I came here to write about yesterday's announcement from the Sussexes that they are expecting a second child.
Having done a bit of background reading about what's been said, however, I cannot do much better than today's piece in the Spectator UK by Joanna Williams, The stage-managed world of Harry and Meghan.
Williams notes that the announcement has very interesting timing, just a few days after Meghan's surprise victory in her case against the Daily Mail.
"I’m confused. Am I allowed to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Sussex or not? Should I feel guilty about poring over the details of their latest announcement? Am I somehow breaching their privacy when I read that their pregnancy photo was taken remotely, via an iPad, by a friend? Because Harry and Meghan are all about privacy, no?....Congratulations Harry and Meghan. I really hope someone asks the Duchess of Sussex if she is OK this time around. But please, spare us the birth story details. And if you must share every intimate moment, just don’t complain when the public expects to know more."
Toronto Paper Returns
And there was also a comment from longtime Twitter troll Toronto Paper1, who may or may not have inside information about the Sussexes:
Darling, another moon bump show? Still haven't learned about the sizes? At least this time you probably will get the baby legally although he won't have a title, but neither will you for much longer.
Taking a photo by remote iPad
Finally, what's with the bizarre fiction that the black-and-white (of course) pregnancy photo was taken remotely via an iPad by a friend thousands of miles away, supposedly during a relaxed video chat.
Photographer Missan Harriman supposedly
noted that Meghan and Harry were 'so comfortable chatting and being in the moment that they were not fully aware that he was shooting a piece of history', in the words of British Vogue (as quoted in the Daily Mail)
Could anyone possibly be so gullible enough to believe this is true? First of all, they're quite well dressed for a video chat with a friend - if, in fact, Harriman is actually a friend. Nice of them to match the tone of Meghan's dress with Harry's shirt for a totally casual video chat.
Secondly, the picture is very well-composed, with the lovely "tree of life" in the background. When you're doing a video chat with a friend, do you generally make room in the frame for a giant tree of life? As the Daily Mail helpfully points out, the tree takes up 2/3 of the picture.
And the picture is composed very nicely, with its fork right in the center of the shot...almost like a professional photographer would frame it, intentionally.
The Sussexes' favorite photo tropes
Finally, the image repeats several of the Sussexes' favorite tropes, for example the laughing! laughing! laughing! while we are looking at each other because we are so! incredibly! happy!
There's the bare feet sticking straight towards the camera - last seen in the first, strange, Archie photo. There's the inevitable Meg bump-fondling.
And there's Harry slightly above Meg, as seen again and again and again on their @SussexRoyal Instagram. Is Meg trying to make the point that she does not, in fact, dominate her husband, as so many people believe?
What I think really happened
My guess: Harriman was sent by British Vogue to California to do a photo session.
But that wasn't something the Sussexes wanted to publicize given the ongoing COVID lockdowns - particularly since California governor Gavin Newsom now faces a recall based on his own flaunting of the COVID rules. So this ridiculous fiction of a remote-controlled iPad was invented.
More plausible would have been a story that the Sussexes did it themselves with a self-timed camera at home, but I suppose Harriman wanted the credit (and the income) from the shot.
How silly they are.
Comments
"Various Kents ruled themselves out of the line of succession due to coverting or marrying catholics, but the law specifically barring catholics was repealed as part of the Succession act 2013 which removed male primogeniture.
As a result, all the Catholic / Catholic wedded Kents were restored to their rightful place in the line of succession."
I thought those who converted were still out but those who were out for marrying a Catholic were back in. Didn't at least one of the previously in-line Kents convert himself?
She used to call herself the new version of Barbara Walters (her alledged idol) but was never even close. She is said to be very controlling. You don't cross her or else. Her way or the high way.
*
My intense dislike for Oprah was cemented when she hijacked the opening scene of the Mary Tyler Moore show, one of my faves of all time, by filming HERSELF with the tossing of the derby in the air downtown Minneapolis. Also alleged MTM was her idol as well lol...
She just had to inject her fat ass there as well. I've detested her since.
Great name, BTW!
Oprah once famously (or infamously) cried racism once when she was in Paris. She wanted to visit one of the big fashion houses (Chanel?) right at their closing time. The doors to the store were already locked, and the store was closed for the night. Oprah demanded to be let in, and they didn't do it, just like they wouldn't open a store for you and me after closing.
Oprah made a big deal about it, and said they were being racist towards her. No, Oprah, that wasn't racism. That was merely bad manners on your part, and you were called on it. You don't own the world, although you may think that you do.
Yes, I'd say that she is a narc.
***********************************
When OWN was clearly starting to fail in 2017, Oprah switched the format to true crime. The OWN network is so far down the line that nobody could find it on a TV schedule, so the true crime format didn't work. Oprah was really scrambling then to get viewers, and was failing to do so. I don't watch TV (I cut the cord), so I don't know what's happening with OWN now.
Could I just ask any US readers who have a conventional TV: do you watch talk shows? is Oprah still a "thing"? Or is she a relic, much as our grandparents might have watched Jack Benny? (I am not young myself, by the way.)
I'm asking, does she have an audience, does anyone care? I never watched her show, but she did have a pretty magazine, but that seems like a long time ago. From what I've read here, her interviews seem to be substance-less and syncopantic, and this one in particular seems like a "reward" for the wedding invitation.
In short, why her, who cares?
Um, I have a television, but I use it for YouTube, Rumble, and other self-produced content. I like doers, not talkers. I watch DIYers in different areas and it really isn't very difficult to pick up on who really knows their stuff and who is full of BS. And BS leads us right back to the Disastrous Duo and Big Momma Oprah.
Back in the day when Oprah was daytime TV Queen, there really wasn't any outlet for bored housewives, retirees, and shut-ins. Oprah made them feel somehow connected as though they were part of a large 'family' of viewers. That is, of course, just my opinion gathered from others because I *never* watched her. During prime Oprah, I was running a business, getting another degree, being a 4-H leader, and being a band parent working booths for fundraisers. I was not home for daytime TV. I've never watched a soap opera. Never watched Dallas. Never saw Falcon Crest (evening soaps, I believe).
*shrug* When I slowed down (OK, rammed the career completely into a wall while running at 100 mph) due to family members with life-threatening conditions and instead stepped into the role of caregiver, I read the blogs of others that had similarly hit the wall and had to make a choice between family and career. Since I was the one that no longer had an income, we could no longer call High-Priced Fixit Person and had to do pretty much everything ourselves. Early YouTube with its instructional videos was a godsend. I watched TV (or computer screen) frequently back then (as I do now) for the educational content, not for entertainment.
I think COVID has slammed everybody's lives and career aspirations full throttle into a wall and the government entities have not been helpful unless 'helpful' is defined as bankrupting the middle class. Will the masses even WANT to listen to a sob story about how THOT was showered with riches for a job that consisted of showing up once a week in designer clothing yet said she had to leave because the RF was mean to her and they wouldn't let her sell her title for lots of money and that was racism? I don't think so.
People have Facebook and MeWe and Parler and Gab and Twitter as media outlets now that are all about THEM. I don't think they want to listen to her sob story when they have much more compelling stories of their own about losing their houses, businesses, cars, and their children unable to go to school and becoming despondent. Everybody can star in their own drama series now in other words.
On the Sussexes, there are sentiments that their actions have damaged the RF to an extent because it exposed many issues wrong with the palace and made them look weak. I'm not a fan of the BRF but I don't believe the Sussexes have damaged the BRF brand. Do you think their shenanigans have affected the BRF and do you foresee a situation where the interview will damage the influence of the BRF in the US particularly?
Duke of Kent stayed in, despite his wife's conversion. I haven't got my head around how their children stand in this matter yet - shall have to write it down!
Prince Michael was out, for marry a Catholic, but was reinstated. None of their children became Catholics.
Meghan used various sized bumps during her pregnancy, as we have seen through many dated and timed photo images. She had a bump at the wedding of Eugenie, and later disembarked in Australia with a flat stomach. Etcetera.
(Also, I am not sure that genuine pregnancy bumps, when the mother lying down flat on her back against most physicians’ maternal recommendations, look so much like Devil’s Tower, Wyoming covered with a sheet.)
I do think Harry’s hair was shopped in. I don’t know if the wet cool weather in CA the past few weeks would have been ideal for a lawn pose.
Unless Meghan is taking centre stage, she has very poor social skills. There are numerous videos and photos showing this, the most iconic is her standing between Harry and his aunty Anne, laughing and all getting on fabulously ... the full photo shows Harry and Anne talking to each other, ignoring Meghan, and Meghan pretending to be a part of the conversation.
Wasn't there a story about how she reacted in St George's on being shown to her seat?
Apparently, she did the `Don't you know who I am?' because she considered herself above seating plans and wanted to choose her own place.
Ilooked up the Harkles australian tour pictures..
Harry's fuller head of hair in the australian tour pictures does suggests that they used the same pictures.due to Harry's full head if hair then (unlike the bald friar tuck look in the recent bus picture.)
MM's outfits & shape then ? What do you or other Nutties think?
https://www.whowhatwear.co.uk/meghan-markle-australia-royal-tour-outfits/slide8
Prince Michael of Kent: He lost his place in the line of succession when he married a Catholic, but was reinstated when the law changed. Both his children are CoE and are in the line of succession.
What? The Great and Mighty Oprah didn't ask the Queen to scoot over so she could sit in her chair?
The poor gallery owner was shocked when Oprah didn't go to her gallery, but went to one across the street instead. It turns out that the artwork was on the second level of the art gallery, and Oprah "doesn't do stairs."
Photoshopping means that Harry's bald patch was digitally filled in with hair on the photograph. Hands up anyone who still does not understand! He DOES have a huge bald patch in the photo but it has been filled in digitally. The 'footprints' of digital manipulation can be seen.
I remember reading that Oprah’s clever move was to have her daytime show repeated in the evenings on local channels she pressured, so working women could watch it after hours, and at-home moms could watch when they’re children were finally in bed.
I have worked with two former Oprah/Harpo Studio employees, who worked in very different roles but both with proximity, but during different years. Both said the atmosphere was stressed, toxic, a few happy sick-ups and others enduring a nightmare for their resumes or a paycheck. She was described as narcissistic, cruel and uncaring to me. I can’t vouch for the validity, but that two people who didn’t know each other and who worked for her in the same place, same show, six or seven years apart, told strikingly similar stories, made me wince.
I thought she was a great success story and though I never saw the show, and looked at her magazine sometimes....well, what those two people (calm, efficient, quiet hard workers with lovely personalities) told me changed my mind. The things I’ve read since, and her connections, don’t surprise me.
Maybe that is why MM and O clicked. Common ground. Harry takes on the Stedman Graham role and lives in the pool house with the dogs. Messica or Doria become the next Gayle.... too bad the 90s are over and people have more on their minds.
The Duke of Kent: He is still in the line if succession, as are two of his three children. His wife converted to Catholicism after the law changed. His youngest child also converted to Catholicism and is not in the line of succession
*
Anyone: according to Wiki, the Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England. Any thoughts on the BRF and Masonry (which is not covered by Wiki?)
No reason to mention this other than I'm curious about Masonry and the BRF and I'm trying to not think about Oprah anymore because my blood still boils over that MTM thing...:D
"I thought those who converted were still out but those who were out for marrying a Catholic were back in. Didn't at least one of the previously in-line Kents convert himself?"
All of them were restored.
When Succession 2013 act came into being, they were all restored, married to catholics and converts alike.
@Sylvia
Photoshopping means that Harry's bald patch was digitally filled in with hair on the photograph. Hands up anyone who still does not understand! He DOES have a huge bald patch in the photo but it has been filled in digitally. The 'footprints' of digital manipulation can be seen.
*
It's looks very obviously photoshopped/airbrushed to me. It has that cheesy Christmas card effect.
Too formal for her lifestyle now?
Just a recap.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6827119/amp/Meghans-maternity-wardrobe-cost-500k-seven-times-Kate-spent-pregnancy.html
Wow, that poor gallery owner. What obnoxious behavior from O and her team.
I wonder when it will all come out, Ellen-style.
I do wonder what they are going to do about Harry being on the list of those who are Counsellor of State, and remaining on the list until the Cambridge children come of age. The law clearly states that a Counsellor of State must be a resident of the UK. I suspect that the debacle about Eugenie and Jack moving into Frogmore Cottage was because if Harry has a residence in the UK he can claim to be a resident, but him and Meghan did not want to pay rent. At present, the virus, her pregnancy are reasons for him not returning to the UK, but other Americans have visited the UK in the time of the virus and Meghan jetted off to New York for a tennis match when supposedly heavily pregnant. Harry has never been called on to perform the duties of Counsellor of State (Charles and William have) but it makes no sense that he should reman on the list.
You can remain in the line of succession if you marry a Catholic but not if you yourself convert.
@lizzie said…
"I thought those who converted were still out but those who were out for marrying a Catholic were back in. Didn't at least one of the previously in-line Kents convert himself?"
My response:
"All of them were restored.
When Succession 2013 act came into being, they were all restored, married to catholics and converts alike."
After reading @Sandie's comment regarding Nicholas, Duke of Kent's youngest, i went and looked up Succession 2013 law again.
You are both right.
The Catholic repeal only stops at those who married Catholics NOT the converts.
I hadn't commented on the possibility the photo was from Australia. Maybe you meant to address your comment to someone else?
My 2¢ -- Generally M wasn't that big in Australia but she did change sizes during the tour. She didn't look that much smaller in some poses in the blue caped evening gown in Fiji.
Harry's hair definitely looks different from some recent Friar Tuck looks. But even on the kareoke bus, he had fuzz on top. So a bit of photoshopping would be easy.
M's nose looks different to me. Straighter. Less of a ski jump at the end. That wasn't her nose in Australia but that could be photoshopped too.
For sure I don't believe the photo was taken long distance from the UK.
-------
@Acquitaine & @Sandie,
Thanks for the clarification.
"On the Sussexes, there are sentiments that their actions have damaged the RF to an extent because it exposed many issues wrong with the palace and made them look weak. I'm not a fan of the BRF but I don't believe the Sussexes have damaged the BRF brand. Do you think their shenanigans have affected the BRF and do you foresee a situation where the interview will damage the influence of the BRF in the US particularly?"
There has yet to be a BRF media interview that has gone well for the royal in question when there is scandal involved.
The Oprah tv will probably get high ratings, mostly from curiosity and hate watchers, but it won't move the needle in a negative direction for the Palace even if Meghan reveals that she was tied up in the dungeon. It worked against Diana who was very popular at that point in her life and had genuine, reasonable examples of her mistreatment.
The interview will be met with indifference or negatively for the Sussexes which is bad for their brand.
It's a win/win for the Palace and indifference/ lose for the Sussexes.
They claim since she is so famous, that she can sell anything!
Oh reaaaalllly?
Lol.
This interview is three-fold (and I dread some of these)- Paving the way for Meghan's possible political career, re-viving and re-vamping their abyssmal ratings on their speeches, specials, etc and the final one is just speculation. I think their titles will be removed (the power of positive thinking!) Meghan will need to re-invent her image. She'll be shown in this sympathetic image, expecting, misunderstood but renewed and rejuvenated.
Basically, it will be irritating! It won't work on the Brits but Americans are so sympathetic and forgiving. Well, sometimes.
And she had seemed to enter a new phase with the sloppy paint-by-numbers Christmas card. I guess she didn't want to blur out her own features again just to conceal another child actor's face.
I know Meghan has never cared about belly accuracy, but did anyone else take one look at that belly and predict a July birth? Just in time for the Diana connection?
Really orry about my confusion up thinking Iwas addressing your about your comment
I was mistaken. I had read on another blog about Harry's hair picture .The poster believed Harry taken on their Australian tour .
Wasn't thinking straight .
@Sandie
My mistake.I should have guessed Harrys hair picture was photoshopoed
I have now read your earlier posts confirming this .I usually read all comments before posting .
I didnt today.
Thanks for claryfying .
Off topic.
Your explanation of the S.A virus varient was so enlightening & helpful.
He was like, ‘who’s that guy?!’ Why promote the photog at all, if the story is true. 1+1 =/= 2 here.
It would have been better to say they were just FaceTiming their friend, on an iPad, in their garden and they took a candid screenshot, how cute did it turn out!
Instead the elaborate story. No. They had a professional photographer there. Signed an NDA. Gave it to their buddy in the U.K. to edit and give back. He gets full credit. And they needed a weird explanation for his plug.
People are increasingly moving away from TV in favour of streaming content. The new stars are YouTube stars. In fact, I heard "go watch TV!" is an insult that a young person would say to an older person, - watching TV implys the person is old. (Lol)
This pre-recorded interview will be highly vetted and edited by Megs and her advisors. Interview will be as composed as the bare foot Harry/Bump photo just released.
Invisible Arch and baby#2 will be raved about.
Megs will be sure to clasp her hands together as she goes on how amazing and wonderful The Queen is.
Megs to Oprah---- "We gotta keep them (sugars and suckers) hungry. I can do a larger spill after Harry returns from his June visit. He is in a delicate situation with his meanie, authoritarian father." TRANSLATION--- Hapless to hit up bank of Dad for more Duchy money for their perilous Covid19 transition year.
I don't think Megsy had a moonbump at Eugenie's wedding. It would have be silly on her part,she was flat as a pancake 1 or 2 weeks before, although we've seen the changes in bump size. She was wearing a coat, an 'ordinary' one, not a maternity one (you can see the darts at the sides, above and below the pockets, in the photos). What she did was do up the 2 top button and leave the others undone, thereby giving the impression that she couldn't do up the others, the implication being that there was a 'bump'.
Some questions for our American friends: If a one-on-one interview with Oprah is no longer the status symbol it used to be, has something else filled that void? Is there another interviewer (or another show) that thirsty celebrities are aiming for? Or have things changed so much since Oprah's heyday that this line of questioning is simply irrelevant?
*
I personally believe every thing anyone wants to know is out there on SM so there is a lack of the mystique past generations were enthralled with.
No one really looks to sit down interviews for info anymore it seems. All the info one might need is at one's fingertips.
So yeah I do believe the once lauded sit down interview is passé. The competition to get these big interviews seems to have lost it's glamour; Oprah is on the tail end of her career as so many have pointed out and hopefully will be discussed and called out as Ellen D has been (as it was mentioned upthread).
I also believe this old school model of the televised interview was one of the reasons Prince Andrew's interview fell flat. It was an obvious outdated tool used(by Andrew) to pander to anyone who might think he is innocent and to "clear the air" and promote his "innocence". No one does that anymore. They do it on Twitter. Twitter as we know, can be used to start wars, but I digress...
The Oprah/Megs interview is outdated and dusty, although SM will be used to promote it and it will get a lot of viewers.
With that said, I would however LOVE to see Lady Colin Campbell and/or Piers Morgan interview Thomas Markle. That would be worth a watch!
I had to smile at "Go watch TV!" being a retort to an older person. A more sophisticated "OK Boomer"?
My mother loved Oprah in her heyday and she is the only one in the family who still watches TV.
The impression I get from YouTubers and other people starting their own platforms is that the real prize these days is not to be on someone's hit show, but to create your own. But with Meghan half-arsing Archewell Audio and refusing to capitalize on what's left of her brand elsewhere, it makes sense that she'd want Oprah's fading star power to do most of the work for her.
@Enbrethiliel
People are increasingly moving away from TV in favour of streaming content. The new stars are YouTube stars. In fact, I heard "go watch TV!" is an insult that a young person would say to an older person, - ***watching TV implys the person is old. (Lol)
*
Lol so true. I have learned the hard way to not use the old horn hand signal for "I'm on the phone!" but a flat palm signal held to my ear, indicating I'm on my cell phone. Some habits are very hard to break. My millennial kids keep me in line.
No worries, as my folk would say!
I think it is hilarious that he covered up the huge bald patch with digital enhancements as about a week ago he had photos of him published sitting on a bus with that huge bald patch on display and exposed to the full glare of the sun!
I also believe this old school model of the televised interview was one of the reasons Prince Andrew's interview fell flat. It was an obvious outdated tool used(by Andrew) to pander to anyone who might think he is innocent and to "clear the air" and promote his "innocence". No one does that anymore. They do it on Twitter.
And Twitter took a bit hit recently, with a lot of people (including myself) moving to different platforms. In about ten years, we may talk about Twitter the way we now talk about Oprah! Once relevant and influential, but with no more real value to offer.
That's an interesting observation of Prince Andrew's failed interview. Though he should have known better, given the fallout from his older brother's and sister-in-law's early attempts at it, from a time when it was highly embraced.
My most significant experience of "royal PR" involves the fan accounts on Tumblr and Instagram. And my impression is: as long as you release a lot of lovely photos and semi-entertaining content that ordinary users will be happy to reblog/share until you're viral, then you've won the war. Prince William and Crown Princess Victoria seem to be doing well with this strategy. Even the Spanish royals, who are probably the least popular in Europe (if we don't count the Monagesque princely family), have figured out that Princess Leonor and Infanta Sofia need to be as stylish and photogenic as possible at all times.
So it was a huge miscalculation for Meghan to let herself look so unkempt and gauche in all her "official" photos. She may have been aiming for the long-term goal of creating a new narrative for herself as "not OK" while in the BRF, but none of her post-Megxit images are the sort that royal fans are proud to share on their feeds.
Well, until this new "tree of life" one with the early third trimester moon bump. This one was relatively well played.
My hand now looks a little like the ASL sign for E: flat palm and fingers curled down at the first and second joints.
These days, when my friends move house, they don't bother to install a new landline. It's mobile phones all the way!
Hmmmm. Someone should have told Meghan to create an app.
I'm not on any SM. I'm a dinosaur... but I did fire my cable company and let go of my land line years ago so I guess I'm not a total ludite haha!!
I would be happy for Twitter, FB and all other platforms to fade into extinction. I feel they erode our humanity. Only Fans is the next step to the downward spiral of society. IMO. I do use the internet quite a lot for research and for reading like this blog so not all technology is the devil lol.
My impressions of her:
She is not a journalist, but an entertainer who loves celebrity culture.
She is a really bad judge of character and never seems to learn from her mistakes.
She is a better actress than Meghan and was on TV almost daily, carrying a show herself, so the Oprah I think she is may not be the Oprah she really is.
She is immensely likeable and I would love to be her house guest for a week or so. I think it would be fun!
But she has three huge chips on her shoulder, in general and regarding this interview: race, weight, privilege. She has worked long and hard to become successful, famous, previously influential in celebrity culture, and very wealthy, but she will never ever have the power and prestige that the Queen, Charles, William, and so on have by birthright. So, when a royal is kicked out of the inner circle and vulnerable, she circles like a vulture to exploit their vulnerability and bring down the BRF to trashy celebrity level.
The interview may be interesting in that Oprah is not a passive interviewer. Meghan, however, uses an interviewer as a prop that should preferably be seen and not heard and a platform for her to go on and on with her nonsense word salad. The interview will be edited to look like a natural flowing conversation but I doubt it will be.
"The photographer behind Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's pregnancy announcement image has revealed that the snap is meant to 'give strength' to other women who have suffered miscarriages like the Duchess of Sussex. ...
'I think this picture from my point of view represents fortitude, hope, and love,' he shared."
To be fair, I will give Oprah this: she did a damn good job as Sophia in Color Purple.
Other than that, I really can't see anything else but her injecting herself into celebrity situations consistently to promote herself.
But I respect your opinions and thoughts on the subject.
Also, a pregnant woman isn’t recommended to like on her back for 8 hours of sleeping after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Lying on back for a photo is perfectly ok if the mother is comfortable.
A question for those who think this photo might be from Australia: what is their motivation? Faking a pregnancy? Screwing with the public and she isn’t pregnant? Please complete the idea... if you think the photo is from Australia, then why do you think they did that? Thank you. I don’t follow the rest of whatever is insinuated after “the photo might be from Australia.”
In the same respect, might the photo be from a few weeks ago in California? Maybe from around when they taped the Oprah interview? (Which is supposedly already taped)...
Thank you for your thoughts. It’s 🥶🥶🥶🥶 here.
I agree that Oprah can be very likable! She looks kind of smug in still photos (which can be off-putting), but there's also something special about her voice. We can talk all day about her hypocrisy with respect to the #MeToo movement, but when she gave that speech that riffed off her classic "You get a car! And you get a car! Everybody gets a car!" moment, changing it to, "You all get a voice," I was blown away. It was the stuff of which great orations are made -- so it was a sure sign of how much her star has dimmed since the 90s that it didn't really go viral.
Or perhaps it didn't get that push because too many people would have pointed out Oprah's Weinstein connections. There's only so much you can sweep under the rug. If Oprah could no longer be a leader of women in the late 2010s, then Meghan is going to be disappointed by the returns from her interview now that we're in the 2020s.
And I agree with you that Oprah may be resentful of people like Prince William, who were born to great privilege and want to pass the same on to their children. Despite the toxicity of the Sussex brand, Oprah may genuinely be wanting to spin their story to affirm one of her own tired mantras. I recall her asking some woman guest once, "What about yourself? What about your happiness?" If she was once a cheerleader for women to leave difficult domestic situations in order to be true to themselves (or some such ideal), imagine what she must think of a woman who left one of the most famous royal families in the world in search of authenticity! At least that's how I imagine her telling it.
I think Meghan was attempting a look crossed between 1990s CBK and casual French chic.
Both looks are highly stylised, but require an element of messiness and elegance to pull off.
She also missed the point that this look is as high-maintenance as the no-make-up make up look as in highly groomed and glossy at all times and all the clothing has to be perfectly tailored, perfectly laundered and perfectly matched even if individual items are mis-matched. The accessories have to be perfect and chic.
I thought she pulled it off only twice. The first time we saw her at Toronto Invictus in jeans and that white shirt, and fashion awards in a black one shoulder dress.
Honestly, Kate's uniform is much easier to pull off because you can hide a multitude of sins under the perfect belted coat and hat.
Since I was the latest one to bring up a possible Australian connection, I guess I can take a stab at your question.
All I mean is that it makes sense to me that people here and on Tumblr thought the photo was from Australia, because it does reflect Meghan's old preferred black-and-white aesthetic. And we haven't seen that in a while. Do I think they're correct? I really don't know! I think it's plausibly an old photo from the first pregnancy that they've finally found a use for. If so, then the only reason they didn't release it the first time was that they realized the moon bump was too big for when it was supposedly taken. And then when she would have been in her third trimester, it was hardly the time of year for bare arms and bare feet, much less a lush garden!
I'm just having fun riffing off of a theory others have mentioned.
You're right that the simplest explanation is that it was recently taken in their California backyard.
I agree with you 100% about your assessment of the Palace PR people and how they work against each other unless they have to work together. I think it’s very disorganized and not efficient and just a CF in general and I think they leak about others to make their person look good, etc.
I confess I liked her Toronto Invictus look! It might not have been very royal, but she was still just Prince Harry's girlfriend then and could get away with it. (Catherine had her own share of unsophisticated looks before she and Prince William became engaged.) She was also obviously going for a certain look, so she gets points for intentionality.
After the marriage, however, the increasingly messy hair, the dresses that highlighted her boxy shape, the visible underwear, the dirty shoes, the dragging hems . . . Did she just not care (which would have been bad enough) or was it at the service of something else? Scorpiotwentythree's theory was that Meghan wanted to look awful in the BRF so that she would look even more glamorous returning to her old Hollywood style after Megxit. We saw something similar in Diana, who had some awful outfits in the 80s before she debuted the "revenge dress."
You're welcome! I know what you mean about wanting to follow a person's train of thought, to see how they arrived at a conclusion. Sometimes hearing the explanation can even change my mind!
Come to think of it, I' surprised H&M's dog(s) wasn't in the photo to complete this charming tableau.
"Big brother" Archie's absence from the family photo is awkward enough without a dog making it into the shot and raising even more questions!
Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Meghan would have loved to add a pet to that aesthetic.
I've heard/read the same stories of how toxic the Harpo studios were, and I certainly believe it. Working for a narc is an impossible job.
It looks to me like Oprah is going the way of Ellen, with all of her bad/mean behavior finally coming out. Has Oprah been Markled? I hope so. I've never liked her.
"The project joins a growing list of shows Apple is working on with Winfrey's Harpo Studios, following a multi-year deal between the two companies that was inked back in 2018. They include "The Oprah Conversation," "Oprah's Book Club" podcast, and "Oprah Talks COVID-19," all of which are available to stream"
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/15/apple-orders-two-part-oprah-winfrey-bio-doc/
I assumed from the strange dip and puff in a side shots of her coat outside the church that the bump was there. The same bump she displayed for the photo Harry took of her in the New Zealand Forest. I think Hello ran it, among other outlets. The side photo where she wears black hiking wear, and cradles a good sized bump for his camera, two weeks after the Eugenie wedding and the flat stomach arrival.
(I seem to recall it was posted with an early appearance of the “rain refreshes the parched ground” saying.)
Maybe the bump traveled in Messica’s luggage to Australia, and was passed back to Megs for NZ.
And of course, we saw no photos of her without the wedding coat.
My friend told me that she once met Oprah briefly when they both were young broadcasters, but she never was a close friend.
***************************
@Enbreth,
Remember, that Oprah started as a newscaster. That's where she got that voice from. Personally, I don't like her voice. It's too contrived for my taste, and comes across to me as phoney.
Oprah was roundly mocked about the "you get a car!" bit. People are still doing comedic take offs on that. Also, she got the cars for free, and didn't mention that at the time, leading people to believe that she had bought the cars to give away. There was also a backlash because the people in the audience had to pay taxes on the cars, and many could not afford it, so they were just out of luck.
MM's voice bothers me for the same reasons. It's not a friendly voice, buy overly-measured and very low. It doesn't come across as sincere to me, but a made-up voice that she thinks is sophisticated. She's making an attempt to sound like a politician and Oprah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzvdjLHXub0
Well worth a watch for those that have the time.
DM turned up supermodels wearing the same dress in different colours and Kate looked just as good.
CBK look
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/596d2cbd5bf2674c3c8f85b5/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/Carolyn-Kennedy-Style-SS01.jpg
Kate and the supermodels in their version of the look
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/15/61/bc/1561bc56e34437a162bcbe295462acd8.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/94/8c/4e948c9d8fd26884d3820e75d5c7a941.jpg
Of all the looks that Meghan copied, i think this was almost there, but the skirt was too long for her.
https://media.vogue.de/photos/5d25f06ab7e0be0008c24b65/master/w_1280,c_limit/006-Carolyn-Bessette-Kennedty-Styleicon-Vogueint-Jun-25-Getty-Images.jpg
https://www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/meghan.jpg?w=1200&quality=86&strip=all
Well, it's less secretive than it was - see https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-freemasonry which gives the positive view.
My father (d.1984, aged 85) was one, having joined just after the war. He worked in one of the public-service organisations in which one had little hope of promotion unless one was a mason - but being one was no guarantee of getting on, and no, it wasn't the police.
There's a great emphasis on charity, true, and it is stated that this mustn't be at the expense of the Brother's family. When was my father's Executor, I was shocked at the amount of cash he'd given to Masonic charities - he'd been reluctant to part with money for Mum or me. Of course, not being a Mason is no guarantee of being generous to one's family, either.
The man who grabbed me was also a Mason - my father would have trusted him implicitly, so you see why I kept quiet.
As far as I can see, what actually happens in the meetings is pretty innocent, albeit with some dubious theology (Catholics were, and may still be, forbidden to join because masonic secrecy is in conflict with the Confessional.)
The secrecy is the real problem because people assume that influence has been exerted even when it hasn't. That has been the difficulty for me and it has undermined my relationships with my cousins.
When I applied to university, it wasn't enough to have passed public exams - I had to sit extra theory and practical papers at a higher level, plus more than one interview and my Headmistress's report. My mother's sisters, however, refused to believe that I was accepted fairly - they decided that Dad had put a `secret mark' on my application and that had been the clincher. This was complete rubbish - the idea of our chain-smoking, socialist, Principal warming application papers over the heat of her cigarettes, searching for marks made with invisible ink, is ludicrous.
Mum's protest elicited the response - `Of course you didn't know about it - it was secret'. I think they had a low opinion of my mother, she was the eldest and deprived of the educational chances that they'd had, as so often happens. Furthermore, they had a touch of the Hyacinth Bouquets, affected posh accents and married men of a slightly higher standing than my Dad. So what was the University doing letting in somebody low class like me, from an ordinary grammar school, unless the Masons had a hand in it?
I was very shocked a few years back when I told the story to my cousins when talking about the `funny' ideas of our mutual aunt - they evidently knew what had been alleged and they believed it. The best one could come up with was `Well, it's not as if you did anything wrong'.
Neither my father nor I do anything wrong. There was no corruption involved yet Masonic secrecy cast a dark shadow and I have find it very difficult to forgive my cousins' attitude even now.
That's my personal view based on my experience of English Freemasonry - it may be different in other countries.
The Sussexes wanted to be part-time working royals, keeping all their positions and royal patronages. They put out the PR that this possibility was on the table, but it never was. Harry has been making a final push to keep the military titles, but it was never a possibility.
The story from the Palace that a door was kept open in case things did not work out for them so that they could return as working royals is perhaps not the full truth either. But it might be if Harry's family were told they were going to live in Canada and focus on getting their charitable foundation up and running, and not pursue commercial ventures that would clash with their charitable work and their position as royals.
Instead, they moved to California and have not got a foundation up and running and ... you know the rest of the story!
Perhaps also Harry's family thought the marriage might implode and they wanted to keep a door open for Harry to return (the sort of thing you would do for someone in a toxic co-dependent, abusive relationship).
The virus changed everything ...
Thanks so much for sharing your experiences with free masonry. It's all very intriguing; I really don't know much about it in depth. Just the run of the mill conspiracy "secret society" stuff one sees in movies. I'm unaware of anyone in my past being a free mason as I grew up in a Catholic-though not very involved-home. I did know it's forbidden for Catholics to join but I didn't know why. Yes, I can see how the Confessional would make it impossible to make vows to secrecy. Ironic to say the least...
I'm so sorry to hear about your experience with your father's freemason Brother. That's always so hard to deal with. Same here. It happened when I was a freshman in college. The 1970's. At that time I was a pretty badass young woman and when a member of our hang out crew came by my dorm room and tried that on me (when I let him in because he was a friend) I kicked him in the cojones. Hard. He split, crying like the little bitch he was. So I took care of it the only way I knew how. I wish I didn't have to find myself in that position. It also happen to me later in life. I was already a mature woman. A friend of my cousin's. They were in business together and for me to go to the police would have compromised my cousin's business dealings. That individual was a very active member in an Evangelical church! I'm still salty towards my cousin for letting that slide even though I know he had reason. We didn't have the #MeToo movement to back us in those days and it still stings! I haven't told many people about this IRL.
Wow. Thanks WB. I really appreciate your post...
If Tom Cruise hadn't done the couch jumping thing, that might still be the most meme-able thing that ever happened in Oprah's studio! And I have a personal fondness for memes, so although I've also since learned the truth about her "gift," I quite liked the "You get a voice" twist. (Turning it into a proper analogy now, however, I see that one might not want to trust it if she is handing it out.)
Coincidentally, just the other night my mother and sister brought up Oprah's story about a saleslady in Europe who didn't want to let her look at a bag, allegedly because she didn't recognize Oprah and thought that a black woman couldn't afford it. I've personally always been suspicious of the story (and didn't Oprah have a movie to promote at that time?), but I was really surprised that my mother and sister believed Oprah 100%.
As I've mentioned, my mother was a huge fan in the 90s; so I get that. I'm surprised that my younger sister, who is hugely skeptical of celebrities her own age, would give Oprah much more credit. This is part of the reason why I was wondering how much clout she still has with US viewers -- particularly those in Meghan's younger target demographic.
Catherine looks stunning in that dress! If you hadn't pointed out the connection, I might not have realized she was copying Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy. (The dress may have been groundbreaking when Carolyn wore it, but I personally didn't remember it.) And I have to say, it actually looks better on Catherine. I suppose a slightly different cut and fabric helped, though the concept of the dress was definitely the same.
And oh, man, I may be in the minority again, but . . . I also think Meghan looked better than Carolyn in the second copied look. Yes, I agree that the skirt was much too long for her. But the black top and the black boots make it more streamlined than Carolyn's black top and brown boots; and the belt was very nice. Also, her hair was pretty decent.
Oprah invited her on her show, and introduced her as, "my close and very dear friend________," then made a big show of hugging her as if they were best buddies.
Remember the thread from last year, when we found a list of people whom Oprah intimated great closeness with? Like "the mother I never had," and so forth. Of course, Meghan was "the daughter I never had." I suppose that if you're star struck and don't have time to get your bearings, having a big celebrity millionaire say something like that about you would be highly effective love-bombing! More so if she added a hug in front of an audience. She must really like you, right, if she's telling the whole world?
The Sussexes Publicly ‘Bear’ Their Souls/Soles, But Want Privacy?
A: Every single issue of her magazine had her picture on the front.
Q: Is Oprah a trend setter?
A: She was in the 90s, before viewers had the choice of 100s of cable networks. She had a large audience share because there were fewer shares. Often guests featured on her show developed their own followings (the Duggar’s, Jon & Kate Gosslin, Drs. Phil and Oz). That kind of reach has been replaced by social media. Now Oprah is best known for being obscenely wealthy and entitled.
Q: Will the special contain any surprises?
A: Unlikely. I’m certain the final editing of the staged interview will have to meet with the approval of the HAMs. However, they ARE quite tone deaf, so there is a chance it is obnoxious and heavy handed.
Marx’eist - Harpo, Groucho and Chic’ho
Plungr and Grindr
Should try being kinder
To the RF who give them their pay
Will Oprah be willin
To give them a grillin
Nah, it’ll all go Megsies way
She’s determined to have the last say
I remember that! Oprah does suck up to and fawn over people, too. I'm sure that she feels that anybody would be delirious over being called her friend. That's how narcs work.
I missed that article, so will go back and look for it. I thought that MM didn't know Oprah before the wedding, so this is news to me.
Of course, MM wouldn't give the palace any advance notice. That's her M.O. to keep them off track. I bet they are just furious, and I'm hoping that this will be the last straw for the BRF. Rumors are going around that Harry already has been stripped of his titles, but I don't know if it's true. If it IS true, it's about time.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9266621/Will-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-remain-ambassadors-charities.html
I don't know if this is true, but I've read in several places that Harry's been stripped of all of the titles that HMTQ gave him. As for the duke and prince titles, I've heard that the BRF hasn't taken action on that -yet.
Ugh. I wasn't going to chime in about any of this, but this is sickening:
"The “Queen” of US chat shows, and the host sometimes referred to as American Royalty"
Well actually, I did chime earlier today, only to say (if I remember) that I thought that the days of chat shows was past, and I believe O Magazine (which I thought was attractive and inspiring) is passe as well. I have never ever heard of Oprah referred to as American royalty (why capitalize the r ??) and I was an adult in her heyday. I HAVE heard that she introduced the American public to some iffy characters such as "Dr." Phil, "Dr" Oz and "The Secret" lady.
Who are these millions of Americans who will be turning in? Who is O's audience these days? I wouldn't be one even if I had a TV. Is it 40-year-olds? Certainly no younger, not the Tik-Tok/Reddit generation. I'm honestly asking the US readers here.
Is this Chris Ship just hyping up a large US audience to impress his UK readers?
I'm not going to waste my time watching this drivel, and I hope that others boycott it, too. Our favorite vloggers will let us know all about it, I'm sure.
********************************************
Can anybody explain to me how to use the bold and italic tags so I don't have to keep using all caps? Please explain for a computer dummy like me. Thanks!
Those people that are not tech savvy enough to have alternative viewing options and have basic cable/network TV only. Those who have no outside interests and are confined to quarters for whatever reason, maybe in quarantine, maybe recovering from COVID or other disease and need mindless entertainment. Some Gen X, boomers, maybe the Greatest Generation may remember her with nostalgia. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities would probably have a lot of viewers. Too bad that it wasn't on when people were snowed and iced in and couldn't leave; it may have actually gotten a million viewers then.
When you are in the comment box, you see a statement about HTML tabs such as < b > bold, < i > italics, and < a > (that is a tag or hyperlink). Now, those greater than and less than signs (the arrows) do NOT have a space in between the letter and arrows (I put the space in them so I could illustrate). Those open the italics or bold. In order to close the italics or bold, then you have to put a backward slash in front of the italics/bold/link such as < / i > with no spaces in between the the arrows, slash, and letters.
And I guess you're right: Boomers and above may appreciate her more than this Boomer does or did. I just never did daytime TV and don't like being yakked at (as Lavender Lady says above). Oh well. Still, I won't be one of the "millions."
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 Your reasoning flowed like a great summation, and ended with bang. Bravo.
@JennS,
Ha Vinyl Boy Snarchie! He looks stunned to hear he will soon have a Peggy Nisbet Diana doll for a sibling. From a cartoonish Wendy House to the top shelf of guest room #4 in a year. Poor vinyl child — flag down Hot Rob the next time he rolls past, kid, and run for it!
@jessica
You wrote that she is “mind blind” and I felt a shiver of joy from witnessing the discovery and application of the perfect terminology for a terminally juvenile time-warped nut. Bravo!
To italicize, and bolding goes the same but with a B instead of an I -- You type in:
< I > With her 'ead tucked underneath her arm, She walks the bloody Tower < / I >
Use / that you see above........This closes this example HTML for you or Blogspot website rejects it.
And you get---->>>
With her 'ead tucked underneath her arm, She walks the bloody Tower
To italicize, and bolding goes the same but with a B instead of an I -- You type in:
< I > With her 'ead tucked underneath her arm, She walks the bloody Tower < / I >
Must get rid of all spaces you see up above between the < and > brackets
May I thank you for the lesson! Let’s see if I did this correctly! @Jocelyn’sBellinis, you aren’t alone.
Well, I'm a boomer, and I won't be watching her either!
Meg of Green Fables
Meg got her wish, the Big ‘O’
Together in their OWN s..t sugar show
But wait, there is more
A book will then follow
From Dame Dip and then Swallow
The annals of Megsie, Wokelore
I think his exaggerations and misjudgments are aimed at a UK audience. He's definitely a sycophantic RR trying to convince UK readers of how important MM and Harry are in California / the US.
I join those who have never been fans of Oprah and I was busy working during the heyday of her TV show. I've never once watched it other than snippets that were shown on the news like Cruise's coach jumping and the car giveaway.
I noticed on Twitter that Ship makes snide comments at other royal reporters who report more realistically on the ex-royals. I guess he wants those 'exclusives' from Megalo.🤣
It is a head scratcher to me! We in the USA know that if we were to stand on a chair in a crowded event and yell "What is your impression of Meghan Markle?" it would sound like a chorus of owls out there hooting back! ("WHO? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?")
The only explanation I can come up with is that they are desperately trying to convince the UK that they are far too important world wide to have their allowances and titles snatched away. Of course, if they were REALLY that accomplished and important world wide, they wouldn't care about the titles and allowances. They certainly wouldn't spend all of their time passive aggressively trying to divert attention from the RFs events; after all, they made it plain that they disdained such things. Instead, they'd be out (happily) living their lives in complete anonymity in small city USA.
Anybody who expends so much time, energy and money trying to convince the entire world that they are soooo happy and soooo in love is neither.
Oprah is over, because her shtick is expected and thus boring. Life moved on. She should have retired gracefully after an illustrious career, or retreated and relaunched carefully in an updated, relaxed, less grasping way. She instead finds herself the parodied version of herself, and haunted by needless flops. She received seriously negative blowback across target groups for what was construed as a slanted, ill-researched and hypocritical special about Michael Jackson. Her Weinstein problem exploded out of the closet. Huge unneeded error. She has tested poorly with audience groups under 50/60. She hasn’t learned, or she would have skipped this attempt. I have to conclude there was another motivation to risk humiliation with two relatively worthless lightweight guests at a time when the world is embroiled in very serious issues.
Meghan and Harry have no importance. Not to be cruel, but, no one can make them stars. They don’t produce, connect, or dazzle. They are not well known here, and come up viewed as depressing, manipulative, lecturing, and flaky. The “Just arrived” glow was gone months ago. I don’t know who they think will want to spend 90 minutes with them. I don’t know who would have approved this deal unless it was an old network contact repaying an old favor, or done as part of a bundle. I would expect Oprah’s CBS connection agreed without high expectations, and so it will fall to her to do the maneuvering and spin to present this as a coup or a success. It is just an example of outdated programming wedged into a weak winter schedule from what I can see. Perhaps they think the 70-somethings who still watch 60 Minutes will watch, but I think this is more the RHONY style of programming, using problematic or embarrassing older unknowns, in lifestyle situations. I think they will find advertisers shy, and that the program length will be real problem. If they justified the length thinking millions of rabid royalist viewers will stick around for 82 minutes just for a glimpse of Prince Harry, they are ten years late. Anyway, the glass slipper got smashed a year ago.
The question being asked among my colleagues is, why isn’t Oprah giving 90 important minutes to Greta Thunberg, or Dr. Jill Biden, or Kamala Harris, or all three? What could compel her to waste that amount of time, and her comeback in 2021, on two unimportant tabloid space fillers? It resonates of being very out of touch, so I think people are shaking their heads for that reason, since she used to be celebrated for having her finger on the pulse of America. America isn’t interested in two ex-royal, well one ex-royal and his unpleasantly hyperactive cable cream puff wife, quitters who have no visible function and sit around their mansion pool or hang out on Zoom like insurance agents. No one at Harpo is reading the room.
##
Wasn't it that the store was closed, and Oprah and Gayle knocked on the window/door and wanted to shop after hours?
That might have been a different incident. What I recall from the saleslady's defense was that she even offered to show Oprah the bag.
To me, the saleslady's adding that she would never have said something so ill-mannered, knowing how much good manners matter in her profession, made her even more credible.
On the other hand, Oprah saying that she regretted even naming the country where she had supposedly had that experience raised my eyebrows. She certainly didn't expect the story to be investigated the way it was, with the store's name being uncovered and the staff having to defend themselves from her allegations. It spun out of control -- and of course she needed to control it, because it was something she made up.
The question being asked among my colleagues is, why isn’t Oprah giving 90 important minutes to Greta Thunberg, or Dr. Jill Biden, or Kamala Harris, or all three?
That's a great question, especially given where Harris is now. I wonder if Oprah actually reached out to all of them and they each turned her down. And not necessarily because her brand is now very poor, but just because there are much better uses of their time. The other question here is why anyone today would want to give 90 minutes of their time to Oprah? And that includes the viewers.
This marked the beginning of my hatred of Oprah Winfrey.
What if Meghan is doing this interview not because she's stuck in the 90s, but because Oprah is the only one willing to work with her? And what if Oprah was only willing to work with her because no one else of a higher or similar stature wants to do an Oprah interview these days? Water finds its own level, after all.
Maybe instead of Oprah being Markled, Meghan will find herself Winfreyed!
The French have rules!
Just to confirm, I just googled Buckingham Palace's statement, and the response by The Harkles as to Megxit 2020. There is no mention of a year review by BP. The year review is a complete fiction. So, I wonder if the Year Review will come up in Oprah's interview.
Many people are calling for the Queen to do something! Do something! However, the Queen is quite aged, and she will do nothing about the Harkles. Time will take care of the Harkles, and the Harkles will also do themselves in. The Harkles will not need help in disappearing or fracturing apart. They will do it to themselves.
If you've got a Smart TV, or watch on your laptop, please don't watch the Oprah interview with the Harkles because you will be adding to the ratings metrics.
1..Oprah sold this for a wedding invite (Doria seen leaving her house with gifts--pre-wedding).
2. The arrangement was made long ago, when Grip and Drip were "popular".
3. Oprah is trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
4. Oprah has always tried to get close to the RF (Fergie on her show, etc) but those of consequence want nothing to do with her.
5. Harvey Weinstein and Griffin, unsavory friends. Hard to explain away if you're "woke"
6. Oprah is yesterday's must have interviewer. People want today's (whomever that is) must have interviewer.
The only explanation I can come up with is that they are desperately trying to convince the UK that they are far too important world wide to have their allowances and titles snatched away.
.........
@SwampWoman
I also think it's a kind of 'na-na, na-na, boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo' taunt!
You were so MEAN to us in the UK but we are really loved here in the US!
The US deserves our wonderfulness - not YOU, you racist Brits.
Notice all the PR claiming how happy they are in CA?
Harry and Meghan aim to avoid embarrassing Queen in Oprah interview
‘Tell-all’ interview announcement has prompted reports it will lead to couple being stripped of patronages
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/entertainment/oprah-winfrey-meghan-markle-prince-harry-interview/index.html
Thank you so much for the lesson! I'll give it a try later, but I've learned something new today, and that's always good.
Thank you to you, too!
JennS your Chucky avi, hahahaha!
Looks like a female Haz.
The seagull 😂😂😂
I just changed it again!
I suffer from 'restless avatar syndrome'🤣
Sande perhaps that's a solution hidden in the post, all Harry has is his inheritance....
The only deity' (or demon) Harry and Megs bow before appears to be Mammon, Lord of money and stinking riches
@Puds: I always read your contributions to this blog, excellent
You have hit upon what I think will be a factor that will contribute to the demise of the Harkles: Money, money, and money.
Meghan and Harry, but especially Meghan because in my opinion, she checks off all the major behavioral boxes for narcissistic personality disorder, will probably be their own worst enemy, and their main problems will likely revolve around money and a lack of it. Their lifestyle is solely based on being royals, and due to Meghan’s overblown senses entitlement, grandiosity, materialism, general greed, and need to always be the center of attention and have the best of everything to keep up with the many people she wants to compete with in lavish lifestyle fitting a royal, their need for money will outpace their ability to generate it.
People like Meghan can NEVER get enough. She will spend every dollar they bring in and much more than they will ever be able to generate.
They will likely end up in a financial ditch deeper than the Mariana Trench, a trench so deep the royal family (especially if William has anything to say about it) may refuse to bail them out, leading to a divorce as Meghan moves on to search for a new wealthy man to attach herself to.
For a narcissist like Meghan, ALL people are objects to be used. Once they cease to be useful, they are tossed aside. This includes Harry, Archie, and baby number two. Meghan already has a lengthy trail of used people including family, her last husband, boyfriends, business associates, and friends.
Meghan’s talk-show move undermines the very monarchy that made her
The last thing the Queen needs is another explosive TV interview with family members – especially when they left their royal duties behind
ALLISON PEARSON16 February 2021 • 7:12pm
Part I
Say what you like about Prince Charles, he’s never shown us his bunions. The heir to the throne must, perforce, cut a more dignified figure than his younger son and for that we must be grateful.
Prince Harry put his foot in it (both of them actually, without socks or shoes) in a romantic black and white photograph which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released to announce they are expecting their second child. (The pregnancy explains why Meghan succeeded in getting a postponement of her recent successful privacy trial against the Mail on Sunday for “confidential reasons”.)
The baby – judging by the size of that bump he or she will be born not long after big brother Archie’s second birthday in May – will be eighth in line to the throne. This pregnancy is a blessing coming after Meghan’s miscarriage last year and everyone will wish the young family well.
As is so often the case with the Sussexes, though, there is something contrived about the communication. The picture shows Meghan, head in a beaming Harry’s lap, lying in the dappled shade of a tree. It is one of those artfully artless shots that celebrities post on Instagram to show how authentically natural they are while, out of shot, you just know the poor stylist, hairdresser and make-up artist are sweating buckets to make sure everything looks perfect.
It’s almost as if each detail of the portrait were selected to make a point. “See how grounded we are! We lie on the grass! We disdain footwear! We are free spirits not uptight, stuffy Royals like, to take a completely random example, William and Kate!”
Misan Harriman, who recently became British Vogue’s first black cover photographer, somehow snapped the “spontaneous” moment in LA remotely with an iPad from London. “With the tree of life behind them and the garden representing fertility, life and moving forward, they didn’t need any direction, because they are, and always have been, waltzing through life together as absolute soulmates,” said Harriman. Spoken totally spontaneously, I’m sure, and in no way prompted by breathless, sub-Bridgerton prose signed off by the Duchess and her PR team.
Although such prompts have been known to happen. Finding Freedom, a doting, unauthorised biography of the couple published last year, reported events and dialogue which many believe could only have been known to the two people present at the time.
Your experience with freemasonry and your family put-down of which you have written before clearly and understandably upsets you. It is very difficult indeed impossible to prove a negative and so let me say I find the notion that your father's position as a mason helped you get into University simply and completely absurd. You have my sincerest sympathy that not withstanding your being accepted into Grammar school under your own merits, passing a clutch of O'levels likewise, passing two or three A' levels and the other matters that had to be attended to for the purpose of matriculation but then to be told the reason for your entry into University was your father's masonic links is somewhere between stupid and insulting. That you went to University in an age when few and even fewer girls did so only suggests to me considerable ability and determination - that would not be inconsistent with your comments as a Nutty.
Naturally, all my failures in life I put down to my not being a mason.
We will never unlock the mystery of that remarkable act of ventriloquism. Nor will we find out whether Meghan’s strange, scolding, self-exculpating letter to her father, Thomas Markle (published in the Mail on Sunday), was written with a bigger audience in mind. The judge ruled in the Duchess’s favour before any court proceedings began. Pity. It would have been interesting to hear from the man who raised Meghan, who paid for her private education; the darling daddy to whom she was seemingly devoted until he naively cooperated with a reporter before the Royal wedding. Or maybe she thought he would look bad in the photographs? Either way, he was hastily written out of the fairytale by his calligrapher daughter.
By now, even the most ardent Royalist – no, actually, let’s make that especially the most ardent Royalist – may find themselves deeply irritated by a couple who left the UK to escape the attention of the ghastly, prying media, but who seem perfectly happy to invade their own privacy when it suits. And please don’t get me started on the allegations that Meghan’s treatment at the hands of the British media was cruel, even “racist”. A billion column inches raved about what a “breath of fresh air” she was and delighted in the happiness she brought our favourite cheeky prince. Any change in tone was caused by the Sussexes and their sensitivity to criticism, no matter how well deserved. The Duke and Duchess’s not entirely convincing ambivalence about being in the public eye was superbly summed up in a Daily Star headline: “Publicity-shy woman tells 7.67 billion people; I’m pregnant.”
It was the best of British irony. California-born Meghan would never get the joke. Harry’s old mates in the regiment would. So would the Prince, unless he has drunk too deep of wheatgrass shots and chai lattes. That’s what we all fear, isn’t it?
As if that wasn’t quite enough “unwanted” media attention to be going on with, now we learn Meghan and Harry are planning to do “wide-ranging” and “intimate” TV interview with Oprah Winfrey. The “tell-all” 90-minute special, to air on CBS on March 7, will focus on the Duchess of Sussex who will discuss “everything from stepping into life as a Royal, marriage, motherhood and philanthropic work to how she is handling life under intense public pressure”. The public pressure that would surely be quite simple to escape by staying home with Archie and maybe not risk embarrassing the Royal family in front of 40 million Americans.
It has been reported that Prince Harry will join the show later. Will it be a non-speaking appearance? Or will he be given cue cards? Rule nothing out. The awkward fact is that Meghan’s sole claim to global fame, the reason why a former cable TV actress commands such a high-profile interview at all, arises from her husband, and hence from the Crown.
After the devastation caused by Prince Andrew’s Newsnight appearance, I would say the very last thing the Queen needs right now is another explosive TV interview featuring close family members. How very unkind to Harry’s Granny, who celebrates her 95th birthday in April. It’s one thing for the “spare” to leave the country and carve out a happier life for himself out of the shadow of his brother, the heir. Quite another to leverage your status to moan about the vast privilege of being Royal.
Do Meghan and Harry care? I doubt it.
The UK, and its people, who gave them such a rapturous, heartfelt reception at their wedding in May 2018, are increasingly irrelevant to their ambitions. That pregnancy announcement photograph was targeted at a US audience. With good reason. No American would quip, as one cynical Brit did, that the baby’s middle name should be “Netflix”.
Nonetheless, the Oprah interview could turn out to be the final straw. Until now, the Windsors have treated Harry with kid gloves, leaving the door open for him to resume Royal duties if things went wrong. Yesterday, Palace sources suggested the Sussexes are set to lose their last Royal patronages, a mark of displeasure if it’s true. How much longer can they hang onto their Royal titles if they use them to become talk-show-circuit celebs, undermining the monarchy that made them?
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer Royals who wear socks.
JennS arghhhhh! 🥰
Wild man from ‘Forneo
and Megead Begonner!
Made sense to me.
I think the special is going to focus on Meghan’s ‘I’m not OK’ mantra. She tried to weave the ‘Okay’ crap into her miscarriage story. We should expect a continuation of this...it’s the perfect victim narrative she keeps pitching us...at the beginning of the pandemic she encouraged people to mentor others in mental health without any qualifications...
Now she will sit down with the Queen of live TV breakdowns and talk about mental health, her struggles of survival in the palace, her anguish and sadness, the abuse from her extended family members, the mental torture of the MeDiA, Harry will chime in about his own past struggles, they will claim they struggled mentally with Covid, and leaving the Firm, how it was such a HaRd decision but the best for their ‘health’ (it won’t be about financial independence but Meghan will claim you need to be able to *ThRiVe* to earn a living and about how autonomy is important) they will then talk about the grief of the miscarriage, the sadness that enveloped them....
To turn the narrative into Mental Health Gurus who Overcame ALLLLL of that injustice. They are NoW pregnant! They are NoW Thriiiiving!!!!! (Insert Cruise Couch jumping) They are now Netflix tbd MoViE Stars! So desirable even Joe Rogan’s Spotify team wanted THEM! They are even taking on BIG TECH on behalf of all of us, to demand an end to Hate and Trolling. They’ll talk about the damaging effects of media and how they are the Gurus with the Solution! Visit Archewell and Make your Donation Now! Us vs Them!
Then Oprah will plug her upcoming Mental Health Tv specials featuring Harry (probably on OWN network). Harry will talk about mental health awareness (since he only understands Royal Presenting Go Mode)
And thus the narrative change from whiney-little-bitch into Queen of the World, Savior of those Down and Forgotten. Mother Theresa is here for you (if you pay her enough) and she will. Be. The. Star!
That’s how I imagine her team is trying to turn her image around with this. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
The only time Dad held my application was when I gave it to him to sign - and he did so in front of me, with his usual signature, without so much as a suspect flourish, let alone his `mark' in invisible ink! He handed it straight back to me.
Just goes to show how secrecy breeds suspicion.
Megxhale
Diana Frances Spencer
Was known for her beauty, not Mensa
She may lend her name
To the Hams latest game
As they’re naming their child after Gran
After much huffing, and puffing
She’ll deliver a cushion
Inhale if you can
As their newborn will be be named Diafran
NOW, OWN, WON, NWO ...
Meghan and Oprah are a lot alike.
Your experiences of life that you have shared simply show that you are a woman with intelligence and strength of character.
I was friendly with a girl at boarding school who's father was a mason. They were kind and decent people. In my adulthood I did read a lot about freemasonry, and my understanding was this:
There are probably many reasons for secrecy but the main one is freemasons help and support each other and also the community, but must be humble about it, i.e. unlike the Harkles, they may not use philanthropy for self promotion and self praise.
As for the rituals and 'religious' aspects, they are no more strange or sinister than those of an organization like the Catholic church, and at 'ground' level involve swearing an oath that governs behaviour - to be honest, and ethical, to be of service to others, to be humble. As in a religion, there are those who keep their oath and those who don't.
hhttps://uk.yahoo.com/news/plan-poison-prince-georges-ice-175800947.html
`Preparing Archie for the throne' is very sick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi
@jenn,
I don't know if this is true, but I've read in several places that Harry's been stripped of all of the titles that HMTQ gave him. As for the duke and prince titles, I've heard that the BRF hasn't taken action on that -yet.
----------
The Metro (a free paper distributed Monday-Friday on buses and at tube & railway stations) states
Prince Harry is said to be ‘upset’ after the Queen agreed he should be stripped of his honorary military titles and patronages, reports say. It comes amid concern they could be used by TV bosses to promote his Netflix documentaries and talk show appearances in the US. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expected to lose all the official positions they kept after stepping down as working royals last year, The Sun reports. This would include Harry’s beloved title as captain general of the Royal Marines, and potentially his patronages with the Rugby Football Union, Rugby Football League and the London Marathon, according to the Daily Mail. Meanwhile Meghan, 39, would have to step down as patron of the National Theatre, which the Queen had previously been for 45 years. It is understood the decision to strip the couple of their last remaining royal titles is not being done as a retaliation to a ’tell-all’ interview with Oprah Winfrey.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/17/prince-harry-upset-after-queen-agrees-he-must-lose-royal-patronages-14095186/
WildBoar
Are the Loyal/Royal order of Buffaloes
similar to the Masons?
Re-Allison Pearson - Telegraph
Call me old fashioned,
but I prefer Royals who wear clothes
Is Megs not aware
She’s laid herself bare
We’ve all seen those scanty clad pics
Her Sharon Stone legs
Which she crossed, flashed her megs
She’s clearly more suited to skinflix
Thanks for the Telegraph article. It was spot on IMO.
Solid extended post! With Oprah -- Yes, Megs will play on Harry and her victimhood. Being a victim plays well these days.
Only problem is 99.9% of real victims of real abuse do not live in $14 million dollar mansions and do not gallivant around in private jets. You know that if not for Cov19 they would be flying hither and yon. And not with the plebs.
@Magatha Mistie said...
Megxhale
As they’re naming their child after Gran
First time I have seen this angle. What a suck up this would be! They would be super sly to do this. How about name her --Elizabeth Doria? This would be playing a combination Royal card and race card. Two birds w one stone. After this naming how can Queen and Charles deny the Duo, to merch their two babies as if the sky is the limit.
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/08/bird-play.html - origins of Killing Two Birds With One Stone
The man mentioned in the Yahoo news art doesn't sound too bright, neither does the one planning to target George. I'm just surprised he didn't say 'innit?' at the end of every sentence.
"You know what his plan was? Say like the Royal Family house is there, go to the nearest Sainsbury's and… put poison in the ice creams so the Royal Family will go and buy the ice creams from there.
"They're gonna go buy some ice creams and then most likely the son will eat it."
Pathetic. It is very worrying nevertheless if anybody is planning to attack/target George.
Thanks for the Telegraph article,I started reading it elsewhere then read your posts. Allison Pearson has described the situation very well. As she said (about the mock birth announcement in The Star), 'California-born Meghan would never get the joke.'
California-born Meghan would never get the joke
Which she crossed, flashed her megs
Not just A. Ohanian...
Annoying nerd, that bore
It was Harry and more
Ask the Yachtsmen on shore
Just what she wore
Flimsy according to whimsies
Flimsies to be lifted
To flash
For Yachters with the right cash
Under Mediterranean suns
She had to even the score
In Hollywood she was rejected
But with Yachtsmen, never neglected
Porky Pies
Megs is an insufferable prig
Carried on from her days on the Tig
No depth, very shallow
The Queen must act now
To stop this old sow
From repeatedly faking her farrow
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/02/16/the-sussexes-publicly-bear-their-souls-soles-but-want-privacy/
The Fall of the House of Moocher
Hump and Dump shat on us all
Hump and Dump are due a big fall
All the Queen’s family, and all her grey men
Cannot be bothered to see them again
I'm rather enjoying the CBK throwbacks. She was my high society fashion idol in the 90s. Memories.
Her look is very 90s though. I like the modern updates of some looks, but not the wholesale copies Meghan does. She very rarely updates the look and also doesn't tailor it to fit properly.
Meghan's Toronto look came from this:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/04/18/46FAF05600000578-5144709-Carolyn_wore_a_similar_outfit_in_1995-m-74_1512412359386.jpg
My favourite Meghan CBK howler remains this
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/hbz-meghan-markle-carolyn-bessette-lead-1549569316.jpg?resize=980:*
It was worse from the side because it emphasised Meghan's lack of neck and her squat pregnant torso with short legs.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/02/07/20/9529752-6679323-The_couple_who_are_expecting_their_first_child_in_the_spring_rec-m-177_1549569650193.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/02/08/07/9548786-6679323-image-m-21_1549612401365.jpg
Basic Instink
Her Sharon Stone pose
Was right on the nose
I pity those on the front row
Despite being aerobic
She’s wooden, robotic
And the stench, from her bench
Let her go...
Aquitaine, thanks for the side shots,
she looks a prat, the front isn’t much better!
https://twitter.com/richardaeden/status/1361968197029797891
The Queen’s Gambit
The Queen can’t be be seen
To be petty, or mean
Damage control is her aim
On the world wide stage
And despite Megsies rage
Her velvet glove will win the long game
God Save the Queen
Thanks for your poems, particularly the latest one :)
@Miggy
Thanks for the link to the Private Eye photo, the captions are very apt 😉
Miggy, that is hilarious. Love PrivateEye.
A boy named Sue, or a girl named Richel?
A boy named Sue, or a girl named Richel? 😅
Loving your latest poetic contributions. Hilarious as always!! 😆
Thank you Miggy, much appreciated 😘
If you've got a Smart TV, or watch on your laptop, please don't watch the Oprah interview with the Harkles because you will be adding to the ratings metrics.
Quick question on ratings metrics - do they include you if you record something through a TiVo box (or similar) but aren't actually physically watching that channel at the time? For a random example: if I was watching BBC1 but recording something about the Harkles on Channel 5, would that add to the viewing figures for the C5 programme or would it count me as viewing BBC1 only?
I had to laugh at my budgies yesterday. There was something on the morning news about Harry talking to someone from a UK charity (I think, wasn't paying much attention), and after I'd scowled and muttered at the tv when it started, every time he popped up on screen the budgies kept yelling at him. I didn't mind because a- it was funny and b- it meant I didn't have to listen to anything he said lol
My father was a `Buff' at some point (I have his `jewel')- I think that must have been in the 1930s. Both the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes and the Oddfellows were/are Friendly Societies which appear to share some features with the Masons but they don't seem to attract the same criticism. I know very little about them, beyond what's on the internet.
They share some features with the Masons, appear to be more active in the North of England (Oddfellows based in Manchester, Buffs in Yorkshire) and both, in the past at least, appear to have had a membership drawn from the artisan classes, rather than the professions. In the earlier 19thC, they seem to have been subject to similar suspicion as the early Trades Unions, hence references to `persecution' on their websites - the ruling classes saw them as subversive.
Is the difference that Buffs & Oddfellows represented the interests of those in society with little power and of no account, unless they challenged their `betters' that is? The Masons, however, tend to be drawn more from those in charge, therefore assumed able to exploit their superior positions in society. (My family were `in-between' sort of folk; they made it into what used to be called `lower-middle class' from the `respectable' working class. (Their ancestors were a very mixed bunch though, some the poorest of the poor).
Please note, I'm thinking on my feet here; please correct me if I've got it wrong.
The white shirt and black skirt would be my "favorite" CBK throwback look as well. It was pretty bad. If she had wanted to copy the look, the least she could have done was wait until she had had the baby.
If I remember correctly, the Endeavor Fund awards ceremony was a post-Morocco event. A friend of mine remarked that for someone who was so desperate to rock a red carpet look that she wore a 99,000 Dior gown to what was essentially a smart casual event, Meghan blew her big chance when she actually got it. No one would have dragged her for being dressed to the nines at the awards, but instead she came looking like a server. (No offense to servers.)
I agree - utterly hopeless! Couldn't even get the right supermarket...
So many gems in your poems today, I am retreading them to savor your wordplay. Just fantastic. I remain in awe.
@JennS,
You know, O could have selected one or two or any number of more currently interesting or uniquely accomplished people for her sit-down special. I mean, hell, even an Elon Musk/Kanye West/Armie Hammer/Johnny Depp “madman” bizarro hour would be more promising.
But the invisible slobby suburbanites with their backbiting and sandwich bags and obsession with stalking teens on Zoom? “So Harry, you were born, and later on, your mom died. What’s that like?” “Meghan, your small part on a Canadian cable show was axed, then you fell on Harry in a bar and took him to your studio-supplied rental apartment right before the lease ended. What’s that like?”
Maybe O isn’t current enough, or viewed as too limp and cheesy as an interviewer, to get bigger fish into her pan.
I guess that if I think of her now, which I don’t, I think of images of her screaming to an audience, and laughing with Gayle and partying over and over with Weinstein or waving around all the newest junk she thinks women should buy. I somehow don’t think of her past excellent movie work, or any important interviewing moment. How can I describe it — somehow she is more like a Jerry Springer now than a Charlie Rose or Barbara Walters (trying to dip back into the 90s world of American tv, since with Megs and Oprah, it’s the 90s forever). Even the 80s/90s/oughts Martha Stewart has managed to make more of an updated, and playful, return hasn’t she? and she had that speed bump of a court case for Insider trading and a prison stay.
In any case, that O thinks the public wants to see that much of M and H — and that they won’t bore the t*** off us in that excessive amount of time, MOSTLY Meghan !!! — is pretty unbelievable to me. O wants something, the Harkles want something, but what?
Think I would almost like to believe the royals set it up to hurry along the humiliating demise of the Harkles! William intoning, Yaaaas, you get thirty minutes with Catherine and I if you get right in there with Haz and his appalling bird. Find out if there is a sprog called Archie, get a shot of her bump closet, and we’ll toss in two minutes with Charlotte and her spiders.”
Not good news.
The only explanation I can come up with is that they are desperately trying to convince the UK that they are far too important world wide to have their allowances and titles snatched away.
So far we've established that Oprah no longer has the clout she used to have in the US. Europe-based Nutties are giving us similar information. As for my part of the world in Asia, her name still carries a lot of star power . . . but even fans like my mother would be hard pressed to name a project she has done lately, much less one that has impacted their lives. And by "lately," I mean something within the last five years. Maybe even the last ten years.
If the message the Harkles want to send with the Oprah interview is that they're still big players on the world stage, well, the Emperor has no ratings.
I just saw a mention of Phillip! Oh dear...
I'm wondering how this news will effect the interview. I don't see how PP and HM can take anymore of the rabid BS coming from H$M.
Sad. Phillip is and has been a solid man in his role. Irreplaceable.
Yes, the DM has the quoted phrase:'His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh was admitted to the King Edward VII Hospital in London, on Tuesday evening. 'The Duke's admission is a precautionary measure, on the advice of His Royal Highness's Doctor, after feeling unwell. 'The Duke is expected to remain in hospital for a few days of observation and rest.'
even an Elon Musk/Kanye West/Armie Hammer/Johnny Depp “madman” bizarro hour would be more promising
Oprah can't even breathe on something that has a whiff of #MeToo on it without people bringing up her Weinstein connection. I don't think she is choosing to stay away from controversial interviewees in order to seem as "clean" as possible, but the potential interviewees choosing to stay away from her in order not to be tainted.
The interview with Michael Jackson's alleged victims two years ago should have been an easy home run for her. Don't we all sympathize with people who were sexually abused as children? Can't we all agree with the message that grooming children is reprehensible? Isn't Jackson's own name and career already besmirched enough for him to be an easy target? And yet she got a lot of backlash for it, which I'm sure she didn't expect.
We speak a lot here of Meghan's "trial balloons" or her strategy of "throwing things at at the wall to see what sticks." As I review Oprah's body of work from the last decade (all of which I have to look up because I paid zilch attention in real time), I get a similar vibe from her. Her tried-and-true daytime talkshow format, which is what she knows best, is no longer working for her, but she has trouble finding something new.
In some fairness to her, however, I don't think she's speaking to Meghan merely because she can't get anyone else. @Sandie has pointed out the big chips on Oprah's shoulder when it comes to race, weight, and privilege. There's something about a "black" woman having the "courage" to turn her back on one of the most privileged institutions in the world that genuinely appeals to Oprah. Perhaps her true hope, when she was invited to the wedding, was an interview with Prince William and Catherine. But after patiently waiting for three years, she realized those "elitist" Cambs just wouldn't come through for her. The Harkles are second best and they'll help her believe that the BRF tuned her out not because she no longer brings value, but because they're "racist." Extra points if Meghan can insinuate that super-fit Catherine has an eating disorder.
--------------
I think that's a lot of it. Those photos of Oprah with Weinstein are cringy. But I suspect that the Harkles are oblivious to the nuances there.
There's something about a "black" woman having the "courage" to turn her back on one of the most privileged institutions in the world that genuinely appeals to Oprah.
@ Enbrethiliel: But in realityMeghan hasn’t turned her back on one of the most privileged institutions in the world. This is part of Meghan’s narcissistic facade. In reality, Meghan craves all the privileges and then some from this institution. She wants all the benefits without any of the responsibilities or work needed to keep the privileges.
If she was truly turning her back on it, she would have relinquished her title at Megxit and directed Harry to do the same. Instead she wants to cherry pick the elements of being part of the institution to sell on the open market to advance the agenda she has had since first setting eyes on Harry at the SoHo blind date.
Now that they’re in the US, I doubt she will actually want to do anything that amounts to hard work. She thinks she can get by spewing word salad while going through the motions pretending to work and hoping nobody will notice she is a fraud. Meghan wants to live a lavish lifestyle filled with all the material goods and status she feels entitled to as she flits from red carpet event to red carpet event around the globe using the benefits of being a duchess in that institution.
Without that institution, she is a nobody. She is only cultivating the facade of turning her back on it. It is her lifeblood and raison d’etre.
Which brings us again to: Why? Others here have had more interesting answers to that than I have; I'm not conspiracy minded. I don't understand the theories that she wants an "in" with the royal family. To what end?
She's a billionaire. She's retirement age. She's succeeded beyond her wildest dreams, no doubt. Why not go and do some good in the world?
I know COVID was blamed for the delay in the mental health special. But given it was supposed to roll out in April 2020 IMO that's not a feasible reason for all the delay. I expect it was mostly lack of follow through from H plus Megxit.
I expect a "what it's like to marry into the RF and have a child" special for M was always part of that deal with H&M knowing that could happen only if they stepped back (but they knew they would as they planned ahead.) I rather doubt O knew in spring 2019 they'd be leaving the RF though.
Why O didn't back out I don't know. Maybe she thinks they are ratings gold as her judgment isn't always good. Maybe H&M played hardball too as in "we're a package deal?" Maybe O didn't want to be accused of pulling out on a publicized mental health initiative? I do expect soldiers' mental health (beyond Invictus) was supposed to be a big part of that special so no wonder H is screaming he has to keep his military connections and saying that without him soldiers would commit suicide. He can't really believe that, can he?
What bigger feather in her cap than being a Godmother to a Royal baby?
Worth a whole lot of money etc to her to get it.
Just a thought.
All excellent points you’ve made. You are right, O’s lack of #MeToo medals must be a concern (unless you count her tales of her past experiences years ago as a child, then as a reporter the truth of which others here have debated). Maybe she actually believes that following a babbling “poor Rachel” around the shopping district of Montecito like a disciple will translate to activism.
Many were angry that she went after a dead MJ for her tv bucks, instead of looking into the plentiful allegations against her powerful,,white Hollywood (and political) friends. Not a blink about Weinstein, or Streep, or Clinton, for example. She was called out on it and, in looking her up briefly yesterday since I don’t pay attention I her either, it seems like there is still strong audience disgust for her there even among the demographics she may think she has locked in. Her elitism and sketchiness have not gone unnoticed, from what I saw.
The more I think about what my friend said, the more I think Oprah and Meghan are quite alike: two narcissistic mansion dwellers pretending they care about the little people, while talking and talking and talking and talking for cash and branding deals, and also using contract relationships as brand props.
I also think when Megs is ready to dump H in pursuit of more cash and fame, she might actually skip the aging multi millionaire guys and try to slid into the world of Oprah, Gayle, Ellen, Tyler, Aniston, Sandra. Megs is probably using this interview as recon, to see how it works on a Hollywood level versus the little Toronto level. If it seems like she can work this new hobby horse, and can get it and make it profitable fast, she can shuck off Harry without a divorce, grab Doria and Markus, embed, keep the duchess thing public, keep talking and swanning, and the rest is under wraps. And once again, Harry loses and has two dolls to raise and remains lost in life, waiting for her occasional call.
"@Aquitaine
The white shirt and black skirt would be my "favorite" CBK throwback look as well. It was pretty bad. If she had wanted to copy the look, the least she could have done was wait until she had had the baby.
If I remember correctly, the Endeavor Fund awards ceremony was a post-Morocco event. A friend of mine remarked that for someone who was so desperate to rock a red carpet look that she wore a 99,000 Dior gown to what was essentially a smart casual event, Meghan blew her big chance when she actually got it. No one would have dragged her for being dressed to the nines at the awards, but instead she came looking like a server. (No offense to servers.)"
And therein lies Meghan's problem. She did look like a server because that look did nothing for her.
I've just remembered a look that did work for her. Also Endeavour Awards. This time in 2018. The suit is perfectly tailored to her, make up and hair on point. Ditto accessories.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/02/02/48CD0F8F00000578-5341187-Ms_Markle_pictured_outside_the_Endeavour_Fund_Awards_Ceremony_at-a-3_1517537002168.jpg
Awwww gee.
The Express says Meghan will keep “her birthing plan shrouded in secrecy” —- what a surprise!
Me, I think it will involve
a 📞 and 💵💳 and 🕰 then 📡 plus
a ✈️ or 🚁 or 🛸,
to 🌇 and then,
a 🚛 carrying
a 📦
to 🎡🏠⛲️.
.
.
Speculation: sly Philip has seen the morning papers the last couple of days, and he put a fist through a wall while cursing curses he hasn’t used since the military, and he just needed an X-ray and a small cast. He is tucked up cozily now in hospital with a Dick Francis novel, and kind savvy nurses who are giggling and helping him make terrifying prank calls to Montecito. “Oooh he called him a right *##!£&% plank, did you hear that! You tell him from all of us, Sir! Now let’s call his American slapper again, shall we?”
Best wishes, Prince Philip!
And Lizzie, you were right, the Apple mental health program with Oprah and Harry is was just a bright, shiny object Oprah dangled in front of them until she could lock down this interview.
Page Six says their info is taken from the Times of London, so if anyone has access to the Times article, it would be interesting to read what else the Times has to say.
Here’s the Page Six article:
Page Six
Oprah courted Meghan Markle, Prince Harry for three years to land interview
By Lee Brown
February 16, 2021 | 12:51pm
Headline: Oprah Winfrey courted Meghan Markle and Prince Harry for three years to land her exclusive interview with the couple, it was reported Tuesday.
While the 67-year-old talk show queen was described as a “friend of the couple” when she was a guest at their May 2018 royal wedding, she had only met Markle once before then — while first trying to land an interview, according to the Times of London.
She continued to play the “long game” and acted as the Duchess of Sussex’s mentor, even befriending her mother, Doria Ragland, when they moved to Oprah’s upscale California neighborhood last year, the UK Times said.
Winfrey’s series about mental health for Apple TV with Harry was seen by many royal insiders as a “canny move” to “keep the couple happy,” the report said.
The fact that Oprah would land the interview was long an “open secret in palace circles” — with Page Six noting speculation about it in January last year.
But Monday’s formal announcement caught Buckingham Palace by surprise, with royal officials only learning about the finalized interview on Twitter, the report said.
It will air March 7, just a week after the end of the one-year trial period for the Sussexes’ split from royal duties, and the UK Times noted fears that it will only widen the rift between the couple and the rest of the family.
Insiders also noted to the paper the royal family’s disastrous history of tell-all TV interviews.
Harry’s late mother, Princess Diana, regretted her controversial 1995 “Panorama” interview in which she opened up about her self-harm, bulimia and infidelity in her marriage with heir to the throne Prince Charles, famously saying “there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.”
More recently, Prince Andrew agreed to a BBC interview to discuss his relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — instead creating a severe backlash that saw him soon dumped from royal duties.
Maybe Oprah is fishing for a new role--Godmother.
What bigger feather in her cap than being a Godmother to a Royal baby?
Worth a whole lot of money etc to her to get it.
Just a thought.
@MustySyphone: The thought of Oprah as a godmother crossed my mind too. The Sussexes could trumpet their uber wokeness of having the first POC godparent to a royal baby and Oprah will serve as a nice prop in the christening photos, so they both get something out if it, which is more important than anything else to these people. It would also guarantee that the names of the godparents would be made public instead of the juvenile guessing game they played by not publishing the names of Archie’s godparents.
As Meghan has said Doria told her, and I am paraphrasing this, but this accurately captures the essence of what Meghan said: Never do anything for anyone unless you get something for yourself.
Wow! Thanks for the link! It does make sense. Although it still doesn't make a ton of sense to me O is so determined. Except as others have said, she's alot like M (even down to wanting to be rewarded for giving away other people's property/donations-- remember when M insisted that bakery give stuff away and her efforts to give away studio food in Toronto.) And she is tuned into women's weight issues, privilege, and race.
Re: O as godmother-- I guess. Which church do folks suppose they will use to baptise the baby? COE? You'd think so since H&M are members but won't they have to go to England? They've already milked the US Episcopal archbishop, Michael Curry, for all he's worth, and I doubt Doria's church, Agape International Spiritual Center, does christenings or baptisms.
Brace yourselves for a July 1 birth....
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-overjoyed-pregnancy-happened-quickly-after-miscarriage/
Without that institution, she is a nobody. She is only cultivating the facade of turning her back on it. It is her lifeblood and raison d’etre.
I absolutely agree! I guess my original comment should have had more quotation marks. A "black" woman having the "courage" to "turn her back on" the BRF. It may not be true, but I definitely see both Meghan and Oprah spinning it that way!
She's a billionaire. She's retirement age. She's succeeded beyond her wildest dreams, no doubt. Why not go and do some good in the world?
We could say the same thing about Meghan. She succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of any (twice) divorced, over-35 B-list actress. Why couldn't she just be happy, commit to the same modest number of engagements Catherine does every year, and avoid creating problems for other people?
I don't think an "in" with the BRF is Oprah's great white whale at this point, though it's definitely a goal that appeals to the chips on her shoulder that @Sandie has pointed out. I think O just wants to be as influential and visible as she once was, and partnering up with the Harkles is simply her best option. As others have pointed out, she hasn't been able to interview either Jill Biden or Kamala Harris (which would have been unthinkable in the 90s and even early 2000s). Her decision to go after Michael Jackson backfired really badly on her. She used to get hundreds of freebies from multiple companies for the "Oprah's Favorite Things" show; these days, she's slumming with a small business that specializes in oatmilk lattes.
A normal person would think, "I had a great run and I'll always be permanently A-list, but it's time for the younger ones to have a turn." But there's not enough fuel there for a narc.
I know COVID was blamed for the delay in the mental health special. But given it was supposed to roll out in April 2020 IMO that's not a feasible reason for all the delay. I expect it was mostly lack of follow through from H plus Megxit.
Plus, given how tough the restrictions were for many people last year, any time between March 2020 to the end of the year would have been perfect for a mental health special. Even I'm kind of baffled that someone who has made billions through the media and someone else who was desperate for money at the time didn't strike when the iron was hot.
@MustySyphone
Maybe Oprah is fishing for a new role--Godmother.
Nice! And she'd have a vested interest in persuading everyone that Meghan was 100% pregnant not just with her godchild Diana but with big brother Archie.
@HappyDays
One more thought about Oprah getting herself in line to be a godparent: This fits perfectly for Meghan because she has no true friends.
I'm sure Prince Harry's surrogate father David Foster and wife Katharine McPhee are out. Not a peep from George and Amal Clooney since forever. Silence from David and Victoria Beckham's corner as well. A recent BG blind hints that Nick and Priyanka Jonas may want in, but they're no longer successful and cool enough for Meghan. Even Elton John may be out. But James Corden may still be in. Godmother Oprah and Godfather James?
If little Diana's godparents' names are announced (because no one wants to waste a good PR opportunity), it will be quite the contrast to Archie's Christening. I think we can all predict that a merchable baby girl will be treated so differently from her big brother that the Harkles will be putting the "pry" back into "privacy."
@Aquitaine
I've just remembered a look that did work for her. Also Endeavour Awards. This time in 2018.
You're right. That is a very good look on Meghan. I don't even hate to say it. I wish I could look as good in a suit.
O, Godmother!
I wonder what other transactional, influential, monied desperate people will be clamoring for the position of godparents?
I can certainly see O in this position. The mother Meghan should have had. Doria has served her purpose already.
The Spencer's are tapped out, I would imagine. Too bad, if One is going to 'birth' the next Diana Elizabeth Emerald Tiara baby.
I also think when Megs is ready to dump H in pursuit of more cash and fame, she might actually skip the aging multi millionaire guys and try to slid into the world of Oprah, Gayle, Ellen, Tyler, Aniston, Sandra.
Say what you like about Oprah, Gayle and Ellen, at least there's some evidence of a work ethic and consistency with them. Yes, Oprah and Ellen were nightmares to work with, but they banged out new shows almost daily and a spot on their teams looked impressive on a terrorized employee's cv. They offered some value. We could say the same about Aniston and Bullock: They didn't always make hits, but they created value, a professional reputation, and a consistent brand over many years.
What have the Harkles given us since 2017? Diplomatic snafus in Australia and Morocco, attention whoring in South Africa, a court case in Britain, two alienated extended families, a growing list of celebrities who won't speak to them, an e-mail list they can't even sell, an honorable mention when they didn't make the TIME100, the world's most boring Zoom interviews, a Netflix deal that's going nowhere, an underwhelming first podcast on Spotify, and a rapidly growing bald spot. It's not looking good, Hal and Meg.
I can see Meghan being very attracted to this shiny career path. But I wonder if she still thinks she has a shot at politics. One vague nod from Harris in her direction and she'll be off chasing that brass ring again!
Cute!
Re the birthing plan.
I guess a giddy Hairy will make an announcement sitting outside the Archie playhouse, sans Archie of course.