The Sussex Family General Chat Part 3

[changemhysoul]

The reference in this post bu change is Camilla Tominey, the British journalist who was the one who broke the story of Harry dating Meghan back in 2016 and has filed many stories about the Sussexes. It has nothing to do with Queen Camilla.

Thank you Curry.

I see that those who took issue, didn?t check the link that I quoted.

If had been talking about that Camilla, I would?ve made it clear I was talking about her.

[changemhysoul]

Also, there was obviously concern for the taxi driver as security dedcided after 10 minutes to leave his cab.

The only dangerous and reckless people were the paps who cared more about a photo than people?s lives. And the people who are trying to dissect words and figure out how they can blame the Sussex?s and Doria for what was done TO them and general public.

[wannable]

^ Why did they change from a ''secure SUV'' to a taxi with no blacked out windows, wore no seatbelts...here is at least one of two people who's head will roll.

*****

According to Neil Sean last night, the couple allegedly will address their NYC situation on a video (Harry's idea, Meghan is not too Keen), will it be an apology or victimhood?!.  It will allegedly come out very soon. Note: Neil didn't use the word allegedly, he is convinced it will happen.


^ When he said that last night I had a recollection of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp 'forced' to do a Australia's immigration Home Affairs office video which was part of a fine and deportation for breaking the law.  (They had lied in re about Amber's mascots vaccination and mandatory quarantine of 30 days)

[TLLK]

They are A+ stars, what I've read from celebrities that live there is much of the same what and how celebs act and do in NYC:

Hire SUV or Limo
Hire Private Security
Road map to event from point x to y
Two hotels between x to y to stay for a few minutes or hours or sleep over (Heavy traffic, Heavy rain or too cold, Paparazzi, in that order it has been stated)
Two restaurants between x to y same as the above

It never fails, paparazzi are not allowed once you enter a hotel or a restuarant. Fact.

That the couple ended up at a police station, took a taxi no seatbelt, Doria's window down, did a round about, to end up at the police station again.   <_<  Without a care IF something had happened to leave a taxi driver low income in trouble, and the public in general. It must be said, thank the heavens nothing happened, but a soap opera for headlines and column inches.

As I said, celeb responsibility.

Strangely enough that appears to have been the plan @wannable when the Sussexes have previously made mult-day visits to NYC in the past. I don't recall any issues regarding security and the paparazzi with their 2021 trip for events with their charities or even more recently when they were seen dining there in 2022. I'd say that they need to consult whomever handled their transportation and security then.

[wannable]

👍🏻

I'm 99% sure someone in the security team will be fired. Perhaps the touchy feely to client one will be chopped - strangely enough too he is ex secret service, ex Obama security.  I'm shaking my head whilst I type this, because how could he have allowed this situation.  There is also a problem of private security IS employee to their bosses (client) Meghan and Harry. They can advice as part of their job, but ultimately the bosses are the decision makers. Also private security do not have to write down every detail in a little book like government tax funded security.  Private security only have to publicly disclose IF and only by a court of law.

[wannable]

^I'm using the old fashioned government security of writing in a little book. Today they use bio metric devices that have such perfection and precision, all the details of date/time/whereabouts is recorded. State of the Art stuff (plus the birds eye view cctv that come purchasing new cars or having it installed in used cars, this tech can record video/voice and send it live to the amount of people one want's to watch you)

[changemhysoul]

Another good article Meghan Tried to Celebrate Her Post-Royal Life in Style?But She Can?t Shake the Royal Attention | Vanity Fair

Never should 100 articles be written about a woman in a month when she hadn?t been seen for six weeks or more. The obsession with Meghan is sick and as long as people pretend it?s not real, her life with be danger overall and especially in the UK.

The is inciting violence and feeds into people who are obsessed and want to see her hurt

[Curryong]

Another good article Meghan Tried to Celebrate Her Post-Royal Life in Style?But She Can?t Shake the Royal Attention | Vanity Fair

Never should 100 articles be written about a woman in a month when she hadn?t been seen for six weeks or more. The obsession with Meghan is sick and as long as people pretend it?s not real, her life with be danger overall and especially in the UK.

The is inciting violence and feeds into people who are obsessed and want to see her hurt

Yes, I read that article. I agree it?s a good one. I think the Daily Express wouldn?t be far behind the DMs 100 articles a month. From the time Meghan was newly engaged till right now, there were at least three negative Express articles per day about her and sometimes Harry, including when she was on pregnancy leave and barely seen. God knows what the journalists had to imagine was happening to get to those totals.

[Nightowl]

Another good article Meghan Tried to Celebrate Her Post-Royal Life in Style?But She Can?t Shake the Royal Attention | Vanity Fair

Never should 100 articles be written about a woman in a month when she hadn?t been seen for six weeks or more. The obsession with Meghan is sick and as long as people pretend it?s not real, her life with be danger overall and especially in the UK.

The is inciting violence and feeds into people who are obsessed and want to see her hurt

Well if Megham wants to shake the royal attention, all she has to do is *Give up her title* and the royal attention will be gone,,,,,,SIMPLE!  Yet we all kmow how much she loves that title.....Duchess, domt we?

[Curryong]

Well if Megham wants to shake the royal attention, all she has to do is *Give up her title* and the royal attention will be gone,,,,SIMPLE!  Yet we all kmow how much she loves that title.....Duchess, domt we?

I hardly think that royal attention would be gone for either of them, ever. The world knows that Harry is a Prince and King Charles?s son. Meghan is the King?s daughter in law. They can hardly deny that?s who they are, Or that it  will be so for as long as Harry lives.

And it?s not Meghan?s title, it?s Harry?s. Meghan follows the English fashion of a wife taking the name and status of her husband. If they were to give up being the Sussexes, then Harry would remain Prince Harry and his wife would become Princess Henry. Probably that would simplify things in the US as the term Duchess is not really understood there.

[TLLK]

Well if Megham wants to shake the royal attention, all she has to do is *Give up her title* and the royal attention will be gone,,,,SIMPLE!  Yet we all kmow how much she loves that title.....Duchess, domt we?

As @Curryong pointed out in her post, it's not that easy. Should Harry no longer have the title of Duke of Sussex, he'd revert to being Prince Henry/Harry. Meghan would indeed be known as Princess Henry then.

A good example is the late QEII's cousin Prince Michael of Kent never inherited a royal dukedom like his eldest brother so he retained the title he'd have from birth. His future spouse Marie Christine was offered the courtesy title of "Princess Michael."

[wannable]

The article is designed for non royal watchers or to brainwash the public to forget, a PR stunt with no detailed explanation of why the articles exist and sectioning it to each segment; political, social, entertainment, etc according to each journalist's employed department.

The amount of articles is warranted thanks to the couple's shenanigans. When one or both require a Jan 8 apology to my wife and stretch it all the way to May, they have 5 months of  mentions in the news. When a person goes hiking and pictures are published 24 hours after a historical coronation, and the hiker is wearing a bunch of fine jewelry. When a couple stage a 3 secure SUV's to a roundabout taxi. And on and on.

[Amabel2]

Nothing to stop Harry nad meg making it known that they want to be simple Mr and Mrs Mountbatten Windsor.

[wannable]

Exactly.  The couple have done every single trick in a PR book to be always in the news, when one stretch is over, incoming the next 'bombshell''.

Double digit of Harry stating in his Spare book launch interviews in a span of 72 hours and stretch is as far as possible with little tid bits and spokesperson corrections of what they meant, or who is not in the stew, etc: My wife didn't say the royals are racist, My wife is owed an apology AND they (royals) know what we know they know.  These use of words will warrant 100 articles. Then stretch it to unconscious bias, then stretch it to from a public apology we will accept a private apology to I'm afraid to have a meeting with the family because they will leak it, he's the informant,  it will generate controversy and hundreds of articles.

Then the hundreds of articles from medical perspective worried about the wife and the children because they live with a confessed drug addict. His spare book generated articles that innevitably are attached to himself, to her, to the children, from the military, to mother's, to you name it, it's valid for all types of people worldwide to write, comment, from experts to random. They placed themselves in the PUBLIC, they create themselves PR controvery of we are angry and mad (as in crazy) with Harry's family, the most famous family in the world...

So no, the Vanity Fair article is pure PR stunt, probably paid.

[wannable]

The biggest threat to Harry and Meghan isn?t paparazzi on bicycles. It?s their own paranoia

The biggest threat to Harry and Meghan isn?t paparazzi on bicycles. It?s their own paranoia

The Times.

[Curryong]

The amount of articles is warranted thanks to the couple's shenanigans. When one or both require a Jan 8 apology to my wife and stretch it all the way to May, they have 5 months of  mentions in the news. When a person goes hiking and pictures are published 24 hours after a historical coronation, and the hiker is wearing a bunch of fine jewelry. When a couple stage a 3 secure SUV's to a roundabout taxi. And on and on.

So, if Vanity Fair or any other magazine or news outlet says anything at all favourable about the Sussexes they are cherry picking and muddled and probably paid off? When they write critical articles then it?s all completely warranted? Right, got it!!!
Putting aside the Vanity Fair article for a moment, how would you characterise the number of articles written in the tabloids after Meghan and Harry returned from Australia and the Pacific, then. I took notice of the critical articles at that time, you see, and of the numbers.

The online Daily Express had at least three articles coming out every day at a time when Meghan was still a working royal but soon went on maternity leave. During that time she was barely seen. The online DM had a similar number. They reported on her appearing at a fashion award show and the fact that she was ?holding her belly all the time?, (untrue btw) her interactions with some of the designers, ?inappropriate of course? and, horror of horrors she wore a tight dress and wore BLACK nail polish. Harry was still working but got very little criticism.

All the tabloid journalists ran to judgement on the NY baby shower with Opinion pieces. Royals just don?t do that. Expensive consumerism not like other members of the RF. Not like the ones who have two or three homes and indulge in expensive hobbies.

It didn?t cost the taxpayer a darn thing, though you wouldn?t have known it from the articles. and the fact that Meghan probably travelled across the Atlantic in a friend?s private plane was also a thing of horror. Forget about the Duke of Westminster?s private plane  and the Rothschild yachts other royals borrow. No, it was Meghan being ?American? and breaking all the rules again. She couldn?t have got more bad publicity if she herself had ordered a pack of male strippers to appear at the party and engage in an orgy with the female guests!

That allowed the tabloids to go on and on for several months and when that was finished there were endless articles about how the couple were so New Age and going to decorate their nursery with environmental paint, untrue, get a ?chanter? in at the birth, untrue, their standoffishness with the neighbours in Windsor Great Park, untrue, and how the child would be brought up gender neutral, untrue.

Just thousands of newsprint expanded on rubbish.. You talk about ?justified? articles because of ?shenanigans?. If there weren?t any, and aren?t any as in all those months in LA where the Sussexes were barely seen, the months in Montecito where there?s the occasional glimpse that generated the usual sneering reports, it is all the same.

[Nightowl]

My reply to changemysoul was in jest  as we all know how much the Sussex's love the attention from the reporters as that keeps them relevant daily.  There is no way  they will ever stop playing the reporters as that is their lifeline to be celebrities amd to let the world know how important they are still to the BRF.  So we can  expect more from them the rest of their lives.....now I do have a headache thinking that....just think we have more drama and more  untruths to write about...... :orchid:

[Curryong]

I didn?t realise we were all being forced, out of fear of ostracism or fear for our lives, to comment every day anywhere (royal forum or not) on the Sussexes or their doings. When did that memo come out? And did it come from the Fail? Just jesting. We know that the Fail and others absolutely love the Sussexes. They keep them in business, via clickbait. Maybe you should relieve your anxiety headaches and not bother about the couple?

[Nightowl]

You know I almost feel sorry for the Sussex's, they keep making the same mistakes over and and over again and again, a normal person would think if this is not working, why not try something else till it gets right......that is life, we make mistakes and then we try to correct them if it doesn't work.....I really don't think they even know what they heck they want out of life.  Just know Harry your not getting the damm  throne.   

[Nightowl]

I was reading other royal forums amd came across a comment that really hit home to me and it is so darn    true, I can't remember all of it so this is my thoughts om it, we the royal watchers around the world  are reading and commenting on the Sussex's daily and what we are also doing is sitting back and watching a car crash happening while there is nothing we can do to stop it, we are the witnesses' to this and believe me the end results are deadly.  I have said here and elsewhere that if and when Harry hits bottom it will not be a pretty sight.  Right now I firmly believe he is still using drugs to cope with his decisions and his leaving the BRF as he is not a happy man by any means......and I know very well 1000% how drugies behave amd lie.

[TLLK]

A couple of bickering posts have been removed and editing was done to clarify a post.  Please review the forum rules and etiquette expectations. Further bickering posts will result in the topic being locked. 

[wannable]

So, if Vanity Fair or any other magazine or news outlet says anything at all favourable about the Sussexes they are cherry picking and muddled and probably paid off? When they write critical articles then it?s all completely warranted? Right, got it!!!
Putting aside the Vanity Fair article for a moment, how would you characterise the number of articles written in the tabloids after Meghan and Harry returned from Australia and the Pacific, then. I took notice of the critical articles at that time, you see, and of the numbers.

The online Daily Express had at least three articles coming out every day at a time when Meghan was still a working royal but soon went on maternity leave. During that time she was barely seen. The online DM had a similar number. They reported on her appearing at a fashion award show and the fact that she was ?holding her belly all the time?, (untrue btw) her interactions with some of the designers, ?inappropriate of course? and, horror of horrors she wore a tight dress and wore BLACK nail polish. Harry was still working but got very little criticism.

All the tabloid journalists ran to judgement on the NY baby shower with Opinion pieces. Royals just don?t do that. Expensive consumerism not like other members of the RF. Not like the ones who have two or three homes and indulge in expensive hobbies.

It didn?t cost the taxpayer a darn thing, though you wouldn?t have known it from the articles. and the fact that Meghan probably travelled across the Atlantic in a friend?s private plane was also a thing of horror. Forget about the Duke of Westminster?s private plane  and the Rothschild yachts other royals borrow. No, it was Meghan being ?American? and breaking all the rules again. She couldn?t have got more bad publicity if she herself had ordered a pack of male strippers to appear at the party and engage in an orgy with the female guests!

That allowed the tabloids to go on and on for several months and when that was finished there were endless articles about how the couple were so New Age and going to decorate their nursery with environmental paint, untrue, get a ?chanter? in at the birth, untrue, their standoffishness with the neighbours in Windsor Great Park, untrue, and how the child would be brought up gender neutral, untrue.

Just thousands of newsprint expanded on rubbish.. You talk about ?justified? articles because of ?shenanigans?. If there weren?t any, and aren?t any as in all those months in LA where the Sussexes were barely seen, the months in Montecito where there?s the occasional glimpse that generated the usual sneering reports, it is all the same.

I'd agree with VF if only the couple hadn't sabotaged themselves.

The article amount and content is so vastly different before/after Megxit. Before Megxit journalists had secrets kept from the masses which then was a free fall after Megxit, especially in the drum up to Oprah.

The ''intro'' to amount and content DID start in their Australian tour, but one needs to separate what was reported ''then'' and what was reported from that tour ''after'' secrets were exposed. I DO separate it for fairness, THEN: it was the market shortened visit and a University I paid it all FIB. AFTER: The list is larger.

The 3 per day article is usually sectioned as I've repeatedly explained in the past, it is done likewise with Catherine. She doesn't expose herself, she doesn't say anything 'indiscreet' to sabotage herself and make controversial headlines. Note I said indiscreet to sabotage oneself, rather than indiscreet to woke warrior or any other movement, which is different.

In reference to her pregnancy, Meghan herself has made it to date to have people speculating from start to finish, including staff that LATER (AFTER) were collateral damage. I'll just make one reference, the BP announcement had no signatures from nobody. Not one.

[TLLK]

There's been much speculation that the Duchess wishes to relaunch her old blog, The Tig. Here's some highlights from it over the years.

The most revealing insights Meghan Markle shared on The Tig before she met Prince Harry | Daily Mail Online

[TLLK]

Meghan Markle Is Bouncing Back With the U.S. Public

Meghan Markle's net approval rating is back in positive numbers four months after a publicity blitz around Prince Harry's book Spare appeared to spark a collapse in their popularity.

The Duchess of Sussex was liked by 39 percent and disliked by 34 percent, according to a survey of 1,500 U.S. adults carried out on May 17 by Redfield & Wilton for Newsweek.

The data gives her a net approval rating of +5, leaving her in positive numbers for the first time in multiple rounds of polling for Newsweek since a collapse in their popularity in January 2023.A publicity blitz around their Netflix series Harry & Meghan in December 2022 and the duke's book Spare in January 2023 appeared to send their U.S. approval rating into free fall.

Between December 5 and January 16, Meghan's net approval rating dropped from +23 to -13, a 36 point decline, while Prince Harry's dropped from +38 to -7, down 45 points.

During that period, Harry leveled a series of attacks against other members of the British royal family, accusing Camilla of leaking stories about him in order to pave her path to becoming Queen Consort, and also talked at length both in his book and at least one interview about putting Elizabeth Arden lip cream?the same brand used by his mother, Princess Diana?on his frost bitten penis.

Since then, however, American public opinion has begun to swing slowly back in the couple's favor and Newsweek's most recent polling data puts Harry on +15.


Across all U.S. adults, the prince was liked by 42 percent and disliked by 27 percent, a seven point bump compared to April 4 when he was on +8.

[Curryong]

And Harry is back on +15. All the same, I don?t know that I trust Newsweek?s polling figures in the same way I do YouGov as a reliable source. Id love to know the methodology of the polling company they employ, how do they find out the opinions of people under 35 for example, a demographic that almost universally uses mobile phones only and therefore is pretty hard to contact commercially. These are a magazine?s figures and shouldn?t be treated as gospel imo.