It's finally here after all the salvos and claims of it being their story, their truth but has now shifted into not their lens. So? whose is it today? And tomorrow - is that someone else?
Given how hard and loose The Crown is (that they HAD to put up a disclaimer says something), with the trailer problems, will there also be a disclaimer on this?
The interview had quite a number of statements which were found (fairly easily) to be known as untrue. That was an hour long show. This is six of these (possible longer as no commercials on NF) and they have already found several inaccuracies parading as truth to someone in just the trailer.
What else will be discovered in the shows? And how will they be explained away? Already the claims are that this is just them telling a story and apparently those pictures are just shown to help create the mood for their story. So what/whose authority of using photos which are are not from actual events relating to them/their story said that this is within the bounds of justifiable, and therefore to be encouraged? If it is acceptable here, then what are the circumstances when it would not be?
One of the claims is that she had difficulty adjusting ... well, his mother had difficulty and then his wife had her own troubles, something with people having a different agenda than hers and behaved spitefully to her. Every generation has a new spin on how the married in have a glorious rock star start and then it seems to become undone. And, (sigh) it's always someone else's fault (just line up the usual suspects - death is no excuse).
As a side note, if they are claiming all women have/had difficulty adjusting, then why don't the men who marry in have the same "difficulties" adjusting and being named/photographed in multiple stories in the papers each day? I remember seeing something about PP and that he had a bumpy start what with his MIL not happy he married in and was vocal about it. He used that to go out and figure out something to do which also supported his wife and were things he liked. He created his own job description. But he wasn't the only male married in. Sure things might happen once or twice to one of the others but never to the same degree as the women. It is just odd that they never seem to have the same problems as the women do.
In the lead up, more and more comments are being allowed that people are more focused on paying the gas bill or buying groceries than interested in watching people whine about how their allowance (probably more than some annual wages) was cut off in their 40's while living in a multimillion dollar mansion. Or the cost of their wedding, all the new outfits, the baby shower or, for that matter, all the trips. The amount of money spent is breathtaking. And jaw dropping at just how fast it was spent.
That's not reading the room.
And, there are lots of calls to rescind the titles. In print. A tsunami is building.
Heck. Before the Queen passed, people were starting to show up with signs protesting them. And that was the story in the news - not what the couple was there for. I think the only reason it didn't get more traction at the time was that HM passed and people had respect for her and the new king. Those are people who will not to be watching or reading to change their minds about the couple.
And, more and more articles have are pointing out just how much the Palace tried to support and bring her into the fold so she wouldn't have these problems. They had learned and wanted things to be different (as in better). So there was handpicked staff. Highly trusted staff who knew the system to best guide the newbie. Those people haven't spoken much. Yet. It will be interesting to see how that is portrayed or will it get left on the cutting room floor?
So ... pay attention to any clear suggestions about how to bring change. It is one thing to say there is a problem. Prove it. Does it exist in reality and if so, proof is needed as is it an individual or a systemic problem as the change would be handled totally different based on what it was (providing it is real).
The other thing is ... if you aren't offering concrete suggestions on how to fix a real problem, well then, why aren't you any part of the nuts and bolts of the solution? Because if you aren't active in the fix, you are part of the problem.
By the way - just as youtube has a down arrow button, so does NF. It will be interesting to see if it is present.
(oh, I did like the take away the Sussex title and leave them with the DB one idea. All that stationary and business cards down the tube. At least printing the replacements keeps people employed)
Comments
The insults they have flung at his family are unacceptable. He basically says he is the only person in his family who has married for love.
I hope they get cut off for good. No invite to the coronation, no invites to anything anymore.
Summary of episode one. The story now is that they met on Instagram.
If the "Spare" is as tepid and ridiculous as the insufferable series, then they are truly Boring and shilling for just the dollars with Nothing to say.
@CatEyes
Exactly, nowt!
They want their children to be in the line of succession but hide them from the British public. Dangle a multi-million dollar Netflix deal in front of their noses, and the children are in every episode!
There's a clip of her mocking curtsying to the Queen. There is a funny look on his face as she acts out an exaggerated curtsy and basically mocks his family and the monarchy. Contempt? I am not sure he is aware that he feels this.
will not watch. will read the criticism. a bunch of “pics” of them with kids but do the kids show up in video form? probably not
so the claim harry was offered money to either stay away or come back without her is interesting when you hear of what is in this docudrama. they know they are completely out and this is the FU. any edits was to make the family look worse. now if he said in the docudrama that he or she was paid to walk away i think that would be explosive.
love the clip going them in the car thinking they are being chased by the paps. it’s like b movie acting. or a middle school film project. it’s kinda golden how bad it is.
there were a few clips rolling around about her meeting the queen and you can see the cringe on Harry’s face while she is talking. that part would be interesting. guess body language guy will deep delve so that’s good. maybe that body language foursome will do it too. i also wonder when the are on the couch together how much talking does she do versus him and if they ever interview either of them apart.
@Swampie
Read about them years ago,
bad blood.
First we have "The Crown" now we have "The Clowns.
I tried to watch the Netflix series, but couldn't take more than a few minutes of it. I may have to watch Derry Girls or Bullet Train as a palate cleanser. If I were the director, I would be embarrassed by this product. Netflix is beyond embarrassment, they just want $$$.
I fast forwarded to see if they slung much mud at the BRF. I couldn't find anything new, or even particularly damning. Maybe all the 'bombshell' talk was just hype to get viewers, or the mud will be flung in later episodes.
I also was curious to see any of pictures of the children. Except for one or two pictures of Archie, there were only pictures of kids with averted faces being clasped with alarming intensity by the putative parents per usual B & B practice. Little Archie as a baby reminds me of the cartoon character Henry, but now seems to have a thick head of very dark curls. The poor little guy runs a bit oddly, even accounting for his ages in the photos. I am very concerned about any youngsters in the hands of B & B. Poor little things. It was amusing the hear the husband talk about how proud he was of his 'biracial,'pale & completely caucasian looking children.
@Sandie, you are absolutely right, what couple in their late 30s early 40s giggles & smirks like teenagers when discussing the beginning of their relationship? What couple even finds themselves as fascinating as this pair does?!
Healthy toddlers & small children are constantly moving dynamos, male & female. It's the responsibility of their adult caregivers to let them actively explore as much of their world as possible without injuring themselves. I just don't get a happy vibe from the children B & B have been showing us. Hope that I'm wrong.
curious if any of his friends show up or if anyone new shows up to talk about them in the series. so far except for ashleigh and doria it’s kinda a latest usual suspects a little thin on the people they use to support their narrative. no suits costars? none of his friends pre mrs? no oprah or gayle or anyone at the baby shower? it’s who is not talking that’s interesting.
It was nothing
They are nothing
She filmed his proposal, phoned her friend at the time Jessica sometime during the 'show' ... I know people who in their twenties were more mature about marriage (and especially marrying a royal and then taking on a role as a representative of the head of state, which is not your own).
I do not believe that anyone other than Meghan did not want to invite anyone in her family.
I completely agree. Even though we find their naïveté and immaturity to be shocking and fake, it’s time for us to believe that they are truly ignorant.
Who, in their right mind would compare meeting the Queen to one of those medieval dinner arenas with jousting knights? Her limited view of the world is shocking! The curtsy dramatization looks pathetic.
I think this series will cement the world’s opinion of them as lying, petty narcissists. Once again, for good measure: when people show you who they are, believe them.
Harry....is clueless - the photo of the "curtsey" says it all. Saying in the implication that he was the only one who married for love? Why then did W wait 7 years to marry C? It was to make sure she could handle the sh*tstorm! Why did Charles do what he did for all those years post marriage to Diana? Hello? Harry? anyone in there?
To imply institutional racism for one relative who dared to wear a blackamoor brooch to an event is grasping at straws.
And once again, they are attempting to change the narrative as to something more noble than - we couldn't get what we wanted so we left.
I really hope Parliament / Charles does something - Prince Henry of Windsor is a nice title for a blood prince. George VI was wise beyond his years for thinking that one up - the title for recalcitrant royals.
I do wish Gayle King and other Americans would stop being so ego-centric and projecting their American experience of race on others. The UK does not have the same race problems that America does, despite the childish duo finding some talking head to claim that the royal family and the Commonwealth are all horribly racist.
Did you know that when British colonies in Africa became independent, they all chose to remain in the Commonwealth and none of them chose to keep the British sovereign as their sovereign. (This was way more than 50 years ago, when discrimination in America was thriving.) The number of African countries in the Commonwealth has grown because it is an alliance that African countries find very useful, as equal partners.
Please stop using American ignorance to condemn what they do not understand!
Let me take another angle ... I live in an African country that has a number of royal families. It would never occur to anyone to make a fuss about them not being 'representative', even though white, mixed race, Indian and Muslim Africans have called this country home for hundreds of years. The Zulu royal family especially makes strategic royal marriages with other African royal families, such as the Swazis, but never ever would they marry a white or mixed race person (except Nelson Mandela's nephew, who married a Muslim woman and converted).
For the love of all gods!!
so the scenes where she does the fake curtsy. he looks not happy but h th en his eyes go. or to the camera but someone behind her. who was there. you can tell he’s uncomfortable. would love to see that blow up after the cameras weren’t rolling
saw the archie humming bird clip. ok me. i would be crouched down next to the kid showing him the birds overhead. see can you see them. the kid is disinterested in him and the birds and harry see detached from him. very curious
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bbc-presenter-gasps-live-on-air-after-harry-meghans-claim-about-orchestrated-interview-112646070.html
Ashleigh must have been told by Meghan that it was BP hat refused to invite her and possibly paid by M to day so. It beggars belief that she believes that twaddle when only Doria represented the family and none of the white relatives were invited.
Of course, Britain is a racist country... I feel personally slighted when he says that. He linked the debate over Brexit to racism and 'horrible views'. I thought the royals - not that he's one, really - were supposed to be neutral politically. He had to bring in slavery, too. Totally irrelevant.
As for * mocking the BRF with her pretend bow - so exaggerated for effect! - and the formality of the BRF. What did she expect? I'm sure they're all relaxed behind closed doors but the first time you meet the in-laws you might need a bit of decency and decorum, but then she never had any.
I hope it backfires spectacularly.
@abbyh
I saw the comment in the DM this morning and going to post it (We have the Crown... Now we have the clowns). That sums it up.
The Dunn family representative made it very clear that they considered the US government had behaved very shabbily towards an ally.
a review in Variety. that’s not gonna help with the hollywood movers and shakers. bad press here does not get them more gigs.
Harry said some members of the family felt negative treatment in the media was "a rite of passage" - but he added: "The difference is the race element." (BBC news)
---------
What about Diana? Catherine? Where was the so-called race element? He'd never have said before that except he's been brainwashed (read: brain damaged) by the viper.
I take it you mean `Henry, Duke of Windsor'?
In which case, I heartily agree.
The profound narcissism is appalling — I agree with Sandie. M sees the world through an incredibly myopic, ignorant ugly-American worldview. (I’m a first generation American and was raised to be sensitive to both European and American social standards.)
My question to M in all of her “Boohoo. They hate me. They were mean to me.” crap is:
“Humanitarian that you are, what did you do realistically to bridge the cultural gap with your husband’s family? You expected them to make a lot of changes to accommodate you. What were you willing to do to accommodate and befriend them?”
@Raspberry Ruffle
The Kennedy's might be royalty in Massachusetts, and Boston, but not anywhere else.
Too many scandals. Ted Kennedy accidentally drowning a staffer, Ethel's cousin murdering a next door neighbor girl, Joe Kennedy connected to the mafia, JFK, a sex addict, and cheater, Ethel's shopping addiction. It goes on and on.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/?ref_=tt_urv
I wish someone in the press would pick that up from Jan’s DM piece and run with it!
Wasn't there a report of her, dressed ridiculously (to show she belonged with the Upper Class "Huntin', Fishin' 'n' Shootin' set?) parading up and down outside the former Daily Mail HQ in Kensington? Apparently, she was being watched by DM staff until someone said, wtte, `For -'s sake, somebody send a photographer down there to take her picture and put the girl out of her misery!'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3925422/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-Meghan-Markle-spotted-London.html
Hunter wellies in a smart part of London - ask you!
Many thanks for the Variety link. It was mostly good…that meaning coming from your side of the pond, because so much American media seems to be biased against the UK and the royals. It still appeared confused over the Commonwealth versus The British Empire. 🫤😟
@Maneki Neko said, Of course, Britain is a racist country... I feel personally slighted when he says that. He linked the debate over Brexit to racism and 'horrible views'. I thought the royals - not that he's one, really - were supposed to be neutral politically. He had to bring in slavery, too. Totally irrelevant.
It’s the same old narrative, but bringing politics into it he’s ventured into very dodgy territory! 😞As for racism, yes he’s been brainwashed in thinking that every criticism is based on that! They keep changing the reasons why they left…first it was the family, then it’s the media …now it’s the entire country’s fault! 😞😳
Tory MP pushes for law to strip Harry and Meghan of royal titles…
'Now strip them of their titles!': Tory MP leads calls for Harry and Meghan to lose Duke and Duchess status after 'aggressive and unbelievable' attacks on UK - as Netflix show slams Queen's Commonwealth legacy as 'Empire 2.0' and links Brexit to racism
https://mol.im/a/11517543
The pair have caused so much division and damage, something needs to be done! 😞
Critics on both sides of the Atlantic found common ground in negative reviews of the first three episodes of the series.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/arts/television/prince-harry-and-meghan-netflix-documentary.html
@Maneki Harry's point is that his wife should be exempt from being treated poorly by the press because she's "black." Sounds pretty racist to treat people differently based solely on their colour, if you ask me.
Considering that she always identified and looked Caucasian, I think it was *extremely* racist that she wore what amounted to blackface in the UK.
His wife wasn't treated badly because she was 'black'. She was treated badly because she was a witch on steroids.
Nope. The Title Duke of Windsor was given to EVIII as the abdicated Kind as they had to call him something. He was a King. Henry was a Prince and still is a blood prince. Prince of Windsor fits better as to the meaning behind the title and it's creation for another Man who left the Kingdom "for love".
can't you just see * blabbing it up if H was named the 2nd Duke of Windsor - the last title holder was a KING!! Insert eye roll here.
Nope - it should be clear to H and everyone else of a certain age the onus of the title and the bestowing.
Fair enough.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/07/two-graves/
-----
Au contraire, Charles and William did marry for love. Their wives might 'fit the mould', so what? At least they had the intelligence to adapt and know they had to conform, which his own wife certainly didn't, hence all the problems ever since. As for *, she married for fame and $$$. He obviously can't see it.
From Allison Pearson in the Telegraph:
‘It’s amazing what people will do when offered a huge amount of money.’ It sure is, Harry
Like Meghan herself, the series so far is a beautiful, highly accomplished, stylish, self-regarding and deceitful piece of work
What a busy week it’s been for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. On Wednesday, they received the Ripple of Hope Award from the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights organisation for their “moral courage”, racial justice work, and “belief in love over hate”. This morning, they took that stirring mission global in the first three episodes of Harry & Meghan, a no-expense-spared production by Netflix, part of a deal for which the couple has been paid a rumoured $100 million. As the Duke says when reflecting grimly on the behaviour of the father-in-law he has never met: “It’s amazing what people will do when offered a huge amount of money.” It sure is, Harry.
We knew from the appetisers that we were probably about to be served a banquet of saccharine self-regard from Saint Sussex of Montecito Inc, but this tooth-rotting content may require an urgent visit to the dentist.
The story begins in March 2020 with our brave couple’s flight from all that ghastly white privilege and media misinformation in the UK. “Hate stirred up against my wife and son,” fumes Harry from the Windsor Lounge at Heathrow (there’s only so much privilege a prince can be expected to jettison at one time).
“They are DESTROYING us!,” cries Meghan, addressing the camera bare-faced with her hair in a towel. Cue one exquisite tear from the eye of the never-really-retired actress. This is unintentionally hilarious. Why doesn’t the Duchess dry her hair quickly before recording the video diary? Don’t be silly, this is the raw, naked truth we’re talking about here, not some artful piece of propaganda calculated to garner sympathy for the pampered pair.
In case the viewer is wondering why Meghan filmed herself straight out of the shower, Harry explains that “a friend suggested we document ourselves through this time”. Please don’t insinuate the video diary was shot with a canny eye on cashing in later. If you do, that will unmask you as racist, someone who probably sings the national anthem wearing a Union Jack bowler hat and undoubtedly voted for Brexit (more of which later).
“This is a great love story,” explains the Prince, using love to justify the selfishness and petty revenge that follows. Over a montage of joyful Sussex family snaps in Vancouver and Montecito, Nina Simone’s How It Feels to Be Free is playing. Meghan is shown wafting in the garden clutching a handful of roses (as you always do after dark). “Both the babies are down, this calm night,” she coos. Archie is held up to be shown a photograph on the nursery wall. “There’s Grandma Diana!”
The blockbuster series is directed by Oscar-winning Liz Garbus, and whatever they paid her it was worth it. Like a high-end car ad, every sequence is beguiling, glorious; there are frictionless gear-changes from new-love rapture to deepening threat. Like Meghan herself, the series so far (three more parts will be released on December 15) is a beautiful, highly accomplished, stylish, self-regarding and deceitful piece of work.
A disclaimer at the very beginning says, “Members of the Royal family refused to comment on the content within this series”. It’s not the last instance of creativity with the truth. The Palace claimed yesterday that they weren’t even asked to respond. And no wonder. In a butter-wouldn’t-melt way, the compassionate Sussexes never stop hinting at the appalling inadequacy of Harry’s family.
And how glaringly, woundingly absent is the King. With Diana the presiding fairy godmother of this enchanted fairytale, Charles hardly gets a mention. Harry seems to have a closer relationship with Africa than his own father. Reflecting on multiple visits to Lesotho since his teens, he says: “The group of friends there had literally brought me up.” Ouch. How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.
Moving on from the “huge level of unconscious bias in the family”, Harry rudely contrasts his own marriage with that of his relatives. “For so many people in the family, especially the men, there could be a temptation to marry someone who would fit the mould as opposed to someone you are destined to be with.” In choosing Meghan, Harry had, of course, overturned that hereditary pattern of “head rather than heart. I am my mother’s son.”
Protecting Meghan from Diana’s fate is clearly the burning obsession of the prince’s life: it has fuelled an ugly paranoia which totally disfigures this documentary. I was a journalist during the period of the couple’s engagement and wedding and the coverage was overwhelmingly positive, ecstatic even. The media thought Harry’s girlfriend was a wonderful breath of fresh air, not “anti-Christ Meghan” as she is called in one of several highly-selective headlines featured here.
There is a comical scene at the start of episode two in which Harry and Meghan are in the back of a car anxiously looking around for paparazzi.
“Do we have that pap on a scooter?” Meghan frets. There are no cameras, darling, relax. So desperate are the Sussexes to show evidence of media harassment that Netflix had to use stock footage from events they weren’t even involved in.
There is a similarly bonkers and frankly offensive insistence that the “unfair” treatment of the Duchess arose from racism.The historian David Olusoga makes several portentous appearances to ram home the link between the monarchy and the slave trade. The Commonwealth, to which our late Queen devoted her life, is described as Britain “calculating a system of protecting its capitalist interests”. When did Prince Harry become a Marxist? And no mention either of Her Majesty honouring Harry and Meghan as special Commonwealth ambassadors to spread the very tolerance they claim to champion.
Most absurd of all – trust me, it’s a hotly contested field – is the roping in of the Brexit vote as an explanation for anti-Meghan sentiment, rather than her own high-handed behaviour. “Immigration is at the centre of Brexit… and immigration is often a cipher for race,” avers Olusoga. Never mind that the vast majority of immigration from the EU was of white people. Never mind the millions of decent people waving Union Jacks and cheering on that unsurpassably beautiful and hopeful day in May 2018 when the UK acquired its first biracial princess.
Hysterical hyperbole from the woman who spent less time being a working Royal than she has spent complaining about being a working Royal.
Every single criticism ever made of the couple is neutralised. A young Harry wearing a Nazi uniform? “I had a meeting with the Chief Rabbi and met a Holocaust survivor.” Angry charges levelled against Meghan by Samantha Markle? “I don’t remember seeing her as a kid at my dad’s house.” If that hasn’t seen off the wicked step-sister, Ashleigh, Samantha’s estranged daughter, is drafted in to testify to the close relationship she has with her Royal aunt. Not close enough to be invited to Meghan and Harry’s wedding, though. “With Ashleigh, the guidance was not to have her come to the wedding,” explains Meghan lamely. (Invite the George Clooneys instead of a sweet young woman who depends on you!)
As for the couple’s vile abandonment of Meghan’s father, who beggared himself putting his little darling through fancy private school and college, all I can say is: if Tom Markle hadn’t already had a heart attack, he would definitely have one listening to this self-justifying piffle.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex won an award for “moral courage”. What a joke. They make cowardly attacks on family members who can’t or won’t answer back and dare to call it empathy. Who knows what further spite the next three episodes will bring, but I predict viewers will have had their fill. With their invitation to the Coronation surely cancelled, Haitch and M have revealed their true Royal personas: two Drama Queens.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s Netflix show ‘deeply offensive’ to Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy
Series lands ‘direct hit’ on monarch’s decades of work, describing the Commonwealth as ‘Empire 2.0’
Hilary Rose endures Netflix’s real-life version of The Crown
On Tuesday night Harry and Meghan told a credulous audience at an awards ceremony in New York that they were “advocates of healing”. On Thursday Netflix released three hours of beautifully lit navel-gazing motivated by spite, revenge and greed, although I am British, and therefore horrid, so maybe I misjudged it. You might think that revenge would at least make for interesting viewing, but then if you cast your minds back, one of Meghan’s big complaints about life in the royal family was that Kate once didn’t give her a lift to the shops.
Either way, this “global event” that Netflix promised us? Honestly? Damp squib. I’ve watched more interesting in-flight maps. We’ve heard it all before, every last innuendo and brickbat directed at anyone they ever met who signed an NDA and can’t fight back. Who knows? Some of it may even be true. Meghan’s podcast had a fact checker, although a tedium checker might have been a better hire, but they didn’t bother with one for the Netflix trailer because not showing misleading footage is for little people, not streaming giants. Instead they mashed up a load of old pictures and words to suit H&M’s beleaguered narrative and told us how stupid we were to take it literally.
Unsurprisingly, Netflix goes to town with their real-life The Crown cash cow, and the opening credits are pretty much interchangeable with the fictional version. I watched it with subtitles, which told me helpfully that “sombre music” was playing at the start. We see our hero and heroine on their wedding day, and the late Queen in her carriage, and Diana, with weary inevitability, and finally the happy ending in California with bouncing babies and palm trees and sunshine and music in a major key. See what they’re doing there? Everyone lives happily ever after, or at least they do, and that’s the main thing. Only another six hours to go.
Most of what they both say these days is a word soup, so we might as well write our own to sum it up: lovely Haz maligned Meg hearts flowers first date wedding beastly royals nasty Brits chicken coop the end. If that doesn’t feel like your truth, try chicken Haz flowers Meg beastly Brits coop and see if that works better for you. Or make it up. They do.
Because Harry puts kindness and compassion at the heart of everything he does these days, he effectively accuses William of marrying Kate because she fits “the mould”, and of acting with his head, not his heart. He leaves the whole thing helpfully vague, though, because it’s always so much better that way, I find, when you’re the one doing the lobbing and the other side isn’t going to sue.
“She was trying to live in the moment,” someone says about Meghan. Someone called Silver Tree confirms that Meg was crazy about Haz, claims that she fell in love with him because of his Instagram feed, which was full of elephants and Africa, and definitely not pool parties in Vegas or swastika armbands. Someone who works for Archewell invites us to question the existence of the monarchy, and next time I want to know what someone who works for Archewell thinks of how we run this country I’ll be sure to ask.
Headlines from broadsheets are mashed up with supermarket magazines and Twitter trolls, because it’s all the same thing, right? We run through Diana’s death, Harry’s school years, meeting Meghan, yada yada blah. “I couldn’t believe my luck,” Meghan says, as well she might. Extraordinarily, she films herself talking on the phone to a friend about how Harry is preparing to propose right now, lighting the candles and everything. “It’s happening!” she whispers excitedly, and let’s just pause to reflect on her motivation there, shall we, way back in the beginning when everyone took her at face value and was thrilled? Episode one ends with the song You’re All I Need to Get By, and the subtitles read “although don’t rule out trashing your family for money” or maybe I imagined that.
“Her nature is to never make things more difficult for anyone,” someone says, and the subtitles say “but if they’ve signed an NDA then go right ahead”, but, again, the sun was shining on the screen so maybe I misread. Meghan says that her concerned friends asked if Harry was worth all the press attention and the subtitles show the crying with laughter emoji, and Meghan adds, “I could just authentically be myself but without so much preparedness,” and thank heavens she clarified that.
Our warm, hugging heroine relates how Will and Kate came over to meet her and she didn’t realise that her warm, hugging nature was “jarring for a lot of Brits” and on and on and on. Look, this is three hours of the same people moaning about the same things. Harry mumbles incoherent nonsense, Meghan enunciates nonsense very clearly, and the subtitles tell me that melancholic music is playing when we get to the bit about how she doesn’t speak to any of her family (except her mother) because she hardly knew them in the first place, or something. Do you care?
We run through everyone’s lived experience except mine, which is unprintable, and I have to wait until nearly the end of episode three for Meghan to talk about turtling. Imagine. It was worth it, though, as mentions of turtling always are. And so our three hours draw to an end, and they’ve managed to defame their families, the monarchy, the world’s press and most of the UK population. Can we sue? We have mashed together variously footage of Nigel Farage and Princess Michael of Kent, linked Brexit with Megxit and promised that next week, a family and a family business are in direct conflict and oh God, not again. I’m done. Over and out. “Stand by me,” Ben E King sings in the closing credits. “Or piss off on a private jet and whinge for a living,” read the subtitles, “either is fine.”
Hilary Rose made me snarf my wine with this:
I have to wait until nearly the end of episode three for Meghan to talk about turtling. Imagine. It was worth it, though, as mentions of turtling always are.
Can someone please segue from this gem to the other euphemisms at which Meg is a pro????
Not certain why they couldn't have just done this and been cool like the Beeston Bunch and left the Royals out of it. I would have tuned in every week.
Why play the racist card and I hate my family card? Just my opinion.
....
Just my opinion
God save The King!🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
You’re welcome 🙂. I also love the line “I’ve watched more interesting in-flight maps”. 😂
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11518633/GUY-ADAMS-asks-doesnt-stand-scrutiny-BBC-blasts-Harry-Meghans-untrue-claims.html
H&M's docu-series is dishonest and poorly made. Meghan pokes fun at British traditions and the reverence required of the Queen. Please, for those who think like me, boycott the series. Watching her will only make H&M pop. And we don't need them to feel like winners
....
Just my opinion
God save The King!🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Heh. I will watch it on YouTube with TBLG, According to Taz, etc. I don't care enough about them to have to wallow in their pity party.
I’m alway amazed at how quickly they lose the top news spot. So pathetic the duo…
now we need wales children to appear soon!!!
An article from the Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/harry-meghan-netflix-show/672400/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63908241
Thank you for the articles, especially the one by Allison Pearson.
The way I'd sum up the pathetic, lacrymose, whingeing Netflix docu-fiction is: totally unedifying. Something you'd expect from a celebrity, e.g. singer/actor etc, not a dooke and doucharse. The Kardashians area a class act in comparison.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11518633/GUY-ADAMS-asks-doesnt-stand-scrutiny-BBC-blasts-Harry-Meghans-untrue-claims.html
I'll just post this link to a DM article that refutes the lies told by the gruesome twosome in their Netflix self-pitying fest. After that, how can anyone believe what comes out of their mouths?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11518633/GUY-ADAMS-asks-doesnt-stand-scrutiny-BBC-blasts-Harry-Meghans-untrue-claims.html
They are using the naïveté and lack of knowledge of American’s (and others) to drive home their message about the Royal family, British culture and our history. I’m so absolutely appalled, infact I’m well beyond that. 😞 If any foreign national can’t get their head around that, they need to remind themselves of how they’d feel if the same was being said and done about their country. 🥹
I’m tired and truly sick to the back teeth. If this isn’t enough for action to be taken…eg stripping them of titles, stating they are no longer welcome within the royal family, I don’t know what is. 😞
A firm hard line needs to be drawn, and a public proclamation needs to be made to publicly state enough is enough, and for those two traitors to be air brushed from British history, inasmuch they are no longer relevant 😖
GUY ADAMS asks what else doesn't stand up to scrutiny in Sussexes doc
https://mol.im/a/11518633
Sussex MP calls for Harry and Meghan to be stripped of their titles
https://mol.im/a/11519949
TBW got nothing from the royal vaults other than a bandeaux to wear on her wedding day. I am sure if there was something in the royal vaults gifted to her as a lifetime loan, she would have worn it.
Queen Elizabeth II was no fool!
Remember when the late Queen's coffin arrived at Westminster for laying in state and the family gathered? Remember how low TBW curtseyed to the coffin? Now it just looks like she was mocking the Queen.
I think they have crossed the Rubicon, and that the last three episodes will just confirm that they have burnt all bridges to his family, country and entire life outside her.
I seem to remember that her first meeting with the Queen was at Andrew and Fergie's place. Ok, agreement, right?
But I seem to remember that Fergie helped her practice the curtsy. Does anyone else remember that?
Oops, another lie. Poor Ashley believes the lies she has been told.
-----
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/daniela-elser-prince-william-the-real-target-in-harry-meghan-netflix-doco/MUCJHFF7QZG65NVOJHLVJ3QDOQ/
This article is sad because it is supposedly a friend of William's talking ...
Thanks for copying and pasting that article ... the one I gave a reference for, it is the one Marnie posted.
----
Coronation? What does everyone think? I am definitely in the 'they won't be invited' camp.
They certainly 'misread the room'. I suppose that is what happens when you lock yourself up in an echo chamber and spend all your time filming yourself. Even in America, people prefer the Prince and Princess of Wales!
@abbyh
Yes, that is the story they told in the Oprah interview. They have always been very close to the York family (don't know if that is still the case) and were on the way to Royal Lodge for lunch when they got a call to say that the Queen had dropped by unexpectedly. When they arrived, Sarah rushed out and taught her to curtsy.
Thanks for copying and pasting that article ... the one I gave a reference for, it is the one Marnie posted.
----
Coronation? What does everyone think? I am definitely in the 'they won't be invited' camp.
They certainly 'misread the room'. I suppose that is what happens when you lock yourself up in an echo chamber and spend all your time filming yourself. Even in America, people prefer the Prince and Princess of Wales!
@abbyh
Yes, that is the story they told in the Oprah interview. They have always been very close to the York family (don't know if that is still the case) and were on the way to Royal Lodge for lunch when they got a call to say that the Queen had dropped by unexpectedly. When they arrived, Sarah rushed out and taught her to curtsy.
I recall that, too.
the king and queen just out played the sussexes. he just met Ryan Reynolds the owner of the Wrexham FC who is filming a docuseries about Wrexham ( of which he is part owner). for disney no less. ha. the day after netflix ha
Yes. You are correct. I remember that they were going to have lunch (I think at Royal Losge). Someone said that “Granny” was going to be there, too, and Fergie helped her learn how to curtesy. I thought the curtesy sequence in the Netflix show was very disrespectful. Very mocking of British traditions.
All this time I thought she was acting like an idiot because she thought it was cute. As it turns out, she actually *is* an idiot.
abbyh said...
Someone help me.
I seem to remember that her first meeting with the Queen was at Andrew and Fergie's place. Ok, agreement, right?
But I seem to remember that Fergie helped her practice the curtsy. Does anyone else remember that?
If you are having hallucinations, then so am I. I remember.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9336953/amp/Meghan-Markle-reveals-Sarah-Ferguson-taught-curtsy-met-Queen.html
I was appalled at the B's mocking curtsy video. The Queen was not just an elderly person whose family she aspired to join, but was the representative of an entire nation. Most Americans who've been raised with manners of any sort, try to be respectful of the office of the President, (who is our head of state, as the Queen is for Britain), even if we despise the President himself. When in Rome & all that. I feel she showed the same condescension & rudeness in the tours abroad she did in her brief time as a working royal. So not surprised she flunked the US Foreign Service exam.
I could not love this more (also, the partner is super funny—see Always Sunny in Philadelphia, definitely an acquired taste but I find it hilarious—and I just love what he and Ryan Reynolds have done). I might renew my Disney+ membership.
Here is the link:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11520895/King-Charles-beams-meets-Ryan-Reynolds-Prince-Harry-Meghan-waged-war-royals.html
Somewhere it has been noted that NF is allowing the excoriating comments to stand, as a roast to the Harkles.
Sparey looked really angry at *'s mocking curtsy to the Queen. I wonder if he's going to let that sink in, and be one of the things that drives him to divorce, or if he'll push it back into some deep recess of his head/heart.
Lipstick Alley MMUO poster
·
Have just heard Thomas Markle Jr is making a documentary that will tell the Markle side of the story and will include an unprecedented amount of files, photos videos and documentation that will tell a whole different story to the lies of Meghan It will be realeased in
Oh, now I would watch that! They'll probably have some former friends on, too, to tell us all about her bad self.
For a play in primary school when I had a minimal speaking part, there was the `bob' - right ankle immediately behind left heel, then a quick knees-bend-then-straighten up. What I'm pretty sure used to be the way of doing it if presented to the monarch in a line-up. The equivalent for chaps is the neck bow, best described as a `formal nod'.
The other salutation was the full one taught in dancing classes - holding one's skirts to th side (if in period costume or full skirted ball gown) one made a definite step to the right, brought the left foot behind the right, up to a foot behind it but at right angles, and sank as low as one reasonably could without falling over, then rising gracefully. This is very theatrical, often used in the finale of of a pantomime or historical drama. Joaquin Phoenix (real surname `Bottom) tried it to mock PW at the Baftas, I recall.
The equivalent for a chap is the sweeping bow from the waist. If the gentleman was wearing a hat it would have been removed with a wide gesture and be at risk it wiping the floor, especially if it bore ostrich plumes (think `cavalier').
What we see now from ladies is what I'd call a genuflection - right foot well behind body - done by men and women in church to honour the Real Presence. In a short skirt it's rather ungainly and that's what * executed. I perform it when leaving the pew to go up for Communion but it's inconspicuous beside the furniture. Before the monarch or an archbishop it shows reverence for their position on the church, as representatives of the Higher Power.
Used by * it was cynical, mocking and theatrical.
Traditional High Church Anglicans do it when crossing in front of the Reserved Sacrament. If that is not on, or kept behind, the altar one just bows. In the days when the Lord Chancellor sat on the Woolsack in the Lords, the Woolsack was bowed to because that occupied the place of the altar in St Stephen's Chapel where they originally met. I don't know what happens now.
She’s purposely acting like an ignorant (lying) idiot though. It’s not cool or funny, it’s a calculated move, and make things even worse, they keep changing their story. All we hear on this side of the pond is how American’s are buying their version and narrative. I’ve completely lost my sense of humour over the pair, I’m disgusted. 😞🥺
Back to writing Christmas cards. 🎄
https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-at-the-nottingham-academy-in-nottingham-167037767.html
her story of meeting the queen over tea. something about corgis loving her or some crap like that.
-------
Yes! I remember now
The corgis absolutely loved her right from the start. H complained that they always snapped at him or tried to bite his ankles but they looked contentedly at *. Of course, they could feel was a lovely person she was. I wonder what the official story is. Lunch at Royal Lodge? Next week it will be horse riding together with the Queen in Windsor Great park, I suppose.
For the record, I though B looked about as nice as she can at the Kerry Kennedy thing. I also thought there were a couple of photos of Archie looking very sweet & affectionate towards B & B; the photo where female B is rubbing noses with the baby, & the one where Archie was sitting on male B's shoulders. He didn't look as solemn & eager to escape the grasp of the adults as he usually does. The one of B in bed with Archie, while her baby bump looks slightly more realistic than it normally does, looks stagey & even fake (photoshop? The line where baby bump & Archie meet looks a bit hinky.)
It spurred further questioning which led to
there are also stories that they met over tea, the corgis adored her and strong family support of her. Just one of a number of articles with similar comments about the family and how the family viewed her from his and her mouth.
https://www.instyle.com/news/meghan-markle-queen-elizabeth-corgis-meeting
That’s a relief to hear, so thank you for that.😁😛Our media isn’t exactly measured when it comes to the true impact of the despicable duo in America. We have no real idea how they are viewed by the majority. It almost feels like we’re being bear baited by our own media. 🫤 I should remember that our own press can be anti-monarchists. 😟
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11520211/Harry-Meghan-Netflix-series-tries-blame-racism-world-press-conclude.html
While I understand that she is trying to appeal to her Sussex Squad demographic, I can’t help but wonder if they are trying to destroy the Commonwealth to hurt Charles?
accused the Harkles of lying. One of their journalists, Mishap Husain, who interviewed them for their engagement - remember that cringe making interview? - has hit back at claims her engagement interview with them in 2017 was 'staged': 'The BBC broadcaster gasped when she heard the claim on live radio yesterday morning before declaring: 'Recollections may vary' - the same carefully chosen words used by the Queen to dispute allegations made by her grandson and his wife to Oprah in 2021.' The BBC's royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said Meghan's claim media 'were out to destroy her' is absurd.
If the BBC accuses those two of lying, then it has to be bad.
And for those who always said that hiding the children was never about privacy or protection but about money - when the price was right, they would use the children ... you were 100% right.
-----
Like her podcast, they cannot sustain a high level of interest. However, they will ignore this and claim to have the most popular Netflix show ever.
"Harry & Meghan has become Netflix’s biggest show of the year in the UK after it dropped in a blaze of publicity on Thursday morning.
The first episode of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s documentary series recorded 2.4 million views on smart TV devices during its first day on Netflix.
The second episode had 1.5 million streams, while the third instalment managed 800,000, according to independently audited figures supplied by overnights.tv."
“The family blames Meghan for it all, really. They absolutely f****** hate her, basically. It’s a huge disaster,” the friend has told the Beast.
“Growing up, the brothers were so close. Harry would do anything to be with William. They lost their mum, and their dad was really disengaged, so they had this incredible, incredible bond. Everyone knew it.
“And then Meghan came along. Everyone warned him off her but he wouldn’t listen, and she just ripped him away. The bond is gone, completely gone and this film is just the latest betrayal. William really, really, really hates both of them now.
“It’s really toxic and destructive for all of them. At the end of the day, they are a family, and their whole family life has been ruined by Meghan. You can’t imagine how bad it really is.”
____________________________________
Now THIS is the type of no-holds-barred-screw-the-genteel-sh*t response I have been longing to hear. I
She whined that no one gave her guidance. In the video above it is confirmed that she rejected the help and guidance she was offered.
Do you notice that she insists that she gets special treatment on everything? He goes along with it and just enables her in her deluded narcisstic view of herself.
\
Meghan Markle’s half-siblings Thomas Jr. and Samantha hit back at ‘hurtful’ Netflix series
By Olivia Land
https://nypost.com/2022/12/09/meghan-markles-half-siblings-thomas-jr-and-samantha-hit-back-at-hurtful-netflix-series/
The DM is doing a recap of *'s illustrious career - I think that's a good way of cutting her down to size.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11521197/All-roles-Meghan-Markle-starred-acting-career.html
They seemed to have forgotten her role in CSY:NY. Just in case you need to refresh your memory or never saw the scene, here is a pic. I bet the BRF was impressed.
https://tinyurl.com/mvbnxmna
Prince Harry’s attacks on King in Netflix series may mean no way back
The criticism of Charles was insidious and he was given no credit for what he did as a father, Sally Bedell Smith writes
He may be the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and the head of the Commonwealth, but Charles was a virtual ghost in the first three episodes of the Netflix “reality” series Harry & Meghan.
Montages showed Charles and Diana with their young sons, Harry and William, and there was a glimpse of Charles shooting pheasants with Harry. Whenever Diana was shown, Prince Harry showered her with praise for her mothering and her “compassion, empathy, confidence, and warmth”, qualities that he said his wife Meghan also embodies.
When he referred to Diana’s explosive interview with Martin Bashir on Panorama in 1995, when she trashed her estranged husband and said he was unfit to be king, Harry excused her performance. He said that she spoke the “truth of her experience”. Rubbing salt in the wound for both his father and his brother, the episode included actual footage of the deeply flawed Panorama programme, which the BBC had promised never to broadcast again.
Harry’s own attacks on his father on Netflix were more insidious, and he gave Charles no credit for the genuine attentiveness he showed to both of his sons throughout their childhood and adolescence. What was his father to think when not once but twice, Harry referred to having a “second family” presumably more meaningful than his own?
In the first instance, he recounted that Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, with whom he founded Sentebale, a charity devoted to vulnerable children, gave him the “space and freedom” to “breathe, live and grow” during yearly visits for months at a time. Friends in Lesotho, he said “literally brought me up”. Later, referring to his decade in the army, Harry made a similar claim. Army life allowed him to have time with “normal people” and gave him the “lived experience that other members of my family wouldn’t have had”.
He further claimed that he had to “deal with the loss of his mother without any support or guidance”, which was patently untrue. Both Charles and the late Queen dedicated themselves to consoling the two grieving princes. When Harry grew despondent in his early thirties, Prince William persuaded him to seek therapy. His father, who had seen a psychotherapist for 14 years to deal with his marital problems, fully endorsed Harry’s decision to undergo mental health treatment.
It’s no secret that as Prince of Wales, Charles worked at a manic pace on dozens of initiatives he set up to give meaning to his role and perform significant service. But when his sons were young, he shared in their upbringing with Diana, bathing them in the evenings and building an elaborate treehouse in his garden at Highgrove House. He took them to the estate’s Home Farm, where they watched lambs being born and learnt the names of their father’s rare pigs.
One iconic moment was predictably included in the Netflix show to underline Diana’s supposed superiority as a parent. During a 1991 trip to Canada, Diana raced along the deck of the royal yacht Britannia with arms open wide and scooped up William and Harry with a huge hug in a blaze of camera flashes. She had, in fact, deliberately run ahead of Charles when they approached the ship, leaving him to catch up. He, too, publicly gave his sons hugs and kisses, but only one photograph of his affectionate embrace appeared in the press, while newspapers around the world led with Diana’s radiant display.
Equally wounding were Harry and Meghan’s jabs at the royal family, William and Catherine in particular, for supposedly being formal and cold in private as well as public. “I was a hugger, I’ve always been a hugger,” Meghan said. “I didn’t realise that was jarring for a lot of Brits.”
A superficial search of Google would yield abundant images over the years of Charles, Catherine, and William hugging strangers as well as friends and family. The late Queen may not have been a “hugger”, but despite her self-contained nature she was animated behind the scenes, famous for a laugh that echoed throughout the many rooms in her homes and for singing madrigals with her sister Princess Margaret.
The most damaging statements in Harry and Meghan’s show related to their allegations of racism in the royal family. Harry spoke of a “huge level of unconscious bias”. An especially stinging barb targeting everyone from the King down was from Afua Hirsch, known for her anti-monarchist views. She said she had initially perceived Harry as “just another senior royal, a little bit racist, very ignorant. I have watched him on this journey and see he has really embraced the education required for someone like him to transform himself into an anti-racist”.
It was ironic that the important jobs the late Queen gave Harry and Meghan to enhance their royal status were prominent positions with the multi-cultural Commonwealth that would have given them a meaningful platform as global ambassadors. “Nobody could have tried harder for Meghan than we did,” one of their senior advisers told me. “She could have gone out to visit the Commonwealth universities and talked about her women’s issues and whatever else. The Queen readily gave her permission, because she thought it was a good idea.”
With three more episodes still to come, it is too early to know whether Harry and Meghan will inflict serious damage on the senior members of his family and the monarchy generally. Both the late Queen and Charles treated their demands and insults with remarkable tolerance in the face of growing mistrust of their motives. Even after Harry and Meghan’s treacherous interview with Oprah Winfrey in March last year, the Queen telephoned Harry to keep him connected to the family. The problem was, according to one veteran courtier, “Meghan was always in the room. He can’t have a private talk with anyone”.
The Queen is now gone, and it seems highly unlikely that Charles will be ringing Montecito any time soon.
Lord Frost: Harry and Meghan Netflix show unfairly linked Brexit vote to racism
Tory minister Guy Opperman calls for boycott of streaming service
“ Lord Frost, who was Brexit minister under Johnson, said the suggested link “resurrects the tired old criticism that our decision to leave the EU was driven by racism — and even asserts that such attitudes worsened the pressures on their marriage”.
He added: “This smear just does not stand up to examination.”
Watched all. Snore fest.
Mrs. Dumbarton reads this blog. Because now she's commenting on Marjorie Orr's website, the last being an astrological analysis of those two awful people. Mrs. Dumbarton is attempting to clap back at comments not favorable to herself.
Here are photos of the paintings that Netflix implied are present in royal palaces - not one is on their premises, all owned by others.
WHSmith has it on a poster advertising ore-ordering. Husband saw it and thought it looked like a `Wanted' notice.
`Yeah', I replied. `Joint Public Enemy no 1.'
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/jennie-bond-says-prince-harry-095623427.html
and excellent article from Daily Telegraph here:
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-half-truth-prince-155400737.html
Sorry folks, I'm too worn out by them to post in full,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wFLm8S3mzk
Lousy acting from the Harkles.
Are Harry and Meghan being frozen out by the in-crowd? The Obamas, Oprah, Tyler Perry… the silence has been curious from A-list pals you would expect to be clamouring to support the Sussexes, says ALISON BOSHOFF
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11522607/Are-Harry-Meghan-frozen-crowd-silence-curious-list-pals.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11522741/Reader-outrage-Megans-disrespectful-Netflix-curtsy.html
This article features a some of the 8,000+ comments on the Daily Mail’s story on the pantomime curtsy.
MAUREEN CALLAHAN: The $100m 'Harry and Meghan' is panned… and finally the karmic wheels of justice turn against two untalented, ungrateful hypocrites. No one deserves it more – so let’s savor it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11518805/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-karmic-wheels-justice-turn-against-untalented-hypocrites-Lets-savor-it.html
I hope all y'all have happy holidays! SwampMan is having an operation right before Christmas (nothing serious, don't worry) so I may be missing in action for a bit. I am probably going to go to bed before wrapping up some Army men and dinosaurs for the youngest grandchild so that grandson can have battles extraordinaire at HIS house, not mine! (Son is going to hate this, bwahahaha.) The youngest granddaughters will all have art materials (again, bwahahaha).
Bow-Wow-Cow
With her sly mocking curtsy
the pantomime dame
Exposed her motives
deliberate and plain
Inflicting derision, scorn and pain
On a beloved Queen
and her glorious reign
Happy to go down
on bended knee
To those who would pay for
her services, fee
The milkmaid’s pail
doesn’t come for free
She’s upped her low game
running on empty…
Megievil Times
Call me malicious
But I’d find it delicious
If the press defamed
Blame and Maim
Wouldn’t take much
To kick ‘em into touch
Just careless whispers regarding
*the crying game…
*1992 movie with a twist😮
When Harry opens his mouth, why do we hear Meghan?
Viewers of the controversial new Netflix series on the Sussexes may be left wondering whether the Duke really believes what he says
Whatever else Meghan Markle might be guilty of, she could never be accused of not knowing her own mind. If you are planning on watching Harry & Meghan on Netflix anytime soon, you will be left in no doubt about what she thinks of the Royal family, Britain and the media (spoiler alert: none of them are positive).
In Prince Harry’s case, the picture is rather more confused. Here is a man who adoringly described the Princess of Wales as the “sister he never had” but who now appears to believe his brother only married her because she “fitted the mould”.
A man who tells viewers he was “literally brought up” by friends in Lesotho, having previously said his “upbringing” did not equip him to understand racism in everyday life.
As for his views on the media - the object of so much of his hate over the years - he now believes they are “an extended PR arm of the Royal family”.
The common factor in these changes of heart is that they represent pre-Meghan and post-Meghan versions of the Duke of Sussex.
Harry is not the first husband to pivot his views to align them more closely with the woman he loves, particularly where the wife is the more dominant personality.
But it leaves viewers wondering whether the Duke is saying what he actually believes, or is simply parroting the Duchess. Regular self-contradictions peppered throughout the episodes only add to the sense that Harry is a man struggling to know his own mind.
The wrestling match going on inside his head is at its most evident when the couple discuss the issue of bowing and curtseying to the late Queen.
Harry admits that explaining to his American wife-to-be that he had to bow to his own grandmother was an interesting conversation, but when Meghan runs with the topic and performs an exaggerated, actorly bow to demonstrate, there is an icy stare from him at her mocking tone towards the woman he loved so deeply, and in whose name he twice went to war.
For the pre-Meghan Prince Harry, the Queen was an ally who so memorably helped him prank the Obamas in a “trash talk” video to plug his Invictus Games project. For the post-Meghan Harry, the Queen is part of the problem; the head of the sinister, racist Firm that supposedly forced the couple into exile.
It is abundantly clear from the first three episodes that theirs is a marriage in which there can be no disagreements. Harry must pick a side, and that side always turns out to be Meghan’s.
Long before the couple met, Harry despised the media, including members of the Royal rota, who are accredited by the Palace to cover official engagements. He would regularly tell them to their face that they were “not invited” to travel abroad with him. It is a view he clearly still holds, as he says in the documentary that the Royal family’s “trauma” is what they “exploit”.
Now, however, he has to somehow incorporate his wife’s view that the British media are part of the Establishment conspiracy against her, hence his comment that royal correspondents are “an extended PR arm of the Royal family”. Clarity of thought behind his contempt has been replaced with muddled thinking.
The saddest change of heart comes with his attitude towards his brother Prince William and his sister-in-law the Princess of Wales. As a bachelor, he loved being the naughty uncle to their children, popping over to their apartment in Kensington Palace for roast chicken dinners and binge-watching Game of Thrones with a woman who, he said, had helped fill the emotional gap left by the death of his mother Princess Diana.
As he burns whatever remains of his bridges with Britain, there may now be no going back for Prince Harry, regardless of whether his views are truly his own.
Mocking the curtsy is them crossing the Rubicon, predicted by a couple of good tarot readers a few months back.
There has been a thought swirling through my head the past couple of days: 'Of the millions of amazing American women, of all races, he could have perhaps married, he picked her.'
Are they going to try and walk this back and blame the 'filmmakers'? Of course they are. That is how they operate.
Harry and Meghan have been accused of tarnishing the late Queen's legacy by the Commonwealth's newest member nation.
Gabon said it was “surprising and patronising” for the couple to use their Netflix series to attack the organisation, which was Queen Elizabeth’s proudest achievement.
The country’s high commissioner to the UK criticised “clumsy” comments about “the Empire 2.0”.
Aichatou Sanni Aoudou said: “To think we would sign up blindly to be vassals to another empire is to suggest we are foolish. This is why many in Gabon would feel patronised by these clumsy remarks.
“We entered the Commonwealth last year with our eyes wide open and hearts full of excitement.”
There was astonishment inside the Royal Household and at the headquarters of the Commonwealth in London that the Sussexes used footage of the Queen to criticise Britain’s role in the Commonwealth.
The full article appears in Express, Dec 10, 2022:
https://archive.ph/nBvPF#selection-679.0-691.196
Does this sound familiar? Also said by a nutter with very long black hair parted in the middle.
Gran Slam
Her despicable act
mocking the Queen
Filmed with the intention
the Queen would have seen
Has backfired badly
on those two
The Queen suddenly dying
made it taboo…
I couldn't wait for the footie to be over, now I dread it!
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/really-bbc-royal-reporters-incredulous-reaction-to-harry-and-meghan-claim-084308094.html’
Really?!’: BBC royal reporter's incredulous reaction to Harry and Meghan claim
Ellen Manning
Fri, 9 December 2022 at 8:43 am·3-min read
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's claims that the media were trying to destroy her do not "stand up to scrutiny", the BBC's royal editor has said.
Nicholas Witchell said royal officials had "desperately tried to help" the couple, but found it "very very difficult".
His comments come after the first three episodes of Harry and Meghan's Netflix six-part documentary aired to global audiences after months of waiting.
The initial episodes include criticism of the media and its intrusion into the couple's life, as well as Harry's experiences as a child.
Speaking on BBC News at Ten on Thursday, Witchell said Buckingham Palace would have been relieved that criticisms did not resurface over race in the royal family, saying: "His main target once again is the media, as it has been on so many occasions in the past. Press intrusion on a gross scale, that is a theme running through all three programmes."
He added: "But at times I think credibility is severely stretched."
He referred to a statement by Meghan in which she declared: "No matter what I did they were still going to find a way to destroy me."
Witchell said: "Really!? I’m not sure that claim would stand up to fair-minded and proper scrutiny.
"Royal officials who were assigned to them tried desperately to help them - they found it very very difficult. And yet it is the Sussexes who are convinced that they are the victims..."
(Article continues with what Harry says – the stuff we’ve heard already… endlessly)
It is not their house - for some bizarre reason, they filmed in a rented house.
I can top that. A few years back, I bought my nephew a drum set for Christmas.
I think has less to do with them, than with us. They believed we were so naïve that we would accept their foolishness. M probably thinks that in this period of people tearing down institutions that are racist, she would be embraced as oppressed and discriminated against automatically. And it did work for a long time. She told us what she was like. Her father told us what she was like. Piers won't stop telling us. She wants people to think she was just misunderstood. No, she had an agenda. And Harry is an embarrassment.
Youtuber called Leilani Of Barbados had interesting piece of information (9.12.2022) about the courtship of those starstruck lovers: They only met 13 (thirteen) times before engagement!
She did not tell where the information came from, but if true well explains the prince of Wales's recommendation to take it easy, or?
“Nicholas Witchell said royal officials had "desperately tried to help" the couple, but found it "very very difficult".”
@WBBM: Narcissists rarely take advice from others. It is why narcs rarely seek psychotherapy. They are right and the whole world is wrong. They are apex-level know-it-alls. They believe they know everything and everyone else are idiots. Taking the advise of others challenges their overblown senses of grandiosity and entitlement. Meghan has been bossy since she was a kid. Go watch the video of her assuming the role of queen at a friend’s birthday party and ordering the other children around. She was already displaying narcissistic behavior.
Another likely reason why they were “very difficult” to help is that Meghan, who had already taken complete control of Harry, had been feeding victimhood as a member of the royal family. I recall reading that before they married, she had already started her campaign to convince him they needed to leave the UK and move to the US. Keeping key publicity and other support staff in the US even after marrying Harry was a big clue she would return to the US as quickly as possible.
Grabbing the title via marriage and exploiting Harry for her own selfish gain back in the US was always her goal.
So going through the motions of even pretending to listen to assistance from palace staff such as Samantha and others was a waste of her time.
As we now know Harry’s wife was already sniffing around for potential business deals in the US very early in her marriage to Harry to bring her the money, fame, status, and power in the United States that she could never hope to achieve as an aging, mediocre actress with not much of a future after Suits eventually ended. Harry has served as a tool to open doors for her in the US.
The bit from YouTube about Harry & Meghan meeting only 13 times sounds suspiciously untrue to me. Not only did they claim to have met every 2 weeks for about 1 1/2 years before getting engaged (that would mean around 65 meetings), it's well-known that Diana claimed she and Charles met only 13 times before getting married.
https://people.com/royals/prince-charles-princess-diana-relationship-timeline
Diana's claim may or may not be true. It came from one of her "I was such an innocent victim" performances, but I really doubt 13 meetings happened with both mother and son. Plus most of the meetings Charles and Diana would have had would have been like real "dates"-- dinner, for example. Harry and Meghan spent many days living together & traveling together on each "date." Hardly the same. I do think H&M only knew each other on a "vacation basis" & that could be a problem for most couples marrying after having only that experience. But H&M expect to live like they are on vacation every day anyway!!
today’s saturday funny. soundly despised.
so evidently scoobie do is out today complaining about light royal reporter coverage in Prince Andrew. this is confirmation that the witch is pissed and upset and mad. guess she’s Winning again. oh and the public humiliation continues with the press reporting that their high profile supporters (clinton’s obamas oprah and tyler perry are all crickets right about the couple).
Re meeting 13 times…
At the time of them dating (before the they we’re engaged), she was still filming in Canada. You could almost count the times they saw each other by how many visits she had to the UK, and they were few and far between. I think there was an occasions maybe 2 or 3 times where he was spotted in Canada. As most royals date for at least 2-3 years before even considering getting engaged, this was worrying fast! 😞🥴
I think we've all got a bead on the 'bizarre reason'.
They had no problem trumpeting their 'exclusive' address before they'd even moved in, complete with how many bathrooms it's got and all the other amenities. We have seen extensive photos of the interiors, exterior aerial shots of the pool, tennis court, gardens . .we've seen "Archie's Chicken Inn" . . what does that even mean? Another filthy urban dictionary reference no doubt. They've had zero problems going on and on about this luxurious home and shooting any number of little Internet projects allegedly from inside . . but they are now zealously guarding their privacy 'at home'? But what about all the thick-necked guys they've hired as their security? Why suddenly too shy to let the Netflix cameras film them chez maison with les enfants?
Hmmm . . .let me think, let me think. Maybe because they don't own that house? Maybe they rent sections (living room/backyard) for photo shoots by the hour, as that house was advertised for circa 2020 when they allegedly bought it?
As for shooting candid, unstaged video of two small children at play with their 'parents' . . fuhgeddabowdit. I have seen some still photos of a child allegedly Archie with his little hand on a photograph of dear departed Granny Diana . . (something tells me that Harry's late mum would have struggled mightily with the label "Granny Diana". Di would have been a glamorous 60-something and would have lobbied for something less . . elderly in sound, I'm sure. How would Diana react to the fact that her second-born never ceases in commoditizing her in death to line his own pockets?) . .there's a photo of Haz kissing an infant on the head, allegedly his daughter.
Hphhff . . I remain agnostic. If the kids are there, healthy, happy, everything in order . . why NOT film them? Isn't this what she's been waiting for for the last 5 years ever since getting engaged to the ginger rube . . exactly THIS?
If Harry's Wife weren't such a psychotic b-in unsteady heels (except when she chooses to be barefoot) but more relaxed and approachable, she could have had a nice little cottage industry in doing seasonal photo spreads for the women's magazines. But that's obviously not her target market, even though she's older than some of those readers now.
I'm standing firm in my conviction that the entire Montecito existence is a packet of lies.
Re. reports that they met only 13 times prior to engagement . . Hmm, shades of Charles and Diana (10 times or thereabouts) . . but H married for LURVE!! Admittedly, a dirty weekend in Botswana and watching your new lady squat in the bushes has to count at least quadruple the points for 'a date'.
Do I believe they saw each other every two weeks for 14 to 16 months? Nope. They lie about everything so they probably lied about that. But I also believe that she was not going to risk him getting away so he was persuaded to spend a fortune on flying her first-class to the UK every couple of weeks for a weekend. I think it was for the wedding in Jamaica that she got her first taste of a private jet and she never looked back from that moment.
As I said above in a comment I doubt that's true. But even if it was, I don't think it's such a small number of meetings because:
We were told their 3rd date was a 5-day trip to Botswana. That's hardly like a 3rd date of dinner and a movie. They reportedly also spent time in Zambia and Botswana during a 3-week holiday in Aug 2017. They attended that Jamaican wedding for a long weekend in spring 2017 (whether planned or not they ended up together.) There was also supposedly a trip to Iceland to see the Northern Lights. Whether they saw each other every 2 weeks as claimed in the engagement interview really isn't the issue. Obviously they didn't spend only 13 days together! Cell phones have also changed the nature of long distance relationships.
If it's true before they got engaged Harry introduced her to The Queen, Andrew, Sarah, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, the Spencers, and they spent time with Eugenie in Canada, that certainly suggests they had time together-- in fact, it sounds like there may have been more "family introductions" than many 30-something couples do before marriage (although it's weird AF he never meet Thomas.)
I still think the problem was most of the time spent together wasn't "ordinary life" for either of them. She had summers completely off from filming. Even if he'd been doing fulltime royal duties, that not always what most people think of as fulltime. It's not 5-day 40-hour weeks. It often has flexibility most working people do not have. (Not the ability to easily cancel at the last minute but the ability to block out a week here and a week there for no work obligations. That's rare for most working people.) And royals take a very long summer vacation most people don't have.
H&M seem to have expected much of the same after marriage-- no responsibility for doing anything at any particular time esp in the summer, the ability to block out time frequently, lots of luxury trips, people anxious to entertain them, unlimited clothing & travel funds at any time, no need to consult anyone about anything...
I'm annoyed by being constantly deluged with Netflix ads stating that the Discount D&D are more popular than The Crown, and they tout 2.3 million viewers watched! Maybe it's even true, but I'm not sure. I know that a substantial minority were watching for errors or because they were being paid for reporting.
I look at 2.3 million viewers out of a US population of over 330,000,000 and was wondering how, exactly, this is a big hit? Are Netflix's numbers that abysmal? Lex Friedman's podcast has 2.43 million subscribers, he talks about substantive issues in depth, and doesn't have the overhead that Netflix does. Joe Rogan also doesn't have the overhead that Netflix does, and he averages 11 million listeners per podcast.
I'm not in the industry. To me, that viewership isn't promising for any future work for the Narc Nobles. Can anybody tell me how these numbers are incredibly good?
gfbcpa said...
@Swamp Woman
I can top that. A few years back, I bought my nephew a drum set for Christmas.
@gfbcpa, my brothers bought drum sets for my son, too! We eventually became band parents and had to attend all of the marching band competitions and performances (grin). We did the money raising thing. We paid for band uniforms. We manned food booths at fairs and carnivals for the band. My brothers live out of state so I couldn't force them to 'volunteer' with us.
He was in several bands in high school aside from the marching band. We would get up in the morning after a gig to find several anonymous teenagers wrapped in blankets sleeping on sofas and chairs and on the living room carpet. We just woke the daughter, tiptoed out the door into whichever vehicle wasn't blocked in, and out to breakfast.
I would take a mega pile of salt with anything those two said about their relationship. Look at how many different versions we’ve had about how they met and how and the circumstances he proposed to Maggot. 🫤🙄
I do agree that the 13 times (before the engagement) was probably attributed to Diana and Charles, but the difference here was the families knew each other, there’s centuries of history there too. 🥴
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Netflix documentary series is 'pretty disrespectful’ says Nana Akua.
https://youtu.be/ce1aJPwYwSQ
PUBLISHED: 09:02 EST, 9 December 2022
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11521001/A-Royal-pity-party-media-slam-Harry-Meghans-100M-snoozefest-Netflix-docuseries.html
'A Royal pity party': US media slam Harry and Meghan's $100M 'snoozefest' Netflix docuseries as 'a hypocritical attention grab' in which the Sussexes show 'just how pinched and unimaginative their presence on the world stage has become'
Variety is surprised by 'just how narrow their vision of their fame is, how pinched and unimaginative their presence on the world stage has become'
The Wall Street Journal declares: 'A viewer really has to be on board the royal soap-opera bus not to be bored out of one's mind'
Viewers at home have also written off the series in no uncertain terms with Rotten Tomatoes showing a measly audience score of just 15 percent on Friday
The reception is a hammer blow to the couple, who presumably imagined the world would be enchanted by their inside story
The reviews are in for Harry and Meghan's hotly-anticipated, $100m Netflix tell-all - and US critics are less than impressed.
Descriptions range from 'A Royal Pity Party' to a 'Dull Diary Entry'. One summary is less diplomatic: 'A hypocritical attention grab'.
The reception is a hammer blow to the couple, who presumably imagined the world would be enchanted by the inside story of their departure from Britain's royal family.
Viewers at home have also written off the series in no uncertain terms. Rotten Tomatoes showed a measly audience score of just 15 percent on Friday morning after nearly 1,000 reviews - most of them one star.
Descriptions from armchair critics ranged from 'unbelievably boring' and 'dog toffee' to 'vomit inducing' and 'raging narcissism'.
Variety's review expresses surprise at 'just how narrow their vision of their fame is, how pinched and unimaginative their presence on the world stage has become'.
Yes, indeed. I've had a bellyful of toxic narcs in my time, so am well aware of their typical patterns of behaviour. The point that struck me is that it's a BBC royal reporter who is speaking up.
BTW, I've identified pointers to relatively minor narcs that I haven't ever seen mentioned:
-If you give then a present they don't think much of, they will surely let you know, sometimes in no uncertain words. If it was, say, flower bulbs, which don't perform as expected, it's insinuated that you deliberately bought crap. (Beware of tulip bulbs - if the recipient lets them dry out at the root, they fail to flower... but it's your fault)
- They will tell in your own kitchen that you're doing something wrong (ie not they way they do it).Whether it's how to crush garlic, warm the teapot or use a grater, they have to inform you that they are the Authority on the subject. Yet ask them not to empty the tealeaves down the easily-blocked drain and you get full-blown oppositional defiance.
- and as for hypocrisy, I've been criticised for presuming to go ashore in Valletta (`I wouldn't go there -don't you know how they shoot wild birds???')
Well yes (husband had a 2- year posting there) but this was from someone who eats every morsel of foie gras she can get her hands on when in France.
She gloats over the money her father-in-law made from the silver he `found' in bombed-out Bristol churches - which the law called `looting' and which I'd also call `sacrilege', given that this came from communion vessels, many of great antiquity. Yet she also believes my father must have pulled strings to get me into university - which he most certainly didn't.
Also, when she brought her tailgate down too quickly as my husband was still getting thing from the boot, she told it was his fault for getting in the way. She'd given him a very painful blow to the head - no apology.
@Marnie. Ouch! Catherine Mayer’s article in the Guardian was decidedly anti-Royal. By now, most people find their claims of racism to be petty or untrue. I think they will come through this ordeal in better shape than before.
@Hikari. I’m in your corner. They do not live in Mudslide Manor or they would show some of it off - like that huge beautiful courtyard, or pictures around the pool - true, idyllic SoCal living. They would be rubbing their climate in the faces of everyone in dear, old Blighty. BTW, I still love your writing and think you could write some awesome articles for any publication, but especially as a Royal correspondent. 😁
@Svetlana Great callout! He was probably being truthful when he said he didn’t remember much about his mother, and should have stopped right there. I don’t think he regrets the Nazi uniform as much as he is going to regret marrying in haste and not taking his time. His dear Mother advised her boys on choosing a life partner wisely. He blew her off, just like he did on her final phone call to him. He lied about making decisions with his heart, because his temper absolutely rules his life.
@BarkJack_
·
4h
Echoing Daily Mail: True. Some 'close' to M&H, (incl. original financial backers) are making distance.
Constant headline-grabbing crabbing off-puts Hollywood.
Pair are also pulling the rug out from themselves: failing their self imposed 'auditions'. They're really on their own.
-----
With no one calling for roles, they had to cast themselves!
"self-imposed auditions" ... interviews, NETFLIX docu-series, the podcast.
Producers and executives around the globe sit back and watch the Harkles fizzle on these projects, considering these events testing grounds.
7:39 PM · Dec 10, 2022
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1601583122621272064?s=20&t=edaJ9GtOPwhALB_haKfBng
And how insulting they are to the billions of citizens of Commonwealth countries, many of whom are not white...how racist to assume that these people are not smart enough to decide their own futures and choose what might work for their own countries.
Harry and Meghan, ‘trolling’ royalty
People only ever really watch soap operas for the joy of seeing other families fight
Freddy Gray
Wouldn’t it be amusing to see an actual fly-on-the-wall job about Netflix’s new Harry & Meghan documentary? Imagine the scenes behind-the-scenes. The duchess rehearses her crying face in consultation with her make-up specialist. The duke glares at himself in a mirror. “I had to protect my family,” he repeats over and over as he fingers his apricot beard. The lighting team try to coax along the impossibly capricious royals only to suffer their own nervous breakdowns after Meghan accuses them of disregarding her mental health.
Or maybe that’s not the entertainment people want. Television these days is all about “structured reality” — or rubbish glossed up as revelation. It’s up to you, the viewer, to decide how much you can be bothered to disbelieve. “No one knows the full truth,” says Harry, in the second teaser Netflix released this week. “We know the full truth.”
How does that work, exactly, H? Well, the “full truth” apparently involves presenting “accredited pool” royal photographs — i.e. images over which Harry and Meghan had control — as evidence of media intrusiveness. It means splicing together shots of Harry and Meghan with images of a crowd outside a Harry Potter film premiere that took place five years before the duke and duchess ever met — as well as a clip of a crowd waiting for the glamour model Katie Price outside court and a gang of paparazzi surrounding the car of former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Is this some sort of edgy statement about the way the media manipulates our perceptions? Or just a load of flashy cobblers? Harry & Meghan could end up being an inversion of Netflix’s other royal drama, The Crown — the characters are real but it’s far less believable.
Harry, for his part, seems almost sweetly obsessed with his own personal truth-bombing campaign. This includes his mind-blowing news that, as he puts it, “there’s a hierarchy of the family.” He’s talking there about the royal family there. In another dazzling disclosure, Harry says that when it comes to royal stories and the press: “There’s leaking, but there’s also planting of stories.” Gee.
Arguably Harry’s most astute moment comes when he says, with a hint of malice, that royal publicity is “a dirty game.” So it is. He, his wife and their media handlers appear hellbent on their mission to cause as much trouble as possible for the royal family they’ve left behind — in particular for brother William and sister-in-law Kate. Why else would the Sussexes have released the first attention-hogging trailer for their show last week on Twitter as the Prince and Princess of Wales visited America? “That really pissed William and Kate off,” says someone who went on the US trip. “They felt ambushed.”
Harry and Meghan, for all their talk about combatting cyberbullying, appear to have mastered the art of “trolling” — that’s online slang for deliberately winding people up. On Tuesday the pair accepted the Ripple of Hope award from Kerry Kennedy, the niece of John F. Kennedy, for their “heroic stand” against “structural racism” in the monarchy. Meghan and Harry spoke at the event and she talked of “sweeping down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
Netflix has kept tight-lipped about the precise allegations leveled in Harry & Meghan, yet palace officials have long been bracing themselves for another attempt to smear the British monarchy as vile and racist. There’s also mounting concern in court circles about Harry’s memoir, Spare, which is coming out on January 10.
William and Kate are not innocent when it comes to the dark arts of PR, mind. Back in 2019, when Harry and Meghan were being rebuked for taking private jets while lecturing the world, the then Cambridges helpfully got snapped boarding a budget Ryanair flight. And in March last year, just a week after Harry and Meghan’s notorious Oprah Winfrey interview, Kate happened to be caught on camera, dressed down in Barbour and jeans, paying humble tribute to the murdered Sarah Everard at a vigil near the Clapham Common bandstand. It’s a dirty game, remember.
Harry’s people, or at least his publishers, are understood to be lining up a volley of British media hits to promote his book and further annoy his family. William and Kate’s “strategy is to respond by being worthy and serious,” according to one source. The couple visited Scarborough last month to raise awareness about mental health and cost-of-living issues: “Expect them to be somewhere even worthier when Spare comes out,” says the same source.
Wouldn’t it be better — or “trollier” — just to announce William’s own bombshell autobiography, Heir, in early January? No, no, Kate and William are eager to imitate the late Queen’s highly successful approach to life on the royal front line: pitching in nobly with the ribbon-cutting humdrum at home and doing the dignitary routine abroad. In Boston last week, the Waleses must have been pleased to have rubbed shoulders with senior members of the Kennedy family — America’s closest thing to royalty — whereas Harry and Meghan received their made-up woke gong from the seventh child of Robert F. Kennedy. “They had a Kennedy-off,” says an insider: “William and Kate won.”
The new Prince and Princess of Wales also met President Joe Biden, who happened to be in Massachusetts on a fundraiser at the same time. ‘It was all very last minute,’ says a source. “But the White House were if anything keener than Kensington Palace to make it happen. That sort of thing gives Kate and William a sort of clout that Harry and Meghan just do not have.”
After Elizabeth II’s death, there was said to be a bit of muddle among the various palace aides as to who should do exactly what, as the royal households all shuffled up a notch. But nothing brings the King and the Prince of Wales together like incoming fire from Harry and Meghan. In this strange way, Harry has managed to make his paranoia real. He has convinced himself that “the firm” has conspired to destroy his marriage from day one and now, with all these hostile public performances, he acts in a way that makes it impossible for his family to do anything other than work against him. This compounds his persecution complex. Some therapist should probably suggest that to him.
Or perhaps Harry and Meghan are suffering from something similar to what the nineteenth-century French psychiatrists Charles Lasègue and Jules Falret identified as folie à deux, a disorder whereby two individuals in close association become codependent on a shared delusional system. In such cases, the shrinks say, a husband and wife can act “as a resonator, increasing the pitch of their narcissism.” Harry and Meghan aren’t just cynically fishing for empathy in the great lakes of woke America, then. They fully believe themselves to be star-crossed lovers destined to bring down structural racism — a Bonnie and Clyde against the system.
It’s also possible that the Sussexes realise at some level that they are fast losing that precious “clout.” The American elite can be just as snobbish as our own, and egocentric Hollywood stars aren’t all that impressed by a breakaway duchess who used to be an actress in Canada. Some newspapers gleefully reported that Harry and Meghan were “snubbed” by Barack and Michelle Obama on the occasion of the 44th president’s sixtieth birthday. “Meghan and Harry are just not in that same league of celebrity,” said the royal expert Dickie Arbiter, who monitors such matters. The point is, if influence-mad celebrities feel they must side with Harry and Meghan or William and Kate, they will probably choose the couple closer to the throne.
That may or may not have something to do with the decision of Mandana Dayani, president of the Sussexes’ Archewell foundation, to stand down this week. “Dayani’s transition was mutually planned, with intent for the duke and duchess to now take full lead of their company,” said Meghan and Harry’s “global press secretary.” “They go through so many staff it’s hard to know what is going on,” says another royal insider.
Will the Harry & Meghan show follow a similar path to Archetypes — a sharp spike in interest or initial disgust followed by a slow descent into irrelevance as the algorithms catch up to the fact that people don’t really care about Meghan and Harry’s worldview? Or will the feud between Harry and William keep audiences glued throughout the Christmas period? People only ever really watch soap operas for the joy of seeing other families fight. It’s just that little bit extra-special at this time of year.
It is a very short article and it doesn't give sources,but it sounds true: She spends a lot of money. He was not concerned about money and status until he met her. She was not happy with FC and wanted Windsor Castle. The Queen gave in on some fronts and gave her far more than their status called for.
Thank you so much for the Julie Birchall commentary. Hilarious. She and Hilary Rose should do a podcast together about the dastardly duo. It would be greatly entertaining. Could you please tell us the source of the article?
Birchall did make one error, when she named MIsha Nonoo as the childhood friend of M’s that said she was always obsessed with Diana and the Royal Family. It was actually Ninaki Priddy. But that’s a minor complaint.
My favorite lines:
“Sadly, the iconic actress she is beginning to resemble is Norma Desmond, the tragic heroine of Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard, who shares her vast mansion with a devoted retainer who discovered Norma, married her and made her a star and now acts as her servant, humouring her deluded fantasies of a comeback.”
“Looking back, Meghan may well treasure this documentary as her optimum moment, her place in the sun, with the eyes of the world on her at last; I can imagine her watching this in a darkened room, her beauty fading, like Norma Desmond in her lonely Californian chateau.”
“
I agree about the salt for sure. But I believe H&M were photographed at the airport headed for Botswana in 2016. And from what Will reportedly said to Harry, that trip and/or the one in 2017 prior to getting engaged truly did happen.
I don't think any of the problems we see today arose because H&M didn't take enough time to get to know each other before getting engaged. If the time dating mattered, it mattered only because it wasn't typical of what life together could be like later.
Frankly to me it's likely either 1. Both had an interest in putting on a false front to the other & more time would not have mattered. M was a great humanitarian and had pulled herself up by her bootstraps to become independently wealthy. H was a rich prince and independent actor completely in charge of his own royal destiny. (None of that was true, of course.) 2. They already knew what they'd do together and neither planned to exist happily as a married couple working within The Firm. Harry resented his position in the hierarchy behind Will and she resented years of Hollywood rejections.
I also think it's not unusual for people in their 30s to decide fairly quickly if a person is "the one." I've known couples who got engaged & married in less than a year and decades later are doing fine. So I'm not at all sure it was a time thing. And for all we know, H&M won't divorce anyway.
Americans will laugh at how ridiculous Britain’s traditions are.
-----
For someone who's supposed to be so 'whip smart', she's pretty dense. Our traditions might appear ridiculous, that's subjective and whatever you might think of them, you should respect other countries' traditions. She just totally ignored traditions and protocol, in fact I'm sure she took a particular delight in ignoring them and laughing at the country and the BRF. If she thinks her p¡$$-take of the curtsy was funny then she's the only one. What is she, 10? (a child would have more sense).
I definitely agree taking time to get to know each other wouldn’t have made any difference. Maggot wasn’t going to let him go, he was her golden ticket to worldly fame and fortune, and he was locked in and in lust.
I only mentioned the 2-3 years being the norm for royalsto date before they get engaged, as they do need more time, especially if they are senior royals with a role of duty to carry out. Maggot and Mole aren’t normal mentally healthy individuals, yes exactly that, they hatched their plans of a life together and what they’d do. 🫤
WBBM, According to Lady C, King Charles is restricted to doing too much with regard to Mole. It’s believed mentally (Mole) is in a precarious position and would exit this life sooner rather than later.
@Marnie. Ouch! Catherine Mayer’s article in the Guardian was decidedly anti-Royal.
------
The Guardian is a liberal, left-wing newspaper and not pro monarchy so no surprises there.
Seems like H didn't prepare her for anything.. . . H seems to take ZERO responsibility for his lack of "help".
--------
She had plenty of help, or at least, offers of help: Catherine, Camilla, Sophie plus various aides. She wasn't the least bit interested because she doesn't care and she knows better anyway. Anyone with a brain and manners would have asked what sort of outfit would be appropriate, i.e. very casual, smart casual etc but she's too stupid and arrogant for that. And then it's the others' fault that she wasn't properly attired (they're too formal and rigid!)
As for British customs and traditions...many rooted in centuries of history...they are deserving of respect, not mockery. Gawd, I can't stand this couple and I hope HMTK comes up with a way to cut them off completely.
I wholeheartedly agree, our traditions would seem quaint, odd and quirky to American’s. Maggot made it her MO not to understand or be respectful, she thought she was better and knew better. Yes I agree, she thought she was being funny by doing that pee-take curtsy. She’s so self unaware I’m embarrassed for her. 🫤
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11524767/Thomas-Markle-texting-Meghan-sick-bed-wedding-Harry.html
You wrote in reference to Hillary Rodham Clinton "...a commentator says the real fun is to see hillary (who is supposedly nasty in real life and i have a first hand story on that) is like after the cameras are off."
Please give us the scoop! I am here, salivating and gleeful. I await your scoop.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11524887/Harry-Meghan-told-stay-AWAY-King-Charless-coronation.html
So the demotion of 56 independent, modern states of Commonwealth to past centuries colonial hazy backwaters is just and right way to prove how the mr and mrs have been mistreated at their former home in Britain.
Some papers tell us that they have decided to come back to England after the "book" and start working as senior royals again, so the mrs (via IMDB) informs us that she is going to participate the coronation festivities next year as "herself".
@Maneki Neko,
I wholeheartedly agree, our traditions would seem quaint, odd and quirky to American’s. Maggot made it her MO not to understand or be respectful, she thought she was better and knew better. Yes I agree, she thought she was being funny by doing that pee-take curtsy. She’s so self unaware I’m embarrassed for her. 🫤
I would respectfully disagree. Most people are not completely crass like Walmart Wallis and her cringing ginger dog who looks worried about being kicked. (He should be very fearful. I hear the World Economic Forum is calling for people to kill their pets.)
We have our traditions but they are not the same throughout the nation. Ours depend on the historic settlement patterns. Some of us have hierarchies that rival the royal family.
After Finding Freedom, the Oprah interview and the NF Diaries, I wonder how many different versions of their “lived experience” they going to sell to the public? (What does lived experience even mean? I hope a reporter asks them🤭) They could continue supporting themselves for years by making up new stories about how they met. It’s not like they are going to let an uneducated and untrained Royal correspondent question their truth, are they?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/20715519/meghan-markle-turned-happy-prince-harry-against-britain/
If this article is accurate, the Sussexes need to be told to not set foot in the UK. I am concerned that H&M will sell themselves to an American tv network who bids the highest and we’d see their sorry faces sitting in London working for a network as commentators.
They would also set up their own contrived appearances around London and the UK, and possibly even in Commonwealth member countries in order to attempt to upstage and fling poo at Charles to do their best to put a cloud over his coronation and direct the media attention at themselves as victims again.