Just a few weeks ago, the Sussex saga was a bit dull. Over the past week, of course, it's exploded.
First there was Harry's ridiculous bus-top interview with James Corden, in which he hopelessly flubbed his scripted lines and flopped his arms about like a man who is accustomed to not being taken seriously.
Of course, stopping at the exterior location home of a long-dead sitcom and then asking, on camera, to use the bathroom is an indication of a man who should not be taken seriously.
It's a good thing the protocol-loving Queen Mother isn't around to see the Corden show. She might have asked for her inheritance back.
Rushing through his dialogue
Then there was a quick clip from Oprah's upcoming interview with the Sussexes. Meg is shown sitting silent, plastic-faced, in an unflattering dress, looking somewhat like a showroom dummy of herself.
Harry, meanwhile, is babbling on again like a man who is accustomed to not being listened to, as he again draws parallels between his wife with his mother. (John Lennon had a terrible habit of doing this as well; he mixed his mother's name with his wife's in the otherwise gorgeous love song Julia.)
"My biggest concern was history repeating itself," he says. "I'm really relieved and happy to be sitting here talking to you with my wife by my side because I can't begin to imagine what it must have been for her going through this process by herself all these years ago."
He's speaking prepared dialogue, but he's rushing through it like somebody is going to cut him off at any moment. Which probably tells us a little bit more than what we want to know about life at Sussex Manor.
Earrings from MbS
Then there was the revelation that the earrings Meg wore to a royal event in Fiji - along with that simple blue dress that was one of her few great fashion moments - were an unreported wedding gift from Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman.
MbS, as he's referred to in the diplomatic community, is a controversial figure who was involved in the death of propagandist-not-journalist Jamal Khashoggi just three weeks earlier.
Wearing the earrings would have been bad enough style given the timing, but apparently Meghan lied about their provenance as well, saying they were "borrowed." (At the time, I believe, a Hong Kong jeweler took credit for loaning them to her.)
Receiving the earrings was not, quite frankly, improper, since MbS is a member of another Royal family.
But the timing of their public debut was awful, and the dishonesty about where they came from - was she lying just to the press? or also to the Royal staff assisting her? - was unsettling.
What else are we right about?
Of course, at this blog and at other non-sugar Meghan blogs, we've been saying for a long time that Meg is a liar.
We've also been saying for quite some time that she is a bully, information that is just beginning now to officially emerge from Kensington Palace, where an investigation is underway.
This raises the question: what else were we right about?
Yachting? Trevor? Corey? The hockey player? The dogs? Joseph Gordon-Giuliano? Meg's drug use? Doria's prison record? Meg's lack of a university diploma? Meg's real birthdate? Markus Anderson? Nicole?
Archie?
Comments
There's enough word salad there for me to wonder if Meghan wrote it for him. What it lacks is a single powerful word on which to hang a new image for Meghan. Nor does it have a single word on which to hang a perception of the BRF, which it's casting as the enemy. Nothing there is powerful enough to go head to head with "bully." Heck, it's such a sticky word that Adams himself can't defend her without repeating it!
(I had thought the now-deleted photo of the curly-haired toddler was too clever a move to have been orchestrated by the five brain cells the Harkles share between them. But this Twitter rant is stupid enough to have come directly from Meghan.)
Against my better judgement I clicked on video #4 re: where Horrid Grip is talking to Oompa about not being able to do interviews etc. I regret my decision to watch that. One reason being is I really had an urge to push her in front of a tram. I must say I have never ever felt such disgust, to someone I have never met. Does that make me a bad person? Also for her to now open her bleeding gob regarding PP is just beyond the pale. She seems to think she is God like, that nothing is out of bounds for her, that nothing she does will ever have recourse. I truly hope that after this whole affair we never have to see/hear her or Handbag again. Speaking of which he is just as bad, if not worse, than her.
BRAVO!!!!!! Oh my god, am laughing my arse off. Oh, I needed this laugh. Thank you. Now THAT progrram I would watch! Princess Anne to the rescue, cleaning up Harkle Town! Harry cowering behind the shabby chic!! The make-up artist in Uber disguise!! Oh my god. yes -- "Release the Anne!"
100% believe she would make mincemeat of them. Camilla could be the show's host, wink-winking in her own fun way!
Best thing to do is don’t stream or watch the interview, don’t let the Dumbartons get everything they are thristed for!
I don't know if she is guessing that MM did this or if Plant was informed by a source.
Love the articles from Unherd that you posted. The idea of "Sussex-ese" and the author's description of it is particularly funny!
I would like to know the answer about the 9 million, too. Does anyone know where this came from?
@D1 & AnT, yes, I think prior life experience with a narc is what drives a lot of us to watch this unfold and see it through.
@Mel. You're quite right that this is what attracts so many of us to this story.
Healing is hard and takes a long time, if ever.
@ Miggy I'm a strong character but they have almost destroyed me.
When I have read peoples back stories I’ve found myself nodding and agreeing with them.
Never realised that there were so many narcs destroying peoples lives around the world.
I’m glad I found this site of like minded people, seems like fate drew us here.
the celebs coming forward to defend Meghan are the Oprah wannabees. They want in with the big O!
I respectfully disagree. Oprah is way past her sell-by date. And after the backlash she got over her stance on Michael Jackson and the persistent association with Harvey Weinstein, I can't imagine a single publicist wanting to hook a client's star to her tarnished wagon.
It's more likely a case of the Harkles being hotter right now than they have been in a year. Former contacts are playing up the connection for what it's worth, while they can. And there are already returns on it. (How many of us Nutties, who have all seen the gif of Meghan and Patrick getting it on in the file room, could have even named Patrick before this moment?) But I don't think Adams tweeted that rant to curry favor with Meghan. She may seem well-connected now, but surely he's smart enough to know she won't get him any work. We are his real targets. If his tweets generate enough buzz around his name, thanks to everyone talking about them, he might just land himself another gig!
I agree the photos are from different dates. M does look very different in the striped top. Can you see her rings in that shot?
Also though, I think there are more than 2 dates involved. In one shot, the little girl seems to have shorter hair (the one where she has on a denim jacket.) She has longer hair in the shot alone with M Her glasses may be different in the "Archie" shot too. She's also in the belly cupping shot (I guess that's her) but if it is, she has bangs. Maybe it's the older boy instead? But he's not wearing glasses in the Archie shot.
@JennS,
I think Megs could subtly offer to have her people send photos of Patrick to the tabs? I'll leave it there. Whoever said she probably wrote the tweets and ordered people to tweet them is right, The why, to me, is either coercion or promises of Netflix work.
I think the Plant stuff is intriguing, as I can see her doing that -- but I can also see it backfiring. Her desire for more "poor me!" PR was certainly based in the belief the palace would never fire back or make Harry sad. She did not count on William. She already burned him and Kate a few times, one big time with the Rose rumor. I think he sees her boundless appetite for destruction, and told Jason to pull the plug (no way JK emails were released without a royal okay)...
And thus the NYPost bit I posted a moment ago is just William and Jason's "beat her at her own game with her own tactics" sort of move -- "What? We have nothing to do with it, our lives are so good, and they are so icky." And meanwhile Jason is happily signing in all the Sussex Survivors to an strategy-planning Zoom meeting.
Brilliant, just brilliant!!!!
My younger brother, who was born the year Diana died, just told me matter of factly that he can't blame Prince Harry for turning against a family that murdered his mother and made it look like an accident. I tried to set him straight, of course, but he's currently enjoying that narrative very much.
those are not new Meghan's teeth or nose. Not her face shape. Not her new shiny resurfaced pale skin. Plus the kid would mean "Archie" went from a giant bald baby to a 3 or 4 year old in seven months. Old photo of someone else's life.
Thanks for the link to the NYT article. Yes, you’re right, it is a more balanced piece than one would expect from the paper.
“A spokeswoman for the couple said Meghan was ‘deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma.’ She did not address questions about the earrings.”
The earrings.....I think this is the potential torpedo in the arsenal of the RF. Where are these earrings? Are they in the royal collection as M has claimed through intermediaries? If they are not and were instead a wedding gift to M, and she maintains possession of them, that spells trouble for her IMO.
Brilliant, just brilliant!!!!
I salute all of the clever women who post on this site.
Silver Tree's IMDB Profile:
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm1719186/
Pic of her at the wedding:
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/the-wedding-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-ceremony-st-georges-chapel-windsor-castle-berkshire-uk-19-may-2018-9685436in
Yes, narcs love to love-bomb other people whom they want something from, but sometimes narcs go full throttle when they sense an adversary. This is what my narc did to me one Christmas Eve as a group of about 10 people where exchanging Christmas gifts. All of us were professionals, so the gifts could be pretty expensive:
Narc: "And here's one for you from me!"
Me: (I open the gift and my mouth drops open). It's a jar of Oil of Olay for dry skin. I don't have dry skin.
Me: Trying to be polite, with a huge smile on my face. "Well, thank you! I'm always looking for new face creams! Thank you so, so much!" Everybody looks around, in shock at this put-down gift. The entire group is silent.
Narc: "Oh! I made a mistake! That was meant for my mother". That was no mistake, and everybody knew it. What lawyer's wife gives her mother Oil of Olay for Christmas? We all knew that was a lie.
Narc: "We forgot to buy you a gift, so David, (her husband) went to the local antiques mall this morning. Here's your real gift. Again, everybody is in shock because who says that they forgot you on Christmas and ran out to get anything that they could find at the last minute?
Me: It's a pin that probably cost at the most $8.00. "David! It's lovely! Thank you so much for thinking of me, and it's in my colors, too!"
Everybody was livid at how my narc had treated me, like mud on her shoe. My husband was irate, but all of us kept quiet about it until we were back in our cars, on the way home. the next day all of the people at the party called me and said they were so sorry about how this woman had treated me.
Sometimes, killing them with kindness works, however a little revenge is always fun. At the next year's Xmas party, I beautifully wrapped a gift for her (a nice one, but I can't remember what it was). I found some Xmas wrapping paper that had copper, browns, greens and blues, the colors of the pin. I tied it in a large brown silk bow and pinned the pin right onto the top of the bow! She got the point very clearly, and everybody else did, too.
I warned this group of people that she was on heavy drugs. It was so obvious to me, and it wasn't weed. Nobody believed me until, at another party at a hotel, her dealer showed up. I asked him who he was, and he out and out said he was her dealer. Now, my narc is gone. The drugs and karma caught up to her, and she died about 10 years ago.
My younger brother, who was born the year Diana died, just told me matter of factly that he can't blame Prince Harry for turning against a family that murdered his mother and made it look like an accident.
My older sister was convinced Diana was murdered by the Royal family. I eventually gave up arguing with her, she was not interested in any facts that proved otherwise.
What a story! You had to wait a year to make your point, but you did it brilliantly.
I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but why would being seated next to Amal be a reason for revenge?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14241484/meghan-brother-claims-bullied-before-shown-true-colours/
Scoobie, If the plastic surgeon's office name is "Nose Jobs R US," run the other way, or you'll end up looking like you've been losing your last few boxing matches.
That should have been more exciting than is is....never mind!!
Oh! Silver Tree is her actual NAME!
I asked who she was hoping someone here would know her name.
I thought Silver Tree was her Twitter name or professional company name.
LOL!!!
I've read about her and MM before - how MM supposedly helped her with her son. I guess that is her daughter in the photos as well.
The little boy with the red hair looks more African American.
Yes, the use of "kind" is a dead giveaway that Meghan is either ghostwriting or giving her flying monkeys their talking points.
In the PR war of words, however, "kind" simply cannot compete with "bully." We can all picture a bully. We've probably all been bullied. And if we haven't, the stereotypes presented by the media will more than make up for it.
"Kind" on the other hand, is something fuzzier. And in my case, a word that always makes me think of the disgraced Ellen Degeneres. She liked to say that her studio was "the kindest place on earth" and encouraged her viewers to be kind to one another. We know how that turned out.
Anyway, this is what I mean when I say Meghan isn't very smart. She should have figured out that "kind" wasn't working for her, reevaluated other branding possibilities, and made a strategic change for the sake of her image. But she's still beating the same drum. And it was never a good drum to begin with.
I wonder how Edward Lane Fox thinks of all this. He did such a good job selling "Hero Harry." Just as with bullies, we can all picture a hero. Meghan must make him cringe.
The Suits crew went to the wee wedding ceremony then dinner? LOL. Why did they bother going at all?
Hi everyone - an old timer returns, now everything has got so combustible. This is just to flag that Valentine Low said specifically the MBS earrings were a gift to Meghan i.e. she didn't borrow them from the royal collection. Extract below:
***
Valentine Low
Wednesday March 03 2021, 12.00am GMT, The Times
Meghan’s earrings were gift from Saudi prince accused of murder
The duchess was seen wearing the earrings given by Mohammed bin Salman at two events in 2018.
The Duchess of Sussex wore earrings given to her by Mohammed bin Salman [MBS], Saudi Arabia’s crown prince [...]
And yeah, the Patrick Whatshisname tweets sound like a drunk MM wrote and posted them!
Oh! Silver Tree is her actual NAME!
I know, right??? I had thought her last name was Silvertree and that I'd find out her first name sooner or later, if a Nutty brought it up!
Completely tangential: I quite like her name. Both when I thought it was one word and a family name and now that I read it properly!
• May be believed to be doing or to have done something selfless or of great value, eg charitable work or turning a failing department or business around.
• Convinces superiors and peers by seeming plausible, and convincing, sometimes by copying others' behaviour, words or work.
• Portrays themselves as kind, caring and compassionate but only behaves this way where it leads to personal gain.
• Cannot distinguish between leadership, management and bullying.
• Oblivious to the difference between how they would like to be seen and how they are actually seen.
• Distorts peoples' perceptions of reality through falsehood and gossip.
• Warns targets that no-one will believe them if they report the bullying.
• Once called to account - aggressively denies and refutes any criticism, counter-attacking the critic with fabricated or distorted counter-criticism.
• Claims to have been bullied by the complainant, feigns victimhood, ("poor me"), uses amateur dramatics (bursting into tears etc), to avoid the question and evade accountability.
These are traits of the serial bully. Reminds you of someone?
By the way, I've thought of a new name for our duo: Harry and Harridan.
"This is just to flag that Valentine Low said specifically the MBS earrings were a gift to Meghan i.e. she didn't borrow them from the royal collection."
True. But they supposedly were a wedding gift and that wouldn't make them her personal property. They'd be Crown property. As to where they would have been kept, that seems to be a mystery.
SilverTree said this in the Sun. This is almost word-for-word what another "friend" of MM said a while ago. Anybody remember that? I think it was Jessica or one of her Toronto posse who said that.
MM appears desperate to me. She's in a manic state and throwing any negative thing she can think of at the BRF. What strong feminist needs to air their personal pain and anguish on a TV show? Strong women can handle a little bad press. Strong women don't attack other women for no apparent reason. Strong women handle the problem, and don't need to take credit for it. They just get the job done and move on.
It shows no respect for herself and, obviously, for others. It also shows how thin-skinned she is, which is not a feminist trait.
Re: M wanting to hear about others first
One of the 5 anonymous friends said that in the PEOPLE mag article.
PERFECT! I haven't come up with anything that even comes close! Simple, memorable, and quite descriptive.
Silver Tree is definitely an interesting name. Her husband is Abe Levy but at the wedding, he was referred to as Abraham Levy.
Silver Tree's Husband's IMDB:
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0506312/
Blogger Jocelyn'sBellinis said...
“She is the friend who insists on always hearing the details of your life, your day, your kids life, your kids day, before hers. Always before hers.”
Information gathering. It will be used to cudgel the person in the future.
Newport Monarchist, Newport beach, United States, 5 hours ago
She is not pregnant...... staged so she can fake a miscarriage and blame BRF..... just wait and see.....
-------
Vancouverite, Vancouver, Canada, 5 hours ago
Newport Monarchist, I think the same thing! Anything at all for sympathy.
-------
Great minds think alike 😉
*Fake
I think that MM didn't tell the palace that she received those earrings. If she had told them, they would have catalogued them in the foreign gifts, and they would be locked away, in the crown's hands.
Harry is well aware of the BRF gift protocol. He grew up knowing that. So, in effect, they knowingly stole from the BRF.
"It shows no respect for herself and, obviously, for others. It also shows how thin-skinned she is, which is not a feminist trait."
YES! I just had a vision Of the feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg throwing a big ole hissy fit. lol.
@JennS
I cant wait to see what you have uncovered!
I completely agree. Narcs look for people that they can use in the future. Friend collecting.
Thinking about THE interview, when Meghan goes into her routine as if the BRF had put her in a Soviet-style labour camp to silence her vitally important, original voice, it would be just perfect if Oprah learned forward and gently asked "Well, now the world is listening with bated breath, just what is it that you wanted to say?"
Meghan can't possibly live up to her hype. All but sugars will see it. Hallmark card time.
THERESA LONGO FANS
@BarkJack
·
12h
Oprah is not a "true friend" of the Sussex duo; she's an opportunist. We got ahold of some emails. #Oprah and a few in her closest circle fully expect the interview to go down like a lead balloon for the #Megxit pair, while catapulting her own publicity.
Ha! So right. RBG would have never publicly cried and complained about people who were mean to her. That's a woman to admire. MM, and her sly little act, is just petty and childish. RBG wouldn't give her the time of day. Oprah, as we can see, would stoop that low, but never RBG, the greatest feminist this country has seen in decades.
My first question to Patrick J. Adams would be, "How many times did you and MM sleep together."
My second question is," hen did MM call or email to ask you to put out this overly-glowing review of MM on the Suits set?
I was watching a group of criminal profilers/investigators last night (ex-gov't intelligence, former Army, etc.), and one thing they look for in criminal interviews is when a person answers a question, then goes on to embellish it with a further explanation. The experts were saying that this is a person who is a liar. If you are telling the truth, there is no need to embellish or explain your statement. This is what MM's "friends" are doing now.
I know it's yet another Diana thing but that didn't work that well for her. I remember the Panorama interview well, and the next day all the men I knew felt sorry for her but all the women rumbled her. We all spoke the language of makeup. She had been far too crude and transparent and we never forgot it. Once we explained it to the men they got it too.
Maybe you had to be around at the time and Meghan is too young to really grasp that that interview was the beginning of the end for Diana. This spells d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r as surely as Panorama did.
As Lorraine Kelly has written today, this whole Oprah thing is crazy as it could never have been controlled.
I don't get why Meghan chose to look like a vengeful Greek widow for this interview. She wants the world to feel sorry for her, so surely she shouldn't be literally scaring them with that eyeliner and black dress? In a sunny garden?
She looks more like a grieving-ish widow planning her husband's funeral.
Silver Tree's husband, the great director of the movie, "Blow Me." Yeah, MM would have friends like that. It's right up her alley.
I’m not trying to be a contrarian (honest) but that Twitter photo of Meghan and Archie looks credible to me.
That little boy whoever he is looks like he could have Harry's build and Meghan's hair, sure.
But if he is a credible Archie, who is the other baby(ies) we have been seeing til now? This child was not in the Duck Rabbit video. I work with babies and toddlers every day and for Markle to imply this insults my intelligence.
Also, there is the matter of Rachel looking very different in this picture which could plausibly have been taken several Christmases ago. Pre-Harry, even. This is not a current 2021 photo, or even this past Christmas. Rachel has had several procedures since this photo was taken. The child looks a bit too old to be only 21 months, but still under three, I'd say. But the picture would had to have been taken in the last few weeks for Archie to be this age. Yet 'Mommy' is wearing a long-ago face.
Rachel is up to her old tricks again. She's been under pressure to 'show Archie'!!! and this is her response. We don't know who this is. There are no captions. Meg might have photoshopped herself in. She does that.
I admire the Cambridges for staying above it all. BP has been dragged into the maelstrom, which is dreadful to see, but William and Kate need to stay quiet and focused on their family. They're an oasis for us, even though I'm sure they don't feel like it!
I'll never forget the few photos of Kate on the school run at the time of the Sandringham summit last year. She was dressed smartly, hair in a ponytail, makeup perfect, but there were deep shadows under her eyes and she looked as if she'd been through a real ordeal. Supporting her husband through this. Now it's even worse.
Blind Gossip has a story up, and they posted the picture with ‘Archie’ that we’ve deemed not Archie due to Meghan’s face-work, and lack of rings.
‘Unidentified children’
Lol. Touché BG!
Getting her labeled a bully is a great start — and she richly deserves the label. The interview in Bild with her half-brother is good reinforcement of the family’s theme. There is no coincidence that that article came out so quickly now. The family is putting their plan into motion.
For any readers here in despair that Meghan will get hers — have heart. Her time is coming.
@swampwoman,
Have you seen the side-by-side photos of Megs in her seagull poop dress and Wallis Simpson? She's trying out the Wallis look. Nothing she does is her own idea.
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/03/meghan-markles-oprah-interview-outfit-compared-to-wallis-simpson/
My experience with prominent Arab business men presenting gifts is that they like to have a bit of ceremony around it, or to be prominently displayed. I can't see the head of the House of S'Aud just casually handing something off, even to The Queen!
My opinion is meaningless, of course, and my experience was in the aerospace industry, certainly not Royalty!
Part 1.
Camilla Tominey Telegraph, “She wanted drama”
Jump to navigation
‘She wanted drama’: The inside story of the rift between Harry and Meghan and The Firm
As the Sussexes give their tell-all Oprah Winfrey interview, royal insiders reveal the 'other side of the story’
By Camilla Tominey, Associate Editor 5 March 2021 • 9:00pm
There was something distinctly familiar about the Oprah Winfrey teaser in which Prince Harry declared: “My biggest concern was history repeating itself.”
The words, due to be aired during the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ tell-all interview on Sunday night, bore an uncanny resemblance to the statement released by Harry’s communications secretary, Jason Knauf, in November 2016 after the Sunday Express had revealed that the Prince was dating the American actress.
Confirming that “his girlfriend Meghan Markle” had been “subject to a wave of abuse and harassment”, the statement criticised the “racial undertones” of newspaper coverage, adding: “Prince Harry is worried about Ms Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. This is not a game – it is her life and his.”
The unprecedented salvo created two important narratives around the former Suits star – it formally confirmed her status as the woman in Harry’s life but also positioned her, in the eyes of the palace and the public, as the victim at the heart of a media “storm”. As the statement suggested, a line had been “crossed”.
But the tirade “by the Communications Secretary to Prince Harry” also put Mr Knauf in a compromising position. How was the former director of corporate affairs for the Royal Bank of Scotland going to be able to handle media relations for a couple when the Prince had so publicly made plain their deep hostility towards the press?
Almost exactly two years later, the 39-year-old spin doctor would submit a a bullying claim accusing Meghan of driving two personal assistants out of the household and undermining the confidence of a third staff member.
The Sussexes have denied that Harry pleaded with Mr Knauf not to pursue it, claiming the couple are the victims of a calculated smear campaign based on harmful misinformation. They said the Duchess was “saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma”.
Those highlighting the “outrageous bullying” say they want to “tell the other side of the story” to the picture expected to be painted by the Duchess on the Oprah special of her “almost unsurvivable” time in the Royal family. “Anyone who is a victim can’t bear to watch it,” said one.
The couple’s lawyers insist Buckingham Palace is manipulating the press to peddle a “wholly false narrative” –notwithstanding the fact that the complainants no longer work in the royal household and the lack of palace action has now prompted an internal inquiry.
The Telegraph has spoken to a number of well-placed insiders who witnessed first-hand the turmoil within the royal household from Meghan’s arrival as Prince Harry’s girlfriend to the couple’s decision to stand down as working royals last year.
All spoke on the condition of anonymity amid claims they had been operating in a “climate of fear”, where employees were routinely “humiliated” in front of their peers and repeatedly subjected to “unreasonable demands” by both Meghan and Harry.
Unwilling to play a supporting role
It was not until October 2017, a year after Mr Knauf’s unprecedented statement that Meghan gave an interview to Vanity Fair in which she declared of her relationship with Harry: “We’re in love. I’m sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but what I hope people will understand is that this is our time.”
The public did not have to wait long. Just a month later, the couple announced their engagement with a photocall in the sunken garden at Kensington Palace and an interview with the BBC’s Mishal Husain in which Harry described his fiancee as “another team player as part of the bigger team”.
Yet behind palace gates, it was quickly becoming apparent that Meghan had no intention of she and Harry being seen as the “supporting act” to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, despite their seniority in the royal pecking order.
That Christmas, determined to walk side by side with William and Kate to Sandringham’s St Mary Magdalene Church, rather than several steps behind, they were pictured together as the so-called “Fab Four”.
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex at Sandringham.
United front: The 'fab four’ attend the Christmas Day service at the at Church of St Mary Magdalene on the Sandringham estate Credit: Getty Images Europe
The Cambridges invited the Sussexes to spend the festive period at their nearby bolthole, Anmer Hall, an experience Meghan spoke of fondly afterwards. “Meghan was very positive about it,” said a former aide.
Two months later, the quartet appeared at their first official event together at the inaugural forum of their Royal Foundation – a highly choreographed event described by one royal insider as “designed to send a message that they would be working as a team. It was all very carefully rehearsed beforehand”.
Disagreements with the Cambridges
After Meghan showcased her years of previous work with “larger NGOs and smaller grassroots organisations”, both William and Harry acknowledged that working so closely with loved ones had led to “healthy disagreements” over how to best guide the foundation’s work.
“Working as a family does have its challenges, of course it does,” Harry said. “But we’re stuck together for the rest of our lives.”
By now, Kensington Palace staff had already become familiar with a mantra that would come to characterise the run-up to the Sussexes’ wedding in May 2018.
“Want Meghan wants, Meghan gets” may have been shouted by Prince Harry to Angela Kelly, the Queen’s personal assistant, following a row over a tiara – but royal aides were already well acquainted with the importance of meeting the Duchess’s exacting standards.
“Everyone wanted her to be happy because they knew that would make him happy,” said one. “Do whatever it takes to make it work for Meghan was the mantra. We all cared deeply about Harry. Contrary to this idea that they weren’t supported, we were going to great lengths to accommodate their needs.”
'We all cared deeply about Harry,' said one royal aide
'We all cared deeply about Harry,’ said one royal aide Credit: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP
So much so that there was an extraordinary incident during the couple’s first tour of Scotland when members of the palace PR team “body blocked” Meghan’s former adviser Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne during a visit to an Edinburgh cafe in what one former aide described as “the most embarrassing moment of my professional career”.
The Duchess had apparently expressed “a reluctance to make eye contact” with Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne, who was reduced to having to post an Instagram shot of her former close friend and client visiting the Social Bites cafe from a considerable distance. "Anyone from the past was a problem,“ observed the former aide.
Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne’s name would later reappear in court documents accusing Meghan’s close friend and stylist Jessica Mulroney of "putting pressure on her [Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne] to withdraw or change statements” she had made in an April 2018 interview with the Mail on Sunday.
The defence documents claimed the Sunday newspaper’s features editor complained about the intervention to Mr Knauf, who allegedly responded by saying he would ensure “this does not happen again”. In the piece, Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne described Meghan as: “Picky, not only when it comes to her clothes but also her colleagues, instantly dismissing those who didn’t share her 'vision’.”
Describing how the Duchess had “given me a bit of a difficult time” after meeting Harry, she added: “Meghan likes to move on”.
When contacted by The Telegraph, Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne declined to comment on the incident.
'Email bombardments’
They are still a gift from a foreign country and would be in the crown's gift stockpile. They would have to be carefully checked in and out by any person whom The Queen would offer them to on loan.
How did they get to CA?????
'Email bombardments’
As the world was gearing up for what the LA Times had billed as “a royal wedding for the 21st century”, behind palace gates the atmosphere was becoming fraught.
Staff had grown used to “email bombardments” by Meghan and Harry, with one describing how “the last thing we’d do before going to sleep is reply to their messages and the first thing we’d do in the morning is reply to their messages. Weekends, holidays – there were no boundaries. They live on their phones all the time”.
Despite publicly claiming they largely ignored the press coverage, in reality the couple were often consumed by it. “They’re both very thin-skinned,” said one former employee.
Meghan’s supporters say staff members “who preferred a more genteel pace” could not keep up with the Duchess’s “American work ethic” – with one close friend now suggesting the criticism was racially motivated. “Find me a woman of colour in a senior position who has not been accused of being too angry, too scary, too whatever in the workplace,” the friend said.
Yet it was not just palace employees who found themselves on the receiving end of “inescapable screaming and shouting”.
Much has been written about the bridesmaids’ dress fitting, first revealed in The Telegraph in November 2018, that left the Duchess of Cambridge in tears.
Contrary to subsequent reports that the row concerned Princess Charlotte’s tights, what actually happened was that the dress itself did not fit Kate’s then nearly three-year-old daughter. According to a well-placed source, “demands were made about when subsequent fittings would be, and Kate left sobbing”.
While Meghan’s allies suggest that Kate did not make enough of an effort to welcome her future sister-in-law into the royal fold, allies of the Cambridges suggest she “tried to arrange social things” and invited her to watch tennis together but “there was a sense that Meghan never really wanted to be friends”.
The Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex at Wimbledon in 2019. Meghan appeared not to be interested in being the friend of her sister-in-law, insiders say
Those inside the palace concede, however, that the Cambridges can “appear standoffish” and are “often out of contact for extended periods”.
Another former royal aide claimed the Duke, particularly, appreciated the “deflection” from his own occasionally demanding behaviour. “Bullying is endemic across all the households,” the former aide added.
“The Meghan thing is a disgrace, but it’s not in isolation. They cut you out, undermine you, talk down to you. One minute you’re in – the next you’re persona non grata. Some staff have special protection. I’ve never witnessed behaviour like it before. I wish I’d never seen behind the curtain.”
A reprimand from the Queen
One member of staff afforded “special protection” is Angela Kelly, who has served as the Queen’s closest aide since 2002. Rumours of Meghan being dubbed “Duchess Difficult” began to surface around the time it emerged that the Liverpudlian docker’s daughter had been given a tongue-lashing by Harry.
Yet what was never accurately reported around the time of “Tiaragate” was that far from being denied the item from the Crown Jewels she wanted, Meghan was in fact given her first choice.
The argument erupted after the Duchess demanded that Queen Mary’s Diamond Bandeau Tiara be produced for an unscheduled hairdressing appointment.
“Angela told Harry it was priceless and couldn’t suddenly be handed over at short notice. He was furious and shouted: 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.' Suffice to say it didn’t go down too well.” So badly, in fact, that the no-nonsense 53-year-old, who has her own fearsome reputation among colleagues, reported the incident to the Queen, prompting a grandmotherly telling off for Harry.
Little did the Prince know at the time that staff had also given him a nickname: “The hostage”.
According to one person with first-hand knowledge of the events: “They insisted that they had the same inflation-adjusted budget for the wedding as William and Kate – she got the choir she wanted, the dress, the carriage procession, the tiara – she got everything she wanted but it still wasn’t enough.
"She was constantly looking for reasons to say she had been deprived. Also, she wanted drama from the very beginning.”
According to one person with first-hand knowledge, the couple 'insisted that they had the same inflation-adjusted budget for the wedding as William and Kate’ Credit: Damir Sagolj/Reuters
Although the couple wanted their spokespeople to deny it, a story about Meghan requesting air freshener to be sprayed around the “musty” St George’s Chapel was true, according to multiple sources.
Even The Kingdom Choir did not get off lightly after the couple changed their song 12 times before they were happy with the arrangement of “Stand By Me”. As choir member Karen Gibson revealed: “Gospel music is all about the cherries on top and it’s not about stinting on anything. But we got word back that they wanted something a little less, so we did a second version which had an Etta James arrangement but again we had word back that it wasn’t right."
The group was then asked to meet Harry and Meghan face to face, before the couple finally settled on an arrangement after 11 previous attempts.
"The wedding was hugely stressful for everyone involved in it,” said one former aide. “Staff were spending most of their time having smooth things over with suppliers.”
Tears before the big day
The “Markle Debacle”, when Meghan’s father Thomas pulled out of the wedding at the last minute, only added to the tension as royal aides scrambled to “rescue” the narrative around the “big day” by having the Prince of Wales step in to walk Meghan down the aisle.
Despite Meghan later claiming to ITV’s Tom Bradby that “not many people have asked if I’m ok”, royal insiders insist they “rallied around” the couple – who were both in tears at times.
The Most Rev Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who officiated the ceremony, is also understood to have given “psychological as well as spiritual” support. The principle leader of the Church of England caused hilarity among his staff by failing to recognise Ms Winfrey at the lunchtime reception at Windsor Castle, asking the US chat show host what she did for a living.
Oprah Winfrey arrives for the wedding ceremony of Prince Harry and Meghan in 2018 Credit: Ian West/AFP
By the time the couple had returned from their honeymoon, relations between the Sussexes, the Cambridges and their staff became so bad that Harry and Meghan appeared reluctant to engage with anyone at the June 2018 leaving party for Miguel Head, William’s former private secretary.
I doubt she'd want to draw that comparison, frankly.
According to two separate sources, the couple “remained aloof” throughout the bash in the private garden at Kensington Palace. "It was a really convivial atmosphere with William giving a touching speech about Mig, but Harry and Meghan just remained on the outskirts and didn’t mingle with anyone. They were the last to arrive and the first to leave.“
Eyebrows were similarly raised when, having shared the news of her pregnancy at the Champagne reception following Princess Eugenie’s wedding to Jack Brooksbank in October 2018, Meghan declined to attend the evening do. The bride was said to have been "upset” that Harry only “popped along for a drink without Meghan” – although they were due to fly to Australia for their first Commonwealth tour the day after.
During the 16-day tour, which also took in Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand, the couple appeared reluctant to engage with the press. Although Harry managed to be persuaded at one point to speak to reporters at the back of the plane, he told them: “Thanks for coming, even though you weren’t invited.”
Bullying claims emerge
On the same trip, it was claimed that Meghan had cut short a visit to a market in Fiji because she was concerned about the presence of a UN organisation promoting women, with which she had previously worked but now was no longer associated.
At the time, officials suggested that it was because it was humid and the crowd was oppressive in the market. After Meghan had been ushered away, a female member of her entourage was spotted sitting in an official car, looking extremely upset. Meghan’s female personal protection officer left her post shortly afterwards.
Lawyers for the Duchess said she met other leaders from UN Women later on the tour and denied she left for the reason alleged.
Although Mr Knauf had not gone on the tour, he is thought to have been “deeply concerned” by reports of the couple’s behaviour overseas.
“There was a sense that they were just refusing to take advice, and insisting on doing everything their way,” said one royal source. “No one, from the most senior to the most junior employee, wasn’t under constant attack,” said another.
The Duchess of Sussex attends the unveiling of the Labalaba Statue in Nadi, Fiji, in October 2018 Credit: Chris Jackson/Getty Images
Matters came to a head in October 2018 following the departure of a second member of the Duchess’s private office.
Mr Knauf emailed Simon Case, then William’s private secretary and now the Cabinet Secretary, after conversations with Samantha Carruthers, the head of HR. Mr Case then forwarded it to Ms Carruthers, who is based at Clarence House.
The email read: “I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of X* was totally unacceptable. The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying Y and seeking to undermine her confidence. We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behaviour towards Y.”
The email, which also expressed concern about the stress being experienced by Samantha Cohen, the couple’s private secretary, concluded: “I questioned if the household’s policy on harassment and bullying applies to principals.”
While Mr Case was “very personally supportive” of the individual members of staff, Mr Knauf expressed his concern in the email that “nothing will be done”. The palace is now holding an investigation, having been criticised for failing to act sooner.
It was not until a month later that it was reported that Melissa Toubati, the Duchess’s former PA, had “quit suddenly”, just six months into the job. The following month, it was announced that Ms Cohen would not stay in post after the Sussexes’ baby was born.
The couple were apparently “furious” about reports of their high staff turnover, piling more pressure on their PR team to “try to turn negative headlines into positive ones”.
According to one former employee: “What people fail to understand is Harry’s hatred of the media is probably one of the most important things in his life. It is defining for him. So the narrative is always – it’s the press’s fault, never theirs.”
That Christmas, the Sussexes were once again photographed alongside the Cambridges on Dec 25 but opted to stay with the Queen at the “main house” rather than Anmer Hall.
It came after an awkward staff Christmas party in which “all mention of Melissa’s name was banned”, according to one royal insider. “It was as if she never existed.” Some employees found it hard to reconcile the couple’s erratic conduct with moments of genuine kindness, such as when Meghan would buy female staff members flowers or even jewellery.
Relations break down
By the New Year, relations within Kensington Palace had “irretrievably broken down,” with Prince Harry no longer on speaking terms with Mr Knauf after he had failed to persuade him to drop the complaint against his wife. The Sussexes’ lawyers deny any such conversation took place.
Sources close to the couple say Ms Toubati, who was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, was sacked for misconduct, pointing out neither staff member made complaints of their own to HR. Ms Toubati’s friends deny she was sacked for misconduct.
With Harry and Meghan already operating in a silo – and increasingly consulting the Duchess’s US team of advisers rather than palace officials – a split of the two households at Kensington Palace appeared an inevitability.
It was around the time that the couple moved to Frogmore Cottage in Windsor in March 2019 that Amy Pickerill became the third of the Duchess’s staff to leave her role, having served as her assistant private secretary since November 2017.
Mr Knauf also stepped down to work as senior adviser to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. He is now chief executive of the Cambridges’ Royal Foundation. Friends say he “bitterly regrets” not warning Sara Latham, who was appointed as the Sussexes’ director of communications in April 2019, how difficult working for the couple could be.
Jonathan Knauf stepped down to work as senior adviser to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Credit: Dominic Lipinski/PA Archive
The American PR supremo, who used to advise the Clintons, quickly worked this out for herself when the couple insisted on secrecy around son Archie’s birth on May 6, while trying to maximise global coverage.
Around the same time it was falsely claimed that the Duchess had been prevented from doing an interview with CBS anchor Gayle King, Ms Winfrey’s close friend. In fact, insiders say “the Duchess was calling shots throughout.”
It came after Meghan had attended a high-profile baby shower in New York with Serena Williams and Amal Clooney, without being accompanied by any palace press officers. Concerns were raised behind palace gates when freebies started arriving at New York’s Mark Hotel, causing consternation for staff back in the UK having to wrestle with the Royal family’s strict rules on gifting.
Having courted controversy throughout the summer of 2019 for snubbing the Queen’s invitation to Balmoral and taking four private jets in 11 days instead, relations with the media were at rock bottom at the start of the Sussexes’ September tour to Africa.
Royal aides were then left dumbfounded when what had been a surprisingly successful 10-day trip with Archie was overshadowed by Meghan’s interview with Mr Bradby, in which she revealed the “struggles” she had faced adapting to life in the Royal family.
The Duchess alarmed palace insiders by telling Tom Bradby of her 'struggles’ as part of the Royal family
Duke’s fears for wife
It came as Harry released an attack on the tabloid press as the couple announced they would be suing the Mail on Sunday over the publication of a letter Meghan had written to her father.
In a highly personal and scathing statement, Harry said some newspapers had “vilified her almost daily for the past nine months” and claimed they had published “lie after lie” at Meghan’s expense simply because she was out of public view on maternity leave.
Referencing his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, who died in a car crash in Paris while being pursued by the paparazzi, the Duke said: “Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
The interview set the tone for their January 2020 announcement that they would be “stepping back as senior royals” to become “financially independent”.
As the world gathers to watch the most highly anticipated royal television event since Diana’s Panorama interview in 1995, it will be left to the viewers to decide which version of history represents the truth.
————
Part 1
Oprah shows the world how it's done
CNN Digital Expansion 2018, BRIAN STELTER
Analysis by Brian Stelter, CNN Business
"New York (CNN Business)Leverage your celebrity wattage, A-list connections and interview track record. Produce a gorgeously staged sit-down interview in a comfortable setting. And roll out tempting teasers for a week ahead of time.
That's what Oprah Winfrey is doing for her Sunday night spectacular "CBS Presents Oprah with Meghan and Harry."
The result is, in the words of The New York Times, "one of the most anticipated, and most heavily-spun, television interviews in recent memory."
It is also a valuable piece of content -- created by Winfrey's production company and sold by ViacomCBS to television networks around the world.
Winfrey's exclusive interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was announced on February 15, but it has been in the works for years.
In a new preview clip released on Friday, Winfrey said she spoke with Meghan about a potential sit-down in February or March 2018.
"I remember that conversation very well," Meghan said. "I wasn't even allowed to have that conversation with you personally, right." She indicated that Buckingham Palace communications staff was present.
"I couldn't have said yes to you then," she said. "That wasn't my choice to make. So, as an adult who lived a really independent life -- to then go into this construct that is... different than I think what people imagine it to be -- it's really liberating to be able to have the right and the privilege in some ways to be able to say yes. I mean... I'm ready to talk."
Royal watchers expect major revelations about the Sussexes' decision to step away from the work of the Royal Family and move to the US, to a home right near Winfrey's in Montecito, California.
Winfrey helped the couple get settled in the community and previously partnered with Harry on a mental health documentary for Apple TV+.
Her status as one of the most renowned interviewers in the world will be further cemented by the broadcast."
"Winfrey "has the Midas touch," said Victoria Arbiter, a CNN royal commentator. She "also helps people feel safe and protected... so I think Meghan and Harry will have felt safe talking with her."
The interview tapings -- first Meghan alone, then the couple -- were conducted in what appears to be a lush California backyard.
Winfrey, not a television news division or other intermediary, maintained control all along. Her production company, Harpo, crafted the interview plan and brought it to CBS, where she has longstanding business ties.
Harpo and CBS announced the US premiere, and then the global distribution arm of ViacomCBS Global lined up other international broadcasters from Australia to Switzerland.
Most importantly, the interview will be shown in the United Kingdom on ITV one day after the US, on Monday night.
Prince Harry compares 'unbelievably tough' royal split to Diana's experience in Oprah interview
None of the parties involved have commented on the financial stakes, but CBS and other broadcasters should be able to command premium pricing for ads during the special.
Guy Martin, writing for Forbes, said "let's call it what it is, in America at least: It's a big old-fashioned broadcast network bet that lots of good American product and good American viewers would like to get next to that crackling bonfire of content, and in an industrial way, given the advent of all-powerful streaming, it's an oddly welcome revivification of the old broadcast platform."
In a nod to corporate synergy as well as Winfrey's friendship with "CBS This Morning" co-host Gayle King, the morning show rolled out the first full clip from the special on Friday morning.
Arbiter pointed out that the interview is an important moment for Meghan and Harry as they seek to capitalize on their celebrity status. Many Americans are familiar with the couple "but there are an equal number who don't know what they are about. Oprah is a great person to introduce them to the US," she said."
I think Chatham and Toubati would be be the best "gets", as far as exposing Ginge and Cringe. I would fully expect Angela Kelly to be biased and willing to take one for the team. Chatham especially is the one I want to hear from. Anyone who weathered Hillary Clinton should have been able to withstand anything, although in fairness I suppose the pay was probably nowhere near comparable.
Harry has been breathing in far too many gas fumes by being gaslighted my Megs and the mantra she has used to convince him that she is constantly stalked by "powerful forces." Powerful forces?? WTH!? She, like many Narcs, also believe their own delusions of grandeur. This is as nuts as some of the tin hat people on GLP (Godlike Productions conspiracy site).
Thanks! I knew that I'd heard it somewhere before. So, MM or Jessica are writing the script for MM's friends to say. People rarely say the exact same thing.
******************************
Another thing that the intelligence experts said it that they can usually get the info they need by checking the person's email. They've caught more spies and other nefarious types by just getting the info from their email accounts.
No wonder MM wouldn't turn over her phone. I still don't understand why the judge didn't slap a contempt of court charge on her for disobeying a court command to turn over her phone? That's key evidence. He should investigated for his actions.
Yep, Catherine, pregnant, with HG and with two small children and an important position in the monarchy, should have dropped everything and devoted herself to seeing to the needs of Meghan!
Why? My guess is that Harry genuinely loves and admires Catherine, and the narc cannot tolerate that.
A latte to you for “vengeful Greek widow.” That is it exactly. A Vengeful Greek fury shat upon by a Griffon..Half lion half eagle is that? Definitely looks like a massive pile of bird shit on her shoulder. She really got it all wrong with the styling. We needed to see vulnerable trembling lipped Young Mum Meggie, not a demented harridan who looks like she is going to Wash down Harry’s liver with a glass of the Tig when she’s done.
That article was splendid, NO! Thanks so much for the tedious copy and paste.
The Sussexes can whine about the British tabloids all day long, but nobody underestimates The Telegraph or The Times.
Every serious person I know regularly reads one or the other.
Why would she even think of doing a personal interview as her right? She'd joined The Firm, and she knew that. The Firm decides when you're ready for prime time, and she was not ready, as we could see from the South Africa interview, which was a disaster for the Harkles.
Now, she's crying again about not getting to talk to Oprah when she wanted to, not when it was appropriate. She had obviously not gained the trust of HMTQ or the courtiers.
Every person who's been married knows to ease into a relationship with the new inlaws. If you swan your way in there with demands and try to take over, would you expect them to look at you as a kind and giving person, a person to be trusted?
Thank you so much for posting that Telegraph piece. Fascinating. They tried to be fair and balanced, too, but still, the truth is there.
IN PART 6 of your postings: Ms Toubati may have a legal case due to "sources close to the couple" saying she was fired for misconduct. I hope she pursues a lawsuit against the "source" whose name might even be Rachel.
Thanks for taking the time to put up the articles. It's much appreciated!
Yes! Angela Kelly, M Toubati, Chatham, Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne,
and the protection officer from Australia, (ooh)Australian
Govs lady!!
OH OH, HERE IT COMES!!!!!
A Tweet from THE TELEGRAPH
retweeted by Piers Morgan's an hour ago
BREAKING: The Charity Commission is conducting a review of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s philanthropic organisation, the Telegraph can disclose
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/03/05/prince-harry-meghan-face-charity-review/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1614980887
.
...
While I do believe he exists, it is extremely intriguing to think the RF are trying to let them know that The Mother of All Krakens might be waiting for her closeup....
Interesting ... we all want to know what happened to the money!
"We needed to see vulnerable trembling lipped Young Mum Meggie, not a demented harridan who looks like she is going to Wash down Harry’s liver with a glass of the Tig when she’s done."
Thanks for this gem! I snort-laughed! Maybe wash Harry down with Tig with a few fava beans?
Melissa Touabti is the one I'm focused on. I've had my share of stressful PA/Exec Asst jobs and the ones I found hardest were for American bosses (no insults intended to American nutties). It was just so relentless. I had one who started firing emails to me at 4 a.m. every morning. Another, with a very forceful personality, had a job in the US at the same time as one in the UK and flew back and forth every week. I ended up supporting him in both time zones and had no life of my own at all. Ended up in tears several times. I fully understand how incandescent their ex-aides must be about the Harkle victim act and how traumatic it will be for them to revisit what is being called "that toxic period" now. So many of us have difficult work experiences that transcend nationality and will identify with the stories that are emerging. So it's fraught with danger for the Sussex brand.
BTW if you Google Melissa you'll see 'Melissa Touabti teapot' come up! Does rather capture the imagination.
TELEGRAPH: the tiny snip of the article that I am able to read:
Charity Commission reviewing Prince Harry Meghan's Sussex Royal organization
"Telegraph understands watchdog is examining how charity shut down last July, following couple's move to US, was run'
.
Yay! Where can I read about their "foundation" being investigated by the Charity Commission?? This could be their Achilles Heel.
"Silver Tree just ousted herself as one of the five friends. Mega congratulations to LSA for figuring it out. The friend who spoke of having a son with a complicated illness? Way to go, Silver Tree, you just used the exact same story you did then."
Great find! Is it looking to anybody else that the Harkle's world is beginning to be ripped to shreds, and they will end up in tatters?
Nice to see you back.
Re your Telegraph subscription, I did give this info several months ago. You can access lots of newspapers and magazines online (UK & foreign ones) via your local council/borough council if you have a library card. Just go to their website, click on library, 24/7 Online library services and then Digital newspapers, magazines and comics. You can access newspapers etc. via PressReader. They don't have The Times but do have the Telegraph. It is a bit unwieldy and the 'paper' is the same as the real one so it's not constantly updated like the DM for instance. It's still useful.
He doesn't think it's their fault, of course, but he has to realize the protective shield has been obliterated.
LOL.....Piers Morgan's hilarious tweeted reply to Patrick J Adam's vicious, Meg-defendng tweets about the royals:
Actually, what's 'OBSCENE' is your friend trashing her husband's family on global TV as the Queen's 99-yr-old husband lies in hospital. How dare you attack our Royal Family like this, you jumped-up little twerp.
"He wasn’t looking very hard, believe me!
While I have no doubt that Scobie is a very nice person, this is your regular reminder that he is a hagiographer for Meghan and Harry, not a journalist covering the story fairly."
The knives are truly out and sharpened. Harry must be hiding in his cupboard in California. Because, to be fair, they're going to have to pop open a few more Harry sardine tins too.
Angela Kelly is the one to whom Harry said, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets," so I'd love to hear the whole story from her. Yes, she's HMTQ's sidekick and close friends, but she was verbally abused by Harry, and she has a story to tell.
I love you. That is all.
And in all fairness, I imagine there really was some legit culture shock for Nutmeg's staff that she herself didn't necessarily realize initially was upsetting them. But it doesn't sound like she tried to adjust, does it?!
I am also struck by the mention of her buying one of her staff jewelry? That seems extremely odd to me, given that I would think over-familiarity would be problematic in a Royal situation? Especially since she hasn't there long enough to build up any deep relationships.
I wonder if she occasionally realized she had gone too far at times and tried to overcompensate with gifts?!
Oh and I would also really love to hear from some of those choir members! What in the name of Heaven would she or Harry know about how a Gospel rendition of anything should sound h extent of making them redo it a dozen times?!
Agree on the gospel choir. what does she know, she was barely an actress. imagine listening to the choir practicing at the chapel; that would sound amazing and move someone with an actual soul to tears. maybe she is truly soulless
Yep, the gloves are off now, and MM must be shaking in her boots. Harry is trying to figure out how to spell "dinosaur." He's oblivious to anything of importance that goes on around him.
Charity Commission is a huge step forwards (when are we supposed to sleep?). I've been reading LSA and someone mentioned Travalyst (sp?!) and I realised I'd forgotten all about that. M&H throw a new load of crap around every week and it obscures the old. Their technique I guess. Doesn't work with financial auditors though. Oh my, how they will regret Oprah.
I'm still undecided about Oprah's intentions here. She's not an Emily Maitlis, who forensically skewered Prince Andrew on BBC Newsnight and everyone but Prince Andrew would have expected that. I fear Oprah will uncritically swallow all Meghan feeds her. OR she may allow her to self-destruct and revel in the attention.
Surely Oprah did her homework and that would reveal WHY Meghan received such bad press in the UK and that she WAS welcomed initially. I'm trying to balance that factual, easily discoverable aspect with the understandable difficulty an American may have grasping the peculiar link between people and monarchy here. Why being untidy at a formal event was a big deal. An insult in fact. Wearing an honourable but badly fitting Scottish tartan so it was dragging through the mud on her first (only?) visit to Scotland. No hat when she was invited to accompany the Queen far sooner than Kate was after marriage. Blowing a big annual salary on a semi-transparent engagement dress. Spending nearly £1M on clothes in 18 months. The most expensively dressed royal in Europe.
We paid for the clothes she spent on royal tours etc. as they are funded by the Foreign Office or other relevant govt dept. Now, after pinching our pockets, she kicks us all in the teeth. To say nothing of the Duke of Edinburgh. Can you imagine how the Queen must feel, hearing Meghan refer to his perilous health as "an excuse"? Her husband for more than 70 years?
I am definitely watching the Oorah interview and will take notes and post them. I have to buy some wine 😁🍷🍷🍷
Thanks.
I can imagine that a highly ambitious, gold-digging Z-list actress who married in to the RF would be very, very difficult to work with, but I find it hard to believe that Latham ( whom I keep referring to as Chatham, my apologies) wouldn't be able to handle it. Makes me wonder if it wasn't always meant to be an interim position?
Does anyone remember the woman who came to them from the Gates Foundation? Is she still with them?
Harkles, never mess with the IRS or the BRF. They are older and have more insurance than you."
Also to @ConstantGardener33 for the one from CNN.
Thank you ladies! 😊
This blog is becoming addictive again and I'm starting to suffer from a lack of sleep... so it's best I call it a night. 😫
I'm pretty sure there'll be some more developments before the Oprah cringe fest airs!!
Goodnight to all. :)
That's all it has ever been about. She can't possibly have done anything wrong, it's all about how she was sorely mistreated by all that White Privilege, and by God, Oprah is going to get to the bottom of it.
The initial interview Nutmeg wanted just after the wedding may have just been meant to be a big ol "look at me" gloat, but now it's simply about this Poor Innocent Black Victim suffering at the hands of not just White Privilege, but arguably the whitest privilege extant. (per Nutmeg and Oprah) And all done with her white husband agreeing with every word, as she sits there in a dress worth thousands of dollars, dripping in diamonds and 800 dollar shoes.
Poor little Put-Upon Meghan, can't you see how horribly she has been treated?
I don't think the papers/reporters are going to show all of their cards at this point. They know that The Harkles will respond to the all of the negative comments after the Oprah interview (just look at Scoobie's pathetic attempt today). The reporters are going to hold back on the really juicy stuff until they need them. These are just the first shots across the Harkle bow.
This also puts MM in a really bad position. She'll be wondering what else they have to reveal? How much to they really know? This will keep her on edge, and that's when she will make more mistakes.
Queen has not been given 'advance copy' of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's bombshell Oprah interview as senior royals and Palace aides 'reserve judgement' and will decide after show's release if it warrants a public response.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9331843/Queen-not-given-advance-copy-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harrys-Oprah-interview.html
"I'm going to save the Camilla Tominey Telegraph article as it's a great summary but I'm kind of disappointed in her. I believe everything in that article was already known."
I know what you are saying.
@Jocelyn'sBellinis makes a good point about reporters possibly holding back. Also though, I'm not sure that article was written for people who have been paying close attention to H&M. If a person hasn't been following closely, it's a pretty powerful article.
Any friend of yours, Oprah: The almost uncanny connections between the TV queen and the Duchess who just happen to be sharing the world stage.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9331831/The-uncanny-connections-TV-queen-Duchess.html
My mistake about the earrings. I had mistakenly remembered that she had worn them for the Oprah interview.
Things are moving so fast here, that I'm finding it hard to keep up.
Wow! That article sure didn't hold back on Oprah's complicated connections to so many people now in the Harkles circle. It even "went there" in discussing how long Oprah and Gayle have been trying to counteract rumors that they are lesbian lovers.
This article is just scathing about Oprah.
Smash twitter post today from journalist Katie Hind (the UK reporter who boldly told her legendary story of how in 2013, a largely unknown MM met her for drinks and begged Katie to get MM into the tabloids.....Katie wrote the story in the DM in Oct 2019.
I want to applaud her for an hour for this:
All this questioning of the timing of
these Meghan bullying claims. Quite
simple really.....you’d be SPITTING
mad if you knew the person who
terrorised you was about to tell
the world of her hardship while
you’d been bullied into silence
💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💕💕💕
And, here’s Katie’s very revealing 2019 article about good old MM:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7617345/The-night-Meghan-Markle-begged-tabloids-KATIE-HIND-reveals.html
.
That WAS awful, and gave a toehold to her delusions. I go back and forth between thinking this was her plan all along ( bagging the prince, crying racism as an excuse to set up their own court Stateside), or whether she blames racism for her lack of popularity.
The thing is, I don't think she believes in any such lack!
I don't think that article is intended for those of us who already know most of the info in the article. Most of us could have written that article because we've been following them closely. I think this article was written for people who don't much about them, kind of a prequel to the run-up of Oprah's interview, showing a different side of The Harkles than most people know or think they know.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9332171/CBS-paying-Oprah-Winfrey-9M-air-bombshell-interview-Meghan-Harry.html
"CBS is paying Oprah Winfrey up to $9 million to air her bombshell interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry where they are expected to spill all about their dramatic exit from the Royal family.
The network has forked out between $7 million and $9 million in license fees to Winfrey's production company Harpro Productions for the rights to the no-holds-barred sit down with the Sussexes, according to a report.
The interview is shaping up to be big business as millions are expected to tune in around the globe to watch the already escalating tensions between Meghan and Harry and Buckingham Palace reach a head."
More at the link!
@JennS, Yes, a lot of it is old tea, but it's coming out in the Telegraph, not the Daily Mail, or the Daily Express, so it gives it more credibility. I don't think Telegraph would take the risk of printing unsourced rumors. It goes to show the Daily Mail does have good sources, even though it's perennially discounted. The London Times is also still highly respected even though it's a Murdoch property. I don't think Rupert likes to sully the reputation of his most prized news possessions. Even my super 'woke' children admit that Fox, his US news arm, is often a better source of factual news than more liberal news outlets. They just ignore the editorial stuff.
Oprah is being paid up to $9 MILLION by CBS for the interview!
Unfortunately I forgot my paparazzi to document my volunteer activity a la the Sussexes but I do it weekly.
Tomorrow I will post more Telegraph stories also NY Times if desired by Nutties.
IMO, MM is an opportunist taking advantage of the heightened racial awareness in the USA. This interview will be spun as as discrimination by BRF and staff along with meanness by Kate.
It will be interesting to see what repercussions MM and Harry receive.
Another source for background info on the couple is Royal Foibles. The writer was originally a fan of the couple but like many pothers turned against them. The writer also writes ab out Harry years before he hooked up with Meghan and spoke about his mental health issues and his love /hate relationship of the press.
Page 6 is also going to have a lot of coverage on the couple and it's not sugary like People, which is known as Kneepads in the USA.
I
PETRONELLA WYATT Meghan Markle has convinced cheerful Prince Harry he was desperately miserable all along
Petronella Wyatt, Author and Journalist
5 Mar 2021, 21:00Updated: 5 Mar 2021, 23:02
LET me get straight to the point about Meghan and Harry’s interview with Oprah Winfrey.
I disagree with my friend Piers Morgan that its broadcast is a scandal, given that the Duke of Edinburgh is recovering from heart surgery. In my view, it would be a scandal if it wasn’t shown.
Not since Peter Finch’s character threatened to blow his brains out on live TV in the 1976 film Network has anyone committed such a public act of self-destruction. When the credits roll, I have a feeling that the heads of Haz and Megs will roll with them.
The Prince of Sighs and the Duchess of Self Delusion have committed their ultimate act of folly. They should have remembered the saying “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. And boy, has their house turned out to be glass of the least durable kind.
That slick trailer promised heartrending tales of Meghan’s victimhood. These include her “silencing” by bullying palace officials and her “almost unsurvivable” ordeals, presumably at the hands of the British Press, to the extent that Harry says, between gulps, that his greatest concern was: “History repeating itself.”
But it’s all gone horribly wrong for The World’s Greatest Victim. No less a paper than The Times reported on Wednesday that Meghan had faced allegations, which she denies, that she bullied two female members of her private staff at Kensington Palace, who were then allegedly silenced by way of NDA agreements.
On a scale of One to Ten, with One being you are yelled daily at by your employer and Ten being having your family burn to death in Grenfell Tower and then you are homeless for a year, how much did you suffer in the Palace (or the house they gave you)?
CROCODILE TEARS
Delicious, isn’t it? To make matters worse for our tragic heroine, it was revealed that Markle sparkled at a banquet in 2018 in cascades of diamonds that were a wedding present from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is accused not only of ordering the assassination of a journalist (something in her dreams Meghan would doubtless like to do herself) but has kept the women of his country in virtual slavery.
Not a good look in both senses of the phrase. But Megs has always wanted to have her diamonds and wear them. I sometimes wonder into what sort of a mirror she looks at herself every morning?
The woman believes herself to be a swan among swans, the physical, moral and intellectual peer of such great figures as Emmeline Pankhurst, Audrey Hepburn and Mother Teresa. Where self-knowledge should be is a hole so large it could be filled by a new galaxy.
The apogee of Meghan's acting career was playing Rachel in Suits - 'how come her transcendent talent has languished unrecognised?'
It is not the Royal Family but Megs and Haz who should hide behind the sofa in embarrassment.
One striking irony about personalities such as Meghan is that they continually attack others for the faults that they themselves possess, using them as stalking horses under the cover of which they cry great crocodile tears.
Markle likes to present herself as a perfect presence, a woman of crystal, unsoiled, guileless, dewy. Harry, like all weak men, goes along with this as a bedroom back-seat driver to the extent of fanaticism.
Last year the couple were accused of cooperating on a book about themselves with the ridiculous title Finding Freedom, which begged the question did they think they were Mr and Mrs Nelson Mandela?
Only Mandela spent 27 years in a South African jail. Meghan spent just over one year in the luxury of the British Royal Family. No matter; she appears to see herself as a secular saint, and like a saint has to endure unspeakable suffering daily.
I cannot help but feel that Meghan actually enjoys being unhappy and wronged.
She seems to have convinced a once cheerful and uncomplicated Harry that he was really desperately miserable all along, and abominably ill-served by all around him, to the point where his once-smiling features have set into a permanent, resentful frown.
Let’s rewind to Meghan and Harry’s move to Los Angeles, in what looks like the first staging post on the Duchess’s quest to convince an awestruck world of her stature as an humanitarian and A-list personality; to take her rightful place in the pantheon alongside George and Amal Clooney, Serena Williams and the Obamas.
The harder she and Harry tried to coerce us into acknowledging their worth, the more they resembled gilt as opposed to genuine 18-carat gold.
We were treated to self-indulgent podcasts, patronising homilies on race and equality, the announcement of a tawdry and undeserved deal with the streaming giant Netflix, and then the photoshoot of pregnant Meghan lying on the grass beside a barefooted Harry. It tried so hard to be Hollywood, but it looked like Hollyoaks.
And the discordant soundtrack to all of this? Meghan’s continual, histrionic pleas for privacy, while acting like Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard, permanently ready for her close-up.
Meghan has made her distaste for journalists known at every turn, even suing one British paper. She has now accused The Times of “peddling a false narrative” to smear her character. That’s rich. Meghan peddles her own narrative so fast she could outdistance the entire Tour de France.
Moreover, it seems that some journalists are more her equal than others. One can only marvel that she and Harry have put themselves into the hands of Oprah, the world’s most ruthless operator, who will squeeze them like an orange and then cast the peel into the nearest refuse dump.
But Meghan’s entire life has been a masquerade. She thinks she is a brilliant actress, perhaps one of the best of her generation. But for some reason she never managed to win any parts worth having.
One 'can only marvel that Meghan and Harry have put themselves into the hands of Oprah, the world’s most ruthless operator,' our columnist says
IMPRISONED IN PALACES
Yet she attempts to set up her stall among the cream of America; among people whose fame is of the solid and enduring kind that is based on extraordinary talent and grindingly hard work.
Meghan’s one big chance to prove her merit was as a dutiful member of the Royal Family. When the curtain came up on the first act of her new, starring role, her audience — namely the British public — were warm to the point of effusion. So were the Press, though the Sussexes have singled them out for particular opprobrium.
The Queen even gave Meghan privileges, such as allowing her to stay at Sandringham before her marriage, that were denied to her sister-in-law, Kate. Could the barometer have been set more fair?
During the Oprah interview, Meghan will discuss “race in Britain”. Doubtless it will be some woke diatribe against the institutionalised racism of the British. Hard to watch straight-faced when Megs married a man who found it amusing to wear a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. Oprah, of course, will be suitably impressed and horror-struck by her devastating tales of life in the heart of the Royal Family. If only we had realised how wretched it must have been!
Imprisoned in palaces, forced to wear jewels and frocks beyond price, served, literally, on bended knee by liveried courtiers. Chauffeured around in stultifying limousines, protected and pampered at the expense of the British taxpayer. How humiliating for a couple who loudly trumpet their “independence”!
And, their supporters might add, what of the inhumane tedium of having to perform royal duties — surely that contravened their human rights?
Poor Meghan had to shake hands with unwashed plebs on a weekly basis. She even had to do walkabouts in the rain, for Heaven’s sake, and was a tragic captive of a thing called protocol. Meghan and Harry were actually forced to walk behind Prince William and his wife Kate. Even Mandela was never subject to such an ordeal.
The trouble is that this sorry pair have always relied less on their memory than their imaginations. There is a type of person who, according to their own account, is perpetually the victim of unwarranted criticism and unkindness.
People of this kind can, like Meghan, seem plausible and secure sympathy from those who do not know them. There is nothing inherently improbable about each separate story they relate — a treacherous father (Thomas Markle), a cruel article in the Press, an encounter with a bully, even an incident of racism. This kind of ill treatment does sometimes occur in the life of a famous person.
What in the end arouses suspicion is the multiplicity of villains whom it has been the sufferer’s ill fortune to meet.
Meghan was a tragic captive of a thing called protocol as she and Harry were actually forced to walk behind Prince William and his wife Kate
The Sussexes know that Prince Charles will not finance, ad infinitum, their LA lifestyle ...so they have turned to Oprah.
PERSECUTION MANIA
If one individual claims to receive almost universal bad treatment, the likelihood is the cause lies in themselves, and that they either imagine these injuries or behave in such a way as to arouse uncontrollable irritation. This appears to have led, in Meghan’s case, and now Harry’s, almost to a sort of Persecution Mania.
The Sussexes expect everyone to feel towards them the same unquestioning love and respect that they feel towards themselves. But neither have the talent to work for their high living, particularly Harry. They know that Prince Charles, who is, according to royal sources, hurt and dismayed by their ingratitude, will not finance, ad infinitum, the LA lifestyle of a couple approaching middle age.
So they have turned to Oprah as a way of building their financial “brand”. No matter that this may wound Harry’s closest family, including his father and grandmother, our irreproachable Queen, while her 99-year-old husband receives painful hospital treatment for a heart condition.
There was always a tragic inevitability about it. Having left the safety of the Royal Family and upped sticks to ruthless, hypocritical La La Land, they cannot escape the toils they have made for themselves.
Genuine celebrity is like diamonds; its value depends on a controlled and limited output, yet as the world endures a terrible pandemic, this pair will undertake a two-hour moanathon.
There may, nonetheless, be foolish and gullible people, the sort who are a sucker for conspiracy theories and tales of wicked royals — and there are many in America — who will believe them. But the sophisticates the Sussexes love and aspire to join will be laughing at them.
In urbane American society, in the world of the Clooneys and the Obamas, Meghan will never be taken seriously again. She has descended too deeply into the mud. That is why I say of Oprah; bring it on! "
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14250045/meghan-markle-convinced-prince-harry-he-was-miserable/
That said, we did a few year stint in London and moved back to NYC to work for a FAANG. The shift back to 2am emails and calls was jarring, but you get on with it.
Meghan is not a NYer and has never lived here. While I understand Type-As, Meghan is a Type-B word who is flailing about. There's no discernable career we can all pinpoint except a press obsessed loud mouth. If she had a demanding career, at least there would be a reason for her obnoxious and outlandish behavior. Instead she's just abusive and crazy.
After a 10-month dry spell going back to Archie’s first birthday in May, H.G. Tudor over at narcsite.com has started posting again with “Meghan Markle: A Less Than Royal Narcissist Parts 15, 16, and 17” which have all been posted during the last two days.
They are continuations of his The “A Very Series” which analyses well-known people who are narcissists, including Meghan, who has the most posts discussing her narcissistic motives and behaviors through the lens of a narcissist’s mind.
The three new audio posts go all the way up to this week’s allegations of Meghan bullying palace staff members in The Times of London and Meghan’s response to the accusations.
I highly recommend this series, but hope he publishes the print versions of his discussions. They are easier to digest in print form.
I love his analysis
Serena Williams
@serenawilliams
Living, Loving, and working to help you.
Here's a post from a thread called: Meghan was a BULLY to palace staff Part II: The Wrath of Oprah that I edited for language.
America doesn't give f--- all about Meghan.
And her days in court aren't over. I smell a lawsuit by the staffers she abused not far off, that may also include Buck House. Only BP will settle privately and announce changes to its workplace policy, further nailing in the public's mind that Meghan is guilty.
And eventually Meghan will have to do the same. The DM has already mentioned in print Melissa Tabouti AND brought up the Admiralty House hot tea story. Once those cats come out of the bag, no one will ever see her the same way again
They gonna bring this b---- down.
Oprah is a stronger and vastly more experienced media player than MM, and her Harpo productions would have had full control over the interview, its setting, art direction, presentation, and promotion.
I have looked again at the stills from the teasers, and this is what I notice. The setting is a beautiful gentle garden with white flowers, supportive sturdy furniture, a virtual garden of Eden. Oprah sits there dressed in soft pink, flowing skirt fabric, pink blusher, and looks like 'niceness' personified.
Harry when he appears is in his old grey hostage suit, which always makes him disappear and underscores his complete blandness and unimportance.
MM is dressed from head to toe in black, severe hairstyle, and extremely unsympathetic visually.
The aesthetics alone say that she is the evil wicked witch, about to be exposed.
The promotional set up for this has been that MM is hosting a hatchet job on the RF, but what if in an absolute master stroke, Oprah is doing exactly the opposite. Imagine the breathtaking shock value if she actually exposes MM for exactly what she is, and puts on display for all to see the hypocrisy, petulance, avarice and immaturity that has marked MM's short stint in the RF.
That would truly make it what Oprah is already calling, the best interview of her life.
Thanks for posting The Sun article on how Meghan made Harry believe he was miserable. An excellent article with an accurate IMO POV.
Totally agree with your analysis. It would be a masterful play on Oprah's part!
It's been hard to keep up with it all (especially as I really am supposed to be working on the taxes).
When is the Queen's message? and could someone post for us what is being said? I think that will be an interesting lead up to next one.
I noticed that although the claims are being made that the Duo will not be paid an appearance fee but the way I see it, there are lots of ways they could still get paid - it would called something other than appearance fee money. Maybe "visitation fee" or I would have said "usage fee" but I did read that it was not filmed at either house but a third one (why? just why if they both have these wonderful showcase homes would they need to be some place else? especially if they filmed outside, not in the house?).
BellaDonna - interesting catch, very interesting. She might be able to claim that people weren't paying close attention, she didn't exactly say X that is claimed but ... when people get cancelled, whatever they have to say doesn't matter, their voice (excuses/reasoning) gets drowned out ... might not happen for a while but that we are even seeing more and more articles which aren't spun sugar is a clue to a dam breaking I think.
It will be interesting - to see what happens next in this soap opera.
-usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/jessica--mulroney-stands-up-for-meghan-markle-amid-bullying-claims/
After Megsie publicly dropped her! I'm embarrassed for the silly twit.
I take slight issue with the idea of Meghan making Harry believe he was miserable; I think cheery, uncomplicated Harry was largely fictional and that the only thing Meghan did was to calculatingly provide a giant, grievance-laden trebuchet for the humongous chip that has been festering on Harry's shoulder for decades.
NeutralObserver, this was the best tea so far! Thank you so much for posting it all out.
*
I couldn't agree more. That was the best tea and most reading I've done here so far over the past few days!
Thanks Neutral Observer. Bravo! You are very much appreciated :)
It's (the Monarchy) survived 1000 years, some braindead washed up actress isn't going to make any difference.
She's like a flea bite on the arse of history.
You are far from the only ones. Everyone thought he was a charming, generous, wonderful man. He was to others in public but a nightmare behind closed doors.
Virtual hugs to you both and anyone else who here whose life has been impacted by a narc.
2021 Oprah is there to give Our Meg a platform from which to spout her delusional bullsh*t.
Now, if there is any shred of 1990 Oprah lurking inside, it's possible she may ask for a follow up interview.
But Oprah among millions of others in America, has lost the ability to see anything outside the lens of racism, be it real or alleged.
Still no rebuttals from anyone who worked for her once she entered The Firm, which says a lot to me, anyway.
I'mma going back to look up Oprah and Gayle King heh heh heh! Then all the other celebrities that I like reading about.
There are several threads on the Harks y'all.
Thanks for mentioning that site AL!
Thank you so much for posting that article — that was a spectacular read. Petronella Wyatt certainly has a clear view of the situation, and I hope she’s right that this interview will hurry on their overdue downfall. I also hope the royals had the opportunity to read this.
This reminds me of Charles. Not able to say no to requests for more and more money, and willing to take verbal abuse and insults from ingrate children. Charles will continue to take abuse, and won't take away titles. It will be up to William to put his foot down. It may be a few years.
Oprah lost her power about 10 years ago. Her O Network was a failure from the start. that's why the interview is on CBS. Gayle got her the gig. I, for one, don't think that interview is going to make Markle a saint in anyone's eyes. She's already a runaway train wreck, whose train horn is endless whining.
Oprah's time was in the 90s. As Enty has said several times, Markle is stuck in the 90s. If Oprah has a base, it's somewhere in the 50+ age group. That age group showed up for Oprah's WW events. Caring about one's weight, and caring about Markle are two different things.
I don't know how to do a link on my phone.
He looks very much like both H$M, he has Thomas's nose and has dark, thick red hair. Megs is pictured with no make up and what looks like a doo rag. She looks like staff! Lol.
I believe it's Archie. He looks too much like both of them. Probably an IVF baby.
It may be deleted soon because of the other kids in the pic so heads up.
https://www.instagram.com/silvertreedirector/
A close family friend gave his children everything and his children ended up being drug heads, who stole from him and are currently both in prison. A relative did the same thing with his child and his child turned into a drug head thief as well. While he hasn’t done a prison stint(only county jail)he does not have his children as a result of his drug use.
I can't see it because it doesn't come up immediately and I'm not on IG but yes it's as you described. He's actually playing with other kids and he looks more White than Black but def biracial. Same look as the basketball player who married Kim K. Don't remember his name.
Archie's a cute kid! He's real folks.
Also another interesting rumor from MumsNet before it got cleaned up was that the reason K cried during fittings was that M almost got physical with C (as in she held her hand tightly and moved her). This pretty much sealed the deal for W & K to keep their kids at arms length. I used to think all the tinhatters were just crazy but now most of the rumors being proved right over and over again I can believe this
I do not think that child is Archie because as others have noted, MM looks years younger in that photo.
Then who is he? Megs has no
make up on. Women of color often look younger when fresh faced. I do.
I'm waiting for the "it's been photoshopped brigade" to chime in...
That kid looks just like H$M as much as I want them to fall flat on their faces, I think they really have a son.
The Instagram poster also has many photos of a red-haired child (presumably hers?) on her page.
Society types aren't going to speak out against The Queen! This is where Meghan miscalculates her importance and her dominance. She actually holds very very little power.
@Not Meghan Markle...You are spot on, but I think it will have a much broader reach, going much farther than society types and aristocrats.
Think about it. If you are an influential mover and shaker in the UK, US, or any place in the world, would you align yourself with the Queen and the REAL royal family who stand for a millennium of history, tradition, and continuity OR a devious, greedy, untrustworthy, toxic pair of royals-hanging-by-a-thread who specialize in self-aggrandisment, chaos, division, and destruction with a hefty side of whining on the side?
That choice is a no-brainer for most people. My bets would be on The Queen and the REAL royal family over the barely royals any day.