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
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
I'm not sure I see the point in refusing to sign anyway if you've been the "best man."
I don't think that William was not(sic) invited to sign the marriage registry as witness.
I'm sure you meant to say he was not asked.
In the States, only 2 witnesses are also required for the signatures, and they do not *have* to be part of the wedding party. The tradition of groomsmen and maids of honor is ceremonial but not *legal* as such . . if a couple is pressed for witnesses, they could go pull two complete strangers off the street to witness. Not ideal, but it fulfills the letter of the law.
It would be unusual to ask one's brother to be best man and then not allow him to sign--your best man/maid of honor are your best and closest friends/relatives or confidants who are there expressly so they can bear witness to your marriage. Would the *bride*--particularly a foreign/non-royal one dictate who signs such an important document?
The whole thing is bizarre.
You and I think alike on many aspects of this farce. It will be interesting if Oprah tries to give them a helping hand or (if they fibbed about the patronages and titles to her) if she makes this HER comeback.
Could see it either way but one thing is for sure. Oprah will never get an interview with anyone else even close to the top of the royal pecking order. Fergie was at the same level as Meghan. Oprah has gone no higher.
I;'m wondering if the Markle scramble is to add more footage as any patronage/military title stuff would be moot at this point. When in doubt, throw your family under the bus.
Oprah can lie like a rug about it or she can figure out that the family is not nearly as bad as her own (Oprah's family was legendary bad)
yes it would lead one to suspect that they don't want the palace to review. But, legally, do they have to have Palace review? Grip and Drip are no longer working Royals and as such one would think that review is a curtesy not a requirement now.
But one also has to wonder that if indeed secrets are spilled and the Palace will want to hide behind the divan, then I would think swift and harsh punishment (removal of titles) is a possibility.
As to the jubilee, perhaps grip and Drip can ride in the silver buses with the other non working royals and have a place on the balcony. Not the main balcony mind you, one of the lesser, side balconies.
What if removing JCMH from the line of succession and his titles came about because Prince Philip
decided it was time to end the farce of who Prince Harry is?
It would simultaneously throw the sainted Diana under the bus and cut off all future privileges for Prince Harry while cleaning up Charles’s reputation?
Disclaimer. I believe he is Charles son, but what if he actually isn’t?
Otherwise what grounds will they be able to make for JCMH removal from the line of succession?
Do you happen to know how it “WAS PROVEN” and stupid people like me don’t know it?
There is no doubt in my mind that they all have DNA on file. (oh and in the US army, all soldiers have DNA done so their bodies can be identified, if necessary).
I’ll keep an open mind. There have been lots of conspiracy theories discussed on this blog, so who know? I suppose anything is possible. I would not have thought pillow/surrogate a possibility, and yet here we are.
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!!!
*
I was thinking about this very thing a few weeks ago when it occurred to me that the first Duke of Sussex had a marriage annulled because he married a woman without Royal permission -under the Royal Marriages Act 1772.
Since Harry did have Royal permission my thought was could it be annulled because there is no longer Royal **approval? I wonder if there exists a Royal law on the books that can be tweaked?
Clearly, according to Lady C's latest vid, there is NO Royal approval any longer. I can only visualize the Royal legal team examining every jot and tittle to find a way out of the worst conundrum in modern Royal history (including the Diana days).
Just something to ponder.
I wondered if there was any information that JCMH could dump on the
RF and whether PP might want to get ahead of it? PP will be keen to
ensure the survival of The Monarchy, and must despair at the mess his
own sons have made of the family. Add to that his feckless grandson and his
troll wife. Not surprisingly he needed a trip to hospital! Even In Nuttyland we were
reaching for some alcohol relief.
I totally agree JCMH looks like people we believe are his relatives. But
so do a handful of my adopted friends. People used to believe I was the adopted one
Not them.
What other justifications can be given for taking him out of the line
Of succession? Which I agree he needs to be. I’m wondering how they make a public case for it?
PS. I never saw the results published about a DNA test. But
It makes sense it was done.
@Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells
@Musty
@ConstantGardener33
@Maneki
Re the POW investiture...
@Acquitainte said...
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
..............
ROTFLOL!! Just love those privacy-loving Sussexes!
This video is different than the one I remember and shows another angle. If you didn't know the Harkles, you might think they were innocently just waiting for the rest of the party to catch up!
But - HOW did they get to the artifacts room before the Queen and company? And wouldn't someone have made sure Harry knew beforehand he was not to be included? Sigh.
He spoiled that whole part of the event as I'm sure he and Markle were not supposed to pass through that room at all...or they were meant to go through long before the top tier group was photographed/filmed examining the items.
If the Harkles come back to England for any Royal events Her Maj will have to assign them personal guards to stick by their sides at all times! Even though the palace staff moved fast at the investiture the Sussexes apparently escaped notice and were already ahead of the game poised and ready at the door of the artifacts room. They weren't caught until the top-tier team was ready to enter!
Somehow I think the old Harry minus Markle would never have done this. He wouldn't have cared about getting into the pictures and would probably have preferred to be seated hanging out with everyone else in the next room than participate in more of the formal parts of the event.
Agreed...I think there is really no way for the Queen to leave Harry with his title and styling at this point. And I do think the lousy Sussex title with its silly history (not to mention Dumbarton) was chosen with this sad moment in mind. They knew a mess would boil up with the awful combo of narcissist grifter and bitter clown boy.
With everything that’s happened, plus whatever other buckets of dirt they collected on Merry Megs, they probably have 10x enough to persuade the faintest heart. William will be pushing for it, Anne and Philip will demand it. The Queen is clearly displeased, Sophie will nudge her the rest of the way. And the only way to dislodge or disarm Merry Megs is to return to her title-free Rachel with the Hotmail commoner self. She’ll vamoose in a cloud of dust and rat hair.
In the next days before 7 March, anything can happen in Harkleville, then comes the program itself. Nothing good awaits, so I think papers are being drawn up. I hope Harry is sleeping poorly, like one of Henry VIII’s wives.
Is anyone else getting “William’s in charge” vibes? Are the vibes getting stronger and stronger? 🧐
.
@Kiwichick
So while I think In a 99% way that Harry is a clone of young Prince Philip, and is thus of Charles’ loins, who knows, I guess. I am not in a lab.
Mark Dyer would be my other guess, vs Ol’ Limp Face Hewitt, actually.I reject Hewitt because there is something slippery and weak about him and his mother and I somehow think he would have told his mum and she would tell everyone in town.
That is not scientific DNA/eye measurements proof, but it is my little nugget of gut evidence I cling to, Lol. But Mark Dyer, that I could more likely believe. (Though I know nothing zilch about him, or how Dyer and Diana may have ever crossed paths. Someone here will know.)
Just to say, I do understand why sometimes people still wonder.
Every so often, I squint and hmmmm too, lately, hoping he can be tossed over the rails. Nothing is ever simple with Harry!
@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.
@Miggy: I find it odd that within the last two weeks or so, before the announcement of the second baby, Meghan was saying that when Harry traveled to the UK to the Megxit review, that she was planning to stay home in Cali with Archie because she just couldn't bear to leave Archie to travel with Harry.
At the time that info was released, I figured she was probably pregnant, also, like most narcissists, they often create huge family messes and then disappear to let someone else face the music and/or clean it up because they are cowards.
I see no reason for Harry or Meghan to force themselves into the celebrations for The Queen when they can both use the impending birth/ or new baby as a face-saving excuse not to travel for the celebrations. Harry might want to show up alone for a quick in and out trip only to unveil the Diana statue, but no Meghan, please.
Considering all the drama, destruction, petty pot shots, hard feelings, and the absolute dislike of both of them by many UK citizens, they should just be told to stay away.
Meghan has shown a penchant for upstaging special days and events of other members of the royal family. Due to this attention-grabbing behavior, Harry and Meghan can’t be trusted to not stage some sort of attention-grabbing stunt to embarrass The Queen. .
The Harkles should be told in no uncertain terms that their presence is not necessary because they are non-working royals and leave it at that. Perhaps HMTQ can add a P.S. that reads, “You are also not invited because you are both greedy, self-absorbed, ungrateful a-holes. XOXO, Granny.”
PS,
Is anyone else getting “William’s in charge” vibes? Are the vibes getting stronger and stronger?
@AnT: The same thought has popped up in my head recently, but I chalked it up to wishful thinking. It would be nice to know he’s in charge or at least has formidable influence.
I think it’s a shame that after decades of an exemplary reign, a raging narcissist from here in the States could, with the assistance of her numpty grandson, cast a shadow across a lifetime of duty and service.
Britons must be thankful that William is the older brother.
.
Disclaimer. I believe he is Charles son, but what if he actually isn’t?
Otherwise what grounds will they be able to make for JCMH removal from the line of succession?
--------
Not that old chestnut again!! Thanks, @JennS, for your reply and saying that Harry looks like Charles and Philip.
Yes, Diana cheated with Hewitt, no one said she didn't. That doesn't mean Harry is his son. I don't think she would have been stupid enough to get pregnant by someone else while married to Charles and yes, as @Jdubya said, all members of the BRF are DNA tested.
In any case, even if, for the sake of the argument, Harry wasn't Charles' son and this was announced now, this would be the end of the BRF. If they want to remove H from the line of succession, they'll have to find a different way.
I assume the same applies under CofE Canon Law.
Often, it is one parent from each side, as in the present case, but it doesn't have to be. There is, however, usually only room for 2 signatures in that field of a standard Register.
I daresay Royals in the past have gone over the top with the numbers signing - perhaps the registers in their Peculiars have more room.
Please note, Royal Peculiars are churches/chapels owned by the Monarchy - they are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop or archbishop. Both Westminster Abbey and St Georges's Windsor are thus under the direct jurisdiction of the Monarch, (plus the Order of the Garter in the case of St G's.) NB the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the CofE.
Btw: St Paul's Cathedral where C & D married is not a Royal Peculiar - it's the cathedral church of the Diocese of London.
-----------------------
The CofE is remarkably progressive now in its attitude to the remarriage of divorce(e)s. It's left to more or less to the individual incumbent to decide. Some will remarry the `innocent' party, some assume nobody is 100% guilty or innocent in a broken marriage and will remarry a divorced person without going into details, others refuse absolutely.
Re C&C: Charles was in effect a widower - he had no former wife living (that's the important bit) when he and Camilla got spliced. She, however, does still have a former husband still alive, so that would have been the technicality that mattered. Public perception, however, was all. Too many assumed that Charles was 100% guilty & Di 100% innocent in the failure of their marriage.
--------------
That little cow has got the Royal Family into an Unholy Mess, thanks to them trying to do the right thing by her. Who would have thought that they might as well have bitten the bullet in the first place? It couldn't have been much worse than now. peerhaps the rioting on the streets is yet to come.
Sorry, catching up on the posts, different continents so different time zones.
The BRF will never disclose the results of DNA tests, which is why you didn't see them.
I wonder just how many men could say,
`I knew Meghan Markle before she was a virgin'?
(Apologies to the late Doris Day)
He looked so ridiculous wearing a suit with the medals at the cemetery, like a dictator from a small banana republic.
Given that dark-haired people often carry a `red' gene that is expressed only when they have a child with a blond(e) and that there is evidence of red hair in the Spencers, I've always accepted H's legitimacy.
So, and I'm speculating here,
If it can be demonstrated conclusively that Charles is not Harry's father, Harry would immediately be out of the Succession because he is a bastard. (Yes, in all possible senses). No law change needed - think of the Duke of Monmouth.
While Royal DNA may have/has been collected for use in the event of a catastrophe, I can't imagine for one moment that anyone would have been permitted to compare any sample with another for purposes of analysing family relationships. It would have been stored without any analysis whatsoever.
Only in the even of body parts being in need of identification would it have been processed along with the sample from body part (ie put into a PCR machine to bulk it up, then compared, by chromatography, with the unknown) IIRC. Otherwise, sleeping dogs are best left undisturbed.
Can you seriously imagine HM agreeing to having H's DNA analysed for his relationships - unless it was an emergency when it could be brought out of storage...?
I'll leave that thought hanging in the air, apart from saying that even if `new evidence' came to light we wouldn't be told, should H agree to renounce his place.
Oh well, we can only dream of a Deus ex Machina descending to cut through all the crap that Markle has created
Meghan Markle is for the RF a perfect example of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. With the Ghetto pastor, the black Cellist and the Gospel Choir not to mention a white wedding in a CoE ceremony at a cost of thirty three million pounds sterling surely the RF must have thought they had done more than enough to show that their colour blindness and yet...… (but we all know what they really think) and so......
Men always receive the blame for failure in marriage and thus Diana was a saint and Charles a cheat. Nearly fifty per cent of marriages fail and of second marriages (as is the case for Markle) that percentage increases to about sixty. Of those marriages that fail ninety per cent of divorces are driven entirely by the female of the species and so what greater proof does one need of the evil of men. My intrigued observation was however that of the remaining ten per cent - women being thrown to the kerb by their husband - it was they who were not merely very pleasant but also good looking, rather than wasp-chewing visaged harridans who filed for divorce. The explanation is surely that successful men attract beautiful women who go through life effortlessly and are thus pleasant, but the men who can attract such women also have little difficulty attracting a replacement. I suppose the PoW is in that category for Lady Di was certainly fairly good looking - for a nineteen year old.
Telling MM to do/not do something is like lighting a fire under her to do exactly the opposite of what you asked. She could show up out of pure spite, and because she so craves an international spotlight.
The only way to make certain that she and Harry don't try to sneak into BRF events is to station a guard at every door and to forcefully escort them off of palace grounds.
It's also OK to wear those of a deceased relative, as long as they are worn on the right, not the left. I've worn Dad's medals from 1st & 2nd Wars to Remembrance Day parades,
My no1 husband (Captain to Major) always had to pay for his own uniform, bespoke from his tailor. He complained bitterly about having to shell out for a crown to replace his three pips (for his epaulettes) when he was promoted. I don't know about the NBC suit - that was probably issued, as he didn't moan about it (though I used to when the helmet and gasmask fell off the top shelf of the cupboard onto me!).
Could she be declared Persona Non Grata and denied entry to the country? If they sneaked they'd have to be kept under arrest to stop any public antics, then deported!
Some hope!
I imagine that provision still applies?
I've seen lots of photos of men in suits with medals, so I understand that, but what I meant is that Harry looked ridiculous standing there in an empty cemetery. At a real event, with real people around him, yes, but just he and MM standing there in their Sunday best, trying to look important, was just laughable. It was the epitome of, "all dressed up and nowhere to go."
***********************
How about an "arrest on sight" order? Immediate deportation. In cuffs! LOL.
I'm sure plans are underway, but it seems awfully early for the Sussexes to be threatening to attend a celebration nearly 16 months away.
------
I'm not totally convinced Harry's paternity has been decided by DNA. I happen to think he is Charles's son-- I don't think Diana was that foolish. And I do find the RF family resemblance pretty convincing coupled with the lack of resemblance to Hewitt (except for the recessive gene red hair that gets more weight than it deserves. Obviously red hair runs in the RF too. Bea has red hair. As did Queen Mary.) I don't see Archie's resemblance to H&M myself except for the lazy eye. But with Harry and the RF we have Harry's photos over 30+ years to compare. Not just a few photoshopped babyhood shots and shots that may not even be Archie.
Using DNA for paternity testing began in 1988. Harry was born in 1984. While the RF might have used it early would they have trusted it early? Or would they have tested 4-year old Harry and 6-year old William "just to be sure?"
Re. The ‘black’ portions of the Harkle Wedding Show
The young man playing the cello was the winner of a distinguished scholarship competition and thus not a busker hired from the street corner. I won’t claim he was the highlight of the day for everyone, but he was for me. The cello is my favorite instrument, and we have a cellist in the family. I wish him a brilliant musical career. He was at least a Briton.
The importation of the American gospel choir and Bishop Curry of Chicago is a wee bit hazy. I’ve heard conflicting reports that Doria what is the conduit, or even Charles. Charles knows a lot of people all over the world, So that wouldn’t be such a bizarre supposition. Doria is of course black, but her ties to the Chicago area church while she was based in Los Angeles would seem to be fairly impossible. I smell Oprah’s fingerprints all over this, because of course the Queen of daytime TV Was for many years based in Chicago, although these days she seems to prefer her Montecito enclave or any other of her luxurious tropical getaways. Oprah’s Chicago home was on the Miracle Mile—That’s stretch of the Michigan lake shore which is home to the present-day Jay Gatsby class of ostentatious multimillionaires. Mugsy attended Northwestern University, in a Chicago suburb, but the notion that she was attending a black gospel church During her tenure in college when she was trying so hard to schmooze in her white sorority is droll. I think this was all Oprah, part of her service for an invite to the Royal wedding...The combination of which we will be seeing on TV shortly. I am confident that neither Bishop Curry’s church nor his choir qualify as “ghetto”. He’s a bishop of their diocese. His oratorical style is firmly in the American black gospel tradition, practiced regardless of income level. Saint George’s had certainly never seen anything like it before and its centuries of existence. The vocal stylings of the black choir were in a similar vein, Though their selection of music was frankly bizarre. Having seen the parody video “Bad Lipreading—Royal Wedding”, I am now incapable Of seeing those portions of the service as anything but ridiculous pantomime. Given that the centerpiece of the service was an ex yacht girl on her third marriage and professing at least her third religion, and a dumb party prince not renowned either for his devout followings of the teachings of Christ—And with the pews stuffed with vapid celebrity of both American and British stripe, It’s hardly surprising that this wedding was far less a sacred ceremonial occasion then a fancy dress circus extravaganza.
My second favorite part of the day was Sir Elton John’s epic moue of startlement when the minister reached a crescendo. It seems impossible to conceive of, but Harry and Megan’s nuptials went OTT for Elton John. No small feat that!
I've read so many books on the BRF lately, that I can't recall which one this was in, but one of the higher ups on Charles' staff said that Charles and Harry were DNA tested after Diana's death. Charles wanted the testing done.
DNA testing at birth for any royal might be a good idea in the future.
Also, Meg graduated from NW in 2003--15 years before her wedding, and Hadn’t lived in or visited the Chicago area since. So claiming some deep spiritual tie to this “church family” that she ostensibly attended as a student more than 15 years prior...Doesn’t hold water. Meg hadn't even lived in the States for a nearly a decade before returning with Harry a year ago, So it’s not like any LA area churches would’ve known her either. Mugsy is the proverbial rolling stone—always on the move so people can’t get a bead on her.
They didn’t want to do anything to get interest in the program yet announce it a few days before. Since it accidentally leaked, they are going to have to rebuild interest next week. Now it’s going to cost a lot more money to promote. Tough luck!
"Re the POW investiture...
HOW did they get to the artifacts room before the Queen and company? And wouldn't someone have made sure Harry knew beforehand he was not to be included? Sigh."
I think they were supposed to have gone ahead into the other room long before the heirs got to the viewing room. Either directly through the viewing room or some other way.
I presume they had a briefing from the BP team as to order of events and knew when cameras would be present ie which parts of the day would be beamed to the world and so deliberately, but casually forgot the protocol.
This incident demonstrates how much influence Meghan has on Harry because as rebellious as he is, he would never have dared do this before her.
She has a history of trying and failing to get into Hollywood awards parties by trying to talk her way past the entrance guards so this is the same thing in different place.
And this wasn't the only time they pulled or tried to pull focus. It was revealed that after they came back for their farewell tour in march 2020, as they left BP for the last time, they deliberately walked through an investiture ceremony that was taking place in the ballroom. There are many ways to exit BP discreetly and boldly, going via the inhabited ballroom is just attention seeking. I can imagine Meghan enjoyed that part very much though she'd have cried victim if Charles had stopped the ceremony and had the guards manhandle them out.
It's pretentious, but he has an official Harpist at his court which shows how serious he is about music.
It's not surprising that he knew about the Kingdom choir which is a London based choir that has been performing publicly for over 20yrs.
The cellist is a musical prodigy from a family of 7kids who are all musical prodigies. He won Young Musician of the year in 2016, but honestly all his siblings could have won that competition of they'd been entered.
There was a recent doc about the family on the BBC that showed how musical and talented they all are. They all play various instruments, are music obsessed particularly with Elgar, and they all think the youngest sibling is the best musician of all.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60zFgBgbmbo
"The Most Rev. Michael Bruce Curry is Presiding Bishop and Primate of The Episcopal Church. He is the Chief Pastor and serves as President and Chief Executive Officer, and as Chair of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church."
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/presiding-bishop-michael-curry/
I don't know why he was chosen but his credentials made him a reasonable choice to be the American religious leader at a royal COE service. He's Black but he's not a bishop in the American "Black Church." He's as close as we've got in the US to COE Aglican. And he's the top guy.
I doubt Doria, Oprah, Chicago, or Northwestern had anything to do with the choice. From 2000-2015 Curry was a diocesan bishop in North Carolina. Prior to that, he was a rector in Baltimore for 12 years. I don't see a connection to Doria or to her current mega-church, Agape International Spiritual Center in LA either (said by some to be attended occasionally by Oprah)
I've read Welby suggested him after Meghan suggested the Dalai Lama.
I have read Charles suggested the choir.
--------
@Jocelyn'sBellinis wrote:
"...one of the higher ups on Charles' staff said that Charles and Harry were DNA tested after Diana's death. Charles wanted the testing done."
Thanks for the info. I find that incredibly hard to believe. I mean, I believe that story was published, I just find it unbelievable. Gee, my ex-wife is dead and my children are grieving. Guess I better be sure the crying sniveling 12-year old is really mine. The 15-year old doesn't look like me at all, looks like my dead wife, but let's not test him. Just test the ginger. Queen Mary who?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cleLWTBCBFQ
Indeed, was a comparison made at the time? If so, was C informed?
Surely that would been kept secret either way. Would Charles have liked being revealed as a cuckold? Or for being so doubtful about Diana's conduct? Would it have been locked away, unexamined, in the hope that it would never be used, one way or the other, should H ever become first in line?
Ye Gods - Diana's conduct and the abuse of Reproductive technology, an explosive combination. So much opportunity for mischief.
I rate her far above Katherine Jenkins, the self-styled `Welsh Superstar Mezzo Soprano' (have I mentioned previously her singing for HM on the track at Epsom? Absolutely ghastly. The clips on Youtube use a different camera angle from the broadcast I watched. She's very much a chest breather - shoulders and much else rose with each breath she took... poor HM. She has quite an ego too - has said she `hasn't yet got around to starring in opera' or wtte.
When I started to write this post, I was thinking thank goodness KJ didn't do the chapel event but, thinking about it, it could have been priceless. The thought that she could have popped out of a strapless gown at a critical moment, completely stealing MM's thunder, is utterly delicious.
By HARRIET JOHNSTON FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:49, 24 February 2021 | UPDATED: 10:49, 24 February 2021
Part1.
Princess Diana would have been 'furious' with 'confused' Prince Harry over Megxit, a close friend of the late royal has claimed.
The Duke, 36, and Duchess of Sussex, 39, who are currently living in their $14 million mansion in California, were stripped of their royal patronages by the Queen, 94, days ago, and shocked many by issuing a barbed statement in response to the palace.
Sources said Prince William has been left 'really sad and genuinely shocked' by his brother's behaviour towards the Queen, branding it 'highly disrespectful'.
Fashion designer Roberto Devorik, who remained a friend of Diana all her adult life, has now claimed the late royal would have been angered over the recent fall-out because she wanted him to help shape a 'modern monarchy.'
He said Meghan and Diana wouldn't have got along 'in any way', telling Hola! magazine: 'I think Meghan is the boss... Harry is a boy who suffered a lot and believes that Meghan has the legacy of Diana. But he is very confused.'
+5Fashion impresario Roberto said Princess Diana had told him 'many times' that she 'wanted her children to be princes of a 'modern Crown' and said the royal would have been 'furious' with Prince Harry over Megxit.
Meanwhile he called the Queen's decision to strip the couple of their patronages 'logical'.
Declaring Prince Harry 'the Queen's favourite grandson', Roberto said Her Majesty had been forced to put 'Crown first', adding: 'For the Crown, what Harry has done is unforgivable.'
He explained: 'You cannot exile yourself and collect money from Netflix or Disney and also want to continue collecting from the State for your performances for the Crown.
'You cannot live in a mansion in Montecito, California, and sign millionaire commercial contracts , and also want to receive money from the public coffers or continue to represent the Crown.'
On Friday it was announced that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had been stripped of their remaining roles after their 12-month trial separation from royal life and move to the US.
The couple then issued a sharp rebuke, declaring they would offer 'continued support to the organisations they have represented regardless of official role'.
They signed off: 'We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.
Devorik branded the statement from the couple 'shameful', adding that nobody is 'forbidding' Harry from helping people, but he shouldn't 'receive the privileges from The Crown.'
He said the Duke will now have 'a normal life' which is 'what he wanted.'
Tensions have heightened since the Duke and Duchess issued their sharp statement on Friday, with sources close to the monarch told The Sunday Times that the riposte was 'petulant and insulting to the Queen'.
A source told the Mail: 'Their statement in response to the Queen's heartfelt sentiment that the couple are still much-loved members of her family was considered highly disrespectful.'
Royal sources said it was 'horribly disrespectful' and ''you can't line your pockets while undertaking official duties'.
It has been revealed that a 'battle royale' over their royal titles had raged behind the scenes, with the Queen telling the couple their commercial careers were completely incompatible with the impartiality required of those in public service.
According to one official, she made it 'abundantly clear' to her grandson that when it comes to being a working royal you are either in, or you are out, telling him: 'You work for the monarchy, the monarchy doesn't work for you.'
Meanwhile the Duke of Cambridge is said to be 'very upset by what has happened' and feels Harry has been 'insulting and disrespectful' to their grandmother.
With negotiations already tense, the revelation that the couple have conducted a tell-all interview with Oprah sent matters into free fall and was deemed to be the final straw.
The couple are said to have 'poured their hearts out' to Ms Winfrey during a two-day shoot in their £11million LA mansion last week.
The tell-all interview is due to air on Sunday March 7 with no topics off-limits with one source warning Harry's family the show would be a good 'time to hide behind the sofa at the palace'.
Yesterday it was announced the Queen will steal a march on Prince Harry and Meghan and beat them to the airwaves by addressing the nation on TV supported by Prince Charles and Prince William just hours before the Sussexes' interview.
Now back to more pressing matters. WBBM. Enjoying the image of KJ bursting out of her corset. She does like to get her orbs out, doesn't she?
Katherine Jenkins is not exactly a great singer to put it mildly: if you want a Welsh Soprano sadly now retired may I suggest Gwyneth Jones (perhaps they could have relayed her from Disc - say the closing scene from Gotterdamerung or as Senta in Hollander.
@Hikari
There are plenty of Cellists but we know the reason Mason was selected was not because he was a Cellist or because he was better than any other Cellist but on the basis of his skin colour. My local orchestra had him lined up (because he is cheap) but the Kung-flu put pay to that. The PoW was in his youth and for all I know still is a performer on the bull-fiddle.
@Acquitane
Those who like all types of music are usually fairly equally indifferent to all types of music. If you are going to have a church wedding what is wrong with the Wagner followed at the end by the Mendelsohn? Can't go wrong with that. Now my choice of ghetto Preacher would be the Rev Jesse Lee Paterson but I guess he is not woke enough for the RF. Now if the question is who would I like to attend yet have never previously met, i'd be going for Thomas Sowell or Justice Thomas and from show-biz I think I'd like Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn. Of course I would want a less-married and younger bride than Markle. Markle does however have one thing in common with my own mother namely that the only member of her family to show for the wedding was her own mother - mine likewise. All my mother's many cousins and even her own Father stayed away. Her Mother showed and in her furs and as always in photographs dominated the picture. Oh dear.
I guess Meghan and Harry probably think what happened to them is unfair if they think or know of them at all.
Felipe was prematurely elevated to King simply to save the Spanish throne, and he has taken steps to exile and or remove his father and sister from the public gaze. The sister had her ducal titles removed and is still trying to avoid criminal charges being brought against her though she was acquitted for tax fraud. Her husband is serving a 6yr jail term.
Ultimately, what Meghan and Harry are doing is corruption because they are using their public position to gain privately. Anyone in public office who does this is jailed routinely worldwide. It's literally their royal privilege that is stopping the media from calling a spade a spade and making it clear what they are doing is criminal.
If it is perfectly alright, why was anyone upset by public officials and royals doing the same?
Notice in the video about how they all stay in a file as they walk through the room. PC kind of guides his mother but everyone stays where they are supposed to stay by rank. Basically no one is supposed to get ahead of the Queen ... but there is a clear crossing ahead at one point.
If I were a betting person, someone within the duo was advocating the idea that they too should be present in the same way that there was huge uproar of the updated pictures of the succession as should have been included.
And, maybe the idea that they won't stop us so let's try. Some people like pushing boundaries (but you knew that).
Re Curry - Lizzie is right about probably no linkage to Doria. Technically possible something to Roslyn but if so, faith doesn't appear to be mentioned in Sam's book which still would not make sense as it would have been the wrong wife.
Doria and Thomas got married at The Self Realization Fellowship Temple which is Hindu but not the specific branch of Hindu that is Hare Krishna. Sam's book mentions HK in relation to the wedding location but states she was not very aware of "religion". She may have been told it was HK at that time since they were highly visible at that time. HK came to the USA in 1966 while Paramahansa Yogananda brought his branch (SR) to the USA in 1920 (providing Wikipedia is correct from their sources by their people who probably watch for any "edits" that are not approved.
If M really suggested the Dalai Lama to conduct the wedding service in a COE church, it might be viewed as on par with not understanding the line of succession and where her husband fit. It would, however, be fitting in with the whole humanitarian general do gooder image of being blessed by him that would make a great photo op (that others haven't gotten) and would likely be reprinted often when there was a volunteer visit.
Which proves the point that it’s impossible for Meghan to work in public service (gov USA). She wants to be an entertainer and make money. However that plays out. She has no interest in changing her career. Otherwise she would have stayed with the BRF.
Thomas reportedly was raised as an Episcopalian. No evidence he was practicing as an adult though. (Marriage at the Hindu Temple as @Elsbeth1847 noted-- supposedly Doris's choice)
Regardless, I'm pretty sure Thomas didn't suggest Curry!
After reading the tweets of Marlene Koenig since her name came up months ago, I would be mindful of walking barefoot near her, to avoid stepping on loose screws, mmmm. I sense anger and obsession, utterly loved up with Megsy too, but this is just my opinion.
A surprising piece by Paul Baldwin because the Daily Express is a sickly psychophant of all things Meghan. (But, strangely, does employ Richard Palmer, who is quite level-headed in his reporting.)
Baldwin seems to think that Oprah is going to shaft the Sussexes in this special on them, in the most charming way (they won't see it coming).
I disagree. Oprah wants to shaft the BRF because she has a huge chip on her shoulder about race and privilege - the kind that you are born into, and the automatic status that comes with all that. She knows she is never going to get near senior royals, so she has nothing to lose. The only person who is in danger of being shafted, other than definitely for Meghan's family, is Harry. The very fact that he is an add-on at the end is meant to disrespect him. Harry is actually the interesting one in the story, and Meghan just a talentless loudmouth with zero talent, a liar, a grandiose megalomaniac, a shameless conniving grifter and con artist. (My apologies for expressing my opinion of another human being in such strong terms. I do feel compassion because I think she does suffer and with zero realistic self-awareness, that is not going to change.)
Although there will be many strong opinions, it will only take a little bit of fact checking to discredit what is going to be a special devoted to the defence and promotion of Meghan. I hope there are many in the media who are up to the task. As for Oprah and the consequences for her ... let the chips fall where they may.
Oh well, we can only dream of a Deus ex Machina descending to cut through all the crap that Markle has created
*
As exciting this sounds in terms of a dramatic ending, logically I would prefer the BRF, who now according to LCCs new inside palace information, find some legal way to vote on a no confidence in the D&DoS. It is clear to the entire world they have run amok.
Although it's fun and comforting to imagine numerous ways to do away with them, in all reality something's got to give. And really stick so they can't worm their way back in.
I say all of us plebs just have to wait it out and trust that the RF are working on the matter behind the scenes. LCC is the best go to in my opinion because she has someone as a Royal source in BP and she is saying there is more to come but she can't discuss it right now.
There is no way I'm going to wring my hands, bemoaning that damn interview which is almost two weeks away. What a depressing thought. Ugh. I'll wait for news from BP.
Yeah, I know I'm being a buzz kill but oh well. Sorry not sorry. It's too much to process. Sigh...
So Harry isn't just being tacked on. He's the draw. That indicates to me Oprah or at least CBS knows Rache is not popular. Perhaps they know viewers will want to see Harry without the "Claw." Unless of course, Rache is tagging along for his entire interview too.
DL (Dalai Lama), not DM (Daily Mail)!
Meghan asked for the DL, since Prince Charles has met him on more than one occasion. Prince Charles got her an American preacher, whose sermon (all about love) was completely out of touch with the wedding of Megalomania and Handbag (and I think there were people in the congregation who knew that), but also on point in giving them a needed but unheard lecture. Personally, I am not in favour of preaching and sermonizing at a wedding. Talk briefly about wedding vows and religious obligation and ask for a blessing, then move on so everyone can get to the reception sooner rather than later.
I agree with your assessment. Rachel is the Bangles cover band leading up to the Harry EXO K-pop dance party. Let’s see if Oprah was able to pull it off.
To your other point, I wonder if they will be able to pry the Claw off him for a few independent moments? Maybe James Corden was a cover stunt to shake Megsy, and thenthey pulled over somewhere by a limo and Corden did a hand-off to Oprah. Ah, dreams.
@xxxxx I've enjoyed all the poems you have been gracing us with.
@LavenderLady I'm like you, let's wait and watch what happens. The BRF takes a long time after the fact to make things interesting and satisfying.
Hi —Regarding your comment to me about oh well we can only dream of a Deus ex machina...
It was actually @Wild Boar Battle-Maid who expressed that interesting thought, at 10:28 am, if you scroll back.
However, I agree with her. Wouldn’t t be lovely.
That is an interesting perspective. Yep, Harry is the drawcard for this interview. Meghan is a turnoff, other than for deranged fans. I suspect that a lot of people will keep the sound off until Harry is on the screen, but Meghan will be able to count everyone in the viewership of her show.
There must have been tension during the two days of filming. For Meghan, it was more of the drama she loves, as long as she is the only one on stage. For Harry, it must have been a new low in his life. He was well coached/brainwashed by Meghan for his part, but he must have been feeling awful (grandfather in hospital, horribly rude to his grandmother, losing more of his connection to all that he was, worried about money ...).
I am intrigued by the Spotify scandal that Spotify is trying to bury as soon as possible. A huge payment upfront, a hastily put together, short promo with Meghan in expensive designer gear and flashing more new jewellery and Harry looking miserable, and nothing to show for the huge payment other than one podcast in which they merched Archie, sprouted some meaningless word salad, and played snippets from some celebrities/wannabe celebrities, and now empty promises about shining a light, voices heard, kindness with no deliverables mentioned (compare the Obama/Springsteen promo). Then some idiot equates what they have to offer (nothing) with The Crown (a major series, professionally done and involving the many talents of dozens of experienced people)! It should be a major scandal and overpaid executives should be losing their jobs!
😂 the invisible appendage that Just H is about to feel for the rest of his life
Dying!
Okay, and if they ever manage to send her to Siberia or Mars, they will have to have someone fashion a cozy plush stuffed Claw Doll to carry, to help him through his separation anxiety! It will be like Just Harry’s own canine Thunder Vest,
Seconding the comment above, have been enjoying your poems as well.
@Opus - Gotterdammerung, indeed!
I agree, Aquitaine, `corruption' is the right word. M is morally corrupt, possibly in criminal terms as well (but that is for a Court to decide). H may have been corrupted by her, if he wasn't already.
I have no emojis so Namaste hands here___. I'm in that vibe at the moment :D
RE: the Dalai Lama,
He is a deeply wise man. The Tibetan Lamas are highly transcended in their mind capacity as the DL's studies in Neuroscience have shown. He is very smart.
I sincerely doubt he would go within 20 feet of La Markle. I may eat my hat in the future but for now I'm saying nah. He wouldn't go there.. that's why Chas didn't invite him. IMO.
As Tibetan royalty (in exile) he's on The List with the Queen as the most admired humans on the planet.
She only went to that wedding because she had to...(that titanium sense of duty which she possess makes HM such a special public fiqure).
Thanks. I have said before I often just scroll on as 1. my vision is not good after two botched eye surgeries, and 2. I am not one to read mountains of material unless I am fascinated with said material (because of said eye trouble and I'm not good at tolerating waffles...)
Where oh where is Lt. Uhuru? She was the best at slicing through the BS in her military DI way that I miss.
Unfortunately, I'm not her. Darn :D
(1) Talking about your wedding day, can you tell me how you selected the minister, the cellist, and the Kingdom Choir?
(2) I’ve heard you are a great believer in the teachings and wisdom of the Dalai Lama. Can you share his five human values with our audience, since we have this platform this evening, and tell us which resonates the most with you and your work?
(3) I loved seeing your son Archie with Archbishop Desmond Tutu! Adorable! How do you incorporate the beliefs of Archbishop Tutu’s into your own life, for example, “You don’t choose your family. They are God’s gift to you as you are to them.” And, “You must show the world that you abhor fighting.”
No worries, there is so much rich content here, it is very easy to confuse comments. We’ve probably all done it.
I just wanted to give you a head’s up so you would know to look for responses from @WBBM. 😉
Your three questions for Meglomaniac are sheer brilliance!
Neve mind awa d of the day, you get award of the thread!
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-6700#post-68885059
Good grief, I hate the phrase "speaking my truth" "speaking their truth". Quo veritas?
Truth is truth. Otherwise it is your viewpoint or your opinion.
And "shining a light"? Lordie, as if they haven't already put a few hundred kleg lights on it already. What they've been through....sigh....
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-6700#post-68885090
Somebody finally has to tell them that all this light shining is not good for climate change
Again thanks.
Nah. No one responds to me really. I give point after point (to the best of my ability since I know squat about the UK and the BRF really) and it goes unnoticed...unless I'm cussing someone out which I don't do anymore. I'm over The Covid Trapped in the House Blues.
WBBM is probably my fave on here. I will read every word she posts. Same for Acquitaine. The knowledge those two possess is perfect for this blog. And of course you! I love your wit <3.
Every Nutty has something to say and there are many fine posters here. It's not a pissing contest so I'm not worried. I just do me.
1. Michelle Obama
2. Melanie Trump
3. Oprah
I don’t believe that, but fine. Name recognition.
I do have a question. M&H have found associates who are also lagging/on the way out of their careers and hanging on for dear life. Most of their employees, for example. James Corden and Oprah as the hosts no longer with the most. Netflix is on the decline and Spotify is hanging on desperate as well.
If Meghan and Harry truly wanted the ‘corporate’ type of connections meaning those on the Up and Up, and not the trending downwards...who would it be?
1) Disney, Apple
2) speakers/hosts?
3)Type A employees
Any names would be helpful!
-------------
Yep. Notice that their other audience of choice is teens.
Associates on their way down aren't as likely to challenge mm in what she says because they're grateful for the work.
Teens are going to question because they're star struck or don't want to question perceived authority. Very young children don't know any better. Although toddlers seem to sense that she is evil and turn away from her.
Notice the pattern. They choose audiences slyly. People who are being used but have a reason not to say anything. They need the work or the exposure.
They don't do live for the same reason. A method of eliminating anything they don't like what was said.
From behind the paywall, an article in the Telegraph about the Spotify debacle. Well worth a read ...
Spotify forced to defend Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s £18 million podcast
Spotify executives were grilled at a Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee hearing.
Horacio Gutierrez, Spotify’s head off global affairs and chief legal officer, was forced to defend paying millions to them and fractions of pennies to other Spotify artists. He babbled laughably lame replies to the angry questions, so I think Spotify is in process of being Markled, no matter why they felt compelled to siphon money to the Harkles.
Wonder if he will try to force them to produce content now, lol. I don’t these brats will like being pushed.
Super interesting. Basically their revenue is tied to KPI’s. He said the deal is based on how many listeners they bring in and ad dollars. Still, the anger is about ‘why them?’. What draw are they exactly except for the never ending car crash drama.
I don’t think Spotify gave them more than £2mm for the first podcast, I’m dubbing an ad-cast, they did. And that’s being super super generous. If I could really guess I’d hammer it down to £1.2mm max. Their Advertising Head made this call. Now they will see if the numbers make sense for the duo to keep pushing content. What Spotify really needs is a Kardashian. Podcasts are full time work. Spotify is going to be Markled.
Your knowledgeable take on the Spotify deal is extremely interesting. Thank you.
Agree, podcasts done well are a very time-consuming process. The Harkles are dabblers who don’t like to put in the time, the effort, the education, the planning. They just like yapping aimlessly and inking promises to wave about. The fact there is a high level example like a Rogan, and the Harkles are being stuffed with cash and swanning about like they invented podcasts with their sad single drop into the pond,, makes me shake my head. You know others in the industry are laughing at them in a grim way.
Podcasts have to be interesting too, and lure the listeners back. These two things are beyond the Harkles’ ability. They love to talk about working and jumping in and their voices, from their sofa of shame.
Sofa of Shame LOL.
I really wish the Telegraph article pointed out the fact they released the podcast just after Rogan moved over, to take credit for Spotify’s rise in user base Q4. If he wrote that about them- the obvious PR markling tricks, it would have created a media question-storm about Meghan, her value and her tactics. Someone do it!
:)
Now that the Narc got her supply of perceived greatness, how will another lowly arch podcast compare?
@WBBM and others...
the celebration of the POW's 50th anniversary of his investiture (BP) did not occur in July, 2019. The event when the nitwit and Flower were shunned to the corner, away from the Senior Royals, (Flower was in her brocade dress, ripped stockings and dirty shoes) took place following her glorious NYC prancing/twirling sojourn for her faux baby shower and HMTQ shipping them off to Morocco. So, I would guess March, 2019. She is, after all, still pretending to be pregnant. I am not sure even Flower would have pretended to be pregnant after the supposed blessed event of May 6th, 2019. But I have learned "Never to say Never." I think the BRF was really teed off about the baby shower SS and the freebie private jet ride from Amal, courtesy of George.
Ponderings? a PINK baby shower in NYC? Why the muddy dirty shoes all of the time? Mental illness, lack of good grooming habits or life in the country, perhaps the Cotswold SOHO retreat? Or all three? Remembering the "repugnant" comment from a journalist in the Morocco footage? Where is Marcus Anderson today? This should be something about which someone in the UK press would chose to comment. Is he in Canada, working at his job? The UK? Where in the world is Marcus? I am sure MI5/MI6 know.
Everyone knows how many downloads and ads that Joe Rogan generates monthly for spotify. It's not a secret. How come that of the Sussexes is a secret?
I don't believe for one moment that they even got up to 100k. In podcast business, you make money from downloads and ads. Only few people like Joe Rogan who is the world's number one podcaster with verifiable following can get money upfront.
Notice that the Spotify executive neither confirmed or denied the amount. He just said 'It wasn't free'. That doesn't mean that 18m was paid.
If 18m was paid, by now they would have produced more podcasts or else they would be in violation of their contract.
Joe Rogan signed a 100m deal and he produces two podcasts a week and each one lasts up to two hours. Not only that, he removed all his previous podcasts from apple and YouTube and put them on spotify. Those were the terms of the contract.
If 18m was paid, a contract specifying how many podcasts will be produced monthly would have been spelt out. The fact that two months later, nothing has been produced is clear evidence that no such amount was paid.
Here is the Spotify search function. >>>> https://open.spotify.com/search
I used it to try and find the Meghan and Harry podcast but couldn't. Perhaps it will work for another Nutty.
Here are Spotify's featured podcasts.>>>> https://open.spotify.com/genre/podcasts-web
Joe Rogan is there but no Meghan/Harry. Is Spotify ghosting the Duo? This would be rich!
Bishop Michael Curry is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the US. That means he is head of the American Episcopal church. It was established as a result of the American Revolution and is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. It is totally inappropriate to refer to him or the gospel choir as ghetto. Lively gospel churches arose from traditions established by enslaved people who had been brought from Africa. Bishop Curry is a graduate of Yale Divinity School, widely viewed as the best divinity school in the US.
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/presiding-bishop-michael-curry/biography/
I agree that the number is low. I am saying they would have paid her an advertising fee for the first podcast. That’s all she does. She attaches her name to something for a fee to get it in the news. Meaning, Spotify will be promoted via M being a headline news grabbing faux-lebrity. Ad revenue from the actual podcast would be generated afterwards. Whatever that low number is lol. This is why he called them a ‘tent pole’. What he meant was they were a billboard Spotify could keep using for advertisement (but doubtful considering). This was the year for them to cash in on that billboard name recognition status and they did. They just couldn’t get very good deals.
Even recognizable bit part actors in popular shows can get decent ad deals. One actress from Madmen was given $3mm from a liquor brand to do one commercial and a couple of appearances. (She has a muuuuch better brand than Meghan) She was a pain in the ass and never wanted to do any of the work she signed up for :).
Given all that we know about the Sussexes' work ethic and lack of attention to detail, podcast always seemed like hard work, but after that gentleman gave his remarks to parliament, it occurred to me that we are all looking at this the wrong way.
Spotify didn't hire them to podcast, they hired them to be spokesmodels with the occasional podcast.
Why else be happy about one podcast episode that wasn't a podcast to extent that it gets a mention in their quarterly report over and above a known quantity like Rogan?
Notice his justification to parliament for the fee paid to the Sussexes vs other artists. It is framed in terms of the visibility they bring to the platform and by extension other artists rather than a defence of their ideas contribution to Spotify. It very different to how Netflix CEO justified signing them where he talked about their ideas etc.
I did some digging afterwards and found that Archewell audio is entirely produced by Spotify's own production company and producers. Harry, Meghan and Archie are literally actors in their own podcast.
By contrast, many of the other podcasters have an independent production team who may or may not use Spotify's services in the production of their podcasts.
I found this op-ed in Bloomberg published in December 2020 that spells it out clearly and if i'm right then Spotify don't care that the Sussexes will only put out an episode whenever they feel like it rather than on a schedule. They are banking on their visibility giving Spotify millions in free publicity. That's why they can sign them for multiple years. That's why they popped up on the spotify livestream.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-18/archewell-audio-spotify-deal-harry-and-meghan-have-to-prove-their-media-chops
If the Bloomberg op-ed is right, then Spotify is in a win win position because if the Sussexes fade to nothing and or can't maintain their high visibility to attract more subscribers then spotify can sack them.
The Sussexes are probably being held back in producing more episodes if they can't include high profile guests because that's not why they were hired.
It's confusing to us, but apparently a good gamble for Spotify.
Thank you. My three questions are based on my assumption that she knows next to nothing about these religious leaders, or their philosophical works, deeds, or scholarship. She is a shallow nothing, and yet probably viewed them as PR fodder for her brand.
Let the world find out. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.
No moral compass that one.
Fascinating! Thank you so much for all of that research. You make a good case for their roles as mere actors in a PR drive.
Funny though that someone at podcast thought the Sussexes were brand right as props, and had any currency to the public as in “we are utterly interesting cultural rockets, and we think you must listen to Spotify!” The globe is awash with celebrities and creators who are better known, and known for more than complaints and pouting and suing and quitting.
So I still think jolly Horatio is covering something up for Spotify. I would ask him one more thing. What if they don’t just fade away. What if they crash and burn?
I was just pondering the Dalai Lama issue when I read your post on the subject, and what it says about Rache and religion.
Religious commitment doesn't mean a thing to her - it's just Pick'n'Mix as far as she is concerned. Her baptism meant nothing to her - she may have promised to renounce the Devil and his works but it was just lipservice - the baptismal liturgy was just another script to be forgotten instantly. Whether she understands there's a rather a difference between Christianity and Buddhism is doubtful. Even if she does get the idea that they are not the same, she wouldn't care.
Whatever Welby may have attempted to convey to her about the Anglican Church, it must have gone straight over her head as her ears were closed.
Just goes to show she is devoted to only the worship of money and fame.
I still think that figure is exaggerated
eligious commitment doesn't mean a thing to her - it's just Pick'n'Mix as far as she is concerned. Her baptism meant nothing to her - she may have promised to renounce the Devil and his works but it was just lipservice - the baptismal liturgy was just another script to be forgotten instantly. Whether she understands there's a rather a difference between Christianity and Buddhism is doubtful. Even if she does get the idea that they are not the same, she wouldn't care.
Whatever Welby may have attempted to convey to her about the Anglican Church, it must have gone straight over her head as her ears were closed.
Just goes to show she is devoted to only the worship of money and fame.
Yup. Whatever passed for religion in the Markle household growing up (The Church of St. Mary Jane?), Mugs would have had to at least attend Catholic chapel services and study religion while a student at Immaculate Heart. How it normally works in a church-based private school is, while the family is not *forced* to convert to the religion, they are encouraged to become members of the parish. Parishioners pay less in tuition because it is assumed that they will be tithing to the church in addition to paying the school fees. Whether or not the family formally joins the church, they are expected to exhibit decorum in their behavior and usually have to attend at least one service to be welcomed by the parish, who is supporting the school. Students are expected to represent their school with good conduct. So Flower dabbled in Catholicism for her high school years, where she first learned (unwillingly) about providing service projects to the less fortunate. She 'converted' to Judaism for Trevor, and we can see how that took. Then lip service to CoE, just to get that White Wedding, that's it. And this is really where I have to fault the Queen. Meg was Harry's choice, and they were both mature adults (on paper). Nothing to prevent them from marrying. But marrying how they did, with full Royal regalia, in a consecrated CoE chapel, HM's favorite, and in such haste. Even if Meghan had been of utmost sincerity in her conversion, her intention to become a British subject & in genuine feelings for Harry, it would have been entirely appropriate for the Queen to ask them to wait a year before marriage--to test Meg's commitment to these huge life changes she was proposing to undergo. Harry was never going to do without all the bells and whistles which William received, but they should have been made to wait longer.
Since Smeg was demonstrably not pregnant on the wedding day, despite the baggy stomach area on her dress . . she couldn't very well have used the pregnancy ploy to force the marriage six months prior. And if the couple had already tied the knot in Botswana on their third date--incredible to think that Harry would have done that, but apparently he impregnated some of Meg's eggs before his 'real' wedding too--all the more reason for ER to decline the White WeddingStravaganza.
I know, I know . .the spectre of racism struck such fear into every Royal heart. Too bad the Queen wasn't willing to face down that hydra at the time. The huge wedding spectacle and international branding/debut as 'the Duchess of Sussex' was integral to her plans. If the Queen had declined to give her such a Duchess Debutante coming out party, Markle wouldn't be such a thorn in their sides now. And they still didn't avoid the racism charge! She was given everything she demanded and still played that card. HM should have said 'Bring it' in 2017 and we wouldn't be here now.
thank you for the links -- will check it out
Unless I'm misreading posts, some people seem to be writing as though the Platinum Jubilee is this summer. It's not. It's in summer 2022. So M's current pregnancy would have nothing to do with attending the Jubilee except that she might claim she can't travel with a baby as she's sometimes said about Archie----Archie who visited and/or lived in at least 5 countries by the time he was 10 months old (but not Scotland!)
I'm sure plans are underway, but it seems awfully early for the Sussexes to be threatening to attend a celebration nearly 16 months away.
Thanks for the clarification. The media was indeed reporting the "major headache" Harry is causing for the Jubilee planning committee by insisting on being included in various events and processions, as if it were just a few months off and the programs had already gone to the printers'. May God save the Queen, and her consort, so that they can both be present next summer to mark this momentous occasion. Hopefully by then, not only Covid will have receded to negligible levels, but the Harkles will as well, and their non-attendance will be a non-event as they will be non-entities.
Had H$M petitioned the Queen to retire from active duty to go live in Canada, where they lived quietly out of the spotlight as 'Harry & Meghan', no one would object to their invitation to big family events. They would have been welcome on the balcony if they'd been able to maintain a tasteful low profile like the Brooksbanks. It is their egregious and shameless spotlight hogging and the interpersonal tension which they trail in their wake that's going to exclude them. What brass huevos to flagrantly tell Granny to p!$$ off with her notion of 'service', and in the next breath demand an invite to all the **Royal** events of next summer.
Charles and William are bereft a son and a brother. Her Majesty & PP are hurt, but they've got seven other grandchildren to console them, all of whom behave. For Charles and William, Harry *was* their family. Harry really didn't add that much to the Firm in terms of workload . . .four measly sporting patronages and a sinecure with the QCT, plus the abandoned military positions, but the *personal treachery* toward his father and brother must feel absolutely crushing. It would have been better for his family if he had died. He could have been given a hero-soldier's sendoff, however undeserved it would have been, and his reputation would have been intact. Now the whole world knows what he really is, and he's going to have to live with this for the rest of his life.
He's never going to know his niece and nephews, nor they him. I don't think the depth of the cock-up he's made of his life has even hit him yet. He's obsessing over losing his play medals and uniforms, but doesn't seem to have a thought or a care for the family members he's thrown away.
Reminds me of one of my favourite songs - Soundgarden - Jesus Christ Pose :)
I totally agree. She's pulling an Oprah just wanting to be photographed with the Dalai Lama...poser for sure.
@Mel,
Agreed. Stands to reason she would target that age group.
Teens are often targeted by cult groups because they are impressionable and first year college kids are away from home so easy to love bomb and isolate.
I say *she because I think she gave Harry a lobotomy when she met him. I doubt he can even think on his own at this stage. Dribbling, drooling fool. Sad.
Thanks for your 2021/2022 clarification. I was wondering what all the fuss was now for an event to be held next summer.
But, we have all been forewarned. Next February/March will be a SS. I say (figuratively speaking of course), off with their heads now. Rid us of these pesky traitors.
@Jessica said....
"Almost like the tele-church style biz model. Show us your pain and give us your money!"
This is known as the Prosperity gospel. Current most famous practitioner is Joel Osteen in Texas. Recently teamed up with Kanye.
These charlatans tend to end badly - see Jimmy Swaggart and Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker.
Pat Robertson and his 700 club is part prosperity gospel and part doomsday Revelations gospel.
"@Acquataine, even if they are spokespersons/brand Ambassadors for Spotify, do you think they were paid 18m? That's a rather steep price for such people. The Obamas deal figure wasnt mentioned and both Michele and Barack have been dishing out podcasts regularly.
I still think that figure is exaggerated"
No i don't think they were paid £18M nor do i think their deal is anywhere near that much.
I'm inclined to go with @Jessica's estimated £2M over a number of years and that's being super generous.
I think it is all BS, dropped by their paid help at SS. This is the new "Kardashian" model. Just pump up the figures to get headlines. The print media has confirmed that the more numbers they put on a cover, the more copies they sell. Well, on the internet the larger and more audacious the number is, the more clicks.
I began working in finance back in the 80's. I remember most numbers bantered about in those days, and there were not many of them, were considered somewhat credible. My only beef was that most talking heads have absolutely no idea what financial terms actually mean; realized income, pro-forma income, projected income, multiples, gross revenue, revenue, profit, gross profit, net profit, income, expenses, EBITDA, etc. etc. So one learned to tune out.
Everything about nit-wit and Flower is smoke and mirrors. Lady C hinted at that early in yesterday's YT.
I agree with you and @Jessica. 2M of something over a number of years, paid out in tranches. An initial retainer, enough to pay the professionals their 10% to 20%, cut, and provide some cash flow for the ~50% income tax they will need to eventually pay. They may take this in under the veil of Archewell, but I would venture a guess they need every bit of cash coming in to finance their lifestyle, so that will end up as personal income. I also imagine Archewell will be scrutinized by both the IRS and the California Department of Revenue. If they received a 1099 for this "fee" income, California can get very greedy about a deposit. All this less their $50.00 Go Fund donation for the Texas shelter drywall ceiling, not roof.
I remember reading somewhere M had gone to a summer camp run by Doria's church-- the Agape International Spiritual Center-- when she was either a preteen or a young adolescent.
That group, founded by Michael Beckwith in 1986 describes itself a "transdenominational." For instance, Jesus is seen as 'an enlightened being, one who attained cosmic consciousness, or liberation from a sense of separation from the Source of all that is. Jesus, like Gautama The Buddha, are revered as way-showers, as exemplars of unconditional love, selfless service, and self-mastery."
It sounds like an "eclectic" religion so maybe that's one reason M is so "flexible" in her approach. Still don't see how she snowed Welby quite as much as it seems she did though. On the other hand, I'm not so sure about Welby's approach either.
The DNA discussion brings to mind more thoughts on the whole situation with Harry's children...the very strange series of events surrounding the pregnancy, birth, and existence of Archie and now the fact that a new child is supposedly being born so far from the monarchy and the UK. I would think this situation would definitely warrant a DNA check! I know we've discussed this many times but I will never understand how the Archie circumstances got moved past the Queen and how much she is involved. It really is an intriguing mystery and it's no wonder we are all so curious about it.
The DNA talk also reminded me of another Monarchy Mystery - the Princes in the Tower...and how the Queen likes to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't think QEII is all that eager to stir up drama with science as evidenced by her refusal to allow any forensic tests to be done on the bodies of two young boys believed to be Edward V and Richard Duke of York, the nephews, and possible murder victims of Richard III.
The church agreed with QEII on leaving the bodies untested and they do have some valid reasons, but I for one would like to know more about this old mystery as well as the modern one!
Link to an article on the Princes in the Tower and the Queen/the Church's refusal to allow testing:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-6701#post-68887356
From behind the paywall, an article in the Telegraph about the Spotify debacle. Well worth a read ...
Yes- Worth reading. The author says that while musicians get only pennies for their well established tunes, that Spotify laid 18 million on The Grifters. Up front. I find this hard to believe. But if it *really* went down this way, then more power to The Grifters. Their own miniature version of "Casa De Papel"
Moving on up, from taking millions from the Bank of Dad, to robbing the Casa De Spotify. Those stupid Swedish meatballs! Anyways, as I posted above, I cannot find the Megs/Hapless podcast at Spotify. I did a search within the Spotify website. M/H Ghosted!
Is the DM trolling the Harkles?
In addition to the Spotify comments from the MP and others, love the new article in the Daily Mail from a multi-millionaire business owner (in Seattle) who says philanthropy is a huge capitalist scam (of course, we all know this).
The article points out that the average Joe donates up to 2% of income while the uber rich, about 1%, plus they get huge PR out of it, accolades, and buildings name after them.
Do you think we will ever see a building name after the Harkles?
I would go for something like HMP Sussex, myself.
Check out the Sussexes pretending they are still formally involved with The CW...
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Announce New Commonwealth Project After Stepping Down as Working Royals
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-announce-new-commonwealth-project-after-stepping-down-working-royals/?
They announced their affiliation with World Central Kitchens in December 2020 so this is not a new project:https://www.delish.com/food-news/a35044828/meghan-markle-prince-harry-world-central-kitchen/
Perhaps it's just to make sure we know that they are living a "life of service:!
I can't read the People article this minute, but my first (incredulous) reaction is "What the sodding hell! NOW they want to represent the Commonwealth???
Well, there it is--they have been told (repeatedly) in the firmest possible terms that they cannot represent the Queen and be working Royals (the parts that appeal to them) whilst counting all their (non-existent) money in their Montecito mansion. But here they are, still trying to have it their own way as 'American Royalty!' This has gone beyond stubborn, to pathological. They have no clue how utterly ridiculous--like petulant toddlers--they are coming across. Here we have a Perfect (sh!T)storm of two individuals who never, individually or collectively have encountered the word 'NO' until now. It has no meaning for them and I think Harry honesty doesn't understand why he's not getting everything he wants by pitching a strop. Always worked before.
I swear to God the two of them act mentally challenged, like they are incapable of adult reasoning or behavior. It's really extraordinary to witness.
https://www.youtube.com/c/joerogan/videos
Too bad he left youtube, I have no need to join Spotify. His own website used to have these all in MP3 format which I would load onto my MP3 player
Joe Rogan has pull. I see at Spotify that he had Elon Musk on Feb 11th for 205 minutes
How will Grip & Drip avoid future playdates ?
It's a Boy! Katharine McPhee and Husband David Foster Welcome a Son
This is the sixth child for David Foster, who married Katharine McPhee in June 2019
https://people.com/parents/katharine-mcphee-welcomes-first-child-husband-david-foster-son/?amp=true
"....The DNA talk also reminded me of another Monarchy Mystery - the Princes in the Tower...and how the Queen likes to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't think QEII is all that eager to stir up drama with science as evidenced by her refusal to allow any forensic tests to be done on the bodies of two young boys believed to be Edward V and Richard Duke of York, the nephews, and possible murder victims of Richard III."
I want the bodies to be DNA tested to settle the mystery, but it won't solve the murder of the boys even if the bodies are them.
The boys were not declared dead until the Tudor era and only after two pretenders nearly succeeded in unseating Henry Tudor from the throne.
The accusation against Richard never includes George's children.
An accusation of illegitimacy was much harder to overcome than being the children of someone ( George) attaindered for treason. It was common practise for people to be attaindered for treason only for their kids to be restored later.
Richard adopted George's orphaned kids and by all accounts was a loving father to them.
One of the first things Henry Tudor did was to imprison those kids and kill Richard's other son. He later executed the imprisoned twice orphaned boy after the pretender showed up.
He had to put a stop to anyone rallying to the cause of the kids of the 3 dead plantagent brothers. He blackened the name and reputation of one of the brothers for good measure to distract from the fact that he'd usurped the throne from said brother.
The source explains, "They are going to touch on a lot of how mental health came into play and how it affected them."
Hmmm, are the Harkles going to "star" in one of the mental health episode Oprah/Haz are producing? Maybe that's why it is taking so long to produce and the interview is a way to advertise the series???
I saw the reference to the Caribbean Commonwealth nation in the People story and had to do a double-take. Americans have no idea what that means! Referring to Dominica as a Caribbean nation would have been more appropriate for the audience (actually, we use country, not nation).
Their PR stories are all over the place. Stories that M and Eug are besties, strong family bond, commonwealth references, but also glad to be away from the RF, mental health issues, relationship between W and H seriously damaged. Pick a lane!
According to the DM a "bidding war" has broken out for those who want to broadcast the Oprah special - the BBC not included. My question is, who benefits from the bidding war/rights to broadcast, is it Oprah and her company or does it get split with the participants? I don't know how these things work, Who will actually profit from the whingefest?
Megs and Hapless are undoubtedly getting their cut from the Oprah interview plus are being allowed input on the editing. My guess is all or most of this skim is going into Meg's own bank account. Harry knows this, but being to the manor born he is not torn. With all his inheritances and trusts he will go along with this. Megs is the go getter in their relationship and for this Oprah deal. So H agrees that she gets this fee.
"Apologies if this has been posted already...
Check out the Sussexes pretending they are still formally involved with The CW...
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Announce New Commonwealth Project After Stepping Down as Working Royals
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-announce-new-commonwealth-project-after-stepping-down-working-royals/?"
These 2 are shameless.
This project was unveiled weeks ago as being part of their Archewell foundation funding partnership. If Omid hasn't deleted his tweets yet, you'll find him praising them and this particular project. Nothing CW in that bragging press release.
Now they've bought people magazine PR to re-post the story, make it sound new and feature CW prominently even though the QCT has very publicly repudiated them AND they didn't know what the CW was until they were bitchslapped after their public comments mistaking it for empire last summer.
And, they didn't think it was important in the initial bragging PR about this project.
Another case of two fingered salute to our Queen.
"https://www.eonline.com/news/1241296/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-plan-to-address-tension-with-royal-family-in-oprah-winfrey-tell-all
The source explains, "They are going to touch on a lot of how mental health came into play and how it affected them."
Hmmm, are the Harkles going to "star" in one of the mental health episode Oprah/Haz are producing? Maybe that's why it is taking so long to produce and the interview is a way to advertise the series???"
Please can we form a prayer circle so that Dr Phil is part of this MH discussion. We deserve the entertainment after this horrendous year we are all experiencing.
Precisely. Note to the PR degenerates: F-ing pick a lane. They are so scattershot everything cancels everything else out, the sum of which is zero.
they should do a mental health segment as they are perfect examples of sociopathy, bi-polar disease and a few more personality disorders ground into the mix.
Says something ambiguous. Monitors response. Tweaks what she 'meant' to counter the public backlash to the first thing she said. She never owns anything.
https://twitter.com/yankeewally2/status/1364663363301687301?s=09
https://64.media.tumblr.com/19e94ce8e3e35bc98183d73c98da9b9c/cc7b8d43b0ae282a-b2/s1280x1920/f42af6431fe0eb3332bc41c463a89d43c6f9697a.jpg
https://64.media.tumblr.com/29253b538a5e1d76b77d4d70e3383ed0/cc7b8d43b0ae282a-0d/s1280x1920/07e0ef4731d0065ed27a4eee51ec057534cb82d3.jpg
Unless I'm misreading posts, some people seem to be writing as though the Platinum Jubilee is this summer. It's not. It's in summer 2022. So M's current pregnancy would have nothing to do with attending the Jubilee except that she might claim she can't travel with a baby as she's sometimes said about Archie----Archie who visited and/or lived in at least 5 countries by the time he was 10 months old (but not Scotland!)
I'm sure plans are underway, but it seems awfully early for the Sussexes to be threatening to attend a celebration nearly 16 months away.
@Lizzie: Thank you for setting me straight about the Jubilee. I thought it was weird that Harry and Meghan are already attempting so far in advance to make sure they will be included in the official Jubilee celebrations.
But perhaps because the Harkles’ relationship with HMTQ and the rest of the RF is only likely to continue to sour, they might be trying to get it set in concrete that they will be allowed to participate as full-fledged royals.
Even though it seems the Harkles have attained pariah status in Harry’s native country, they have no sense of shame. They will want to be at all the events to attempt to fortify the notion they are still actually part of The Firm and not the reality of two diminished ingrates.
Thank you so very much for your reminders about language. I appreciate the work of all the moderators!
I enjoy reading this blog and occasionally commenting. However, when I read the offensive term “ghetto pastor” used above, I became so disturbed that I couldn’t (and still can’t) even concentrate on whatever else is being said. I do not wish to be associated with a discussion in which such language is tolerated. So thank you @Charade for calling it out, and thank you to the Nutties who spelled out Bishop Curry’s credentials.
"I think there was some confusion between years and events due to upcoming 2021 dates that Harry did express a desire to attend one of which was the Diana statue unveiling.
Could be. Certainly TQ and her palace staff would not be involved with Diana's statue unveiling though. That's between Will and Harry.
It's the Harkles way of telling BP that they ARE going to be half in, half out on their own terms no matter what BP and the queen says.
It's as stupid as say, being convicted by a judge and jury and the defendant/convict says, no, I don't have to do what you say. You are not in charge or the law over me. I'm a law unto myself, so I don't have to comply with anything you say.
BP needs to cut off their $ and I mean fully cut off their funding. Harry hates to pay his own way and needs a shot of reality quick sharp.
So David Foster. I have several friends living in LA. Four of them work in the industry. One in set design, one in law (rights), one is a tv drama writer/showrunner, and one is in management on the marketing side of a studio. Every so often I get a gem from one. My set design friend seems to hear all the good dish because she has a huge circle of industry, art and fashion friends. About the same time I’d read some random gossip nugget that DF and the Harkles had skipped Christmas and weren’t really hanging out anymore, my set design friend and I were chatting and that was a nugget she mentioned. Apparently word was that David thought it was strange that and his wife never saw Archie, not once, or saw no sign of him, and the excuses apparently seemed fairly stupid or contrived after awhile. He was a bit offended for his wife’s sake — this is supposedly a friend, and you never meet her child? Something clicked a I guess, and he suddenly told people he had a strong feeling there was no Archie, or certainly no child living with them. He either didn’t like being fooled or thought they were nuts, or both I suppose, and cut the connection. It will be interesting to see if MM puts out press about giving them a baby gift or having play dates.
You can see it on the middle finger of her carefully positioned right hand. It is sort of a hot pink hue, and clashes with her dress. Ah but she wore it in honor of Canada, where she spent so many years. Yours for just $1144.
Whose brain fart was that? Your titles (that you care about) are hanging by a thread and you (continue to) insult the Queen?
This does NOT make sense.
And if you remember, Ellen held and fed the baby. her wife, Porche de Rossi, said "it never happened" but that was quickly taken down
I forgot about the MM fakery about Priyanka visit and gifts, and Priyanka’s denial! Yes, I suppose we will see more of that kind of puffery, lining right up after her cozy pregnancy chats with Eugenie, which I also don’t believe.
.
And I agree — yes, there is a pandemic, but no one in Montecito has seen Archie? No one? I thought we heard the Harkles stroll around the town and just love it? No baby? No invitations for outdoor drinks and bring the kid? I know that doesn’t prove there is no Archie, and I know the Foster story doesn’t prove there is no Archie, but at some point, it is all too strange for words. I suppose I like thinking someone like David Foster stood up to the idiocy,
As if the child of a nitwit and an unemployed starlet is earth’s hottest commodity as a photo subject!
Oh! Almost forgot! The New Post has a story saying Oprah is relaunching her O magazine says an online “bookazine” in late March!
So that must explain her hustle to use the Harkles to get people talking about Oprah again, I suppose.
Oprah is apparently restaffing her enterprise from the ground up, has big plans. (No mention of Megs editing it though, haha!) And content will be behind a new paywall. Money, money, money! Assuming people still want to read O?
So, my guess is no matter what, Oprah will grit her teeth, drop bombshell hints about secrets spilled, and push this Harkle claptrap on air, to get her new O magazine online dollars rolling in. Megs will be losing her mind to get adopted by Oprah, who with this new venture is looking more and more like the family Megsy never had...
Ha, I mean the New York Post of course, ^^^^^^^^ Sorry! I was so excited!
Well, the Foster baby will not be ready for "play dates" with a child two years older than he is for a *very* long time. Maybe when he is 4 and "Archie" is 6 but, if "Archie" is real and takes after his alleged parents, he should probably not be left alone with younger children either.
No toys, no high chair, no baby photos around. House not baby-proofed in any way.
No stroller or outside toys.
@JennS,
Oh! Almost forgot! The New Post has a story saying Oprah is relaunching her O magazine says an online “bookazine” in late March!
So that must explain her hustle to use the Harkles to get people talking about Oprah again, I suppose.
Oprah is apparently restaffing her enterprise from the ground up, has big plans. (No mention of Megs editing it though, haha!) And content will be behind a new paywall. Money, money, money! Assuming people still want to read O?
So, my guess is no matter what, Oprah will grit her teeth, drop bombshell hints about secrets spilled, and push this Harkle claptrap on air, to get her new O magazine online dollars rolling in. Megs will be losing her mind to get adopted by Oprah, who with this new venture is looking more and more like the family Megsy never had...
Sounds to me like Oprah lost a *lot* of money. She is 67 and, with a fortune estimated to be $2.5 BILLION, it seems that this is her time to relax, smell the roses and enjoy her wealth. However, I think that she lost a ton of money with her magazine and network and production studio. The size of fortunes are estimated from those things that can have a value placed on them. That value can vary with the economy, the climate, crime, and changes in taste. Her properties probably cost more to maintain yearly than many people earn in a lifetime. With people leaving the high cost/high tax states in large numbers, are her property values going to remain high or decrease?
Just watched the E! clip. I feel certain I lost some brain cells doing so.
I took the “momma” reference to mean Diana in that context.
Really, I wouldn’t take this too seriously. They talked about Meghan’s “daughter” so I am guessing they are talking heads just killing time, doing the minimum, earning their dimes by trying to outdo each other by being stupidly irreverent to appeal to teens. They are paid in this segment to scream Oprah’s Harkle creed, that’s all.
RE O's mag. I thought her online mag was still available. So I guess she's now going to charge for a "re-launch".🤪🙄🤪
I thought she was a VERY wealthy woman. If I were her I would retire and enjoy my charities and hobbies.
HA! Jinx!
@Musty,
Re her schizophrenic PR....I am starting to think maybe her fan are schizophrenic as well.
*****
@SwampWoman
@JennS
Good point about her wealth. Her insatiable appetite for cash may be simply that she loves working and creating. It might be a function of narcissism and materialism run amok.
I don’t that she has to retire, considering all the toddling 80 yr old male newsmen and actors and world leaders and billionaires like Warren Buffet still hustling hard out there. Clint Eastwood is 90, still working.
But I think @SwampWoman hit the nail on the head,,,,Oprah’s network is a cash drain, or was, and she has about five luxury homes. Plus that $50 million private jet she has to maintain and fly to her costly Hawaiian retreat (how come she made Tyler Perry fly the duo to LA on his plane, by the way?). Her investment in the Swedish wheat milk company was another grab. Now she and Megsy will try to bring back the 80s and 90s, I guess.
Are the paps following them at all, or have they lost interest? It certainly doesn't seem that The Harkles are being hounded by the press to me. If they were interested, we'd have pap photos.
“I don’t think”
“all the 80 yr old ailing newsmen and actors and”
Really don’t think there are squads of paps in Meghan’s world. She is small fish, or we’d see more.
Or.....Perhaps this is actually “paps’ revenge”!
A lot of people that I know have reevaluated their lives and have changed accordingly. It seems strange to me that Oprah has reevaluated hers to include spending more time working and revamping and reopening businesses, not less time.
How people such as the Harkles can be revered or even liked is way beyond me. I HATE them! Especially her. And yet day after day after. Gdm day there they are! Another insinuation into the life of plain folk. As if we care!
But the problem is, there are those who do. Some school chum of Harry’s saying now how he’s been bullied his whole life, and now has to watch his family being bullied! I could retch.
And of course the Commonwealth trust! Surely there is a way to turn off these taps! I can’t take the drips.
How do they get away with it?
I really want to know.
And how do they afford it?
There is no Archie. Even if they had a child, they would devote no time. They’re too busy conniving, stealing, hatching...
If I were Oprah, I'd enjoy my billions, too. But Oprah is after more than just money, she wants power. Now, She's got a new project in the Harkles, attempting to grab power by backing them. Oprah thrives on considering herself a world leader, just as MM is trying to do.
Oprah is a narc, and she craves the adoration of the masses. Unfortunately, her fan base isn't the smartest group around. They only see what Oprah wants them to see, and not the machinations behind the scenes.
Ellen, an extremely wealthy woman who thought she could do anything and get away with it (Archie had curly red hair when she met him????), and her fans would blindly follow her, has been roundly mocked as a mean and angry person since MM came into her life, and it's been reported that her show is in jeopardy. She's been Markled, and Oprah had better be careful that she doesn't end up the same way- her career Markled.
I hope this tiresome twosome royally embarrass themselves!
I don’t think that she has to retire, considering all the toddling 80 yr old male newsmen and actors and world leaders and billionaires like Warren Buffet still hustling hard out there. Clint Eastwood is 90, still working.
Indeed. Creative people are not happy unless creating. A lot of those other people that you mentioned aren't interested so much in creativity as in power.
That's exactly what I mean. There are no paps following The Harkles or waiting around their house, or we'd see photos. That's all made up by The Harkles to make themselves look important. There are no paps anywhere around them. Nobody cares.
D'oh, beat AGAIN! I'm supposed to be asleep for grandson's arrival at @ 4 a.m. (grin) so I had best probably try to catch a little sleep. G'night, all!
@Martha, I feel your pain about the world seemingly going nuts. The news that we get is mostly propaganda trying to convince us that up is down, gray clouds are blue skies, and chemically castrating children is a GREAT idea. Don't believe it, get your news sourced from real people that you trust.
I read exactly the same thing as your friend in the entertainment business said. That David Foster didn't see any evidence of a child at the Harkles home and he began to question why he never saw Archie. He and his wife then backed away from The Harkles because of this. Foster smelled something fishy with the Harkles and wanted no part of their game.
I think I read this a couple of months ago in the DM.
Do you remember her tea - Teavana which then that went to Starbucks. (I remember it only because for a while they offered both and I preferred the Starbucks one and disliked the other). It's still there under her name. That's income and has been going on for years. I wonder how long that licensing agreement was for as they don't really mention her name with it any more.
She definitely has put money into investments to make her more money.
You are all such good sleuths. The info about the Fosters never seeing any evidence of "Archie;", the Priyanka denial, the Portia denial, the fake baby conversations between Markle and Eugenie, and that's just the tip of the barking mad iceberg.
People here have said it before, Markle is a mad as a box of frogs; Markle is barking mad.
All of which brings to mind, what in the Holy H*ll is Harry doing with her? There is no Archie! What in the Holy H*ll is wrong with Harry?
Back to the topic: Oprah Questions for The Harkles:
Where is Archie?
Can I meet him?
Why not?
Are you ok? Your last post sounded so down, that I am worried about you. If the world news is getting to you, make a promise to yourself to not read or listen to any news for awhile. I've done that several times when I felt everything was getting to me, and I took a vacation from the news. It really helps. Let us know how you're doing, ok?
@Swampwoman,
Get some sleep. Are you expecting a new member of the family, or is your grandson visiting? In either case, have fun!
Now watch: Megs will be leaving baby books, trikes and other toys visible here and there to salt the claim and merch. One wonders what happened to all of the baby things given her at her shower. She's surely going to need those items with new fake baby on the way. And of course, we can all expect that new baby will be a girl. She probably expects/wants a girl as much as Henry VIII demanded a boy.
As far as why does Orpah keep on working. Check out Maslowe's Hierarchy of Needs. O has reached the apex of the pyramid and being the Narc. that she is, she can't reach the top and just accept it. There has to be MORE! And what is "more" for her? POWER and how to play with others lives by using it. I think she's on a big power trip to go after white culture and punish, and who is at the top in white culture? The Royal Family.
If I was in her shoes, I would not go in that direction. I would be funding and founding as many all inclusive of everyone, black, white, asian, native american, all for everyone enrichment and educational things like STEM programs as possible. I would not be spending my time being like say, Thomas de Torquemada. I say this because IF Oprah is using dingbat and dumbarton to "expose" and play on race cards as mentioned upthread, then, that really helps no one, ever. What helps is to help build lives, not tear lives down because in the end, the Spanish Inquisition did absolutely nothing for humanity. Who would want to leave such a legacy.
A “strong bond”? More like “hanging by a thread.”
People web story headline: “ Prince Harry & Meghan Markle 'Disappointed' at Losing Patronages but There's 'Still a Strong Family Bond' ”
My jaw dropped towards the end of the clip when they were discussing Meghan's "Momma." They were clearly speculating that H&M left the family because there was a racist incident against Doria when she was visiting and perhaps taking pics inside the palace.
This is new tea! Fake tea surely. I am very familiar with Daily Pop. They would not have speculated like that on camera without support or a direct okay from Rache's team.
Wow! I wonder what else is going to be said in the Oprah interview now.
Harry's uniforms are in the UK. He was not allowed to take them. All of their uniforms (Wm, PC etc) are kept in a special store room. They are all labeled, etc. when a particular uniform is needed for an event, staff get it out, get the correct medals, ribbons etc on them and it is delivered. Afterwards, it is returned.
I read that somewhere. I can't remember where. Makes sense to me and it is a good thing or H would be strutting around in assorted uniforms on a regular basis.
You're right. She didn't know enough to not take photos at BP (or was it KP?)? Unless you're raised in a cave by wolves, you have to know better.
That was my question about Harry's uniforms. Thanks for the answer. It makes sense. I was thinking of Harry wandering around the US in his uniforms, looking like the leader of some banana republic. I'm glad he doesn't have them.
I couldn't make out the words about Doria on the E! show. Can you tell me what they're saying?
Here is a Newsweek article that recalls all the encounters the Sussexes had with the Paps since moving to California! IMO most if not all were arranged by the Harkles themselves!!
All Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Run-Ins With Paparazzi in California
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-paparazzi-california-1567634
And when MM was still in England I don't recall the Paps chasing her! I just remember her being photographed at events or when she called them herself like the walks outside Kensington Palace.
She was NOT bothered the way Diana was. I didn't follow her that closely during her time in the spotlight but was aware of how she was chased relentlessly.
There was one particular unflattering photograph of Diana that made its way to the States and into my memory. It was surreptitiously taken by the paps through a gym window while she worked out on weight training equipment. Her legs were spread apart in a very un-princess like manner and she was of course rather sweaty and disheveled in appearance.
I was just a kid but I remember feeling sorry for her that her privacy was invaded like that. I got the impression the papers enjoyed printing an unattractive candid photo of her. Meghan has NO idea and Harry should realize this.
Thanks for helping to interpret that for me - I sensed something weird about it which is why I asked others to listen. The sound on my laptop is not great and they cut it off before the end.
So you also think they were speaking about Doria taking photos in the palace? - that is what I thought she said and so did Miz Malaprop.
Well now. Some new "fake" tea!! I too bet we hear this on the show.
LOL!! And how many times was Doria even in England!
If they do this - SHAME on Harry. Send him to the tower.
There was also something odd in what the guy was saying about how he would have handled being in the royal family. He says something at the beginning that I couldn't quite make out but one of the girls laughed at it. It was something snarky...I listened to it 3 or 4 times and just could not understand him. I kind of wanted to know since I really didn't like the rest of his spiel - it sounded like very flippant suggestions to take advantage of the RF.
I found that odd since that is exactly what we believe MM did. Markle may have followed her own plot but she and this man are clearly of the same mind! Was it expected that she take advantage of the RF?
https://www.eonline.com/news/1241296/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-plan-to-address-tension-with-royal-family-in-oprah-winfrey-tell-all
...to the talking heads with strange Markle tea.