A thread to discuss royal commentators, reporters and experts. They tweeted, emailed, had drinks at the bar, but not any more.
Piers Morgan should know by now that is how Hollyweird operates. She did it during her acting days to get tabloid mention. They are encouraged to make friends with the right people to end up in the best papers.
She's going to be a royal, his friendship is not worthy anymore. Or maybe she will need him in the future for some kind of journalistic support as he is as vocal as she.
Isn't it easier to be cordial and hey I'm going to be a royal now - PM would understand, rather than be a cut off user with no explanation. :hehe:
Quote'She met Prince Harry and cut me off!' Baffled Piers Morgan reveals his 'former friend' Meghan Markle GHOSTED him after falling in love
Speaking of how their unlikely friendship came to terms, Piers admitted: 'After I followed her on Twitter, she DM'ed me and said, "I'm a massive fan of yours, this is great, do you want to see future episodes?"'
'She then started sending me future episodes. I then linked in with one of the other guys from the show, who came on Good Morning Britain, and for about a year-and-a-half we were exchanging emails and messages.'
Detailing the moment the pair first met, Piers continued: 'Then Meghan came to Wimbledon to watch her friend Serena Williams play and she messages me and says, "Do you fancy a drink?" I say, "Come to my local pub" and there we are for 90 minutes just me and Meghan, we were great buddies!'
However, things didn't turn out the way Piers had planned as he admitted she changed after meeting Prince Harry: 'Next thing I know, silence, off the radar. You know what happened?'
Read more: Piers Morgan reveals Meghan Markle ghosted him | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5445915/Piers-Morgan-reveals-Meghan-Markle-GHOSTED-him.html#ixzz58RRXC3oU)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
They weren't friends. They bonded on social media (on his Twitter Page) over gun control when he was struggling to be understood on the issue, and Meghan tweeted that she admired his stance. They met at a pub once, when she was in London and they had a quick drink. That's not friendship.
I doubt that Piers Morgan is personally cut to the quick that they aren't in contact any more though he might have enjoyed the contact with a young Royal in a journalistic sense. He knows how media contacts operate, and he's no wide-eyed Bambi in the deep dark forest.
I think in fact that he's being ironic about this, but what does he expect her to do? If they remain in contact Piers could well be accused in another few years of being a younger Andrew Morton, or Richard Kay, a medis conduit to putting her point of view across in the media. I can just see that going down well with people who don't like her and wish her ill. But then, any excuse is better than none to bash this woman isn't it?
He claims to have received and returned friendship for 1 and 1/2 years. What is friendship for her, she discarded 30 years of friendship, doesn't consider PM one and a half years either, but that same time to meet and marry someone yes.
It's no wonder, she is heavily critisised. Good to correspond for more than a year, contact the person once in town, have drinks! Then discard. She doesn't know how to pacify people, hence once discarded, they turn on her.
Piers is no Bambi, hence his story on live tv, reproduced in an article.
Oh, for goodness sake! It was a Twitter friendship for a few months, bonding over some current issues they agreed on, not face to face confidences about life like true friends have or frequent meetings with each other's family, friends, constant outings together.
They met once, in a London pub. If Piers (one of the most unpopular news editors Britain ever produced, a man whose entire lack of morality was legendary when he was editor of The Sun. God knows how many people he diddled, cheated, deceived and lied to over the years!) feels hard done by because someone he met once isn't in touch any more then he is being hypocritical. And milking this for all its worth!
As for her ex friend, I wrote a long post previously, about how sometimes life, interests, circumstances mean that people leave friendships. I stand by what I wrote at that time. It happened to my daughter and her friends of twenty odd years.
Plus, we don't know the motivations of her ex friend (who was very keen to make money out of writing about someone she had been so close to for decades. How is that honourable?) There could have been a dozen reasons that their friendship ended besides what she put out.
You intensely dislike Meghan, rejoice in every tiny bit of negativity with regard to her, so of course you're going to go the 'poor heartbroken Piers angle' on this. I bet his fellow journos don't feel the same way!
So Piers lied with the 1 1/2 years of friendship. And you have the truth it to be a few months.
18 months is only a few months. Piers obviously classifies 'friendship' to be some communications over Twitter about current affairs. And I don't believe he regarded Meghan as a true friend. As soon as she came into prominence as Harry's girlfriend he was rushing into print about her drink with him in a pub, acting as if he was an expert on her in several articles. What a lucky break that was for him as a journalist, but not how a true friend acts.
[gmod]Personal comment has been removed. [/gmod]
Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control - CNN 1/7/2013 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg)
Beginning of the end for PM on CNN after he tangles with Alex Jones over guns, a few years old but relevant today.
Quote from: Curryong on March 01, 2018, 12:45:18 AM
18 months is only a few months. Piers obviously classifies 'friendship' to be some communications over Twitter about current affairs. And I don't believe he regarded Meghan as a true friend. As soon as she came into prominence as Harry's girlfriend he was rushing into print about her drink with him in a pub, acting as if he was an expert on her in several articles. What a lucky break that was for him as a journalist, but not how a true friend acts.
I've never known you discuss any good about Meghan in posts. You remind me of a poster on TRF. As soon as he posts on the Harry and or Meghan threads our immediate reaction is 'what piece of maliciousness has he picked up from the Fail now'? ! We know it's not going to be good news and we are never disappointed!
Piers has been angling to get an invitation to the wedding since the engagement was announced. Saw a clip of his co host laughing at him saying "You thought you were friends but forgot to tell Meghan she was your friend". :lol:
. OTOH, Meghan hasn't even been dating Harry for two years yet, and we've barely seen her, but you have your opinions set in iron about her.
Quote from: Curryong on February 28, 2018, 11:30:34 PM
Oh, for goodness sake! It was a Twitter friendship for a few months, bonding over some current issues they agreed on, not face to face confidences about life like true friends have or frequent meetings with each other's family, friends, constant outings together.
They met once, in a London pub. If Piers (one of the most unpopular news editors Britain ever produced, a man whose entire lack of morality was legendary when he was editor of The Sun. God knows how many people he diddled, cheated, deceived and lied to over the years!) feels hard done by because someone he met once isn't in touch any more then he is being hypocritical. And milking this for all its worth!
As for her ex friend, I wrote a long post previously, about how sometimes life, interests, circumstances mean that people leave friendships. I stand by what I wrote at that time. It happened to my daughter and her friends of twenty odd years.
Plus, we don't know the motivations of her ex friend (who was very keen to make money out of writing about someone she had been so close to for decades. How is that honourable?) There could have been a dozen reasons that their friendship ended besides what she put out.
You intensely dislike Meghan, rejoice in every tiny bit of negativity with regard to her, so of course you're going to go the 'poor heartbroken Piers angle' on this. I bet his fellow journos don't feel the same way!
Excellent Post
@Curryong one meeting in a pub for a few drinks to meet someone from twitter does not constitute a friendship no more than one date in a restaurant with someone you met on an online dating site makes one boyfriend and girlfriend. It seems everyone wants a piece of Meghan whether it be for selfpromotion or making money or both. Since Meghan was publicly known as Harry's latest girlfriend now fiancee so called friends claim it is Meghan who ended the friendship but, IMO it was they who ended the friendship by selling her out.
Quoteso called friends claim it is Meghan who ended the friendship but, IMO it was they who ended the friendship by selling her out.
Excellent point :thumbsup:
They also go on & on about Meghan using her exes but her exes are not the ones saying it. For the exes to remain silent let's us know they parted as friends & the relationship had just run it's course.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/world/europe/uk-royal-family-workload.html?fallback=0&recId=1INqYcm6ExN1sqa0DLodXFHDlLm&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=CT&recAlloc=story&geoCountry=US&blockId=home-featured&imp_id=338905950&action=click&module=editorsPicks&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer
QuoteLONDON ? Long before there was such a thing as ?Big Data,? there was Tim O?Donovan, a retired insurance broker who has meticulously tabulated the British royal family?s engagements with pencil and paper every day for 40 years.
In a row of old-fashioned leather-bound ledgers, in a wisteria-fringed house in the village of Datchet, just west of London, he has amassed an extraordinary collection of raw data. The Autumn Dinner of the Fishmongers? Company, convened in October by Princess Anne? It?s in there. The opening of the Pattern Weaving Shed in Peebles, Scotland? Of the Dumfries House Maze? Of a window at the Church of St. Martin in the Bull Ring? Noted.
Mr. O?Donovan, 87, is not part of the hurly-burly of royal commentary. Not only is he not active on social media, he claims never to have seen it. (?I am glad to say I don?t have anything to do with it,? he said, a bit starchily. ?Everything I?ve heard about it is negative.?)
I think Mr O' Donavon is very sweet, worrying about what would happen if he suddenly died in mid year with his work half-finished. I hope his grandson can help a little in the future, but with schooling, exams and eventually College I think Mr O' Donavon needs a more mature assistant! Surely someone newly retired who lives nearby would be interested? It will be quite a pity if the poor old boy has to eventually give up and no-one takes it on.
I love the framed picture he has with HM QEII and the quote. :D
His twitter feed is 98% Meghan, 1% Harry, 1% every other royal retweet/tweet.
I think he should expand the 1% every other royal for the next 6 months for ''paycheck''. In other words, sign up with the royal press pack to every C&C, W&K duties.
Anyway, for those who have defamed him (i.e. going OTT with innuendo)
Omid Scobie
Verified account
@scobie
Replying to @SonDromer
The lunacy is strong with the fiction that I get tagged in.
And for any of these conspiracy theorists reading: I?m not an ex of anyone in her world, have never been a secret PR, I don?t have business with Soho House, have never shared my home and am not in cahoots with anyone.
LMAO
This man is as a joke as her friend and husband
Quote
Listen on Apple Podcasts
3 AUG 2019
2. Childhood as a Mountbatten; Lions, Coatimundis, Bears and Being Left in Budapest
2. Childhood as a Mountbatten; Lions, Coatimundis, Bears and Being Left?
Imagine growing up in with a lion, a bear, a mongoose and a coatimundi. We?re having tea and cake with Lady Pamela Hicks, daughter of Lord and Lady Mountbatten and India Hicks' much loved mum. India and producer Lisa Francesca Nand hear about the exotic creatures that both terrified and tantalised the Mountbattens and their equally exotic visitors, the curious occasion when Lady Pamela and her sister were left for months on end in a random hotel outside Budapest and much more. Unmissable!
16 min
1 AUG 2019
1. Childhood as a Mountbatten; A Plethora of Kings
1. Childhood as a Mountbatten; A Plethora of Kings
The family and friends who visited the Mountbattens during Lady Pamela's childhood read like a list of who's who in royalty, politics, high society, the world's greatest authors and artists and Hollywood's finest. Lady Pamela Hicks, India Hicks and their producer Lisa, listen as Lady Pamela regales astounding stories of Kings, Queens and lovers and the weird and wonderful life of growing up as a Mountbatten.
?The India Hicks Podcast on Apple Podcasts (https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-india-hicks-podcast/id1475090347)
I recommend the podcast, super interesting and fun
Quote
Lord Mountbatten's daughter reveals her father faced an 'endless battle' to recover family heirlooms from Wallis Simpson after they were 'taken by King Edward' when he went into exile
Prince Philip's cousin Pamela Hicks, 90, recalled her childhood and royal stories
The daughter of the late Lord Mountbatten spoke about her father's battles
Said that upon his abdication the former King Edward took heirlooms into exile
Claimed father tried to retrieve them through Edward's wife Wallis Simpson
Lady Pamela says they never were able to recover the stolen jewelry that Edward and Wallis took.
I don't know why Mountbatten took it upon himself to recover Royal heirlooms after the war. It certainly wouldn't have been Queen Mary or the Queen Mother who asked him to do it as neither could stand him. Nor would the Queen or PP.
And a huge amount of Edwina Mountbatten's jewellery was lost for a generation after her death, when she deposited it all in a bank and then didn't tell her daughters what she'd done. That haul included pieces that she had worn as the last Vicereine of India. Perhaps Mountbatten should have confined himself to that search.
And anyway, Mountbatten made himself a nuisance in Wallis's widowhood by making none too subtle hints as to whom she should leave her and her husband's property to. In the end he had to be told to desist as it was making her feel sad and depressed.
I wonder how they taxed it upon their (Windsor's) death. The law hasn't changed. No death tax if it goes to the (actual) King (or Queen).
The detail is in the podcast....lady Pamela calls what Edward took 'stage' jewelry. The Heirlooms she refers to are the ancient ones passed from King (Monarch or Queen), to future King, to future King. He abdicated, he should have left it rather than taking possession.
I'm no great fan of Edward and Wallis. However some of the jewellery he took with him was purely mythical. He was supposed to have taken a ruby necklace that was left to him by his grandmother Queen Alexandra. No such necklace existed. He certainly didn't take any of the Crown Jewels apart from a rather battered coronet he had worn for his inauguration as Prince of Wales.
Wallis had magnificent jewellery. Edward started gifting her with many valuable pieces from the mid 1930s on. However, none belonged to members of the BRF, none were official or Crown pieces, and indeed much of Wallis's jewellery was auctioned off in the decades following her death.
What Mountbatten took upon himself to ask to be returned to the BRF were things like regalia and robes of various British Orders that Edward had been awarded throughout his Royal life. He wasn't asked to do this by either the QM or the present Queen. Nevertheless, a few years after the Duke of Windsor's death these objects were returned. However Lord Mountbatten went further and started to ask who Wallis was going to leave her money, art, furniture etc to. He mentioned Charles. There were rumours he wanted a legacy himself.
I did not know where to post this but I suppose here is OK since Lady Colin Campbell made her "fortune" writing books about the royals. This interview she did with Piers Morgan is so absurd and outrageous. It is worth reading to see what kind of person she is. Sucking up to the royals, IMO.
This is one quote from below article:
"Lady Colin Campbell said on the show today: 'You all seem to have forgotten that Jeffrey Epstein, the offence for which he was charged and for which he was imprisoned, was for soliciting prostitution from minors.
'That is not the same thing as paedophilia.'
She said it was 'prostitution' when Morgan asked what she would call it.
But the 54-year-old journalist said:'If you solicited a 14-year-old for prostitution, you're a paedophile.'
Lady Campbell said: 'It doesn't matter.'
A shocked Morgan hit back: 'It does matter. You're procuring an underage girl for sex.'
He added: 'That's what he was convicted of! I'm sorry, I'm sorry, with respect, that is nonsense.'
Lady Campbell replied: 'Was he? 14? Well, I'm not justifying Jeffrey Epstein.' "
Lady Colin Campbell claims soliciting sex from minors 'is not the same as paedophilia' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7698157/Lady-Colin-Campbell-claims-soliciting-sex-minors-not-paedophilia.html)
So disgusting.
maybe "lady" campbell will finally become a dame!
Campbell needs to retire.
Campbell needs to crawl back under what ever rock he/she came out from
Royal biographer Lady Colin Campbell has been sacked from turning on the Christmas lights in Prince Charles' home town - after ?appearing to partially defend? convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Lady C had been set to appear at the switch-on in Tetbury, Glos., on December 6, which is near Prince Charles' Highgrove House estate.
But the 70-year-old's appearance has now been pulled by furious organisers after she said 'soliciting sex was not the same as paedophilia'.
Prince Andrew latest: Lady Colin Campbell dropped from Christmas lights switch on after 'defending' Epstein (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/prince-andrew-latest-lady-colin-campbell-dropped-christmas-lights/)
Her books about Diana and the Queen Mother were really in many ways offensive IMO, with her "contentions" about both of them. The royals are not close to her to say the least and it was irritating how she said Diana "confided in her" after Diana's death. Diana avoided Campbell and for obvious reasons wanted nothing to do with her.
Diana saw through her IMO.
The things she wrote about Diana was outrageous, IMO. She only got away with it because Diana was dead.
Maybe now people can see through her too.
I'll put it here since apparently the CEO of ITV requested his resignation because Meghan Markle wrote to her (CEO is a female), he left. OfCom has 41,000 signatures against him, petition to reinstate him has grown the cuadruple as of a few minutes ago to 150,000. Piers announced he will be receiving a bigger formal offer from a broadcaster, won't say. American or UK???
Phew there updated.
And ITV GMB 6 a.m. show woke up today in deep rating trouble, last place rather than the constant 5 year 1 and 2 with the BBC. Piers was an ITV employee for those 5 years. They will need to get a very charismatic person to replace him. Like him or not, he was very energetic for breakfast time.
Last minute: ITV's shares slump by 4.3% after Piers Morgan leaves.
Double post auto-merged: March 10, 2021, 07:25:31 PM
ETA: The danger of managing popularity, to all humans who have lived it, I hope that popularity of being wanted is administrated with good purpose.
ITV's share drop in market capitalisation of some ?250 million.
Double post auto-merged: March 11, 2021, 01:03:50 PM
He's administering his popularity in a good way, latest interview, he praised his ex ITV team, every one of them.
^^^
Ofcom CLEARS Piers Morgan and GMB over Meghan and Harry's Oprah show | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9944265/Ofcom-CLEARS-Piers-Morgan-GMB-Meghan-Harrys-Oprah-show.html)
Omid tweeted his discontentment of this decision. The comments under his tweets though are brutal against the Sussexes and him.
He wrote about the human rights, mental and physical health of Meghan (and Harry), that triggered into comments about all the people the couple have trashed. I'm intrigued, his followers are Sussexsquad, but his twitter feed has been badly invaded.
According to some on royal forums the only people who are ?horrible and attack others? are SussexSquad people, so that must be surprising to those who think that all who oppose them behave like angels when online.
https://mobile.twitter.com/scobie/status/1433030585430257666?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
And whether Morgan likes it or not thousands of people complained about his behaviour and comments on that occasion. Nor were most people surprised by his stomping off the set of GMB.
And the decision supports free speech. It hasn?t handed Morgan a Nobel Prize. In my eyes and many like me, Piers Morgan has always been and always will be a loudmouth bigot and a rotten excuse for a human being. Little principles shown throughout his long and disgusting journalistic career.
I was just pointing out the weirdness in Omid's twitter feed, which usually has top notch support. There is always a first though, he was truly invaded 99% by people calling him out due to the fact that He (Meghan and Harry too) have trashed the BRF without a thought of their human rights, MH and physical.
One of the major points imo is Ofcom said it's not racist to discuss race with context. Also criticism of Meghan isn't automatically racist.
?Former Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan, who was also up for the best presenter award, also got booed by the crowd.
Many viewers took to social media throughout the night to share their thoughts on the booing.
?It?s the boos for me hahahaha,? one joked.?
The audience were obviously in a good mood, perhaps a drink or two too many and having a good time.
British journalist Piers Morgan has signed a deal with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and Fox News Media to host a new global television show, the companies announced on Thursday
Basically his new show (called TalkTV) will be global, the Murdoch's said it will be slotted in ALL media corps he owns;
Television and Internet
Not going to list, because he owns more than 100, most known Fox and Sky.
List of assets owned by News Corp - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp)
But we get the picture.
Today Lady Collin Campbell and her castle Goring will be hosting a tea party for all the personnel from:
Volunteering Charity | Royal Voluntary Service | Previously ...Volunteering Charity | Royal Voluntary Service | Previously WRVS (https://www.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk)
Royal Voluntary Service is a national charity built on local volunteering, giving support to people who need it in NHS hospitals and communities.
Yes, we get the picture. Right wing channels, right wing organisation. Piers Morgan should fit in nicely there.
I'm not sure Piers Morgan is 'right wing' by any definition. He certainly isn't a social conservative. He's a classic liberal in that he supports free speech.
^ Yes classic liberal who votes for Labour Party. There are quite a large divide between themselves, the woke liberals and the middle-age liberals.
:laugh: He must be insufferable now (he's a teaser through his twitter, it's a don't look if you don't like), knowing he is earning triple (although I think much more, royalties and fees because it's a ''new'' Murdoch channel , new TV show that will be slotted in all Murdoch's news corp owning) from his archenemy the ITV CEO Dame.
I was talking about the organisations Murdoch owns, such as Fox News which is certainly right wing. And Piers Morgan will fit into those. He may be earning more but that doesn?t mean his show is guaranteed to be a success. His last one (for a US audience based in the US) wasn?t. I don?t believe that Morgan voted for Corbyn who represented a thousand things Morgan disapproved of. And liberalism in North America has a different connotation to what it represents in the UK and Australia.
An old article from the BBC but explanatory.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10658070
Quote from: wannable on September 16, 2021, 04:18:40 PM
Today Lady Collin Campbell and her castle Goring will be hosting a tea party for all the personnel from:
Volunteering Charity | Royal Voluntary Service | Previously ...Volunteering Charity | Royal Voluntary Service | Previously WRVS (https://www.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk)
Royal Voluntary Service is a national charity built on local volunteering, giving support to people who need it in NHS hospitals and communities.
Thank you for sharing this news that the RVS will be honored with the tea party.
Piers is anti-gun, pro gay marriage, pro mask, pro vaccine, etc.
Where he falls foul is that he's not afraid to debate, agree to disagree. Call out hypocrisy where he sees it.
I'll leave it there because I'm not sure the scope of the thread.
Morgan is certainly very fond of calling out other people for what he calls hypocrisy. What his own standards and moral compass consist of is for others to judge. There are many who would not accept Piers Morgan as the moral arbiter of their beliefs and behaviour. Those who live in glass houses etc?
Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2021, 10:47:49 PM
Thank you for sharing this news that the RVS will be honored with the tea party.
Honoured? I?m not sure that if I were a volunteer with the RVS I?d feel ?honoured? by attending a tea party hosted by a snobbish, gossip peddling fantasist of an author. In fact I?d be gracefully declining. But to each his and her own.
Lady C mentioned it in her youtube, the Tea party is today, it will be similar or try to the Queen's BP Garden party, which is tea and 2 or 3 sort of mini sandwiches and cakes. If one is the host, which she said she is and her home is being used, it's an honour given to her by the RVC. She looked garden party dressed. :D
Quote from: Curryong on September 16, 2021, 10:36:59 PM
I was talking about the organisations Murdoch owns, such as Fox News which is certainly right wing. And Piers Morgan will fit into those. He may be earning more but that doesn?t mean his show is guaranteed to be a success. His last one (for a US audience based in the US) wasn?t. I don?t believe that Morgan voted for Corbyn who represented a thousand things Morgan disapproved of. And liberalism in North America has a different connotation to what it represents in the UK and Australia.
An old article from the BBC but explanatory.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10658070
This will be a new tv channel, his controversial lefty show will be called TalkTV. It will not only be in the NEW channel, but Murdoch said with the new 'times' the companies (plural) decided that his show will be slotted in all News Corp. IMO, that is a great decision, one needs to 'adapt' and change to the new times, not entirely but yes adapt. IF he didn't do it, then he wouldn't be profiting from the left people too. Coldy spoken.
Quote from: wannable on September 16, 2021, 11:04:12 PM
Lady C mentioned it in her youtube, the Tea party is today, it will be similar or try to the Queen's BP Garden party, which is tea and 2 or 3 sort of mini sandwiches and cakes. If one is the host, which she said she is and her home is being used, it's an honour given to her by the RVC. She looked garden party dressed. :D
It screams to me of someone who is pandering to a self delusion that she is some sort of aristocrat (which she isn?t) playing Lady Bountiful in a castle which she bought not inherited.
That HM's patronage decided for Lady C is cause of her to feel honoured.
Quote
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II became Patron of WVS on 22 July 1952 and in 1966, in recognition of the organisation?s work for the people of Great Britain, Her Majesty granted WVS the honour of adding Royal to its title, from then on being known as WRVS until 2013 when the organisation changed it's name once again to Royal Voluntary Service.
Her grandmother Queen Mary was the first Patron, granting her Patronage to WVS only three days after the organisation had been formed by Lady Reading on 20 May 1938 and her mother Queen Elizabeth was President of WVS from December that same year.
In the website, 'about us' Presidency, the board including the Queen decide the whatabouts. I don't see anything delusional about that. I think Lady C youtube defending the Monarchy, explaining history, etc. factored in the like of the people involved who give and the takers too. Each episode with time has more than 1Million views. The most watch recently was her historical explanation of the deposed monarchy of Afghanistan, implications, etc. I thought it to be very interesting.
I doubt very very much that the Queen attended a board meeting to decide that a garden party was going to be hosted by Lady C. It was more likely an offer by Lady C was made to the local branch to host a tea party and that was accepted.
Lady C indulges in some sort of delusion that she is a fully blown aristocrat who mixes with members of the RF, when she isn?t and doesn?t.
And she is not an historian of any sort either. If anybody takes ?historical facts? from her YouTube channel wholesale without checking with other sources first then they have only a slight interest in history in my view. And the monarchy doesn?t need a faux aristocrat like Lady C as a defender. If they do they are on shaky ground indeed.
It's an expense paid by the RVC...so usually the RVC or the organization seeks for a venue and host.
If you say so. Although, I like to listen to all parties that talk about history.
I like to listen to everyone who is historically trained and knows something about the subject to talk about it. Not a gossipy author who peddles lies about the RF she is supposedly defending. ?Cookie? anyone?
Okey Dokey, guys. Getting a little heated. Deep breath. Namaste. And if that doesn?t work, can I interest anyone in a nice glass of Merlot. :flower3:
:bday: I bet Lady C had Merlot in her cuppa :shake: :laugh10:
But really, I wrote to RVC, they confirmed, wait for their Annual Financial statement reporting. :orchid:
Confirmed what about this tiresome woman? That they paid for it all while Lady C swanned around playing Lady of the Manor. That I can well believe. And it still leaves her as a fantasist and poser.
Fox News
@FoxNews
Piers Morgan to join FOX News Media, News Corp in global deal that includes TV show, columns, books.
Quote from: Curryong on September 16, 2021, 10:58:53 PM
Honoured? I?m not sure that if I were a volunteer with the RVS I?d feel ?honoured? by attending a tea party hosted by a snobbish, gossip peddling fantasist of an author. In fact I?d be gracefully declining. But to each his and her own.
As you pointed out
@Curryong, there are likely those who will choose to decline when they realize who the is the acting hostess. However there are those who likely are unaware of who Lady Colin Campbell is or that she's an author.
None of the descriptions constitute a criminal?!
Amol Rajan: BBC media editor apologises for ?rude and immature? comments about royal family after documentary controversy | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/amol-rajan-royal-family-bbc-b1968448.html)
QuoteThe BBC?s media editor has apologised for ?rude and immature? comments he made about the royal family in articles nearly a decade ago.
Amol Rajan, 38, described the Duke of Edinburgh as a ?racist buffoon? and the Prince of Wales as ?scientifically illiterate? in comment pieces published by The Independent newspaper in 2012.
One article described the Queen?s Diamond Jubilee as ?little more than the industrialisation of mediocrity? also criticised the Duke of Cambridge and Duke of Sussex, who he said were ?the sort of posh nice-but-dims our democracy has struggled for centuries to remove from authority?.
A second piece published later the same year said the public roles of the William and his wife Kate, the Duchess the Cambridge, were a ?total fraud? and called on them to ?renounce the luxuries of royal patronage and aristocracy?.
Rajan, who edited The Independent between 2013 and 2016, presented a controversial recent BBC documentary examining the relationship between William and Harry.
In a statement posted on Twitter on Thursday, the journalist, who is also a presenter for Radio 4?s Today programme, apologised for any offence his words in the 2012 article had caused.
He wrote: ?In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it.
They all (Royal Correspondents) are at holiday/social media twitter hiatus, except Omid and the Sussexsquad. They went into a Mega Metldown Christmas day onward.
Wishing them all peace 🕊
01/01/2022
Omid starts the year angry.
Omid Scobie
@scobie
Nice behind the scenes details on Kate?s life from former Kensington Palace private secretary Rebecca Priestley in the Mail. Comes not long after Jason Knauf was given the nod to break his NDA and help the Mail?s publisher fight Meghan in their court appeal. Cosy relationship.
He's angry because Rebecca English wrote that Camilla Tominey is correct, that she investigated and there are ''several'' witnesses that were there at Charlotte's fitting.
Who are the several; Meghan's party, Kate's party AND the 'Designer Party'....just saying.
Omid is an expert on cosy relationships. #FindingFreedom.
He literally gave Meghan a hug at the last engagement she did as a royal.
Quite a few of the RR seem a bit hypersensitive the last few days.
Online troll arrested for making chilling death threats against TV star Piers Morgan and his son Spencer (https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/17244088/piers-morgan-and-son-death-threats/)
Camilla Tominey also received online death threats against herself and her three children in the past seven months.
This Morning?s royal expert Camilla Tominey victim of terrifying death threats - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/mornings-royal-expert-camilla-tominey-24387511)
QuoteThis Morning's royal expert Camilla Tominey has opened up about the vile death threats she has received both on her own life and that of her family.
Camilla posted one of the graphic messages she has received on her social media accounts as she demanded it stops now.
The mum-of-three claims the death threat came from a fan of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.
She had attracted criticism after speaking out against Harry, who she has branded "insensitive" and "self-pitying" and claimed he is "out for vengeance" against the Royal Family.
She was also responsible for the story that claimed Meghan made Kate Middleton cry in a row, which Meghan said in her Oprah Winfrey interview was actually the other way around, with Kate making her cry.
The horrifying message from an anonymous user read: "Hate your three kids. They should not be breathing. They must die! "We are watching you and yours. That nasty husband of yours cannot watch them all the time you know.
"We know where to get you all."
It chillingly concluded: "We don't lie, we act. We love to [knife emojis] you will be a pleasure to kill."
Camilla wrote alongside the message: "We must call out online hate when we see it, which is why I am posting this death threat, sent to my website this morning in the name of #HarryandMeghan ?fandom?.
Meghan Markle tried to cancel me - she's in for a very nasty surprise, says Piers Morgan ahead of his new Sun column (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17249595/piers-morgan-meghan-markle-cancel-me/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunmaintwitter&utm_source=Twitter)
Didn?t expect anything else from Piers than more broadsides against Meghan and Harry. He is getting extremely boring on the subject.
Harry and Meghan after me again via Twitter lawyers. I said that their victim feelings happen every now and again and the rest of the time they are strong enough to tell the world how to behave. Thankfully Twitter says it is not subject to removal.
- Angela Levin ( Prince Harry biographer )
https://twitter.com/angelalevin1/status/1482716807677022208?s=20
Omid Scobie
@scobie
@TiffanyPollard and @NeNeLeakes sign ME UP
Omid wants to be in Celebrity Big Brother
I want to expand on Omid Scobie's ''allow'' Duchess Kate.
The rumor is that Prince Harry's book has made a U turn; he will be centering it on his wife Meghan and how the BRF didn't ''allow'' her to carry out projects. Allegedly Harry's father will take the hit again from his moaning son.
IF so (we have to wait for Harry's memoir), Harry used to be okay working in the firm's pecking order, met Meghan, now he isn't okay with it. BUT, the thing is, IF they ever want to work as an employee, or a team, or under any company, organization that is not owned by themselves, there is always a pecking order AND most importantly ALL of them (companies worldwide) work via AUTHORITY that approves or not investments, projects, etc. When one reads policies and procedures of EACH company, the first page of approvals always comes from the first in command CEO signature with that of the second in command CFO.
CEO/CFO
General Manager/Finance Manager
President/Vice President
and so on.
Let us see where this word ALLOW hits the bookshelves late 2022, no date of release, but reported as 'late 2022'.
Assets of Meghan Markle and Harry's friend to be seized by Crown: report (https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/946437-assets-of-meghan-markle-and-harrys-friend-to-be-seized-by-crown-report)
QuoteThe assets of Omid Scobie, the co-author of Prince Harry and Meghan's biographer and friend, are likely to be seized by the Crown, said a report.
Writing for mailplus.co.uk, Richard Eden wrote that Scobie is "facing action to close his publishing business, Meyou Ltd, after he failed to provide legally required financial information. It faces ?compulsory strike-off? as it hasn?t filed any accounts since 2019."
Omid Scobie's thoughts on the Sussexes' meeting with the Queen.
Why Prince Harry is asking questions about people around the Queen (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-harry-every-reason-ask-questions-people-around-queen-omid-scobie-120023433.html)
He has been recently hired by Yahoo News, as the Executive Royal Editor. IF he only really went to the BRF events in person rather than misinforming/disinforming, like today's Anne/Kate visit. They didn't go to 'learn' (Omid's tweet) they went to visit the 'new' installation, where both charities patronages are located 'now'.
Quote
Philip Hensher
You can make anything up about the royal family and it will be printed as fact
There are no compelling new witnesses or discoveries in Tina Brown's much-hyped book, but plenty of repeated implausible gossip
The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor The Truth and the Turmoil Tina Brown
There are quite a few things that Tina Brown doesn't know: what ?jejune means; when Louis XIV came to the throne; what the passive voice in prose is (not recollections may vary); what members of the aristocracy are called (Lady Romsey becomes Lady Penelope Romsey) or what members of the royal family are called (the Dowager Duchess of Gloucestershire puts in an appearance).Another thing she doesn't know (which she shares with other authors of works in this obscenely overstuffed genre) is what's been going on between members of the royal family in the period between the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the death of the Duke of Edinburgh which we aren't likely to find out until the real private papers and emails become available to some future Jane Ridley. The title of this book is a bit of a swiz.
Until then, in the accounts of writers with various degrees of access, intelligence and perception, all we have is tittle-tattle, and the occasional flash of authentic feeling expressed in public. Some of the gossip in The Palace Papers, like all books of this sort, is grossly implausible. There is a claim of something very private that the future Duchess of Cornwall said to the Prince of Wales the first time they went to bed together, which is dutifully footnoted to a volume by the American journalist Kitty Kelley. A moment's thought will show how unlikely it is that either person would have shared this with anyone without it having the most disastrous effect on their relationship. But the line is too good to be dropped. At this point one starts to think about volumes of royal muckraking that you can make up anything and have a fair chance of it being repeated. If I said in this review that I happened to know that all the Prince of Wales's siblings were in the habit of referring to him among themselves as Blodwen, I dare say it would soon find its way into print as a matter of fact.
I've had my encounter with the species. There was a moment in the 1990s when I was lurching through Soho after a protracted lunch and came across three policemen outside an advertising agency. What's going on,I asked. The Queen was coming, I was told. Despite my scepticism, I thought I would wait around, and lit a cigarette. Almost at once a black limousine drew up and a policeman leapt forward, opened the door and out she popped. My admiration for Her Majesty is unlimited, and I burst into applause. What she was doing visiting an advertising agency in Soho I never discovered. But she slowed very slightly and gave me a look at once beady and slightly alarmed. And then she was in, shaking the hands of creatives.
The point, I guess, is that the most glancing encounter with any of even the top 30 in line to the succession or their spouses is likely to make an impression in the street, at the theatre, at a concert or at a party. They still occupy a large place in our national imagination. Their utterances, when they make them, are pored over for implications; their choices are analysed and probably invented, too. Among many things Brown mentions in her breathless chronicle as evidence of their convictions are the placement of family photographs and the role of jewellery and hats. The suggestion that the Queen's choice of brooch to wear for Donald Trump's state visit somehow indicated her disapproval of him shows just how fevered such speculation can get.
This is yet another book about the past 25 years in the royal family, including the Andrew debacle, the Prince of Wales's life since he remarried, and William and Catherine Cambridge (she knew instantly that she was talking to a hostile stranger when a tabloid investigative reporter phoned her and asked Is that Kate Middleton?). The Cambridges are dignified, charming, very private and well-behaved, and Catherine's unheralded visit to Clapham Common to lay flowers for Sarah Everard was much appreciated locally.
The Sussexes, on the other hand, are richly comic characters, and the ludicrous series of disasters, petulance, pompous edicts and self-promotion without thinking things through make the last third of the book unintentionally amusing. High points include Meghan treating the Queen's dresser, Angela Kelly, like a contract stylist at NBC when she arrived bearing the Queen's choice of wedding tiara, and Meghan's terrifyingly well-choreographed social ascent without, apparently, ever getting to know anyone. How do you know them a family friend asked George and Amal Clooney at the wedding. We don't, they said (according to Rachel Johnson). I couldn't find any original discoveries here or compelling new witnesses, and Outside the House of Windsor might have been a more accurate subtitle. But I admit to not being familiar with the entire bibliography, having better things to do, such as reading the collected works of Charlotte M. Yonge.
The book is terribly written and gloriously meaningless: The Queen's frail liege man found heavenly release from his life of service. Gently, and with love, she let him go. I quickly found a kind of joy in mapping Brown's devotion to that heinous crime of prose, elegant variation: the Duchess of Sussex is the family fledgling and, earlier on, the earnest, freckle-faced tween; the Duke is the sexy royal wild card with the Brad Pitt stubble. The Duke of York is a now divorced horndog eternally on the hunt, with a guffawing, boob-ogling pickup style and, more concisely, a coroneted sleaze machine. A journalist is a limpet-like royal scoop-monger. The Michael Kents are a low-boil money-grubbing embarrassment.
Some of this may be meant to appeal to Brown's primarily American audience, including the report that Her Majesty joined the cast on stage and received a cacophonous five-minute standing O with cheers and whistles. I think some of those readers haven't been encouraged to see when a joke is being made, however coarse such as the young Princes calling a courtier Black-adder, or the Duke of York bursting in on a journalist lunching with his wife and saying: What are you doing with this fat cow? It's not just a writer assessing an audience, however. I think Brown actually likes it, and even thinks it's classy. At any rate she feels equipped to be rude about other people's prose and ventures on a mind-boggling comparison of the Middleton family to characters in Trollope, Dickens and George Eliot, as if to demonstrate quality.
I doubt whether the recent disasters will do much to harm the institution in the long term. As they used to say in Vienna: The situation is hopeless, not serious.The cavorting and self-regard of the Sussexes has emphasised the dignity, duty and good sense of the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Cambridges. If the institution of the monarchy has sunk, it has probably only done so to this observable degree: that if some catastrophe wiped out the entire Cambridge family, it is more likely that we would opt for a republic rather than give Prince William's brother the crown.
In a curious aside, Brown observes that during a brief break-up in their courtship, Catherine Middleton could have become the wife of a duke or a billionaire as though that might have been a step up. Perhaps the institution has reached this level. If in the future the Sussexes weary of each other and Meghan decides to marry a Californian tech trillionaire, a royal prince would, perhaps for the first time in history, look like a step on the way to the real social summit. I think we can live with that.
WRITTEN BY
Philip Hensher
Philip Hensher is professor of Creative Writing at Bath Spa University and the author of 11 novels including A Small Revolution in Germany.
Omid Scobie
@scobie
The Queen has earned every right to conserve her energy for celebratory moments that the nation can enjoy alongside her. Now is the time for Prince Charles to do the heavy lifting.
Omid lives under a rock....Charles (and William) have been doing the heavy lifting for years already. Each year more and more (new) duties are given to both son and grandson.
A heads up to Rebecca English who is tweeting minute by minute of the POW and DOCornwall #royaltourCanada
https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail
Quote
21 hours ago Meghan Markle's friend Omid Scobie insists future of monarchy is 'dull' without 'gen Z-favoured' Sussexes
Gen Z
Born 1997-2012
Ages 10-25
Mr. Scobie needs to do a little research on generational demographics as the Sussexes like the Cambridges, Mappelli-Mozzis/Brooksbanks are "Gen Y" or "Millennials" considering that they were both born in the early 1980's.
Yes Scobie was wrong about the demographics. However it is significant that both Gen Zs and many Millennials have, in poll after poll considerably more sympathy and empathy for Harry and Meghan as people than the older demographics (such as baby boomers) do.
Quote from: wannable on July 16, 2022, 10:30:39 PM
The book went through lawyers, all sources were confirmed. What is so hard to not understand that these sources stand with TB and the book is 'actually' out for purchase with delivery date asap, like you can get it tomorrow.
Vanity Fair got in touch with P&G and advertisement historians...come on now, her DAD when SHE was good with him, he agreed to play the P&G part ficticious story.
Bower isnt exactly Mr Snow White himself!
n 2019, a biography of Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, Dangerous Hero, was published. Serialised at length in the Mail on Sunday, it was a number two Sunday Times bestseller.[30][31] The book accused Jeremy Corbyn of being an anti-Semitic Marxist. The book has been seriously criticised by Peter Oborne, writing in Middle East Eye, for its lack of referencing, alleged factual errors and the systematic omittance of relevant facts.[32] Stephen Bush, writing in The Guardian, referred to the book as a "hatchet job" littered with "rudimentary errors"[33] and journalist Oscar Rickett called it "garbage".[34] In the book, he made false allegations against the Palestinian Return Centre. Along with the publisher HarperCollins he made a full, unqualified withdrawal of the allegations, but neither apologised nor paid any money to the complainant or the lawyers. The allegations are to be removed from all future editions of the book.[35] The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline which serialised the book had to pay full damages and issue a written apology.[36
Quote from: Curryong on July 16, 2022, 10:36:59 PM
Bower isnt exactly Mr Snow White himself!
n 2019, a biography of Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, Dangerous Hero, was published. Serialised at length in the Mail on Sunday, it was a number two Sunday Times bestseller.[30][31] The book accused Jeremy Corbyn of being an anti-Semitic Marxist. The book has been seriously criticised by Peter Oborne, writing in Middle East Eye, for its lack of referencing, alleged factual errors and the systematic omittance of relevant facts.[32] Stephen Bush, writing in The Guardian, referred to the book as a "hatchet job" littered with "rudimentary errors"[33] and journalist Oscar Rickett called it "garbage".[34] In the book, he made false allegations against the Palestinian Return Centre. Along with the publisher HarperCollins he made a full, unqualified withdrawal of the allegations, but neither apologised nor paid any money to the complainant or the lawyers. The allegations are to be removed from all future editions of the book.[35] The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline which serialised the book had to pay full damages and issue a written apology.[36
Well in the last elections he was found out, far leftist (4 persons I recall) him included are out from labour party. The truth always outs, always. Later pictures of him with Marxist lovers, what else. We can discuss this at the Coffee board if you want, plenty of bad stuff came out of him during the Boris Johnson elected MP. Not here in the Sussex board.
Quote from: wannable on July 16, 2022, 10:45:41 PM
Well in the last elections he was found out, far leftist (4 persons I recall) him included are out from labour party. The truth always outs, always. Later pictures of him with Marxist lovers, what else. We can discuss this at the Coffee board if you want, plenty of bad stuff came out of him during the Boris Johnson elected MP. Not here in the Sussex board.
Whatever Jeremy Corbyn was or wasn?t Bower came a cropper over that biography of him and he and the publisher had to issue full apologies as did the tabloids.
Quote from: Curryong on July 16, 2022, 10:50:10 PM
Whatever Jeremy Corbyn was or wasn?t Bower came a cropper over that biography of him and he and the publisher had to issue full apologies as did the tabloids.
JC is done. Career is over. Which is worst. Going to Coffee board. The end for me about this polititian unrelated to the Sussexes.
Quote from: wannable on July 16, 2022, 10:45:41 PM
Well in the last elections he was found out, far leftist (4 persons I recall) him included are out from labour party. The truth always outs, always. Later pictures of him with Marxist lovers, what else. We can discuss this at the Coffee board if you want, plenty of bad stuff came out of him during the Boris Johnson elected MP. Not here in the Sussex board.
This book is about the Sussex's only and not someone else from what I understand and please correct me if I am wrong...And Wannable, I totally agree that the *TRUTH* always wins, it will come out in time regardless of what anyone says. And that is something I think the Sussex's don't realize when they are talking to the media or anyone else. They need to *think* before they open the mouth!
His new interest is with Stop Oil, the ones that glue themselves to invaluable paintings, chain themselves to whatever sport event, get in the middle of the highway. I am very happy that they are booed. IMO he can be up there, criminal activities.
He is no where else wanted. He is an ex from the labour party, the pinacle, the climax. IF a person can't stay on the top of the hill, die dignified in that hill, but he was outed.
I do not know if Tom Bower has the time now to request the court to retreat or whoever Jeremy sued, because he did win then, but then was outed 2020 for what he had sued. It will be interesting to see what Tom decides in the future about this case, if it is worth it, request a retraction from the Court, the outing of J was so public that it was directly related to what he complained about, but right now Tom is riding a monster wave of fame and fortune with his new book about Megxit (Megxit trending in twitter, followed second place by Serena Williams, third Meghan)
Margaret Besheer
@mbesheer
As Prince #Harry & Meghan arrive for #MandelaDay at #UNGA, no response to my question about Tom Bowers new book
https://twitter.com/i/status/1549031669969342464
^This woman, it is not the occasion to ask the question.
The late Dame Deborah James' funeral was held today.
Dame Deborah James funeral: 'Bowelbabe' carried in coffin by husband Sebastien Bowen and teenage son | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11031713/Farewell-Dame-Deborah-James-Lorraine-Kelly-seen-friends-family.html)
The Omid Scobie discussion should probably be in this thread.
Agree. Chatter away :thumbsup:
Desperate mode now. :hehe:
Subjective is trending, just in case. Nothing has to be factual now a days.
Omid Scobie is working on a new book.
https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1553183837580042241?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
LADY C ON CHAPTERS 1-10 of TOM BOWER's REVENGE
LADY C ON CHAPTERS 1-10 of TOM BOWER's REVENGE - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIMiHjsS0zg)
And he's back...Ken Warfe with another book on the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
Diana bumped into a dozen elderly male nudists: Bodyguard KEN WHARFE reveals Princess's rebellions | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11065131/Diana-bumped-dozen-elderly-male-nudists-Bodyguard-KEN-WHARFE-reveals-Princesss-rebellions.html#comments)
Quote from: TLLK on July 31, 2022, 01:04:38 AM
And he's back...Ken Warfe with another book on the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
Diana bumped into a dozen elderly male nudists: Bodyguard KEN WHARFE reveals Princess's rebellions | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11065131/Diana-bumped-dozen-elderly-male-nudists-Bodyguard-KEN-WHARFE-reveals-Princesss-rebellions.html#comments)
Running out of spare cash in his old age? I admit I read Wharfe?s first book about Diana published years ago and found it interesting. However KW has been flapping his gums in interviews and docos about Diana, Charles and their sons for a good twenty years or more now. How much more has he genuinely got to tell? These anecdotes, if true, must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel of his memory. After all, he wasn?t employed as an RPO at Diana?s death, and both Harry and William were still very young when he left the household. Anything to earn some more money I suppose!
Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsors. The Sunday Times no 1 bestseller
Royal books in the next few months
Author Catherine Mayer, Book: Charles, The Heart of a King, release: August 25
Author Valentine Low, Book: Courtiers, release: September 29
Author Angela Levin, Book: Biography of The Duchess of Cornwall (according to Hannah Furness from The Telegraph, the author received the same access she got from her previous Prince Harry biography), release: November 10
Omid Scobie
@scobie
Sep 16
Taking a short break. Back to tomorrow eve🙋🏻♂️
*****
pip , squeak , United Kingdom, 7 hours ago
They were never invited. This was Omid Scobie putting out a tweet and saying it. It was only ever an event that will be attended by working royals as it is an official event. You cannot be uninvited to something you were never meant to attend.
L00L00, London, United Kingdom, 8 hours ago
They weren't invited. Omid scobie floated the idea in order to force an invite. Those two are putting pressure on via the media, same as the uniform situation. Don't forget what these two were putting out just a week before The Queen's death.
Mmm Not Really, Somewhere in, Australia, 7 hours ago
A STATE Reception, for a STATE occasion. They are there for a FAMILY funeral, "The Firm" who is still working on behalf of the "STATE" is hosting a reception. Why would they even be considered to be invited? It's like me expecting to be included at work events of the company I previously worked for.
AussieReg, Sydney, Australia, 11 hours ago
Correct decision. This function is a diplomatic reception by the UK for International Heads of State/Govts - not a family social gathering. This is a reminder for the reasons why Non-working royals should not be allowed to use HRH titles because they do not represent the UK. It would put HRH before Presidents, Governors-General, Prime Ministers & other distinguished national leaders.
^The above comments have more than 10K likes. Clearly they have Omid's receipts, he even broke an ''embargo'' which in red said could be posted the 16th in REF to the PPOWS's by posting the ''embargo'' the 15th. I understand he is a friend of the Sussexes and must be feeling terrible that they aren't working royals, but his behaviour via tweets is erratic.
Two new books promoted today
Angela Levin, Camilla From Outcast to Queen Consort
Serialized in The Telegraph
Quote
Prince Andrew 'lobbied' Queen to stop Charles becoming King: Duke of York 'plotted' with Diana to allow William to accede to the throne ahead of Charles, royal author claims
New biography claims Andrew 'plotted' to set himself up as Regent with Prince William leapfrogging Charles
A palace insider alleges the Duke of York was 'poisonous' and 'very nasty' about Camilla, now Queen Consort
He is also said to have been 'extremely unpleasant' when he failed to get his way
*****
Katie Nicholl, The New Royals
The Queen felt hurt about Megxit, then in the last days didn't want to know about them anymore
Meghan was bored with Camilla's 'royal' experience.
Andrew is a very unpleasant fellow and everyone knows it. However every day of Diana?s existence as Princess of Wales and afterwards has been exhaustively documented. If Andrew had been plotting anything with Diana to get William onto the Throne in place of Charles it would have come out by now, especially since her death. Diana would have confided in someone about it.
And when would he have got the time to do it? Throughout most of Diana?s time as Prss of Wales and during her separation/divorce Andrew was in the Royal Navy and often at sea or on a Naval or air course. Fergie once complained that she had seen him something like about one consecutive month in her entire marriage, an exaggeration, but still. If Andrew had been cloistered in conversations with Diana for hours at KP or Balmoral someone in the family or Diana?s staff would surely have noticed. It was hardly the sort of thing that could have been ?plotted? in a half an hour chat!
Angela needs to be a bit cautious I would say. Andrew may be a non-working royal but is still capable of suing for libel, and what she is suggesting is treasonous. Her imagination running wild AGAIN, I would guess.
As for Katie Nicholl, making sure of future interviews as an RR I see. She?s always been one to gather the gossip though not about Camilla?s royal experiences as Charles?s mistress. Like the others until the Dimbleby interview disclosure the RRs kept quiet about that!
I certainly remember Katie ranting on and on about how happy Harry and Meghan were and how gorgeous Meghan was inside and out. That?s what I mean about RR?s like her and Jobson writing books. Their motives are so obvious they would light up the night skies!
I'll count on you to briefly explain whatever new article/serialization of both books.
I'm truly not so much into reading both ladies. Only the headlines.
The timing has to do with my mood with books coming out so soon after HMQEII death.
Well, I?m certainly no fan of Angela Levin as you know, and I?m quite astounded that she would come up with that story. It is potentially libellous even if one of the ?plotters? is conveniently dead and the other is the ex wife who praises him up every five minutes.
I?m not buying Angela Levin?s book. I think she?s an awful person. And as for Katie she has always swung with the prevailing wind, as they say.
Quote from: Curryong on September 22, 2022, 06:21:07 PM
Andrew is a very unpleasant fellow and everyone knows it. However every day of Diana?s existence as Princess of Wales and afterwards has been exhaustively documented. If Andrew had been plotting anything with Diana to get William onto the Throne in place of Charles it would have come out by now, especially since her death. Diana would have confided in someone about it.
And when would he have got the time to do it? Throughout most of Diana?s time as Prss of Wales and during her separation/divorce Andrew was in the Royal Navy and often at sea or on a Naval or air course. Fergie once complained that she had seen him something like about one consecutive month in her entire marriage, an exaggeration, but still. If Andrew had been cloistered in conversations with Diana for hours at KP or Balmoral someone in the family or Diana?s staff would surely have noticed. It was hardly the sort of thing that could have been ?plotted? in a half an hour chat!
Angela needs to be a bit cautious I would say. Andrew may be a non-working royal but is still capable of suing for libel, and what she is suggesting is treasonous. Her imagination running wild AGAIN, I would guess.
As for Katie Nicholl, making sure of future interviews as an RR I see. She?s always been one to gather the gossip though not about Camilla?s royal experiences as Charles?s mistress. Like the others until the Dimbleby interview disclosure the RRs kept quiet about that!
I certainly remember Katie ranting on and on about how happy Harry and Meghan were and how gorgeous Meghan was inside and out. That?s what I mean about RR?s like her and Jobson writing books. Their motives are so obvious they would light up the night skies!
I'd like to nominate this one for craziest royal story for 2022. :eyes: :unsure: :wacko:
A third book
This is an edited extract from Courtiers: the Hidden Power Behind the Crown by Valentine Low, published on October 6 by Headline Books
archive.ph (https://archive.ph/DyX3B#selection-1579.0-1589.64)
Dickie Arbiter LVO 🇬🇧
@RoyalDickie
I'm 82 years young today 🎂🎈🎉🥳Where HAVE all the years gone? I'm pleased to say though, most of them have been lots of fun with some sad and poignant moments
I have to wonder at times if Mr. Scobie truly understands the difference between royals who are official representatives of their nations and receive tax payer funding for their staff, homes, security, travel etc... and those who are the extended family members who may or may not have titles but who are not considered official representatives of their nations. After reading this article, he truly seems clueless to me. :blink:
Zara and Mike Tindall: Why the selective outrage over their deals? (https://uk.style.yahoo.com/zara-mike-tindall-royal-family-meghan-harry-105134436.html)
He knows. Perhaps he wants to help a certain couple to voluntarily put his (the born royal) title in abeyance. True freedom.
He took out royal reporter or royal correspondent from his profile after 2 huge funeral blunders.
Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait by Gyles Brandreth to be published in December
Trending tweet royalty related
Moi Again 🇦🇺🐨🦘
@Moi_Again
To all those people who said that Lady C was wrong, she wasn't. The Queen did in fact have a form of bone cancer.
The Queen accepted time was running out GYLES BRANDRETH reveals. The Queen knew her time was running out and accepted it with good grace GYLES BRANDRETH reveals | Daily Mail Online (https://mol.im/a/11470483) via
@MailOnline
Extracts from the book
The Queen knew her time was running out and accepted it with good grace GYLES BRANDRETH reveals | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11470483/The-Queen-knew-time-running-accepted-good-grace-GYLES-BRANDRETH-reveals.html)
I think most elderly people know their time is limited and accept it. What else are you going to do, after all? Drink from the Fountain of Youth, lol!
Brandreth didn?t say in his book that the Queen had bone marrow cancer at all. He doesn?t give any diagnosis, quite properly as he isn?t a bone specialist or even a doctor. He says that pelvic and back issues can be associated with bone marrow cancer. However they are also associated with other ailments of very old people as well. Mobility problems are very common in people in their 90s. The Queen had issues with one of her knees for several years. I have similar issues with a knee since a fall and I?m in my seventies. That doesn?t mean I have bone marrow cancer.
Omid's next book
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj3m9nOX0AAERgl?format=jpg&name=small)
Sorry to disappoint Omid, but the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
That is for darn sure, he is so full of his own ego just as his employers are.....anything to make a dollar. Bet there is a new book out in a year or two by Meghan...
One thing I have noticed since the doco aired and the TV ratings for it came out is that the main stupid breakfast hosts here who were so full of sarcasm and laughter about the Sussexes have shut up for now! Funny how TV ratings do that!
It would really be very nice if the Sussex's would shut their mouths up and stop lying and backstabbing the royal family yet they have absolutely nothing in their lives to offer anyone all because they themselves have shown the world the kind of people they are, do not trust Harry or Meghan for it will be told somewhere somehow to the world.....and what I find silly is Meghan has cameras following her life all the time......who lives with cameras following you to the loo or while your cooking or doing dishes or whatever....talk about an ego trip down memory lane.......24/7... :laugh:
Here is what I would love to see for them........be Quiet, do your own thing, shut up about the royal family, go make zillions of dollars the right way....produce a movie, ride horses, play tennis, eat lobster and go on date nights.....it is called living your own life in a peaceful manner and being decent human beings for a change....because right now you sure in the heck are not decent human beings with all your LIES and changing the story of your life over and over again till the truth is lost.
Have you seen the documentary? Whereabouts in the three episodes already shown does it show cameras following Meghan to the loo, or indeed doing the family washing up. And if she does do the latter, then good for her. Better that than making any servants do it!
I don't think the media have shut up, they are thrilled to make moneys from the duo analysing frame by frame, each frame an article. The scrutiny is full on, basically the masses love to watch a drama unfold with the medias' gloves off.
Like the poor Sista Space charity, the one Lady S had an encounter at BP, she said to have closed temporarily her charity which happened at the same time an anon disclosed financial wrong doings, now being scrutinized by the CC in the UK. Famedom does make skeleton closet hunters on the hunt. In hindsight, she would probably have been better off not making her claim ''publicly''. And go off for her rounds of 15 minutes of fame. The Charity Commission have no other choice but to investigate because the anon's posts is actually someone in the inside; either in the charity itself that has access to the finances or a tip off that went straight to the media and at the same time to the CCUK.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on December 13, 2022, 06:13:24 PM
Sorry to disappoint Omid, but the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
He likes going into the rabbit hole.
Catch me once, Catch me twice
Fool me once, Fool me twice
^ There are followers of the two quotes DESPITE knowing he lied in a court of law.
I'd add him in the dangerous list of machinations (basically hate speech) H, M, D and O.
Quote from: wannable on December 14, 2022, 01:45:37 PM
I don't think the media have shut up, they are thrilled to make moneys from the duo analysing frame by frame, each frame an article. The scrutiny is full on, basically the masses love to watch a drama unfold with the medias' gloves off.
Like the poor Sista Space charity, the one Lady S had an encounter at BP, she said to have closed temporarily her charity which happened at the same time an anon disclosed financial wrong doings, now being scrutinized by the CC in the UK. Famedom does make skeleton closet hunters on the hunt. In hindsight, she would probably have been better off not making her claim ''publicly''. And go off for her rounds of 15 minutes of fame. The Charity Commission have no other choice but to investigate because the anon's posts is actually someone in the inside; either in the charity itself that has access to the finances or a tip off that went straight to the media and at the same time to the CCUK.
Even if Sistah Space has got into a muddle with the finances (and that does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing just muddles) that does not excuse the badgering of a woman of colour by an elderly aristocrat on the Palace roster. At all! Racist behaviour matters. Lady Susan could have got away with that sort of behaviour 40 or even 20 years ago. No longer acceptable. Full stop.
One thing doesn't have to do with the other, but a shutdown of a charity because of financial wrong doing is an X forever too. She already 'temporarily' shut it down for personal reasons, but it happened immediately minutes from the anon.
REBECCA ENGLISH GIVES SEVERAL EXAMPLES
Any suggestion negative stories were 'fed' to the media by the Palace as part of a 'war' against Meghan is categorically untrue - in fact I ignored Harry's frankly rude and unprofessional behaviour towards the press, says Royal Editor REBECCA ENGLISH
Claims negative stories were 'fed' to media as part of a 'war' against Meghan 'are untrue' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11539383/Claims-negative-stories-fed-media-war-against-Meghan-untrue.html)
After seeing the latest trailer and several articles explaining Harry burned to protect William, Any member of the BRF they'd put a Megs story, IMO Harry and Meghan wanted the bad news of something real happening to them be burried, nothing to do with protecting William or as Meghan said ''anyone in the BRF'.
I for one would love to read that *bullying report* that HM paid for with her own money and kept it quiet.....I just wonder what is in there that might the Sussex's be afraid of. Nobody so far has seen it or reported on it either. Okay shoot the fireworks at me.......
Harry keeps attacking his family yet Harry grew up in that family and boy I bet that family has tons of stories about him to tell and aren't. Some royals who have left the royal family did one thing Harry and wife have yet to learn, keep the mouth shut, well after all how are they going to earn any money it they are quiet? There probably are lots of stories about Harry and Meghan in the family that are not being told ..at this point.
Quote from: Nightowl on December 14, 2022, 11:58:37 PM
I for one would love to read that *bullying report* that HM paid for with her own money and kept it quiet.....I just wonder what is in there that might the Sussex's be afraid of. Nobody so far has seen it or reported on it either. Okay shoot the fireworks at me.......
Nobody is throwing fireworks. However, it may just be possible mightn?t it, that the Inquiry questioned several members of staff who complained about bullying behaviour by other members of the royal family, Andrew for instance, or Sophie who was once photographed shouting in public in a Kensington High Street at her Royal Protection Officer. Or there might well have been complaints about senior members of the Royal Household?s attitude towards junior members of staff. Therefore it may have been quite embarrassing for several people at BP.
And when have the Sussexes ever stated out of their own mouths that they were frightened of the results of the Inquiry? Never as far as I?ve read. In fact they applied to speak to the investigators.
The terms of reference of the Inquiry was in fact very restricted from the beginning. It was specifically called to examine what conduit of complaints about senior staff and principals at the Palaces could be used to resolve issues in the future. In spite of the media squealing it was all about the Sussexes, it wasn?t and was never meant to be.
If the report is so innocence of Harry and Meghan then why in the heck lock it up and not share it as far as I know so many want to see and read it. And there are reports and witnesses of Meghan being extremely rude to staff, does she even know that these people are employed and earn wages to support themselves, they are not indenture slaves (not saying anyone said that). Why hid it is what I would like to know, wasn't it HM who did not want to share it with anyone?
Everyone loses their cool at times even in public.....I have and it was not pretty. We all get frustrated and irritable when stress takes over, yet if done daily and all the time over little things that really don't matter, then that is a different story.
I had thought Meghan was smart and intelligent....it seems she is not as bright as we are lead to believe if she did not do some research on the family she was marrying into, and good grief, the BRF is known world wide, she surely could not miss knowing who they are after all she sat in front of BP with her friend one time..so don't think she was that innocent in regards to not knowing about them.
For now Valentine Low's book can give one a rough draft.
It was said before the Inquiry really began that the terms of reference were about how to proceed in the future in royal Household if there were any claims of harassment and allegations of bullying in the future from Senior people and Principals in the Households towards junior staff. Processes were to be formulated and conduits to better procedures made.
In The Future. It wasn?t a trial by jury of anyone. And that includes the Sussexes, much as the tabloids would have loved to have seen them hung out to dry, that would have been a very different process from what occurred. And Yes, the Queen, almost certainly on the advice of her PS and other advisers, decided it should not be made public.
As for Meghan?s knowledge of the UK. I would say, having met many Americans in my lifetime, that even well-travelled ones who have lived in Britain for a while on business etc have gaps in their knowledge of the country. That is absolutely natural.
Most who visit for a holiday have hopefully good memories of the place but many customs about the British way of life escape them. And as for Americans in the US, a large majority know little and care less about the UK. There is sometimes interest at a time of a royal wedding or a Coronation, and people then will watch a programme and then forget about it.
I except Americans on Royal Forums who have some knowledge and some have a lot. However, with all due respect, you could stuff yourself with research about Britain for years and still make mistakes of protocol and behaviour in royal life. Both Fergie and Diana were British and Diana was an aristocrat and both still said they felt like fish out of water at times. How can you research what being a royal is going to be like, really? The answer is you can?t, unless and until you are actually living it.
They will copy/paste from the best organizatios worldwide.
Quote from: wannable on December 15, 2022, 12:18:45 PM
They will copy/paste from the best organizatios worldwide.
Who are They? And you can?t actually experience living every day as a royal by reading books and reports about it however full of information those are. People who marry in to any royal family worldwide just learn from living it and learning from experience. Books and data can only teach you so much.
They are Human Resources, usually the department that officially print the Q&A of employment ''issues'' what to do.
Jeremy Clarkson is well known in Britain for his big mouth. Now, thank heavens there is widespread criticism for what he said he would like to happen to Meghan, and he deserves every bit of it.
Jeremy Clarkson 'horrified to have caused so much hurt' after his column on Meghan Markle | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11554301/Jeremy-Clarkson-horrified-caused-hurt-column-Meghan-Markle.html)
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64025074
Clarkson comments got six thousand complaints. And what does it say about editors at The Sun for printing such vileness. Clarkson?s own daughter has protested against it.
Violent misogynistic fantasies like Jeremy Clarkson?s are not new ? but the Sun gleefully publishing them is | Zoe Williams | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/19/violent-misogynic-fantasies-meghan-jeremy-clarkson-sun)
Glad to see that Mr. Clarkson is receiving the drumming that he richly deserves. <_< IMO he's welcome to his own negative opinion of the Duchess of Sussex but he's used very disgusting language which was unnecessary.
Absolutely and totally agree with your comment!
I do not flip flop on Sussex, Wales, etc.
This comment by this guy, whoever he is, is a dream he needed to keep to himself.
Wrong. Wrong. Nasty thing to print. He was wrong. No apology accepted.
Add though, however, if he had said this about William, all would be good. Ok. Fine.
Catherine, no problems.
If he wanted to make a point, he should have released an article saying Catherine should be dragged like Thornes. He would have been awarded prizes, air time, held as righteous because Catherine, according to HenMeg , is racist.
Next day, same article on Meg. Nono. Uhh, big nono. She cannot be criticized by media unless be called racist.
AGAIN, people really need to THINK before hitting the post link.
What you do, say, think, dream is ok to say to family, friends around the kitchen table. However, the public is not around your kitchen table. Not everything you say, do,think, needs to be said publicly.
Of course this man represents all of the media, racist, and people of England, racist, and BRF, racist do HenMeg and fans will run with it.
Omy God. When will it all end. When will peace be restored. When will HarMeg shut up. when willreports be on KC, events etc. and not Sussex.
I guess when Sussex get divorced.
OK, I?ll keep this short. Clarkson would have been condemned, rightly, for what he said whoever he said it about. It was vile and misogynistic in the extreme. He wouldn?t have been getting praise from anyone, in or out of public life.
Nobody that I know believes that Clarkson represents the British media or people. Almost all the people who have come out deploring his language have been British, actually. However, it says something about the Sun?s editors? standards and morality that they allowed that sort of sentiment to go to print in their newspaper.
When will the Sussexes be quiet so there is peace? I?d just like to observe to that that for years Meg said nothing to what was said in the media about her. From before her engagement when she was living in Nott Cott to when she spoke to Oprah.
When will peace be restored? When people stop reading hate-filled clickbait articles. Because, like it or not, they make newspaper proprietors extremely wealthy.
As for people concentrating on King Charles and his doings I think we can say that in terms of sheer numbers, since Diana came on the scene and certainly since his sons grew up, the British media appear to have directed their attention to new and possibly more interesting persons and events. See remarks above re clickbait.
IPSO have now received more than 17,500 complaints (more than they received through the whole of 2021) about Jeremy Clarkson?s horrific column referring to Meghan, which the Sun by the way, left up on its website for several days. It?s now removed. MPs and others have also written to The Sun?s female editor in protest.
In fact this thing isn?t going away. However, strangely, the Palace has remained deafeningly silent. They certainly didn?t remain silent where Lady Susan was concerned but Clarkson and his opinions were just let go, even though Meghan is still the King?s daughter in law. Wouldn?t have anything to do of course with the fact that Queen Camilla had lunch with those well-known big mouths Clarkson and Piers Morgan, among others, only a few days before the article got published.
Harry and Meghan vindicated by royal family's silence over Jeremy Clarkson 'hate' column, say supporters - Wales Online (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/harry-meghan-vindicated-royal-familys-25793405)
Jeremy Clarkson news ? latest: ITV boss says presenter will remain on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jeremy-clarkson-comments-meghan-markle-article-apology-b2248392.html)
The vicious circle of 'trashing' people. I'm 99.9% sure the BRF will NOT voluntarily enter into it.
H&M trash, a big one like them, Morgan and Clarkson play the game.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
IOW, H&M trash their families, they leave everything and everyone wondering who is who, what is what in doubt and still RETAIN jobs.
No difference should be taken with these two men that trash H&M.
That is the message of 'equality treatment' to these type of lowly people, 17K is nothing compared to the almost 1M (multiple times) complaints of the pair, just saying.
It's a disgusting war, but thinking out of the box and the ''level'' of the foursome, rather than go balistic over nasty things they throw at each other, hence my goose/gander comment.
Jeremy Clarkson's 'Misogynist' Article About Meghan Markle Is Pulled (https://people.com/royals/jeremy-clarkson-deeply-misogynist-article-meghan-markle-pulled/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64080863
The Sun apologises over Jeremy Clarkson's column about Meghan | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/the-sun-apologises-over-jeremy-clarksons-column-about-meghan-12773875)
The Sun apologises for Jeremy Clarkson?s column on Meghan | The Sun | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/23/the-sun-apologises-for-jeremy-clarksons-column-on-meghan)
The Sun says 'we're sincerely sorry' in apology over Jeremy Clarkson's column about Meghan | Celebrity News | Showbiz & TV | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1713477/the-sun-sincerely-sorry-apology-jeremy-clarkson-column-meghan-markle)
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-23/the-sun-apologises-for-jeremy-clarkson-column-on-meghan-markle
The Sun apologises for publishing Jeremy Clarkson column attacking Meghan Markle - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-sun-apologises-meghan-markle-28806687)
Jeremy Clarkson and The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/clarifications/20850273/jeremy-clarkson-the-sun/)
Jeremy Clarkson will not allowed talking to Royals about that but he will learned lessons but the sun newspaper articles remove polite
Glad to see that both Clarkson and The Sun have apologized.
Quote from: TLLK on December 24, 2022, 12:07:50 AM
Glad to see that both Clarkson and The Sun have apologized.
In a tweet earlier this week, Jeremy said he had made a 'clumsy reference to a scene in Game of Thrones', which had 'gone down badly with a great many people' and he was 'horrified to have caused so much hurt'.
"He also said he will be more careful in future.
"Columnists' opinions are their own, but as a publisher, we realise that with free expression comes responsibility.
"We at The Sun regret the publication of this article and we are sincerely sorry. The article has been removed from our website and archives."
Yes The Sun has apologised for that foul column though I could have done without all that braying at the end (which I haven?t included in the quote) about their vile rag supporting charities. So what? Not relevant at all. And the complaints to IPEC would have continued growing. They knew that, so they decided to shut it down for their own sakes..
And as for Clarkson apologising, he didn?t, unless that weak Tweet of a few days ago beginning ?Oh dear, I seem to have put my foot in it?? is supposed to be one. It isn?t.
And neither of these belated so-called Mea Culpas reference the hurt and disgust that Meghan must have felt when she read the column. No apology directly to her, I see. Not that I expected there?d be one. Neither Clarkson nor the editor at the Sun have any sense of decency.
And as for Australia. News Corp takes on the Sussexes, and loses.
News Corp takes on Harry and Meghan's Netflix show ? and loses (https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/12/21/news-corp-harry-and-meghan-netflix/)
Clarkson's 'lack' of exact word description of Cersei Lannister walk of shame context isn't close to the context of GOT.
Clarkson isn't a member of the BRF, his apology is to save his neck from fans rather than his employment, so the Sussexes to date have trashed their families, until when? will the duo ever apologize?
The Crikey Australian website is the adversary of the Murdoch's. So yes, they will write opposing news. Like if it will stop the media from scrutinizing public figures who behave badly or are as said in the latest articles 'nepo' babies. Children of famous people making moneys because of their famous parents.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex dismiss The Sun's apology for Jeremy Clarkson column as a 'PR stunt' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11572015/The-Duke-Duchess-Sussex-dismiss-Suns-apology-Jeremy-Clarkson-column-PR-stunt.html)
Meghan Markle Spokesperson Calls The Sun's Apology Over Clarkson Article a 'PR Stunt' (https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-spokesperson-calls-the-sun-apology-over-jeremy-clarkson-article-pr-stunt/)
Articles says Jeremy Clarkson need seriously consequences
QuoteSadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, took to Twitter to condemn the article. "As Jeremy Clarkson should well know - words have consequences. The words in his piece are no joke - they're dangerous and inexcusable," the mayor tweeted. "We are in an epidemic of violence against women and girls and men with powerful voices must do better than this."
Brits immediately put the article under fire after it was published as well, with 6,000 complaints being made to press regulator IPSO about the piece, according to the BBC.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle react after the Sun issues apology over controversial Jeremy Clarkson column | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20221224160361/prince-harry-meghan-markle-react-the-sun-apology-jeremy-clarkson-column/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64085604
Harry and Meghan reject The Sun's Clarkson apology - calling it 'nothing more than a PR stunt' | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-respond-to-the-suns-clarkson-apology-calling-it-nothing-more-than-a-pr-stunt-12774228)
Sussexes dismiss Sun apology for Clarkson column as ?PR stunt? | Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/24/sussexes-dismiss-sun-apology-for-clarkson-column-as-pr-stunt)
Meghan Markle's team claim apology over Clarkson column was 'nothing more than PR stunt' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1713697/Meghan-Markle-apology-Jeremy-Clarkson-column-PR-stunt-prince-harry)
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-24/meghan-and-harry-brand-apology-from-the-sun-over-clarkson-column-pr-stunt
Meghan Markle says Sun apology over Jeremy Clarkson column 'nothing more than PR stunt' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-markle-says-sun-apology-28811515)
What kind of apology does Meghan want? Cancelled and unemployment?!
Joyous holiday for the Sussex fam
The gloves are off for Meghan Markle.
First The Hill and now (today) Politico, two political newspapers.
This is no royal reporting for a tabloid or broadsheet type, this is! clearly and distinctly newspapers fully dedicated to politics, congress, law making...the two most largest political papers. :o
^^^
- Here's the link:
2022 Is the Year We All Finally Got Tired of Narcissists - POLITICO (https://archive.vn/LsYYX)
The Politico article was and is trash. It's obvious the writer wanted to shot a Meghan but was too scared to do it along. I'm sorry but nothing she has done warrants being put in the same line as Trump, Ye and Musk and others. It's also telling that the docu-series was made by Harry AND Meghan but it's Meghan that's used and referenced. Along with the fact that the writer has had a bit of an obsession's with Harry. Politico could barely handle the heat and changed the picture and headline.
What's most amazing that, the author wouldn't have an article and it wouldn't have been interesting without mentioning Harry and Meghan, mainly Meghan. It hasn't gone down well but /shrugs.
Clarkson's comment were vile and nasty but when people have been allowed to say whatever about Meghan with it going unchecked through out the years, Clarkson most likely thought he'd get away with it. He also could've kept his non-apology to himself. The Sun....not going to even go there.
Clarkson's comments were vile and nasty but they exist in a culture where most people have been able to be out-right nasty and who's words already has violence undertones when it comes to Meghan, so I don't expect any real change.
IF H and M weren't nasty, none of this would have existed. The BRF have security alerts with far left BLM's and violent black people willing to believe the blank statement.
I took a look at the opinion piece in Politico when I woke up this morning. And there, right in the first paragraph a glaring error. The ?former Duke and Duchess of Sussex.? ! Well, Charles must have taken the titles away from Harry unconstitutionally and without anybody noticing, then! Didn?t really give me a lot of confidence about the author?s accuracy in the rest of the article!
And comparing Meghan to Trump, Ye and Musk? Really? That just made me laugh. It?s an opinion piece in a journal and that?s all it is. Full stop.
And as I?ve said before, people throw the word ?narcissist? around with gay abandon in spite of having no psychiatric training. Even MD?s do so in tabloid articles. I take about as much notice of them as I do of this bloke. People with no background in psychiatry who put specific labels on others in the public eye when writing about them in articles are below contempt. And that?s my feeling about this article.
Basically the mentioned 'made it in life', is the message. Being a narcisist helped all of them, including Ye who was cancelled a bit too late, he already has his billions.
Why is the US going after Harry and Meghan? CNN, FOX, Variety, The Hill, Politico, Washington Post, NYTimes.
And now US Weekly rag magazine too. The couple are the cover for January 2023 with huge headlines of IT'S OVER (with the BRF; Charles, William and Kate).
I think Harry and Meghan have given up on the UK, but the trouble is mainstream publications like Variety, The Hill, and Politico are 'calling them out'. As an American columnist wrote, Harry and Meghan are a 'one trick pony'
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on December 28, 2022, 09:25:28 PM
I think Harry and Meghan have given up on the UK, but the trouble is mainstream publications like Variety, The Hill, and Politico are 'calling them out'. As an American columnist wrote, Harry and Meghan are a 'one trick pony'
Generally US publications take their cue from the UK.media when writing about any members of the royal family. Always have, always will.
The Cut didn't follow cue, I'd say Allison wrote exactly what she had seen going on in the household and recorded exactly their voices.
Everyone else in the US is following methodology of ''fact checking'' (at least what I've seen from CNN, FOX and Washington Post. NYTimes too lazy). And allegedly the US media will exert pressure to specify with verified details two items, Racism and Suicide. Here I can believe the UK cue of pushing and telling their US peers are the most important vague and blank statements.
I think Variety is the worst behaved, they elevate her with cover and inside pics photoshoot et all, then 30 days later knock her down (after they watched the Netflix reality show). I think that is vile.
*****
In other news, ITV will not fire Clarkson. They already had their share of low rating, heavy loss of moneys when they fired Piers. Note: Bad behaviour sells (including Harry and Megs).
ITV bosses are in discussion with KP and BP about having Kate for ''Together at Easter'',early talks Neil Sean (FOX UK) I have to say somehow the charities that participate/invited/guests at church should receive (their orgs) moneys. Together at Christmas sold very very well (ETA: To many countries according to NS)!!!
Just saying in this difficult economical times worldwide, ^ could be an excellent solution to fill the coffers of W&K charities mainly.
About the only way Clarkson would get fired is if he punched another producer.
He's spoiled because he breaks ratings. Fired at BBC because of the fracas despite him being the main most watched with his Top Gear show, hired at Amazon Prime and ITV with different types of programs; farming and Who wants to be a millionaire...
From Jack Royston and Newsweek. He's a big supporter of Meghan.
Meghan Markle Is Losing America's Sympathy (https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-losing-america-sympathy-netflix-politico-narcissist-1769878?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1672238581)
Unfortunately I have to agree with Mr. Royston that the couple and in particular Meghan is losing support in the U.S. Now more American publications that were previously sympathetic and complimentary are sharing their view that the couple must change their "tune" if they're to stay relevant in the long term which will impact them financially. If things don't change, this could also impact the charitable contributions that the couple have received for their causes.
QuoteBut based on polling, now on both sides of the Atlantic, vigorous public defense of the couple has not, seemingly, irradicated public criticism and the cotton wool in which they were protectively wrapped in the days after Oprah appears to have dissolved.
The temptation may be to see Politico's article as vindication of the long held belief that the couple's problems arise from an unfair and unbalanced media, not from their own strategy and messaging.
However, if in reality there are underlying problems with the way Harry and Meghan have presented their narrative then to ignore those problems could lead to real life consequences for the Sussexes and their commercial success as Netflix producers and Spotify podcasters in a competitive media landscape and on the cusp of a global recession.
Tom Bower is releasing a second part of his book come June 2023
Points he discussed today during GB News (will be available in youtube at 10:30 p.m. EST), the new chapters will be like this
Harry has been a drug addict for 25 years
Sandhurst entrance exam essay was writing at a 13 year old level (edit officer training, Harry was 20)
Harry smokes weed almost on a daily basis in Montecito
Doria was a drug dealer when she met Thomas.
Thomas broke up with Doria over her heavy drug use/drug dealing
She was absent from Meghan's life for 10 years.
Tom ended the interview stating ''This will be in my book, it is legally safe''
Well, we shall see whether Bower does publish this and whether there will be legal implications from it. Bower stating that Harry is a drug addict doesn?t make it so.
And if he states that Doria was in jail for ten years then the number of photos around with Doria along with Meghan as a little girl and a bigger one, don?t add up.
And stating that Harry smokes weed daily at Montecito when he himself hasn?t been there to witness it is already disputable. And Tom jnr has already stated in interviews with tabloids that his father Tom was a big coke user, but of course Bower wouldn?t mention that as he was going to use Tom snr in his other book attacking Meghan.
According to Neil Sean, NBC IS discussing a Royal Correspondent job for Prince Harry. He mentioned it last night as a 'fact' that Harry IS not only interested, he said YES, moneys is being ironed out. He added that Harry will sign the agreement if the money is right (it has to include security), all other 'professional' behaviour is also in the contract, no slagging, no swearing, basically report as a royal expert.
IF the money is right, his first job will be the Coronation. Neil said Harry would be reporting with cameras from his home in Montecito (or a rented place in Montecito) watching the big screen whilst his partner Keir Simmons live from London.
Quote from: wannable on January 11, 2023, 02:19:07 AM
Tom Bower is releasing a second part of his book come June 2023
Sandhurst entrance exam essay was writing at a 13 year old level (edit officer training, Harry was 20)
Reading the new article about Sandhurst, I'm convinced that when a person is not fit academically, no amount of nepo baby ''connections'' is worth it. At the end of the day, look where Harry has got himself by stating his exhibitionist ways in ref to military and Taliban kill. First the enemy have spoken and now the friendlies too.
IMO Harry is now like Salman Rushdie, after 45 years of threat from Islamic, he is stabbed 10 times; lost an eye, stabbed in the liver, several nerves.
I'd like to read Tom Bower's chapter on Harry/Sandhurst. As I said the other day, the most gravest part of Spare is Harry's Taliban tale. Maybe he needs to be committed as an inpatient mental health in a high security undisclosed location.
^I certainly agree with your comment, Harry indeed needs to be committed to a mental health hospital to get the help he needs as all this acting out could be a cry for help ...maybe! That comment about the killing of 25 chess pieces was a very disturbing to put in any book, mostly his because of his role in the BRF and the Army. He put his entire family, the royal family, the country in danger, it is just a matter of time before the Taliban does something to strike back at him for that. There is NO Way to put a positive *spin* on that either.
Quote from: wannable on January 13, 2023, 12:53:51 PM
According to Neil Sean, NBC IS discussing a Royal Correspondent job for Prince Harry. He mentioned it last night as a 'fact' that Harry IS not only interested, he said YES, moneys is being ironed out. He added that Harry will sign the agreement if the money is right (it has to include security), all other 'professional' behaviour is also in the contract, no slagging, no swearing, basically report as a royal expert.
IF the money is right, his first job will be the Coronation. Neil said Harry would be reporting with cameras from his home in Montecito (or a rented place in Montecito) watching the big screen whilst his partner Keir Simmons live from London.
Latest (alleged) developments but still a fact for Neil Sean, NBC hit the brakes with skid mark sound at the road surface. That Bryony interview Executive Bosses (in plural) thoughts is firstly harassment to PPOW's children, when H admits W said it is not his responsibility but yet H insists he will/long game (from harassment to threat there is a very little tiny thread, H might just reach the threat level) and teetering swaying towards blackmail, secondly the Spare interviews, they are weighing but think it is influenced on the Spare curiosity, aren't sure if they should invest millions in having H as a regular royal correspondent.
Quote from: wannable on January 14, 2023, 02:37:42 PM
Latest (alleged) developments but still a fact for Neil Sean, NBC hit the brakes with skid mark sound at the road surface. That Bryony interview Executive Bosses (in plural) thoughts is firstly harassment to PPOW's children, when H admits W said it is not his responsibility but yet H insists he will/long game (from harassment to threat there is a very little tiny thread, H might just reach the threat level) and teetering swaying towards blackmail, secondly the Spare interviews, they are weighing but think it is influenced on the Spare curiosity, aren't sure if they should invest millions in having H as a regular royal correspondent.
In other words this was all a rumour, a piece of gossip floating around the ether, probably on Twitter, that Sean decided to put out there even if though it never had any legs and nobody ever approached Harry about anything. Sean is a gossip spreader like the rest of the crew on TV that report on what the royals say, do, think, even in private, without outsiders ever knowing anything of any importance.
Who in their right mind would hire Harry for anything as it has been proven he is a Lair, he just goes along making up lies when he does not know things or issues about any event he is being asked about........gads I hope this is fake news!
I can see why an American broadcaster might consider hiring the DoS as a "color" commentator if they believe that his presence would draw in viewers. I can also see the Sussexes wanting the additional income as well as the publicity for appearing. However
@Nightowl does bring up some good points regarding Prince Harry's lack of knowledge regarding English/British history and the working of the monarchy. That could be an issue unless the angle is to just get more gossipy information on the BRF.
The ''catch'' is NBC uses Neil Sean's information long time past and present mediawise, they aren't the only ones who have. SO, when he said NBC is offering Harry a job and he states that NBC knows he knows and will not be corrected or retracted because it comes from a high reliable source within the building, then 24 hours later after H's Bryony interview which I mildly said it teeters from harassment to blackmail, whereas other radical papers call it threat rather than harassment and blackmail, the same NBC bosses are screeching for a halt/wait a minute, lets think about it.
May situations change in real life from one second, minute, hours, months to another, yes.
Quote from: wannable on January 15, 2023, 02:39:55 PM
The ''catch'' is NBC uses Neil Sean's information long time past and present mediawise, they aren't the only ones who have. SO, when he said NBC is offering Harry a job and he states that NBC knows he knows and will not be corrected or retracted because it comes from a high reliable source within the building, then 24 hours later after H's Bryony interview which I mildly said it teeters from harassment to blackmail, whereas other radical papers call it threat rather than harassment and blackmail, the same NBC bosses are screeching for a halt/wait a minute, lets think about it.
May situations change in real life from one second, minute, hours, months to another, yes.
RRs (which Sean definitely is not) and other gossip gatherers who gather their crumbs from various Palace lackeys and then bray to the public that they are telling the truth, get it wrong 90% of the time. And for the rest, well, a broken clock is still right twice a day.
And if NBC is taking any report about the royals seriously enough to feature his programme at all (he?s British and a journalist living in London therefore he must know all about the royals) then more fool them. He?s no better informed than the RRs who believe they have the royals pegged and parrot what has been told them by those in the royals? Press Offices. He just gets similar feeds of what gossip has been picked up from various sources but from lower ranking lackeys in the Palaces, that?s all.
As for NBC, I find the idea that senior executives there would be confiding in Neil Sean as to what correspondents they are going to use for a ceremony that is still nearly six months away as laughable in the extreme.
Prince Harry ITV Interview Sells Wide Internationally ? The Hollywood Reporter (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/prince-harry-itv-interview-sells-wide-internationally-1235294224/)
ITV Studios reports it has sold Harry: The Interview, Prince Harry?s chat with ITV from his home in Los Angeles, into 77 international territories, including across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
The global pre-sales for the 90-minute program follows the Duke of Sussex?s talk with Tom Bradby, journalist and ITV News at Ten presenter, first airing in the UK on Jan. 8 on ITV1. The controversial interview aired in the UK two days before Prince Harry?s memoir Spare was published on Jan. 10.
Jeremy Clarkson has now stated that he sent an email!! apologising to the Sussexes for his disgusting comments in the Sun article. He didn?t reveal what this email said though.
UK's Clarkson apologises to Harry and Meghan over 'naked' column (https://www.aol.com/entertainment/uks-clarkson-apologises-harry-meghan-194741347.html)
On Monday, Variety reported that Amazon Prime Video was likely to part ways with Clarkson, citing sources who said the streaming giant would not be working with him beyond seasons of ?The Grand Tour? and ?Clarkson?s Farm? that have already been commissioned.
Must watch
3 minutes
MEGHAN HARRY - 12 POINT PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION!? #royalfamily #princeharry #meghanmarkle - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXczub1vgj4)
Quote from: Nightowl on January 15, 2023, 06:44:57 AM
Who in their right mind would hire Harry for anything as it has been proven he is a Lair, he just goes along making up lies when he does not know things or issues about any event he is being asked about........gads I hope this is fake news!
Richard Palmer last night said via his official twitter there are 2 USA networks money fighting to have Harry as a Coronation Commentator.
Quote from: Curryong on January 16, 2023, 09:45:48 PM
Jeremy Clarkson has now stated that he sent an email!! apologising to the Sussexes for his disgusting comments in the Sun article. He didn?t reveal what this email said though.
UK's Clarkson apologises to Harry and Meghan over 'naked' column (https://www.aol.com/entertainment/uks-clarkson-apologises-harry-meghan-194741347.html)
On Monday, Variety reported that Amazon Prime Video was likely to part ways with Clarkson, citing sources who said the streaming giant would not be working with him beyond seasons of ?The Grand Tour? and ?Clarkson?s Farm? that have already been commissioned.
Jeremy also has now 4 of the biggest USA networks wanting him, the moneys being discussed is double to what he earned ccombined between Amazon and ITV.
Bad behaviour pays as I said a few months ago. My fam member in the entertainment industry said, it doesn't matter bad behaviour, the motto is IF the protagonist (s) have high ratings, and SELL. It's a go, green light!
changemhysoul brought up an interesting point about author Robert Lacey in his book Battle of Brothers: William and Henry: The Inside Story of A Family in Tumult
The claim that he got the inside leak after the funeral of PP, the conversation between Charles and his two sons.
The hardcover was published October 2020
Prince Phillip passed away April 2021
Paperback was released with modifications November 2021 (to date he hasn't claimed as the originator of the above leak)
Other than, The Crown has historian (RL) vs historians (several) controversy every time there is a 'new' season. IMO educated guess with the help of the fam member who works in the entertainment industry, The Crown has 'run its course' = last season, significant drop of viewers.
Richard Eden
@richardaeden
👀 Mismanagement continues at the charity run by #NgoziFulani, who sparked #royal 'race row' 👀 It has failed to meet TEN-month deadline to file its latest accounts.
Jeremy Clarkson's Farm Season 2 Amazon Prime aired 10th February.
Average Rating: 5/5
Amazon Prime has signed him up today for Season 3.
Too much money for all parties involved and cancel culture is dying (according to recent polls)
Quote from: wannable on February 14, 2023, 06:38:21 PM
Jeremy Clarkson's Farm Season 2 Amazon Prime aired 10th February.
Average Rating: 5/5
Amazon Prime has signed him up today for Season 3.
Too much money for all parties involved and cancel culture is dying (according to recent polls)
But not the disgust in which his remarks about Meghan have been held. As well, the investigation against the disgraceful rag that published that column is being investigated by the Press regulator. So much for the sense of decency of the rag?s editor. Their ?apology? wasn?t one.
Jeremy Clarkson?s Meghan Markle column in The Sun investigated by press regulator | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jeremy-clarkson-investigation-article-the-sun-b2279546.html)
It's the regulators job.
He just got paid GBP 250Million. He can retire, but doubtful, the US will take him if Amazon decides to backtrack, but I understand he signed up for the 3rd season.
Quote from: wannable on February 14, 2023, 08:35:52 PM
It's the regulators job.
He just got paid GBP 250Million. He can retire, but doubtful, the US will take him if Amazon decides to backtrack, but I understand he signed up for the 3rd season.
Yes, it?s the regulators? job because over they received over 25,000 complaints against him, the greatest number ever received. He?s got a reputation in the UK for misogyny to say the least. And I do not believe that he is worth 250 million or anything like it. Amazon Prime would have placed a great number of conditions on Clarkson AND his two buddies, whom you didn?t mention, getting that sort of package.
There are some people too big to 'cancel'. I didn't like Clarkson's comment about Meghan but I do think he has a right to say what he wants.
JK Rowling is in the same situation for different reasons. She's just too big to be cancelled.
Exactly his viewing numbers first day over 10M.
If the number was less than 100k he would have been canceled. That was the rumor. But 10 million he signed today another season, that is four days after airing season 2.
Before Amazon, due to bad behavior he was fired from BBC, the BBC lost 4 million viewers, they ended up retiring the show. Jeremy took the car show to Amazon, that also has top 10 viewing.
IF Amazon hadn't sign him today, the other rumor was Netflix for USD 310Million, which is a bit above the GBP 250 Million, considering the exchange rate. He would have had to move to California. :lol:
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on February 14, 2023, 09:16:22 PM
There are some people too big to 'cancel'. I didn't like Clarkson's comment about Meghan but I do think he has a right to say what he wants.
JK Rowling is in the same situation for different reasons. She's just too big to be cancelled.
Clarkson doesn?t have a right to say what he wants at all. Nobody has the ?right? to spread hatred within the pages of a national newspapers, however much money they earn. And that includes columnists. And IPSO obviously agrees with that otherwise they wouldn?t be investigating The Sun.
I find it exaggerating to be honest and he apologized. Stick to acting rather than writing Game of Thrones script.
Discussion of the Sussexes' depiction in South Park has been moved to this thread in their forum. Please continue the discussion there.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex Interviews, TV and other media events Part 4 (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95384.msg1515828#msg1515828)
Writing in his new book Gilded Youth, royal biographer Tom Quinn
Quote
Meghan Markle was 'hugely disappointed' by life in the royal family and as a 'global superstar' she 'hated being told what she could and could not do', a new book has claimed.
The Duchess of Sussex, 41, who is currently living in her $14 million mansion in California having stepped back from royal duty, held misconceptions about what life in The Firm would be like, according to an insider.
Writing in his new book Gilded Youth, royal biographer Tom Quinn explained he had spoken to a 'Kensington Palace staffer who remembered Meghan well', who said she was stunned by the reality of life in the family.
The insider claimed: 'I don?t think in the whole of history there was ever a greater divide between what someone expected when they became a member of the royal family and what they discovered it was really like.'
'She was a global superstar but was being told what she could and could not do, what she could and could not say. She hated it.'
Meanwhile another person claimed the Duchess was 'dazzled' by the worldwide fame being a 'princess' would bring, but was shocked that she was 'never first in the pecking order.'
A third source said Meghan likes to 'mix exclusively' with celebrities, adding she was unhappy being treated as 'a servant of the people' and not a star.
A third source said Meghan likes to 'mix exclusively' with celebrities, adding she was unhappy being treated as 'a servant of the people' and not a star. End quote.
According to Tom Quinn, who has already written one book which was anti Meghan but is seemingly ready to feather his nest once more by writing a load of gossip from unnamed royal staffers.
That is an absolute lie, anyway. Meghan?s greatest friends include ordinary people she?s known for years, including fellow students at NWU who are unknown to the public. And if we are talking celebrity the royals don?t go too badly without Meghan. From Tom Cruise to Roger Federer to David Beckham to Emma Thompson to Ed Sheeran (a great friend of the Yorkies) to Jimmy Saville, they mix with as many or more celebs than Meghan has ever bothered to do.
Omid Scobie, a journalist with links to the Sussexes, described the eviction as a ''crushing blow'' which had left the couple ''stunned''. He also said that at least two members of the royal family were ''appalled''. They are likely to be Princess Eugenie, who is particularly close to Harry and has visited the couple in California, and her sister, Princess Beatrice.
Scobie quoted a friend of the couple as saying: ''It all feels very final and like a cruel punishment . . . It's like [the family] want to cut them out of the picture for good.'
However, a source close to the couple denied they were 'stunned'. The source said: ''It is what it is. They are not fighting it. They realise they have a home [in California]. They have a roof over their heads. They were very privileged to have a second residence. It's not going to work out for them there, and that's OK.'
Valentine Low
The Times
Chris Rock's Netflix special
South Park's Harry and Meghan muppets, guests in the balcony.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fqeb9ggWcAAU6ZS?format=jpg&name=small)
I've watched TV presenter Nana Akua, In my opinion I think she is too raw for my taste, but yeah straightforward.
Probably the female version of Piers Morgan, she got hired today by the Daily Mail. The good news is the DM is diversifying their staff.
Harry 'should be charged with treason', Meghan 'used a racism narrative when she didn't get what she wanted', Gary Lineker is 'deluded' and BLM is 'Marxist': Meet our new columnist NANA AKUA
Victoria Ward, The Telegraph was fooled by someone.
Please consider (or add) in the bloggers list The Guardian, they USED to be financially supported by The Guardian Group (umbrella of The Observer) BUT since 2016, they are 'independent' freelance ''ex journalists'' turned bloggers (check the authors to see if it was an ex journo or a lifetime blogger), requesting to be paid GBP1 by vistors to their website.
Thank you.
Note: I really don't want to break any rules, hence I am just making a reasonable request in several threads related to links posted in the RIF website.
I suppose Jack Mann is now an ex friend. Jack Mann was hosting a dinner party at his house, a guest had demands. I recall the invitations thinned out to 0 2018, reported by Tatler.
Quote
Further dinner party faux-pas followed, as Meghan is said to have treated social situations as if it were a Hollywood networking event.
Ahead of a casual dinner being hosted by Jack Mann, a polo-playing friend of Harry's and an usher at their wedding, a source says Jack was astonished to receive a list of demands in advance.
'Meghan wanted to know what designers the women would be wearing, what the seating plan would be, that kind of thing, ' the source said. 'Jack was so gobsmacked he simply didn't respond. It was a bizarre request to receive ahead of a relaxed occasion.'
When Jack decided not to respond to the email, another missive was issued.
'In the second email it seemed Meghan was especially interested to know the names of the wives and girlfriends attending, 'the source added. 'Again, Jack declined to tell her anything. This wasn't a networking dinner for movie execs in the Hollywood Hills with George Clooney; it was wine and food with friends.
'In the end they both turned up, but Meghan seemed miffed' and she left before the dinner.'
The moment Prince Harry's pals knew he'd turned 'woke', months after marrying Meghan Markle | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11719123/The-moment-Prince-Harrys-pals-knew-hed-turned-woke-months-marrying-Meghan-Markle.html)
The friends of the Waleses and Sussexes thread is closed.
A new article from the Daily Mail.
Quote
PENNY JUNOR: Nearly 40 years ago I wrote that the then Prince Charles was one of the saddest people I'd met. One woman has changed all that...
PENNY JUNOR: I wrote that Charles was one of the saddest people I'd met. One woman has changed that | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-12029257/PENNY-JUNOR-wrote-Charles-one-saddest-people-Id-met-One-woman-changed-that.html)
Interesting read.
Quote from: wannable on April 30, 2023, 08:55:26 PM
PENNY JUNOR: I wrote that Charles was one of the saddest people I'd met. One woman has changed that | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-12029257/PENNY-JUNOR-wrote-Charles-one-saddest-people-Id-met-One-woman-changed-that.html)
Interesting read.
Penny Junor has been one of the biggest supporters of Charles for many decades, since the early days of the marriage to Diana in fact. Penny has always blamed Diana for the break up of the Wales marriage. She?s always fawned over Charles to the extent that it became something of a joke where her books were concerned.
I really liked the article and In my opinion she is spot on.
^I also like the article, I have always thought that Charles is a highly underestimated, he really worked to turn the Duchy into a machine that has helped so many in the country, a workalochic and loves his family and country.
Interview with a Paparazzi 13 years ago. 13 years ago!!!! This doesn't happen anymore thanks to Social Media.
Kate Middleton and The Paparazzi Part 1 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmJElOdzXE)
Kate Middleton and The Paparazzi Part 2 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1UYXuBOXSA)
^Nearly 10 years of that. No paid security. Yikes.
In reference to the next royal book, Omid has updated the launch date from Summer to Fall (Autumn)
Omid Scobie
@scobie
ENDGAME Out Fall
^ Autumn
Sat, Sep 23, 2023 - Thu, Dec 21, 2023
*****
Previously:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj3m9nOX0AAERgl?format=jpg&name=small)
*****
California visit, 6th June, multiple pictures
Instagram, Omid's official account: scobiesnaps
Omid Scobie
@scobie
I have book news!
#ENDGAME, a penetrating investigation into the future of the Royal Family, will be released globally on November 21, 2023. Can?t wait for you all to read this.
More details, and preorder links, at http://ReadEndgame.com
On September 8, 2022, the world stood still as news broke of Queen Elizabeth II's passing. Her death dismantled the protective shield around the world's most famous family and saw a long-simmering crisis of confidence in the British monarchy begin to resurface. Now, with unique insight, deep access and exclusive revelations, journalist Omid Scobie pulls back the curtain on an institution in turmoil?exposing the chaos, family dysfunction, distrust and draconian practices threatening its very future. This is the monarchy's endgame. Do they have what it takes to save it?
Tom Bower last night interview with GB News:
Meghan Markle speaks to Diana beyond the grave according to one of Harry's friends that told him.
Harry will have a 'token' win vs the Mirror because the BRF never loses. He alleges that the token will be similar to Meghan's token win vs the Daily Mail in ref to her daddy letter.
Quote from: wannable on June 28, 2023, 06:47:50 PM
Tom Bower last night interview with GB News:
Meghan Markle speaks to Diana beyond the grave according to one of Harry's friends that told him.
Harry will have a 'token' win vs the Mirror because the BRF never loses. He alleges that the token will be similar to Meghan's token win vs the Daily Mail in ref to her daddy letter.
It wasn?t a token win when three appeal Court judges ruled that her letter was private and not a matter of public interest. It?s often forgotten that the DM were in the end forced to pay the majority of Meghan?s costs as a result of that copyright breach.. Bower is a barrister but unsurprisingly seems to have ?forgotten? that part.
Meghan Markle awarded 1 pound privacy damages, much more for copyright (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/01/05/meghan-markle-awarded-pound-privacy-damages-much-more-copyright-breach/9105407002/)
And so Bower, never having met Meghan in his life, scrapes up info like that about speaking to Diana? Third hand at least. Very viable I?m sure, lol!
Meghan Markle wins privacy case against Mail: How did it happen - The Economic Times (https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/meghan-markle-wins-privacy-case-against-mail-how-did-it-happen/articleshow/88088606.cms)
^ More known worldwide of Omid and Meghan lying to a court of law.
****
Neil Sean claimed last night that Harry has reached out to William in reference of his interest in W Homeward Homeless project, offering his help. A developing story, Neil will be reporting whatever happens/response W side if any.
^^^ Hi
@wannable-Do you have a link to Neal Sean's claim about Prince Harry and Prince William's Homeward project? Was it on his social media?
'Harry and Meghan's business affairs likely to be dished out in Omid Scobie's new book - not Royals' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12244463/Omid-Scobies-End-Game-likely-Sussexes-business-affairs-Royals-expert-says.html)
Omid Scobie delays publication of 'Endgame' to include details on the Coronation | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12246759/Omid-Scobie-delays-publication-Endgame-include-details-Coronation.html)
Harry and Meghan's cheerleader Omid Scobie announces new book 'Endgame' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12242959/Harry-Meghans-cheerleader-Omid-Scobie-announces-new-book-Endgame.html)
New royal book dismissed as 'sensational attempt to cash in on Sussexes' rift with Firm' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1785790/new-royal-book-sussexes-rift-omid-scobie)
Meghan and Harry 'assumed to have approved' Omid Scobie's new bombshell royal book | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1785698/meghan-markle-prince-harry-omid-scobie-new-book)
Harry and Meghan's pal teases bombshell book inside Royal Family's 'fight for survival' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1785474/harry-meghan-omid-scobie-endgame)
I can?t believe Omid Scobie did tell all on books and more embarrassed on royal family and Sussex im not approved with his books!! He admit tell all about royal family not OKAY!! Kept private :thumbsdown: :ugh:
I have a feeling this book will be his own end game and his California sources.
Quote
Finding Freedom was notably favourable towards the Sussexes and written from their perspective. Endgame is expected to be similar, and Mr Scobie has admitted that he has spent time in California while working on the book.
By Victoria Ward,
ROYAL EDITOR
28 June 2023 ? 8:49pm
The Telegraph
Bingo!
Archive PHP is illegal for ''distribution'', only 'self download'. It's piracy when dealing with pay per view. Just in Case.
Quote from: wannable on June 29, 2023, 03:52:37 PM
By Victoria Ward,
ROYAL EDITOR
28 June 2023 ? 8:49pm
The Telegraph
Bingo!
Archive PHP is illegal for ''distribution'', only 'self download'. It's piracy when dealing with pay per view. Just in Case.
I?m agreed with you
Quote from: wannable on June 29, 2023, 03:01:42 PM
I have a feeling this book will be his own end game and his California sources.
Yes
Byline Investigates write under anonymous team Byline Investigates, one of the journalists was mentioned today in Court.
IMO, Andrew Green has the list of journalists who work for Byline Investigates, who were jobless after the Leveson.
Quote from: wannable on June 29, 2023, 10:22:27 PM
Byline Investigates write under anonymous team Byline Investigates, one of the journalists was mentioned today in Court.
IMO, Andrew Green has the list of journalists who work for Byline Investigates, who were jobless after the Leveson.
There were many so-called tabloid journalists who were jobless after Leveson, and the NOTW debacle, and many more in the industry who should have been, never mind about who is on who?s list or not.
@Curryong Two mentioned at the case, one is an owner, the other writes for it. When Byline Investigates was created after Leveson, no one knew who they were, they wrote anonymously as ''Team Byline Investigates''. The disclaimer and their website does not mention who is who.
That the Judge will consider if they are reliable since they pay people to be witnesses against a media oultet, they pay offering book, tv deals....IMO since the owner and one of the writers were mentioned to pay witnesses, the irony of it all, surely the rest of the ''team'' are honorable not. IMO, this will bring about a 'new' case about these people. So much for complaining of no named sources, these very people wrote anonymously until yesterday. To be honest, I knew about this since 1 month ago by watching a youtuber who 'held her tongue' but only mentioned Byline as fraudulent and corrupt, with the cryptic of they will be mentioned in H case.
@TLLK Quote from: TLLK on June 29, 2023, 02:27:44 PM
^^^ Hi @wannable-Do you have a link to Neal Sean's claim about Prince Harry and Prince William's Homeward project? Was it on his social media?
HARRY SET TO REACH OUT FINALLY - WILL IT BE ACCEPTED? #breakingnews #princeharry #royalscandal - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMKJVOIidww)
Neil Sean posts between 6 to 8 short videos ''daily'' 12 midnight British Standard Time.
Sara8150 does a great job posting a gazillion links daily, bless her. I ''try'' to read them all, but I'm afraid my algorithms are average. I have a app called Algorithms and Data Structures for ''work'' - certain responsibility for branding and clicks, but I use the app also to check things ''i share'' - how many clicks etc. Sadly no one opens a link, it may mean they trust what I quote, mentioning author full name, date/time, job title, organization the individual works for. Also hence I know when I open the marvelous Sara8150 daily links, my algo tells me I am ''average''.
Somebody who works for the media calling other journalists ?fraudulent and corrupt?! That?s the biggest laugh I?ve had all day! The number of journalists who hacked, told lies, made up stories (something that happens regularly today) and wrecked people?s lives in the process, were innumerable.
I have all the sympathy in the world for every one of the plaintiffs in these hacking cases. I hope these newspaper groups continue to pay their victims out in the millions as they have been doing and will no doubt continue to do, regardless of whether Harry wins his case or not. These tabloids and the journalists who work for them are the scum of the earth imo, and there are plenty who agree with me.
Socialite and Author, Lady C :blowkiss: :D
Now, I will post the link after 48 hours giving our fellow members to check her channel and watch 40plus hours to find what she said 1 month ago about this case, about Byline, and the cryptic of THEY who she also knows the who is who, were to be mentioned.
Youtube is free for everyone, when I mention in my own comment that FULLY NAMED person is stating something, head on to youtube, open the 'latest' chapter and what that person says matches with my comment with a tiny mention (nobody to date has opened a link I posted, my algorithm app is 100% viable) rather than axing on me, very simple 21st century, news and interests are super easy to find in a search engine. Plus go on and ''
subscribe'' to these peoples channel, you'd be surprised they do know a lot of things that turn out to be true. By subscribing you will receive the bells and whistles of an uploaded new royal gossip venture. :hehe:
@Curryong byline is fraudulent and corrupt and wrote all this time ''anonymously'', something not you particularly BUT many people elsewhere where complaining and moaning about 'no named sources' which IS protected by law in the UK and USA. So, what I mean to say is many of these people were or still are after knowing their paying corrupt ways cheer for them but boo the royal rota or UK journalists, especially in ref to the Sussexes. The hypocrazy (hypcrisy :wink: ) and the bias went out of hand yesterday in social media.
''History will judge us'' how Kate took on Harry and Meghan
What was really going on between Harry and William last year? Who was really wielding the power?
Quote
While some have attributed ''recollections may vary'' to Alderton, more than one source has said that the author was in fact Jean-Christophe Gray, William's new private secretary, who had been in post for less than three weeks. At least two senior officials in other households were against its inclusion, because they feared that it would rile Harry and Meghan. But once the phrase had been added to the draft, it was according to another source the Duchess of Cambridge who pressed home the argument that it should remain. It was Kate who clearly made the point, ''History will judge this statement and unless this phrase or a phrase like it is included, everything that they have said will be taken as true.''
This was, said the source, yet another example of how Kate is often far steelier than she appears. She does not get as much credit as she should, because she is so subtle about it. She is playing the long game. She has always got her eye on, This is my life and my historic path and I am going to be the Queen one day. The toughened-up draft went to Buckingham Palace for approval, and came back a couple of hours later. The Queen had said yes.
Valentine Low
Friday June 30 2023, 5.00pm BST
The Times
^ According to Valentine Low, ''recollections may vary'' is a Kensington Palace thing. The Times article is very long.
^ The above paragraph is an extract from Valentine Low's book. Extracted by himself for the paper he works for, The Times. (He extracted a lot)
Video Icon (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-harry-meghan-valentine-low-courtiers-30wsms50q)
Extracted from Courtiers: The Hidden Power behind the Crown by Valentine Low, out in paperback on July 6 To order a copy, go to timesbookshop.co.uk or call 020 3176 2935. Free UK standard P&P on orders over 25. Discount available for Times+ members
(https://archive.ph/q4i5C/9f0384a62cbcd1a4fe81961c1ad4ce2f47e2022b.jpg)
Quote from: wannable on June 30, 2023, 06:02:05 PM
''History will judge us'' how Kate took on Harry and Meghan
What was really going on between Harry and William last year? Who was really wielding the power?
Valentine Low
Friday June 30 2023, 5.00pm BST
The Times
^ According to Valentine Low, ''recollections may vary'' is a Kensington Palace thing. The Times article is very long.
The person responsible for crafting that phrase was a PR pro. Succinct, classy, but also says exactly what the Palace feel about the lies and misinformation. I really gotta read that book. I?m intrigued by the people behind the strategy of representing the family.
Why does this phrase about recollections have to be the last word about what occurred between the Sussexes and other royals? There can be another take on it. Recollections in fact may and do vary.
If you have two or three people present at a debate it can be possible, and often is, that none of the two or three remember a certain incident in exactly the same way. That doesn?t mean that one person hold the truth and nothing but the truth and the other two persons are inevitably liars, especially if there is or has been a quarrel.
Each person has their own recollection and just because one party is able to employ people with slick tongues able to insert their truth into a published statement doesn?t make that statement 100% correct.
History may indeed judge them and that means all parties. It might be good to remember that historians in a hundred years or so may not necessarily come to the conclusions about this split of one brother and his wife from his family that the BRF and their courtiers wish to portray now.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on June 30, 2023, 08:47:31 PM
The person responsible for crafting that phrase was a PR pro. Succinct, classy, but also says exactly what the Palace feel about the lies and misinformation. I really gotta read that book. I?m intrigued by the people behind the strategy of representing the family.
I have to say that it will likely be one of the most memorable phrases associated with the reign of HLM QEII.
Plus the other portion of this short statement is often forgotten.
This is the statement which was released just before 5.30pm on Tuesday. It said,
?The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.?
It?s not the fact that the Queen emphasised that Harry and Meghan had found the years challenging, or that her grandson and his wife will always be loved family members. No no. It?s not that issues raised were concerning and would be taken seriously, addressed privately. No. It?s the five words about recollections that the media concentrated on in that statement and still does. Five words out of that statement.
Quote from: wannable on June 30, 2023, 06:38:11 PM
^ The above paragraph is an extract from Valentine Low's book. Extracted by himself for the paper he works for, The Times. (He extracted a lot)
Video Icon (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-harry-meghan-valentine-low-courtiers-30wsms50q)
Extracted from Courtiers: The Hidden Power behind the Crown by Valentine Low, out in paperback on July 6 To order a copy, go to timesbookshop.co.uk or call 020 3176 2935. Free UK standard P&P on orders over 25. Discount available for Times+ members
(https://archive.ph/q4i5C/9f0384a62cbcd1a4fe81961c1ad4ce2f47e2022b.jpg)
That's one of the longest excerpts from a book that I've ever seen released. I had a feeling that Valentine Low would add an additional chapter regarding the late QEII's death and KCIII's ascension.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on June 30, 2023, 08:47:31 PM
The person responsible for crafting that phrase was a PR pro. Succinct, classy, but also says exactly what the Palace feel about the lies and misinformation. I really gotta read that book. I?m intrigued by the people behind the strategy of representing the family.
I read it and found it to be very well researched.
Quote from: Curryong on June 30, 2023, 11:48:29 PM
Plus the other portion of this short statement is often forgotten.
This is the statement which was released just before 5.30pm on Tuesday. It said,
?The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.?
It?s not the fact that the Queen emphasised that Harry and Meghan had found the years challenging, or that her grandson and his wife will always be loved family members. No no. It?s not that issues raised were concerning and would be taken seriously, addressed privately. No. It?s the five words about recollections that the media concentrated on in that statement and still does. Five words out of that statement.
Correct, which is why the phrase is PR gold. That?s judged based on the effectiveness of having the statement be remembered. And it?s quite obvious within the context exactly what the Palace was trying to convey. We?re sorry *they* had found it challenging. Not we?re sorry *we* made it challenging for them, which is what Meghan and Harry were alleging. The Queen didn?t draft that statement herself, it was written for her and she okay?d it. It spoke for the Palace and the Firm as a whole not Granny Elizabeth.
But even though I find it to be brilliant, I say that with the benefit of hindsight. Every single event since then has proven it to be the motto for anything relating to those two individuals. Their recollections seem to always vary when compared to that of others involved in any scenario. So, the phrase?s lasting power is a combination of good writing and it just being 100% correct and proven to be so. Any way you cut it.
Quote from: TLLK on June 30, 2023, 11:54:29 PM
I read it and found it to be very well researched.
Except, what does ?well researched? mean when writing about courtiers. A series of middle aged white males having long conversations with another middle aged white male of the same background, and all of them singing from the same hymn sheet about a particular topic? It was that entirely different tweet that Low let slip from his Twitter page at the time when the Sussexes were leaving that interests me. The tweet that he had heard (from insiders) that Meghan ?was in a bad way that summer.? Not PR stuff from the Palace.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 12:01:58 AM
Except, what does ?well researched? mean when writing about courtiers. A series of middle aged white males having long conversations with another middle aged white male of the same background, and all of them singing from the same hymn sheet about a particular topic?
And this is actually a myth that Low has done well to put to bed, which makes me more curious to read the book. This isn?t 1964. The Palace isn?t stuffed with the grey men anymore. He?s talked about this extensively in many interviews.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on June 30, 2023, 11:59:04 PM
Correct, which is why the phrase is PR gold. That?s judged based on the effectiveness of having the statement be remembered. And it?s quite obvious within the context exactly what the Palace was trying to convey. We?re sorry *they* had found it challenging. Not we?re sorry *we* made it challenging for them, which is what Meghan and Harry were alleging. The Queen didn?t draft that statement herself, it was written for her and she okay?d it. It spoke for the Palace and the Firm as a whole not Granny Elizabeth.
But that?s what happens always with the Palace. Their mouthpieces, the courtiers, speak for them, write their speeches and public statements. They don?t even draft anything themselves, except possibly Charles. They are the chess pieces and the courtiers are the chess players (always protecting their own butts at the same time), but the sad thing is the Royal Family don?t even realise it.
Quote from: TLLK on June 30, 2023, 11:54:29 PM
I read it and found it to be very well researched.
I believe it. Very interesting.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 12:07:55 AM
But that?s what happens always with the Palace. Their mouthpieces, the courtiers, speak for them, write their speeches and public statements. They don?t even draft anything themselves, except possibly Charles. They are the chess pieces and the courtiers are the chess players (always protecting their own butts at the same time), but the sad thing is the Royal Family don?t even realise it.
Yes, it?s kind of their job. The royals wouldn?t be anywhere without them. I?m not sure why they would ever be sad about it.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:06:38 AM
And this is actually a myth that Low has done well to put to bed, which makes me more curious to read the book. This isn?t 1964. The Palace isn?t stuffed with the grey men anymore. He?s talked about this extensively in many interviews.
He might talk about it in his interviews, however the 2023 Royal Foundation report, which I linked yesterday has the figures. People of minority and diverse backgrounds still make up less than 10% of those working at the Palace. And I would bet that very few of that 9% are senior courtiers.
^ And yet, that?s not so disproportionate to the percentage of minorities in the UK in other public positions:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/#:~:text=In%202021%2F22%20about%2013,Ireland%20to%2015%25%20in%20England.
The Palace isn?t that much different than other major institution. The implication that Harry, in particular, wanted to portray is like everything with him: a desire to harken back to Diana. That image of old, white men who had never stepped foot outside the palace gates if it wasn?t to go off shooting with their aristocratic set. The palace, and particularly, the people that Harry and Meghan were working with were young professionals you?d find anywhere else in the UK.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:09:18 AM
Yes, it?s kind of their job. The royals wouldn?t be anywhere without them. I?m not sure why they would ever be sad about it.
Yes, Im sure they are very content to have others craft speeches for them, tell them what to say on various occasions and generally run their lives from birth to death for them. The sadness comes from others observing their lives.
^Yes, I?m weeping for them, as my heart bleeds for the sadness of it all. Having top professionals protect them at every turn and dedicate themselves to the institution. The nightmare.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:14:53 AM
^ And yet, that?s not so disproportionate to the percentage of minorities in the UK in other public positions:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/#:~:text=In%202021%2F22%20about%2013,Ireland%20to%2015%25%20in%20England.
Well, that says a lot about the UK, glass ceilings and other obstacles. However, one would expect, and hope, that those running the lives of the HOS would be leaders in that sphere, not run with the pack. And that 9% figure has not moved for several years.
^So they should just hire minorities for the sake of looks? I say this as a minority myself, by the way.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:18:55 AM
^Yes, I?m weeping for them, as my heart bleeds for the sadness of it all.
Nobody is talking about weeping. It?s just a fact of life. And has been observed by others writing about the RF, including ex courtiers, for years. Long before Low.
^As it?s a fact of life that the individuals that work there have a job to do, which is what Low is highlighting. They were made the scapegoats for the ridiculous behavior of a few to play into a decades old narrative. I?m glad to see him set the record straight.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:20:52 AM
^So they should just hire minorities for the sake of looks? I say this as a minority myself, by the way.
No, everybody, from all sorts of backgrounds should be given a chance. I refuse to believe that very very few applicants of diverse backgrounds have been considered for senior roles because of unsuitability.
^Until that?s proven, I?ll stick with judging their employees by their actions not their ethnic background.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:24:41 AM
^As it?s a fact of life that the individuals that work there have a job to do, which is what Low is highlighting. They were made the scapegoats for the ridiculous behavior of a few to play into a decades old narrative. I?m glad to see him set the record straight.
Have you read the whole book? Because in fact, in the original edition he does go into bat for Meghan in that he felt that certain courtiers didn?t give her much of a chance.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 12:26:33 AM
Have you read the whole book?
As I?ve stated above, I?ve not. I?ve heard him talk about in a number of interviews and he?s quite fair all around. The story began due to the actions of two individuals, but based on Low?s words, it?s about their positions serving various members of the family?challenges and all. Have you read it?
Believe it or not, not everything is about Meghan and Harry. I?m intrigued by their positions serving the family as a whole, as their jobs are similar to other PR officials in some ways but also different in others. There?s also a tendency to speak about them as if they?re one entity. They?re individuals, who all have their own opinions and experiences. I?m interested in hearing them.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:29:36 AM
As I?ve stated above, I?ve not. I?ve heard him talk about in a number of interviews and he?s quite fair all around. The story began due to the actions of two individuals, but based on Low?s words, it?s about their positions serving various members of the family?challenges and all. Have you read it?
Believe it or not, not everything is about Meghan and Harry. I?m intrigued by their positions serving the family as a whole, as their jobs are similar to other PR officials in some ways but also different in others.
I?m aware of that. However it is the chapters dealing with Megxit, the events leading up to it and afterwards that the media SM and forums like this have concentrated on. And Low knew this when he wrote his book.
^Yes, he?s said that in various interviews. That was the catalyst but by no means the focus of this book. And that?s certainly not why I?m intrigued by the book. I already know everything I need to know about that situation.
This book is about what the title says it?s about: courtiers and their jobs, which includes PR statements as those stated above.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:36:13 AM
^Yes, he?s said that in various interviews. That was the catalyst but by no means the focus of this book. And that?s certainly not why I?m intrigued by the book. I already know everything I need to know about that situation.
This book is about what the title says it?s about: courtiers and their jobs, which includes PR statements as those stated above.
Another extract from the book highlights the archaic nature of much of the istitution.
?However, the monarchy also has its own peculiar management structure, which, in the view of some critics, is a mess. In overall charge is the Lord Chamberlain. Then there is the private secretary, who is in charge of policy and runs the diary. He is, in effect, the chief executive officer (CEO). After that, there is the Keeper of the Privy Purse, the chief financial officer (CFO), and the Master of the Household, the equivalent of the chief operating officer (COO). In any normal management system, the CEO would be above the CFO and the COO. But not at the palace. ?It is a team of rivals,? said one insider. ?They are all equals.? At least one former courtier believes that structure will not last much longer?.
^?they?re also representing a literal monarchy?I repeat: a monarchy. I guess I?m looking at it from a contextual standpoint. This is an archaic institution that is trying to adapt whilst maintaining their sense of tradition. What some may see as a problem is what I find intriguing about it. Straddling tradition with attempts at modernity. That?s what I alluded to above: in some ways, their jobs are similar to others and also very different in others.
Quote from: wannable on June 30, 2023, 06:38:11 PM
Extracted from Courtiers: The Hidden Power behind the Crown by Valentine Low, out in paperback on July 6 To order a copy, go to timesbookshop.co.uk or call 020 3176 2935. Free UK standard P&P on orders over 25. Discount available for Times+ members
@HistoryGirl2 ^ Above is the details to purchase the 'new' (added chapters) of the book, only paperback edition has the new chapters. Available: July 6.
If you need any other Q&A about purchasing the paperback, Valentine Low is open to answer questions via his twitter account. He has replied to Richard Eden, Cepe Smith, others. I think he has also placed a bookshop in the US in reply to a request. He is promoting the paperback/new extracts, first tweet in his feed.
I didn't read all the comments/replies in his tweet about this, but I think the hardcover from Nov 2022 does not have the added chapters. Only the paperback edition out July 6.
Yes, not all of it is bad. However in practical terms that sort of structure has, especially at times when some Households were under strain, led to bitter infighting, rivalries and undercutting each others? turf. Almost like a medieval court, complete with whispers in corridors.
Quote from: wannable on July 01, 2023, 12:53:55 AM
@HistoryGirl2 ^ Above is the details to purchase the 'new' (added chapters) of the book, only paperback edition has the new chapters. Available: July 6.
If you need any other Q&A about purchasing the paperback, Valentine Low is open to answer questions via his twitter account. He has replied to Richard Eden, Cepe Smith, others. I think he has also placed a bookshop in the US in reply to a request. He is promoting the paperback/new extracts, first tweet in his feed.
I didn't read all the comments/replies in his tweet about this, but I think the hardcover from Nov 2022 does not have the added chapters. Only the paperback edition out July 6.
Thanks,
@TLLK!
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 12:58:55 AM
Yes, not all of it is bad. However in practical terms that sort of structure has, especially at times when some Households were under strain, led to bitter infighting, rivalries and undercutting each others? turf. Almost like a medieval court, complete with whispers in corridors.
And that intrigues me. Although, the modern corporate environment is no less cutthroat, believe me.
Yes, the examples VL gives about the top courtiers is typical in corporate environment. My experience is Vertical positions in a company, always has been (VL proposition)
Other friends have told me about the horizontal positions, same tiger world. One person in particular lived through the vertical (VL proposition) and then horizontal change (to date, which is QE and HMKCIII actual personnel structure) VL proposition is not good or bad, it could be a different experience/experiment.
Quote from: TLLK on June 30, 2023, 11:45:46 PM
I have to say that it will likely be one of the most memorable phrases associated with the reign of HLM QEII.
"Recollections may vary" will definitely be one of the most memorable phrases associated with the Sussexes!
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on June 30, 2023, 11:59:04 PM
Correct, which is why the phrase is PR gold. That?s judged based on the effectiveness of having the statement be remembered. And it?s quite obvious within the context exactly what the Palace was trying to convey. We?re sorry *they* had found it challenging. Not we?re sorry *we* made it challenging for them, which is what Meghan and Harry were alleging. The Queen didn?t draft that statement herself, it was written for her and she okay?d it. It spoke for the Palace and the Firm as a whole not Granny Elizabeth.
But even though I find it to be brilliant, I say that with the benefit of hindsight. Every single event since then has proven it to be the motto for anything relating to those two individuals. Their recollections seem to always vary when compared to that of others involved in any scenario. So, the phrase?s lasting power is a combination of good writing and it just being 100% correct and proven to be so. Any way you cut it.
Good post! "Recollections may vary" is a brilliant statement. As you said, it's succinct, classy, and gets the point across perfectly. And yes, it's standing the the test of time pretty well.
^Thanks,
@Kristeh-H! And like a lot of iconic statements, I doubt the person who drafted it thought it would land as well as it did or remain part of the royal lexicon for years. I did like reading the behind the scenes aspect of it. There?s so much to consider when putting out a statement of that magnitude.
Purely from a PR perspective, their conduct was a masterclass in how to handle a very awkward situation. We?ve seen many companies fumble the bag in similar scenarios.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on July 01, 2023, 01:28:18 AM
"Recollections may vary" will definitely be one of the most memorable phrases associated with the Sussexes!
Why, because one of the RF mouthpieces/ men in grey got to have a dig at the Sussexes? None of the royals thought up the phrase for themselves of course. And the rest of the statement? That Meghan and Harry remain much loved members of the family? A lie I guess. Or the statement that the issue about race will be taken seriously? Another lie I expect? And the rest? Meaningless?
Take a look at that whole statement. Not just five words.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 02:10:35 AM
Why, because one of the RF mouthpieces/ men in grey got to have a dig at the Sussexes? None of the royals thought up the phrase for themselves of course. And the rest of the statement? That Meghan and Harry remain much loved members of the family? A lie I guess. Or the statement that the issue about race will be taken seriously? Another lie I expect? And the rest? Meaningless?
Take a look at that whole statement. Not just five words.
The rest of the statement has value. On a more personal, family level they left the door open, and it has been good for the RF's image for them to take the high road. But 'recollections may vary' is the part that stands out. As Catherine said, it was crucial for them to push back against the Sussexes' version of events and it was just the perfect phrase.
And it still applies as so much of what Harry and Meghan say is contradictory and misleading--or just plain not true.
Just how can Harry/Meghan *remain much loved members of the royal family* after the hell they created by telling one lie after another to the point of even getting the Archbishop involved in their lies is beyond me. Personally I think that most members of the royal family are very hesitate to be around them when there are conversations of the family because those conversations just might end up in some book, interview or a new reality show. They BROKE the TRUST between them and the royal family, nobody but Harry/Megham is responsible for their choices/decisions in life but them Period! So why is that so darn hard to understand?
Aren't we here and people the world over responsible for their choices/decisions in their lives? Big differences is they blame everyone but themselves for their mistakes in life.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 02:10:35 AM
Why, because one of the RF mouthpieces/ men in grey got to have a dig at the Sussexes? None of the royals thought up the phrase for themselves of course. And the rest of the statement? That Meghan and Harry remain much loved members of the family? A lie I guess. Or the statement that the issue about race will be taken seriously? Another lie I expect? And the rest? Meaningless?
Take a look at that whole statement. Not just five words.
I think you?re misunderstanding what we?re saying. What is remembered and what is true are two very different things. The RF, like any entity, is made up of many different individuals that each have their own opinion. This is a conversation about PR. That statement has been remembered and continues to be brought up again and again and again. It has had lasting power, that?s just a statement of fact. The rest of that statement has not.
You also keep saying this about the men in grey. Charles, William, Kate, and the Queen all signed off on that statement. Every word was pored over and they all agreed that it was the most appropriate way of saying what they wanted to say about the matter from a public standpoint. From the standpoint of the Firm that was absolutely being attacked.
If we want to read the statement in entirety, then let?s. The summary is: we?re sorry they feel this way, these are very serious allegations that they are levying at us, we love them and wish them well, but we do not remember things the way they remember them.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on July 01, 2023, 03:08:41 AM
The rest of the statement has value. On a more personal, family level they left the door open, and it has been good for the RF's image for them to take the high road. But 'recollections may vary' is the part that stands out. As Catherine said, it was crucial for them to push back against the Sussexes' version of events and it was just the perfect phrase.
And it still applies as so much of what Harry and Meghan say is contradictory and misleading--or just plain not true.
Agreed. They?ve done it so masterfully. Harry is actually a great test case. His image while he was in the Firm (being looked after by those people that he seems to despise) was great, regardless of the many moments where it could have really taken a tumble. Then he goes off on his own, believing that he was being held back from greatness by these people, and now, his image is in the gutter.
It helps that these courtiers think about things from many different perspectives. For example, they could have written a statement ala Harry and trashed them till Sunday, but they didn?t. From a public standpoint, they said what they needed to say without being vulgar or extremist.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 02:10:35 AM
Why, because one of the RF mouthpieces/ men in grey got to have a dig at the Sussexes?
Also, since those two individuals have worked overtime to attempt to convince the world that these courtiers have a vendetta against them, I?d like to point out reality.
The original draft didn?t include the statement. It was the Prince and Princess of Wales who pushed for it to be more pointed. And the statement was written by someone who had only recently been hired. The senior officials didn?t want it in there for fear that it would only fan the flames.
Kate Princess of Wales 'played key role' in 'recollections may vary' line (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/06/30/kate-princess-of-wales-meghan-harry-oprah-interview/)
The Sun and the revolting Jeremy Clarkson are in trouble again over the column written about Meghan. This time with the Regulator General.
Loading 3rd party ad content (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/humiliating-jeremy-clarkson-column-on-meghan-was-sexist-regulator-rules-20230701-p5dkzs.html)
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) on Friday found the column contained a pejorative and prejudicial reference to Meghan?s sex, in breach of the Editors? Code of Practice.
IPSO has instructed The Sun to publish a summary of the findings against it ? written by IPSO ? on the same page as the column usually appears, which will be flagged on the paper?s front page in print and on the sun.co.uk website.
Excellent.
And it was great to see so many readers of this disgraceful tabloid sticking up for Meghan against a complete chauvinist.
Good. I don't support misogyny or double standards in any way.
^It?s the way of the world these days. People seem to be on a quest to say the most disgusting, ridiculous statements to see who can get the most clout. Crafting intelligent, considered points of view has now fallen by the wayside and the culture is one in which creating controversy by hurtling vile accusations is what?s picked up.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2023, 01:21:21 PM
The Sun and the revolting Jeremy Clarkson are in trouble again over the column written about Meghan. This time with the Regulator General.
Loading 3rd party ad content (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/humiliating-jeremy-clarkson-column-on-meghan-was-sexist-regulator-rules-20230701-p5dkzs.html)
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) on Friday found the column contained a pejorative and prejudicial reference to Meghan?s sex, in breach of the Editors? Code of Practice.
IPSO has instructed The Sun to publish a summary of the findings against it ? written by IPSO ? on the same page as the column usually appears, which will be flagged on the paper?s front page in print and on the sun.co.uk website.
Excellent.
And it was great to see so many readers of this disgraceful tabloid sticking up for Meghan against a complete chauvinist.
Excellent news! Glad to see that the Regulator General and IPSO made this ruling.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on July 01, 2023, 12:49:32 PM
Agreed. They?ve done it so masterfully. Harry is actually a great test case. His image while he was in the Firm (being looked after by those people that he seems to despise) was great, regardless of the many moments where it could have really taken a tumble. Then he goes off on his own, believing that he was being held back from greatness by these people, and now, his image is in the gutter.
It helps that these courtiers think about things from many different perspectives. For example, they could have written a statement ala Harry and trashed them till Sunday, but they didn?t. From a public standpoint, they said what they needed to say without being vulgar or extremist.
I wholeheartedly agree that this message was subtle, polite while still being direct.
Instagram: karllarsenphotography
Karl Larsen
Contributing Photographer to Rollingstone Magazine since 1999
Backgrid
Question: What do Slash and Meghan Markle have in common?
1) They both grew up in Los Angeles.
2) Both have Amazing Talents
3) They are both mixed race, but you would never know it, nor do they talk about it.
4) They are both loved in the UK and in America. Most importantly?
5) They both only naturally smile and laugh, for @karllarsenphotography PR plus I am dear friends with both their families #meghanmarkle #slash
Posted 4 hours ago today
Gavin Burrows Private Investigator
@gavinburrowspi
Private Investigator & Investigation Consultant,
Globalloiinvestigations.com
Prince Harry's Lawyers Allegedly Utilized Hacker Who Paid Private Investigators - Line Of Inquiry (https://loiinvestigations.com/prince-harrys-lawyers-allegedly-utilized-hacker-who-paid-private-investigators/)
Curious about the recent revelations in The Times article about Prince Harry's legal team. Dive into our latest blog post as we uncover the controversial collaboration with a convicted hacker and the use of private investigators.
Harry & Megan look set to split Harry is permanently renting away from family home only goes to home to visit children - Allegedly
^ BIG NOTE: He is as BAD as the Byline Investigates blogger guys used by Harry's legal team. Although Burrow signs his blogs, the latter sign anonymous (no more)
I have to add that he did prove to the actual case/Judge that H lawyers forged a document with a digital signature of GB. The Judge recommended to H's team to take out GB as a witness, document invalidity.
?Harry & Megan look set to split Harry is permanently renting away from family home only goes to home to visit children - Allegedly?.
Wannabe post.
Who is saying that Harry and Meghan are apart and that Harry is renting another home away from the family?
Viable source. please.
Gavin Borrows the same viable person Harry wanted as a witness.
It?s his tweet
Quote from: wannable on July 07, 2023, 12:50:28 AM
Gavin Borrows the same viable person Harry wanted as a witness.
It?s his tweet
Then he?s probably been watching Angela Levin and Co. The crew on GB News etc would love Harry to separate from Meghan, and their narrative over the past few weeks has been absolutely disgraceful.
I wouldnt know.
I only have started reading about him with the witness scandal
Ex police turned private investigator career 30 years
Scrolling his tweets he comments on mostly other stuff
Harry stuff 5 percent maybe more
Im still reading when I have time
King Charles?s monarchy looks like ?five factions in apparent conflict?, expert claims | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1788659/king-charles-slimmed-down-monarchy-exclusive)
?Judi James, a body language expert spoke exclusively to Express.co.uk to explain the differences between King Charles's Trooping the Colour balconies and those of his late mother.
She claimed: "The composition of this ?slimmed down? royal balcony pose looks like a gappy smile with several teeth missing.?
?Instead of a smaller, tighter, loyal group it looks like five factions in apparent conflict: Anne and Tim stand awkwardly at one end; William and Kate pose in a glittering but slightly cordoned-off family group; Charles and Camilla take all the goodwill from the crowds in the middle; Edward and Sophie try hard to create some sociable links with the Gloucester?s at the other end.?
According to the expert, King Charles's balcony during Trooping the Colour only reminded fans about who stood there in years gone by.
?Judi suggested: "The gaps only call to mind the people who are missing. Charles once had a mother, father, brother, son and his son?s family to mingle with.
"But each of the gaps now seems to tell its own tragic or murky tale. The dynasty seems to have been dismissed or scattered, leaving this tentative group that is left looking like uneasy survivors of a business cull."
I like her, but very likely to earn a check, she was given a picture to analyze rather than the more than a dozen full videos of TOC2023 Balcony which paints a tight unit demonstrable since HMQEII passing. C&C are surrounded specifically by let's call it his closest defenders of the crown and Monarchy.
I don't blame her, IF at my job they ask me to specifically analyze one item, I'll do it for my salary. There's a difference of having employment and being independently self employed.
Judi James is an independently employed body language expert. She is not employed full time by the Express or any tabloid. So she doesn?t have to rely on a salary from them. And there is no evidence that she was given just one photo to decipher. In fact, from the tone of the article she was picking up what several observers (including on the big Royal forum) said about the few, now very shrunken and quite elderly, royal family at Trooping. That was, that they missed the dozens of adults and children on the balcony, having a chat, having a giggle.
And the Wales children are minors, hardly defenders of the monarchy. We don?t know what Charlotte and Louis will think of the monarchy as adults. We know George is going to be trained to within an inch of his life, like Pavlov?s dogs. It?s happening now. But his siblings? As for the others on the balcony and in the working RF, doddery and elderly is increasingly coming to mind.
Info About Judi James. Nothing here about her having to rely on a pay check from any tabloid to make a living.
Judi James - Knight Ayton (https://knightayton.co.uk/female-presenters/judi-james)
Funny how she gets hired by media and does whatever she wants but a certain princely couple have no say about aspects discussed in their bombshell board.
Anyway the balcony is the slim down monarchy, which she did not analyze the word slim, she analyzed their body language through a still picture. Motion picture aka video is not the item she was given.
The paparazzi and at the same time journalist of the latest Meghan Markle at Farmers Market at Montecito. The article and pictures in the Daily Mail is her copyright sold to the DM.
Bio source IMDB
Image source: QueenHeart09
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1FammcWYAAkywU?format=jpg&name=small)
That keen reporter of all things scandalous, royal and otherwise, Dan Wootton is apparently in his native NZ taking a very unexpected and sudden break, lol, from his work commitments, ie calling out Meghan and Harry, and of course Schofield, the hospitalised Hew Edwards of the BBC, and others in his very hypocritical, holier than thou, fashion. Great, won?t have to see or read his obnoxious columns, broadcasts on others or hear his whining voice for a while. Back to the kitchen for me, among my black kettles and pots, lol.
Dan was 20
How old was his boyfriend?
Quote from: wannable on July 15, 2023, 10:56:31 PM
Dan was 20
How old was his boyfriend?
Dan wasn?t 20 when the alleged relationship ended, and it?s the (alleged) bag behind the washing machine that the boyfriend allegedly found and it?s unusual (alleged) contents that?s intriguing me, not this scummy creature?s love life. He can have a dozen lovers at a time as far as I?m concerned and so long as he treats them well nothing will get out, but then I don?t sit in judgement on others on TV and as a so-called journalist every day of every week.
There are allegations from others about his behaviour at work and out of it towards co workers and junior staff that have appeared on Twitter over the past week that are concerning IF TRUE. Emphasis.
So, sorry, must go and attend to the glass houses outside. Perhaps Wootton is doing the same in NZ. Or having a good hard think about his own behaviour towards others. I wouldn?t think so though, as he has the hide of a rhino. And that at least is not in doubt.
Lady C and him are friends, she said today he was 20 and the boyfriend was of age. The boyfriend is making a scandal 10 years later? for money? Dan trusted his then boyfriend to take care of his home and cat. The boyfriend stripped Dan's house unscrewed the washing machine from the wall and found Dan's security box. Was the then young Dan naive? A trusted person seeking to blackmail you?
I have a lot of questions.
^^IF you tell me Dan was 30 grooming a school boy of 12 to 14 then you're right, but a 20 year old gay with another of age gay who 10 years after they aren't an item suddenly comes out with a scandal and wants money, too fishy.
Dan Wootton was born in 1983. The relationship, which lasted for some years, began in late 2009. That does not equate to 20 years of age. And Alex (allegedly) contacted the police about what he allegedly found behind the washing machine. Odd behaviour if he was after money.
And of course persons like Lady CC are going to stick up for creatures like Wootton. She and he are always on GB news cackling about others. They are tarred with the same brush. Funny how Dan has suddenly made a break for NZ in the middle of a working week if his conduct at work and out of it has always been so spotless.
Was his then boyfriend a minor? And why wait 10 years, when this person is stating it himself now, 10 years later.
Anyone famous goes to hidding after a scandal.
Quote from: wannable on July 15, 2023, 11:35:17 PM
Was his then boyfriend a minor? And why wait 10 years, when this person is stating it himself now, 10 years later.
He has tried to speak out before now, at the time of the finding the bag and after it. A mutual friend of Wootton and Alex allegedly phoned him at the time he went to the police about the alleged find and warned him off. Alex was allegedly scared and complied. The recent sex scandals and Wooton?s hypocrisy and holier than thou attitude about it all brought it back to the fore. It is not just Alex however. Allegedly there have been other complaints about Wootton from Junior colleagues at the Sun and other places where this creature was employed which Wootton?s employers had to pay out to stop harassment complaints and scandals. All allegedly.
Quote from: wannable on July 15, 2023, 11:35:17 PM
Was his then boyfriend a minor? And why wait 10 years, when this person is stating it himself now, 10 years later.
Anyone famous goes to hidding after a scandal.
Wootton is at his home in NZ. That is a long way away, a far off destination, from any troublesome issues on SM that he might have to deal with and answer in the comments sections in Britain.
Wootton was at his home in New Zealand when he left that trusted :sarcastic: boyfriend to take care of his home and cat in London, who stripped it unscrewed a washing machine from a wall, violated a security box, 10 years later is selling it to the best media buyer and making a scandal.
Quote from: wannable on July 15, 2023, 11:58:51 PM
Wootton was at his home in New Zealand when he left that trusted :sarcastic: boyfriend to take care of his home and cat in London, who stripped it unscrewed a washing machine from a wall, violated a security box, 10 years later is selling it to the best media buyer and making a scandal.
Alex found a bag behind a washing machine, with a dubious tape in it, (odd place and possession for such a fine upstanding media representative.) What is Wootton?s explanation of ownership of such articles involving a work colleague and partner?. Happy bedtime viewing perhaps, lol.
Alex is on Twitter not on the front page of the Daily Express or on ITV making allegations or being paid by anyone. And ten years is an extremely long time to sell anything. Especially as he went to the police first. I would have thought that alleged ownership of a sex scene in a private bedroom of two partners, with one of them, a work colleague, knowing nothing about being filmed, is the scandal.
He violated a home that is not his.
In the UK that is a crime
The ex boyfriend said he is denouncing 10 years later
Dan lawyers are at it rumor is for libel and crime theft opening a safety box
The washing machine was fixed to wall and floor
How the ex boyfriend narrated his story to the police is crucial
Quote from: wannable on July 16, 2023, 01:27:34 AM
He violated a home that is not his.
In the UK that is a crime
The ex boyfriend said he is denouncing 10 years later
Dan lawyers are at it rumor is for libel and crime theft opening a safety box
The washing machine was fixed to wall and floor
How the ex boyfriend narrated his story to the police is crucial
Who is detailing all these details about fixtures to the walls and libel, etc? Lady C? Bursting with indignation no doubt, lol? I actually hope Dan does sue. The ex can then detail all the stalking and alleged intimidation that went on, not to mention how he just happened to have a sex tape of a work colleague and his partner at his home, without one of the participant?s knowledge. That will be very illuminating.
And others who have allegedly been harassed by him may come forward. My guess is that Wootton won?t be suing anyone in a pink fit. He?s already loathed as a slimy toad of a creature in Britain and on SM and those disclosures won?t improve that reputation any!
The fixtures Lady C
The lawyers the ex boyfriend in his tweet
His new followers are making a Gofund to help him have lawyers he does not have money
Dan W is very good at threatening and intimidation by all accounts. I doubt that even a lawyers letter has been sent to the ex at the moment. And as for getting to any trial for libel or anything else I seriously very much doubt it.
Ugh even looking at Wootton and Lady C (no Lady in any sense of the word) has made me feel ill. And as for SM, much as I?ve enjoyed reading about uncomfortable all this must have left Mr Slimeball in the past 48 hours, going on Twitter sites of any gossipy sort always makes me feel as if I need a nice hot shower afterwards.
Had he threatened in the past?
Is he sue happy?
Anyway this is not hitting mainstream media so far the ex boyfriend twitter handle buzz and from sussexsquad and Johnny depp fans.
Prudential to wait if it does hit the media especially under the circumstances that apparently both are being investigated
The photographer of the Sussexes criticising the Waleses family outing at the world's largest miltary air show the other day. He was bombarded by roya rota stating there were 3 photographers and 1 reporter who distributed the material to all the media. Then he was bombarded by trolls who made ugly comments on the Waleses children, then he was bombarded with the list of those trolls all ID'd with Sussexsquad.
Then he deleted.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1IeFX9akAA8699?format=jpg&name=small)
^He has no idea of how a monarchy functions, he was also bombarded with videos and pictures of all European monarchies with monarch or heir children doing their appearances at least 6 times a year or more. Including distributing birthday, and national holiday pictures where there is some traditional event involved.
Sometimes I feel that these besties are requested, like Omid to do something from Montecito?! I really hope not, but a loser is a loser.
His trending yesterday really upset the Waleses fans, especially because of the trolling of the children.
My best advise, preferably do not get involved with the two social media 'teams' - the only thing is their fights are popcorn entertaining. :laugh:
Interesting that the long established British Private Eye magazine have done some reporting on this individual and have done previously with regard to bullying and harassment of colleagues, during the Huw Edward?s? scandal.
This YouTube report below is careful not to name said individual because of libel laws of course. Nevertheless harrassment, bullying, unwanted attentions, all alleged of course. However said individual has been sliced and diced all over the internet for days with many rejoicing . Hardly sympathetic! But I guess if you are hypocrisy on two legs fond of calling out others in public for past deeds, that?s what you get.
BREAKING: Another Talk Show Host Scandal - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWLCIiKVLbM)
Dan Wootton is back working.
Quote from: wannable on July 17, 2023, 11:48:47 PM
Dan Wootton is back working.
So he might be. That won?t stop the talk, or people?s impressions of him.
I still think it is prudent to wait until an official report of the ex boyfriend is carried out by a fairly reliable media outlet.
IMO the exes past will be unfavorable, that is all I will say at the moment until it becomes official to discuss.
The group of sussexsquad and johnny depp fans discussing him has significantly reduced too in reference to this subject in the past 48 hours, which was the crucial timing for it to be mentioned in the mainstream media - they didn't because they know what I know - my above sentence #2.
Quote from: wannable on July 18, 2023, 12:03:43 AM
I still think it is prudent to wait until an official report of the ex boyfriend is carried out by a fairly reliable media outlet.
IMO the exes past will be unfavorable, that is all I will say at the moment until it becomes official to discuss.
The group of sussexsquad and johnny depp fans discussing him has significantly reduced too in reference to this subject in the past 48 hours, which was the crucial timing for it to be mentioned in the mainstream media - they didn't because they know what I know - my above sentence #2.
Whatever the ex may or may not be, Dan Wootton is certainly no popular figure with people who read tabloids or watch his sneaky diatribes on TV. People have said what they think of him online over the past four days and it?s not favourable or flattering to him in the least.
And if Wootton finds it liable then he can sue, and then the whole lot can come then out, including any alleged intimidation of colleagues. Looking forward to it!
He is not popular with the same small group of people, which has reduced in the past 48 hours.
Wootton is fine, someone wanted him cancelled - the only thing I can say is they used the wrong person, let's just say the CV is really ugly.
One last thing, why would this small group of people want him cancelled with lies? That speaks more of them rather than him. Nothing to worry about, none of them are too crazy as in dangerous.
As I said, let's be patient the official CV will be out sooner rather than later. The British Media know, waiting for a greenlight from court and blue uniform. That is why Dan is back working from his yearly summer holiday he takes to NZ, another red herring, he always goes, except pandemic years. Like a clock.
Errors of judgement??? That?s not what I?d call them! ?Sex tapes extraordinaire? is what I would describe his behavior as, lol.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66240304
The DM, The Sun and others are now involved and once The Fail and The Scum are involved then other news sources will be gathering near, lol. I thought this only involved ?a small group of people? and ?everything has died down. Seems not!
?Broadcaster Dan Wootton has admitted making "errors of judgement in the past" but denied any criminality as he responded to claims made against him.
Reports have included claims he offered media colleagues thousands of pounds for explicit material of themselves.
Wootton said on his GB News show he was the victim of a "witch hunt" by "nefarious players".
The publishers of the Sun and MailOnline say they are looking into allegations against him.?
And The Guardian also reporting on alleged feline/fish adventures of Mr Holier than Thou as well.
Sun and Mail publishers examine claims against journalist Dan Wootton | News UK | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/18/sun-and-mail-publishers-examine-claims-against-journalist-dan-wootton)
The errors of judgement is several journalism (career) he gossiped about Caroline, Lilly and Amber.
The accusations are very serious, he would be placed on leave as other famous TV presenters, but it didn't happen, because they have the official CV of the accuser. Dan made his statement, hence two media outlets BBC and The Guardian are reporting about his on air TV statement - take it as a prelude* of what's to come, but not to him, to his accuser - as I said, a very ugly CV.
*A story article to make money, followed by next step of articles related to the case.
Lady C said Dan can't talk because his lawyers are at it, but she can talk as she is unrelated, so basically she blurted out what Dan and his lawyers are doing.
Quote from: Curryong on July 15, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
There are allegations from others about his behaviour at work and out of it towards co workers and junior staff that have appeared on Twitter over the past week that are concerning IF TRUE. Emphasis.
So, sorry, must go and attend to the glass houses outside. Perhaps Wootton is doing the same in NZ. Or having a good hard think about his own behaviour towards others. I wouldn?t think so though, as he has the hide of a rhino. And that at least is not in doubt.
4 days ago ^ this.
Today, The Guardian article Curryong posted says that employees at The Sun, Daily Mail, GBNews were invited since 192 hours ago to come forward and not one, no one has come forward. Not only no one has come forward, The Guardian made an exhaustive investigation and cannot find anything the Very Ugly CV ex is talking about. And that they will keep on trying to find any of the allegations.
This second comment I am doing it with a purpose, IF you have access/google is our friend, just maybe one can find that very ugly CV and will understand what I'm talking about.
I know exactly who you are talking about. And not everyone who works/worked at the news organisations were and are willing to speak to other newspapers about it or even their their superiors. However, there are at least three victims of Martin Branning (as he called himself among other aliases) all of them heterosexual and married with children, who have intimated that they are willing to talk to the police about his offers of cash for?..?? and about his constant harassment of them over the phone and e-mails. Is that what Wootton refers to as ?errors of judgement.?
Dan Wootton now knows what it feels like to have an internet ?witch hunt? focused on you. Good. I?m glad. He?s done it to too many people in the past. Sitting in judgement on others with curled lip..
In one of the newspaper articles (in The Independent) he has apparently stated that it has changed his mind about the sort of journalist he now wishes to be. He stated that he wants to concentrate on big political issues facing the nation. Not personal attacks. So he perhaps has learned a valuable lesson, though I?m not holding my breath!
He has attacked Harry and Meghan, and others, constantly for over the last three years. Three years! And he hasn?t been able to hack five days of people on the Internet (apparently 18 million, mostly unsympathetic) discussing him for less than a week. Most of that week spent with his family. He?s a slimy coward, and an extremely unsympathetic figure. And now he knows it!
As for people like Lady C sticking up for him. She also defended Prince Andrew and his activities. So we know what sort of person she likes and enjoys.
Come on, all the other fallen gays from ITV and the BBC had multiple employees speak out - the usual procedure is a detetive with two police witnesses visit the media outlet, take note, except Dan the Man - Back tracking from the BBC and The Guardian, two media outlets you respect have investigated and spoken to The Sun, The Daily Mail, GBNews and Zero, as in nada.
I'm not saying you, but the majority of the Sussexsquad are angry (because they write tweets with the evidence of being angry and their reasons of being angry) because someone decided to leak a full blown email detailing Megxit to him. I am 99.99% sure the day Dan decides to tell the world WHO leaked it, IMO the squad is going to be very disappointed with their backing of the horse so to speak rather than angry with their usual 'it's the BRF fault'.
Lady C has said there is no bag, no hard drive, it never existed. She also said the police had already received a complaint about the Very Ugly CV ex had threatened to kill Dan - 1 month before the Very Ugly CV decided to go public with One flew over the cuckoo's nest 192 hours ago. The only one who has a criminal record exactly describing Dan as if it was him is the Very Ugly CV ex. There I said it - absolutely every description he gives about Dan's comings and goings IS in the criminal record of the ex. He is a mad man with serious mental health issues.
The media organisations you refer to are, in their own words, ?undertaking an investigation?. That investigation is ongoing. You expect the Fail, the Scum and GB News etc to immediately cozily sit down with other news outlets about it all.
The Sussex Squad does not consist of over 18 million people. The police have a 28 page document that has been handed to them by a news outlet, which they are taking a look at. Of course, asking male colleagues for sexual images in exchange for money and using false aliases to do it, may or may not be a criminal offence, however harassment of male colleagues and acquaintances for sex images almost certainly is under certain circumstances. And isn?t that what Wootton or whatever he calls himself, spent hours pontificating about on TV with regard to Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield. Talk about being hoisted on your own petard!
I really really hope that Wootton does have a good hard look at himself and the way he portrays others, instead of inferring that all this is an attack on the TV channel he works for. It isn?t and he knows it. Talk about homelessness and poverty and the NHS and other big issues in the future, and leave others and their private lives alone, crybaby!
And Lady C was constantly at Wootton?s flat at the time of the relationship with Alex, was she? What a load of bs! I would bet my last dollar that her acquaintanceship with Wootton, and that is all it is at best though she infers they are good friends,, only began when Lady C was asked to appear to criticise the Sussexes pretty well every other day on his TV programme. Before that she knew of him and that was it. And after what she has said about others including the QM, her imagination and judgement are as wonky as a bent coat hanger.
And, repeat,
The Guardian reported Tuesday night that a spokesperson for The Sun's owners, News UK, said: "We are looking into the allegations made in recent days. We are not able to make any further comment at this stage." A spokesperson for Daily Mail owners DMG Media said: "We are aware of the allegations and are looking into them."
Considering the other two gays/multiple people spoke out in 24 hours, this one is going turtle speed.
Related...
Where is your proof? Your taking and talking about an alleged document from a Very Ugly CV ex who has a criminal record, the description of his criminal record - he wants to mirror it on Dan. So basically the ex was stalking Dan, wrote a document stating that Dan was offering bad things to straight colleagues, but there is no colleagues who ever received anything bad from Dan, nor they have known or knew about an alias. But the Very Ugly CV has used several aliases in his own life, his name is not his real name, we will all very likely find out his real name soonish. IF as Lady C said no bag or hard drive ever existed and the Very Ugly CV ex wrote he has all his info based on a unexistent bag/hard drive who has a criminal record, spent time in jail, lives in a rented room strata 2 vs Dan strata 5+. IF you ever get to read the Very Ugly CV ex's record, you will understand what is going on, mirror mirror on the wall...
Lady C is friends with Dan and his entire family. As in dinner gatherings with his entire family. Not sure why this would be bad, in the past family gatherings were a good sign, today bad sign. The World has gone mad.
The Guardian also said they have not found anything to date.
It is not Alex who has taken a very long document to the police at all. He reported what he had found in the bag to the police at the time not since. I don?t know why you are persisting in saying all this info coming out on Wootton is Alex Trudy?s doing, and attacking his past and reputation rather than Wootton?s own alleged behaviour detailed recently by Byline and delivered to the police. Surely you do not condone harassing others and offering money in exchange for stripping off and posing for videos and photos. .
Dan Wootton Reveals ?Regrets? and Claims ?Dark Forces? Attacking GB News in Response to Byline Times? Three-Year Investigation ? Byline Times (https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/19/dan-wootton-reveals-regrets-and-claims-dark-forces-attacking-gb-news-in-response-to-byline-times-three-year-investigation/)
Byline Times is tainted, zero evidence. Dis and Mis informers.
Corrupted too. The above story is written by Dan Evans - the same person in Harry's court case that was discovered to have paid people to be witness and dis/mis inform a judge.
Whoever that 'someone' desire to cancel Dan Wottoon, as I said in previous (yesterday) comment, they hired the wrong people with bad records who are tainted. The someone should have hired a straight person, a big son who lives with dad and mom, like the ITV and BBC fallen gays that had straight people with good community records, no criminal records speaking out.
Instead we have tainted people with bad records speaking out with no proof. :lol:
Quote from: wannable on July 19, 2023, 10:27:53 PM
Byline Times is tainted, zero evidence. Dis and Mis informers.
Then Wootton can sue them and they can produce the witnesses they have interviewed with names and other details (which were freely given and are in the document) and it will all be interesting in court, I?m sure.
As for Lady C she met the family at his 40th birthday party which was only recently. Surely such good, close friends as she says she and Dan are would have met nearest and dearest long long before. She is not a long and close friend of Wootton?s and you could tell that by the way she described his birthday party. She certainly wasn?t besties with him when he and Alex were partners.
Why would Wottoon sue them? These people have no money to cover their expenses, one is a prostitute for hire, the other a ex journalist forever damaged by leveson.
IF the tainted people have a problem they can give their information to the police, to the media - the latter can publish it - but they won't because they know exactly what I know the Very Ugly CV ex who has not given any single proof.
IF Dan is going to sue, he will wait to sue people with money, like big media outlets (who publish the nutter alleged 28 page document) with money.
He is not stupid.
John Cleese may be an anti-woke warrior who is joining GB news very soon but even he is urging British media outlets to discuss the Wootton allegations in full.
John Cleese calls on MSM to investigate Dan Wootton allegations (https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/cleese-says-msms-failure-to-investigate-wootton-allegations-is-final-proof-of-their-complete-corruption-352944/)
?Commenting on the matter, comedian John Cleese urged the ?mainstream press? to ?check out? the allegations, saying the media?s failure to investigate the story will be ?final proof of their complete corruption.?
Cleese will soon start hosting a GB News show, which he has previously joked will be for the ?much neglected demographic? of viewers ?who are completely out of touch.?
?If they [the mainstream press] give this the ?Boris?s phone? treatment, it is final proof of their complete corruption,? added Cleese on Twitter, as he retweeted an account promoting the investigation into Wootton.
The story has come to light after similar allegations about Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield were widely reported.?
The others liked to film 🎥 there stuff. Had no boundaries with employees hence they have been retired or canceled. All in a space of 12 hours you know the proof.
Bad luck to the tainted team trying to destroy Dan. They are so bad no proof.
News UK hires lawyers to look at claims against former Sun columnist | GB News | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/19/news-uk-hires-lawyers-to-look-at-claims-against-former-sun-columnist)
?The presenter denied any illegal behaviour but he did not directly address whether he had ever sent emails using the name Martin Branning. It is claimed that this pseudonym was used during Wootton?s time at the Sun to approach many serving and former Sun employees with the offer of five-figure sums in return for performing sex acts on camera.
The Guardian has spoken to seven current and former Sun employees who say they received emails from Martin Branning ? understood to be a portmanteau of EastEnders characters Martin Fowler and Max Branning. All claim they were offered large sums of money in return for pictures.?
And so on it goes. I continue to have huge belly laughs reading of Wootton?s diatribe about SM pile-ons of others on SM which is evil, and attacks by trolls. He has done nothing but pile on others ?-Caroline Flack who committed suicide, Huw Edwards, the Sussexes, Philip Schofield and many other human beings.
Not so pleasant when it happens to you, is it Dan? Maybe now he?s learned his lesson and will concentrate on what he said he wanted to speak about - ?important national issues not personal attacks on others.? But I won?t be holding my breath.
Quote
the Guardian has not been able to independently establish the link between Wootton and Branning
Yahoo has terminated their relationship with Omid Scobie.
That's about USD 115 to 158K a year as a Mid Journalist job.
Omid and his (correct) opinion of Radar!
https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1681671251712942082?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
He's pretty much like Radar - caught on court for lying.
And that will certainly hurt his bank account, so not good mews for the mouthpiece of the Sussex's.
Quote from: Nightowl on July 22, 2023, 12:53:02 AM
And that will certainly hurt his bank account, so not good mews for the mouthpiece of the Sussex's.
As distinct from the mouthpieces of the BRF which consist of 98% of the British media who consistently attack the Sussexes and also 98% of British authors writing on the RF, who have made a very good living taking swipes at either husband or wife or both of them for the past four years. And I?m sure Omid has plenty of other outlets and isn?t crying into his soup about any of it.
The HR/Job site Glassdoor is the best benchmark with salaries, hence my comment of Mid Journalist between 118-150K
After saying that, Omid had a full time with Yahoo, still retains Harpers Bazar. That yearly salary approx. easily pays all services; gas, water, electricity, subscriptions and lots more.
His appearances with ABC and GMA are very very sporadic, almost nil, no information he can provide about the BRF - IMO it is because he broke a BRF news 'embargo', his relations with the BRF also inexistent after he lied to a court of law, that to me in corporate world/firm is a test, as soon as that happened, Jason Knauf was released from his NDA to prove he lied, which splattered to Harry and Meghan too. A serious company cannot have him in a media pool, aka in the British Monarchy as the royal rota. In a company, the Corporate Media Manager is responsible of the media pool to give out statements, invite the media pool to their events - report, etc.
He is reduced to report on the Sussexes. Anything he states about the Charles, Camilla, William and Kate and the children - depending on what he states, he is in danger of being sued.
He doesn't have to be a propagandist, he can be critical of the BRF, but what I mentioned above is neither, it's several codes he broke.
Why has Dan Wootton set up a GoFundMe page appealing for donations, to prevent him being cancelled? I thought he was rolling in money. Now he wants his viewers to bankroll him to the tune of 150,000 pounds, lol? I?ll send him ten Aussie cents. A court case will be worth it for the entertainment alone. Humiliate others and get it back!
^ I think that was or he sent a red herring for 'reactions' ETA: No one - many twitter users official and random seeking it with no avail, including me has been able to find his gofundme page. Some want to donate, others are curious to find the gofundme proof, nada.
Jay Beecher an independent journalist has said the following:
Jay Beecher
@Jay_Beecher
The police have confirmed to me that they aren't investigating. If the evidence did indeed provide proof that Wootton is behind the emails, they would be investigating. Like I've said, I dislike Wootton, but the Byline Times has a past of printing false information. So far they have published 3 lengthy articles containing graphic claims. If they have proof that Wootton is indeed behind the emails, there's literally not a single reason why they wouldn't be releasing it right now.
^ His twitter feed has literally pages of counter investigation about both parties, but the above is sufficient information to date that the fallacies of the ex or the jailbirds of ByLine Times had filed with the police is a load of codswallow, is clickbate. If anyone is interested in the story, follow him in twitter @jay_beecher.
The twist and turns, the plot thickens. The above Jay Beecher in his twitter pages about the Byline people - he said they have lost all libel cases, all.
And today strings attached, H can have a trial about them.
Marina Hyde had a very amusing piece about the smug and slimy Dan Wootton. Here she is writing about the mea culpa he addressed to his TV audience on the failing GB news a few days ago.
Will ?close pals? rally around Dan Wootton as he faces down catfishing allegations? He?d want that, surely | Marina Hyde | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/21/dan-wootton-catfishing-gb-news-tabloid-celebrities)
Anyhow. Pals fear the GB News presenter and MailOnline columnist could be on the brink of karmageddon after a nutso opening monologue to his show on Tuesday night. For all the seriousness of the ?unspeakable? criminal allegations, at which Wootton only vaguely gestured in the course of denying them categorically, this monologue was in many ways the most mesmerisingly peculiar six minutes of TV this year. They should show it at the Baftas. It was the telly equivalent of an Only God Can Judge Me tattoo.
?Behold Wootton, a sideboard made of ham, with efit eyes, dropping quotable quotes so fast there was no way you could possibly digest the last one before the next one was being gnashed out through his veneers. I want to say it was like watching a washing machine play King Lear, but I think it?s somehow even more ludicrous to say it was like watching Dan Wootton play sincere.
Still, let?s go: ?Smear campaign by nefarious players ? like all fallible humans, I have made errors of judgment in the past ? being in the middle of this witch-hunt has made me think a lot about the sort of journalist and broadcaster I aspire to be ? I mean, who doesn?t have regrets? Should I be cancelled for them many years later? Or do you accept that I have learned and changed??
No. I don?t. I?ve seen your show and I can read your columns.?
Whereas I, Thank God, am not a journalist and don?t have to listen to his whining voice or read the ex entertainment journalist?s revolting, often untrue newspaper columns. Thank God, again!
PRINCE HARRY ALMOST AT BREAKING POINT WITH THIS? LATEST #breakingnews #meghanandharry #meghanmarkle - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_eGxlAokLws&t=181s)
Quote from: wannable on July 30, 2023, 12:34:18 AM
PRINCE HARRY ALMOST AT BREAKING POINT WITH THIS? LATEST #breakingnews #meghanandharry #meghanmarkle - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_eGxlAokLws&t=181s)
Oh yes! Neil Sean, the man who knows everything, or at least collects gossip from here there and everywhere with more sucking power than an industrial vacuum cleaner. Doesn?t he ever think to himself that he could be doing so much more with his life, things of value to his community, to the world, than picking up this sort of trash and disseminating it? Obviously not.
But I?m not reading his three or four minute digs at the Sussexes, (and that?s all his gossip about them is,) nothing ever favourable or nice about them in any way, not even about their children. Ever.
He is one of the very few who DOES deny adversary news in reference to the Sussexes. i.e. the latest Lady Hervey tale.
For what it's worth, I do believe the couple have to focus 100% making moneys for the long term. The loss of Spotify, the hard stoppage of the entertainment industry due to the initial writers union strike, joined by the actors union, lately reported by a majority of 'holywood' strike (combined). NO one gets paid with a strike. Any 'pending' project doesn't get paid either until it factually goes 'on air'. Just yesterday there is strong rumors Netflix has postponed again airing Invictus - note: I don't believe it at least until end of of the year, only because IMO the edits of the old Invictus might be tied/included with the new Invictus for it to then be aired. Money stoppage or entering too slow, plus if Neil is right that H isn't giving his focus to making moneys but to litigate.
Harry and Meghan's biographer Omid Scobie is no longer 'royal executive editor' of Yahoo! News which he used to launch regular attacks against the (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12357645/Harry-Meghans-biographer-Omid-Scobie-no-longer-royal-executive-editor-Yahoo-News-used-launch-regular-attacks-against-monarchy.html)
Mr. Scobie's comment on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1686051307591811077?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
QuoteFor those asking, I chose not to renew with Yahoo! News in order to focus on new projects. Massively enjoyed my time with the company and its fantastic teams, especially @HendersStu
who was beyond patient with me while I took time off to finish the final chapters of #ENDGAME
''I chose'' is the new operative word for not having any connections with the British Constitutional Monarchy.
His ''new project'' is write a bunch of (empty) bombshells from the exiled royals in California, who also have no clout whatsoever to C, C, W and C.
In other news, no police filing yet from the ex cons of ByLine Time (2 gays down, 1 standing, if they don't want to look like homophobes - the rumor is fleet street and the entire British media industry with big ears and eyes waiting basically in the West - bring out the evidence now and go to the police) in reference to Dan Wootton, the anti campaign via social media has practically died down to 27/7. T
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66401554
?The publisher of MailOnline, DMG Media, has confirmed it has paused Dan Wootton's column, while it considers "a series of allegations" against him, which he denies.
Wootton has a twice-weekly column with MailOnline, the last of which was published on 29 June.
He has previously admitted making "errors of judgement" but strongly denied any criminality in relation to claims made against him.
The disputed allegations include that he used a fake online identity to offer money to individuals for sexually explicit images.?
?In a new statement, a DMG Media spokesperson said: "The allegations are obviously serious but also complex and historic and there is an independent investigation under way at the media group which employed him during the relevant period.
"In the meantime, his freelance column with MailOnline has been paused."
Tom Bower strikes again!
The Guardian
Dan Wootton allegedly used Martin Branning pseudonym to meet male model | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/dan-wootton-allegedly-used-martin-branning-pseudonym-to-meet-male-model)
In emails that have been seen by the Guardian, Branning describes himself as a ?relatively high-profile? 30-year-old who lives in a flat in the Aldgate area of London.
At the time, New Zealand-born Wootton was a senior showbusiness journalist at the Sun who had just turned 30 and, the Guardian understands, was living in a flat in Aldgate.
Lee said he met Branning, whom he recalls as having a New Zealand accent, as planned. At first Lee did not think there was anything odd about the encounter. ?I was always under the impression he was Martin Branning,? Lee said.
This apparently changed soon afterwards, when Lee claims he was followed on Twitter by a journalist called Dan Wootton. Lee said he was shocked because the profile picture on Wootton?s account was the face of the ?Martin Branning? he met.
No police to date.
I still think it's a cancelation campaign, which may backfire somehow, some time in the short, mid or long time future.
*****
Piers Morgan might go back to ITV, their shares crashed, rumor in fleet street is PM is asking a lot of power.
HOW WILLIAM IS TRULY OWED THIS FROM DISGRACEFUL HARRY #breakingnews #royal #princeharry - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53TMQ5rSc7Y)
👀
In the last two youtube videos of River (the official, the checkmark) he claims to have direct contact with BRF members et other people in their circle.
His official Youtube is River - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@RiverRoyal/videos)
In his latest two videos he dispels several rumours and more. He has also toned down his previously colorful language to family friendly language.
ETA: Correction - the last 3 videos.
According to Neil Sean the POW's sent personal messages to the Lionesses and it was very well received. Neil also said Harry offered to go, William said no.
Quote from: wannable on August 20, 2023, 01:07:59 AM
According to Neil Sean the POW's sent personal messages to the Lionesses and it was very well received. Neil also said Harry offered to go, William said no.
What dis they expect the players to say? ?So What? ? ?Oh that good, Ho hum?.? And Harry didn?t need to ask William?s permission to go to the match. He?s an adult. William should have gone himself. And if Willy?s on holiday how does Neil Sean know what the brothers said to each other? Did W phone Neil up and tell him, lol. Anyway with the British media has been gleefully reporting since last year that the brothers haven?t been in communication with each other. Now, suddenly they are. According to Neil Sean.
Quote from: wannable on July 03, 2023, 06:09:00 PM
Instagram: karllarsenphotography
Karl Larsen
Contributing Photographer to Rollingstone Magazine since 1999
Backgrid
Question: What do Slash and Meghan Markle have in common?
1) They both grew up in Los Angeles.
2) Both have Amazing Talents
3) They are both mixed race, but you would never know it, nor do they talk about it.
4) They are both loved in the UK and in America. Most importantly?
5) They both only naturally smile and laugh, for @karllarsenphotography PR plus I am dear friends with both their families #meghanmarkle #slash
Posted 4 hours ago today
^ This Backgrid pap has surely played the Sussexes a number. He has a royal bus tour for 6 for USD 950, touring Montecito and the couple's loved hangouts.
Meghan Markle and Harry to have buses of tourists visit area in new 'royal tour' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/meghan-markle-harry-buses-tourists-30743033)
Quote from: wannable on August 20, 2023, 04:35:23 PM
^ This Backgrid pap has surely played the Sussexes a number. He has a royal bus tour for 6 for USD 950, touring Montecito and the couple's loved hangouts.
Meghan Markle and Harry to have buses of tourists visit area in new 'royal tour' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/meghan-markle-harry-buses-tourists-30743033)
Well, Larsen has always been about making money out of any person in the public eye that he can. I knew what he was about when he made friends with Thomas Markle snr in 2022 and the two of them announced they were going to work on their own YouTube channel. It was hardly for the pleasure of Tom?s company and in fact that ?partnership? fell apart quite quickly. He?s typical of hangers-on who think they can make a quick buck out of others.
Thomas Markle's Former YouTube Partner Had to Cut Things He Said (https://www.insider.com/thomas-markle-youtube-partner-karl-larsen-edits-inappropriate-royals-remarks-2022-6)
The father is unimportant to Meghan. The pap got her really good. It must be a fuming situation that he made fun of the entire lot.
He is like the joker 🃏 in a deck of cards
I'm placing this news here as Mr. al Fayed did write an autobiography.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66690623
QuoteMohamed Al Fayed, the former Harrods boss whose son Dodi was killed in a car crash alongside Diana, Princess of Wales, has died aged 94.
Born in Egypt, he built a business empire in the Middle East before moving to the UK in the 1970s.
However, he never realised his ambition to gain a passport for his adopted country.
He spent his later years questioning the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Dodi and Diana.
The life of colourful tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed
Mr Al Fayed had remained largely out of the public limelight in the past decade, living in his Surrey mansion with his wife Heini.
In a statement released on Friday, his family said: "Mrs Mohamed Al Fayed, her children and grandchildren wish to confirm that her beloved husband, their father and their grandfather, Mohamed, has passed away peacefully of old age on Wednesday August 30, 2023.
"He enjoyed a long and fulfilled retirement surrounded by his loved ones."
By the way, I?ve forgotten to post this news for days! So glad to see that slimy toad Dan Wootton (and two of his his cohorts on that terrible failing GB News Channel) get suspended from GB News. And he?s been sacked as a correspondent on MailOnLine. Good to see (or rather not see or hear) his mincing tones and smug face when I go over to peruse what liars on these channels profess to give as news! Happy, happy, happy!
Dan Wootton fired by MailOnline after GB News Laurence Fox scandal | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dan-wootton-laurence-fox-mail-online-b2420301.html)
KINSEY SCHOFIELD
@kinseyschofield
I see multiple companies stealing my Kate heart art - if you?re looking to purchase my original Princess Kate Queen of Hearts top - Here is the official link? Working to have other companies remove their listings. -
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1709644988542562304/WCkOpH6y?format=jpg&name=small)
Rumour has it that Dan Wootton is trying to sell his London home but no luck so far. He intends to return to NZ, where his family resides, it?s said, but no employment is lined up. There couldn?t be better news, iMO!!
People
@people
Meghan Markle Has 'Moved On' from the Royals: 'She Doesn't Want Anything to Do with It' (Exclusive)
Meghan Markle Has 'Moved On' from the Royals: 'She Doesn't Want Anything to Do with It' (Exclusive)
The Duchess of Sussex, has "moved on" from the royals, while Prince Harry still has "unfinished business," 'Endgame' author Omid Scobie tells PEOPLE
Meghan Markle Has 'Moved On' from the Royals (Exclusive) (https://people.com/meghan-markle-moved-on-royals-endgame-exclusive-8402173?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=655626056e3e73000109bff6)
Titles don't matter, I want the title, the royals are racist - they won't give a title, I use the title in my bench, I use the title in word salad awards.
Omid She's Done with the BRF (and her's too)
We've reached 15 pages. It's time to close this thread and open a new one.