Here's a fresh post where we can continue to discuss the Sussexes' royal status, podcast, and biographers as well as Samantha's upcoming book and other royal goings-on.
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.
Comments
Story now in the DM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9129671/Harry-Meghan-quit-social-media-good-Couple-not-use-sites-source-claims.html
That would be an interesting read. I dropped my Times and Telegraph subscriptions but would also appreciate It if someone would post the article.
I only read a few lines as it appears to be another 'pity us' PR fluff piece.
I know someone who attended school in Canada with Prince Andrew. They had a very good opinion of him.
They said that he made his bed almost immediately upon getting up, and he tried out for all of the sports teams, including ice hockey, but didn't even know how to skate. They thought he tried very hard to be the ideal prince - athletic, conscientious and liked by everyone, if not too bright but reserved.
How many people would say the same about Prince Andrew now?
In the early - mid 1980s, it could be said without too much fear of contradiction that Andy was the best-looking of all the Queen's children (Edward had an all-too-brief heyday from about 17-25 or so, when his blond, full-lipped beauty would have gotten him cast in a Merchant-Ivory film, but those looks departed abruptly along with the hair. When he was young, I would have said he favored Philip, with the blond hair, but as the years have gone on, it's plain that the Queen's youngest looks most like her of all her children. Anne favors her father, despite mimicking the Queen's hairstyle (unaccountably . . why? She's been dressing like her mother since she was 30). Charles is dark like Mummy but he also favors Philip in the face, albeit, with more of the Windsor physique than the Mountbatten one. Probably why Chas has foregone lunch since he got out of the service.)
When Andrew's praises are sung, his ability to make his own bed is usually mentioned. A small achievement when set against other intel of divatastic behavior, cruelty to horses (as set forth by the Queen's nanny, 'Crawfie' Crawford, who was still part of the household even after the Queen had had her children. Crawfie recalls HRH being tossed into a pile of manure by two groomsmen as a wee lad for whipping the horses' legs with switches because he was mad about not getting his way in something. One can forgive a young child a lot of immature behavior, but purposely and systematically abusing animals points to a bit of sociopathy in the makeup regardless of the person's age.
IIRC correctly, Andy was only in Peterborough for one term. Since his stay was so brief, his propensity for going out for all the sports teams, including ones for which he lacked even basic aptitude could be read by detractors as his sense of entitlement assuming that he'd be granted a place on the team(s) owing to who he was, not because he was any good or exhibited good sportsmanship. And since he was leaving in a few months' time, before most seasons would be completed, he'd have taken away a spot for a regular student who'd be around the following year. When I read that he went out for ice hockey at a Canadian school despite never having been on ice skates before--that doesn't immediately jump to mind as the ideal way to prove oneself humble and likeable. To sign up for ice skating lessons and be willing to take some hard falls for others' amusement, sure.
Since it was at Peterborough, I believe, that the moniker 'Randy Andy' came to be in play . .leading to the unlikely but intriguing Internet rumor that HRH is actually the secret father of Markle bestie Markus Anderson . . he certainly was a busy boy while in Canada, involved in all kinds of sport.
Everything I hear from people who have met any of the Royals, or know friends that have seem to universally agree that Charles is very polite, engaged and as down to Earth as the heir to a crown can be. Andrew is deemed 'arrogant', 'rude' and a host of other not-favorable adjectives. Seems like he and Harry have a lot in common. I suppose in exile there in Royal Lodge, Andy is having a lot of time to reflect upon what he has done. Maybe it will do him some good. I think Harry's a lost cause, though.
I think what you wrote abt H&M leaving the BRF is key: She gives voice and reality to what he's been thinking and wanting to do for years, but didn't have the organizational skills or courage to do it by himself. Harry has been aided and abetted by Megalo, I don't know if he would have wanted to do it by himself and if he would have had the gumption to do it. I think thought the grass was greener the other side of the palace and I think he sees that it's not. I always got the feeling that for him leading an 'ordinary', 'normal' life was more of the same, i.e., with the same financial cushioning but without constraints, duty, official visits, time spent in freedom in Africa etc. If this is the case, then he must have been disillusioned very quickly.
I usually agree with you but to say that Andrew thought that he was entitled to be on the ice hockey team is laughable. I think he admired the sport and thought he might give it the old college try, but not that he was entitled to a spot on the team.
I am no fan of Andrew's, but when you start saying that character is set at a certain age and doesn't change, I again think you are very wrong.
oh, and I've read of friends of his who thought that Charles was entitled and snobby, especially those who had to put up with him shipping his own furniture for weekend stay overs.
What always disappointed me about Prince Andrew is that he married Lady Di's blousy friend. He was a very good looking young man and that was the best he could do??? Trying to emulate his older brother???
Let me clarify my earlier statements as that seems to be needed.
None of us can know what is in another’s mind, so when I suggest That Andrew may have thought he would be gifted an honorary spot on these teams he tried out for By dint of his birthright, That’s only one possibility. It really wouldn’t have been out of keeping with the way the MO works on that family. It has been strenuously suggested that neither Charles nor Edward would have gotten into Cambridge on their own merits and grades had their last name not been Windsor. That is certainly true of Harry at Eton. If Andrew admired hockey and wanted to hang out with the players, That’s understandable. But a guy who can’t even skate, much less knows anything about the game of hockey, would add zero value to the team, I think you can agree. If he had no chance of actually Being able to play at the requisite level, how would he justify his presence Except for the cachet of his HRH? that could be interpreted as an insult to the other players, or the other hopefuls that were vying for the team if the atmosphere was such like they were supposed to feel sorry for him or give him a spot just to save a royal prince the embarrassment. we don’t know what the actual situation was of these tryouts, and perhaps he never had any expectation of being taken seriously. Participating in sports is a great way to make friends when one is the new boy. Let’s just say that I’ve only been on a horse once in my life, so I would not be trying out for any equestrian teams, no matter how badly I wanted to make friends.
The Canadians have a reputation for being friendly and it seems that he enjoyed his time there. Wonder if he ever learned how to skate?
I don’t happen to think that character is absolutely imutable. I do believe that our basic tendencies form in early childhood, and the older we get it becomes harder and harder to remake negative personality patterns. Not impossible, but probably the hardest task that anyone would undertake. You’d have to be extremely committed every day to go against your natural grain for your betterment. I mean, there’s a reason that something like 98% of all diets fail within three months, And why very few addicts achieve lasting sobriety. making yourself over with discipline and doing that which does not come naturally is as hard as it gets. When we consider the fragile hotHouse Personality that is JCMH, do you really believe that he has the internal stuff to overcome all of his negative personality traits? At his age and knowing what we know about How he has been indulged and covered for and allowed to skate through life bailing out on anything that’s tough and being allowed to pretend that he has achieved things which she has not... I don’t see it happening, not without a divine intervention to rival Saint Paul meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. In that case, maybe. But not as long as Harry’s ego is in the driver seat. No way. This may sound harsh but I am just being realistic. Something neither of the SHAMS are good at. They really live in their own insulated reality where they are perfect and everyone else is wrong. People who are so dil
deluded will not change. They are both personality disordered, so I
all bets are off.
What would justify Andrew's presence is being told that the most important thing is not what you are able to do, but your willingness to try.
I think you are getting caught up in your own logic and don't seem to be able to see all of the other possibilities.
I, for one, never imagined that someone who tries to join a sports team despite not having the abilities required is there because they feel entitled. Perhaps there are people who pull strings to join sport teams, but sports is one area where people are judged on their abilities and their desire to perform. As a former athlete myself, I could never assume that it was Andrew's entitlement that drove him to try out. Such people just want to sit on the bench and get credit for being on the team.
I’m more than a bit surprised to find you so insistent on defending the behavior of HRH prince Andrew in 1977. God knows Andrew has few defenders these days. 17-year-old Andrew may have been more of a mensch than his adult reputation would suggest. Since I don’t know the man, Or the boy he was, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can only observe that your friends description of him at Peterborough is the most favorable, possibly the only favorable report of Andrew’s Interpersonal skills that I’ve ever been privy to. We all play different roles for different situations, and perhaps at Peterborough, Andy wanted to do his best to be one of the guys and not stand upon his privilege of rank. Since all the royal kids are steeped in the privileges of their rank from birth, being waited upon by adults and courtesy to and continually called your Royal highness etc., it seems like it would be a bit hard to switch that off and just act like a regular person sans entitlements. As much as they might want to, that certainly wouldn’t come naturally because they’ve been trained up to believe in the superiority of their station.
I certainly believe that participating in sports builds character, and it’s more important to participate and try one’s best than to Win. I would assume though that in the context of an organized school team that was competing in a division, that winning and selecting competent players was somewhat important to the coach and or the teammates. A varsity team is different than an intermural league, or a gym class. I went to an ultra competitive high school of 2000+ students, And the upshot was that only the top kids in any discipline got selected. Those division championships were just too important to take on the kids that tried hard but were not innately talented. As you say… Sports are an area where one is judged on ability Primarily. Desire to perform certainly plays into it, but desire alone without ability isn’t enough. And we weren’t talking about any general “someone” Trying out for these teams, but at HRH of the royal family. That would tend to smooth one’s way even when trying to leave it behind, Because members of arguably the most famous family in the world can’t go incognito, even when they want to. So when we’re talking about Andrew’s Experiences at college, we can’t really say that he was just like any average student going out for a team. Because he wasn’t; he was a visiting celebrity.
I can't think of a better recommendation for the vaccine than having HM and PP receive it. Clearly there is no way medical professionals would endanger those two.
https://icerinx.com/project_story.html
Will took Kate ice skating at the Somerset House rink on a date before they were married.
https://www.celebsnow.co.uk/latest-celebrity-news/see-pics-prince-william-takes-kate-middleton-ice-skating-26435
Here is a history of the BRF and their love of ice skating, especially around the frozen lakes near their various royal residences, going back to the 1800s. Below is where it says that Andrew played ice hockey for Lakeland.
http://skateguard1.blogspot.com/2016/06/revisiting-royals-skating-with-british.html
Sometimes, a quick Google will easily clear up these questions.
Maybe Andrew did learn to stand on skates, like my brother did, but never managed to actually learn how to skate well enough to play hockey. My brother, for example, could never do anything other than walk with his skates on. I am a pretty good skater - I can do spins, some jumps, but skating for hockey requires different skills with hockey skates which have no pics on them.
My friends are adamant that Andrew was rubbish at skating. So, he probably either learned to figure skate like me, or he was a lousy skater like my brother.
There are plenty of people who have good things to say about Andrew. He was good at his job in the military and did not need Gurkas to protect him, like Harry did, for example. He raised two wonderful daughters, and gets on with his ex-wife rather well, which is not something other people do.
I don't see things in black and white as you do. I am sure he has some redeeming qualities, like most people do.
It's rather popular to pile on to someone once they are accused of something. But some people, like me, like to see things in a more nuanced fashion.
Because I don't know you or your friends, I can't put my money on second or third-hand statements from an unknown person who posts comments on a blog.
I provided sources for all of my comments, and I don't rely on a unknown person who posts on a blog for my research. Your comments are merely second or third-person narrative regurgitation from other unknown people. Sorry, but as a former journalist, I cannot accept your scenario, with no attributions, as fact. If your friends would like to give their names, I would be very interested to hear what they have to say so that I could do a further check on their authenticity.
Did you see that Andrew was on an ice hockey team? That was published by a site that is devoted to the history of British ice skating, not a friend of a friend of a friend.
I'm sure you understand the difference.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/317503842449432875/
You're right. That was field hockey. So Andrew skated and also played field hockey, two sports that would up his game in ice hockey.
People in the public eye can be extremely polite when they are speaking to the masses of people that they don't know. That is their job. You were just another of the masses that Andrew looks down upon, but will smile at you and be cordial while doing it. Behind closed doors, they can act completely differently. If you Google "Prince Andrew rude," you'll see pages and pages about his rude conduct with staffers and in business situations during his time with the British Trade Industry.
Andrew was once so rude in his position with the British Trade, that Charles had to step in and apologize to the group to stop an international incident because of Andrew's rudeness and massive ego.
Yes, they would do some appearances with patronages to shore up the royal connection (kind of like their 'farewell tour'). Is Meghan thick-skinned enough to try something like that? Will the virus still be dictating our lives in June? Which designers are going to give her freebies for her 'triumphant return tour' (but what real success would she have had to 'triumph about'?) or will Harry fund the extravaganza?
Royals appear on the balcony to ecstatic cheers from the huge crowd, especially for the Cambridges. George is so tall! Charlotte really dors look like the Queen and look how confident she is! When did Louis get so grown up?!
The Sussexes, insisting on being in the middle, appear. Harry is wearing uniform, even though he should not be, and has a look of defiance, trepidation, sadness and false joviality. Meghan, in a tight strapless whatever (think the grasshopper dress but showing a lot more skin, but perhaps even no hat and a pants suit) and a defiant smug look permanently affixed to her face. The boos start and escalate.
Harry flees, almost knocking over the Queen in his haste. Meghan follows him, pushing whoever out the way and sheer fury now breaking through the smugness.
What a show it would be!
Megs would stay where she was, imagining the boos were for the nasty Queen who maliciously kept the word Royal all to herself....
Putting aside Andrew's 'unfortunate' propensity to be rather reckless in being untruthful, as in the disastrous interview, I can see him being vulnerable in these ways:
Can Virginia, and others, prove that he had sex with her when she was legally under age? The age of consent differs in different states in America. As the Depp/Heard trial has shown, even judges can be biased and ignore reasonable doubt. The outcome of a trial would depend on a jury and that is dangerous for Andrew.
There is a lot of evidence that Andrew was close to Epstein and was present in Epstein's homes where he witnessed first-hand Epstein surrounded by very young women. Ignorance does not let you off the hook. He was present and thus complicit. He even visited Epstein after his 'time in prison' and there are photographs of him waving to Epstein and a young woman. Epstein is not around to defend himself so it is easy to 'make it fact' that he was guilty of 'paying for sex', trafficking of girls for sex, and statutory rape (the paedophilia is nonsense). There will be lots of witnesses that will testify that Andrew was present, and it would be easy to persuade a jury that a reasonable man must have known, yet Andrew continued the friendship and visits. By not reporting crimes, he was not only complicit but failed to save further young women from abuse and exploitation.
The media and public are lazy and throw around wild claims and accusations, but that does not mean that there isn't real danger for him. Besides, everyone accepts the paedophilia label even though it is not true or accurate and in today's woke world irrationality may just win over reason.
I can imagine Megsy believing the boos were for the BRF who are so nasty to Megsie - global style icon, global humanitarian, the smartest person in the room always, best award-winning actress and producer and director ever, the best and most famous and kindest person ever ...!
They are out of the RF, never to return as a couple. Harry might return a few years after a divorce, and being rehabilitated.
Don't you all find the verification process a little tedious to make a comment?
I used to work with a NATO clearance and the efforts required to handle information were less exhaustive than they are to post here. Sometimes, there are 6 challenges to finish in order to post
Yes. But....
Isn't that all to protect the comment section from a flood of the SS bots MM has "paid" for? Or other such activity by sugars.
There were probably other security measures at NATO that you did not see every time because they were already done or in background. You had to pass a background investigation at some point, i would think. Here the only security measure is, can you get a Google account.
All family of the Queen are invited to join her on the balcony for TTC. Harry is still family, just not a working royal, i.e. he does not represent the monarch and is regarded as a private citizen, as BP keep saying. As long as Meghan is married to Harry, she is also family.
Family have appeared on the balcony who have been quite contraversial. I think it is Princess Alexandria's daughter who was pregnant while not married and then married a working class commoner. She has appeared on the balcony. However, her appearance was years after she was regarded as a huge scandal, so I may be wrong and the Queen may say let's not have the Sussexes as they are too contraversial at present.
The timing of TTC does not coincide wth Meghan's next court date, and she may not appear in person for that anyway. I think she will be desparate for a triumphant return tour but it may be too risky for her. Face the entire family at BP? She would need to gather some allies first.
When is the unveiling of Diana's statue? Surely Harry will be in the UK for that? Would Meghan barge her way into the ceremony? That would test Willam's composure no end!
Meghan seems to be very easily hugely offended but thick-skinned and deluded at the same time.
Again, I am relying on the word of witnesses who saw Andrew trying out for the team.
Field hockey and ice hockey are very different sports. You need to be able to stick handle on the ice which has very different properties than grass does, or will you argue about that as well?
And a photo of my brother who walked on his skates would also show him as a proficient skater.
People here seem to want to argue about things which one knows in fact are incorrect. Very strange.
How can you quit social media if you do not have a social media account?
Can we ever believe what the Sussexes say?
Have they deleted their Sussex Royal IG account?
Have they ever in any way specifically distanced themselves from the toxic social media accounts of their deranged supporters?
Does Meghan think she is above having to have some kind of evidence of support to get wads of money thrown at her in deals? Does she think she can influence without a platform that she can control?
Have the low numbers for her Zoom appearances and podcast finally got through to her that she is not hugely popular and without buying millons of followers, her popularity on social media would be embarrassingly low and mostly made up of deranged stans, royal reporters and other media, and a few people still in love with the idea of her (like Abigail Spencer and Oprah Winfrey)?
I disagree when you say “William also displayed, at a young age, a stick-to-itivness that is missing in Haz”. I think William has displayed the same lazy attitude toward royal work as Harry, but being a future sovereign he has a larger and better team to polish his image..
He reportedly wanted to quit St. Andrews, finding it too hard, but the palace couldn’t abide the optics of a dropout future sovereign, so he switched his degree from art history to geography.
On the Canada tour he visited a women’s shelter his mother had opened. William admitted he should have known that, but didn’t read the preparatory notes provided by his staff.
When opening a college library he admitted that he rarely visited libraries in college. It is widely assumed he was helped along in his coursework.
He had a land management corse specifically tailored to him at Cambridge which he never completed. This got lots of news coverage and people complained about a Prince getting special treatment. He is still unprepared for his role as a future Duke of Cornwall. Que lots of PR articles about him being brought into the royal fold, meetings with the Queen, etc to show he is taking his role seriously.
He tried to get out of royal work by saying the EAAA wouldn’t let him work on his off days. The EAAA released a statement saying staff could do whatever they want on their off days, as long as they show up to work rested and ready. This made William look like a lying lazy bum, and showed he didn’t have much support in the EAAA.
He never earned his pilot’s license to fly at EAAA. He was a copilot, he couldn’t fly without a full pilot onboard, and he never put in the hours to earn his pilot’s license while there. I heard they had to get a special helicopter with a copilot station so he could fly, but a lot of this has been scrubbed from the internet. I also saw an interview once of some EAAA staff who said they didn’t think much of William. He didn't try to join the team, he put in the minimum amount of work and left. I’m sure this interview was pulled down quickly.
There is a reason William is called work-shy, he has avoided royal work and academic work for a long time. It is only now that he is married with kids that his PR team has shifted the narrative to him being a family man. The Sussexes were a PR godsend to the Cambridges because it took the heat of their laziness and made them look steady and reliable. I have several examples of workshy Kate, but this is long enough. It is funny to me that people see the Sussex PR for what it is, but don’t recognize the Cambridge PR at work. The difference between William and Harry is that the palace will never allow William to fail publicly, since he the future sovereign.
"So Catherine seemed to think that they had "stolen George's head" for their Christmas card. A mother knows right away, or will someone argue about that as well?"
I'm not disputing a mother may recognize her child, especially if it's not just a matter of recognizing a child but recognizing a pose the mother has seen in an old photo.
But where exactly did Kate claim that was George's head on the Sussex card? And is it supposed to be his body too?
I know there have been posts here and other places pointing out the similarity to various pictures of George. I even posted one myself from a Quora post. But I've never read any comments made by Kate or made by any other member of the RF saying anything at all about the card. Is the stolen head story another one of the "sources claim" variety?
You are mistaken in deriding William as a helicopter pilot. He is both a trained and experienced pilot, specifically for the technical difficulties of rescue work.
Both William and Catherine got heaps of bad press for being work shy, among other things, some valid and some just downright nasty. It takes a level of maturity, among other things, to not run away but to then dedicate yourself to a life of service, full time. Good people, great people, are not those who never make mistakes, and to imply that the Cambridges are a fiction created by PR is not believable. There is something solid behind the image.
Meghan had the option of taking time to settle in before becoming a full-time royal, or not being a working royal at all. She wanted to hit the ground running! She then did not have the maturity, character, commitment or dedication to stick with promises made but instead had a major petulant fit and ran off, feeling no shame about the many of millions of taxpayer money she had spent in such a short time to cause nothing but trouble.
To use the Cambridges to excuse/justify the Sussexes' behaviour is just not possible.
By the way, even Edward was a petulant young adult who quit the army, threw a public hissy fit with the media, was derided and criticised for the work his production company did do, and married an independent woman who was caught on camera using her connection to and proximity to the royal family to land a deal. He grew up and now is a decent working royal.
I think the only royal who has got off lightly in terms of criticism and personal scandals is the Queen, but even with her the rumour persists that Andrew is not Phillip's child.
At best Meghan did not do her research/listen to Harry and went into the role with false expectations about everything, including herself and her ability to handle it. At worst, she always intended to use Harry's role to get global fame and access to wealth, and then set herself up in Los Angeles with access to all the deals she can hustle.
Why do we have a proliferation of fake news hiding behind unnamed sources? Yes, a lot of folk do say some almost off centre things here, including myself, but there is a difference between opinions and statements imitating facts. Besides, folk here are very good at questioning/correcting false statements, sometimes made inadvertantly or in the heat of the moment.
In attacking Prince Andrew for having an attraction to young females (pass the smelling salts - if only he batted for the opposition) I detect the prevalent anti-male anti-hetero bias and coming (you will be pleased to learn) not from the women but from the men. Men you see are intensely jealous that any male might be entering into Ugandan negotiations and will thus shaft any man who appears to thus be besting them. I always wonder what Benjamin Britten who always surrounded himself with pre-pubescent boys - jumping in an out of his swimming pool - would fare if those pre-pubescent's had been girls. A lot of what is written about Epstein (and various other men) is the working overtime of the fevered imaginations of the writer. Again I suspect jealousy.
For a start, there's lot of hard graft in learning the details of all the main artworks studied (paintings, drawings , frescoes, sculpture, architecture, even garden design) - artists (and their biographies) , date, medium, patron, location, intention, infuences. Spotting when an image is propaganda.
If you're into, say, paintings of the Renaissance or the medieval period, you need Christianity and Church History at your fingertips, as well as a good working knowledge of symbolism. The same applies to all other artworks, regardless of their period.
Romanticism? - a reaction against against the Industrial Revolution. Ditto for the Gothicke revival.
Constructivists & Suprematists? Welcome to the Russian Revolution and its aftermath.
One aim is to be able to read a painting like a book - take the way we `deconstructed' that `portrait' of MM - identifying the elements and their sources, wondering what NW-ern was trying to tell the viewer, beyond, apparently, presenting something which on the surface was flattering but says something else when you pull it to pieces.
Admittedly, it's not cosmology or medicine but that doesn't make it invalid.
PP actually gave an interview in 2012 in which he said he would like to retire, but the young ones were refusing to take up royal duties and so he carried on.
The EAAA debacle is a classic example of his workshy, but cunning ways. He told them he couldn't pick up more shifts despite his publicised contract due to royal work whilst telling the Palace he needed lots of time off because EAAA required him to not work during his off days.
And his response was to commission an article from Camilla Tominey to defend his refusal to work as a new dad by saying that working parents were bad parents and he'd resented not having his own parents around as a kid including the saintly Diana whose public image until then had never wavered from it's framing as a dedicated, hands on mother who spent lots of time with her sons.
His 2015 video interview at EAAA is unintentionally revealing about his complete ignorance about royal work and his determination to avoid it. He actually says he doesn't know what royal duties are, and any such work should be carried on by his royal relatives in perpetuity and in the meantime he was going to fly helicopters and even become a part-time King.
I can list at least 10 different occasions between 2011-2016/7 that demonstrate his lazy ways and the lengths he went to avoid work.
At the end of 2016 he was told to start working in 2017 because Philip was retiring. By then he'd acquired a new tabloid moniker - Throne-idle in honour of his workshy ways.
Meanwhile Kate's lazy ways were legendary. We used to laugh at the bi-annual article written by whichever RR had drawn the short straw in which the public was assured that the 6mths after the article's publishing date would see a dazzling uptick in Kate's work schedule because this time she'd found the projects that she was 'keen' and 'close to her heart' and had asked her office to fill her diary.
When the same article appeared on mid-2017, most royal watchers greeted it with the usual rolled eyes because no one thought she'd follow through.
The difference was her new private secretary who kept her on schedule and gave her professional polish. Her clothing also improved exponentially, her public speaking improved. All kudos to the new secretary.
Since September 2017, they've had a much more professional team and a much more slick PR machine that has successfully turned around their image and more importantly rewritten the history such that people imagine they were merely researching and taking it slowly when in reality they didn't want to work regardless of excuse publicly given out.
It's as slick as the PR around the Charles and Camilla lovestory which is a tissue of lies that have come to be accepted as truth when the reality is far, FAR worse for both of them. RIP Kanga!!!
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/blog-posts/
JennS, Why do you need to post the same thing more than once?
Show up and do the job. They get plenty of holiday and perks.
anything can happen between now and then on either or both sided of the pond for Covid as a reason why or why not something will not happen as planned.
You have missed the point of what I said entirely, and completely misunderstand royalty and the history of royalty.
Meghan certainly did not understand, but spent a huge amount of money and caused a lot of heartache and damage in a very short time. Even she could have come back from that if she had had the humility and wisdom and maturity for some self reflection and the character to stick with a commitment and the sincere desire to serve the British people as a wife to a prince of the UK. The British people are very forgiving and they welcomed Meghan most enthusiastically.
Bashing the Cambridges and throwing in some wild accusations about Charles and Camilla does not excuse Meghan or make her look better in any way.
What William and Catherine do is not a job and is different from any job you would do in every way. Perhaps those who come from countries who do not have royalty may find the concept very difficult to understand, just as non Christians may find the concept of a Catholic Pope strange, but an open-minded and indepth study of history does help one cross that bridge (I am neither Catholic nor have the Queen as my monarch or head of state).
The media in my country has been filled with so much confusing contradiction that I was very pleased to have the best independent media outlet publish a map and summary about the virus and the vaccine (up to date at the time, with the information they had). I am now far less confused! However, I am fretting:
The whole of Africa seems to be way behind in vaccinating. Herd immunity? The virus will develop a new variation within the next few months and the new variation may beat the vaccines so money wasted and nowhere near what we need for herd immunity any time soon anyway. I just see a huge Northern hemisphere/Southern hemisphere divide in the map.
America and GB, for example, have very much larger populations than my country but nevertheless they came up with plans quickly and are well into the vaccination drive.
I have also included the link to a story about people working on the frontline of the pandemic, which I found very moving.
Meghan and Harry missed the boat on this one not because of their circumstances but because of their character. Tone deaf!
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-01-09-a-snapshot-of-global-covid-19-vaccines/
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-01-09-covid-19-frontline-fighters-when-staff-become-patients-its-heartbreaking/
Thanks for letting us know about the new thecrownsofbritain post. The real irreverent stuff is in the captions and is hilarious!
Regarding TTC.....
First, this is just misinformation put about by MM, a bit like the one where HMTQ was going to personally bake MM a birthday cake. Simply putting out an unfounded story has many people believing it is true, with PR benefits to MM.
Secondly, and more significantly, there is a global pandemic. There is no chance that HMTQ will be on a balcony with many, many other people who are not social distancing. If there is a full-scale TTC (which I doubt), and if it is held in London (which may not happen), there will not be a full balcony scene. HMTQ will use Covid as the excuse to have only the slimmed down Monarchy on the balcony: HMTQ, Charles and Camilla, and The Cambridges (without children present).
1. Please name your "sources" who saw Andrew skate. Otherwise, that's just second-hand gossip from an unknown person posting on a blog.
2. Yes, Field hockey and ice hockey are two different sports. I think that's fairly obvious. However, have you ever heard of sports cross-training? For example, some US football players take ballet lessons to learn to move, for agility, for lightness on their feet and to help protect them from injury. Knowing how to skate and also knowing how to play field hockey are certainly two sports what would help in playing ice hockey. There are several articles online that say how playing field hockey helps ice hockey players with their stick movements.
3. A photo of your brother on skates, who supposedly cannot skate, would merely show a man on skates. It would not show that he actually could skate. That would be an enormous jump to conclusion, as is using your "friends", who are unnamed sources from an unknown person posting on a blog, as sources who should not be questioned.
If you've learned anything from the Megs debacle, it's that unnamed "friends" do not make valid sources for news or information.
https://www.dancespirit.com/are-you-ready-for-some-football-players-in-ballet-class-2326239614.html
Now, I'm off to enjoy my Saturday afternoon.
Regarding TTC.....
First, this is just misinformation put about by MM, a bit like the one where HMTQ was going to personally bake MM a birthday cake. Simply putting out an unfounded story has many people believing it is true, with PR benefits to MM.
@Longview: Don’t forget the story that was floated that the Queen was supposedly going to invite Doria for the royal family Christmas. I believe it was for Christmas 2018. Also the story in summer 2018 that the Queen was going to throw a birthday party for dear sweet little Meghan. Also I believe I read a story that Kate was allegedly going to throw a baby shower for Meghan.
All which turned out to be pure fiction.
If the Harkles dare to appear at TTC or anywhere else in the UK, I hope they are booed and pelted with bananas with messages written in felt-tip markers telling them they are not welcome, or worse.
Of course, if she isn’t already pregnant, Meghan may use TTC to upstage HMTQ to announce her second little bargaining chip/weapon is on the way, just as she did at Eugenie’s wedding. First and foremost, she is a flaming narcissist, and tweaking the nose of the Queen of England by upstaging her 95th birthday celebration would provide a massive dose of attention and grade A narcissistic fuel for Meghan, who would use any well-deserved booing as a reason to once again claim victimhood.
Well said Puds 👌
Meghan seems to be very easily hugely offended but thick-skinned and deluded at the same time.
@Sandie: Your comment is a good start.
You have checked off three common behaviors and personality traits of people with narcissistic personality disorder. Add to your list extreme senses of entitlement, grandiosity, thinking they are above generally accepted tules of behavior, a penchant for portraying themselves as victims, especially when their problems are largely caused by their own behaviors, an inability to take responsibility and be accountable for their behaviors, the need for continuous attention and the need for control, an inability to heed advice, and about a dozen other behaviors and you have a portrait of Meghan and most other people who are affected by NPD.
I do remember it was a bit surprising immediately after the wedding when it was announced by the palace Kate would be a "housewife" in Wales rather than engage in royal duties. It was also reported Sophie offered to help Kate start her professional royal work but Will said he'd do it and refused Sophie's help. Along with the Malta Deal, Charles's jealousy was also blamed for the Cambridges low level of royal work (for much longer than 2 years.)
It's also true the workshy stuff got so bad Will gave an interview about it. In that interview he did say his grandmother would have to directly tell him to do more work. Philip's interview was pretty pointed but not the same as a directive from TQ.
While making Will look worse may not make Harry look better, it does provide useful context for the past decade IMO. Will DID say he thought he could be a part-time King and that's not that different from Harry's 1/2 in 1/2 out idea for a royal prince.
Discussing Will's work in an honest way also brings into question whether it makes sense to assume Harry's lack of duty is a matter of character while Will's is a matter of some secret and deliberate royal plan. If there was a plan to give Will and Kate a break while everyone else took up the slack, then maybe I do have some sympathy for Harry after all as much as that surprises me. I'm also not sure once Will puts on the crown he'll wear it until death. I can easily see younger royals seeing retirement as an option. Their ideas about duty seem pretty different so far.
darn darn darn
just trying to keep it from getting to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCneye8GuSo
Discussing Will's work in an honest way also brings into question whether it makes sense to assume Harry's lack of duty is a matter of character while Will's is a matter of some secret and deliberate royal plan.
______
I only developed an interest in the RF now as an older person. Back in my younger days I was influenced by my partner at the time, who was born in Glasgow and raised in a seaport in Northern Ireland. He detested the BRF as he was raised in a Republican (Loyalist) home. He passed, so I no longer feel I have to hide my occasional interest in the RF.
I recall reading about Will's being deemed "lazy" when he was younger. I figure most of us would be the same if born in a Palace and faced living our entire life as King. The sense of duty and pressure knowing your Gran was the most honored and respected women on the planet- if for her sense of duty alone and so many other traits she has shown- would buckle the strongest of us. No pressure for a young man huh?
He has developed into a fine man and I am sure he will be a fine King.
My laugh for the day! Thanks lol...
Thanks for the laughs!
@Lizzie makes a very good direct comparison about Harry's half in/out plan to William's part-time King plan from the EAAA video.
Like Kate, 2017 seems to have been a turning point for everyone. Not simply because William and Kate started visibly working across their many areas of responsibility and interest, but also for the first time really showed commitment, interest in the job.
However, prior to that William was very recalcitrant about any work with the exception of Tusk.
We frequently discuss how Harry is easily led and influenced by Harry the people around him.
In hindsight it is easy to see how he was fine with William's part-time monarchy, work shy ways because no one was checking for him who was a spare. The excuse that he couldn't work harder than William because that would outshine the heir was frequently trotted out. Every so often he'd be trotted out to do PR for BIG initiatives which framed him as being super involved behind the scenes as the excuse for his non-existant royal duty numbers. As we know this was slight of hand falsehood.
In 2016, Harry gave that notorious interview to Newsweek in which he clearly implied a William monarchy was going to be part-time and not as busy was currently ran. He also appeared to think it would be a co-monarchy with him as the junior partner with all the perks of the senior partner.
It's not a stretch to imagine he took that part-time monarchy idea and his resentments to Meghan which suited her as she only married him for the fame, status and money. She could use it to elevate them to greater heights than boring old monarchy.
It was very poorly executed PR created to deflect from the fact that Kate had decided she wasn't going to work at all after the wedding after 6mths of PR during the engagement period trumpeting how much she was dying to get started. The term,"hitting the ground running" was coined for her. She was going to 'dazzle us'. She was the most prepared royal bride. She'd been given princess lessons. The effect raised public expectations of a working royal and attempted to bury her previous image of the work shy girlfriend.
Then afew days after the wedding and work expectations raised sky high, the new bride announced she was going to be a housewife on Anglesey and join the local RAF wives club. She never did join the club, but we did get the Malta PR story and a slew of housewife Kate being suzy homemaker who sounded more like a nanny than a wife.
Meghan co-opted the engagement PR originally used for Kate complete with the same phrases to describe her eagerness to start work. Being Meghan, she added an expectation that she would outshine Kate, but at that point we had lowered our expectations of Kate so the bar wasn't set very high.
On a less judgy note, i blame the type of staff WK had around them during that early marriage. Kate's private secretary was clearly not equipped to help her upgrade her game professionally. Neither was William's private secretary.
It's interesting that as soon as they hired business professionals with many years working experience under their belts, their work and presentation and professionalism improved exponentially.
It took then 6yrs to get there.
--------------------
I don't know that I've ever wanted anyone to utterly and completely fail as much as these two. Seems like a lot of people feel that way.
@Acquaitaine
You have missed the point of what I said entirely, and completely misunderstand royalty and the history of royalty."
I understand royalty and it's history very well. I am British as well as growing up in countries that have monarchies so i have an understanding of how different monarchies around the world function.
And one of the things royalty does very well is PR.
So well that your entire comment about William and his work record is simply regurgitating the talking points of the PR campaign about him.
My comment listed the facts that prick holes in that PR campaign.
And the Charles and Camilla lovestory *is* one of the greatest PR constructs of modern royal times. Neatly tied up in a bow. Chef's kiss to Diana and Mark Bolland for this one.
Harry the dedicated, cheeky chappie hero soldier comes a close second. ELF deserves a knighthood for this one.
Comparatively William and Kate's PR is coming along nicely.
Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing that.
I guess it's possible that that was the plan. Maybe a plan kept quiet, not to be discussed until the time came.
If that's the case, I can see why Harry would be highly offended that he couldn't be part-time also.
But the difference, imo, would be that William would not be selling his royal title to make gazillions of income for himself during his off time. You'd like to think he'd use the off time to do something respectable. Not swanning about like he's an A-list celebrity. He wouldn't be copyrighting his image for big bucks.
He probably wouldn't have any invisible children, either.
I was laying on my couch reading this evening. It was dark out already. I suddenly realized that there was a strange man on my deck, looking in. When he realized that I'd seen him, he bolted. My heart completely stopped.
I called emergency services, and then went to the front window to video him leaving. Much to my surprise, it was my brother, who was trying to surprise me by leaving my large Christmas present on the deck for me to notice in the morning.
Surprise all right! Kind of embarrassing to have to explain to the officers that I knew the guy. I could barely speak because my heart just wouldn't get going good. I think I used up one of my 9 lives.
Carry on. Back to the Harkles.
Growing up in the 80s and 90s there were plenty of negative articles about her and the royals. There was a reporter, Lynda Lee Porter, who frequently wrote negative articles about the Queen. Private eye and spitting image frequently mocked her.
After the Diana funeral debacle, proper PR firms were hired and press secretaries changed their job descriptions. Media operations became much more professionally handled. No more lampooning or mocking The Queen. She was presented as the nation's granny.
The PR around her became relentlessly positive. Richard Palmer, the RR for the express once admitted that they were forbidden to write anything negative about The Queen.
So successful has the PR been that even her catastrophic failure at handling Diana's death properly has successfully been rewritten as a grandmother staying in Scotland with her heartbroken grandsons.
No one discusses that she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to London to do the right thing, and that those boys were encouraged to walk in the funeral cortege to appease a furious public whipped up by the media.
These days any negative articles that do make it to print tend to be written outside the royal rota, are framed in the mildest of criticism and are pulled very quickly before they gain traction eg paradise papers.
Any rumours that do persist come from articles written by Lynda Lee Porter who was unafraid to print anything and everything.
Her PR has been so good that people nowadays are convinced that she's never put a foot wrong whilst forgetting the most recent examples of her putting a foot wrong - Diana death and being forced to start paying tax by John Major in 1992. She and the family were not popular in the 80s and 90s despite the antics of the younger members with exception of Diana who out dazzled them all.
Their PR had finally got them to a good place only to be rocked by the Andrew and Sussex dramatics which she continues to handle poorly.
@Acquitaine
What are your thoughts on the Meghan and Archie situation? You say you understand the RF's PR very well but yet you have stated that you believe that MM carried Archie and that a child currently lives with them. Many of us don't believe part or all of that story and think it is a delusional narcissist's construct hidden behind desperate PR. How do you account for all the many oddities surrounding the Archie saga? Do you believe MM scammed the RF and Harry marrying him for the title and money only?"
That entire situation is so flabbergasting that i've decided to go with the path of least resistance and pretend it's all normal.
In a way it's a circular firing squad for Meghan and the royal family. All the oddities and irregularities point to something false, but the royal family publicly accepted Archie immediately. Any falsehood can not be revealed without taking out both sides.
However, there are trapdoors in their acceptance which could save them, but not Meghan. Namely the odd announcement of the birth and the complete lack of title.
She also had a a nanny for George at around 6wks-8wks after she left her parents' home where she had spent those initial weeks after he was born.
The nanny hired was William's old nanny Jessica Webb.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-george/10306915/Duke-of-Cambridge-hires-former-nanny-for-Prince-George.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419604/Prince-William-hires-old-nanny-Jessie-Webb-George.html
They had to admit they'd hired nanny Jessica after the three, Kate, George and Jessica were papped together on a few occasions out and about.
Jessica was officially unveiled at George's christening.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/23/article-2472989-18EEE3B600000578-441_470x774.jpg
Kate also had a maternity nurse with her during those weeks spent with her parents.
Jessica was eventually retired in favour of Nanny Maria when George was 8mths.
Sometimes i wonder if it was Tony Blair who was leaking to the media against her so he could be seen to save the situation.....to go with his newly minted, finger on the pulse image. Politicians always take advantage of a bad situation to elevate themselves.
I'm ready to believe the recent articles saying she's refused to give him a knighthood because of his behaviour during that week. He was shameless.
I bet that was quite a fright!
My husband and I had very good friends, a great and loveable couple, lifelong friends of my husband and newer close friends for me. They had a key to our house, and, although they lived seven hours away, they would just show up at our house at will, which my husband and I loved. Our house had an open door policy for them only.
It was always a surprise to wake up in the morning (any morning) to the smell of coffee and bacon, look at each other and just say, "The Smiths!" They'd just go into a guest bedroom and make themselves at home, which was with our consent. But it was sometimes frightening to hear people walking around the house in the morning, when we had gone to bed with no other people in the house! I always made my husband check whether it was really the Smiths and not a home invasion.
Acquitaine said...
More of your thoughts on H&M's trickery, please!!!
The first mistake they made is one they continue to make and will continue to trip them up until they get it. They are royalty not celebrities.
The second mistake they made was to hire an US based Hollywood firm whose specialty is US media and Hollywood not a PR firm that understands establishment, conservative brands.
The irony is that ELF was recruited from just such a firm, Finsbury PR. That's why he did such a stellar job with Harry.
If they wanted Hollywood PR, they should have hired Freuds, a London based PR firm that specialises in entertainment, and has hired ELF and Nick Lochran as directors. 2 people who understand the royal brand now embedded in a PR firm centred on the entertainment world.
They should have mended bridges with Gina at Kruger Crowne. That woman is a miracle worker. Look at her ability to turn unknown Meghan from Hollywood actress to humanitarian with UN speeches in less than 2yrs. Imagine what miracles she'd conjure up given their current level of fame.
Sunshine Sachs is good at what they do. As long as you are a Hollywood celebrity. Their greatest achievement is Bennifer (Affleck and JLO). They turned their romantic partnership into celebrity gold. Meghan is copying the Bennifer handbook complete with handholding in public no matter the occasion.
It's not working with H&M because she comes across fake and he looks miserable.
I think Charles didn't get as much flak as the Queen because he went to France to bring Diana's body home. Then, he rushed back to Scotland to be with his sons. Meanwhile, HMTQ wouldn't budge until the outcry forced her to do so.
The public wanted the flag at BP to be flown at half staff, but they didn't understand that flying that flag means the Queen is in residence. The Queen eventually had another flag flown at half staff, below the Queen's flag.
I've read various reports of who was pushing for William and Harry to walk behind Diana's coffin. Everybody from PP to Diana's brother to some of the gray suits. I don't think that question has been adequately answered yet.
@Puds,
IIRC, they did fly a flag at KP, but don't quote me on that.
Thank for the correction re the Republican Loyalist! You had me quite confused. Give My Head Peace!
Companies in the USA are no longer allowed to remain anonymous. When registering a company those in control of the company must be named. These were also called ‘shell’ corporations.
Looks like Meghan (and or her backers) are going to have to name themselves being officially behind Archewell, and Cobblestone LLC, soon.
Sad to see Michael Apted has died.
Loved the “Up” series.
As for HAM's PR, they successfully were able to brand any criticism against them as racist and unfortunately, they have the US media to thank for that. If there is any success their PR has achieved besides turning Meg into a philanthropist and Harry into a Hero army veteran, it's the branding of the British press as racist.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9379618/meghan-markle-thomas-markle-freckle-quote-copyrighted/
rumors that she copyrighted the phrase about her freckles that her father alledgedly made to her. I think her father heard that phrase in a song - her father may have used it but it isn't original - just google the phrase & lots of stuff comes up including a song from 2008. By Natasha Bedingfield
Had they not had the opportunity, would Harry now be whingeing about being treated like a child?
At George VI's funeral, the first row of Mourners on foot consists of the Royal Dukes: Edinburgh, Windsor, Gloucester and Kent (aged 17, in top hat).
We have very confused ideas here in UK about when childhood ends nowadays - it's years since I've heard the word `adolescent' for example. Different bits of legislation set different points at which youngsters are legally permitted to do `adult' things such as marry, drive a car, buy alcohol or ciggies, or vote. It was even stranger in the past. Until 1928, I believe, a boy could marry at 14 and a girl at 12, with parental permission.
On the subject of strange things, since when have parents organised the funerals of their son's ex-wife? Or the ex-husband responsibility? Surely it's up to her family? My guess is that HM may have considered it up to the Spencers to do something about it?
The situation was unprecedented - clearly there was no plan bearing the name of any bridge to cover the eventuality of needing to bury Diana, even if she died young, as the ties to the Firm had been broken.
Charles collected the body from Paris as he was concerned that El Fayed might step in - he was reported as saying to HM wtte `Do you want her brought home in a Harrods van?'
On the subject of strange things, since when have parents organised the funerals of their son's ex-wife? Or the ex-husband responsibility? Surely it's up to her family? My guess is that HM may have considered it up to the Spencers to do something about it?
Yes. exactly. If families of exes were to organize funerals here, it would probably be on the order of throwing them into a pond for alligators to feed on, chumming sharks, or baiting crab traps. I'm also fairly sure a wooden stake through the heart may be involved.
I was struck at the time as to why it was thought that the burial was to be the royal family's job instead of the Spencers. I just shrugged it off as being due to the eccentricities of the British and was happy that that wasn't the custom here. Maybe the Spencers couldn't afford it.
My vision issue as usual. Especially late at night when I'm tired. A Mr. Magoo I am. I've learned to go back and double check my posts.
"If William was going to follow Phillips example and retire from duties at age 95, then at the time of his marriage, he had another SIXTY SEVEN years of public service ahead of him. PC didn’t take up full time Royal duties until 1977 - and he was the PoW. He left the Royal Navy after 6 years service so he must have been around 29 at that point. I hope they give George the same opportunity of living a relatively normal life before duty calls."
I had commented earlier Will might choose to retire when king so I assume my supposition may have triggered the above comment.
Others have noted European royalty have begun to "retire" from the throne. And certainly consorts have withdrawn from public life. (Philip did say he wanted to retire earlier but younger people wouldn't do the work-- think that was on his 92nd birthday.)
Many people have said QEII will never retire because she feels the responsibilty to be monarch is God-given AND the abdication of Edward VIII was such a trauma. But younger royals in the BRF may not have the same religious beliefs and may not have the same aversion to retiring. While I have no way to know for sure, I don't think the younger royals see either TQ or PP as models for how they plan to live their lives. In fact, both Will and Harry have publicly said Will's reign will be quite different than QEII's with vastly fewer patronages, public appearances, and ribbon-cuttings.
So far as Charles goes, he was the first heir to earn a university degree, I believe. Not surprising, it appears that is now the expectation. So there will naturally a later age at which royal duties are assumed than might otherwise have happened. After leaving the university, Charles did have an active military life, eventually serving as commander of the HMS Bronington. I'm not sure I'd call that "having a normal life" exactly and I definitely wouldn't call it a life free from duty. But regardless, the same year he left the military he established the Prince's Trust. So Charles didn't spend his 20s partying in clubs, if that's now considered the normal life of princes.
There's no telling how long Will will live. But if he were to serve until age 95, that would mean George would be about 64 when he becomes monarch. I'm not British so it's not my call, but it seems many people don't think having Charles be a king-in-waiting his entire life was a great thing. Further, by having so much royal work done by senior citizens, that allowed the fiction to continue for an awfully long time that both Will and Harry were still "boys" way past the time young men are considered boys in other segments of society. I'm not sure that did either one of them any favors.
With my narc ex, I didn't know he'd died until 2 years after the event. Had I known at the time, I might have been tempted to go the funeral, just to make sure he was dead!
I don't think Earl Spencer's short of a bob or two - perhaps it would have been better for him to organise something private and low key, despite the public agitation. I wonder how that would've turned out? Would Buck House have been stormed?
What would have been best for W & H? Far better for Blair to have taken a back seat, certainly.
I think HM had the boys' interests at heart
In their case, their image has gone from utterly hopeless, negative image in the 90s to tolerated and eccentric image.
It's almost impossible to come back from a destroyed brand. Charles and Camilla's brand was in the toilet before Diana's death and became nuclear waste afterwards.
To go from those very low depths to where they are today is a PR marvel given they are not selling any talent to the public to overlook the objectionable stuff.
I agree that the Sussexes successfully branded the UK as racist, BUT their revealed character has thrown doubt on that branding because everyone can see that they brand everyone and everything negatively if it doesn't acquiece to them.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory should become their motto.
Unfortunately Blair was already in there stirring up media and public so those statements fell on stony ground and were taken very badly by the public.
Eg Do you remember the headlines in 1997 when she cried publicly because her boat was decommissioned? She was called stone hearted for shedding tears for a boat when she was dry eyed for Diana a couple of months earlier.
These days no media outlet would dare write such a headline. When editors commission articles about that event, it's reframed as a loss of a beloved home without any mention of the way it was perceived in 1997.
These days you hear more about her affection for her family than her previous branding as someone who cold heartedly abandoned them for the sake of duty and or farmed her familial responsibility to others and you definitely never hear about her determined ostrich approach to their shenanigans. Her treatment of Andrew is positioned as the effect of her excess love of her favourite son instead of a downright refusal to manage him properly.
Her coldness was a recurring theme of reporting on her in the late 80s and 90s, but has now been successfully PR rehabbed with a good dose of censorship of anyone who goes against the new party line.
Meghan thought she'd use the 90s branding of the Queen in 2020. No dice. Queen is now beloved even when she's visibly mishandling Andrew and Sussexes.
"MM held onto a few of her agents and PR personnel even after she set her cap on Harry and eventually married him. I wonder why Gina out of all of them got the boot? Because she is British"
I echo your thoughts in this post.
Meghan was never interested in anything British except for the fame and riches. I always wonder why she specifically chose Britain and stuck to the plan when her frequent visits between 2013-17 would have established that she hated everything British despite her fantasy. Either way, everything British was ditched after she got the ring.
MM thinks only Hollywood (nee American) firms can get the job done. I think she genuinely thinks her Hollywood connections can do the same job Gina does. The difference is that she really needs someone NYC based to have the same effect as Gina because Hollywood really doesn't understand humanitarian branding.
Most importantly, MM was never interested in humanitarian branding beyond getting that tiara and from that hobnobbing with the great and good of that world whilst collecting awards wearing couture - like Amal Clooney.
Gina got her the tiara. MM thought her newfound fame and status meant she didn't need Gina any more.
Someone said that Beatrice and Eugene turned out well in spite of their parents, and William turned out well in spite of his parents, therefore it's neither the Queen nor Charles fault that Andrew and Harry turned out the way they are.
William and Catherine didn't start out well, I agree with you on that but lately, they have actually started putting in the work, so their PR isn't hinged on nothing. They have also had the fortune of hiring better professionals to guide them properly and they are listening to those they hired.
As for Charles, his newly launched Tera Carta is a massive win in my opinion and I'm happy he spearheaded that effort. It will also help to gradually erase the image of him as a weak and unpopular king to be and also the image that Netflix The Crown gave him.
Meghan's PR before marrying Harry was almost impeccable, and I agree that Gina did a terrific job turning her into a humanitarian so she can snag Harry. But afterwards, her PR went downhill in the UK at least. I think she is still loved in the US if comments from US websites are anything to go by. Don't you think so?
It's wise never to criticise the reaction of the bereaved immediately after a sudden death, when they are in a state of shock and the alternative is to howl to the skies or get plastered. They may be in a state of emotional numbness when the only option is to `keep calm and carry on' as planned, especially if there is nothing else to be done. It was the weekend; the deceased wasn't their responsibility but that of her kin; the death was in another country.
Comparing it with the situations we've probably had to deal with: no identifying the body; no calling the doctor or undertaker; no collecting their things from the hospital, nor getting the medical certificate of death to start the admin and disposal of the body. No registering of the death.
Instead, there were just 2 lads who lost their mother in a horrible and very public way.
I don't recall anything about Spencer being proactive, stepping forward to shoulder the burden, only Blair making the most of it for his own purposes with his `People's Princess' spiel.
How many of us have family relationships that could stand up to that sort of scrutiny, especially if one's critics listen to the narcs in the family first?
I had a very difficult relationship with my mother, despite my best endeavours to keep it peaceful. When she died I found it almost impossible to weep for her. When I had to have my dear old dog put to sleep, I was distraught but that was a straightforward relationship of affection and unconditional love on both sides. Very different.
Americans seem to be protective of Meghan because they bought into her racism narrative.
@Wild Boat Battle Maid, we are scrutinizing the BRF because it's a firm and most of them are tax payer funded public servants. It's not the same as a regular family. Andrew, Harry and Meghan were tax payer funded members of the Royal Family and so was Diana before her divorce.
Uh, no. Those comments about her are probably paid PR. Hardly anybody knows about her and a vanishingly small amount care. I doubt that 5% of the California population know/care about her except to roll their eyes in derision. For the rest of the population, far fewer. We have a lot more serious issues at stake than some wannabe royalty doing the slut walk on chicken legs.
-------------------
Mm does seem to be stuck in the 90's, in many ways. We've talked about that here before. I wonder what happened that she stopped growing there.
20 years ago that she stopped, she would have been early 20's. It feels like there was something that happened then that caused her to freeze in place.
I think this is why the Grey Men had some fun leaking the other day, that the Queen expects to see the Dastardlies this June at the TOTC.
I completely agree.
Btw, I worked in the public sector and was paid out of public funds. Does it follow therefore that my private life should have been subjected to public scrutiny?
Later dynasties have examples that either threatened armed rebellion when that was the acceptable way to deal with these things OR ended up changing society in ways that benefitted society due to The Monarch's failure to manage their family members. This latter example is the relationship between George 2 and his son Frederick, Prince of Wales.
In the armed rebellion era, the monarch usually ended up executing any family members that couldn't be managed and their behaviour was perceived to be dangerous to the Crown.
On the gossip front, the intimate details of the monarch and their heirs were considered public knowledge simply because of their position.
Everything from the monarch's toilet habits to menstruation to getting dressed and undressed. And that was before the very public birth chambers. Holding positions at court that allowed you to attend the monarch as they carried out intimate activities was the most coveted because it gave you intimate access to the monarch.
This intimate information was used for political purposes and gossip regarding the monarch's character.
The best thing about modern times is this type of intimate information is no longer collected or if it is not put into the public space. The last time this type of information was thought to hold sway was in 1980 when the media had articles discussing whether or not Diana was a virgin.
We've done alot in the past 50yrs to pushback on the idea that intimate knowledge of the royals should be public.
@ Puds:
I completely agree.
Btw, I worked in the public sector and was paid out of public funds. Does it follow therefore that my private life should have been subjected to public scrutiny?
Everybody in the state of Florida that gets paid out of public funds has their compensation* online for anybody that wants to see it.
*Bribes, kickbacks, and income from second jobs are not included; only legally-received salaries from the taxpayers.
I think she is still loved in the US if comments from US websites are anything to go by. Don't you think so?
________
I'm 100% Yank and I destest her for everything that is discussed on this blog. I have never met any Americans who "love" her. Most don't care.
Those glowing posts you refer to are bought bots.
Prince Andrew executed his Royal duties flawlessly at the TOTC where he prevented Megsy from getting next to the Queen for photos. I had some good laughs over that.
______
Not a fan of Andrew but that was such a burn. I was fist pumping and Yes'ing pretty loudly at that great moment. IM0 Anne was part of that play. Thanks for the reminder of that gem in TOTC history. Lol.
Re. the prospective appearance on the balcony . .
Sandie said, on the first page:
I don't think the Queen ever even entertained the half in half out deal that the Dumbartons wanted. Genuine public announcements and leaks from the Queen have been consistent in saying that they are private citizens and do not represent the Crown or the Queen in any way, but remain family
and Fifi said
I don't think Markle will show up at TOTC because she will experience the same shutting out by members of the RF when she tried to reposition herself next to the Queen. The RF has experience with her now, and the cold shoulders will be magnified. Also, the Harkles have crossed a line, and booing will result when they carriage through the streets. There are some people who will not hold back their disdain of the Harkles.
Notwithstanding that I think TQ will be cautious and have a stripped-down, distanced balcony this year, if she has one at all, meaning that if anyone appears with her on the balcony, they will be amongst the Elite 8--the Cornwalls, Cambridges, Wessexes and Anne, sans children--TQ has had her Covid jab, but she would not want to promote crowds on the balcony or the street, unlike 2 years ago where they were shoulder-to-shoulder on the balcony--I think the optics of allowing the Harkles anywhere near balcony appearances at any point in the future going forward would be very bad. Not only because crowds would boo them, which certainly would happen but chiefly because the carriages, balcony and pomp of Trooping the Colour is precisely the type of flashy prestige event the Harkles *want*, and expected as their due as 'half in/half out' Royals. They only wanted the big spectacle events that would get them on global TV, not the 'drudgery' of charity visits or protocol-filled events out of the public eye such as extended family time at Balmoral, etc. Trooping the Colour was 'the' premiere event of their wished-for calendar, along with Royal Ascot and the Christmas walk. If TQ permits them to attend any of these, it will be playing right into their list of wants which she has previously been on record as denying.
The upcoming Diana statue unveiling is going to get a huge amount of international press, and I don't see how Harry could be excluded. This isn't really a Royal event as such. The only way to prevent Smeagol from attending, presuming that her visa to enter England has not been permanently revoked, that this event will be for the *brothers only* . .no wives or children . . along with Diana's sisters and brother, should they wish to attend. It will be interesting to see how that is handled, and if Harry will actually have the balls to go. Smeg will try to wheedle her way in; it's essential to her continuing brand/con. William has to absolutely dig his heels in and refuse to permit it. The Queen will not fuss about this particular event, and Charles isn't really involved, either. This event is all about Diana's boys and the money they raised to make this happen (some of it later mysteriously reallocated to Travalyst, evidently.)
So . . we do have some things to look forward to in 2021, after all . .albeit with more like sick anticipation of potential bombshells.
Now I'm off to rewatch Andrew 'The Scarlet Wall' and his sister do their superlative block of Smeg on the balcony. Andy and Anne are both sports-minded; I have a feeling they actually diagrammed out their play and did several run-throughs in advance of the day, because they were just sooo smooth. The only way I ever want to see Smeg on that balcony again is if she promptly goes over the side. Now that would be some TV worth watching.
@Nelo,
Those glowing posts you refer to are bought bots.
@ Lavender Lady and Nelo:
As a refresher, here’s an article from the Canadian magazine Macleans about Meghan buying followers that ran shortly before or shortly after the wedding. Purchasing followers to follow you and write nice things about you in comments sections is common among famous people and wannabe famous people. I am guessing the Sussexes spent quite a bit to buy all the followers https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/meghan-markles-twitter-bot-network-the-whole-thing-is-a-bit-insane/
"....This event is all about Diana's boys and the money they raised to make this happen (some of it later mysteriously reallocated to Travalyst, evidently.)"
I don't think that was the pot of money that went to Travalyst. I think the mysteriously transferred money was money from The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.
According to Wikipedia, that memorial fund was "an independent grant-giving foundation established in September 1997 after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, to continue her humanitarian work in the United Kingdom and overseas. It was a registered charity under English law.The Fund closed at the end of 2012."
And
"In March 2013, The Royal Foundation became the legal owner of the Fund in order to safeguard the Fund's name and any further income donated to the Fund in the future.
In July 2020, it was reported that the money from the memorial fund was divided between Princes William and Harry and given to their independent charities."
I do wonder what ever happened to the investigation of that transfer. I believe the statue appeal was entirely separate.
Thanks for the link!
@Hikari,
Love the image of La Markle taking a tumble over the balcony heels up LOL!!
622,890 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpfOY1owuSc
Princess Ann hustles/blocks Meghan out of the picture frame as Megs tries to linger next to the Queen for some Megsy style photo fame. Trooping The Colors 2019.
https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/6399705/meghan-markle-prince-harry-keep-soundcloud-open/
Meghan, 39, used the profile name Bogart&Guy and has 48 followers - including her hubby.
The account - which includes Joni Mitchell and Etta James was named after her pet dogs.
Harry, 36, secretly joined Soundcloud as SpikeyMau5 'Barry Sales' and followed Meg shortly after they started dating.
The prince last logged into his music account, which includes tracks by Bob Marley, last year
Harry also secretly used SpikeyMau5 on Instagram before deleting it.
The Mau5 refers to his love of house music DJ DeadMau5 and 'Spike' was another of his online aliases Spike Wells.
https://soundcloud.com/barry-sales?ref=clipboard&p=i&c=0
copy and paste
________________________
I didn't see anyone say that MM was pushing her way to the front. She was trying for the same position she had last year - behind and beside the Queen so would appear in all of the shots of the Queen. Princes Anne moved to the right for no apparent reason other than to block MM from taking that same position.
No one meant she would have pushed her way in front of the Queen!!
But she WAS trying to stay at the position behind and beside the Queen where she was last year so that whenever someone took a pic of the Queen, MM was in the shot. Take a look at last year's TTC. This is the spot she was going for this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6s-Q3pw8Xo&t=194s
I don't think that was the pot of money that went to Travalyst. I think the mysteriously transferred money was money from The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.
According to Wikipedia, that memorial fund was "an independent grant-giving foundation established in September 1997 after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, to continue her humanitarian work in the United Kingdom and overseas. It was a registered charity under English law.The Fund closed at the end of 2012."
Thanks for the research. I had been under the the impression that this 'Memorial Fund' was initially started in order to raise funds for some sort of memorial to Diana, and when that was paid for, the extra/incoming donations were used for the charitable grants. Does it say anywhere whether the same fund that covered this statue also paid for the memorial children's playground in Hyde Park and whatever else has been done to the sunken gardens at Kensington Palace?
The fund closed 7 years before Harry threw his strop and ran off to North America, at which point the monies were divided between the brothers. Until 2019, it had just been sitting in William's Royal Foundation, is my understanding. When Harry took his half, it got plowed into his for-profit venture Travalyst which now seems defunct before it even got off the ground. So are we to assume that those monies went to join the Disney $3 million in the Harkle bank account? The whole thing makes me very uneasy as it doesn't seem like sound financial practices were being followed even before the schism with the Wales brothers.
William has worthwhile charity interests of his own, but it seems to me like Diana's fund should have remained managed under that name to fund causes which were important to *her*, if not necessarily her boys. I would be especially upset if I'd been a donor. In a spiritual sense, via the intent of the donors, that money was to be spent as Diana would have wanted it, not to be transferred at will to her boys' personal projects.
"In March 2013, The Royal Foundation became the legal owner of the Fund in order to safeguard the Fund's name and any further income donated to the Fund in the future.
In July 2020, it was reported that the money from the memorial fund was divided between Princes William and Harry and given to their independent charities."
I don't see how Diana's Memorial Fund and its monies and reputation have been safeguarded since they effectively closed it, cancelled its name, named it something else, had donations funnelled there instead and then split the kitty between the two boys. Harry took his half to America where I'm *sure* it's been solely spent on charitable causes that his mother would have championed. Perhaps Diana's money bought the 100 wool hats for poor children?
I'm being facetious. I don't think 'her' money bought anything besides blow for Haz and another boob job for Meg.
I would have thought the statue would have been unveiled long before now. It didn't take 23 years to make it, surely. The 10th anniversary might have been the opportune time . . or the 15th. Certainly the 20th--in 2017, when Harry was still Meghan-free.
What took so long? Waiting for her 60th birthday seems very random. Why not her 50th, then? Now with Covid restrictions and the bad blood between the brothers, this delayed dedication is going to be far less than they might have imagined it.
As I recall from reading various articles, the statue idea was announced in January 2017, the year marking the 20th anniversary of Diana's death (when there was all that unending Diana hoop-la all year including the interview with Will, Harry, and Kate.)
At the time I honestly wondered why Will and Harry didn't just commission a statue themselves rather than making a public appeal. It seemed kind of cheap to seek public funds given that it was to be installed essentially in their backyard as they both lived at KP at the time. But I guess the public appeal was partly to make sure people were reminded of Diana on and off during the "campaign."
According to the Twitter announcement from W&H at Kensington Royal, the statue was supposed to be completed in 2017. But as I recall, W&H took a very long time to accept a design. I don't know if it's that they couldn't agree with each other but periodic palace statements just said things like "the designs didn't do her justice." Honestly, statues usually don't IMO. And a statue of a person that family members remember emotionally from nearly a quarter of a century ago is unlikely to ever really satisfy IMO.
Anyway, I think the installation plan for her 60th birthday was just a made up "significant" date given the very slow progress of the work.
I don't think the memorial fund discussed earlier had anything to do with the Diana Memorial Fountain. There was a separate committee for that chaired by one of Diana's friends. The disasterous fountain was mostly privately funded but according to the Guardian, taxpayers had to chip in when installation ran £600,000 over budget.
The memorial fund mentioned earlier appears to have been a real charity that made grants to help various causes before it was closed. The money went to Will and Harry's Royal Foundation (they were co-owners then) so I can see why it needed to be divided later. There really wouldn't have been any justification for Will to keep it all. But Travalyst? It seems that's why there was an investigation announced but nothing said since then. So who knows!
No one in their right mind goes out and starts a race war, when their primary audience and moneymaker is middle and upper class folks. That alienates most buyers.
So, no if Meghan was followed and had an generic interest we'd see her in papers, in magazines not paid for, in headlines that aren't always controversial PR placements, and in any other publication besides the DM.
NYTimes put her in 'opinion' because she wouldn't let them fact check her narrative.
So no, Meghan is not popular in the USA, most people do not know who she is (just as most people aren't interested in Harry) and she's only losing traction.
She has to continue to stir controversy to keep listeners on Spotify, and soon to be 'Netflix' whatever that is, but what can she do now as a washed up 40 something year old z-list actress?
Harry and Meghan have already left the BRF, and signed some royalty associated contracts...whats left? Their 'sons' legacy charity? (who does this when the child is still alive...not to mention their '2021 letter' that references dead diana, and then immediately their son....common! What are they really trying to say here about Archie?
Tangent.
It's going to be extremely hard work to correct all this. They need to go away for 24 months, and do a documentary about what they did. There's really no way up from here.
"To be at the point they are at now, having set up an empire and a charity in just over nine months, shows just how hard they have worked to make this transition a success,’ said Omid Scobie, writing in Grazia. 'But it’s taken a lot of work to get here. The journey has been painful.’
An empire!!??!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9135603/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-painful-year-Megxit-Finding-Freedom-authors-claim.html
Just was reading the DM article about how HAM have had a "'painful' year". The nanny left when they moved to LA and now they are "alone". Omid's sources contradict earlier comments that they had requested another year. "They really haven't looked back."
I cannot imagine anyone creating a sculpture that will capture the charm and vivacity Diana had. I hope to be proven wrong, but I fully expect to cringe when the covering is pulled back.
As far as I’m aware Archewell Podcast is PROMOTED and owned by Spotify. They can push it up any of their charts. They are trying to get attention to their platform and things like Joe Rogan, who cost them a small fortune.
Relax... At the rate we're going at the moment, it's unlikely that there will be any public Royal occasions this year. Nobody is making any precise predictions about when crowd-drawing events will take place again.
Watch out for when the first spectators are allowed in the grounds for football matches (Right now, these do take place but recordings of crowds roaring are played to give some atmosphere). I'd almost lay a bet that even a Royal funeral (Heaven forfend!) would be entirely private, with no lying in state in Westminster Hall for instance:
In 2002, people queued day and night to pay their respects to the Queen Mother, for example;
"THE queue stretches south, running for over three miles, as more than 50,000 people wait to pay their respects to the Queen Mother.
By 7.45am the queue was already a mile long as people waited for the reopening of Westminster Hall where the Queen Mother is lying in state."
at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1389993/50000-queue-to-pay-respects.html
Crowds on route of Queen mother's cortege:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1919368.stm
Short of a miracle in Public Health, nothing like that will happen this year, whatever the reason.
---------------------------
These are historic occasions; people want to be a part of them as well as to acknowledge the departed.
I queued at Romsey Abbey to pay my respects to Earl Mountbatten in '79. There was a moment of black humour when I overheard a remark about the wreath sent by King Baudouin & Queen Fabiola of the Belgians (the ribbon was red, black & yellow, and bore their names printed in gold.)
A voice behind me exclaimed `Oh, look! There's one from the Ay-Rabs!'
I saw the headline in the DM and then read your post. Are we supposed to feel sorry for poor Megs? We don't.
The authors went on to say the move has also been challenging for Meghan, 39, who has juggled motherhood with moving house four times.
A friend of the duchess told Durand: 'It's just been a lot. Their nanny moved back to the UK when they moved to LA because of the pandemic and restrictions left them feeling quite alone. Each move made them feel more displaced.'
No one forced them to move, let alone four times. And MM is superwoman, 'juggling' motherhood with moving house four times! And now she has no nanny! So is Doria in residence, helping out? This is laughable and smacks of desperation.
Did they live somewhere we didn't know about? Maybe I'm having a not-enough-coffee moment, but I see them as having moved three times since we were told Archie was born.
Frogmore
--- move one ---
Canada
--- move two ---
Perry House in LA
--- move three ---
Current house
Perhaps they meant they've "lived in four houses" rather than "moved four times"?
"Are we supposed to feel sorry for poor Megs? We don't."
I don't know why Scobie/H&M would think that article paints a sympathetic portrait of the couple but they must. Just more evidence of how out of touch they all are.
H&M chose to move to Canada (@Lurking with a Spoon perhaps there was an extra move in there? It's not clear they went straight to the Russian's island home so it could be 4 homes since leaving the UK.) If they were merely "taking a break" from "work" last fall no one forced them to do it in another country.
And now we're told boo-hoo, their nanny went back to the UK. We aren't supposed to feel sorry for the nanny who was being dragged to different countries far from her UK base/family during a global pandemic. No, we're supposed to feel sorry for H&M having to actually take care of the child they claim to have created, all while supposedly planning to create another one ASAP (Archie's loaded diaper makes more sense now though.)
But mostly I'm still shocked Scobie and the couple claim they have "created an empire." I've never been sure if some of M's claims came from being delusional or if she was practicing the Jodi Arias school of positive thinking. (Say it's so, act as though it's so, and it will happen.) But now I'm pretty sure there's some delusion thrown in. I'm also a little surprised empire is now a positive word for them.
Earlier someone said she thought Americans love the couple. Maybe some do but not most IMO. Most don't give a crap about them. Yeah, many Americans know who Harry is (as did M despite her claims) but only older people really remember Diana in a meaningful way. And remembering Harry from Las Vegas isn't endearing. Suits was not nearly as popular as M's fans claim & the cable channel it was (USA) on isn't either. Anyone who watched it to see M after she met Harry knows she stinks as an actress and was just playing the slut role.
People may fall for the racist claims (because we have racism in the US we expect everyone does), but lots of those folks have other things on their minds these days than H&M's problems with household staff & their lives in multiple mansions. I think many of the positive comments (not that I've seen so many of those) come from a small number of active rabid fans and paid bots.
I agree with @WBBM about the TTC. I don't think the traditional TTC will happen this year even if it's true TQ wants it to. Official reviews/parades etc for the occasion are supposed to start May 29 with the final event on June 12. The UK is locked down with England's extending to mid-Feb at least. Boris won't even promise children can return to school before the summer holidays. It's just not realistic to think 3 1/2 months from a Feb end to lockdown (assuming it ends then) all is back to normal. The BP garden parties have been canceled. No way there's a big parade with a crush of onlookers.
Yes, it is three moves since Archie was born but four moves since they were married (I don't know if we should count that house they rented in the country to make it five moves and six houses since marriage).
That is a lot of moving and in three years! In the first 18 months of his life, 4 homes on 2 continents and 3 countries for Archie. How many nannies, counting Doria, who probably gets to live in their guest house at a discounted price in return for nanny duties?
There is something odd about the Sussexes. I wonder if they are running from facing the truth that they are not a happy couple and they should never have got married?!
@Happy Camper
Thank you for that excellent summary of NPD. According to HG Tudor, Meghan is not conscious of what drives her and thus to her, her behaviour is normal and acceptable. Supposedly those with NPD (normal levels of narcissism run rampant) only seek help when their entire life unravels, and sometimes not even then.
Do you think Harry will ever see her and their marriage for what it is and find the courage to leave? Or is he trapped for life? What would it take?
As for Meghan discarding Harry - I doubt that she would ever be in a position to do so:
* She needs his personal and family wealth, and his royal background to open doors.
* She cannot be without a man and she needs one she can dominate and control and manipulate and abuse freely.
Replacing Harry would not be easy so I think they are locked in a toxic relationship. However, Megsie can be reckless and messy so I could just as easily see her dump Harry for an unsuitable man.
@WBBM
How were you able to see clearly and leave a toxic narcissist? What did you have that Harry does not?
Megalo is really delusional and she seems to be a loyal disciple of the Fake it till you make it motto.
Their PR is disastrous! Thank you @Acquitaine for your insightful comments regarding the Queen’s PR and overly positive press. One of my friends is the founder and owner of a successful British PR firm. He used to say that the BRF’s PR in the last 20 years has been so successful, it should be taught as a case study! I couldn’t agree more. This is why Megalo and H are fools for ditching the firm’s PR for SS!
Interesting opinion here - not using social media is about money. The Harkles are not going to give anything away for free!
PR
We live in a world dominated by image and popularity and little regard for values such as character, service, and so on. It should not surprise me that it s a popular opinion here that the BRF are a creation of PR.
The point of PR is to persuade the public to think of it's subject in a specific way regardless of reality or evidence.
It's not always about popularity. Often times it's about maintaining the status quo. There is no institution on earth no matter hoe august that doesn't use PR in one way or another.
Your comment about service and hardwork is deployed in Anne's PR. Her image is based on values of hardwork and service rather than beauty, lifestyle choices or fashion.
Similarly Harry's previous PR image was constructed from service values mixed with the cult of personality
If Harry hadn't torpedoed his image, we'd all still think he was a charitable scamp with a heart of gold.
Overall, royal PR tends to be service, positive values, national identity and a dose of majesty. It's about maintaining the status Quo.
Hollywood PR which is primarily based on image and fashion is more obvious and pervasive because it is about popularity above all else.
Meghan tried and keeps trying to sell Hollywood PR as royalty or vice versa and it fails because they are very different things serving very different agendas and outcomes.
Using the word “displaced” to describe these two idiots is not just indecent; it is downright obscene. What a disgraceful and entitled couple! As for the “empire” built in less than a year, I am still laughing😂
Megalo is really delusional and she seems to be a loyal disciple of the Fake it till you make it motto. Their PR is disastrous!
Never before in my life have I seen a PR strategy that simultaneously pushes two polar opposite narratives for the same person/product. The relentless drip-feed of articles about the Suxxits of Montecito asks us to believe, concurrently, and sometimes directly above/below each other in the same issue of the same publication that:
--They are THRIVING! in their new lives in California. They have NEVER BEEN HAPPIER or MORE SOLID AS A COUPLE. They are loving life and ARE NEVER LOOKING BACK!
--But Harry misses his family and his mates and life back in England terribly. He feels LOST IN AN UNFAMILIAR ENVIRONMENT and is FINDING IT HARD TO COPE with all these changes in his life.
--They are EMPIRE-BUILDERS! Every day is filled with meetings and chats with all the celebrities who love them and embrace their vegan coffee and can't wait to work with the couple, the true stars of the Royal Family.
--The last year has been SO STRESSFUL. Thanks to Harry's racist, unkind family who did not accept Meg, they have been DISPLACED and forced to move four times in a year, with a baby. No one has ever asked these NEW YOUNG PARENTS (of a 'child' who appeared to be four years old on the Christmas card) if they are OK! Harry's at a loose end and really doesn't know what to do with himself.
--They have inked deals that are GOING TO MAKE THEM $200 MILLION DOLLARS. They have MADE IT!!!
---Even though they are multimedia multimillionaire moguls now, they continue to wheedle Harry's Gran for invitations and most especially they require a 12-month extension on that allowance, Pa. Because they don't have enough money to live in the style to which Meg has accustomed herself.
---The brothers have totally patched up their rift and talk ALL THE TIME, and swap jokes back and forth. William and Kate are going to be flying to Montecito for a visit just as soon as they can travel.
--The rift with William is too deep to ever be healed. Harry and Meg have repeatedly reached out and been SO KIND . . and all they get back is hatefulness. The rift is entirely the Cambridges' fault.
************
What must her PR budget per month be like? It's obvious now that she and Harry believe they can be the most famous, richest couple in the world solely through PR. They don't actually DO anything (except sow discord) nor will they. I bet we never see another podcast or a single thing on Netflix. This upcoming summer's events are crucial to their plot to have a 'California Royals' documentary on the channel. They will turn up at the Diana unveiling with a camera crew, if they are allowed. William is going to have to be firm. By which I mean, incandescent with rage.
"Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Have *Offically* Made Plans to Reunite with the Queen in England" (Have they informed the Queen of this?)
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are reuniting with Queen Elizabeth II in June (note the bold assertion that this is definitely happening. But, you know what they say, "Meg proposes; the Queen disposes.)
The Sussexes are planning to return for the royals' Trooping the Colour parade.(After the bold statement of above, she pulls back to only 'planning to return' for a parade that almost certainly will NOT be happening due to Covid. So there's her out: We WERE planning to. We WERE invited; not our fault it got cancelled.)
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are officially heading back to England for the first time since their history-making move to the United States. Like, not this very second, but they've made their plans. (Note that MM precedes PH in all copy. Because she's the important one in this marriage, and if she puts 'Official' in print often enough, it must be true.)
The Duke and Duchess are reportedly planning to travel back across the pond to celebrate the Queen's 95th birthday with the rest of the royal family in June. The Sunday Times was the first to drop the news, confirming Meghan and Harry will attend the Trooping the Colour parade since it's both an official and a family occasion. (More hedging and a further downgrade. Now they are only 'reportedly planning' to travel. That source 'could' be wrong in their report and if they do not, in fact, travel to London to ride in a carriage, they didn't LIE; the 'source' got it wrong.)
This news comes amid reports that Prince Harry and Prince William have officially mended fences after their endless "royal feud," and have been in touch with each other despite their physical distance. (There's that VIP-sounding word 'officially' again. Never fear; the next article will have them only 'reportedly mending fences.)
I smelled a rat within 3 weeks of marriage, when he demanded to know what my elderly parents' bungalow was worth - it seemed odd, out the blue, I saw through him and felt sick. My parents later said they would've cut me off with nothing, rather than let him get his hands on their cash.
I saw his gaslighting, false promises and mind games for what they were, and that there was no way he was going to make any sort of contribution to our joint life. He saw me as his servant, his property even. He said we'd be OK if only I loved him as much as he loved me...
I hung on to my belief that there was nothing wrong with my perception of reality - I wasn't going crazy, for all that he told me I was mad. I'd been prescribed a sedative (low dose of Librium, aka diazepam) to help me cope and he told people I was `on drugs' and `deserved’ to be on them - even threatened to tell my employer so I'd be given the sack.
He also turned friends against me.
I relied heavily on counselling to help me see things clearly, to convince myself there was no hope of a happy marriage.
When the time came, I hadn't found a buyer for my former home, so I had somewhere to go, plus a reasonably well-paid job. His existing house had been sold and the proceeds, plus all my savings, had been used to buy a matrimonial home. Without neither house nor job, I would've had to go back my parents and admit I'd made a terrible mistake. Also there were no children involved.
After 11 months, I walked out. It took courage so I suppose I had the guts to do it, helped by bloody-mindedness, anger, an independent spirit, and a refusal to settle on his terms (ie giving him sole ownership of the joint house.)
I had a long legal battle. I heard that he intended to take me for every penny he could - if he couldn't have it, he'd make me waste my money on fruitless legal action. He blocked every move I made.
Finally, I decided that doing nothing was the best thing - keep my head down, hope for a change in circumstances that would precipitate a settlement before my mother, now a widow, died. Being made redundant was a heavily-disguised blessing, as it meant I could now claim for support from a legacy he'd received but had tried to conceal. (I’d followed up a remark from the Vicar, who'd seen him reading the menu in the window of the most expensive restaurant in town, suggesting he had money to celebrate!)
Even though he could have bought me out at this time, he refused, wanting me to give up my claim on 1/7th of the value of the joint house.
To avoid building up savings as my situation improved, in case he came after me for money, I enrolled for a Humanities degree with the Open University, on the grounds that he couldn't take education away from me, and of course it gave me something else to think about.
Being made redundant and having difficulty getting another job, was a heavily-disguised blessing, as it put the boot on the other foot. I offered to settle for him buying out my share of the house and lifting the threat of my chasing him for money. He saw the advantage of this and I got my freedom, and my money, almost 8 years after leaving him.
I realised his brain wasn't wired like that of most other people I knew but couldn't put a name to it, apart from `parasite' and thinking he was some sort of conscienceless psychopath. I now suspect he had all 3 features of the Dark Triad.
So, my escape was down to both material resources and holding my nerve (aka bloody mindedness.) I was very lucky. Many other women are not in that position.
Don't forget that the BRF are notorious for speaking to each other via the media. The most recent such example being Charles whining about being cut out of his own grandchildren's lives by the Middletons.
With that in mind, those articles take on a differeht significance. It might explain the inconsistence and the idea that Harry and Meghan are deploying competing, contradictory PR.
On the one hand they shows off to the family that they are doing well, thriving, making bank, happier than ever...boo sucks!! But no one at Castle Windsor is taking their calls. So they use PR to deliver the message. Bonus for Meghan - the world also gets to hear about her fabulous new life, everyone is envious, Queen included.
Then reality hits. They don't actually have the money and the little they have is tight. The contracts require tangible royal connections. Their own royal connections are not opening doors to the degree they need. What to do? Harry's family has always rescued him from his scrapes. But no one at Castle Windsor is taking their calls.
So they deploy poor, pitiful, miserable Harry who misses friends, family, UK, militaty family etc. He is lost, won't the family help a fellow out PR.
Before Megxit, the family would have come running for Harry.After Megxit, they won't run for Meghan, but they still might for Harry which is their gamble..
And when the pity Harry PR doesn't work, they go to defiant oppositional 'we don't need you' PR
Rinse and repeat.
It's very noticable that when the family responds to correct the record publicly, they go radio silent.
Then we (or the family) get a hit of 'we are happier than ever' PR.
Only a handful of media conglomerates own all the publications, TV stations and movie studios. Cosmo, Marie Claire, Harper's Bazaar, Town & Country, Esquire, Elle and Oprah's Magazine are all owned by Hearst. The first four in particular can be counted upon to print fawning Sussex articles and recycle them multiple times daily. I suppose that one (hefty) PR check to Hearst, Corp., monthly or quarterly is how she gets her name into all these publications dozens of times per week.
This list is from 2015 so is somewhat outdated, but I don't think their holdings have changed much. Hearst of course started with newspapers, and it still owns dozens of national dailies, but their media portfolio has diversified internationally. Wonder how much Meg pays them? Disney's $3 million may have covered one quarter.
Because why are they no longer talking about how Archie calls Charles Grandpa and how they do zoom calls with the Queen? Why are they now focused on reconcilation PR with the Cambridges?
Material support - no problem for H on that one - I had just enough.
The differences are probably:
A clear head and a logical mind, not befuddled by narcotics or booze.
Insight, verging on `Second Sight'.
A long-held determination to find out just what the H*** is going on.
Qualification in zoology that enabled me to see the narc as a tapeworm in human firm.
A finely-tuned, highly-sensitive, in-built cr*p detector.
Self-respect.
A strong survival instinct.
A refusal to be beaten by an unjust situation.
A readiness to tolerate being hard-up.
Last, but not least, I had a faithful, loving, friend in canine form, with whom I shared long, life-enhancing, walks over the Downs.
I wanted a happy, loving, marriage, with no subtext or hidden motives.
Oh, absolutely I agree . . . The SHAMS are using it as a bargaining chip with the BRF and also trying to make themselves seem more desirable than they are for future deals. But the 'poor pitiful us' narrative is to exploit the sentiments of Harry's grandmother and father, principally. Charles is the weakest link here, in terms of being the one person in the family who is still vulnerable to this sort of manipulation. He loves his kid and wants to see Harry redeemed/rescued to validate his own faulty parenting. Plus Chas wants to be liked/loved, as most of us do. Having his sons at war must hurt on a deep level, regardless of whatever criticism of him as a father he deserves.
Harry and Meg are reckoning (erroneously) that his Granny is made of soft grand-maternal stuff or that Philip could sway her out of regard for 'his favorite grandson'. Harry really and truly is incredibly thick if it hasn't dawned on him just how thoroughly his grandfather is Done with him after the Royal Marines debacle. Meg has always promoted stories as 'definitely happening' that she only 'wishes' were true. Cf. Balmoral birthday party; baby shower thrown by Kate; Christmas bash with the Fosters . . .Hmm, that never went off, did it? . . .Now the upcoming invitations to London for summer events which are DEFINITELY HAPPENING. Because *they* have decided. Reportedly.
All this time, and Meg still doesn't get that browbeating Harry's gran with a list of fantastical demands doesn't get results. It's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I happen to think that both the SHAMS meet the clinical definition of insanity. If Haz wasn't from the family he's from, he'd be on Skid Row drinking out of a paper bag, and Meg would likely be on the street corner hustling her skanky wares, if she hadn't been born to an indulgent father, the first in a long line of connected men she's been able to exploit.
The BRF can cut off any financial support, and they should, but I have a feeling that Meg will always scrape together money to continue her PR blitz. As long as media outlets are willing to take her tainted money to push her self-promotional lies, she's never going to stop.
I think a version of that is happening in the reverse with Harry and Meghan and their aggressive PR.
I think the bigwigs are pressuring them to produce tangible/ visible Cambridge, Queen connections. Bonus if they attend important royal events together, perhaps video footage of happy families.
They are putting these desires to the family via this PR.
Charles isn't included in these PR efforts because no one cares about Charles. William and Kate are the big draws.
the Sussexes have been pushing the reconcilation with the Cambridges PR so aggressively of late. What do you think is their aim? . . . Why are they now focused on reconcilation PR with the Cambridges?
Off the top of my head . . . Because they are determined to attend the Diana statue unveiling on July 1st, with a camera crew for Netflix. They can't afford to have 'My Mother's Son' excluded from that. Sure, they want to be invited to TTC, too, but chances are very good there will be no parade and no balcony due to Covid. The Diana unveiling will be on the grounds of KP and therefore 'private', though you can bet there will be media coverage. They are sucking up to William because he is the one controlling this event. It's not an official Royal duty. It would be interesting to see if Charles will be invited or attend. For obvious reasons, the Queen nor any of the other Royals won't. Diana was persona non grata at the Palace post-divorce and there's no love lost there with the Queen. However, as a personal gesture that is very important to Diana's children, and seeing as the funds to raise this statue were their project, it will be going ahead.
William is in a tough spot, because while I am pretty certain he personally has no desire to see Harry or interact with him in any form, and that goes double for Smeg . . if he excludes his little brother from attendance, the Sussexes will of course play that up like he is a heartless monster, and that will feed straight into their victim narrative. If I were him, I would tell Harry that he may come, but this event will be for the children and siblings of Diana only--no spouses or children, for anyone. Catherine will not attend . . only himself, Harry and Lady Jane Fellowes, Lady Sarah McCoroquodale & Earl Spencer, if they desire to attend. That's it. One press photographer chosen by William will be permitted to document the event and no others will be allowed. Under these conditions, and presuming that Covid permits travel from the U.S., Harry may attend. Otherwise, he is free to send his regrets.
A secondary reason is probably because it is dawning on Hapless and Madam that without William on-side, they will definitely be completely out come the 12-month review. They need to convince the Queen and Charles that they can play nice and have patched things up with the Cambridges . . and therefore, deserve to be on the balcony and all future festive activities for optimum photo ops.
I do not believe the Queen is buying this line of bulls---, and William certainly isn't. Doesn't keep her from relentlessly trying to sell it.
Given that California is now Ground Zero of America's pandemic, it's not just the Queen the Sussexes need to convince. They need to convince BoJo to let them back into the country. Let's hope that he continues to block any and all flights from the United States until well after July 1st.
I now have every confidence that he will produce something magnificent, along traditional lines, whenever it is installed. Rank-Broadley trained at the Slade, which accounts for his fine work which will have the Contemporary crowd muttering into their beards, or copies of Marx as the case may be.
It'll probably `cast shade' on the Markle where looks are concerned.
This way H&M can push the story that they are expecting a visit, and when it doesn't happen, they can look like victims. See? They won't come see us, how dare they. I'm not surprised at her, but it's so awful that Harry is treating DoC this way. Didn't he love her once as a sister?
I agree - the unveiling, if it happens, will be as low-key as the events of this year - no spouses or offspring. All participants to be tested & pronounced free of virus.
Would the Markle stop H from coming if she's excluded?
100 to 1 she'll try. Would he defy her?
Hikari - I agree about William being the key to the Diana event. I was going to phrase it differently but your phrasing is more descriptive and probably more accurate.
Agree also that if it is an immediate family only event that there is no ledge to stand on about how only JH&M are being picked upon. No doubt that there would less tension at the event as well.
I'm guessing that the amount in the bank is really beginning to be noticeable low. If so, the pressure is full throttle to get the money flowing again. In addition to the idea of fake it until you make it outlook, there are stories of people who cashed in the retirement accounts, inheritances, down to their last $20 and then (the magic) they won the lottery. How many of them are really verifiable IDK but I do believe they encourage people to keep overspend, keep going and it will happen to you too (add in the Hollywood cute plots to what she grew up with hearing/seeing as normal). I've often heard someone tell me: "It's crunch time."
I was looking at the list of magazines and thought: there, there's that pretty much target age group she's kind of still living that life. Not completely but enough.
All this PR sounds like Megs and the Queen baking her a cake, Kate throwing a baby shower etc. To be taken with a bucket of salt.
@WBBM
Thank you for sharing your story re. your narc ex. You did mention the situation a few times but to read the history of it showed the scale of the problem. Well done to you for extricating yourself from his clutches.
On another note, I'm not quite sure what to make of this headline in the DM:
'Prince Harry's neighbor Rob Lowe claims Duke now 'has a PONYTAIL' after spotting 'reclusive' royal driving around with 'long hair pulled back': 'It's like seeing the Loch Ness Monster''
Apparently, Rob Lowe lives very near and followed H home to see if if it was really him. He saw H very briefly so who knows. Maybe Megs gave him a makeover :)
Doing nothing, refusing to do or say anything that can be turned against you can be very powerful, I found. Don't give the enemy any ammunition.
Could that be HM's approach too?
I agree - the unveiling, if it happens, will be as low-key as the events of this year - no spouses or offspring. All participants to be tested & pronounced free of virus.
Would the Markle stop H from coming if she's excluded?
100 to 1 she'll try. Would he defy her?
Hard to know what the original plans were for this unveiling, before Markle and the coronavirus intruded to ruin everyone's piece of mind. I gather this statue was commissioned only in 2017, ie, right before the Meg-Virus infected Harry and the BRF. Between Meg-Virus and Corona, I'd sooner take my chances with the 'Rona. 'Rona is going to eventually recede to a manageable level and may even be eradicated with science. The same can not be said for Meg-Virus.
Imagine an alternative world with me where there is no coronavirus and Harry had actually chosen a kind, humanitarian and pro-British woman for his wife, who was an asset to her her marriage family and was still ensconced within it. Even under these rosy conditions, I'd have said that the appropriate audience for this event was Diana's two boys and the people who grew up with her. This should be a private event, allowing Diana's sons to honor her memory on the grounds of what had been her home and is/was theirs as well. There is no need for a lot of hangers-on. Had Diana died young of natural causes while still married to Charles, I'm sure the Royal family would have done much more to honor her memory publicly. I think it's most likely that Charles and other members of the family will not attend and leave it to William to decide who else to invite.
With the release of the "I am my Mother's Son" schtick, it seems that, as someone else here observed, the Meg is realizing that if people will not accept *her* as Diana 2.0, she can market Harry as 'the New Diana'. She would spit nails to be excluded, but it would really be shooting their new brand in the foot if she prevented H from attending and representing them both. Even if they can't get their own photographers in, the images of Harry next to the statue honoring his mother are crucial to their PR.
But Meg often sabotages herself out of spite towards others for not giving her what she wants. It started with Tiaragate and has culminated in them pretending to live in a mansion on an earthquake fault. She is vindictive and rage-filled enough to prevent H going . . I don't think he's got enough personal store of will or autonomy left to defy her. She'll just make sure he's too drunk/high to make his flight, and he'll miss it. That is assuming air travel to the U.K. will resume without hitches. 6 months off . .who can say? Whether H is grounded and has to miss it either because of corona or his crazy wife, it will ultimately be his fault he is not there due to the choices he's made.
************
Re. Ponytail Harry
Maybe it was a disguise? Or one of the Harry doubles? Just H. got his hair cropped really short just this past autumn, and papp sightings since show no ponytail. I doubt his hair grew out that much since we saw them strolling in Beverly Hills just two weeks before Christmas.
Or perhaps Long Hair Harry is the real Prince and the one we've seen accompanying Smeggie all over town is the double? LHH lives in the basement in a perpetual stupor, except when he has to go out to meet his dealer.
I assume that 'social media' does not include website(s) for their various business ventures/'charitable foundations'. So, since they have not 'officially' been on SM since Sussex Royal was deactivated, and are not supposed to be on SM under the terms of Megxit . . they have outed themselves as having had secret accounts all this time.
Of course they have. How else could they keep tabs on all the negative comments about them and show their gratitude to the sugars?
So much for not paying any attention to the 'noise'. *They* are the noise.
I read this and have to ask myself, "What is in this for Rob Lowe?" His use of "English treasure" is so snarky, so perfect . . . Is Rob as fed up to the teeth as the rest of us with the antics of the Dumbartons and wanting to puncture their relentless image management on behalf of the Montecito neighbors/community?
Or, if we dig a bit deeper, will we find, say, a Sunshine Sachs connection? Because what sounds like taking the piss out of Harry is actually a useful story. It establishes:
1. Harry actually lives in Mudslide Manor, as attested to by his celebrity neighbor.
2. It establishes their cred as having celebrity neighbors and therefore desirable by association, though in all honesty, Rob Lowe has not been a hot commodity for 20 years, ever since he left 'The West Wing' in a fit of ego over Martin Sheen's stealing his thunder. His motives in piping up now are therefore suspect. Cui bono? How is Meg scratching his back?
3. Harry is free and autonomous--look! He's driving himself around, lovin' that Cali multimillionaire lifestyle. Rob doesn't mention any security detail riding shotgun or if it's the Escalade, but by gum, Hazza's mastered driving on the right side of the road! He's THRIVING in his adopted country!
On the flip side . .we know Smeg is awful with details, so if she hired a look-a-like to pretend to drive into Mudslide Manor on the *off-chance* (right) that he would just happen to be spotted by one of the 'celebrity neighbors' after all these many months in Montecito being seen by nobody . . Harry hasn't been seen out alone since that mythical trip to the beach on a bike when he lived at Tyler Perry's (that most likely never happened, given the complete dearth of evidence). How is it then that he was spotted by Rob Lowe--**just before** Rob was booked to appear on the James Corden show?
I'm smelling collusion here, guys. To what end--I mean, what's in it for Rob, I don't know. But it establishes the Dumbartons in Montecito where they say they are AND gets them airtime on the Late, Late Show, watched by largely their Millennial demographic--Corden is, like Harry, a transplanted Brit who is THRIVING in America. His straight man response to the tall tale--'I'm thinking that you didn't see Prince Harry'--likely scripted, in order to give Rob Lowe the opportunity to double down on the 'truth' which he saw.
What says everyone?
The whole sighting is bogus, folks. Because not only did Rob Lowe spot Harry the same day he appeared on James Corden's program--he spotted Harry at a stop-light '10 minutes ago'.
Rob would have had to tail 'Harry' back to his home, and THEN hop on the freeway and make it to the TV studio in Burbank AND be ready to go on for his segment in 10 minutes. Montecito is what, 45-60 minutes away from downtown L.A.? The only possible way this could have played like this is if Rob Lowe can teleport, and even then, he'd have been pushing it.
So the pi$$ was firmly taken, but I'm still wondering . .why?
No, he sure doesn't. When you see the back of his head, it's almost entirely bald. He's only got hair in the front. This is why I think he clings onto the beard.
Harry used to be kind of cute, pre-2015, when the beard became a permanent feature of his face. It was around then that he started to go bald as well. I remember thinking prior to that that while Harry was not conventionally attractive like his brother, at least he seemed to have escaped the male pattern baldness. Then, not so much. The hair started to leave with a vengeance, just like it did for William, just at a slightly later age.
They say the gene for male baldness is passed through the female line, and one needs to look at the maternal grandfather to see how the children will fare. King George VI died with a full head of hair, too young, but still, 20 years older than his grandsons and great grandsons started to go bald. Earl Spencer was mostly bald at Diana's wedding. But William's pattern of baldness looks exactly like Uncle Edward's, and Harry is following suit, though his hair is kinkier so it looks a bit different. William and Edward seem to be taking after the Mountbatten side, if anything. Charles was derided for having a bald patch at his own wedding, at 32, but today he's still got more hair than either of his sons or his youngest brother.
Harry's remaining follicles are too fragile to withstand the stress of any pulling, even presuming he could grow a pony. The whole story's a joke.
p.s. that’s what he gets for humiliating William in public with remarks over losing his hair when he started going bald.
Thanks for the name of Ian Rank-Broadley. I didn't know who had been provided the commission to make the Diana sculpture.
After looking at images of his work, I have much more faith the final piece will do her justice and make William proud. I don't care if it makes Harry proud or not. He's dead to me.
1) paid PR from Meghan’s team; have an A-list celeb talk about Meghan and Harry as if they are more famous and elusive.
2) it really did happen and gave Rob Lowe a newsworthy plug and publicity- I lean towards this because of the term ‘loch ness monster’ being used. That’s not friendly. Rob Lowe was ‘zooming’ James Corden from his Montecito home, so the 10 minutes ago makes sense.
3) The ponytail; sounds like Harry wears a part-disguise while out. Does he not have tinted windows in his car?
4) it wasn’t Harry and Harry doesn’t live there but a burly ponytailed red-head.
It either happened, or was paid PR from Meghan’s team. Rob Lowe has a pretty big A list reputation to wreck, if it’s untrue. I don’t know how this helps him in anyway (except riding publicity on the Meghan and Harry debacle).
James Corden becoming defensive tells me it is legitimate.
They are all actors though so who knows.
The fact 150 is the same number Meghan spouted about herself makes me think Netflix is doing this to devalue the Meghan and Harry deal.