few royal partridges, with his RAF service rifle, travelling home with a 48hr pass, in an RAF van, back in the war.
Like CatEyes, I've always placed a high value on thinking for myself, even when it puts me in a minority. I've also tried to develop it in my students, using the quotation from Hemingway about developing an inbuilt bullsh*t detector.
re servants' accommodation and barn conversions:
In a big house, a Head Gardener could expect to have a cottage provided as part of his package, as would a Head Coachman. Unmarried junior gardeners and grooms would possibly have shared accommodation, ie the hayloft. House keeper and Butler too would have their own rooms in the house. House-/parlour/ladies'- maids might have to sleep in a chilly garret, with or without a madwoman for company (as they used to in pre-war times in my old college - they were student rooms when I was there and I can vouch for how cold they were, once the gas fire was turned off). Jane Eyre surely had her own room below the attic at Thornfield Hall. Kitchen maids often had to bed down near or in the kitchen.
Even poorer, ordinary, folk might employ `a girl' to help out; census returns for even my mother's forebears in v.modest, nay, humble London houses show a young girl, listed as a `servant' as being on the premises over night. Unmarried farmworkers might live en famille farmhouse, with the farmer and his family - one of my gt.gt grandfathers had two, listed as `farm servants'.
I've heard some tales about the tension between indoor and outdoors staff at Clarence House in the past; and I must ask my contact where she lived when she worked there. Did she travel up from home each day?
As for barns, byres, stables, even pigsties (!) these are now valued as `character dwellings, once they are brought up to a smart standard for human habitation.
Mews, btw, get their name from being the place where the falcons and hawks were kept in medieval times, (from the sound that some of the birds make). Later, they became stables and coach houses, with haylofts, ideal for conversion to garages/workshops with flats/ apartments above. The Royal Mews are where the coach horses and coaches are kept.
I continue to puzzle over the amount and allocation of this FrogCott money.
As a listed building of the Crown Trust, the Sovereign Grant should cover the major structural renovations like roofing, wiring and floors; removing walls for the conversion from flats, the installation of upgraded windows, etc. I would expect a retrofitting job of this magnitude to cost easily three times what the Harkles are said to owe. My understanding is they were responsible for decorating the interiors, probably landscaping work, furniture, appliances, soft furnishings and anything else deemed cosmetic. I would consider this fair, but such an investment only makes sense if the couple was going to stay there long term and really turn it into their home. The timeline just doesn’t work. If the initial application in April of 2018, a month before the wedding, was for the staff housing upgrades, this property was never intended as a Royal residence for H & M. Within 6-8 months later, it is announced they are moving to Frogmore...this is around New Year, 4 months before she’s “due”? So within the space of 4 to 6 months, the building is allegedly completely transformed into a single-family home, and the expectant parents have completely furnished it, including the vegan painted nursery, and are all moved in weeks before the ‘birth’? Archie was by conservative estimate, about three weeks late, and during that time I read several articles about how the glowing, nesting mother to be was taking the air in the garden at her new home with Doria and was “so happy”.
...
How was all this accomplished in just a few months without elvish intervention? The timeline is far too rushed to be authentic.
Yes, that is what I thought, too. Not doable in the time frame given with the budget given, especially without anybody noticing the work ongoing. (It could be done if sufficient money were thrown out and lots of workmen working simultaneously but the activity would resemble a disturbed anthill.)
Another thought re the predilection for Russian oligarchs: Perhaps Medusa and her Prince Froggie were looking for a place with built-in security precautions (as shady Russian oligarchs have to be very careful) rather than engaging in monetary hanky panky. It would be easier to buy security in place rather than retrofit later. The question about how compromised their security may be is none of my business.