Skip to main content

What Oprah will ask the Sussexes - and what I would ask them

Supposedly Oprah's interview with the Sussexes is already recorded, which is too bad, because I have plenty of questions I would have suggested. 

Oprah will no doubt offer her standard questions - Are you living your best life? - plus some setups on the social justice theme she and the Sussexes are so fond of. 

Do you think your negative media coverage in the UK was motivated by racism?  

Tell us about your long-term commitment to environmentalism/Grenfell victims/menstrual health/COVID victims/Black History Month/Mayhew Dogs/Girls in South Africa/SmartWorks fashion/Indigenous Women in Canada. 

Also, I hear you really like Africa and have visited twice. Is that part of your anti-racism initiative, and how will you continue to propel your efforts in Africa while living in a big house in California?

Oprah has her own initiative in Africa, a school for girls near Johannesberg that has been plagued by abuse allegations, so she is comfortable with the idea of assisting Africa and Africans from the comfort of her own homes in California and Hawaii. 

A few abstract questions

I also expect a few big, abstract puffball questions from Oprah. 

What does privacy mean to you? What is the biggest misunderstanding about you? What type of mother do you want to be? What makes you sad? Whom do you trust?

Since Oprah has a rather mixed relationship with her own family - Oprah's mother spent so much money in one of Milwaukee's ritziest boutiques that Oprah actually instructed the proprietor to stop selling to her - we can also expect some sympathy about Meghan's strange family situation.

What I would do

A good interview generally starts on a comforting note. I'm here to hear your side of the story. 

A journalist who has time on her side (not someone interviewing a busy cop on the street, for example), generally wins over the trust of her subject by emphasizing what they agree on and what they have in common. It's wonderful to see you here. I'm so glad you've discovered this lovely area of Santa Monica. It's our little secret, but now you share our secret. 

If the subject is burning to say something, like "We can all live a life of service. Service is universal", it's a good idea to let them say it, because otherwise they won't be able to concentrate on anything else. Let them get it out, nod a lot to show you've listened to them. You can even go so far as to repeat it back to them. So, you feel that everyone can live a life of service. We all can. You're saying that it's universal.  

This makes the subject feel validated and much more comfortable. They've said what they've come here to say. 

At this point, you can start to turn up the temperature.

The difficult questions

Mid-interview is the time for difficult questions. I like to slowly slide into them, building on the rapport that I've built up in the interview so far, sometimes even using the subject's own language. You've said that service is universal, but you didn't want to serve on the Royal Family's terms, did you? Didn't you know what those terms were before you were married? 

You want to ask difficult questions, but not in a harsh manner that will cause your subject to stand up and walk out on you, or your audience to conclude that you are bullying the subject and turn agains you out of sympathy. 

If you have something negative to say, it's always useful to attribute to those thoughts to others, perhaps abstract figures like "some people" or "your critics".

Some people say that you seem to be dominating your husband, that you've taken him away from his friends, his family, his country, and his job - isolated him - and that he looks lost and unhappy. What would you say to those people?

The toughest question

The toughest question represents the high point of the interview, the point at which your subject is hopefully too committed to walk out, and the point at which you can answer the one question everyone really wants to know.

I'd ease into this if I were the one interviewing Meghan.

Privacy is important to you, isn't it? Especially when it concerns the people you love. (Give her a chance to nod or respond here, perhaps use up the paragraphs about privacy she has practiced in advance). 

Was it because of this need for privacy that there were so many unusual aspects to the birth of your first child? You concealed the due date, you concealed the place and time of birth, you kept the attending doctors secret, the name of the godparents are secret, and you were very slow to share images of the child. Why?

At this point, Meghan would probably stumble a bit, perhaps try to repeat her practiced paragraph about privacy, maybe smile and giggle in an attempt to be charming.

I would then go in for the kill.

Is the reason there's so much secrecy because your child was born to a surrogate, and you do not currently have custody of the child?

The long silence 

Not expecting this question, Meg would presumably not know what to say. Biting her lip, perhaps. 

This is when a good journalist uses silence as a tool. 

Just wait and sit until the subject comes up with some answer, any answer.

Back in journalism school, we used to study how Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes did this. The toughest question, silence, tight focus on the subject's face to catch any microexpressions. Blinking, touching nose, looking away.

Meg might say, "We just don't feel the public has a right to this child," but her tone and timbre will be revealing.

Following the tough question

The surest sign of a nonprofessional reporter is someone who doesn't use a juicy answer to a previous question to build the follow-up question. 

(Celebrity non-journalist interviewers are notorious for this: they have prewritten questions 1-5, and darned if prewritten question 4 isn't going to follow prewritten question 3, even if the answer to Question 3 is a murder confession).

In this case, I'd probably say, If the public doesn't have a right to this child, why is he in line for the British throne? Shouldn't you remove him from the line of succession? Part of being a British Royal is being visible to the British public."

"We don't want to make decisions for him," Meg might say. "We don't think it's up to us to renounce his heritage."

But how much British heritage will he have? I would ask.  He lives in the US. How can he possibly understand British culture and British values? How could he ever lead the British people if called upon? He will be, quite frankly, a foreigner.

More silence, until she comes up with some answer, any answer.

Cooling down

After a run of tense questions, it's a good idea to calm down a bit with some nice positive talk that will put your subject at ease. 

Tell me more about Archie. Is he more like you, or more like his father? Is he looking forward to being a big brother? What are your hopes and dreams for your children?

If you have a very long interview, you can go through several rounds of this, tense to relaxed, tense to relaxed. 

But you always want to be able to end on relaxed if you can, so you can at least have the fiction that you and your subject ended as friends. (You never know when you might need that subject's co-operation on something else in the future.)

In this case, Harry will come in for the final half hour, and we'll get a little more social justice chatter plus some softball questions like What do you love about each other?

It'll all be fascinating. 

Comments

Sylvia said…

Palace 'nervous'
Meghan Markle will follow in Diana's footsteps with bombshell interview

Royal sources said there would be “a great deal of nervousness” as to what the couple would say given the Palace has no influence over the couple’s deals.

One said: “One only has to look at the previous instalments of the tell-all interview to know these things never end up with a wholly positive experience for any party

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/palace-nervous-meghan-markle-follow-23506167
NeutralObserver said…
@Sandie, @AnT, You ladies are more knowledgeable than I am about the PR game. It's always so useful to get a pro's point of view. I'm just a dumb audience member who hates to be taken for a ride. If the Oprah interview is a face-off between two huge egos, it might be interesting to watch. If Oprah humors Megs because she wants to make her one of her satellites, like the horrible & bogus 'Dr.' Phil, it will be boring. I can't wait to read the reviews & find out what the ratings are. Ironically, the Queen's action might increase interest.

@Jessica, @abbyh, Thanks for the info on roofs, insurance, & the 2 star rating for that particular charity. The reading of the People article says the Harkles 'will' donate toward a new roof, but not that they 'have' already. If their donation is in the $2000 range, that's about par for a Harkle gift. They shell out in dribs & drabs & make sure we hear about it. I went to the Charity Navigator site to see what their star ratings mean, & apparently 2 stars means no scandals so far, but the charity is dirt poor, so would welcome a mention by Megs.

Royal Reporter tweeted this today. I thought it was interesting that he put it out there.

Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
·
2h
There’s strong support from the British public for removing Prince Harry from the line of succession in a new
@YouGov
poll today. Some 49 per cent support removing the sixth in line to the throne; 28 per cent are opposed and 24 per cent don’t know (or possibly don’t care).

Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
·
3h
There’s a big political divide as well as a difference depending on the age of respondents. Almost 7 in 10 Conservative supporters think he should be removed (68 per cent) while only a third of Labour supporters do (33 per cent).

The comments are amusing.
SwampWoman said…
MustySyphone says:
Same with Netflix and Spotify. I don't believe either company can afford to alienate other English speaking countries and the CW at large. Too big a loss of market share


They don't care about alienating the majority of Americans for profit; not sure that they would worry about alienating the UK.
Then there's the classic:

`Tell me, Meghan, where do you see yourself in 5 years time?'
Re the Spotify spot-he looks so incredibly miserable, yeah? Wow. And she has her Kim Zolciak wig and face on. Doesn't look nearly as pregnant(if at all) as she did in that photograph, either.
SwampWoman said…
The palace being 'nervous' sounds like CBS, Oprah, AND the Craptastics are spinning as fast as they can for eyeballs on their show. I can smell desperation from here.
jessica said…
The Zolciak look 👀 😂

Spot on!!! She looks not at all like Meghan Markle. She looks awful and needs a new hairdo. Spotify told them to clean up and get to work. I still can’t believe they are taking credit for the rise in subscribers but now the lame release end of December makes sense. They had to, to put out that Joe’s success was their own, ride on his coattails and look success themselves without doing any work. Mentioned Michelle’s podcast for the association. The woman has no shame.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
Then there's the classic:

`Tell me, Meghan, where do you see yourself in 5 years time?'


Oooh, oooh, can I play? (Waving hand in air wildly.) I see her as (a) living in a tent as a homeless person due to her mental illness, (b) dead from an overdose, and (c) divorced.
@SwampWoman

They may not care about alienating the majority of Americans for profit but if you alienate anybody you also alienate any profits from that group.
If its a feel good fluffed piece then it can be marketed world wide with world wide exposure and profits.
If its a nasty piece towards the Queen and BRF then it won't sell as well world wide and with it more profits.

If its all about money then disrespecting a 94 year old woman who has lived a life of true service would cut into those monies is what I'm say8ig.
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
Then there's the classic:

`Tell me, Meghan, where do you see yourself in 5 years time?'


Oh me also!

I see her as
A) living in a smaller house (can't afford upkeep on muddy house).
B) Oprah and Gayle have repaid whatever debt and have nothing to do with her (Hollywood already turned its back).
C). Charles continues to fund her and Doria on a much smaller scale in order to avoid the embarrassing Lindsey Lohan ending
D) the punchline of every joke for years to come
E). Drip has overdosed and she profits off selling his death (much like Drip did with his mother)
@jessica, I almost think she's a psychopath. She'd best be careful with Rogan-he'd chew her up and spit her out in record time and that would be the end. The man pulls no punches and cuts right to it. Her and JCMH are a big nothing burger-nothing to show or turn in for Spotify or Netflix, and she knows it. It's like when a kid tries to BS the teacher when it's time to turn in homework.
SwampWoman said…
Musty, I understand what you're saying; a rational business would wish to maximize profits and minimize losses. What we do NOT know is how much money they are receiving from the one world order people.
`I'm interested in your vision for the future - tell me all about it.'
Mel said…
 I went to the Charity Navigator site to see what their star ratings mean, & apparently 2 stars means no scandals so far, but the charity is dirt poor, so would welcome a mention by Megs.
-----------------

They don't have audited financials. Does that mean anything?
I usually look askance when I see that.
hunter said…
Here is a great video from last year, a long term royal photographer speaking about what Harry USED to be like.

I've forwarded the video to the good bit starting 1:45 here: how Harry used to be fun
hunter said…
He goes on to say that yes, Meghan is the culprit in all these shenanigans.
Christine said…
Hello everyone. I have such trouble signing in on my phone hear on the weekends. I am going to change my password and that will help!

What a weekend!! Enough drama for you?

Seeing the look on Charles's face as he left seeing his father was worrying. Hoping and praying he continues to improve. I completely feel that his condition was brought on by stress. Just a gut feeling. At such an advanced age, strain and stress can literally stop the heart. I think it explains the bit of agression we feel from the Queen.

Like Queen E appearing BEFORE the Sussexes interview?! Nice work ma'am, very nice. Wondering what she'll discuss. Issues in Britain relating to the commonwealth celebrations but will she say anything of her family's drama? Now that I will tune in for, but as for the other, I'd rather honestly rather do a lot of unpleasant things than watch it.

Oprah will be careful in the interview. She'll be flattering to Meghan of course but Oprah will be cautious. The interview will a lot of bs about Meghan's love of service, charity, her love for Harry and she'll touch on her 'difficulties'. Since it is laying the groundwork for people to view her as a viable politician, I don't think a lot of dirt will be dished. A lot of vagueness.... how she had no voice, felt isolated, controlled. They'll show Archie in the TV show which is frankly why people may tune in. Out of curiousity to possibly see the child whose image she has so jealously controlled. Towards the end, Harry will pop in all bubbly with his English charm.

2 purposes for the interview- To introduce Meg as a political possibility and to rejuvenate interest in their lives again. I could be wrong, but there will be little to no dirt spilled on the RF.

Unless Meghan is truly crazy. Which.... eh!
Christine said…
ConstantGardener- oooh I'd love to see Rogan interview her. She'd become very angry with Rogan in short order
@Christine, I'd pay good money to watch that. I bet it would be one of the highest rated shows of the year for any format. It would be so much fun. "That's nice, but if you think that, then why did you actually do this?" etc etc. It would be great. She'd be a pile of smoking rubble in <5 minutes.
jessica said…
Christine, couldn’t agree more. Unless she goes off script and forgets her lines. Idk how it will initiate any interest though. Sounds bland and boring. Rich people talking down to the masses.

ConstantGardener33, I think she’s definitely a sociopath, she quite possibly has reached psychopathy status. It’s very scary when you look at her timeline of declaring she would no longer settle and divorcing Trevor, to finding every who’s-who and gullible elitist out there to take full advantage of.

I’m starting to think Serena distanced herself from Meghan as soon as the court case filing happened. She knew Meghan made her look like an idiot and it was a PR nightmare waiting to happen. Unfortunately, we didn’t get to see the total fall-out of that and I wish the case went forward, so we could see Serena coming out in an Interview and explaining how she was Markled. I think Meghan was flirting hard with tech-savvy and far wealthier Alexis, as well, and Serena was like ‘im out’. If it was all PR, same thing. Serena had enough.

Another thing that is influencing the interview: Oprah’s exclusivity deal with OWN network (Discovery Inc) is up in the next year or two. She’ll be courting all the streaming services for a BIG payday. This is to help reintroduce Oprah as a ratings Queen. Sort of like the fake end of Keeping up with the Kardashians...they were just leaving cable.
Christine said…
Jessica- Yeah Serena flew the coop on Meghan and fast. She was definitely flirting with Alexis. Meghan is the type of friend you could never trust around your man. She's the type that always wants to feel as if your man wants her. That upper hand for her is so important. I know a few girls like that.

Oprah is also not stupid. While she wants to get a big scoop, she doesn't want to completely f herself over. But we will see!
@Acquetaine,

Interesting that MM's voice is about two octaves higher in that video you put up. I wonder when she changed her voice to the deep, fake voice that's she's using now? She should go back to her regular voice. It doesn't grate on your nerves as much as her fake, "politician's" voice. It is really off-putting, as so many of MM's traits are.
Sandie said…
Do you think the Oprah interview will be a sit down in the garden or on one of their patios or balconies, or will there be some candid footage of them chatting to Oprah in the kitchen or elsewhere in the house? I think Oprah usually does the static sit down interview.

In the Spotify promo, the area behind the couch looked rather bare. What happened to the throws, candles, books, flowers, plants, large quartz crystal geode?
@christine,

I think that Serena is still a good friend of MM's. She's just keeping it under cover, since the People Five story broke. Serena wasn't going to get involved in that mess. All of that "I don't know who she is," is just a stunt, and you can see Serena laughing in that video. She not laughing as a joke. She laughing at US, because we aren't cool enough or have enough money to be a part of her crowd and to know the insider secrets. All of the other suspected People Five suddenly got very quiet at the same time that Serena did.

Serena has been trying to be sexy for a couple of years now, and I think she's getting tips from MM. Unfortunately, with those muscles, she looks like she could take down a semi going 100 mph with a swipe of her hand.

Serena knows her tennis days are nearly over (she just lost another match), and she's looking for money, just as MM is, no matter who she married. They are always looking for more.

MM spreading her legs for Serena's husband suggests to me more of a threesome, rather than MM going after Serena's husband. Would anybody be shocked that the Soho House girls are into threesomes? Gotta keep those multi-millionaire/billionaire men happy.
jessica said…
Christine,

We are about to see Meghan’s true level of Markling behavior. If she manages to Markle Oprah, then we are far underestimating her breadth.

I know women like her too. They need every single guy to be into them no matter what. I don’t know what drives them except desperation.

Each time I look at Harry I am shocked. Hasn’t gone away. I think he knows he’s done a deal with a devil who doesn’t care about him, and he barely cares about himself and has struggled mentally for a long time with that, so she’s sort of like a mirror of what he already thought deep down. I do think he is super conflicted and not OK with it. Why else would he look so utterly defeated. Could be a situation where he is staying for the kids and trying to not rush out of the commitment, but damn it’s hard to watch.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
https://dailyuknews.com/uk-news/barack-obama-and-bruce-springsteen-release-spotify-podcast-series/

This is how you promote a podcast series.

First, you do the recording and production to get the series 'in the bag' (the Harkles just do not have the attention span to do a regular podcast like Joe Rogan). Then you send out press releases with photos, sneak previews, a description of the series, and dates for when they will be available.

Do the Harkles actually have anything 'in the bag'? Who the heck is doing their marketing and promotion, and why are they such amateurs?
jessica said…
Oh and I’d love to see Megs on Joe Rogan. She would drive him nuts and it would end in tears (for her).

Can we make this happen? Maybe I’ll ping him on SM and ask. I doubt he’d be interested at all. He has people who can talk for hours!!!!
I’d love to see it!!!
LavenderLady said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christine said…
Jessica- it is hard to watch Harry. I struggle to look at him at all. It's like when you've cared for someone and/or had affection for them and watch them completely fall into the toilet. He knows. He makes excuses for himself and is probably in denial about how things are really going. About his family, he thinks stuff like..."oh things are okay, I spoke to pa a few weeks ago and he said everyone's fine". He probably hangs onto the bare minimum contact as signs to him that things are still okay enough. If William sends an olive branch or casual text asking "how are you doing- how are things?", Harry probably sighs in relief and thinks everything isn't so far gone. Sad stuff.

Then he tells Megs, "Hey my brother messaged me today" and she says "Oh that's great H, see things are just fine" and then she turns and issues a press release "William and Harry's relationship has never been better. William sends gifts for Archie and Meghan" LOL
I can't get through the entire interview about The Tig. She just annoys me too much, but this story about how she took one sip of The Tig and suddenly knew all about wine is just nonsense. Somms take years to learn their craft, but "whip smart" Megs can learn everything about wine in one sip?

Also, she was out and out asking for a mentor.

@jessica,

Thanks for taking one for the team! I'm looking forward to your report. Don't forget the red outfit where a square box has slipped down into the bottom of the lining of her coat.
Christine said…
Thank you to anyone who are going to watch the interview. I will not and cannot. I don't think I could drink enough plus it's on Sunday night and I don't want to be too hungover

The Daily Mail is going to be a madhouse with the comments. I have to say, I was reading some People mag comments and Americans are much more sympathetic to them.
Christine said…
Was just reading more American commentary on H&M and it does appear that people are starting to change their minds and have more of a negative viewpoint. Slower process for Americans as we usually like the 'underdog' or the one who was wronged. Only.... people realize that they did the wrongdoing!
AnT said…
@JennS,

The Oscar that Megs is wearing (unless hers was bespoke) is styled a dropped waist that meets a deep peplum hem. It might accommodate a tiny bump in real life, but there is clearly no bump there in the Spotify video, per the fold lines at the critical portion of her torso. And, certainly there is nothing like the towering bump she showed off in the black-and-white, barefoot Harry photo.

So she’s lying again. No surprise. We are just not supposed to notice it, of course.

Oh, that video is hilarious! I skipped to about the half-way mark. MM talks about herself and The Tig for 30 minutes, then the moderator asks for questions from the audience. Nobody had a question for MM!

She tried to cover it up with jokes, but oh, how embarrassing! Even then nobody cares what MM thinks. Why she feels that it's different now, is anybody's guess.

Why does MM feel that she needs a "voice"? Nobody but a few young and gullible kids have any interest in what she has to say.

Sandie said…
Oprah is going to get Meghan to talk about her family. Supposedly Oprah's production team requested footage of a Samantha interview from way back.

Meghan the victim of ... everything and everybody. I have a horrible feeling about this. Sitting in the ostentatious Mudslide Manor, in very expensive designer clothes, trying to destroy her family.
NeutralObserver said…
@JennS, I keep tellin' ya, Jenn, the woman in the b&w photo was a plump little white gel Megs found online.

@AnT, I went back to LSA, to see the photo Jenn was talking about, & now there are several posters who think that Oprah might be furious because she's been had! I have no idea what really happened. I'd think Oprah would be hard to bamboozle. Posters also think ITV leaked the news about the interview because British media is steamed about Meg's silly lawsuit.

LSA has a lot of posters who are very aware of how shallow MSM reporting is in the US, & how little fact checking goes on. Everyone just parrots the party line. If Megs goes big on 'racist Britannia,' a lot of people might buy it, because they have little knowledge of Britain. Of course, they'd have to watch it first, & many might not. Who watches tv on Sunday night these days? Young people? Old people? I assume CBS knows who their much smaller than 20 years ago audience is. Supposedly white viewers have ditched the networks in bigger numbers than POC, so maybe they're aiming for a primarily black audience. Some of them might be watching the NBA AllStar game with their husbands & boyfriends, though.

@Sandie, if Oprah & Megs do a big pile on on white folks, ie the Markle family,(& the Markle family has been thoroughly trashed by Megs' stans), I'm not sure that that helps Oprah's career. She became a big star in the US because middle class white women loved her. Of course, as SwampWoman noted, many businesses don't care about the US market these days, like Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc.

@JennS, thanking you in advance for taking one for the team. You're a better woman than I, Gunga Din!
I just want Oprah to ask:

"If you wanted your freedom, if the BRF was so stifling, why don't you voluntarily give up your Duke and Duchess titles? Why keep them in America?
Pantsface said…
I dont know if this has been mentioned before - according to "This Morning" a daytime magazine show in the UK, CBS asked for permission to show an interview that this morning team (Holly and Phil) had with Sam Markle, sadly i paid little attention his morning as I was glossing my skirting boards at the time, BUT if they asked for permission, maybe a week or two ago, maybe more, surely the Palace knew what was about to implode and cut their losses earlier than anticipated..
Natalier said…
Love the snark fm DM "If life throws you lemons...wear an Oscar de la Renta dress, like Meghan." Lmaol.
LavenderLady said…
@Jocelyn'sBellinis,
MM spreading her legs for Serena's husband suggests to me more of a threesome, rather than MM going after Serena's husband. Would anybody be shocked that the Soho House girls are into threesomes? Gotta keep those multi-millionaire/billionaire men happy.

*

No, no, no.

What we used to call a threesome, the woke-arati now calls it called polyamorous... :D
Anonymous said…
@Jocelyn’s Bellinis

Serena has been trying to be sexy for a couple of years now, and I think she's getting tips from MM. Unfortunately, with those muscles, she looks like she could take down a semi going 100 mph with a swipe of her hand.

LOL.
Acquitaine said…
@NeutralObserver said…

".......if Oprah & Megs do a big pile on on white folks, ie the Markle family,(& the Markle family has been thoroughly trashed by Megs' stans), I'm not sure that that helps Oprah's career. She became a big star in the US because middle class white women loved her."

Oprah already did a big pile on white people. Last summer She had a virtual discussion group in the name of BLM in which she labelled all white people inherently racists or possesors of white privilege.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oprah-white-privilege-comments-ted-cruz-a9657206.html

I don't think it got lots of views, but it was really shocking that she would do this in tye name of jumping on a trendy bandwagon.

On a different note, if the subject of race comes up which it will, i want her to ask about Harry's episodes of racism and no coaching it as unconscious bias because that's quite the unconscious bias!!!
NeutralObserver said…
I don't understand why Oprah doesn't just sit back & count her billions. She's richer, & more famous than God, & in some quarters, probably more popular. I know she's not at her peak, but I don't think she needs more cash, like Megs probably does. As the LSA ladies point out, the Harkles need Oprah more than she needs them.

I actually kind of like Megs dress. It looks like something I would throw over a bathing suit to take my kids to the beach back in the day, but mine would be in cotton, & cost under $100. ( A loooong time ago.). Megs' is in some sort of cheesy organdy like material. Sorry Mr. de la Renta, R.I.P. (I think Oscar might have designed dresses like it, charged the same amount of money, but had the sense to do in cotton.) I don't know who is running his shop now.
Acquitaine said…
@ Sandie said...
"Do you think the Oprah interview will be a sit down in the garden or on one of their patios or balconies, or will there be some candid footage of them chatting to Oprah in the kitchen or elsewhere in the house? I think Oprah usually does the static sit down interview.

In the Spotify promo, the area behind the couch looked rather bare. What happened to the throws, candles, books, flowers, plants, large quartz crystal geode?"

I think it will be in someone's garden or rather a garden setting.

Though i can't rule out Meghan's desire to show off interiors so i think i could ge completely wrong ir partially wrong so we see parts of her home.

The spotify promo is a different wall or possibly a different room. Their usual room doesn't have french doors behind them.

I think the sofa is really cheap and nasty looking. Certainly nothing you'd expect in a house that cost $14M.

Assuming it's their home rather than a studio set up. That is a sofa bought by someone who has no money, doesn't care, and has no eye for a decent looking sofa, but they think it makes them look wealthy.

The sofas in her Toronto home looked much better.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/98/7f/ac987fdf3ed5bf9bbe2e7def2ca06dd6.jpg

JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
NeutralObserver said…
@Acquitaine, Before Harry met Megs, his Nazi uniform thing, & the 'my little Paki friend' comment were almost the only things I knew about him other than the nude Vegas episode. Younger people wouldn't know about those things, & older people may have forgotten them. Depending on how Oprah feels about the Harkles, she's not going to mention them. My guess is she's got enough staff to dig up stuff like that, but is she out for Harkle blood? She'll do what suits her long term goals best. Harry is such a turnip, poor guy.
Nelo said…
@Acquataine, I doubt if that is their house and boy, does Harry look miserable. I guess this was shot before the pregnancy photoshoot as she doesn't look too heavy. I sometimes pity them. This is Meg's last ditch attempt to launch a career in whatever. Oprah's interview helped launch Obama's career. Oprah gave Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz and Gayle their careers. Her platform has elevated quite a number of people, so who knows how this interview may help Meghan.
lizzie said…
I don't know if the Spotify clip was shot in their house. But, the pillows are exactly the same patterns as those in several other Zoom clips. And that ladder blanket-holder thingy to the right of the French doors can be seen to the left of the fireplace in other Zoom clips.
luxem said…
One of the news article "leaks" said that the Harkles and the Palace worked "for weeks" to come up with a joint statement about the patronages and could not agree, so both put out their own statements.

Now imagine the Harkles trying to put together an entire podcast and having to get approval from Spotify execs, or it doesn't get broadcast. That likely explains why their one and only podcast was months ago!!
@Nelo

Yes But Oz, Obama, Phil, et al had something, some kind of talent, to offer and build on as well as being one thing (politician, physician, psychologist). Their own accomplishments as well. Grip and Drip have ?


I would like to point that if Oprah is going to pull the R card , well Drip is the poster child for white priviledge so how is she going to handle that?. And Grip had a, by Americn standards, privileged upbringing. As much as her schoolmates? No. But compared to the average American oh my yes. And the privileges she garners as a member of BRF? Holy cats she's got more than most and its still "poor me".
Anonymous said…
This is worth reading: https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/22/why-the-prince-and-princess-of-woke-had-to-leave-the-royal-family/

An excerpt:

They don’t know what service means. Here’s the difference: the Meghans of this world primarily serve themselves, always seeking new opportunities for self-expression, virtuous preening, ‘emotional growth’. The queen, in contrast, serves the crown. She has negated the self. She suppresses her self-expression, her political views and her emotions, to the end of submitting to something bigger than herself: the crown, the monarchy, the constitution. Now, we can discuss whether the crown is good or bad – I’m a republican, so I’m not a fan. But it is clear that Meghan and Elizabeth II have unbridgeably different understandings of ‘service’. Meghan’s idea of service always involves her expressing herself and revealing herself and reminding us how virtuous she is; the queen’s idea of service is to hide the self, to fold it into a larger, apparently more important project. The queen is about service, Meghan is about self-service.
Jdubya said…
https://blindgossip.com/meghan-markle-and-the-actor/#more-102019

don't know if i should post the article or let you go read it yourself.
Jdubya said…
And that story has a link to this story

https://www.thedailybeast.com/samantha-markle-claims-meghan-has-seemingly-brainwashed-prince-harry

Jdubya said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jdubya said…
LSA poster found a tax return for that charity in TX from 2018 - here is the link


https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/751881365_201810_990_2019102816788955.pdf

$13 million in revenue and nearly half ($6 million) went to salaries. They lease office space from a company owned by a board member, used printing services from relatives of an office and an employee and legal service from another board member. The organization does not document any meetings held. And the gala fundraising luncheon? Maybe they should cancel it because their fundraising events don't seem to make any money for them. Between the luncheon, a masquerade ball and other fundraising events their net income was -$492,000, i.e. they lost nearly half a million dollars on these events.

NeutralObserver said…
Classic Daily Mail comment:

skipper, Glos, about a minute ago

I suggest, since he will be American, that they call a boy "Buck". That's all they ever wanted, to make a buck

@JennS, the DM ended moderation, so hopefully your comment got posted. The DM is trashy, & I get tired of all the lurid photos, but they're very good at what they do, & their writers & their readers have a great sense of humor.
Ziggy said…
Please please please let the Queen and family use their TV special to spill the dirt about how they were conned about the fake Archie pregnancy.

I know it's a Commonwealth special, but I dare to dream. lol
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Acquitaine said…
@NeutralObserver said…
"@Acquitaine, Before Harry met Megs, his Nazi uniform thing, & the 'my little Paki friend' comment were almost the only things I knew about him other than the nude Vegas episode"

Harry kept having these whoopsies.....

There was the time he was quoted defending dating the African Chelsy by exclaiming loudly that at least she wasn't black (paraphrasing).

Then there was the time he told a black comedian that said comedian didn't sound black (paraphrasing)

The time he told another (Asian) Sandhurt cadet that they looked like a raghead.

He was actually sent on an anti-racism course after the 'raghead'comment, but apparently it didn't take because according to him, he discovered racism after he started dating Meghan and even then, according to his zoom calls didn't notice that he lived in one of the most diverse cities in the world whose overall population stands at 40% - 45% non-white.

To be fair, this is a man who grew up in a royal family, but according to his Megxit statement, his CW comments and so many comments later has revealed that he doesn't notice anything around him except his own satisfaction. He didn't know or understand who or what The Queen is.



Ziggy said…
@JennS - LOL at Harry Longstocking XD
@Jdubya, sounds like MM's kind of charity.
NeutralObserver said…
@Acquitaine, Please, please, people of Britain, keep that man from the monarchy or any position of power & responsibility. Can you see why we Americans rebelled against King George III?
AnT said…
@Puds,

In my opinion, if a spoiled, pampered, rich 40-year-old woman in 2021 is whining she hasn’t been able to “use her voice”.....because of others....she needs to be stripped of every educational diploma and uni degree she has, and laughed out of town.
punkinseed said…
Excellent description of how you interview Nutty. Thank you.
When I was a reporter, I used very similar approach, especially on controversial topics. A lot of times I just let them talk and talk and talk, then ask a question here or there. Casual, relaxed and softly slipped in the tougher questions, which by then would already be answered, but just needed some clarifications. Belini, yes! I ate a lot of cookies and got what I needed like you did on murder victims and the killer's family, etc. Well done you getting the exclusive before your competition.
I think Orpah's whole interview isn't about anything but targeting the royal family in an attempt to cancel them as the goal. Megs is an abbadon (destroyer) type right now because typical of a very evil Narcissist, if she can't have everything she wants at all times no matter who gets stomped on she will go for broke and nuke anyone in her way. Since BP has told them both that the terms are this and final, she will be in full on dead man's switch mode. Kamakazee interview because since she can't have all things on her terms and her way, nobody will be left standing and she thinks. She wants to do harm, a lot of harm, to anyone and everyone who told her "NO!"
For Oprah to be doing all of this and supporting such evil intentions, and she knows full well she is, she will not be coming out of this unscathed. Quite the contrary. Oprah isn't just the messenger in this either. She's driving this vehicle and thinking, because she is such a Narc. herself, that how she presents will give her the fame supply she so endlessly craves. It will backfire, but she'd never admit that.
I predict Oprah and M&H are going after the "racist" slant because hey, the queen told them NO, so get her back by using race.
R_O said…
This interview will help Meghan and Harry push the RF is racist and misogynistic and repressive narrative. That the RF is old-fashioned in its ways. They will say they are both going with the times and wishes to "modernize" the monarchy. They will make a dig at the RF and say how service should not be limited to being part of the family and they can serve more people and do charity work and have a global impact.

The message I see H&M are sending is that it's okay to be disrespectful and insult your elders publicly, to lie and be deceitful, to be ungrateful to your family, to be disloyal to your firm while still employed, to be arrogant and not accept criticisms constructively, and to be selfish and not give anything unconditionally.

Oprah will stir controversy, add more fuel to the fire just to increase ratings for this interview.
Martha said…
@R O....agree completely!
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
brown-eyed said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
just sayin' said…
Interview Question: You keep referring to yourself as a ‘young mother.’ What does that mean?

Follow-up Question: If by ‘young’ you mean pre-menopausal, aren’t all mothers young?
HappyDays said…
JennS said…
I think Oprah must indeed NOW know any secrets about Archie.

@JennS: Oprah is a former tv news reporter from the days when tv news reporters actually reported the news instead of their opinions poorly disguised as news the way they do today. And Oprah has producers and other staff to dig deep as they research for her when she has a big interview such as the Harkles.

This interview reminds me of another interview where the subjects of the interview attempted to hide the truth. It turned out to be a very sad story when the truth finally surfaced. It was the interview in late 1996 of the musician Prince and his wife Mayte at their home in the suburbs of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

For those who might not be familiar with this story, here are the basics:

Prince and his wife Mayte had married on Valentine’s Day 1996 and she immediately became pregnant. They announced the pregnancy, so the general public was aware they were expecting a child in late 1996.

However, when the time came around for the due date, rumors were rampant that the child had been born, but had birth defects and that the baby died shortly after birth. Prince and his wife went silent as did their inner circle as the rumors swirled.

This caught the attention of Oprah, who started sniffing around, and somehow got Prince and Mayte to agree to an interview.

Oprah and her crew showed up at Paisley Park, Prince’s studio complex on Chanhassen, where there is also an apartment in the facility. She did the interview with Prince and his wife, where Prince insisted their baby boy was just fine when Oprah asked them to set the record straight about their baby. Prince even gave Oprah a tour of Paisley Park that included a fully-outfitted child’s playroom while he talked as if the child was alive and well.

Not long after the interview, it finally surfaced that Prince and Mayte’s baby boy had been born with a serious genetic disorder called Pfeiffer Syndrome Type 2. The child lived only about a week before he died from the physical problems associated with it.

Prince was very private and guarded in his personal life and able to keep it that way, except for Oprah, who came right out in the interview and asked about the rumors regarding his child’s health. For someone as well-connected, savvy, and experienced as Oprah is, it’s difficult to put one over on her.

If you want to watch the Oprah interview with Prince, it is probably on youtube. I remember seeing the interview and being surprised after it was revealed that Oprah had been on track during the interview regarding the health of their baby. Losing a child under any circumstances is a terrible experience, and people process through grief in different ways. Perhaps Prince just hadn’t been able to come to terms with the loss.

My point in telling this story is that if Oprah decides to put Harry and Meghan on the spot the way she did with an extremely private person like Prince, the Harkles might be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, the interview is likely to be nothing but a collection of softball questions, but then it might not. It could be lots of softballs and then bam! — a great big gotcha question that leaves the Harkles stunned.

We’ll know soon enough.



Superfly said…
from The Spectator


Theo Hobson
Why Meghan and the monarchy were bound to clash

heart of our monarchy is an ideal of serving the public good that is not the same as the currently dominant form of progressive idealism espoused by the likes of Meghan. It is not the same as it, and when it comes down to it, it is not compatible with it.

The British monarchy’s ideal of the public good is fairly vague, fairly flexible. But it entails a basic respect for tradition. And it entails the ideal of self-sacrifice. To serve the good means accepting constraints, accepting that you might not get what you want. It means accepting the possibility that you might have to suffer, even in some sense give your life for the sake of the public good.

To Meghan there appears to be enough flexibility here
This is the old-fashioned, Christian-based view of morality. But the monarchy is a special version of it. The normal person who strives to be moral in this sort of way has the freedom to fail, to espouse this ideal but also to admit that he or she can’t really live up to it. The royal person is publicly committed to the ideal in a special way. He or she is very like a priest – the representative of an ideal that is incredibly demanding, perhaps impossible. Of course it is above all the monarch who has to display such allegiance to the ideal – but the rest of the family have to toe the line, not be conspicuously at odds with the ethos.

The dominant form of progressive idealism is about two things. It is about social justice, challenging unjust traditions. And it is about self-realisation, self-esteem. It is the latter aspect that is the real problem. This is a fairly new development. A few decades ago, one would have assumed that a progressive young person would clash with the monarchy on the grounds that it was an oppressive institution, at odds with egalitarian politics and the socialist ideal.

But to Meghan there appears to be enough flexibility here. She was happy to marry in to the monarchy because she felt that there was no necessary clash between the old-fashioned idea of the public good, and her own liberal version.

The clash came from her assumptions about the self. She assumes, in the Californian way, that self-esteem is the basis of the moral and spiritual life. You have to love yourself, you have to dare to become yourself. You have to defy all external authorities that threaten to make you less than you are, that tell you what your duty is. This is not compatible with the monarchy’s ideal of self-sacrificial service.

Superfly said…
Harry is so LA now. A dim, dumb, useless, botox-filled and self important ar se wipe.
Meghan's only talent was to turn a much beloved prince into a frog.
jessica said…
Nelo,

You’re right in that Oprah launched Dr. Oz, Phil, Obama, and Gayle. What do they all have in common? An insane impeccable work ethic and education. Gayle is her long time best friend, who is not a bad host really. Full time work.

Meghan is no where near the level of the people Oprah launches. They are all charismatic and intelligent, and have the ‘open-book’ act down pact, ‘empathy’ is seen. Meghan is full of word salad. Even her Spotify promo clip is the usual, Narc looking for her sad lowly codependents to feed off of. Their voices to be heard. It is in the vein of the Oz and Phil shticks, but she is too disingenuous with no education in the space of counseling to be taken seriously.

Another question:

When did you realise that your true destiny was to become Her Britannic Majesty, Meghan I, by the Grace of God, anointed Queen of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Overseas Territories, Head of the Commonwealth and Duke of Normandy?

Was it a sudden revelation or did it dawn on you slowly?
jessica said…
It still shocks me we are talking about _the_ Oprah and ‘Meghan Markle’ in the same sentences. Due to her background and decisions, Meghan cannot outrun who she is. She needs more education, refinement, and clearly a *break* from whatever it is she is attempting. PR is a fine career, if you are sticking to PR. All this other stuff? Not so much.
jessica said…
Harry is coming on at the end to *validate* the viewer experience and back up Meghan’s claims. More people will believe the RF is horrendous, if one of their own is right there agreeing even without saying anything. Meghan knows this.

Harry, does he know this? Doubtful.
After the Falkland Conflict of 1982, there were many British troops stationed on the Islands. Falkland Islanders tended to be slow-spoken and they also wore knitted woolly hats; inevitably the troops nicknamed them `Bennies' - after the dustman/refuse operative in the TV soap `Crossroads'.

This elicited the strong disapproval of their commanders and they were ordered to desist. They then coined the nickname `Stills' ie `still Bennies'.

I don't know what the upshot of that was. Racism didn't come into it - it was more like the derogatory name-calling that goes on between the locals of adjacent towns in the UK. It shows, however, that official policy was to show respect to others, even in the days when H was a baby.
jessica said…
That blind gossip article is...shall we say, messy? Not used to reading such unstructured articles there. Is it a daily beast placement? Or is BG realizing their ‘sources’ Meghan blinds are from Meghan’s team and need to neutralize their approach.... either way, very strange.
`God helps those who help themselves - but God help those who get caught helping themselves.'
@WBBM,

You gave me a good laugh with that question!

It's kind of like asking, "And now, Mrs. Smith. What first drew you to your fabulously wealthy, billionaire husband?"

But yours is funnier.😂
R_O said…
@jessica said: Harry is coming on at the end to *validate* the viewer experience and back up Meghan’s claims. More people will believe the RF is horrendous, if one of their own is right there agreeing even without saying anything. Meghan knows this.

I agree with you. Meghan needs Harry to confirm her claims against the RF. That's why she's doing everything she can to alienate Harry from his family. So he only has her to lean on. This will ensure her total control over him.
Magatha Mistie said…

Apologies to Carly Simon

She’s Insane

She marched into the wedding
like she was trawling upon a yacht
Face smug, didn’t bat a lash at the fly
Hair a greasy knot
She had one eye on William,
the other on his tot
All the guests wished that they’d seen her father
Not just her mother
All in vain
She likes to think it’s all just about her
She’s a pain
Makes you want to retch and just clout her
Don’t you don’t you
Maneki Neko said…
Thanks, Magatha. Yes, she does make me want to clout her 😆. A good slap across the face like in the old films. I wish Harry turned round during the interview and did that, saying 'B¡tch!'
Magatha Mistie said…

Wormwood S’grubs

Absinthe Fouquet
Does like the last say
Despite the big hole in her bucket
She’ll be regaling us soon
Dancing to Oprah’s tune
She should remember it’s not F’okay
it’s plain Phuket




Maneki Neko said…

If you're in need of a much needed laugh this morning, read this about our 'demure' Megsy:

Body language expert Judi James told FEMAIL the couple, who filmed the clip at their $14 million mansion in Santa Barbara, had gained a 'US-style polish' in their 'posing and body language'.


Calling Prince Harry's gestures 'Trump-like', she explained: 'While Meghan adopts the demurely regal pose Harry’s body language looks a lot more US, with his wide hand gestures and his energetic delivery.'

Judi told FEMAIL there was 'a new emphasis on making Harry look like the more dominant alpha male while Meghan sits demurely beside his, gazing in admiration.'

She explained: 'There is almost a switching of delivery styles from these two, with Meghan adopting a much more UK royal style of pose with her hands folded over one another on her lap as she sits close to her husband.'


Megalo sitting 'demurely regal' (!) 'gazing in admiration.' 🤮. And H the 'more dominant alpha male'? The poor sap has been totally neutered.

Miggy said…
From The Sun...

PRINCE Harry and Meghan’s Megxit has thrown plans for next year’s Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations into turmoil.

Harry, 36, and Meghan, 39, have officially stepped down as working royals and been stripped of their royal patronages and military titles, but the Prince wants to be included in the four-day extravaganza.

But that leaves organisers with an enormous headache as they try to work out what to do with the couple during the party, which will see senior royals on the Buckingham Palace balcony and a flypast for crowds on The Mall, to celebrate Her Majesty’s 70 years on the throne.

Senior royals will attend a string of spectacular events in London and other cities showcasing the Queen’s impact on Britain and the world.

An insider said: “Harry wants to be there. It is already causing a headache and is going to be very awkward.

“Where will they be positioned if they turn up? What events can they attend? Will we put them on the Buckingham Palace balcony for the flypast?

“This is a celebration for the Queen’s 70 years of service to the nation and should not be overshadowed. There are now so many questions about what to do with Harry and Meghan.”


https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/13991716/meghan-markle-prince-harry-royals-latest-queen-jubilee-celebrations/



lizzie said…
While Oprah is frequently given credit for Obama's rise, he was already the holder of a JD from Harvard and 1 of only 100 US senators when she worked her magic. (I'd also argue her main magic was to elevate him in the Democratic party above HRC, the wife of the US's "first black president.") And as much as I dislike Dr. Phil and his lack of ethics, he does hold a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. And Dr. Oz earned an MD.

Meghan's BA from Northwestern and her MRS from Harry aren't quite on that same level of accomplishment. And times are different from when Obama, Phil, and Oz became popular or when Bill Clinton played his sax on Arsenio Hall and confessed he preferred briefs to boxers on MTV. Even pre-COVID, people weren't gathering around the water fountain to talk about last night's TV shows.

I don't think the interview will make M more popular but it may make the RF look bad. And as others have said, that may be O's goal. M's too but I think she also thinks the interview will also be on the "queen-maker" level. I don't. The more people see M and "hear her voice" the less people like her.

I do agree Harry is there to validate her. But if the RF is so awful, how did Harry turn out ok? (Ok in M's view and apparently ok in O's, not ok in mine.)
Acquitaine said…
@NeutralObserver said…

Some articles to make your stomach turn.

2002
This one is about Gloucestershire county set, but notice the opening paragraph....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/lot-neighbours-no-wonder-prince-harry-let-rip-down-pub-9183216.html

2005
This one about the Nazi uniform, and general attitudes towards race in the Wales household
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/out-of-touch-out-of-control-how-harry-s-joke-backfired-on-royalty-486932.html

2006
The famous 'P*** friend' + 'Raghead' incidents
It should be noted that the videos that reveled these 2 incidents were made in 2006, but became public in 2009.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-called-fellow-soldier-his-little-paki-friend-1299804.html

2009
This one is about the black comedian
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/prince-harry-sparks-new-racism-376088

It was after the videos emerged that he was ordered to an anti-racism course.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141545/Prince-Harry-ordered-anti-racist-training-Paki-slur.html

Also, apparently Charles has a wealthy, polo playing friend Asian friend who is affectionately called 'Sooty' by Charles and his sons😑😒 on account of his dark skin.
jessica said…
This body language thing is interesting. I was reading earlier that Meghan was trained to look smug and politician like. The reason she walked like spongebob? It was supposed to emote a ‘power stance’ at all times. Low and behold here we have Meghan and now Harry, taking further posture and acting classes to fit an image they are trying to control. The US isn’t going to take to an overbearing control freak wife. Unfortunately, they are also aging her look by attempting to make her look younger, it’s having the opposite effect. She looks terrible IMO and not at all aspirational as the hot wife of an alpha prince who is calling all the shots in Montecito - granny be damned.

So basically, they’ve realized Harry is a dud and the lack of image protection from the RF has screwed up his *image*. Back to attempting to make Harry cool again.

Can they pull it off? I don’t think so. Harry is a beta through and through. Meghan looks like a cartoon character- still giving him the ‘stare’. I did notice her hair was in the way of showing off some of her eye-area plastic surgery. If you look at her left eye you can tell she’s had something done to make her eyes slant more cat-like. Also the raised brow line we’ve noticed since last summer.

How is it that these two cannot get it right for any performance or chat? I feel like it’s not hard to waltz into Saks or Bergdorf and talk to a stylist there and get some appropriate clothes, then hire a hair and makeup guru to fix the mess they are. Why isn’t this happening? Can they not commit or decide which image they want to project, so ‘mess’ is what they are serving?
Magatha Mistie said…

Half a Male, Beta than?

I think someone’s taking the pee
That Haz is now alpha male-ee
His legs may be splayed
Due to who he last laid
But his balls are still caught in Megsie
Miggy said…
@Magatha, 😆😆😆
Magatha Mistie said…

@Jessica

Megs has always looked smug,
it’s the only natural thing about her.
As for her power stance, her legs,
like Harry, can no longer come together 😉
Magatha Mistie said…

Miggy

Megxtinguished

There’s no way in hell
Megs will be part of the swell
At the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee
By hell, or high water
The devil’s own daughter
Will be cast out, interminable

Maneki Neko said…
@Magatha

Your little ditty (@Jessica) is spot on. You're very naughty (but keep it up). Perhaps open legs is also her only 'natural stance'.
Natalier said…
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this interview but Mark Graham does not hold back. He is literally saying everything we are thinking. Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=802&v=eVRiTHx6dPQ&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=talkRADIO
Miggy said…
@Magatha,

Megxtinguished Love it!😄

You really do brighten up my mornings.😂
Miggy said…
@Natalier,

Mike Graham's shows are always worth watching. He never holds back!
jessica said…
Does Meghan care about no longer being in the BRF as a public member? Was she really hedging her bets on staying half-in (whatever that means) or was that just a ploy to temper Harry on their way to Cali?
When the Independent first arrived on the scene in 1986, I got the impression it planned to avoid Royal stories altogether.

What a shame they didn't stick to it.

"The Independent has always been in favour of a reformed monarchy, one that reflects the nation over which it reigns and which is accountable to the people for its activities. Royal trivia is something The Independent has tried to avoid, but when the first woman of colour became a member of the royal family, as Meghan Markle married Prince Harry, we were keen to reflect this shift in cultural and social mores. We offered, we hope, entertaining and thoughtful coverage of the event to a global audience."

https://www.independent.co.uk/subscribe/our-story

I think they've changed their story in retrospect. Funny how Woke takes over.
Miggy said…
Another good video from Talk Radio's Mark Dolan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWkdv2HSwVw
Magatha Mistie said…

Maneki her natural stance
is horizontal! 😳

Soap Oprah

Megs appears quite obsessed
Much like Di, on her quest to divest
Stories that needn’t be told
Don’t wash your laundry
To all come, and sundry
As your cloth may begin to unfold


Maneki Neko said…
@Magatha

Horizontal, definitely (Meg's natural stance) but it's not incompatible with open legs 😉
Magatha Mistie said…

Maneki, reminds me of
“ You don’t look at the mantle piece
when you’re poking the fire”
Magatha Mistie said…

Apologies to Peter Sarstedt

Love’s Labour’s Lost

Where do you go to our Harry
When you’re alone, without Meg
What are the thoughts that command you
That make you sit up, and beg
Yes, you do!
lizzie said…
According to M''s pals, as long as nearly 1 1/2 years ago M decided her second child would be born in LA.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1200616/meghan-markle-news-queen-elizabeth-ii-kate-middleton-prince-harry-remembrance-sunday-US

https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity-news/meghan-markle-second-child-usa-673249

If what is said in the above articles is true, I really don't understand. I had heard her rant about being lonely and thought it was BS at the time. But now, after COVID lockdowns, it's extra hard to see why she claimed to be lonely when preggers. She visited Australia with Jessica, her "5 friends" visited at least once (when she was "heavily pregnant"), Doria was there for the book launch early in her pregnancy and arrived back weeks before the supposed birth, she went to NYC for the week of her shower, her crying makeup man friend was dancing in attendance, and Harry was around because he had/has no full-time job. And that's just what we know. She really does require an extraordinary amount of attention.
Magatha Mistie said…

The DM comment
that summed up their latest zoom
“Harry looks like a beaten puppy”
Says it all for me.

Sandie said…
There is no doubt in my mind that Meghan used the BRF, and Harry, from day 1, and thinks she is superior in all ways to all of them.

But I think it is more complex than that.

I think she felt awkward around Harry's family. The playful, sweet little girl act she put on in the beginning (and the cool, hip, fun woman for Harry, with the confidence and smarts to handle it all and be adored by everyone, and so on) ... the version of love bombing for his family ... did not really go down well. She really had no way to relate to anyone in his family.

So, she had two good reasons to separate Harry from friends, family and country: to control him and because she did not fit in and feel comfortable with any of it.

She still needs Harry to pay the bills. The big lucrative offers never came her way. Brands like Givenchy, Estee Lauder, Chanel, and so on were not interested in her. Neither were the blockbuster brands in Hollywood. Politics and Silicone Valley tech giants have not worked out for her in terms of lucrative contracts. Harry pays the bills while she jumps on any platform/bandwagon to get attention. Oprah is her way of hitting back at every criticism, lashing out at every narc injury. It is not going to get her the financially lucrative deals. Harry keeps doing what she tells him to, desparately hoping he can land the big one to pay the bills.

But I think their relationship is more complex and toxic than that. Despite how we mock the person he has become, Harry Handbag is masculine and more than a bit of an action man. But he also lets her dominate and control, is the biggest cheerleader for her endless word salad and deluded grandiosity, will go along with her lies and so on. He is her perfect partner, and lockdown has not enabled her to get out there and mingle and find a suitable replacement (the one who will get her the Oscar and so on).

My favourite tarot reader has recovered from getting the pregnancy so wrong. She still maintains the marriage will not last, but the energy has shifted. It was always Meghan dumping Harry, but now she sees Harry initiating separation and divorce. Him getting to spend time in the UK seems to be key for this to happen. I am not sure she is right because I have seen toxic co-dependent relationships that last a lifetime.

Harry was always going to be captured because she played on deep unconscious stuff with him (the playful, fun Mummy who also takes care of him, takes him by the hand, steers him with a hand on his back, is not above giving him a sharp rebuke ...) and he is not going to abandon her and his kids as his father did and which led to his mother's death. She also took the affectionate playful rivalry that existed between brothers and made it into something far more sinister, and turned him against the courtiers who had been there to guide him and bring out the best in him. He is locked in.

But, surely at some point he saw the woman he married was not the one who swept him off his feet? How bad is it in that marriage? Well, there are three times that I remember that the toxicity in the marriage was displayed in public. Perhaps he won't admit to himself the truth, not consciously, but the hostility is there. We have seen it. There was no affection in the way he told her to stop talking and turn around on the balcony, not only in front of his family but also the entire world, and this was just after the arrival of their first child. He was passive aggressive in putting her on the spot in public twice, about the pregnancy and about talking French.

Oprah is a really bad judge of character, or a shrewd player, but in the time she spent with them she must have seen the masks slip, the cracks show. If she is a master at what she does (celebrity), she would have got at least a hint of it on camera.
jessica said…
Lizzie, it’s weird. What was Meghan expecting with pregnancy? It’s quite boring and tedious....is it that she wanted attention and paps all the time- hence ‘let’s move to Hollywood for the next kid.’ She was a heavy partier. Cant drink while pregnant. She was a good time girl. Cant go out late into the night while pregnant. It is a lifestyle shift. And here we have her with her grand portrait in the garden. Showing off her pregnancy for attention (and $$). That’s what she wanted all along and wasn’t getting the attention she craved in the UK last time she was pregnant. She must have calculated how much missed revenue for not pocketing the Rota release photo cash during that time.

If those are her main priorities (cash for appearances + attention) then we are going to be in for a hellish ride.
Unknown said…
Thanks for the article @lizzie

It's stories like this that keep me Team Pillow & Surrogate. My opinion only but I think Rache's loneliness is code for she did not like the transparency required of her pregnancy in the U.K. She can cover-up everything with a planned pregnancy in L.A. with so much less friction and scrutiny from the BRF and the British press. How are the grey men going to verify succession for the next Sussex baby?

@Acquitaine Do you have any thoughts or ideas on what the BRF will do to verify baby no. 2 belongs in succession?
Sandie said…
Omid Scobie is credited as shooting the Spotify promo video? How odd!
SwampWoman said…
@lizzie, I think that she's just a drama queen that has to have endless admiration. Once people see the real person and she's lost her glitter, she has to move on to new admirers.
SwampWoman said…
ROFL, @Magatha Mistie, everything that you have written is a masterpiece today.
SwampWoman said…
@ Magatha Mistie, I shall go out and sing "She's Insane" to the livestock. The ones that haven't been fed yet won't stampede.
Miggy said…
PP news.

A palace spokesman said: 'The Duke of Edinburgh remains at King Edward VII's Hospital where he is receiving medical attention for an infection. He is comfortable and responding to treatment but is not expected to leave hospital for several days.'
How good is the RF at delivering ultimata?

Something along the lines of `Unless our our trusted medical personnel, be they loyal midwives or obstetricians, are able to witness the birth you can wave goodbye to the child being in line for the throne. All perfectly reasonable. You wouldn't want to do your baby out of his or her birth-right, over something so minor now would you? After all, supposing a Pretender comes along in the future and claims to be your child, how would you be able to prove that you have the real child?''

It seems there's no alternative to being as devious and manipulative as she is.
Miggy said…
Apologies if someone has already posted this and I missed it.

EXCLUSIVE: Samantha Markle reveals her family weren't told of Meghan's second pregnancy | 7NEWS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_iBZnGK4To&feature=youtu.be
AnT said…
There are approximately 67.89 million people in England.

There are approximately 39.8 million people in California.

There are approximately 331 million people in the US.

After this 7 March television interview, someone who feels badly for the Queen, or decides they could use $$ for information, will emerge to reveal something The Harkles won’t like at all. And some media outlet will put it out there.

Someone always knows something. And a fraction of those someones find their moment to speak.

For example, I know two people who witnessed something rather funny at a building on E Lake Shore Drive in Chicago — live, as it happened. I heard about it on a business phone call hours before it swam into the gossip press.

Stories and witnesses are always around even if the internet scrubs things. Three people may sign an NDA, but someone always forgets about the gardener, the temp doorman, the neighbors’ mother, the cleaner’s sister, the lady walking a dog, the delivery guy.

Buy your popcorn. I think there is a good mathematical probability that March will come in like a lion, and go out like a burst dam.


Acquitaine said…
@charade said…

"@Acquitaine Do you have any thoughts or ideas on what the BRF will do to verify baby no. 2 belongs in succession?"

Short of M16 disguised as mid-wives / doctors during her delivery and or a verifiable video of baby emerging from birth canal, i can't think of how anyone can check if baby fits criteria for line of succession.

I expect Palace is going to be as stubborn as a mule and say it is all kosher and baby is in line. And nothing will be able to challenge that.

I'd enjoy a statement from palace that says something like,'In view of Harry's wishes for The Crown, the new baby will not be added to the line of succession and does not claim any rights to the throne and nor do her / his descendants."

There would be an uproar for a day or two, multiple think pieces and then everyone would forget about it.

AnT said…
PS,

Anyone else see a another dash of psycho mimicry between the yellow floral dress the Queen was photographed wearing on Prince Philip’s 99th birthday, and the Oscar de la Renta yellow lemon print frock the Duchess of Disaster wore for the Spotify video?

@natalier,

Thanks for putting up the Angela Levin interview with Mark Dyer. Yes, he is saying everything that we are thinking about the Harkle Debacle.

I think it was interesting that Levin said that MM really did not know how the monarchy line of succession worked, and that she didn't know that Harry was so low on the totem pole. She thought he was higher up in the line. It was only after she married Harry that she figured out how the line of succession worked, and then it was too late.

MM never really does her research, does she? She just jumps in with both feet and then tries to cover her mistakes with wild excuses when everything inevitably falls apart. Then, she runs.
jessica said…
AnT,

Couldn’t agree more. One time in London, I was out with Rhianna’s off-duty security team. I didn’t know this at the beginning of the night. Then it came time for a shift change. Then even more ‘do you know who we are’ questions were aimed at me to play guess the celeb. Regardless, I found out where she lived 2 years before it was announced to the press, and many other PR secrets just because people talk. Especially, if it’s a *game* and they can always deny it. Of course, I didn’t want to break the trust with my new friends, so always kept it to myself. (Until now! Haha!)

Someone has told their friends/ family/colleagues deets on Meg and Harry. It probably hasn’t gone anywhere so far due to the trust factor. But no doubt things will come out. Someone will find her interesting enough to spill, and papers in the US are more lax.
Could a law be passed excluding H's children from the Succession? At least until such time as he's remarried, to a far more suitable woman?

I think it's time for a few threats in the other direction - get her metaphorically by the throat and utter `You do this our way - or else!'

It's probably the only language she understands.
AnT said…
@Acquitaine,

I strongly suspect the line of succession is going to be altered this year, in a way Harry does not anticipate. 😎 Thus, baby #2 will be able to comfortably join mommy-and-baby play groups in LA.
PS I meant excluding children who are supposedly from Rache's anatomy.
@AnT - recent changes to the succession to be applied retrospectively, despite it nor being done initially? Thereby moving Anne up & Andrew down?
AnT said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid,

Yes, thanks to solid precedent set by previous Letters Patent penned by George V, and then by our own Queen Elizabeth II.

The path is there. I believe it will be taken.
Sandie said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9291123/Has-Meghan-Markle-extensions-Duchess-debuts-glamorous-Hollywood-curls.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

The article is not critical at all, but at last the tabloids have broached the topic that has been treated as a known fact on LSA for ages.

The hairdresser the DM interviewed even concluded that she is using temporary clip ons rather than permanent extensions.
@jessica, re people spilling-with her going on Oprah and it being broadcast to the world, people will think it's okay to start talking. Why not, if she is, right?
AnT said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid,

Apologies, I was replying to your previous post. I replied before I saw your second question posted at 6:11 pm.

What I am referring to is not initially about Anne or Andrew, but may affect their standing, yes. My information had to do with the likely departure of Harry from succession, and the final stripping of his titles and that of his children, if any. The movement would be based on discussions around declarations in past Letters Patents pertaining to both the removal of, and addition of, titles and stylings (prince, Princess, HRH use).


Then H could be removed without bringing Andrew to the fore. I shall cross everything in anticipation.

If the German relatives could be removed at the stroke of a pen, so might Harry and his `children' be eliminated, if that's not too strong a term!


Is this another possibility:

Could the Harkles marriage still be declared invalid/fraudulent, even if it's nearly 3 years old? Special circumstances warranting another legal change? Please, anything to get it annulled!!!

It's become so obvious that this match was never going to meet either the Church or State's requirements for validity. It's been a massive fraud perpetrated against the Crown, the Queen and her People.

If only...
@ AnT:

I get it - I shall be more than happy if it happens the way you describe - I was trying to get around the problem of Andrew being next in line. Pure speculation.
jessica said…
ConstantGardener33,

Great point. The louder she gets...the more people will talk. She’s been ambiguous to keep in the headlines. I just don’t see how she gains traction in the US, unless there are jaw dropping bombshells coming in the Oprah interview that leads into something else big next month.

Netflix CEO said it’d be the biggest of the year, so he better deliver!
AnT said…
@jessica,

Exactly!! You know how it works. I have had celebs cry on my shoulder in our office, or in my car, and they have known me for barely a day. I was dragged out of bed by Boston coworker friends and taken to a Brookline bar at 1 am on a Tuesday night because a member of a big Irish band they knew needed a big favor....I went to Sunday afternoon drinking parties with another friend dating someone in a top New England family. I babysat a Scottish actor for five nights in a 5 star hotel because there was an issue and a Sr VP begged me to (my manager called me every two hours, and forms were signed). I covered up for a lunatic manager secretly dating an English film producer. I have dealt with things on flights, location shoots, private gov parties. You know exactly what I mean.

Like you, I retained the info because that is what you do (though okay we now finally share a bit vaguely here now for fun), because that is part of the job. You do it, you don’t blab it about. I am just a busy worker bee and that is part of the work. You know that, I know that, others like us know that. After a while it isn’t even unusual, just another project task or person or event.

But the world is teeming with other people out there, who will have had the same sort random encounters, but who don’t view it as we do.

And so my expectation is that someone will talk.
If anybody has watched Lady C's video today, she says that the BRF was upset that Harry was involved in promoting gambling a few years ago. Here is an article about that issue. Most of the article is about how Harry played cricket in St. Lucia. The last third of the article is about the casino.

Harry was there on a promotional tour for HMTQ, but got involved in promoting a casino.

PS It sounds like something is going on behind the scenes at Lady C's castle. Misha is no longer going to do the videos with Lady C. She is doing them alone now. She says he is too busy with other things, but I'm not quite sure that is the reason. If this wasn't decided at the last minute, I think Lady C or Misha would have mentioned that he was leaving in their last video, the same way that Prince Leo said a gracious goodbye and a thank you to his fans.
Mel said…
@Sandie....I think she felt awkward around Harry's family. The playful, sweet little girl act she put on in the beginning
----------------

I think the BRF and palace courtiers saw thru that act right away, and she knew it.
Hard to pull the little girl act when you're dealing with 30 year old professional women who know what you're up to.

No professional woman respects a woman who uses sexual allure to get ahead. And they recognize that type instantly.

Also hard to keep up that act when you're 40, already twice married, and have been a busy girl. That only works if you're early 20's.



@SwampWoman...Once people see the real person and she's lost her glitter, she has to move on to new admirers.
----------------

I think that's exactly what happened.
She lost her glitter early on with W/C.
She tried to flirt, do the doe eyes little girl act with Charles, but Camilla put a stop to that.
I think the cousins had her number early on, too.
The queen for sure had her number, although it's hard to say how early on. Just look at the expression on her face during the wedding.
Oops! Here's the link to the article:

xpress.co.uk/news/royal/736525/Prince-Harry-caribbean-tour-st-lucia-cricket-prime-minister
AnT said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid,

While I share your antipathy toward Andrew, I think he hasn’t a chance in hell of moving up. I wouldn’t be surprised if something already was signed and filed to ensure that he would be forced to decline per prior agreement (or admissions) in favor of Bea. Because Andrew is a ridiculous pig, but not yet legally charged with anything, and is keeping quiet, that might be it for him tor the moment. A secret royal punishment we may never hear about.

Harry is a different kettle of fish. He walked out, indulges in public behavior with his American spouse that cross the edges or treason, and political manipulation, as well as random attacks on the Queen and family, possibly financial fraud with the foundation funds. He may through Megs leak family secrets on 7 Mach in front of the world. His sins aren’t murky, they are clear. Butthe true story of his heir(s) definitely is. They have it all on tape, so to speak. So I think Harry, since his wife is still eager to rule as queen and is crazy with very shady ruthless friends, and since Harry has a chip about being King, I think our ginger boy ends the year in a different position, title and style free. Finding freedom!
lizzie said…
New Harry Markle

https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/02/23/oprahgate-the-end/
AnT said…
@Sandie,
@Mel,

I agree.
If the Harkles are ever told where they can get off, they will scream long and loud.

I sincerely hope they will then be told they can like it or lump it - and be grateful that they're not up in Court on Treason charges.
I don't understand the headaches over the jubilee celebrations.

Public celebrations (i.e. balcony) for working Royals only plus spouses and minor children.

Private celebrations (out of public eye, like luncheon with the Queen) include Grip and Drip.

Absolutely can not be invited to anything that they will turn around and sell.
I may be a white -haired old lady now but I think I'd still be prepared to stand at the kerb and yell `Judas!' as H goes past. He has traduced the entire nation and how he and his call-girl have the audacity to claim they are serving us leaves me almost speechless, bar the few epithets that describe their character and conduct.

I recall the `Judas' incident involving Bob Dylan:

"But many others in those staid, municipal concert halls were outraged and betrayed by their darling acoustic minstrel plugging into the mains... British audiences were still getting up to speed on his earlier records and they wanted back the Woody Guthrie protégé they'd seen in 1965.

This tension between artist and audience snapped in an almighty confrontation... Slow hand-clapping and jeering throughout Dylan's electric half of the show - which was later properly identified as his concert at Manchester's Free Trade Hall on 17 May 1966 and finally given official release by Columbia Records in 1998 - climaxes with one betrayed folkie letting fly with a long yell of "Judas!" It became the most famous heckle in rock'n'roll history.

Dylan is rattled, and for an awkward second the audience is stunned - until a yelp of solidarity with the heckler goes up. It is still a genuinely shocking moment. (Concert-goers in those days were routinely reverential. They still stood for the national anthem at the end)."


https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/bob-dylan-how-i-found-man-who-shouted-judas-314340.html
@Musty - he's probably insisting on being included in everything.

Even if a part of the proceedings is designated `Working Royals Only' it's already clear there's not a single part of that phrase that either of them understands, be it `Working', `Royal' or `Only'.
lizzie said…
@MustySyphone,

I don't know that the Palace is concerned over Jubilee prep. It may just be Sussex PR.

But during the last Jubilee even the Middleton family rode on one of the boats. So cutting the Sussexes out entirely may be awkward as it's not likely a balcony appearance will be the only "public" event for such a big-deal celebration (assuming COVID is controlled, of course.)

In the past balcony celebrations like The Trooping have included non-working royals-- Bea, Eugenie, Margaret's adult children, the adult children of Prince Michael of Kent, the adult children of the Duke of Kent, and so on. Maybe working royals only is the way to go for everything and certainly is more consistent with a slimmed-down monarchy. But that seems less interesting, at least to this American royal watcher.
@Wild Boar Battle-maid

I can imagine Grip and Drip trying to force their way on to the balcony but I am not concerned. Recall the POW memorabilia where they tried to crash and house stewards diplomatically "escorted" them out of the picture and to the side fo the room.

They can be controlled if that is what is willed.
Who would want her around, even at a private family event, when they know she's going to leak information to the press(likely for money?), plus all that she's done to them already? Could you imagine?
SwampWoman said…
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
@Musty - he's probably insisting on being included in everything.

Even if a part of the proceedings is designated `Working Royals Only' it's already clear there's not a single part of that phrase that either of them understands, be it `Working', `Royal' or `Only'.


Heh. I just got finished yelling to my grandson "Oh, NO. The imaginary people do NOT eat off my clean plates; they can use IMAGINARY plates!" He was quite insulted that imaginary people did not get the same rights and privileges as 'actual' people. The imaginary people did not get 'real' cookies, either; they had to eat imaginary cookies off their imaginary plates.

I'm afraid that I think of the Harkles as imaginary royalty at this point. They quit, they left, they walked out. They left the country. They absolutely should not get to attend the company picnics with the loyal employees.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger ConstantGardener33 said...
Who would want her around, even at a private family event, when they know she's going to leak information to the press(likely for money?), plus all that she's done to them already? Could you imagine?


I wouldn't want to be around her flying monkey, Harry, either. He'll pick up all the bananas he can to bring home to the wicked witch.
xxxxx said…
This blog was looking misty and bland
It had a long lull
Our major content provider
Was well hid
In a Monti- rent to own
To swoon
With her fantasy major
From Brigadoon

(Fairport Convention)
But it all comes 'round again
To meet on the ledge
it all comes 'round again
The incomparable Sandy Denny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avX5VlU7MXM

We will always meet here for laughs and for fun
xxxxx said…
More from the incomparable Sandy Denny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28zG4ZVgsQM
lizzie said…
@SwampWoman,

But sycophantic reporters aren't standing at the ready to report you won't let your grandson's best friends eat off your plates. (Of course, leaving out the imaginary part because he didn't mention that little detail. Nevertheless their reports would make assumptions and strongly hint you are a you-know-what.)

H&M are what 4-year olds would look like if they did have sympathetic unquestioning reporters as mouthpieces.
@SwampWoman, yes, I should have said "them" instead of her. He's just as bad, and is fully complicit.
Ohhh! Lady C has some first-person tea aout Oprah. Lady C was asked to be on Oprah's show years ago, but had another commitment, so she had to decline. She says that Oprah's people pushed her hard by saying that if she didn't appear on that particular date, that she would never be invited again on the show and that they would blacklist her.

She really goes after Oprah, saying how on camera, Oprah is so loving, touchy-feely, and concerned about people- while banking the billions.

"If you want to keep your dirty linen private, don't go on Oprah."

"The Palace is terrified that Meghan is going to, with Harry's connivance, play the race card," during Oprah's interview."

"One of the reasons that drove Prince Philip to enter was the apoplectic fit he had when he discovered what Meghan and Harry were up to."

She calls MM, "a ghastly little creature." LOL!
Rumour has it Oprah interview will be used to malign the Markle family (i.e. talk dirt about Tom Sr and Sam)

Intertesting to see if Oprah brings forth The Tig entries showing a daughter who showered her father with love and affection in her writings.

Also interesting to se if Oprah calls Grip out on this.

If Oprah lets it slide, will the press turn on Oprah for not pointing out the family Thanksgivings, best father in the world posts, etc from The Tig?

Or will Oprah backup some claim that "I had to say those things even thou8gh they weren't true"?

Oprah.......the world is a lot smaller since the advent of SM (post 90s Oprah, post 90s environment now) hopefully you can see how you will be burned if you are not diligent
AnT said…
Poor Megs. Bad news for her Clevr brand oat milk latte.....

So.........

The OTHER oat milk and vegan food product company, backed by Oprah, Jay-Z and Natalie Portman, Howard Schulz (and creepy Blackstone Group) is is a Swedish brand called Oatly. Oatlyhas filed to go public and is asking for a $10 Billion Dollar valuation for its initial public stock offering.

Ten billion dollars.

Oprah and the others invested just $200,000 in Swedish Oatly. They stand to do pretty well.

Poor Megs. Another bus missed. Has she even done anything for Clevr brand lately? Probably in her rear view mirror.



AnT said…
@Jocelyn’sBellinis,
Excellent tea! I haven’t watched Lady C lately. Need to. Ha...”ghastly” is such a good word.

@MustySyphone,
Good point— Oprah came to fame pre-social media, in her Harpo NDA cocoon.
AnT said…
@Magatha Mistie,
You have been on another roll! Amazing... Megxtinguished 👏
AnT. Unbelievable amount for fake milk. Once they've all trousered this tidy sum, they will no doubt turn their attention to the equally lucrative fake meat scam. Bet they don't imbibe it themselves though. As with meat, best to have the unadulterated version of full fat milk than this travesty.
HappyDays said…
Miggy said:
An insider said: “Harry wants to be there. It is already causing a headache and is going to be very awkward.

@Miggy: Harry may want to be there because The Queen is his grandmother, but it needs to be explained to him that as a non-working member of the royal family and due to the strained relationship between him and his wife and HMTQ and other senior members of the royal family that it is best for them to remain in California. Their presence would likely cause unnecessary drama (which is what Meghan wants) and take the spotlight away from the celebration of the Queen and the monarchy.

He threw in his lot with Meghan and he needs to learn that he can’t have it both ways. He should also be reminded that by that time, Meghan will either be very near her due date or will the baby will have been born, and it will be in the best interest of Meghan, Archie, and the new baby if he chooses to stay in California to make avocado toast for Meghan.

Then the palace could then suggest that Harry and Meghan take a page from Meghan’s uncle and his wife, who had hoped to be invited to their wedding in May 2018, but were passed by, along with other members on Doria’s side of the family.

In an interview right after the wedding, Meghan’s uncle, who remained gracious, said that to have some memories of that special day in their family, he and his wife took photos of the wedding on the television screen. (Wow, how said is that!)

Like Meghan’s uncle, perhaps Harry and Meghan can attend the festivities virtually by watching the celebrations on tv at home in Montecito and take photos as the events unfold. Like Meghan’s uncle, Harry and Meghan can paste the keepsake photos into a scrapbook to show to the kids when they are older.


JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
@JennS, I think it was this: https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-05/royal-family-marks-50-years-since-investiture-of-prince-of-wales
AnT said…
🤣😉✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨😉🤣

According to the Mirror, the MoS says the Queen sent Harry a personal email outlining the fact there would be no half in, half out, and that was that and done and dusted.

The interesting part for the Oprah legal team:

The Queen sent the email ten days ago — 10 DAYS AGO— so, before the taping of the Oprah program.

Hahahahaha! Harkles, busted!

Oprah is going to be furious. She was lied to, and has the hassle and expense of re-editing the show and taping new questions (and maybe trying to figure out if these two screw-ups are worth it).

I think with Hollywood seeing the large-scale deceptive family, charity, and business funkery of these two, M&H will be untouchable and not worth the insurance or time. As Amazon and Invictus Games already found out shortly after Harry inked his Netflix deal.



@JennS, if you search for "prince of wales 50th investiture anniversary", there are some great photos with the gruesome twosome in the background being held back. She wasn't even dressed appropriately(overdressed) for the occasion then, either. Always misses the mark!
@AnT, oh my-Oprah is going to be furious! Talk about burning what could be the most important bridge for them in the US! You think Oprah isn't going to have them blacklisted after this? Game over. MM always thinks she can eff up and get away with it but I think she's finally hit that wall. Ouch.
@JennS

It was a Buckingham Palace private exhibition in July 2019. It was the 50th anniversary of Charles's Investiture as Prince of Wales (Caernarvon Castle, 1st July 1969), hence the archive material.

The intended audience consisted of HM & Charles (the actual participants) and the future Prince of Wales, William, plus spouses. The Harkles had no more business being there than any other members of the family.

I'd still like to know who took the photos/footage and released them/it - I'd have expected it was just the Official Royal Photographer, given that it was inside the Palace itself. I'm open to correction but what I saw (Harry Markle?) seemed to have been put together to leave the viewer in no doubt about how the Harkles behaved. Some of the camera levels were strangely low, it seemed to me.

Was that the day she had muddy heels and holes in her micromesh hosiery? She was certainly overdressed in a `brocade number'- (coat and dress IIRC) more suitable for a cocktail party than an afternoon event.
@Sandie,

It looks to me as if MM is desperately trying to get Kate's beautiful hair with the big curls at the end. So she uses the cheap clip in extensions? No wonder her hair looks so fake, and there's far too much of it, so that she looks like Cousin It sometimes.

She should stop trying so hard and let her hair go natural. MM would look great in that style, and it would help other mixed or back women to love their natural curls!
JennS. Think that was when she wore some hideous brocaded coat/dress ensemble. Scrutinised photos later revealed ripped and dirty tights/pantyhose to complete the sartorial disaster.
WBBM. You and I must have been penning that reply at the same time at opposite ends of the country. We must be more alike than we think!
SwampWoman said…
Blogger lizzie said...
@SwampWoman,

But sycophantic reporters aren't standing at the ready to report you won't let your grandson's best friends eat off your plates. (Of course, leaving out the imaginary part because he didn't mention that little detail. Nevertheless their reports would make assumptions and strongly hint you are a you-know-what.)

H&M are what 4-year olds would look like if they did have sympathetic unquestioning reporters as mouthpieces.


Heh. You mean how grandson tells people that I break baby chickens, chop them up and put them in cakes and pancakes? (Breaking and beating eggs.)
Acquitaine said…
@JennS said…
"Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
@Musty - he's probably insisting on being included in everything.
Even if a part of the proceedings is designated `Working Royals Only' it's already clear there's not a single part of that phrase that either of them understands, be it `Working', `Royal' or `Only'.
......................

This comment reminds me of the time the Sussexes tried to push their way into the camera's view in order to join the senior royals in the direct line of succession who were viewing historical items at an event. Palace staff quickly appeared to stop them and they were made to wait on the side and then enter the next room when Her Maj, PC, Camilla, PW and Kate had finished.

Does anyone remember what event this was? I can't seem to find it."

It was one of the events celebrating the 50th anniversary of Charles's investiture as Prince of Wales. The items they inspected were the PoW ceremonial insignia, badges and accoutrements worn during the ceremony.

It was only meant for heirs and not spares. Rest of family was supposed to go ahead and wait in another room that had been set up for a concert.

Video shows that Meghan and Harry were determinedly lurking in the doorway when they were not supposed to be there, grabbed Charles so they could casually join the viewing group, but Charles audibly and visibly tells them to hang back. Despite Charles attempts to keep them back, Meghan and Harry ever so casually start walking in with the group until William tells them they are not allowed which stops them in their tracks at which point The Queen's Equerry and private secretary rush to block them and hold them back from processing into other room with the heirs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsHHpfR62M&t=56s

It's 1.55min - 3mins in this video

If you find the right video with good audio, you can hear parts of the conversation picked up by the sound recorders.

Charles says to them,'stand back'

William says to them,'......not allowed'

William, Camilla and Kate have a conversation that is clearly about the Sussexes because at one point William responds to Camilla,' i know. She wants to be in the pictures.'

Mimi said…
why isn’t she wearing that dress with the lemons about 3-4 sizes too small and standing facing the camera with bother hands and arms cupping her abdomen? I am surprised she wasn’t wearing a fur coat and flicked it as she walked into view.

I am sorry (not) but she needs to fire her hairdresser.......she has waaaaaaaaay too many clip on extensions .....all that hair overwhelms her faceans the rest of her.

And she really needs to work on looking at Hairy without fire shooting out of her eyes!!!!!!

p.s. I did not see anything resembling the size of the bump picture taken when she was on her back!!!!!!
AnT said…
The link to the little Mirror article about he Queen’s email to Harry:

See: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-sent-harry-personal-megxit-23552683

Thoughts?




JennS said…
**Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
@JennS
It was a Buckingham Palace private exhibition in July 2019. It was the 50th anniversary of Charles's Investiture as Prince of Wales (Caernarvon Castle, 1st July 1969), hence the archive material.
...............

Thank you Wild Boar!!!

It was driving me crazy that I couldn't remember what event it was. I knew it had something to do with the Prince of Wales - I should have figured it out.
So, the planned viewers were even MORE streamlined and specific than I remembered - only the Prince of Wales and his successor plus the Queen should have been viewing the objects at that time. How very pushy and ignorant of the Sussexes!! No wonder staff flew in at the speed of light to block the vile pair.

That's very interesting that you think there was odd or additional footage taken. I'm going to explore this story later when I have some time! There was a lot of analysis of the tapes and I remember it was thought PW said she did that to get on camera!

I also recall a brocade number - metallic on cream I believe, which is why I was initially confusing the incident this morning with CW Day 2019 when she wore a white coat and dress with a gold chain pattern.
AnT said…
@ConstantGardener33,

Right? What possible excuse could they have, if this is true. Another “we didn’t get the mail”?

Maybe this is when Oprah finally gets to view Megs in clenched-claw anger mode.
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Musty,

I don't think that the Markle family can be more abused by MM than what she's said and done to them so far. If that's the tack they will be taking in the interview, that's just old news that we've been hearing from them for years.

That doesn't not bode well for a groundbreaking interview. It's very, very old news now.

@Jenn,

So Oprah got Markled? The Queen sent the letter ten days before the Harkle's Oprah interview announcement? I've always said that Oprah is extremely gullible. Now, she's just learning what she's attached her name to- a couple of grifters who have a problem determining the difference between a lie, a lie of omission and the truth.

Gullible Oprah got taken in by a basket of oat latte mix and a two-bit actress from Toronto. Markled! A very special "Markled" for the former Queen of Daytime Talk Shows, since she arranged for them to be flown on Tyler Perry's jet to the US, got them Tyler Perry's house to live in, and, I'm sure, helped them find the Montecito house.

It looks like Tyler Perry was Markled, too.
@AnT, I have a feeling Oprah may continue on with a "nice" episode, but after this airs, behind the scene she starts quietly dropping info to friends and others in the industry to stay away from those two, like a tiny pebble dropping into a pond. Then before you know it, MM&JCMH are out in the cold even more than they are now. Totally frozen out, and they'll have no other options left.
JennS said…
ConstantGardener33 said...
@JennS, I think it was this: https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-05/royal-family-marks-50-years-since-investiture-of-prince-of-wales
......................

@CG33
Thank you too! - I missed your comment on the first look.

We need a good timeline of the Harkle story.

Does anyone know of any? I think Harry Markle took hers down.




Hikari said…
@Wild Boar

Could the Harkles marriage still be declared invalid/fraudulent, even if it's nearly 3 years old? Special circumstances warranting another legal change? Please, anything to get it annulled!!!

It's become so obvious that this match was never going to meet either the Church or State's requirements for validity. It's been a massive fraud perpetrated against the Crown, the Queen and her People.


This is why, three years on, the true extent of the Royal family's potential collusion in perpetuating a fraud before God and man, possibly/probably aided and abetted by Archbishop Warby, who is distressingly 'woke' for being the highest Churchman in the land, and equally distressingly, seems quite besotted with Meghan in a way that is not seemly at all, for a man of his position. Maybe he truly doesn't know about the yachting past; she would have hardly shared that in pre-marital counseling . . But he should certainly have been apprised (or made himself so) that Harry was to be Rachel's third husband, and before they met she'd been cohabiting with another man for 2 years. Making her insistence on virginal white, with a veil as long/longer than the virginal and 20/21 year old Queen and Princess Di breathtakingly inappropriate. The words of the sacred service were even more out of place in her mouth, since her true motives were transparent from across the Atlantic. Has the Archbishop of Canterbury presided over 2 fraudulent baptisms as well as a fraudulent wedding? Rachel supposedly converted to CoE and pledged her devotion to it and to Her Majesty before God, prior to the wedding so they could allow the twice-married yacht girl to stand up in St. George's Chapel. Warby has never denied performing that ceremony or Archie's christening, either, despite presiding over a church conclave in York that day. Was he truly acting upon the commands of the Queen, conveniently absent in Scotland, where she'd taken herself a month early to avoid this very thing.

We've been told (by Meghan) that this is so . . but the esteemed personages involved have been dead silent on these ceremonial matters. Was Megsie's conversion to the CoE just as heartfelt and genuine as her promise to gain British citizenship at the earliest opportunity?

So many questions, which have been curiously stonewalled since May 2018--

Why did the best man, traditionally one of *the* chief witnesses to a marriage refuse to sign the wedding register? William of course has never said anything, but that action would have been so out of the pale that I am persuaded that reports of this must be true. Why would he agree to stand up for Harry in front of all the world, the most public role possible, yet decline to perform the even more important private action validating the marriage? More important because while memories of the ceremony will fade, the signatures on the official register are forever.

Why would a brother refuse to perform this service for a brother--the whole reason he was there? This has to go behind a personal misgiving or animosity toward Harry's bride--Doesn't such an extraordinary action suggest that William *knew* that this marriage was not legitimate and/or had been obtained through deception, blackmail, even? As the future sovereign, he cannot afford to have his royal signature affixed to any documents asserting that a fraud is true. After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury had just performed the ceremony, seen by millions, with the Queen mere feet away. Everyone saw it happen, in a consecrated CoE church, by HM's highest minister. Impeccable circumstances, on the surface. We all saw it happen. And yet, in the inner sanctum, away from all eyes but immediate family, William's conscience would not allow him to sign his name as a witness to a true and lawful union, without impediment, before God.

This makes me go Hmmm.

Hikari said…
Was William coerced into standing up for Harry? Urged to take one for the team--

If absolutely commanded by his sovereign to appease the optics of the occasion, William had no choice. He looked throughout like a man forced into an odious duty, despite an attempt to appear jocular with the bridegroom while they waited, as of old. Once the ceremony got underway, William looked very, very grave, not happy as one would expect with his beloved brother getting wed to the right person. And for this, he was missing the cup finals for his sporting patronage. William did his family duty publicly, but if it's true that he defied Granny privately and refused to sign that register as a participant in the sham proceedings just past . . well, that's fekkin' interesting, innit?

ER is renowned for her devoutness. Even if she'd been persuaded that having a biracial granddaughter in law join the Firm would be such a great shot in the arm with the public, enough to bend quite a few rules to expedite Meg's wedding in her favorite chapel . . .If she had absolute knowledge that this woman was not legally free to wed her grandson or had used coercion, would she really sit by and give her public blessing to a huge fraud? Meg had been, to use a euphemism, 'difficult' in the run-up to the wedding, but that in itself wouldn't have been sufficient reason to cancel her. But what if there are .. impediments as to why Harry did not make a free and clear legal and spiritual commitment to this person who is being called his wife?

The Queen's extraordinary latitude toward Meghan, in terms of the Queen seeming to abandon some long and deeply held principles, just to appease the most troublesome of her grandsons . . ? Out of character, seems to me. She's had to lighten up on the divorced thing, seeing as three of her four progeny have divorced . . but even pre-Meghan, the appointment of Warby, an NWO acolyte if ever there was one, seems to me, was a bizarre choice from such a traditionally devout Queen. Don't know what to say about the whole mess. If the union is fraudulent, then any issue from it is illegitimate, irregardless of how he/they are born or sourced. Is that why HM didn't wig out about adding Harry's 'son' to the succession . . because it's all an elaborate game/show of acceptance to appease Harry, who looks poised to go off the deep end at any time? HM knew perhaps that it'd be a frosty day in Hell before any of Markle's spawn, real or fake, got anywhere near the Crown.

But--the prevailing question remains WHY--at the twilight of a mostly unimpeachable reign the Queen is letting these two even pretend to run their own show, getting her Church and government involved in a massive fraud? It would be a scandal never before seen. That's why the monarchy is in it too deep now--how can they ever backpedal and admit to knowing the marriage and Archie are false? Makes the head spin.
I see the Queen's relative Simon Bowes Lyon has been detained at her Majesty's pleasure for committing a sexual assault at the family seat, Glamis Castle. How embarrassing for all concerned. She must be in utter despair at her extended family.
@AnT,

"The OTHER oat milk and vegan food product company, backed by Oprah, Jay-Z and Natalie Portman, Howard Schulz (and creepy Blackstone Group) is is a Swedish brand called Oatly. Oatly has filed to go public and is asking for a $10 Billion Dollar valuation for its initial public stock offering."

So then the comment Oprah made about wishing that she knew about MM's oat milk latte sooner, or she'd have put it on her Christmas Favorite things list. That comment was so phoney anyway. She sounded like a cheap huckster.

Acquitaine said…
@Hikari: The video from the wedding shows that William didn't go backstage with the couple to sign the register. Only Charles and Doria went.

William very visibly walks to a seat next to Camilla and Kate.

Further, when the couple walk back out of the church, the Cambridge children are held back by the parents and do not join the procession out of the church.

At the time i thought Kate was being weird and had picked a strange time to become mama bear, but it was a very pointed, possessive hold on both kids by the Cambridges so that they didn't rejoin the wedding party.

Fast forward a year later and we started to hear about the wedding prep fall out and Meghan's unreasonable behaviour.

Kate(if not William)'s behaviour made sense given that information.

And now we know the brothers had already fallen out by the wedding such that they didn't speak for months afterwards, it's amazing that William stood up in that Church and the only sign of his disapproval was not signing that register.

Just a little info on Oatly, the oat milk that Oprah is investing in, in competition to MM's oat latte deal:

"What is wrong with Oatly?
Following allegations that a private equity firm who owns a stake in Oatly has contributed to deforestation in the Amazon, fans of the milk substitute began boycotting the brand on social media. Oatly inked a $200 million (£149 million) investment deal led by the firm Blackstone in July.Sep 10, 2020"
AnT said…
@ConstantGardener33:

I think you are 100% right. She will do it quietly and lethally behind the scenes.




@Jocelyn’sBellinis,

Maybe Megs should be selling Huckster Milk. Blended of organic milk from rats and snake “milk” too.
AnT said…
@Jocelyn’sBellinis,

Great find on that fascinating information about Oatly. Wow. Anything for a buck for Oprah and the Hollywood pack, I guess, hoping that people don’t successfully investigate....

I see that investor Blackstone is, according to an article on housinghumanright.org, headed by a “modern-day robber baron” called Stephen Schwarzman who faced anger from two women working with world housing issues at the UN.
Sandie said…
@Hikari

I don't think Willam refused to sign the register as a witness - he wasn't asked.

The wedding was Meghan's show. She was not going to let Harry have more witnesses than she had and no way was she going to let any of her friends have the prestige of having their signature on a historic royal document (any of them could have acted as witness). She only had her mother step up because they had to have two witnesses and since her mother is noticeably black, she is a useful prop to give Meghan that historic precedence (in her mind, she is the first and only black person in the royal family).
Acquitaine said…
@Hikari: regarding William or Queen being coerced into accepting Meghan as a bride when she wasn't free to marry, the consent was put before the privy council. The privy council is the ruling body within govt that includes Politicians, govt ministers, Judiciary, military, church leaders.

Meghan might be a horrible person,but the legality of her status would have been investigated in order to get the written consent of the privy council.

This is a picture of the written consent. The only unusual thing therein is the absence of the phrase,'well loved and trusted' to describe Meghan. Every other royal spouse has that phrase included in their written consent. The absence of this wording was a giant clue to her feelings about the bride.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2018/05/12/TELEMMGLPICT000163156585_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpVlberWd9EgFPZtcLiMQfy2dmClwgbjjulYfPTELibA.jpeg

By contrast here is William and Kate's written consent. Kate is described as 'trusty and well-loved'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/nintchdbpict000406030809.jpg
I think the poster who said Oprah would go soft and then quietly let it be known in certain circles that these two can't be trusted/are poison.

I also think Oprah has been "had". As in misled and probably out right lied to.

Get in line Oprah, get in line.
Natalier said…
I don't think that William was not invited to sign the marriage registry as witness. Knowing Meghan, to her everything is optics and she knows the importance of hardcopy documents for history, she would have wanted to future kings to be her witnesses. It would have elevated her sense of importance. William probably refused to sign.
Sandie said…
However, I do agree that William had sussed her out by the time of the wedding and knew his brother was making a huge mistake.

Spotify - it seems they did give the Harkles a huge chunk of money, for one pathetic podcast. The short promo the Harkles now makes sense. Spotify asked them when they will be getting these regular podcasts they were promised. Who else has been caught in the scam? Netflix.

Oprah is fully embedded and this special is all about trying to 'change the narrative' so that people will stop bothering them and just give them money! I just do not think Oprah has that kind of magic.
Acquitaine said…
I should clarify my thoughts on whether or not William refused to sign the wedding register.

I should have made clear that my comment was speculation based upon hindsight rather than observed behaviour on the day.

I agree with @Sandie and @Natalie that he wasn't asked.

I wanted to point out to @Hikari that he is on video going back to the seat vacated by Charles rather than go sign the register as expected of a best man's duties.

In hindsight, together with Kate's observed behaviour where they held back their children from rejoining the wedding party in the procession out of the church and beyond, i do think he would refuse even if asked.

For those interested in learning more about Blackstone(private equity) and their dealings, go to www.nakedcapitalism.com, put Blackstone into the search box, and you'll get plenty to read. Lots of information there.
Maneki Neko said…
@JennS

Here is the footage of the 50th anniversary of Charles's Investiture as Prince of Wales. You'll the Harkles stopped from entering the room
With Charles etc at around the 2'20" mark:

https://youtu.be/wBsHHpfR62M
Snarkyatherbest said…
Hi all, nothing really nafarious about Blackstone - know them well by reputation in financial circles. They are an over $500B private equity group. They are in tons of deals. Steve Schwarzman their chairman was a public supporter of Donald Trump They basically are in deals with everyone and do have a decent enough reputation (dont usually screw bondholders or stockholders when deals are in trouble) so for me its a nothing burger with oprah that may have been the oat milk company looking for endorsements (and give out stock) kinda like what ashton krucher (sp?) did with twitter back in the day.
Miggy said…
@HappyDays said:

Like Meghan’s uncle, perhaps Harry and Meghan can attend the festivities virtually by watching the celebrations on tv at home in Montecito and take photos as the events unfold. Like Meghan’s uncle, Harry and Meghan can paste the keepsake photos into a scrapbook to show to the kids when they are older.

I'm liking this suggestion immensely! It's simply perfect for the gruesome twosome. 😄
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

A Quiet Interlude

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

Christmas is Coming

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