New Thread
Prince Harry's Rep Releases Statement on Private Hotel Room Claims (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a43958895/prince-harry-private-hotel-room/)
^ The Rep is fixated like Harry with The Sun and Cosmopolitan didn't fact check or minimum help the Rep with a little investigation. Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph broke the story.
Quote from: wannable on May 25, 2023, 11:01:29 PM
Prince Harry's Rep Releases Statement on Private Hotel Room Claims (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a43958895/prince-harry-private-hotel-room/)
^ The Rep is fixated like Harry with The Sun and Cosmopolitan didn't fact check or minimum help the Rep with a little investigation. Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph broke the story.
The last time I heard, Camilla Tominey doesn?t live in LA, nor presumably does she skulk around hotels near Montecito. She is just as capable of using anonymous sources there who are reporting unfounded and malicious gossip as anyone else in the media.
Technology, a phone call, a text message from two hotels. No need of sea travel and pony express to California.
Anyway, this Cosmopolitan news tells me the Harry suing problem, Re his hacking 'hearing' vs The Mirror Group. 300 Harry points heard from his team, 297 points rebuttal heard by the Mirror Group team, only conceding to 3. And this plus the other 4 cases will drag on very likely until 2024.
^ As an example from the Cosmopolitan magazine, Harry tells his Rep his anger against the Sun, the Rep a Yes person doesn't check it out, calls Cosmopolitan, Cosmo doesn't do their little ''origin'' (like the Mirror is doing in their hearing) and goes with it.
If Harry want's to know Camilla Tominey's ''source'', sue her and the Telegraph.
Quote from: wannable on May 26, 2023, 12:44:25 AM
Technology, a phone call, a text message from two hotels. No need of sea travel and pony express to California.
Anyway, this Cosmopolitan news tells me the Harry suing problem, Re his hacking 'hearing' vs The Mirror Group. 300 Harry points heard from his team, 297 points rebuttal heard by the Mirror Group team, only conceding to 3. And this plus the other 4 cases will drag on very likely until 2024.
^ As an example from the Cosmopolitan magazine, Harry tells his Rep his anger against the Sun, the Rep a Yes person doesn't check it out, calls Cosmopolitan, Cosmo doesn't do their little ''origin'' (like the Mirror is doing in their hearing) and goes with it.
If Harry want's to know Camilla Tominey's ''source'', sue her and the Telegraph.
Whether it?s text, a phone call or whatever doesn?t guarantee that employees at any hotel etc are telling the truth, especially if some payment is offered. Harry doesn?t need to sue. He knows who he lives with and loves. If Camilla wants to spread gossip via anonymous sources that?s up to her.
Cosmopolitan has it wrong with the who. So Harry also has it wrong with the who.
Richard Eden
20 June 2023
Daily Mail
Original/Originator: The Hill, Washington D.C.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzC9Tg8WYAIi732?format=jpg&name=small)
Is Richard Eden just realizing that Harry has opened his mouth for the last 3 years doing damage to the royal family and the entire country? Harry has shown all of us and the entire world just how he feels anout the royal family, the British people and that only his views and feelings are all that matter to him. Sad state of affairs when you show you hate the family you were born into and that gave you a very prividge life style with millions at your fingertips, talk about being disloyal and ungrateful simply is mind blowing.
He knows, he's just quoting a USA media outlet.
I've moved discussion regarding the Sussexes and their various media productions to the Archewell thread.
Quote
Meghan "can't believe she's been attacked so viciously and so publicly" by Spotify and one of their execs.
By Mollie Quirk
US Showbiz & TV Reporter
Daily Mirror
^ A one sided situation in life never ends well.
3 years of public vicious attack vs a 1 phrase public vicious attack.
California passed a law in 2013 to make it illegal to photograph the children of celebrities in a harassing manner. However it would appear that this law does not apply to the recent photos of the Sussexes' children at the Fourth of July Parade in Montecito as the images were taken by a member of the public and later sold.
New law restricts paparazzi access to children of celebrities - Los Angeles Times (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-xpm-2013-sep-25-la-me-ln-paparazzi-targeted-in-new-law-that-deals-with-kids-of-celebrities-20130925-story.html)
The Sussexes might find this to be a challenge in the coming years as currently there isn't a state law against publishing the photos.
Princess Lilibet Photos Reveal Prince Harry Faces Big Privacy Threat (https://www.newsweek.com/princess-lilibet-photos-reveal-prince-harry-faces-big-privacy-threat-1811193)
QuotePictures of Prince Harry holding Princess Lilibet at a Fourth of July event have been published by the New York Post, two years after Harry and Meghan Markle bankrupted a paparazzi agency over images of Prince Archie.
The Sussexes went to a Fourth of July parade in Montecito where Harry and his two-year-old daughter were photographed together. A more blurred picture of the whole family circulated around Twitter.
The Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid said the images were taken by "an eyewitness." They were captioned to Backgrid, a picture agency that distributes content, including on behalf of freelance and paparazzi photographers.The same photos were also published by U.K. tabloid the Daily Mail but with Lili's face pixilated, highlighting a growing challenge for Harry in his complaints about the British media and privacy.
The royal has repeatedly accused the nation's newspapers of ruining his childhood with invasive coverage of his life and that of his parents?yet now that they have moved to America elements of the U.S. media have behaved in a similar way, though with a crucial difference.
In Britain he has the protection of European privacy laws, which the couple used to force paparazzi agency Splash into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy over similar images of Meghan carrying Prince Archie in a public place when he was a baby.
Under the Human Rights Act, British newspapers can be sued over images taken in public if they show celebrities going about their private lives.Californian law does not afford any such right for images taken in a public place and when the Post has printed seemingly unsolicited images of Archie in the past no legal action followed.
No wonder the British media blurred the minor, whilst NY Post did not. Differing laws in USA vs EU (UK included), additionally in any of the ''royal parks'' taking a picture is completely illegal, much less distribute it.
I'm just gonna say it how it is and IMO, the couple moved to California for Meghan, all the privacy, security and whatever else excuses of why they moved there victimhood VS the (royal life) United Kingdom is codswallop.
IOW, the couple have spare syndrome so heavily imprinted in their heart, mind and soul ✈
Quote from: TLLK on July 07, 2023, 12:50:08 PM
California passed a law in 2013 to make it illegal to photograph the children of celebrities in a harassing manner. However it would appear that this law does not apply to the recent photos of the Sussexes' children at the Fourth of July Parade in Montecito as the images were taken by a member of the public and later sold.
New law restricts paparazzi access to children of celebrities - Los Angeles Times (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-xpm-2013-sep-25-la-me-ln-paparazzi-targeted-in-new-law-that-deals-with-kids-of-celebrities-20130925-story.html)
The Sussexes might find this to be a challenge in the coming years as currently there isn't a state law against publishing the photos.
Princess Lilibet Photos Reveal Prince Harry Faces Big Privacy Threat (https://www.newsweek.com/princess-lilibet-photos-reveal-prince-harry-faces-big-privacy-threat-1811193)
Taking photos 'in a harrassing manner" seems like it could be subjective too. If the paps are chasing them down or popping out of bushes, that's more obvious, but there are times when it might not be --such as this parade when they are at a public event and lots of people are taking pictures (and I know you said that these pics were not taken by papparazzi, but by a member of the public).
Quote from: Kristeh-H on July 07, 2023, 09:20:24 PM
Taking photos 'in a harrassing manner" seems like it could be subjective too. If the paps are chasing them down or popping out of bushes, that's more obvious, but there are times when it might not be --such as this parade when they are at a public event and lots of people are taking pictures (and I know you said that these pics were not taken by papparazzi, but by a member of the public).
I agree
@Kristeh-H that this could be a very grey area as the company didn't actually take the photos but shared them after they were likely purchased. It's likely that the Sussex family didn't realized that they were being photographed.
I think any famous person should realize that they may be photographed if they step foot off their own property. I'm not saying that's right--I wouldn't mind having 'photograph' laws tightened up a little--but that is the way it is currently. Everyone has a cell phone and if they see a famous person, many people will take a picture.
So apparently there was a request to the American media to blur Princess Lilibet's face like the British papers did but the request was ignored.
Prince Harry's Battle Over Princess Lilibet's Privacy (https://www.newsweek.com/princess-lilibet-photos-continuation-prince-harry-meghan-markle-sussex-tabloid-tensions-podcast-1812216)
QuotePrince Harry's issues with the British tabloid media have extended to the U.S. as photographs of his two-year-old daughter, Princess Lilibet, were published this month without having her face blurred for privacy. This was despite a request for the news organization to do so, a new episode of Newsweek's The Royal Report podcast has learned.
Lilibet, who turned two on June 4, was photographed with her parents, Harry and Meghan Markle, and brother, Prince Archie, while watching a July 4 parade in their hometown of Montecito. The event marked a rare public appearance for Lilibet and the family watched the event in a private capacity from the sidewalk of a public road.
Within hours of the parade, photographs of the princess in Harry's arms were published by the New York Post and Page Six, which are part of the Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corporation.
In the U.K. the photographs were also published by the Mail Online, however a key difference between the transatlantic coverage was that the U.K. stories blurred the young princess' face, whereas the New York Post and Page Six coverage left the royal unedited.
QuoteMy information here is that these photos were taken without Harry and Lilibet's consent," Royston said on The Royal Report, going on to add that steps had been taken to request the news outlets edit their images to protect the princess.
"In fact, as I understand it, they actually asked the Post to blur Lilibet's face," he continued, "and got no response."
Newsweek approached representatives of the New York Post and Page Six via email for comment.
Of the difference between the U.S. and U.K. laws which apply to publishers and the reason that Lilibet's face was blurred in U.K. coverage, Royston noted: "The key distinction here is that in Britain, even if you're in a public place there is still potentially a right to privacy if you are going about your private life."
"That's the kind of a subtle and complicated distinction, because obviously the base position is anything that is in the public domain already is public, not private, and public places are the public domain. But in Britain, under European privacy laws which were introduced into British law in 1998 as the Human Rights Act, if you were going about your private life, even if you were in public, you still have a right to privacy. Now, in America, that law simply doesn't exist."
California state ruling would have to change for ''all'' children, so far the children rule is 100% elitist, only celeb children. Then get a federal ruling for all states restricting, which is a batlle, not up hill though, but one would need a lot of money and influence to move the right people to change both laws. IF the individual or organization fight is elitist, it won't have a chance, if it is for all children, they will have a much better chance.
This is the US media, no suing. There have bee several US media outlets with unfavorable Sussex news originated in the US media. From separation, living in hotels, fighting in public or private clubs, having lunches and dinners at their own.
What and why do you think the couple have not sued to date over there? Is the law more lax making it harder for the sue happy couple? Anyone?
Quote
Harry and Meghan TRIAL SEPARATION: 'Nasty Fights, Humiliation and Failure' Lead Prince to Pursue 'Peace' - Inside The Drama
prince harry meghan taking time apart marriage troubles
By:Aaron Johnson
Jul. 18 2023, Published 5:00 a.m. ET
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been worn down after public backlash, failed business deals, and public spats with their loved ones, palace insiders revealed.
"They're trying to figure out what hit them," an insider claimed. "Harry doesn't fit in Meghan's tacky Tinseltown world," they added, saying he needs to "find himself."
It's been a rocky few months for the renegade royals who dealt with the negative fallout from the bad press as they tried to reestablish their lives in California after stepping down from their senior duties and waging war with the royals.
Prince Harry and Wife Meghan Spending 'Time Apart' After Marriage Troubles: Sources (https://radaronline.com/p/prince-harry-meghan-taking-time-apart-marriage-troubles/)
Probably because tales of public fights etc, edge of divorce and all the rest of the rubbish doesn?t come from viable sources. Apart from Angela Levin and co wittering on in failing TV Channels, viable British media, even the tabloids, have never stated that divorce is on the cards for the Sussexes, let alone that there have been fights between them in front of others or any separation, trial or otherwise. .
And that sort of thing in the US is centred on very questionable outlets like the Enquirer and the Globe and others of that ilk. Even huge Hollywood stars have never bothered to sue the Enguirer. (A) because it?s a joke that nobody takes seriously and (B) too much time. effort, expense and trouble to spend on rubbish. And that?s probably the view of the Sussex couple.
BTW, the source you linked has no name, so viewers cannot check the original article. What rubbishy magazine or other source first printed it. Original source please. And if it?s Radar, don?t make me laugh! The day Radar prints the truth about anything will be the day the sky caves in !
The couple are trapped with the first ammendment of freedom of speech, the press assembly in the USA. If the US had similar or equal laws like the UK including the EU, they'd have sued more than a dozen US media outlets to date.
I'm going to take Radar's story about the Sussexes' supposed marital issues with a big spoonful of skepticism.
Totally, Neil Sean consulted with Radar, his source said 'we can write anything we want with half truths of (spotify problem that may, very likely will have far reaching tentacles to other businesses) and it will pass - go to the digital press on to their website, it's only with the Brits they have issues and can sue''.
^ Hence my question yesterday about the press law. :wink:
You see, there are milder stories the couple went berserk with the UK media described by the couple themselves, now we have full on hotter US media trashing from the East and West coast of the USA, quiet as a mouse.
Neil Sean and the people he works for would ?consult? any news source that had bad stories about the Sussexes (or were prepared to make it up and publish it. And anybody who believes ANYTHING about anyone that Radar puts forth needs their head read. It would take a mountain of salt for me to read anything of theirs and wonder if there is truth in it. That?s how unreliable they are as a news source.
Look, I loathe the Fail with a passion, as you and everybody here knows that. However, if they had viable evidence from named independent witnesses about Harry and Meghan talking divorce, or photos of the two of them having a huge row in public (and it had audio not body language experts) then I?d believe it because the DM is a newspaper and mindful of British libel laws (though God knows they?ve been fined and paid out for breaking them.) I would then be prepared to believe it. But Radar. Never in 10 million years. They are not even on the level of the Enquirer, but miles below. Believable they are not!
Neil Sean is doing his job, he has a source at Radar, asked the person at Radar what, why are you guys publishing this story - the person told Neil they can publish whatever they want because the couple will not and can't sue them.
Why did Neil ask, well the three trashy gossip mags and sites have the equivalent of millions of Americans reading it online or at the supermarket stand, it's even bigger than the 10Million daily viewers of the Daily Mail UK alone. I fully understand the reason why Neil Sean asked this American publication.
The DM just published an embarrassing trashing from the Biden's to the Sussexes. Since they published it, 1. they are sure about their White House sources and 2. Waiting for Harry and Meghan to sue them. The couple are being treated as collateral damage. I do not know where this will end, but this story is really bad.
Quote from: wannable on July 19, 2023, 10:58:10 PM
Neil Sean is doing his job, he has a source at Radar, asked the person at Radar what, why are you guys publishing this story - the person told Neil they can publish whatever they want because the couple will not and can't sue them.
Why did Neil ask, well the three trashy gossip mags and sites have the equivalent of millions of Americans reading it online or at the supermarket stand, it's even bigger than the 10Million daily viewers of the Daily Mail UK alone. I fully understand the reason why Neil Sean asked this American publication.
The DM just published an embarrassing trashing from the Biden's to the Sussexes. Since they published it, 1. they are sure about their White House sources and 2. Waiting for Harry and Meghan to sue them. The couple are being treated as collateral damage. I do not know where this will end, but this story is really bad.
The DM aren?t ?waiting? for the Sussexes to sue them at all. Nowhere in that article does it infer that. And they even stated that Jill Biden, as a defender of maimed and wounded military personnel who always got on really well with Harry, really did want to go to the IG but did not as the couple ?didn?t want to offend the RF?. Did Charles or William tell them personally that it would offend them? No. However, Biden is a politician and Jill a politician?s wife. Their advisers at the SD were jittery and so they played it safe. That?s typical politician behaviour. Any twitch of any controversy anywhere and they run a mile.
As for Radar and supermarket mags the fact that millions read them (and the mag gets clicks) doesn?t mean anything other than millions of people get bored sometimes and decide they want some online entertainment, even if the stories are pure fiction. And 98% of the articles are, and people know it and the outlets know it as well.
Nobody goes to Radar, or the Enquirer or listens to Neil Sean wittering on about the royals, and thinks to themselves ?This is the God?s honest truth here!? There was a survey done once by YouGov on readers of British tabloids and about 12% of readers believed their stories were truthful and accurate. 12%! And that says it all really, about gossip mongers and those who believe them.
People like to read juicy gossip.
They went litigious with minor stuff. This Biden trashing is big.
Harry and Meghan ?asked to ride home on Air Force One? after Elizabeth II?s funeral (https://archive.li/CtVeY)
QuoteThe Duke and Duchess of Sussex asked if they could fly back from Elizabeth II?s funeral with Joe Biden on Air Force One, it has been alleged.
Sources close to the couple have not denied the claim.
Now I believe it should be noted that apparently Air Force One left the UK in the early afternoon post funeral. However the Sussexes like the rest of the BRF would have been at St. George's Chapel for the final service and then the private committal. The time schedules simply would not have worked. Also AF1 would have been returning to the East Coast, not the West. So the couple would have had to still make their way back to California.
This is the type of news, If I were Meghan and Harry, a worthwhile battle to sue the Daily Mail. It's a huge story with a triple story trashing from White House sources.
IF Jill Biden is so into the Warrior Games, she didn't show up not once this past June 2023 at San Diego. But Harry did several times.
Quote from: wannable on July 21, 2023, 02:39:58 PM
This is the type of news, If I were Meghan and Harry, a worthwhile battle to sue the Daily Mail. It's a huge story with a triple story trashing from White House sources.
IF Jill Biden is so into the Warrior Games, she didn't show up not once this past June 2023 at San Diego. But Harry did several times.
Harry and Meghan ?asked to ride home on Air Force One? after Elizabeth II?s funeral (https://archive.li/CtVeY)
The story from the Telegraph puts it in more perspective. It?s full of ?alleged? and ?it is said? references. And as TLLK has said, the plane was going back to the US before the private Memorial part of the Queen?s funeral. The Sussexes were sitting with the rest of the BRF at St George?s as the plane left the UK. Why would the couple have wanted to fly to Washington on the East Coast anyway, when their home and children were on the West Coast? And the couple can?t comment on every bit of rubbish the Fail decides to publish. That includes any White House gossip, made up or otherwise. Gossip is gossip, something that is a speciality of the Fail.
Quote from: wannable on July 21, 2023, 02:39:58 PM
This is the type of news, If I were Meghan and Harry, a worthwhile battle to sue the Daily Mail. It's a huge story with a triple story trashing from White House sources.
IF Jill Biden is so into the Warrior Games, she didn't show up not once this past June 2023 at San Diego. But Harry did several times.
Nobody knows why Jill Biden didn?t turn up to the Warrior Games this year. Perhaps Joe needs some more assistance at the moment. But she was certainly there for this event hosted by Disney last year. She spoke at it.
Disney "Honored" to Welcome First Lady Jill Biden to Veterans Event - Inside the Magic (https://insidethemagic.net/2022/08/first-lady-jill-biden-disneys-veteran-institute-summit-jc1/)
Jill Biden will travel to Orlando for Disney?s Veteran Institute Summit, speaking at the welcome event for the Warrior Games on August 18. According to FOX 35 Orlando, the Warrior Games ?celebrate the resiliency and dedication of wounded, ill, and injured active duty and veteran military service members.?
And
Dr. Biden and First Lady Michelle Obama created Joining Forces in 2011, a White House government initiative seeking to support families, caregivers, and surviving members of the United States Armed Forces. Upon becoming First Lady in 2021, Dr. Biden relaunched the initiative. From the Disney Parks Blog:
Support for the families of our service members and veterans, their caregivers, and survivors is a key priority of the First Lady and has been a cause that she has tirelessly worked on for more than a decade? Joining Forces focuses on military spouse employment, military child education and health and wellbeing, and we are honored that she will be accompanying us. This important event will showcase the value of military spouses and veterans in the workplace, share best hiring practices and encourage greater employment opportunities for the military and veteran community.
It is not a The Telegraph exclusive, it is a Daily Mail exclusive by their US Politics journalist at Washington DC - as I posted it.
ETA: I had posted it in their Iffy Wiff future plans, because with the DM original story, I think it's pretty much game over.
Back to the Future, the US Political reporter for Daily Mail making claims from the recent past.
Quote
Harry and Meghan asked to fly to US on Air Force One with Biden after Queen's funeral but were denied - and Jill didn't attend Invictus Games to avoid upsetting Royals ? so are Sussexes' attempts to become political players in America faltering?
Harry and Meghan have tried a variety of methods to gain access to political figures, including sending gifts and letter writing
The couple requested a ride back to the US on Air Force One after Queen Elizabeth's funeral in September but Biden's staff said no
Jill Biden's wish to attend Harry's Invictus Games was nixed when British officials suggested it may not go down well with the Royal Family By EMILY GOODIN, SENIOR
U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 20:05 BST, 19 July 2023 | UPDATED: 20:37 BST, 19 July 2023
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle wanted to ride back to the United States on Air Force One after the Queen's funeral ? but the request was denied by the White House in case it caused a 'commotion,' sources have revealed to DailyMail.com.
Months earlier, First Lady Jill Biden was also invited to attend Harry's Invictus Games ? but the idea was killed amid concerns that the Royal Family may have been offended by her presence there.
Both the failed initiatives are understood to have been part of a campaign by the Sussexes to gain political influence in the US as they settled into life in California. Meghan publicly advocated for paid family leave to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and worked behind the scenes to connect with the Bidens, DailyMail.com discovered from speaking to many current and former officials in the Biden administration and in the British government.
Harry and Meghan asked to fly to US on Air Force One with Biden after Queen's funeral but were denied - and Jill didn't attend Invictus Games to avoid
Quote from: wannable on July 21, 2023, 09:47:31 PM
It is not a The Telegraph exclusive, it is a Daily Mail exclusive by their US Politics journalist at Washington DC - as I posted it.
Yes you posted it. A Fail exclusive means nothing, only a journalists who?s picked up crumbs of gossip and the rag decided to run with it. And the story, as I pointed out, is full of holes. Being a reporter on US politics for the Fail is hardly a badge of Honour, especially if the said Political correspondent is reduced to repeating supposed WH gossip. Allegedly.
Just stating a fact, another fact is The Telegraph is not questioning, it is suggesting possibilities of why it can't have been.
I can also suggest that IF the White House had said yes it's a go, IMO the couple would have balanced going on AF1 without a blink, it would have helped them HUGELY in their career and image. Imagine going up the stairs waving, imagine 8 hours of flight networking with sleepy Joe and Jill.
But to be honest - I thank it did not happen, it would be a nod to the couple trashing/a nod for people to badly behave whenever and with whoever. Just like no Emmys - an emmy means a nod in the same way.
^
If this is even true yet Meghan think's so highly of herself that it would be nothing for her to ask the President for a ride back to the US.........as she has shown us, nothing is out of bounds when she wants something...like when she said the Archbishop married them 3 days before the actual wedding when he had to come out and tell that was a lie by her, the Duchess of Sussex, so I wonder if reality is setting im finally.
I could see them asking if it was possible and then realizing it wouldn't work due to the POTUS/FLOTUS plans to leave fairly quickly after the funeral. Harry and Meghan of course would have been present at the committal service at SGC. I'm saying this because after all the Sussexes' sources are not denying the story, which I believe that they would have if it simply wasn't true. The White House has not made a statement either way.
Quote from: TLLK on July 22, 2023, 02:25:55 AM
I could see them asking if it was possible and then realizing it wouldn't work due to the POTUS/FLOTUS plans to leave fairly quickly after the funeral. Harry and Meghan of course would have been present at the committal service at SGC. I'm saying this because after all the Sussexes' sources are not denying the story, which I believe that they would have if it simply wasn't true. The White House has not made a statement either way.
The Sussexes haven?t made a statement either way, neither denying nor confirming so they are in the same position as the WH. And when would either of them get any opportunity to speak to any of the Biden people anyway? The day was filled with ceremonial and preparing for it.
And that still doesn?t remove the objection that the Sussexes live thousands of miles away from Washington. Having to take another flight from Washington to LA and then travelling down to Montecito would add hours to their trip.
It was also known that the Bidens wouldn?t be hanging around after the funeral ceremonies but would be returning to the US. Harry and Meghan would have been told that the private part of the farewell to the Queen would be at Windsor, would be televised and would take some time.
Quote from: TLLK on July 22, 2023, 02:25:55 AM
I could see them asking if it was possible and then realizing it wouldn't work due to the POTUS/FLOTUS plans to leave fairly quickly after the funeral. Harry and Meghan of course would have been present at the committal service at SGC. I'm saying this because after all the Sussexes' sources are not denying the story, which I believe that they would have if it simply wasn't true. The White House has not made a statement either way.
Since the Sussex's have not denied the rumor/story that gives some pause to wonder if it is true, yet it sure takes lots of nerve to even ask the President of the US for a lift back to the states, after all this is not taxi service and Biden is or hasn't been giving lifts to anyone else that I am aware of.
Quote from: Curryong on July 22, 2023, 03:21:49 AM
The Sussexes haven?t made a statement either way, neither denying nor confirming so they are in the same position as the WH. And when would either of them get any opportunity to speak to any of the Biden people anyway? The day was filled with ceremonial and preparing for it.
And that still doesn?t remove the objection that the Sussexes live thousands of miles away from Washington. Having to take another flight from Washington to LA and then travelling down to Montecito would add hours to their trip.
It was also known that the Bidens wouldn?t be hanging around after the funeral ceremonies but would be returning to the US. Harry and Meghan would have been told that the private part of the farewell to the Queen would be at Windsor, would be televised and would take some time.
I imagine that in the days between QEII's passing and the confirmation that the Bidens would be present at the funeral, a Sussex staff member acting on behalf of the couple reached out to the POTUS/FLOTUS staff and simply made the request. The request was later denied and that was the end of it until it surfaced nearly a year later. The original article states that the source of the story came from the government officials in both Washington D.C. and London.
QuoteDailyMail.com discovered from speaking to many current and former officials in the Biden administration and in the British government.
As for the couple's return to the U.S., they may have thought that they could use the time on AF1 to discuss future IG/Warrior Games/ plans with the FLOTUS. Then on arrival back to the U.S., they could catch a red eye flight back to the West Coast.
IMO the couple had their plan A and plan B, since A didn't happen they stayed for B. One week after Joe visited Charles at Windsor, this triple story comes out - the leak was approved.
The couple have effectively been canceled by the highest authority and ranked position in the USA. Think about it, IF this happened to you - being cancelled by the highest authority? it's over with anything A and B, probably diminished to C rated salaries.
*Neil Sean says the leak came from the White House - the letter to the Biden's was delivered by the Sussex staff - the ''calligraphy'' is Meghan's. It wasn't typed. The Lemon basket, White House.
The none participation of Jill to her own country's DOD warrior games but to a private organization summit (Disney) to not cross paths with H is very telling - the problem is the couple self entitlement with crossing paths with VIPs get's beyond their head, that is when their nasty meter goes up too, collateral human damage left right and center.
I don't know whether the story is true or not. I think it is possible for the very reason that the Sussexes have not commented on it so far. They usually do speak out and 'tell their truth' and sometimes bring lawsuits too. So the fact that there is silence is an indication.
This is another example of an issue that has been made before. When people have complained about the Palace's habit of keeping quiet on most press stories, others have pointed out that this silence is a good way of preserving privacy. If they rarely make a comment, then people just don't always know what stories are true and which are not. But if you usually do comment and deny things--and then you stay silent about one--well, people do tend to think that story is true.
What a crazy long weekend, H self inviting M to Balmoral to be at HMQEII death bed - causing havoc to his family, then also instead of 'waiting for an invitation' , the delusions of grandeur, the entitlement of requesting a ride.
I believe it.
Why Meghan and Harry's fightback starts now
The Invictus Games are a chance for the Sussexes to show the past is behind them
By Victoria Ward,
ROYAL EDITOR
3 September 2023 7:00am
The article is fully open for viewing.
Why Meghan and Harry?s fightback starts now (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/09/03/meghan-harry-begin-fightback-invictus-game-dusseldorf/)
This belongs to the Iffy Wiff
After all those rumours, the Sussexes are separating their brands! ALISON BOSHOFF reveals how Meghan wants to escape Harry's victim narrative and 'lead with love', while he wants to be seen as a global philanthropist
Meghan is due to join him in Dusseldorf later next week, but seems to have thought better of playing a formal role, and her name has dropped off the diary of events.
After all those rumours, the Sussexes are separating? their brands! ALISON BOSHOFF reveals how Meghan wants to escape Harry's victim narrative and (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12497603/Sussexes-separating-brands-ALISON-BOSHOFF.html)
^ Let's wait and see. I think Meghan was to go on a later date?!
^^^ I hope that this separation of their brand into two different entities is going to lead the couple to be more "independent" from the BRF connection and allows them to seek the financial success that they have desired.
Harry and Meghan have been doing the clicks for themselves openly and blatantly since 3 years ago. That they shoot themselves in the foot is entirely on themselves too.
There are many royal reporter options in reference to your Neil Sean dislike.
(I find it quite funny to be honest the gutural feelings about the latest hits from Moir to Sean) I like them all, it's good to read all objective, subjective, perspectives, etc. Including propagandist #1 Omid Scobie :wink:
Quote from: wannable on September 25, 2023, 04:27:01 PM
Harry and Meghan have been doing the clicks for themselves openly and blatantly since 3 years ago. That they shoot themselves in the foot is entirely on themselves too.
There are many royal reporter options in reference to your Neil Sean dislike.
(I find it quite funny to be honest the gutural feelings about the latest hits from Moir to Sean) I like them all, it's good to read all objective, subjective, perspectives, etc. Including propagandist #1 Omid Scobie :wink:
Well, I too read them all. I?ve also purchased and read biographies on all the royals, including Junor, Bower and Nicholls whether I care for them or not. And interesting that you call Scobie a propagandist because he happens to be favourable to the Sussexes while the others, who are not, receive no such epithets.
Quote from: Curryong on September 26, 2023, 12:36:56 AM
Well, I too read them all. I?ve also purchased and read biographies on all the royals, including Junor, Bower and Nicholls whether I care for them or not. And interesting that you call Scobie a propagandist because he happens to be favourable to the Sussexes while the others, who are not, receive no such epithets.
The propagandists in history are the ones one needs to read especially, because they will convey their master's thoughts down to a jot - exacting words.
They make history usually because they write exactly why of the downfall of infamous people. It is through them we have access to the (real) thougts of i.e. in Omid's case - the Sussexes. Then every outlet analysis it. He is not the first propagandist in history, there have been plenty, usually with the same result. Ruination - it does come costly though - If I go down, you too. He already lost Yahoo and not at a retiring age, but because of lack of (real) BRF sources.
Quote from: Nightowl on September 26, 2023, 04:21:40 AM
I personally do not see Harry and or Meghan ever being welcomed again in the royal family or anywhere they are at.....and that is *on* Harry and Meghan only. Just who in the world makes fun of a 96 year old woman with a stupid courtesy and for Harry to sit and say or do nothing shows what a weak stupid little man he is...he is totally a disgusting human being. If someone ever would insult my grandparents they would face the fear of wrath....100 fold! And that is just part of why the royal family has I believe shut the door on them.....in fact imho it was insulting for Harry to even pay a visit to his grandmother's tomb for the insults he dealt her in her last remaining years and NO one can put a spin on that ever. I could care less what they do in life as long as they leave the royal family to go about their own lives. Go kiss the bottoms Harry and Meghan for that is all your good for in life now....and that is very sad for they could of done so much more, Yet Meghan had stars in her eyes, and Hollywood was calling.....well time will tell just how long that will last!
Charles Rae a retired because of real old age royal editor, royal correspondent, author of many books last night said H will not be 'sleeping' ever in a ''crown estate'', but maybe a reply or invite 'deferred' to a ''personal property'' like Sandiringham or Balmoral. There is a logic to his expert view, a scandal at a crown property is completely different to a scandal at a private property.
Scandal can be many things brought to the attention by Harry himself. CR says Charles smartly deferred the invite in this latest case by replying back 'you can stay at Balmoral'. Also at this point in time the Sussexes only access to Charles is via a staff worker. He's had enough of the back and forth with his son - there shouldn't be any type of 'negotiations', Harry treats his father via ''negotiations'' is a recipe to never winning. So for now it's not going anywhere.
H will have to tread carefully when at least in the UK - because a scandal at a commercial property....better yet today people are just intolerant to bad behaviour, it end's up in social media, then replicated.
Penny Junor is and was a propagandist for Charles and Camilla, especially Charles, far more so than Scobie has ever been for the Sussexes. People have known about her bias for twenty years and more.
And ? CR says Charles smartly deferred the invite in this latest case by replying back 'you can stay at Balmoral'???
Strange that the retired journalist knows this, considering that the linked Telegraph article on the subject stated directly that ?it is unknown whether the king knew of the correspondence? (between Harry and Palace staff). Twisting information much ??
And has Harry ever caused any scandal whatsoever in any commercial property that he has stayed at in London? He stayed at a private club for his father?s Coronation and no journalist knew he was even there until afterwards. Same with the hotel on this recent visit. And he has stayed dozens of times in hotels, Govt buildings, embassies and friends? private homes without causing any scandal whatsoever, unlike Uncle Andrew, since travelling with Meghan. So let?s not be so quick at drawing conclusions before they happen, eh!
The day Omid stops trashing senselessly - literally as I said, he writes - not even 12 hours go by - media outlets scrutinize/analyze, he gets caught with his pants down or worse lying. That is the type of propagandist I'm referring to. He writes the 'feelings and actions' of the Sussexes. Very very interesting, because it shows the entire world the madness.
IF he had stuck to skipping the ugly lies, and just wrote a Penny Junor :wub: about his bosses, it would be fine. But he did and apparently still is ready to keep on with untruths - it will just sink him. He has trashed by orders: the POW's and their children. At least he is owning it now - his trip to California - was asked if Meghan is in collab mode, he said yes.
Charles Rae claims he still has Buckingham Palace sources - he fully confirms the Telegraph story - he said it last night - he just spoke more detailed.
Nobody would care if Harry misbehaves or not at a commercial hotel (He'd care, his fans would care but it wouldn't ''affect'' the monarchy), it is at crown estates and lesser degree Balmoral/Sandringham where he has very ugly loose lips, royal connection.
Good grief, do you seriously believe that Junor hasn?t spouted for her readers Charles and Camilla?s POV on everything! She has travelled around the country with them and repeats all that is told to her as the truth!!
She worships Charles beyond idolatry and always has. Even the big Royal forum full of BRF worshippers laugh about it.
And Omid remains a best selling author, which is more than Junor has ever been. Or Neil Sean! And he is ABC royal correspondent and appears on their breakfast programmes. I?ve seen clips of him myself, doing just that.
As for fully confirming the Telegraph story, Rae, who retired in 2013, must be well over 80 by now and may well be suffering Bidenitis, stated that Charles himself told Harry to come to Balmoral while the Telegraph stated, in black and white that ?it is unclear as to whether the King knew about the correspondence.? That?s not detailed, that?s contradictory. So which is it, as the two sources can?t be squared.
And you stated in your previous post, and I quote
?H will have to tread carefully when at least in the UK - because a scandal at a commercial property....better yet today people are just intolerant to bad behaviour, it end's up in social media, then replicated.? End auote.
So you are contradicting yourself when you now state that scandals at commercial properties don?t matter!!
Are you seriously comparing C&C with what H&M have done?! It's a new level of being super nasty.
Who cares about getting naked in a Vegas Hotel? He is just making himself more foolish and tightening the noose. The scandal would be to himself, front page news worldwide to be mocked at.
Anyway, after seeing the slow mo video of the Montecito fundraiser - I think the Vegas Harry has been suplanted by Yikes Harry.
Quote from: wannable on September 26, 2023, 09:13:52 PM
Are you seriously comparing C&C with what H&M have done?! It's a new level of being super nasty.
Who cares about getting naked in a Vegas Hotel? He is just making himself more foolish and tightening the noose. The scandal would be to himself, front page news worldwide to be mocked at.
Anyway, after seeing the slow mo video of the Montecito fundraiser - I think the Vegas Harry has been suplanted by Yikes Harry.
But you began by stating that Omid was a spokesman for the Sussexes, and swallows the Cool Aid on their behalf. I then pointed out that he is certainly not the only one. Junor was/is notorious for it on Charles?s behalf, even when he was committing adultery with a fellow officer?s wife. Kay also was very well known as a Diana acolyte, before he attached himself to the Wales couple to do the same worshipping of them.
And you didn?t mention Vegas in that quote of yours that I linked. It?s clear from the context that you were writing about any scandals in future in commercial properties.
There is a humongous difference ''doing the rounds'' to improve your image (C&C) vs doing the rounds (still at it) to trash the family and the government and the British media (H&M).
A load of perspective is in order. Anyway, I can happily say that the trashing only made the BRF more looked at and more loved and more popular, better poll numbers. Since they don't realize it yet...LOL.
^ I give examples, Vegas, I give examples of scandals - their trashing rounds, what did it do? Bad news to them, good news to the real victims here, the family they trashed. The bad behaviour gives them notoriety, infamous one, front page news. Connect the dots, but I doubt a Sussex fan can - In all honesty whatever trashing ways this couple do, the fans find it totally okay, whilst their US poll numbers are flopping, so what will it take to open eyes about the Harry and Meghan problem? Without the royal connection, they are losing everything, including moneys.
Have you looked at the poll numbers for Camilla lately? And even for the King? His are hardly glowing and hers are absolutely disastrous for a Consort. So ?improving her image? hasn?t helped Camilla with the British public. And that?s with sycophantic press coverage in the last few years. In 2023 she is still regarded by large swathes of the population, not just the over 50s who remember Diana, with a less than sympathetic eye, to say the least. And these are two of the mostly elderly working royals, who supposedly are so important to the future of Britain, lol.
File this under strange things that happen with social media and a desire to gain more followers. :wacko: :unsure:
A pair drove to Montecito to stage their own "Worldwide Privacy Tour" stunt. They staged their "protest" at the Montecito off ramp exit, the Goleta In-N-Out and the restaurant. They did not go to the Sussexes' home.
Prince Harry and Meghan 'South Park'-Style Protest Sparks Anger (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-meghan-south-park-protest-anger-youtube-1841371)