Skip to main content

And the bots play on: PR about the Sussexes never stops

It's been a while since I've written about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but it's not because they've been idle. 

They've launched their new Archewell website, released their first podcast on Spotify, and announced that they would not be re-establishing a social media presence - supposedly to protect their valuable content.

Regular articles are placed in the Daily Mail and the New York Post about the Sussexes' doings, in particular about their relationship with the portions of the Royal Family that have remained in Britain.

There's only one problem: nobody cares. The coverage is driven by supply, not demand.


Selling people something they don't want to buy

You can see it in the number of comments on Daily Mail stories about the Sussexes, which are way below the numbers attracted at the time of Megxit, which took place almost precisely one year ago.

Yet the bots play on, delivering new puff pieces about the Sussexes almost every day. 

Presumably approved by the Sussexes themselves or their PR minions, they to sell the public on their own importance, while offering little that the people might really be interested in.

Photos of Archie? Rare, and usually obviously manipulated. 

Tour of their current California residence? "You can see a wall or cabinet in the background of our umpteenth diatribe about social problems."

A view into their relationship? That's a staple of any reality program featuring a couple. But there's none of that, and the Sussexes could have collected a lot of sympathy with about the inevitable tensions between a culture from different countries and economic backgrounds. 

But the PR people will continue writing something, anything, as long as they are paid to do so. 


Coming soon

Coming in 2021 is Meghan's court case against the Daily Mail, a book from sister Samantha and a movie from her father Thomas, and the first episodes of the Sussexes' Netflix series.

Will any of them be enough to create more public interest in the Sussexes? 


Comments

D1 said…
I think it's getting harder to figure out what they will do next.

They are running out of new ideas.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
I like egg salad sandwiches. A lot. I could eat them for every meal every day. But if I DID eat egg salad sandwiches 3 times a day, 7 days a week, I would end up HATING egg salad sandwiches and would never eat them again.

Grip and Drip, with their daily PR puff pieces, have become egg salad sandwiches.
Catlady1649 said…
Egg Salad sandwiches... Brilliant.
I've got to agree I'm sick of reading about them every day as well
AnT said…
@Sandie,
Regarding your final comments from the previous post:

... I would like to apply your incredibly apt view of the Sussexes as empty tin drums that make a lot of noise but never deliver to Nutty’s new question. Thus and therefore, my answer is “no” — Based on their “empty drum” deliverables:

* The boring, bland, blabbering or bitter missives

* The blank holes of nothingness (podcast, Netflix)

* Invisibility in real life—Sasquatch sightings. Rob Lowe was dead on with the Loch Ness monster reference

* Emotional range seems to be smugness, rage, jealousy, disappearing, or druggy sloppiness/odd laughter

* Lack of style

* Non-working appearance; married couple near 40 lolling around In mansions and asking Pa and taxpayers for money

*.Known transit: Look at them, they’ll sue you or sugar-blast you

......do most people (with many more serious issues on their minds) want to be “entertained” by this much longer? I think not. I think people have begun to drop off for other more important or more entertaining or more pleasant topics. And a few are assembling in the Colosseum with popcorn. No long celeb life either way except as the occasional silly curiosity when they pop up to moan and piss about something with their begging cups out in an entitled way. I think 2021 with its trial, book, homework deadlines, will bust them.



abbyh said…
They've thrown so much spaghetti at a huge wall - long like a long buffet table and diverse - diverse like all the different ideas they have said they were going to look into or do.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
PrettyPaws said…
Evening, Nutties

As with most other Nutties, I am sick to the back teeth with the constant drip-feed of Harkle puff pieces whenever I read the online papers.

Do any Nutties think we could start a Go Fund Me page to raise money in order to send a "Cease and Desist" lawyer's letter to the Harkles? I reckon such a missive would give them the wake up call they so badly need.
PrettyPaws said…
Following on from my previous comment, perhaps the fact that such a page had even been started may make them think twice. Besides, it would be a real hoot and would perhaps allow the media to jump on the wagon - I'm sure the DM would love something like this.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Acquitaine said…
@JennS: Nothing sinister regarding the new publicly available proceedings of Meghan's case.

As usual her timing sucks and she always executes after the opportune moment thus removing any advantages she might have.

On 20th January last year, the govt proposed a new law that allowed tv cameras / live streaming of high profile cases at the high court.

The legislation took some time to be ratified, and it is finally coming into effect next week.....just in time for her court case.

If she'd taken her original court dates, the case would have remained private because barring any other delays, it would have concluded the day before the new law came into effect.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cameras-to-broadcast-from-the-crown-court-for-first-time#:~:text=Television%20cameras%20will%20be%20allowed,today%20(16%20January%202020).

As for the DM/ MoS silence on upcoming proceedings, they tend to report on the day of or after proceedings. They have never reported ahead of the date of proceedings.

Don't forget the Judge reprimanded both sides on media reporting on the case and so far the DM/ MoS has abided by judges' rulings better than Meghan.
Martha said…
It’s not rational that I feel such anxiety over the upcoming court case. I fear she will get the summary judgement which will cast me into despair. I want her to be in despair! As JennS has said, I do agree the situation is strange. It’s incredible to me that her bs baffles brains.
Teasmade said…
Has anyone wondered if Tom M. (bless him) is getting help with his video? Financially, artistically, in any way?

I was very glad to see that he's finally speaking up. Maybe it's Samantha, who had time to help him once her book went to press. I don't even care if they are not nasty tell-alls, just that they tell SOMETHING, and that neither one of them feels that they have to tiptoe around Princess Pushy any longer.

And yes, for heaven's sake, do let us know the truth about Doria. It's really doubtful that she was a travel agent/social worker/yoga teacher/etc./etc. unless it was like Yoga Jones in that TV show, you know the one I mean.
Maneki Neko said…
Re the court case being streamed to the public and to add to @Acquitaine's post, the public can attend trials and sit in the public gallery but because of covid, this is not permitted any more and Mr Justice Warby has said the public could watch virtual proceedings (you need to apply).

I don't see why the DM would want to discuss the situation now. Surely they need to stay silent on the subject before the hearing.


JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mel said…
@acquitane ...If she'd taken her original court dates, the case would have remained private because barring any other delays, it would have concluded the day before the new law came into effect.
-------------

Wasnt a different change in law the reason they filed prematurely to start with? Something about a change the next week would make it harder for them to sue, or something? So they had to hustle and get their suit in that week, even though they weren't quite ready to spill the beans on that yet?
SwampWoman said…
Sandie said: @AnT and @Acquitane

Thanks so much for the information on Koenig. Nuance is the perfect word to describes how royalty operates in the UK. Another word that comes to mind is depth - history, tradition, experience, characters, world events all contribute to that.

Meghan talks about depth, kindness, compassion and so on but has none herself. A Jungian psychologist would find her a great subject for examples of the shadow at work.

Ironically, both William and Charles skate on thin ice in terms of interference with government, something the Queen has supposedly never done. With Charles it is the handwritten letters to people in government; with William it is supposedly typed missives.

It is the hypocrisy from the Sussexes that annoys people. They are empty tin drums that make a lot of noise and never deliver the tunes listed on the programme that they publish with smug arrogance.


Absolutely no nuance, hunh? Dang, I am flashing back to some of my conversations with engineers. The ones with autism.
Hikari said…
The Millennials love to overshare...This just popped up on my Facebook feed, and my immediate reaction was “TMI!”, Especially seeing as I just finished my dinner. But there is some useful relevant information to us here. DWTS pro Witney Carson Had a baby boy named Leo almost 2 weeks ago, and in between bragging about how proud she is of her post baby body, she admits that two weeks on, she still wearing a diaper due to various leakages of childbirth.

Meg came swanning down a long hall in a shirt, tight white double breasted coat dress with belt and buttons—and high heels 48 hours after allegedly birthing Archie. She could have been wearing a diaper I suppose, but if she was, it was all bunched up in the front and skewed to the side. It would’ve had to have been a whole package of diapers for that particular effect.

https://people.com/parents/witney-carson-still-in-diaper-after-welcoming-son-leo/?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-share-article&utm_content=20210118


SwampWoman said…
MustySyphone said...
I like egg salad sandwiches. A lot. I could eat them for every meal every day. But if I DID eat egg salad sandwiches 3 times a day, 7 days a week, I would end up HATING egg salad sandwiches and would never eat them again.

Grip and Drip, with their daily PR puff pieces, have become egg salad sandwiches.


I hear ya. I used to like egg salad sandwiches a lot until I had them waaaaay too frequently. Haven't had one for years, now.
Longview said…

The best observation I have seen to date, somewhere on twitter (can't recall where):

Markle wanted to be Diana 2.0; she has in fact become Fergie 2.0"
SwampWoman said…
Hikari said: Meg came swanning down a long hall in a shirt, tight white double breasted coat dress with belt and buttons—and high heels 48 hours after allegedly birthing Archie. She could have been wearing a diaper I suppose, but if she was, it was all bunched up in the front and skewed to the side. It would’ve had to have been a whole package of diapers for that particular effect.

Yeah, I concur, NOT happening.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger Longview said...

The best observation I have seen to date, somewhere on twitter (can't recall where):

Markle wanted to be Diana 2.0; she has in fact become Fergie 2.0"


I disagree. People actually *like* Fergie.
@JennS at 12:37. I actually think the PR is just to try and make her (and him) "stars". No diversion, no nothing, just "make me globally famous--and rich".

@Teasmade I think both Samantha and TM (really whomever they consult) realize the Palace won't swoop in to save Grip and Drip so they (Sammantha and TM) feel "safe" enough to launch their projects.

@Swampwoman (at 3:09): I was one of those . :)
Hikari said…
The best defense against the Grip and Drip water torture of incessant PR nothingburger is to notice the work the real royals are doing.

Here is a lovely article about Camilla’s new book club she’s calling The Reading Room. Really nice. Camilla is a legitimate bibliophile, and is the real patron of seven or eight literature-based charities alone. So this is a real project close to her heart, and not just meant as a subtle dig at Harry’s new “stepmom he never had”, Oprah.

https://apple.news/A8Gj9xSCRSKGRucmHAJqx6w
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
AnT said…
@MustySyphone,
I agree — the Harkles just want “fame’n’money” like clueless, directionless kids. They dislike working, accountability and being ignored.
Martha said…
In a nutshell, @Hikari just wrapped the situation with Smugsy to a T; succinct distinction between the 2 duchesses, and their charities. Whereas Camilla’s interests are “heartfelt”, genuine and participated in with genuine interest, the imposter is just that...an imposter.
AnT said…
@JennS,

Great sleuthing — a Lowe/Markle connection!
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fifi LaRue said…
I just feel relaxed due to Hikari's revealing that there is no one-year review of the Sussex situation. It's over and done.

And, I also feel relaxed that Harry thought he was in time out, and was getting re-integrated into the family with Megit, and that LA was only temporary.
Thank you Acquitaine!

There are Megs and Harry headlines constantly on FB. That's a lot of money to stay relevant, and they have nothing relevant to share.
Sandie said…
And here is some more PR, which I find rather bizarre:

https://etcanada.com/news/735884/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-donate-lunch-ahead-of-mlk-day/

The wording of their letter (written in American English from a couple who owe their wealth, titles, patronages and worldwide 'fame' to the British people) is, to me, bizarre. What fuels this delusional self-importance?

Their 'donation' is pathetic in comparison with their wealth and lifestyle. Gosh those two are so cheap!

Someone at LSA pointed out that these 'donations' are to small organizations so grateful for any donations or opportunity for publicity amongst the noise of so many bigger and louder organizations, that they will give the Sussexes free publicity on social media.

The way the Sussexes are you behaving is kind of ugly isn't it?
jessica said…
She reached peak fame and didn’t actually know what to do with it or how to leverage it. Interest in Meghan has declined 50% since October, and that was already a big drop from January.

Her PR is working overtime, getting more expensive, and she assumed Spotify and Netflix would take over for promo. Looks like both entities saw negative associations (low listener count, and stock tanking) and have jumped ship to greener celebrities; Joe Rogan and Kevin Hart.

This is the beginning of Celeb purgatory for the duo.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
@JennS

Re. Roya Nikka and her article:

This is purely speculation from me, after joining some dots ...

Meghan has dragged Charles and Camilla into her increasingly messy legal fight with MOS.

The case has not yet gone to trial and it has become messy, with Meghan being reprimanded and shown up as an outrageous liar, and more and more people being dragged into the drama.

Charles and Camilla were at the centre of 'the War of the Wales's', which was messy and a huge scandal and took a lot of rehabilitation for Charles. (The Queen wanted an end to the endless Diana drama and probably the endless whinging from her son, and thus suddenly 'remembered', while in her car, that she had given Burrel permission to take some of Diana's possessions. The case against Burrel was thus dropped as no one wanted to call the Queen to be cross examined and possibly exposed as a liar.)

If things go very badly for Meghan in a trial, even if she should 'win', it is likely to be scandalous, and this will directly adversely affect Harry.

Charles supposedly can be a self-pitying whinger, so one can imagine him having a dramatic moan about the whole saga (it is very British to use strong and dramatic language for small things and mild language for big things).

Roya's source, who heard this whinge, or was told about it, then passed a story onto Roya, probably with some elaboration encouraged by the journalist who then took some artistic licence in the emphasis in her article.

It would be a huge win for Meghan if Charles and Camilla should get the trial stopped. However, they can't. Not in the dramatic way that the Queen stopped the Burrel trial. Even if they testify that they advised her to write the letter and discussed content and tone, and so on, with her, Meghan is the author of the letter and has sole responsibility for the contents. Unless she claims that she was an employee of the Crown and wrote the letter in that capacity. MOS lawyers will crucify her if she tries. You can't have your cake and eat it, but you can create a monumental scandal.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
@JennS

Thanks for that info about Roya.

In the time of the virus, reporters may resort to playing a double game and peddling manipulative fiction. They do it in normal times, so the pressure to do so under lockdown when royal activity is at an all-time low must be huge.

That is an interesting suggestion - that she does not have a connection at the Palace, but perhaps her source is a Harkle employee who claims to still have connections at the Palace? I think one Sussex employee went to work for the Cambridges, one or two were taken on by the Queen, two stayed with Harry and were set up in an office in London, two started their own freelance company and have taken on the Sussexes as their client.

Keeping all that in mind it is very feasible that Roya's 'source at the Palace' is a Sussex employee!
Acquitaine said…
@Mel said…

"Wasnt a different change in law the reason they filed prematurely to start with? Something about a change the next week would make it harder for them to sue, or something? So they had to hustle and get their suit in that week, even though they weren't quite ready to spill the beans on that yet?"

Yes. They hustled to file in a section of the high court that specialuses in media cases brought against the media and often sides with the plaintif. There was a deadline on cases to that court

In other words they tried to pull a fast one and file in a court known to favour the person who brought the case against the media. They calculated that it was a slamdunk for them with or without *royal privilege.

I find it endlessly amusing that before he took the bench, the presiding Judge on Meghan's case was the on call defence lawyer for numerous DM cases where various people were suing them for reasons.

He won more than he lost cases for them!!





Back to Koenig:

I can't imagine Catherine not being queen - I've never heard any mention of that.

A married woman's rank depends on that of her husband. The proposal/intention of making Camilla `Princess Consort' is out of respect for Diana's supporters, who are expected to create an outcry were Camilla to be crowned Queen.

Had Diana died when still married to Charles, he would have been a widower free to choose an unmarried woman or widow who would become queen without any problem. As it was, it's in his favour that he had no previous wife living when they married.

Unfortunately, Camilla still had, and as far as I know still has, a former husband living and the public has a long memory where Diana is concerned, particularly if they see only the positive side of her.

`Princess Consort ' is a compromise based on the `Prince Consort' model, devised for Prince Albert and used for Philip - it was out of the question for Albert to be crowned king and historians now are prepared to say it was unconstitutional for William of Orange to become `King' William by dint of being married to Mary II, daughter of James II.

I have no idea how Koenig got the idea that the accommodation for Camilla barred Catherine from being crowned - I've never seen it even hinted at.
Harry Markle mentions the Pembrokeshire Murders, an ITV drama about how a serial killer in that lovely part of Wales was finally brought to justice. (It was very good programme - I was glued to it because I'm familiar with the area and how the 2 double murders affected local life and blighted the tourism vital to the area.)

What stuck in my mind, though, was a quotation from the criminal psychologist involved with the case:

`All psychopaths are narcissists'.

It doesn't necessarily follow that all narcissists are psychopaths but it's worth remembering that any narcissist you come across may also be a psychopath.
Maneki Neko said…
@Longview said (seen on Twitter)

Markle wanted to be Diana 2.0; she has in fact become Fergie 2.0

-------------

As @SwampWoman said, Fergie is liked and is certainly liked by the Queen (although not Philip). Fergie has at least some qualities and is not nasty.
Sandie said…
I have just come across a claim that Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks have both just introduced an oat milk latte.

I really do not see anything appealing about an oat milk latte and will stick with my black coffee, no sugar, no special flavours, no frills (called an Americano, well in my country it is).
Sandie said…
@WBBM

Thank you for explaining Princess Consort. It now makes sense, and within the context of history.

What strikes me is that because the monarchy has such a long and layered history it can be flexible. In her arrogant claims of modernization of the BRF, Meghan missed all that depth and all the nuances.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger Sandie said...
I have just come across a claim that Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks have both just introduced an oat milk latte.

I really do not see anything appealing about an oat milk latte and will stick with my black coffee, no sugar, no special flavours, no frills (called an Americano, well in my country it is).


Heh. Well, they're going to have to have a LOT of women (I can't see men drinking this) that are willing to pay $5.00 plus for a cup of laxative that they pick up in the drive thru. I understand that they rolled it out in 2020; however, I've never seen it locally (but I usually visit coffee trucks anyway). Maybe their shutdowns affected the rollout and slowed their roll.
Acquitaine said…
@WBBM: re: Keonig - yep. No nuance. She doesn't seem to understand the compromise *proposed* for Camilla in view of the Diana stans. This proposal was Camilla specific and not a change in the overall system.

The ongoing improvement in Camilla's image has allowed for discussions that support her taking up her rightful title without rancour.

Re: William of Orange being crowned alongside Mary 2. This is one of those coronations that disguised the fact that traitors in parliament had invited a foreign prince to invade the country to depose the lawful King and the foreign prince duly did.

The Glorious revolution was an invasion that has been successfully re-framed as it happened and by history to hide this salient fact.

The traitors advised and helped with the PR effort of selling this invasion to the people by claiming that he was saving the country from tyranny and doing it peacefully - just don't look or mention the warships he brought and sailed up the Thames!!!

His marriage to Mary was extremely convenient for their mutual goals.

Lucy Worsley has a really good documentary on this fiction which i'll link below.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M9PRYhT09l0

Current historians trying to correct the record as far as his coronation is concerned need to first acknowledge that he was an invader and in so doing dismantle the Glorious revolution PR.




Acquitaine - A toast to the `King over the Water' and the `Little Gentleman in the Velvet Coat'?
Though, of course, 'twas His Holiness himself who blessed William's venture with a view to curbing French Absolutist expansion under Louis XIV.
And thanks for the reminder, Acquitaine, to read Jardine's `Going Dutch' - I've reserved a copy at my local library.
Acquitaine said…
@WBBM: A toast!!!😄😁

Mind you, the comic version of Bonnie Prince Charlie in Outlander is how i imagine the King over the water and his heirs.
Acquitaine said…
@WBBM: Given his larger than life projection of his persona, i'm surprised there aren't as many tv / film / plays / general entertainment manifestations of Louis 14 like Elizabeth Gloriana and Henry 8.
Jdubya said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9157725/Thomas-Markle-plans-new-documentary-featuring-unseen-videos-photographs-daughter-Meghan.html

Mr Markle, a retired Hollywood lighting director, told The Sun on Sunday of the documentary: ‘It begins with my life, my family, my love of theatre and television and how I got there.

'Then my life with Meghan, growing up, her school days until she went off to college, and when her career began.

‘We had a good life together, up through her first marriage and her move to Canada. Then a new story begins. It’s kind of like “What happened to my baby girl?”.’

---------------------

Goodness - uncopyrighted photo's of M being in the documentary? How will she handle that.

I still wonder about this - Meghan lived with her father between the ages of 11 and 18 and Mr Markle claimed he paid her school fees and college tuition.

where was Doria? I know there are rumors but i wish someone could find the facts.
OKay said…
Sandie said…

I really do not see anything appealing about an oat milk latte and will stick with my black coffee, no sugar, no special flavours, no frills (called an Americano, well in my country it is).
___________________
In my country, it's called coffee. ;-) We don't "do" Starbucks. I don't drink it myself, but hubby says there is no real coffee there. *L* We're in Canada, so of course it's Tim Horton's everywhere, all the time.
Elsbeth1847 said…
I suspect a few things will come out in Sam's book which will clear things up.

FF dodges the whole issue except it says that Doria leaves when M is about 2 (p 174).

Sam married a year after Thomas Sr and Doria married and then Doria had M and Sam has Ashleigh the following year (1983). Sam goes on to have Christopher 1986. Noel is born 1998.

So Sam did have kids, a first marriage and her own life but it is unclear when she got divorced and where she was during the raising M time. Note the two girls are of the same age ...

FF does make a point about how M was the first in her family to graduate from college. Good - graduation is a good thing). Sam married quite young and had 3 kids, divorced husband 2 in 2003, graduates from college 2008 and that is the same year she was diagnosed with MS.

Very different college experiences.
Sandie said…
https://www.seattlecoffeecompany.co.za/

Started by an American couple in the UK (hence the term Americano), bought out by Starbucks in the UK, but still family owned in South Africa. Fabulous coffee, check the board for 'beans for the day', and great service!

Starbucks does seem to have a presence in the country but it does not have the same prestige as the Seattle Coffee Company and I must admit that I have never actually seen a Starbucks. Always wanted to try their coffee, so will hunt down a branch after the pandemic!
Sandie said…
I suspect that Thomas Markle's documentary will not address the many questions I have, but it is his story and I am sure there will be great media interest and keep Meghan in the news for a while longer!

@Elsbeth1847

Meghan was photographed with Samantha at her graduation in 2008. It is all very odd that she ghosted everyone except her mother and claimed that her brother and sister were distant relatives and she hardly knew them. How could Harry have been ok with that? He has lots of truly distant relatives and none of them get ghosted, even when they do misbehave.

The following article covers Meghan's relatives:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/6298566/meghan-markle-family/

Ashleigh kind of looks like a prettier version of Meghan!
D1 said…
Puds

That's for that, so funny.
I've had a good giggle while trying to slurp my wine :)
D1 said…
Should be "Thanks for that"
Thanks Puds - I needed that!

Miggy said…
@Puds,

Hilarious! Still wiping my tears of laughter away! 😆
Back to Wm III -a point was stretched when he was crowned but I suppose they argued that he had the status of a monarch anyway.

The important thing is that it did not create a precedent for when Victoria, as a reigning queen, married Albert. One `rule' is that the other `rules' can always be adapted to meet the need of the moment.
hunter said…
HA thanks Puds, that was excellent!
hunter said…
As for Camilla, since she is from blue blooded stock and doesn't seem to genuinely care about her public popularity (I'm sure she cares but she does not seek celebrity), she is totes cool with being whatever they've decided to call her.

I respect Camilla and ever since watching The Windsors (satirical UK show) I appreciate her even more.
Magatha Mistie said…

@Puds - hahaha, brilliant!

@WildBoar - a glass of Moled Wine?


Acquitaine said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid said…
"Back to Wm III -a point was stretched when he was crowned but I suppose they argued that he had the status of a monarch anyway."

A point was definitely stretched because Queen Regnants Matilda, Jane Grey and Mary 1 were able to negotiate marriage contracts or simply refuse, block their husbands from being elevated to King or King Consort.

Queen Anne's husband didn't even try to ask for any status elevation or role within the monarchy. To this day, no one remembers his existence in any discussions about her life beyond noting her 17pregnancies.


Christine said…
Hello All! Hope all of you are doing well.

What's to say about the latest Markle PR blitz! They are trying to adhere to the Kardashian style that all PR is good PR and giving us the blitzkrieg. The problem is that even though people don't 'like' the Kardashians per se, they are mildly amusing and there is some interest in what kinds of cosmetics, shapewear, etc they use. Kardashians also don't try to preach and change the world. Well, I just heard that Kim wants to focus on her 'law career' now that she's splitting up with Kanye. But I think you can see my point.

The other thing is, especially marked by the Covid pandemic with it's illness, loss of jobs, freedoms, problems- people are NOT interested in being preached at. That is exactly how H&M want to make their money and people are not interested. It seems that any stars that do that preaching get skewered in this day and age and mindset we all have.

I am now seeing American publications like People Mag post articles on the Markles on social media, and they comments are really getting negative. They always got better press in the US, but it seems to be fading.

Christine said…
I don't know what to think about the cancelling of the March review. In some ways it's disappointing because the duo are retaining their titles. In other ways, I like it. No Harry, we don't want to sit down and chat about how it's going. You have your deals that you've made and you can live off those. There's no need to review your finances. If it's working out for you, then fine, so be it.

It does have the Queen's personality allover it. No fuss, no muss-no excessive discussions. None of the crying and whining of last year. It does seem like the cancellation of the review has caused H&M a little anxiety. "But, but, but Granny, Pa?! No meeting? No review of our finances???! Can we come to the UK this summer and sit on the balcony?????"

I've read many of your posts with your feelings about it. I find the viewpoints and nuances of it very interesting.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
jessica said…
I don’t get why Harry and Meghan don’t just start a church.
jessica said…
Remember Meghan only wanted financial independence if they could be half-in/half-out. Meaning, she didn’t even think at halvsies she could make things financially work to their entitled level on their own. They knew they’d always need quite a bit of extra yearly support to make their grand plans for their lifestyles stick. I’m guessing they need an extra $3-$5MM per year to make it. That’s hard to come by for people with great careers, and they don’t have any real career. She’s going to gamble away all of Prince Harry’s future, happily, and be on her way. It was his fault after all, wasn’t it?
Fifi LaRue said…
@Christine: You may have missed Hikari's comment from the previous Nutty post.
Hikari said there was never going to be a year review, that was all Megan's stuff she put out.
The Harkles are done, the Queen wished Harry and his family well, and that was it.

And Acquitaine let us know that Harry told the fake "Greta" that leaving the BRF was all a misunderstanding.
Fifi LaRue said,

"And Acquitaine let us know that Harry told the fake "Greta" that leaving the BRF was all a misunderstanding."

Leaving the BRF was all a misunderstanding? If so, they have plenty of PR people there to fix whatever went wrong and put out the truth of the matter. What did he mean in the context?
Mary I married Philip II King of Spain, who did become `King of England', by way of jure uxoris. Apparently, he was named as such by Act of Parliament but it seems the people never acknowledged this. In any case, he went back to Spain when Mary died (1558) and doesn't seem to have done much to reclaim `his' throne from Elizabeth until 1588 (the Armada), or at least he did nothing that lodged in the general memory of the time.

Anne's George, Prince of Denmark, seems to have taken the line of least resistance, preferring the quiet life.

I recall that Philip wasn't too happy about being no 2 to HM's number one - it was quite an issue before the Coronation but on the big day, he was the first to pledge his allegiance, kneeling in front of her:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1458335/Prince-Philip-kisses-Queen-Elizabeth-coronation-1953.html

According to Lady Glenconner, HM was very cross about the kiss - did she see it as an inappropriate unscripted move or was it because he could have knocked the crown of her head? or was he reminding her that in the marriage, at least, he was boss?

The sort of precedent that does get perpetuated is the quaint and harmless - like standing for the Hallujah Chorus in `Messiah' because the George ! leapt to his feet when he heard it.

Or changes in naval tropical mess kit rules, as when at one dinner in sweltering heat, Philip, announced `Gentlemen, this bloody ridiculous' and proceeded to remove his tight jacket, tie & wing collar and rolled up his sleeves.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
lizzie said…
#JennS, I agree re: Harry and faux Greta.

Maybe I didn't read the right stuff but I do not think Harry ever said to faux Greta leaving the RF was a misunderstanding. He did say press reports about title stripping were false.


FROM https://www.the-sun.com/news/519882/prince-harry-reveals-agony-over-megxit-in-call-to-hoaxers-posing-as-greta-thunberg/amp/#aoh=16110095736882&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

"They ask about reports of Harry being “stripped” of his royal titles by the Queen after he and Meghan decided to step back.

Harry replies: “No, no, again you mustn’t believe what you read, no one has stripped us of our titles.

“Because of a technicality within the family, if we are earning money separately from within the family structure, then we obviously have been asked not to use our titles in order to make money, which we would never do.

“But the press managed to jump on that to make it look like we had been stripped.”

On MEGXIT he said

"I can assure you, marrying a Prince or Princess is not all it's made out to be! But sometimes the right decision isn't always the easy one. And this decision certainly wasn't the easy one but it was the right decision for our family, the right decision to be able to protect my son. And I think there's a hell of a lot of people around the world that can identify and respect us for putting our family first."
I had thought that perhaps Sam and Tom Sr. putting out projects now had something to do with realizing the Queen is truly done with Grip and Drip.


Now I'm wondering if Skippy, of all people, was right in theorizing that ALL the Markles are in this charade together.
"And this decision certainly wasn't the easy one but it was the right decision for our family, the right decision to be able to protect my son. "

Protect his son from what? Did Meghan threaten self-harm?
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mel said…
Has anyone seen the latest Blind Gossip item? Definitely worth taking a look at.
SirStinxAlot said…
@ lizzie
If only they weren't using their titles to make money...just another example of Dims ignorance of his own behavior. They throw out the titles at literally every opportunity begging for a bone in politicsandHollywood.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teasmade said…
@Mel: Yes! I saw the Blind Gossip item on Twitter; was wondering if anyone was going to mention it. Hmmmmm . . . .veerrrrry interesting! At this point there's very little I'd put past her.

Although haven't we seen some evidence proving otherwise?

For those who haven't seen it, in so many roundabout words, bottom line is SOMEONE FAMOUS lied about graduating from college. Sorry I can't go find it and copy-paste right now.
JennS,

Sure, but if they were concerned about giving birth to another Royal child who would _barely_ be in the spotlight, why bother having a kid at all?

...Then leave all the protection and privilege that child would be raised in to pursue the great unknown and self-interested careers and create a host of new 'child' issues such as neglect at the minimum....

Sounds grossly irresponsible.

If this was truly about Archie and his protection, then they would have done the responsible thing and crossed their t's and dotted their i's prior to writing their untenable manifesto. They were a train wreck on the loose without adequate living arrangements and plans, and that sounds more unsafe for a child.

I think he throws Archie out there at the end of everything to qualify his statements, because as they are saying them they realize the listener might not be buying what they are selling. So they hide behind, 'Archie', and 'what's best for the child' and all that.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Teasmade and Mel, Re the Blind Gossip item-thinking it could be Hilary Baldwin(NYU)?
https://blindgossip.com/before-online-college/
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
SwampWoman said…
ConstantGardener33 said...
@Teasmade and Mel, Re the Blind Gossip item-thinking it could be Hilary Baldwin(NYU)?
https://blindgossip.com/before-online-college/
That's what I was thinking, too!
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
AnT said…
@Not Meghan Markle,
I so agree. Harry keeps using Archie as a sort of punctuation point to every action, or otherwise as a human shield. He dangles him for photo opps, ratings boosts, and sympathy. And the old “we can’t be as dreadful as you think, because we have this doll! You can’t cut us off, Pa, we have this doll! We can’t be complete slags, we have this doll!” Why add another invisible plastic kid to the roadshow? I don’t think they have a real child with them, and I hope I am right because they are immature, self-absorbed users who seem to lack emotional capacity.

@JennS,
Ha! Six degrees of Rob Lowe sounds about right! I understand he doubled down on the ponytail sighting, talking to other media, E I think.
Also ———this Alex Wade seems to be a libel lawyer, published author, article writer....the breathy tone of the piece surprises me, or do I detect a mocking tone?

I think she will not get her desired sort of summary judgment. And if I am right, I expect a lava burst of rage-y “a source said” bits and broken pottery to explode out of the roof of their mansion.
AnT said…
@JennS

I also meant to add that Wade’s piece finds for her, but I see no mention of the People article or FF shadiness. Why not sue them? Why not People? Why not Omid? (Lol— I just reminded myself of a scene from the Reese Witherspoon comedy movie Legally Blonde, when she is debating a sample case point in the classroom: “Why now? Why THIS sperm?”)
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
@JennS

I don't know what to think any more. I had thought Grip truly abandoned Tom Sr either because he was an embarrassment to her (overweight, not polished, etc) or because he expected some of the loot (as payback for all he invested in her) and she didn't want to share--but needed Doria for her narrative. Grip praised her father in The Tig blog, until Harry. Didn't mention Doria much, until Harry.

Perhaps Tom Sr was promised something and she reneged. That would actually explain the current animosity to me.

I think Sam's life had been a mess and with Grip so much younger, she wasn't very involved in it (although the picture with Sam at Sam's graduation) . To publicly shun or deny the family (plus dollars to be made) is what got Sam motivated. Ironically, Grip probably could have avoided a lot of this mess at the cost of half a dozen wedding invitations (to her family) at the expense of half a dozen invites to people she didn't know. I'm sure the family sees Doria getting a lot of money quietly (she quit her job right after the wedding and has never held a job for long or one that paid well) and are wanting "their share too". Because Doria wasn't very involved in Grips childhood (or so we are told).

Grip kept all her Hollywood team so I've no idea if there was a UK based PR agency for her. But wasn't that part of the "find me a rich British guy" phase so maybe so.

The whole Archie thing is a giant fiasco, for whatever reason. They lost me forever with no Royal Physican signing off on the live birth. To me, it didn't happen through her because no woman would EVER reject the best OBs in the country for "privacy" unless the privacy was to cover up surrogate or doll.
PaulaMP said…
There's an item on Blind Gossip today which sounds like it could be Meg. If so it states that she never graduated from college and, sit down for this one, lied about it.
Teasmade said…
Here is the Blind Gossip item:

https://blindgossip.com/before-online-college/

AnT said…
@JennS,
Thanks for the Hot Rob info! And proving your six degree theory kind of, I just remembered I once helped Lowe’s dad find a kid’s book when we were both customers in a busy bookstore in a city where Mr AnT was doing some discovery and I went along to see friends who’d moved there. I didn’t know who the man was (super nice, handsome for his age, not tall, albeit I am 5’9”) but the clerk told me “you know who you just helped? He comes here a lot when in town.” Does that two-minute encounter count, lol?

@MystySyphone,
So it seems to me our unemployed, one-job Z lister has a bigger staff than Chris Evans or George Clooney or Emilia Clarke or?....managers and staff and agencies in LA, UK, NYC. All for doing what? Helping her cope with her boring embarrassing Zooms and suing people and delivering sandwiches once every three months for charity? Even small companies don’t staff up like that. I call it all a fraud as big as her mixed-up family relationships and sketchy CV.
Fifi LaRue said…
@JennS: Thanks for your comments. You are right, we don't know what was said behind closed doors. Hikari repeated the statement from The Queen, and nothing was said of a review.
As for Harry's phone conversation with "Greta" I did not have the fortitude to listen to a bunch of nonsensical blathering by Harry. Thanks to those who did, and reported back!

@NotMeganMarkle: There was some conjecture here that Harry was accustomed to having his poor behavior dealt with by (my words) timeouts from the RF, and then brought back into their good graces once he rectified (my words) his behavior.

The Harkle Family has never sat for a portrait. Very strange. For me that means that: choose any and all: Megan is jealous of "Archie;" "Archie" has a disability and is an embarrassment to Megan; or that "Archie" simply does not exist.
@AnT

We discussed in a previous thread just how big their monthly expenses must be because of staff. I would assume that the staff is on an needed or piece wise basis otherwise it would be prohibitively expensive.
AnT said…
Okay, that Blind Gossip HAS to be our Duchess of Sorority Hazing. Anyone surprised? Anyone? Bueller?
@Fifi LaRue

It is odd isn't it? No family portrait outside of the christening and Christmas card. The card wasn't professional the first time and the "stylized" second one is worthless as far as seeing anybody in it.

Something smells and it isn't Archie's nappie.
AnT said…
@MustySyphone,
Yes, I remember that discussion well —- I just felt a need to let that burst out of me again when you asked about any U.K. agency staff. I think perhaps she skipped U.K. staff other than Omid, who I assume was delivered to by Markus. I can’t shake the feeling she was scared that U.K. staff would figure out her falsehoods and game plan too quickly, especially if she was living in Soho House and planning to have a doll for a child and collect cash for clothes Jessica borrowed and returned.
@AnT

agreed except maybe the doll. still not sure doll versus surrogate. but yes, I agree she was hiding something from them. the clothing scam with Jessica makes Charles look soooooo weak. I question how good of a king he will make if he can be scammed like that.
Midge said…
@MustySyphone
No family portraits is just the tip of the ice berg. How many people have actually seen Archie to our knowledge?
Anonymous said…
If the Blind Gossip item is indeed about Meghan—which it certainly appears to be—why did it take so long for people to figure out that she never graduated from Northwestern?? Why wouldn’t the university set the record straight from the get-go? It makes them look complicit in her lie.
I think Blind Gossip is about Hilaria/Hilary Baldwin. She put a marriage announcement in the NYTimes and said she graduated from NYU.
Acquitaine said…
"Here is the Blind Gossip item:

https://blindgossip.com/before-online-college/"

Once again, Hillaria Baldwin for the win.

Prestigious uni is NYC.

She faked her persona to snag her rich and famous husband then used his fame to become famous herself.

Prestigious wedding announcement would be the NYtimes whose society wedding pronouncements are considered (or used to be) very prestigious, but sourced from the bridal couple themselves who submitted the information themselves - the great and good of NYC society.

NYTimes was once a reliable source of information with very strict and correct fact checkers. As we know these days, not so much anymore.
Acquitaine said…
JennS: Tatler is a society Magazine whose primary audience is upper middle class / aristocrat class.

Their new editor is pro-Meghan and just came out of a skirmish with the Cambridges and the Middletons over their 'Catherine the Great' hit piece.

I'm suspicious that their article reads very similar to the summary in byline investigates who are admitted media haters with a mission to shutdown all tabloids particularly DM and Murdoch press.

I expected to see an article in byline, but i'm surprised to see one in Tatler especially one that is so openly pro-Meghan in matters they usually do not touch aka legal matters.
lizzie said…
@Rebecca wrote:

"If the Blind Gossip item is indeed about Meghan—which it certainly appears to be—why did it take so long for people to figure out that she never graduated from Northwestern?? Why wouldn’t the university set the record straight from the get-go? It makes them look complicit in her lie."

Her name was in the spring 2003 graduation program to receive a Communication degree (Theater is in the School of Communication and that's the degree Theater majors earn.)

Northwestern has published things like this:

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/

which says "Markle graduated from Northwestern in 2003 with a double major in theater and international studies."

IF her name was in the program by mistake (failed a course at the last minute maybe) I'm not sure how to explain the above 2017 publication. But assuming that was a mistake too...academic institutions aren't in the habit of "setting the record straight" in the press about former students. Stating someone did or didn't graduate is NOT a FERPA violation but as a matter of legal safety, most schools don't go out of their way to comment about students/former students.

(Personally I think M did graduate.)
Fifi LaRue said…
It's most likely Hillary Baldwin faking more things about herself, i.e. Blind Gossip.
Acquitaine said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid said…
"Mary I married Philip II King of Spain, who did become `King of England', by way of jure uxoris. Apparently, he was named as such by Act of Parliament but it seems the people never acknowledged this."

Under English common law doctrine of jure uxoris, the property and titles belonging to a woman became her husband's upon marriage which would have made Philip King of England automatically without need for parliament to intervene.

However, the marriage proposal and acceptance between Philip and Mary was unpopular and caused one or two rebellions.

The privy council and parliament forced Philip to accept a marriage contract that specifically forbade the rights and titles of common English law. They allowed him the right to style himself 'King of England' in documents, but without any authority which remained with Mary 1. He was also forbidden the army and treasury of England. The little he was allowed was to last ONLY in Mary's lifetime as long as they were married. Divorce or her death expired the few privileges and claims granted.

His superficial title granted by marriage was rendered meaningless in the marriage contract which is why no one used it and it is not repeated in re-telling of their history. Plus he barely stayed in England during the marriage so the population never got used to him and remained hostile to him throughout.





AnT said…
@Acquitaine, and others, re the Blind Gossip item,

Ahh, you’re right.....Hillary Thomas Baldwin. Makes sense. How on earth did I forget about her?!
AnT said…
@MustySyphone,
It is concerning to think a future king could get so easily played by Markle. Is Charles still fooled by her, still soft on them? That is what I want to know. Don’t you think Camilla is more sharp-eyed about MM? I hope she can enlighten Charles.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
jessica said…
I too used to buy into the ‘Markle Mafia Family Come Up’ theory about all of them consipiring together. While I think they would have done better to work together (be invited to the wedding ffs, and play happy excited middle class-to-Royal storybook family), I think they are all more similar than dissimilar. They trigger each other and call each other’s bluff, and attempt to cash-in at every opportunity. I sort of love, that of any dysfunctional family Harry could have married into, it was -this one-. The Markles. They are ALL the gift that keeps giving.

Meanwhile, The Great Archie Mystery continues.... although I did read a great response of Quora, notice how Meghan sues anything and everything but never anyone or entity that questions the Archie situation. She doesn’t want to have to prove that in court and tell the truth. Definitely hiding something about this ‘child’, and it’s more than for $$$, or £££.

JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
jessica said…
Why won’t the BRF address the ‘Archificial’ scandal?
Anonymous said…
Thanks to all of you for correcting me and naming Hilaria Baldwin as the Blind Gossip subject. No offense to NYU grads, but I’ve never thought of the school as being especially prestigious—which is one of the reasons I thought it was Meghan Markle.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
jessica said…
I wonder if Alec realizes he has been ‘conned’ by a complete fruitcake of a person, or if he even cares now he is 5 kids into it and has more to
worry about than say, Harry.

Does Alec realize he is compared to Meghan and Harry in the forums? Surely he does, and surely he knows what that means. Alec’s only road to redemption is dropping the fruitcake elegantly and politely. Or getting her committed. I imagine she isn’t a walk in the park at home. What these older guys will put up with for a younger lunatic is beyond me. The thought of it makes me laugh.

It does make me feel bad for Harry. This guy, his 30s, first marriage. Someone didn’t tell him that you don’t have and shouldn’t have to give up your _entire_ life for your partner. On some level I still manage to feel bad for him. It would be too much for most people to handle.
Magatha Mistie said…

Justice Warby is well acquainted
with true humanitarians.
His wife, Ann Kenrick, is heavily involved
with many charities. As was her mother.
Her father, Rev Bruce Kenrick, was founder of
British housing organisation Shelter.
Wonder what he makes of Megs claims?
Thanks for the full info on Philip II, Acquitaine - the Tudors `aren't really my period'!
Acquitaine said…
@jessica said…
"Why won’t the BRF address the ‘Archificial’ scandal?"

Circular firing squad.

Revealing the detaios exposes or implies their complicity in a coverup. And everyone knows a coverup is often more scandalous than the deed.

The BRF needs public goodwill. They have to tread very, very carefully.
Sandie said…
All interest on the 2-day hearing about the summary judgment today!

I suspect that Meghan has a strong case to get the summary judgment and will spend the rest of her life cashing in on 'her victory'. I suspect that she will be rebuked severely in any such summary judgment, but in the shallow yet Murky waters of the Sussex world, that will be ignored.

I noticed media outlets such as the Express are really pushing the narrative that 'the Megxit review has been axed by the Queen'. This is a narrative that suits Meghan very well and enables her and Harry to claim perpetual victimhood.
Miggy said…
Meghan Markle's lawyers say she's suffered 'assault on her family life' - court latest.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1385970/meghan-markle-court-case-hearing-summary-judgement-duchess-of-sussex-associated-newspapers
Miggy said…
Publication of Meghan´s letter `serious invasion´ of privacy, court hears.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-9162993/Publication-Meghan-s-letter-invasion-privacy-court-hears.html
Miggy said…
LONDON, Jan 19 (Reuters)

Judge should rule for UK Meghan's in privacy case without trial-lawyer.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-9162901/Judge-rule-UK-Meghans-privacy-case-without-trial-lawyer.html
Acquitaine said…
@ Miggy: If you read that article, it's a copy from Reuters news agency, and extensively quotes directly from Meghan's lawyers with particulars of the case, but also arguing their case in public instead of the court.

Last autumn, the Judge told both sides off for litigating in public, and had the harshest words for Meghan's side on this matter. Omid was mentioned.

If the Judge gets wind of this breach, it won't go so well for them because it shows once again their contempt of court because they've flouted several judicial directives over the past few months including appealing points in the case that had already been refused right of appeal as well as missing deadlines several times. The Judge was especially scathing about their media game when he reprimanded them last autumn.

....but typical Meghan and her oppositional disorder. She does what she wants even when refused even if it damages her.
Sandie said…
Remember that in Meghan's reality, attacks on others (e.g. the attack on her own father in the People article), using others (e.g. British taxpayers, who funded her extravagant Hollywood wedding and her expensive taste in ill-fitting outfits for photo shoots or to wear once, briefly), demeaning others in a PR campaign (e.g. the BRF as Harry's family and in their official capacity), and lies (e.g. saying her half-sister and half-brother are distant family that she hardly knows) ... all this is not only acceptable but also just does not register as a concern for her in any way. She gets what she wants and does what she wants for her, 100% of the time.

Media is careless and feeds her narcissism (both positively and negatively) just to get enough 'clicks' to fill the coffers; most people are too stupid and lacking in solid old-fashioned values and ethics to stand up to and put a stop to a person like Meghan, plus there are those that ride on her coattails, until they get burned; her husband and stans are willing captives of her agenda ... she is a product of all that is shallow and superficial in our world, mixed with a ruthless narcissism. Perhaps in the distant future, she will not be looked on with admiration as she is by too many now, and will not have the support she has now ...

Apologies for being pessimistic, but throughout history large groups of people have been foolish and careless in who they support and pledge allegiance to.

Whatever the judgment is after this 2-day hearing for a summary judgment, I hope the media gives a lot of attention to the criticism of Meghan that will no doubt be part of the judgment, and those who want to do business with her read the warning signs about her character.
Miggy said…
@Acquitaine,

Yes, thank you. I was aware that if was from Reuters but appreciate your explanation re the breach. Let's hope the judge does get wind of it! :)
Sandie said…
So far, in what is being reported via tweets, Meghan's legal team's submission is all about her feelings, her anguish, her desires ... I am not surprised ... and nothing yet, I assume yet, about the legal aspects. Meghan also managed to now make public some of her letter that the media did not cover and that she was so proud of that she wanted them published!

What do Meghan's feelings and motivations have to do with copyright, privacy and data protection? Nothing actually, but this is a role of a lifetime for her and short of putting on an act in the witness stand, this is a perfect opportunity for her to talk about, well, her!
Sandie said…
https://mobile.twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Live tweeting for the summary judgment hearing.

Legally, there is a strong case, but the argument seems to be padded with a lot of dramatic personal stuff about her feelings, her privacy, her rights. The woman really is ruthless!
Miggy said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miggy said…
From @chrischipITV

The judge, Mr Justice Warby, told the court that he had read the Harry & Meghan biography Finding Freedom, but when asked, by Meghan’s lawyer, if he had enjoyed it, the judge diplomatically said: “I don’t think I should answer that”
Miggy said…
That should be chrisshipitv!!
Sandie said…
If the judge grants her a summary judgment, Meghan will sue for emotional and mental anguish and ask for many millions in damages.

Is this valid in UK law? How do you quantify the value of her feelings? Would the UK affirm that she is as precious and special as she thinks she is?

Is it possible that for this legal battle there is a cap on damages, and the BRF traditionally donate any monetary compensation they get?

By making the whole issue of damages a separate case, Meghan can claim much more? Could she use a 'win' here to sue in American courts where she could claim much higher damages?
Maneki Neko said…
I (we?) thought Megalo was suing the MoS because the letter to her father breached her privacy. I've just seen this on a few websites, which I don't remember reading but some Nutties' may well remember:

The Duchess of Sussex’s letter to her estranged father was written “to defend her against charges of being an uncaring or unloving daughter”, the Mail on Sunday’s lawyers have told the High Court.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/01/19/meghans-letter-to-her-father-to-defend-charges-of-being-unloving-daughter/

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/meghan-letter-her-father-defend-122108095.html
Etc.

So really the letter was to set the record straight, i.e., Meg's is a good, caring, loving daughter and Thomas is the villain of the story. If this is the case, then Megalo did want everybody to read the letter.

AnT said…
I feel like her dog-on-a-leash attorney was told to blather on at length about sections in the letter listing her self-proclaimed kindness and fabulousness for extra press coverage for her image today.

Which should in itself indicate she wrote it all originally for publication, lol. 🧐

I am sitting here attempting mental telepathy communication with Warby, using only the words “People magazine, you putz” in an Anjelica Huston voice. Anyone care to join me?
Miggy said…
@Maneki,

I'm liking this from Mr.White : “Mr Markle has a right to tell his story of his relationship and communications with his daughter … no US court would stop him from doing so, and he could have and could still, whatever the outcome of this case, speak to the US media on this topic at any time.”

If ANL should lose this case, I sincerely hope that Thomas does talk!
AnT said…
@Maneki Neko,

I definitely remember that article and explanation.

That plus her use of of “calligraphy” and Omid’s taped comment that she wrote the letter knowing it would get out to the public to explain her side of it... the distribution of copies or email coverage of the language to “five friends”..... and the verbiage in FF which was written by Omid, her bosom pal......

If she wins this judgment I will be watching for Warby’s future gong from Charles, or his new flash car or trip to stay at Elton’s, frankly.
Maneki Neko said…
@AnT

Thanks, I didn't remember the article and explanation. I hope Warby can see through her lies and pathetic efforts to be a victim. I'll be well p¡$$ed off if he rules in her favour without the need for trial.
Miggy said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
Judge Warby has given permission for statements from Thomas Markle and Ted Verity to be released to the media.

Does anyone know who Ted Verity is?
Miggy said…
@Sandie, He's the current editor of MOS.
Sandie said…
@Miggy

Thank you.

I am glad that Meghan has not been able to silence her father, no matter what the outcome of this hearing is.

The Ted Verity angle is interesting.

@Miggy

That tweet from Chris Ship is hilarious!
lucy said…
Hi I just want on email list. But I.must admit I do not believe I ever had an egg salad sandwich ��
I think it would be like tuna fish sandwhich but with eggs? I may try :)

Haven't been too into Harkles lately but for whatever reason I have been binge watching Lady C. She is entertaining and have been enjoying the conversations. I would like to think Catherine watches her too for some reason and I like that. Hope everyone is well!
Miggy said…
@Sandie,

I'm waiting with bated breath to see who will publish Thomas and Ted's witness statements first!

As for the Chris Ship tweet... it certainly had me chuckling! 😆
Miggy said…
Meghan´s letter to father signalled end of our relationship, Thomas Markle says.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-9164093/Meghan-s-letter-father-signalled-end-relationship-Thomas-Markle-says.html
OKay said…
@lucy Where are you located? Egg salad sandwiches are ubiquitous throughout North America.
New Lady C YouTube video
Acquitaine said…
@Sandie: Meghan's lawyers are making their arguments by invoking section 8 of the human rights code.

This code protects your right to respect for your private life, your family life, your home and your correspondence (letters, telephone calls and emails etc)

The Judge has to decide whether this is absolute or not. Legally speaking it is not because it allows for fair usage (the MoS legal defence), but that loophole is subjective.

Meghan's lawyers then over egg the pudding by invoking domestic law which covers those areas that make fair usage difficult to ascertain.

It's important to remember that section 8 is a fairly new law that has never been used to demand absolute privacy as she's claiming.

Therefore the matter remains subjective unless the Judge decided to interpret that law as absolutely as they demand he does.

As for the copyright, her lawyers are invoking the precedent of a case from 2006 where it was established in that case that the recipient of the correspondence was mistaken in assuming copyright of note sent to them which wasn't marked private and confidential and therefore freedom to pass it onto others to publish. They argue this precedent makes it law.

In my opinion if Judge accepts their absolute-ist reading of section 8 then they win. If not, it's going to trial. That's quite the gamble when the Judge has acknowledged reading FF, and Omid has admitted in court that he used the MoS's reporting on the letter as source for that section of FF.
lucy said…
@OKay I am in Michigan and that is what gave me pause. Sure to be on every menu in the state! I just never had one, rather odd. Not something my mom made growing up, perhaps that is why. Slow week, I am going to make it goal :)
Warby will/should make his judgement solely on the basis of what the law says. End of.

There are often ways for a lawyer to cut through a mess like this:

It seems to me that somebody broke copyright legislation and just because one person does it doesn't make it open season for anyone else to do the same. If she's right, on that technicality, I'd like him to award her 1p in damages (that's one-hundredth part of £1 Sterling). A real insult to her.

I'd like to think she'll have all the privacy whining chucked out on the basis that she's not too bothered about releasing even the details of her inner thoughts and her body to All The World and His Wife, regardless of whether they are interested or not.

And I'd be thrilled to bits if he put icing on the cake by commending ANL for acting in the Public Interest by revealing what a frightful woman she really is.

I can always dream...
AnT said…
@Maneki Neko,
I hope so as well. If he rules in her favor, it will be infuriating. It will also unleash the Harkles to create more lawsuits, and may encourage others elsewhere in the U.K. to initiate suits against media as well, which I do think was part of the goal here. I have no doubt other suits are being quietly formed and on the celebrity runway.

Harry and Megs want to silence everyone who isn’t them. They would likely prefer a 24/7 “the Harkles are marvelous and the true King & Queen” version of the press — thus, I continue to see this absurd lawsuit as being propelled out of vanity and madness, yes, but also as the thin edge of the wedge.

If she wins, I think her inner power-hate lust might be totally unleashed. And if she decided to sue William or the Queen or Catherine directly next for some perceived injustice, I would not be surprised in the least. I am not joking.
jessica said…
My father won a large case against the IRS after using a victim narrative about how hard done by the world he was. It’s a legal strategy to play on the emotions of the judge/jury and get them to be more favorable to your opinion then addresses the facts under that light.

Since I’ve seen this work before, and can see that Meghan’s team is using it- it means her real case isn’t strong but they think the tactic will help swing the verdict in her favor to an extent. If that’s all they have to go by, then they didn’t think he’d award a summary judgment this month.
AnT said…
@Wild Boar Battle Maid,

I share your dream, and the hope that even if ANL loses on some point of law, the judge wraps this up with a firm statement.

Could the statement include something about the vileness of using one using one’s new lofty perch of money and influence to bully and smear an elderly, sick, poorer relative...

....and then, when they do nothing, the vileness of hoping to bait them with a honey trap (People, 5 friends), all simply to attack them further and sue for the money you need for your silly celeb expenses...

...even while one is known to be sharing private calls from the bath and peeing in the bushes for PR? And taking secret photos of royal tots you just met, to sell to the highest bidder?

He could also outline the clinical description of narcissism and its dangers to society, before he closes his statement.

AnT said…
lol, thought I typed “anti-honey trap” above ^^ Nothing sweet or nourishing about People!
madamelightfoot said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miggy said…
Thomas Markle witness statement in full.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-9164587/Thomas-Markle-witness-statement-full.html
Sandie said…
@JenS

Yes, MOS/ANL will present their case tomorrow. They have asked for extra time.

I can't believe she calls her handwriting calligraphy and no one calls her out on that! A few flourishes do not calligraphy make!
NeutralObserver said…
@Miggy, thanks for the link to TM's letter. Wow, he really paints Megs in a bad light. Harry Markle's most recent post criticizes the Markle family reticence so far, but TM's letter directly contradicts most of Meg's assertions. Interesting that Warby allowed it to be released to the media. Warby strikes me as being a shrewd & cautious jurist. I don't think he'll let Megs slide unless hapless Charles has sent him smoke signals that it's what the RF wants, & maybe not even then. The RF response to the Burrell case was extraordinary, but it was garden variety theft, albeit the victims were of exceptionally high status. The MOS case has underlying freedom of the press issues, so in a way, is more significant. Hope that Charles can understand that figuratively kneecapping Megs & her wild assertions is more important to preserving his ever tenuous ascension to the monarchy than avoiding some perceived embarrassment.
Miggy said…
Ted Verity's statement is included in this DM article.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-9164573/Thomas-Markle-approved-extracts-letter-used-newspaper-High-Court-hears.html
Miggy said…
Oh boy!

In his statement, Mr Verity also claimed he had had a meeting with a “senior member of the royal household” less than three months ago, and this person had given him information regarding matters in Meghan’s claim against the newspaper, including “that members of royal staff are aware that they have information as to the truth (of issues in this case) and that ‘this is coming’ and they will have to tell the truth”.
Sandie said…
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/01/19/thomas-markle-witness-statement-in-full/

The statement from Thomas Markle is being published everywhere.

It is interesting that he takes full responsibility for publishing parts of the letter (it was at his request) and deciding which parts to publish. I do wish this wouod go to trial! On Meghan's part, dramatics and her feelings would be central, but from a media giant like MOS/ANL, some very interesting aspects of copyright could be discussed, especially of a letter addressed to him, which was then used to trash him by 5 of her so-called friends.
Miggy said…
@NeutralObserver,

I agree with all that you wrote and I so hope you're right about Charles!

JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
jessica said…
So the ‘institution’ will testify if it goes to court. Great. Meghan is absurd and they are going to point it out.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
That paragraph from Mr Verity's statement has essentially told the world that the Royal Household have recognized there will be a day of reckoning at some point, even if it is not this time around. Interesting.
NeutralObserver said…
@Miggy, fingers crossed.LOL.

We haven't even heard from the MOS yet. That should be lots of fun! Popcorn time!
jessica said…
Puds.

I agree that her wedding come-up didn’t go as planned and set in motion her bad publicity. I think she assumed having loads of celebrities in attendance would overshadow the whole ‘family-wedding’ thing and make her look hugely popular and liked. She’s all about appearances and it’s amazing she gets these things wrong time after time.
madamelightfoot said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seabee666 said…
Prince Harry, rich, connected former favorite of the British Royal Family along with his fishwife, the former prostitute and failed actress Rachael Markle, have officially shit the bed.
Hikari said…
Did Thomas Markle ever stand a chance?

No, I believe not. Her pathology will not allow for her to simply say: "I'm not inviting him to the wedding. He will blow my cover so I don't want him there."

So, something had to happen to make him the bad guy AND make her look like the victim AND make sure everyone knew about it.


I have felt from Day One that Thomas was made the fall guy for the 'Scandal' of those staged papp photos of him getting ready for the wedding. At the time, if we recall, he said that the photos were Sammie's idea. To me, they always had his younger daughter's fingerprints all over it. Thomas was living quietly in penurious retirement in Mexico. It has been decades since he worked in Hollywood. He seems like the very opposite of a limelight seeker to me. So these pictures surely weren't his own idea. Up to this point, pre-letter, he still had a good relationship with Smeg, he thought. The logistics of attending a globally televised wedding and walking his daughter down the aisle, given his state of health and appearance might have started to create stress as soon as he heard her 'happy news'. Because traditionally the father of the bride is expected to shoulder a lot of expenses, and Thomas should know, having already contributed to two of Meg's weddings. Trevor had his own money, but I assume Tom would have paid for most, if not all, of the short-lived first wedding. Even just his own expenses--wedding suit, travel to London, accommodations--would have been panic-inducing.

Wasn't the photographer later proven to be one of Meg's contacts? Isn't it obvious that she was behind those pictures? Manipulating her doting dad as she had always done, wheedling . . . "Daddy, I want to introduce you to everyone! I want everyone to see you getting ready for my wedding--it'll be fun! It will only take a day and I'll pay for it, I promise! After magazines buy the photos, you'll be able to afford the best hotel in London and come first class! I'll even make sure there's a doctor on call for you. Just pose for these pictures and you won't have to worry about anything--I'll take care of everything for you. The Palace is fine with it, yes, I checked. They want people to see you, too. No, you won't have to give any interviews; these are just a few photos for People. I can't wait to see you in London!"

Wouldn't a trusting father, assuming that Meg had obtained Royal permission, fall for this line? There's no way that Tom would have sought this kind of attention on his own. I thought the pictures were charming, really .. we were meant to think they were candid shots, but even learning that they were pre-arranged doesn't make them less charming. How were they *worse* than Meghan's smug face plastered on the cover of Vanity Fair and many vomity pages gushing how she was Wild about Harry? The Palace wasn't at all pleased with that, but that didn't get her censured. Quite the opposite; it got her an engagement ring and a huge blowout wedding. Whatever Tom's 'sins' in posing for these pictures, that is very mild, particularly if it was innocently done. There's no proof that he ever received any payment, either. Then he has to watch himself get excoriated as an embarrassment from a hospital bed . . .? For his participation in a scheme that was entirely his daughter's? I somehow don't think Samantha would have put her dad through this, but maybe she will address these items in her book.

Then, Princess Pushy throws gasoline on the wound by sending him this ornate letter full of accusations and hateful words about how much he 'hurt' and humiliated her?

I didn't know back then what I do now and I even felt sorry for her at the time of the wedding at the antics of her trashy Gypsy family. It's clear now who the wronged party is. I'm glad he got to make his statement any way.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just wanted to pop in to say this whole court case is incredibly stupid.

That's all.
Miggy said…
Following on from @JennS post...

Interesting what the 'source' said about Megs letter, Scobie and Finding Freebies! (right down at the bottom of the page.)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsHx9CbXMAExAGP?format=jpg&name=medium

JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miggy said…
@JennS,

I suspect in this context it means this...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/go-to-bat-for-someone
Miggy said…
@JennS,

Apologies, our posts crossed.

Yes, I did mean that Omid supposedly received the letter.

Interesting day ahead tomorrow methinks!
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Natalier said…
Wow, this is getting interesting. ANL will call Sara Latham and a Kaleigh fm Sunshime Sachs are they have direct connections to the writing of FF, obv under Who-en's instructions. Kaleigh sounded out her interest and Latham helped checked facts.
Natalier said…
I like Thomas Markle statement. I feel so sorry for him.
Miggy said…
Omid denies receiving the letter.

https://twitter.com/Jack_Royston/status/1351578625863258114
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miggy said…
@JennS,

Where did you find that page from the defense?

Byline had them all to download but I didn't bother.

I actually got that page from a sugar's post on Twitter. (for my sins) lol
Miggy said…
@JennS,

Go into bat means the same thing, surely? You are going in to defend someone.
This is obvioulsy when Thomas first denied the photos were staged.
He later admitted they were.
Miggy said…
For anyone who wants to download the witness statements...

https://twitter.com/BInvestigates
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miggy said…
@Natalier,

Wow, this is getting interesting. ANL will call Sara Latham and a Kaleigh fm Sunshime Sachs are they have direct connections to the writing of FF, obv under Who-en's instructions. Kaleigh sounded out her interest and Latham helped checked facts.

Presuming it ever gets to trial!!
I suppose they are proving that Meghan doesn't own the whole copyright to the letter, thus can't bring the claim. Besides all the manipulation of the staff and correspondence in general.
Sandie said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
1 – 200 of 1102 Newer Newest

Popular posts from this blog

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

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

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

Christmas is Coming

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