The Duke & Duchess Of Sussex: Harry, Meghan & Children

[CuriousParker]

Discussion regarding Harry, Meghan & their children.

Pictures are only allowed in this topic if they do not fit in any other “Pictures Aplenty!” topics.

No fashion talk.

[film noire]

Robert Jobson is the Royal Editor of the Evening Standard. He's also a piece of garbage who thinks joking about Archie being dangled off the balcony during the Coronation by Charles - a la Michael Jackson and Blanket - is knee-slappingly hilarious:

"King Charles' Coronation on May 6 coincides with Harry and Meghan's son Archie's fourth birthday. As per tradition, the royals are expected to gather on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after the ceremony at Westminster Abbey to watch the procession. With this in mind, Robert Jobson joked that the monarch would blow out his grandson's birthday candles and then held his hands out in imitation and referred to "that Michael Jackson thing where they hold him over..." Jobson said it in homage to the way Michael Jackson notoriously did with his son Blanket on the fifth floor of Hotel Adlon in Berlin in November 2002."

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1054278-prince-harry-meghan-markle-fans-lose-cool-over-vile-joke-about-archie

These people are disgusting. All of them are well over fifty, and should know better than to either laugh at the idea of a three-year-old being in danger, or too morally lazy to challenge the idea of it being funny.  Repulsive.

And if this is how they behave on camera,  can you imagine what kind of crap they pull behind closed doors?

 

Edited March 28 by film noire

[Bethany]

If they can talk about small children in this manner I can only imagine what they will be like when Archie and Lilibet hit their teens.   And just to add,  I don't appreciate that headline "Harry and Meghan fans lose cool over vile jokel"  I would sincerely hope you don't have to be fans of anyone in order to feel that children should be off limits when it comes to "vile" jokes.

Edited March 28 by Elizabeth Anne

[ancslove]

And Harry goes nuclear! 

"The Institution was without a doubt withholding information from me for a long time about NGN's phone hacking and that has only become clear in recent years as I have pursued my own claim with different legal advice and representation," he said.

Harry added: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the bubble burst in terms of what I knew in 2020 when I moved out of the United Kingdom."

[film noire]

6 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

  And just to add,  I don't appreciate that headline "Harry and Meghan fans lose cool over vile jokel"  I would sincerely hope you don't have to be fans of anyone in order to feel that children should be off limits when it comes to "vile" jokes.

Yes. God knows I'm no fan of Camilla's  (Really? Had no idea, film noire! ) but anybody suggesting Harry should dangle her youngest grandchild off the Windsor balcony would be a toxic asshole.

 

1 hour ago, ancslove said:

And Harry goes nuclear!

Thanks for the link, acnslove -  it's "feet to the fire" time, alright:

"I am bringing this claim because I love my country and I remain deeply concerned by the unchecked power, influence and criminality of Associated" he said. "The evidence I have seen shows that Associated's journalists are criminals with journalistic powers which should concern every single one of us. The British public deserve to know the full extent of this cover up and I feel it is my duty to expose it."

Good luck to him - if Harry (and his fellow claimants) break the death grip of the tabs, it will be a great day.

[gingerella]

4 hours ago, ancslove said:

And Harry goes nuclear! 

"The Institution was without a doubt withholding information from me for a long time about NGN's phone hacking and that has only become clear in recent years as I have pursued my own claim with different legal advice and representation," he said.

Harry added: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the bubble burst in terms of what I knew in 2020 when I moved out of the United Kingdom."

I hope he and the others pressing charges win handsomely! My favorite part of the article was this snippet:

"After making a surprise appearance at the High Court on Monday, the Duke of Sussex returned on Tuesday for the second day of a legal case..."

Why? Because Harry slipped into London without the paps and sleazy tabs knowing anything about it. I think it's telling that clearly nobody in The Firm knew he was coming and look at that, no leaks about his visit! Coincidence? I'm thinking not. Also, I love that this lawsuit is a group of  ery high profile people and not just Harry. I hope they win big. 

[BloomsburyRez]

9 hours ago, ancslove said:

The Institution was without a doubt withholding information from me for a long time about NGN's phone hacking and that has only become clear in recent years as I have pursued my own claim with different legal advice and representation," he said.

 

I followed the link but there was not a lot of elaborating on this. Is Harry trying to say that the palace knew his phone was being hacked and did not care? Because let’s say that’s true - that even grandma didn’t care about his safety or wellbeing. In what world would “the firm” be happy about any royal’s private conversations listened to or texts read? For that matter location information as well. Any of them could be venting about someone else say Harry and William complaining about Camilla.

If he’s trying to say his phone was hacked at some point and the palace didn’t disclose how they handled it including cyber security steps that’s believable since most or all of the family do not know the steps taken at different points for security. I remember one year at trooping of the color (back when a certain former working royal was still a working royal) Eugenie posted a photo on Instagram that she’d taken of her father ready to ride with a new regiment for the first time. She had to remove it although it’s probably still out there because it was taken in one of the private hallways in Buckingham Palace and showed enough of doorways etc to be considered a security risk.

[film noire]

1 hour ago, BloomsburyRez said:

I followed the link but there was not a lot of elaborating on this.

A bit more info, here:

"Elsewhere in his statement, Prince Harry claimed the royal institution withheld information from him to prevent legal action from being taken amid the News Group Newspapers (NGN) phone hacking scandal back in the early aughts. Prince Harry said that, due to Palace policy, he didn't realize he could actually bring a claim to court until years later.

"The Institution made it clear that we did not need to know anything about phone hacking and it was made clear to me that the Royal Family did not sit in the witness box because that could open up a can of worms," he wrote. "The Institution was without a doubt withholding information from me for a long time about NGN's phone hacking and that has only become clear in recent years as I have pursued my own claim with different legal advice and representation...

"To this day, there are members of the Royal Family and friends of mine who may have been targeted by NGN and I have no idea whether they have or have not brought claims," he wrote. "There was never any centralised discussion between us about who had brought claims as each office in the Institution is siloed. There is this misconception that we are all in constant communication with one another but that is not true."

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/prince-harry-slams-royal-institution-for-allegedly-withholding-information-from-him-on-phone-hacking/3192384/

 I think part of the "witholding info" angle has to do with rebutting the Daily Mail's claim that the lawsuit/complaints are past their expiration date. If many of these claimants only recently found out how widespread and corrupt the illegal behaviour was - or stil don't know, as Harry says about his own family - that potentially undermines the "too late" argument.

[gingerella]

2 hours ago, BloomsburyRez said:

Is Harry trying to say that the palace knew his phone was being hacked and did not care? Because let’s say that’s true - that even grandma didn’t care about his safety or wellbeing. In what world would “the firm” be happy about any royal’s private conversations listened to or texts read?

@BloomsburyRez  I've always thought that 'The Institution' is more a reference to the courtiers, staff, and all the people who pull the puppet strings of the BRF. I could be completely off base with that, but that is what I've always assumed. And it makes sense given all we've learned from Harry's public disclose about the different staff selling out other family members to curry favor for their own employer. So in that context I assumed 'The Palace' referred to the shit stirrers. Maybe I'm wrong though...

[Mittengirl]

Part of the problem I am having is figuring out exactly who is being referenced - are “The Firm”, “The Institution” and “The Royal Family” the same entity?  If so, stick with one label, for clarity’s sake.

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, Mittengirl said:

Part of the problem I am having is figuring out exactly who is being referenced - are “The Firm”, “The Institution” and “The Royal Family” the same entity?  If so, stick with one label, for clarity’s sake.

The royal family is the actual family--Elizabeth, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, etc. The Firm encompasses all the courtiers and staff who help the family run things. The Institution is both.

[Ohiopirate02]

4 hours ago, gingerella said:

@BloomsburyRez  I've always thought that 'The Institution' is more a reference to the courtiers, staff, and all the people who pull the puppet strings of the BRF. I could be completely off base with that, but that is what I've always assumed. And it makes sense given all we've learned from Harry's public disclose about the different staff selling out other family members to curry favor for their own employer. So in that context I assumed 'The Palace' referred to the shit stirrers. Maybe I'm wrong though...

Harry also hints that Elizabeth was not as involved those last few years as what was assumed.  In Spare he talks about wanting to have a chat with Elizabeth before the Sandringham Summit and she was at first receptive, but then a vague someone stepped in and suddenly Elizabeth was too busy to talk to Harry.  It's very well possible that Elizabeth was not fully briefed on the phone hacking scandal by her staff.  I think many people assumed that Elizabeth as queen was fully aware of everything happening and was the one calling the shots when it may have not been the case.  

[ancslove]

I'm pretty sure The Firm does refer to the family themselves, although it may be more of an informal nickname.  I'm hoping that the court case will make Harry show his proof for his allegations.  He's saying nothing new here - to be expected since this is just preliminary statements to see if the case does actually go to trial - but he's never really shown his evidence before.  One thing that may hurt him is that he falls back on the old "Never complain, never explain" as the BRF policy he was made to follow, and yet he's said recently that that motto was never the strict instruction that people assume.  

[Bethany]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I think many people assumed that Elizabeth as queen was fully aware of everything happening and was the one calling the shots when it may have not been the case. 

Absolutely.  The Queen was a wonderful woman but she was also, obviously, an increasingly elderly woman.  It is no insult at all to her to feel that as she aged she stepped back a little, at least behind the scenes.  Harry is probably the only person from within the family circle to come right out and say that "granny" was behaving, at least in some ways, as one would fully expect a woman in her 90s to behave.  

[BloomsburyRez]

11 hours ago, film noire said:

The Institution made it clear that we did not need to know anything about phone hacking and it was made clear to me that the Royal Family did not sit in the witness box because that could open up a can of worms," he wrote.

Thank you this makes more sense. I do understand his frustration however I also understand the institution’s position. That time frame was well before William married and had children so King Henry IX was still a possibility. He would have had more rules and concerns about conflict then for example his cousin Peter Phillips. The closest example I can think of in the US is while many US presidents (and First Ladies) have law degrees and were practicing attorneys, in post presidential life they no longer can practice law due to the perceived power imbalance.

Wasn’t Phillip the one who coined “the firm” due to his own frustrations in the early days of his wife’s reign? It is also very believable the Queen stepped back more then the public will know during her final year, she was most likely in a great deal of pain too. But she appeared to be in full mental acuity. It’s also a bit disingenuous (albeit understandable talking about someone viewing a grandparent) that the times the Queen allowed special favors for Harry were due to their relationship and the times that he was not allowed something was the result of someone other then her making the decision. 

[gingerella]

4 hours ago, ancslove said:

I'm pretty sure The Firm does refer to the family themselves, although it may be more of an informal nickname.

I think we are all in agreement about that. We were talking about 'The Institution', who I think is more than the family if them at all, and more about all the actors that make things happen around the family. But I cpild be wrong!

[Mittengirl]

Didn’t Harry make some mention, maybe around the time of the Oprah interview, that he was the only one who could protect the Queen from certain things?  I would have liked to have seen the look on Aunt Anne’s face when she heard that.  I’ll bet she would not have taken kindly to it.  I imagine her saying some along the the lines of, “Oh do get over yourself, you stupid prat.”  I do not think it would have set well with either of his grandparents, either.

If I were Harry or Meghan, Anne is the one I would most want to not be alone in a room with.  I would guess she wouldn’t hesitate to let them know if they have displeased her in any way.  If they disappear some day…

 

Edited March 29 by Mittengirl

[ancslove]

Harry said last year, when he visited the Queen briefly on his way to the Invictus Games, that he wanted to make sure the Queen was protected and had the right people around her.  IMO, it was one of Harry’s odder and more obnoxious statements.  

[gingerella]

14 minutes ago, ancslove said:

Harry said last year, when he visited the Queen briefly on his way to the Invictus Games, that he wanted to make sure the Queen was protected and had the right people around her.  IMO, it was one of Harry’s odder and more obnoxious statements.  

It may have seemed odd then, to me as well, but now that I'm reading his book it makes sense. I didn't realize that the family appears to have little say in what goes on wrt just about everything, and the courtiers/staff are the puppet master pulling the strings. So in that context his comment makes more sense to me.

[Bethany]

3 minutes ago, gingerella said:

So in that context his comment makes more sense to me.

It also makes sense if you assume (as I do) that the Queen was frailer at that time than the public was seeing.  I certainly can speak to how much more protective I felt towards my mother in the last months of her life than I had ever felt before.  She was a strong assertive woman but there reached a point where she needed others to advocate for her.  That may not be true for the Queen of course, and I do feel she had other family members close to her who could take on that role if needed, but it's not going to come as any surprise to me that a grandchild would voice these feelings.

[ancslove]

I think right now, we mostly only have Harry's word that the Queen wasn't really in charge in these last few years, and he has a noted tendency to attribute accessions that he wanted to her personal allowance, and denials of his requests to the courtiers and private secretaries around her.  

But my bigger issue with his statement here is that even if he's right, he left.  He was out of the country, barely went back to visit, wasn't involved in the Institution.  His statement wasn't just insulting to everyone else who was around the Queen, including the rest of her family, but it was extremely self-aggrandizing because realistically what is he doing?  

[Notabug]

1 hour ago, ancslove said:

I think right now, we mostly only have Harry's word that the Queen wasn't really in charge in these last few years, and he has a noted tendency to attribute accessions that he wanted to her personal allowance, and denials of his requests to the courtiers and private secretaries around her.  

But my bigger issue with his statement here is that even if he's right, he left.  He was out of the country, barely went back to visit, wasn't involved in the Institution.  His statement wasn't just insulting to everyone else who was around the Queen, including the rest of her family, but it was extremely self-aggrandizing because realistically what is he doing?  

I felt there was also an implication that the family members who were still surrounding the Queen, including his father and brother, did not have the Queen's best interests at heart.  It isn't the first time Harry has asserted that his way is the only right and correct one. He cuts no slack for anyone who doesn't agree completely with him.  It makes me take everything he says with a very large grain of salt.

As far as his comments about the cellphone hacks, he wasn't the only member of the family whose privacy was breached at that time.  I believe he resents that the monarchy made a decision to stay out of the litigation and to simply carry on, presumably feeling that the many others who were also hacked could take it to court and they wouldn't have to come forward and testify.  Once again, Harry didn't agree and he is sure he is right and they were wrong as to the strategy they pursued.  It's a consistent theme with him; there is only one way and it is Harry's.

Edited March 29 by Notabug

[film noire]

4 hours ago, gingerella said:

It may have seemed odd then, to me as well, but now that I'm reading his book it makes sense. 

...and there's speculation Harry was referring to Angela Kelly (dislike of the woman being one of the few points of agreement between Harry and his father.)

Edited March 29 by film noire

[AnnMarie17]

On 3/29/2023 at 1:29 PM, BloomsburyRez said:

Thank you this makes more sense. I do understand his frustration however I also understand the institution’s position. That time frame was well before William married and had children so King Henry IX was still a possibility. He would have had more rules and concerns about conflict then for example his cousin Peter Phillips.  

(bolding is mine)

It has literally NEVER crossed my mind that Harry would have been King Henry the IX!  There hasn't been a King Henry since Henry the VIII!  The dichotomy between Henry of the 1500s and Henry of the 2000s is really remarkable, when I think about it.  And then, in the same breath, I can also see similarities.

Now I'll be thinking of these two men and how they align/differ all afternoon! 

Edited March 30 by AnnMarie17
clarity

[Bethany]

1 hour ago, AnnMarie17 said:

It has literally NEVER crossed my mind that Harry would have been King Henry the IX!  There hasn't been a King Henry since Henry the VIII! 

I actually remember when Harry was born and they announced his name that I was really taken aback.  I don't think they named him to honour Henry VIII's memory or anything like that and I'm sure if I checked I'd see that down through time since his day that the Royal Family used the name now and then but I admit I did think it was a choice I wouldn't have made.

[ancslove]

I think one of George VI’s brothers was Henry.  The Duke of Gloucester, the one who stands out in old pictures from his super thin and lean-faces brothers.  

[glowbug]

Henry VIII wasn’t the first born son either and was never meant to be king. His older brother, Arthur, died before having any sons. I guess it’s a popular spare name. 

[BloomsburyRez]

3 hours ago, AnnMarie17 said:

It has literally NEVER crossed my mind that Harry would have been King Henry the IX!  There hasn't been a King Henry since Henry the VIII! 

I know I kind of side eye Charles & Diana on that one. He was even born with red hair! I would guess had the throne eventually come to him he might have wanted a regnal name! Even his middle names would be odd choices I know one is David but King David is too biblical. 

[LegalParrot81]

18 minutes ago, BloomsburyRez said:

I know I kind of side eye Charles & Diana on that one. He was even born with red hair! I would guess had the throne eventually come to him he might have wanted a regnal name! Even his middle names would be odd choices I know one is David but King David is too biblical. 

Henry Charles Arthur David.....King Arthur...perhaps, perhaps not.

[ancslove]

Henry IX isn't bad, probably better than Charles III if you're looking at things that way.  William and Kate named their second son Louis, which as a royal name is so incredibly French that I still kind of wonder at it.  

[BloomsburyRez]

20 minutes ago, ancslove said:

Henry IX isn't bad, probably better than Charles III if you're looking at things that way.  William and Kate named their second son Louis, which as a royal name is so incredibly French that I still kind of wonder at it.  

It had been said for years that recognizing that Charles would take the regnal name George VII. Obviously no one predicted the exact length of time that would take and in his mid 70s having a regnal name would be odd. I didn’t like Louis’ name mainly that it’s one of George’s middle names and it’s an odd choice for any parent to make. King Louis would be incredibly strange but he’s realistically never inheriting the throne and his older siblings have such traditional royal names.

[LegalParrot81]

Samantha's defamation lawsuit against Meghan was dismissed, but on one count, the sister could refile an amended complaint in 14 days.   Samantha needs to give it up since her 15 minutes were up long ago.

Edited March 31 by LegalParrot81

[Bethany]

19 minutes ago, LegalParrot81 said:

 Samantha needs to give it up since her 15 minutes were up long ago.

I was just reading a bit more about what she was  suing Meghan over.  I can't believe this case was even allowed to progress to the point that it did!  Even leaving aside who these two women are - is there any family in the history of the world where two siblings are going to have the same recollections of their childhood?  And that part of the lawsuit where Samantha wanted Meghan "to take back" allegations she made about the racist nature of the Royal Family??  What the ever loving hell was that doing in a lawsuit that should have been about harm allegedly caused to Samantha Markle?  Wow.

Edited March 31 by Elizabeth Anne

[LegalParrot81]

25 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

I was just reading a bit more about what she was  suing Meghan over.  I can't believe this case was even allowed to progress to the point that it did!  Even leaving aside who these two women are - is there any family in the history of the world where two siblings are going to have the same recollections of their childhood?  And that part of the lawsuit where Samantha wanted Meghan "to take back" allegations she made about the racist nature of the Royal Family??  What the ever loving hell was that doing in a lawsuit that should have been about harm allegedly caused to Samantha Markle?  Wow.

The entire thing was a joke.   The sister asked for a judgment of 75k, but what she really wanted was to try and keep herself relevant (was she ever?) and to muddy Meghan's name as much as she could.  The order, which is 32 pages long, was an interesting read.

Edited March 31 by LegalParrot81

[bluegirl147]

2 hours ago, LegalParrot81 said:

Samantha's defamation lawsuit against Meghan was dismissed, but on one count, the sister could refile an amended complaint in 14 days.   Samantha needs to give it up since her 15 minutes were up long ago.

Don't you have to prove not only were you defamed but it harmed you in some way? So what exactly was Samantha's damages?  She wanted money of course but she would have had to have proved what exactly the  harm was.

1 hour ago, LegalParrot81 said:

The entire thing was a joke.

As is all things concerning her.

 

1 hour ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

And that part of the lawsuit where Samantha wanted Meghan "to take back" allegations she made about the racist nature of the Royal Family?? 

Samantha has no standing with anything regarding the Royal Family.  Did she file this lawsuit herself?  I can't imagine any competent attorney would have had anything to do with it.

 

[Bethany]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

Samantha has no standing with anything regarding the Royal Family.  Did she file this lawsuit herself?  I can't imagine any competent attorney would have had anything to do with it.

I wondered about that as well.  I know her book was self published so I wouldn't have been surprised to learn she had the same luck finding a lawyer as she did a publisher but apparently that wasn't the case.  Several of the articles about this alluded to her lawyers.  So not just one.  Wow.  I guess though you can always find a lawyer willing to take on a case, however dubious, if there is a paycheque for them.  I wonder in lawsuits of this nature if the lawyer agrees to take the case and only get paid if they win?

Edited March 31 by Elizabeth Anne

[film noire]

I like the simplicity of these two lines in the ruling of Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell (whose fabulous name makes her sound like a character on Designing Women : "I'm the judge, little miss Julia Sugarbaker, not you!")

"As a reasonable listener would understand it, Defendant merely expresses an opinion about her childhood and her relationship with her half-siblings...Plaintiff cannot plausibly disprove Defendant’s opinion of her own childhood.”

How it ever got this far seems bizarre to me, but in the end, Samantha Markle only ended up ruining her own reputation, not Meghan's. After years of her vicious, bitter and unfounded lies,  I have very little difficulty believing what Samantha's mother Roslyn said back in 2018 - that Samantha was jealous of Meghan since birth, was constantly trashing everybody in the family except her father, and (most horrifically) that Samantha's old nickname for Doria was "the maid, because she was Black." Time for you to slither back into your viper nest, Samantha. Your fifteen minutes are up.

 

 

Edited March 31 by film noire

[Bethany]

24 minutes ago, film noire said:

Time for you to slither back into your viper nest, Samantha. Your fifteen minutes are up.

Much as I'd like to never hear the name Samantha Markle again I doubt she'll go quietly away.  That is not her style.  She has made it her life's work to trash Meghan - even to the point of creating fake twitter accounts and according to Urban Dictionary even started an online hate group "dedicated to targeting Meghan Markle".  Why would this be in Urban Dictionary you ask?  Apparently because the Samantha Markle is a term now.  And they define it as "A person who refuses to own their own behavior and will blame everything on someone else, most likely a famous estranged relative." 

Edited March 31 by Elizabeth Anne

[film noire]

7 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

 Apparently because the term Samantha Markle is a term now.  And they define it as "A person who refuses to own their own behavior and will blame everything on someone else, most likely a famous estranged relative." 

Oh, that's just too perfect - a different kind of justice ; )

Edited March 31 by film noire

[film noire]

AP news update re: Prince Harry & Co, fighting the good fight:

"...The claimants said they were unaware of phone hacking done for Associated Newspapers until private investigators, including Gavin Burrows, came forward in the last couple of years to disclose the covert work they allegedly did.

Burrows, who said in a 2021 witness statement that he came forward to “do the right thing” and help the people he targeted, has since issued another sworn statement saying he had not been commissioned by Associated Newspapers to do unlawful work."

(...somebody bought him off?)

"In his earlier admission, however, he described how much he charged for different jobs and how Harry, John and his husband, David Furnish, and Hurley and Frost were “just a small handful of my targets.” He said he “must have done hundreds of jobs” between 2000 and 2005 for a Mail on Sunday journalist whose name is redacted."

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-tabloid-lawsuit-court-a33fbe3c5f74d3474dfaef30d7f0a00c

The cowardice of The Daily Mail is on display re: their coverage of the illegal hacking accusations. This is posted alongside their article about the lawsuit:"Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article." 

What a surprise they've shut down people responding to their illegal acts. 

Edited March 31 by film noire

[gingerella]

4 hours ago, film noire said:

AP news update re: Prince Harry & Co, fighting the good fight:

"...The claimants said they were unaware of phone hacking done for Associated Newspapers until private investigators, including Gavin Burrows, came forward in the last couple of years to disclose the covert work they allegedly did.

Burrows, who said in a 2021 witness statement that he came forward to “do the right thing” and help the people he targeted, has since issued another sworn statement saying he had not been commissioned by Associated Newspapers to do unlawful work."

(...somebody bought him off?)

"In his earlier admission, however, he described how much he charged for different jobs and how Harry, John and his husband, David Furnish, and Hurley and Frost were “just a small handful of my targets.” He said he “must have done hundreds of jobs” between 2000 and 2005 for a Mail on Sunday journalist whose name is redacted."

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-tabloid-lawsuit-court-a33fbe3c5f74d3474dfaef30d7f0a00c

The cowardice of The Daily Mail is on display re: their coverage of the illegal hacking accusations. This is posted alongside their article about the lawsuit:"Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article." 

What a surprise they've shut down people responding to their illegal acts. 

I watched this clip from AP below, which I got to from your above link, and I love the press questions, "Harry, what do you hope to achieve..." Like are they that freaking stupid? He hopes bottom feeders like you all here today are taken to task and held accountable for the nefarious ways in which you have invaded the personal lives of public figures..." DUH.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-tabloid-lawsuit-court-a33fbe3c5f74d3474dfaef30d7f0a00c

[Melonie77]

On 3/30/2023 at 12:36 PM, AnnMarie17 said:

It has literally NEVER crossed my mind that Harry would have been King Henry the IX!  There hasn't been a King Henry since Henry the VIII!

On 3/30/2023 at 3:45 PM, BloomsburyRez said:

I know I kind of side eye Charles & Diana on that one. He was even born with red hair! I would guess had the throne eventually come to him he might have wanted a regnal name!

LOL! Harry somewhat resembles Henry VIII!
He's descended from the Tudors via the VIII's sister Margaret.
It seems the current Harry is just as mad as the medieval monarch was. They both went through distinct personality changes during their lifetimes.

Edited March 31 by Melonie77

[film noire]

 

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

 and I love the press questions, "Harry, what do you hope to achieve..." Like are they that freaking stupid? 

LOL - they do sound like idiots, gingerella. (And I'm amazed at Harry's composure with these trash heap bottom feeders; he smiles, nods, wishes them "good morning", etc.etc. I'd be ready to tear their eyes out.)

Meghan received a Gracie for her podcast. After years of being used as fodder, I bet it feels like a personal win, as well as a professional one. To be able to use media to convey what matters to her & being recognized for it, instead of being used by tabloid media to sell their ragsheets. Good for her and her producing team. Winners are being celebrated at a gala in L. A. on May 23 (hope she & Harry & her team kick their heels up & enjoy the night.  Living well is the best revenge ; )

"Thank you to the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation for this prestigious honor. This is a shared success for me and the team behind Archetypes — most of whom are women — and the inspiring guests who joined me each week," Meghan said in a statement shared to the Archewell Foundation website."

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-gracie-award-2023-podcast-archetypes-winners/

Edited April 1 by film noire

[Melonie77]

Re: The Sussexes and their Collection of Unearned Awards

It seems that most if not all of the awards the fauxmanitarian Sussexes have 'won' since moving to America have been obtained via manipulation by the couple's PR agents. 
Apparently, some charities are more than willing to help promote celebrities (including faux-royals) in desperate need of a PR fix.

This includes the RFK Ripple of Hope Award which the Sussexes had the unbelievable nerve to accept when the reason the award was presented to them was for fighting racism in the royal family...a slap in the face of the family after they welcomed Meghan with open arms.
Astonishingly sometime not long after showing up to accept the award (and obtain media attention and content for their many self-serving monetized projects) Harry turned around and denied accusing the royal family of racism during an interview with Tom Badby.
So Harry accepted an award for shafting his own family and lied about a racist narrative. He let his family live with accusations of racism for over two years without doing anything to dispute the false claims he and his wife made. In the meantime anti-racism groups around the world called out the monarchy and members of the Commonwealth spoke out about leaving and harassed the Cambridges while on their Caribbean tour. One can develop whiplash when trying to follow Harry and Meghan's deceitful and contradictory storylines and become nauseous over the damage they did to the Queen's lifetime of work with the Commonwealth.

The Sussexes (ex?) PR agency Sunshine Sachs is connected to the RFK Human Rights group and were still actively representing H&M when decisions on who would receive the awards were made last year. Sunshine Sachs also represents the NAACP Image Awards. It's not hard to assume the Sussexes exploit and influence charity groups to gain recognition. IMO they are an embarrassment to our country. Why is anyone in the US pandering to a spoiled unstable British prince with intellectual disabilities and his psychotic, narcissistic, phony and self-absorbed wife?

Some interesting reading...
▶From the London Times:
"Harry and Meghan’s human rights award is a bad joke"
https://archive.ph/d4hdN#selection-755.0-755.51
Quotes:
"...in a brazen bid for attention, it has awarded the Duke and Duchess of Sussex a “Ripple of Hope” title for what RFK’s daughter Kerry Kennedy calls their “heroic stand” against the royal family, defying the “power structure” of our — rather powerless — constitutional monarchy.
"Where do you even start? With the unproven, denied and borderline libelous accusation to Oprah Winfrey that for their son not immediately to be called “Prince” during the Queen’s lifetime was deliberate racism, rather than bog-standard constitutional practice since 1917? With the unspecific cowardly allegation that someone briefly wondered about the baby’s skin colour? With the idea that “ostracism” consists of being helped financially, given a British home, spoken of repeatedly with familial affection and included in the Queen’s Jubilee service and funeral, albeit without the royal-ceremonial-duty trappings they rejected?"

▶From the Daily Mail:
"That won't heal the rift! RFK's daughter reveals Harry and Meghan will accept honor at NYC gala for their 'heroic' stance against 'structural RACISM' of royal family"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11448401/Harry-Meghan-honored-RFK-Foundations-gala-stance-against-structural-RACISM-monarchy.html

• Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are set to be honored by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Foundation  
• Kerry Kennedy praised the couple for their 'heroic' stance against the racism of the British monarchy 
• Ms Kennedy, president of the foundation, says the Sussexes challenged the royal family's 'power structure' 
• Her remarks could drive a fresh wedge between the couple and Harry's father, King Charles
• 'They went to the oldest institution in UK history and told them what they were doing wrong,' she added 

▶From Yahoo News:
"Prince Harry sparks backlash over two-year silence while royals were accused of racism"
https://news.yahoo.com/prince-harry-racism-royal-family-itv-interview-book-121623019.html
This is a good article about Harry's Spare interview with Tom Bradby focusing on his claims of racism/bias even though it fails to point out that H&M baited Oprah into making certain distinctions for them.

Regardless of what type of honor the Sussexes receive, they all seem to share the common denominator of not being truly deserved. They are awarded via solicitation and manipulation rather than any true merit.

Edited April 2 by Melonie77

[gingerella]

17 hours ago, film noire said:

 

LOL - they do sound like idiots, gingerella. (And I'm amazed at Harry's composure with these trash heap bottom feeders; he smiles, nods, wishes them "good morning", etc.etc. I'd be ready to tear their eyes out.)

Meghan received a Gracie for her podcast. After years of being used as fodder, I bet it feels like a personal win, as well as a professional one. To be able to use media to convey what matters to her & being recognized for it, instead of being used by tabloid media to sell their ragsheets. Good for her and her producing team. Winners are being celebrated at a gala in L. A. on May 23 (hope she & Harry & her team kick their heels up & enjoy the night.  Living well is the best revenge ; )

"Thank you to the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation for this prestigious honor. This is a shared success for me and the team behind Archetypes — most of whom are women — and the inspiring guests who joined me each week," Meghan said in a statement shared to the Archewell Foundation website."

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-gracie-award-2023-podcast-archetypes-winners/

Thanks for posting this and the link. And yes to the bolded part above, that goes for anyone who's been harassed but media with vile, racist, misogynistic garbage. I say, live well and and let the haters stew in their own toxic broth. Karma always comes around in the end!

Edited April 1 by gingerella

[BloomsburyRez]

In honor of today many people and entities have been posting “announcements”. This was amusing.

 

 

They have a press release too:

The duo said today: "After the roaring success of Diana and the Tony Award-winning SIX, we knew there was a major market for royal musicals. And with so many fiction and non-fiction novels now on stage (A Little Life, Life of Pi, The Book Thief, Hamilton, Fun Home, etc), the natural next step was to get the rights to Spare. From there, the pieces have just fallen into place."

Sheeran added: "Ginger royalty man. It was the perfect fit." Sheeran's understudy will be WhatsOnStage Award-winner Rupert Grint, who once portrayed Sheeran in a music video. Further creative team members are to be revealed. 

Numbers in the musical include "The Cold Never Bothered My Todger Anyway", "The Dogbowl Song", "(Not) The Best Man", "I'll Make A Man Out Of You (Behind A Very Busy Pub)" and "Camilla's Lament". 

The show is set to play at the Prince Edward Theatre from October 2023 to January 2024, with dates to be revealed in due course.

There were unconfirmed rumours that Spare had originally been set to run at the Prince of Wales Theatre, but there seems to have been some sort of falling out, and the production was forced to relocate. 

Edited April 1 by BloomsburyRez

[Enero]

22 hours ago, film noire said:

 

LOL - they do sound like idiots, gingerella. (And I'm amazed at Harry's composure with these trash heap bottom feeders; he smiles, nods, wishes them "good morning", etc.etc. I'd be ready to tear their eyes out.)

Meghan received a Gracie for her podcast. After years of being used as fodder, I bet it feels like a personal win, as well as a professional one. To be able to use media to convey what matters to her & being recognized for it, instead of being used by tabloid media to sell their ragsheets. Good for her and her producing team. Winners are being celebrated at a gala in L. A. on May 23 (hope she & Harry & her team kick their heels up & enjoy the night.  Living well is the best revenge ; )

"Thank you to the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation for this prestigious honor. This is a shared success for me and the team behind Archetypes — most of whom are women — and the inspiring guests who joined me each week," Meghan said in a statement shared to the Archewell Foundation website."

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-gracie-award-2023-podcast-archetypes-winners/

I saw this the other day. Is the Gracie considered a prestigious award or just another general award of many? I do hope that she’ll do more episodes of the podcast. Nearly all the episodes I listened to had some really great subtopics that would make for great discussions on future episodes. Some episodes it just wasn’t enough time to cover all the interesting things that came up. 

[gingerella]

@EneroHer you go!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracie_Awards

The

"The Gracie Awards are awards presented by the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation (AWM) in the United States, to celebrate and honor programming created for women, by women, and about women, as well as individuals who have made exemplary contributions in electronic media and affiliates. Presented annually, the Gracie Awards recognize national, local, and student works." 

Gracie's are named after Gracie Allen, and have been going on for almost 60 years now.

[WendyCR72]

Saw a couple of pictures of little Lilibet on Twitter. She looks just like her father. Adorable, though!

[Bethany]

9 hours ago, gingerella said:

Gracie's are named after Gracie Allen, and have been going on for almost 60 years now.

Gracie Allen as in George Burns and Gracie Allen - I never knew that!  I love this.