Harry and Meghan court dramas (not Suits)

[ARoseInHarlem]

Starting this thread while I digest the last few posts on the previous thread. I think the H&M saga could be as unsettling for the RF as the Charles & Diana bad publicity in the 1990s, if not worse.

LCC states that Meghan was refused the tiara because it was earmarked for Eugenie (who had already had her wedding date postponed for H&M). Royals at War says it was due to unknown provenance possibly Russian. No idea which is true but I’ve read both versions in the press. Could they both be true, would Eugenie be allowed to wear something of unknown provenance but not Meghan?

I’ve finished Royals at War. The chapters jump around a lot, in time and also subject matter: it covers C&D, W&K as well as H&M. Surprisingly perhaps, it is quite fawning over M’s acting abilities from school age and also her charisma, everyone who worked with her, loved her and thought she was destined for great things type puff. The “at war” part of the title is very overstated. PP who said it is just a rehash is completely correct.

Following a couple of posts about how come there is so much more discussion on MN about H&M than Prince A, I’ve had a ponder to myself about why I keep coming back to the H&M posts and don’t go on the Prince A ones. Can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, I think it’s because I do feel I can relate to how they may be feeling but I just can’t relate to have they have chosen to respond to those feelings and therefore observing and, even musing about, their behaviour with others is somehow compelling for me and listening/seeing other view points that differs to mine is valuable. With Prince A... I can’t find any common ground with how he could have been feeling or how it has comes across that he’s chosen to behave - so I just don’t feel the same need to discuss with others.

Remember the threads where some posters were saying they could see them disappearing off to the States, and others were saying there was no evidence that was there intention

If I had nothing better to do, I would go to the earlier threads and copy the hundreds and hundreds of posts declaring factually that Meghan would never leave the UK or the RF. apparently she was ‘exactly where she had set out to be the moment she met Harry’.

As for Blind Gossip, it’s like Nostradamus, they publish so many theories, a few of time are bound to apply. It would be very interesting to see the percentages before claiming their accuracy. The same with the Daily Fail. And somebody above even defended the National Enquirer’s accuracy 🤦‍♀️

Re the tiaras. From what I understand Meghan wanted the Vladimir tiara. Eugenie wore a different tiara. Both were emeralds. But the Vladimir is diamond loops which can be hung with either emeralds or pearls. Plenty of images on the internet.

Interesting article, Rainbunny.

Interesting article. I think the key thing is the RF generally like to appear relatable/frugal in public but spend what they want in private.

I think the court action against the MOS is going to be a big mistake, dragging Eugenie and Beatrice into it - well they sure know how to win friends

I actually wonder if M&A will even make an appearance at the next royal wedding - Beatrice's wedding whenever it finally happens. After all this stuff coming out in the lawsuit I can only imagine the pained expressions when/if they next show up toa royal event.

Are you saying the Pulitzer committee was mistaken in nominating The Enquirer?

Tom Sykes, the author of The Daily Beast articles on the BRF, is British, based in the UK.

There really isn’t much in the US press about HaM, other than in People, which is a PR vehicle. There isn’t a great deal of interest in them, which is why I believe their plans for megabucks in the US won’t be successful, at least, not in the way it’s been suggested.

I think as the article says they have really suffered as have so many financially due to covid. Businesses are all re-evaluating so many aspects of how they operate be it office space or the need for so much business travel.

Personally, my DH used to be away 3 nights a week on business, he can't see that ever happening again. So I wonder how any type of travel business is going to do.

I also suspect the appetite for expensive conferences involving loads of travel and key note speakers will not be there for the next few years.

Tom Sykes, the author of The Daily Beast articles on the BRF, is British, based in the UK.

Yes but the Daily Beast is an American media outlet with a primarily American audience ergo this is representative of the reporting of them in the USA. As for general interest/coverage of M&A, well in LA local news reports on them occasionally and apart from that they're frequently in magazines like In Touch/People - stuff no one buys but I'll flip through them in the hair salon.

I do agree that the estimates of how in-demand they'll be seem very overhyped and in general interest (either positive or negative) in them is nowhere near the level of the UK.

www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/donald-trump-wonders-why-the-national-enquirer-didnt-win-a-pulitzer-prize-heres-why/%3FoutputType%3Damp

The tabloid’s reputation was one of the reasons it didn’t win the Pulitzer.

Really stupid question!

If H&M really did get paid $1 million dollars. How many “talks” would they have to do to become financially independent?

Considering H is already worth (or was) £40 million.

A billionaire lifestyle is not going to be gained from talks alone. What else are they capable of to produce the wealth they need for their lifestyle of McMansions, private jets and designer clothes.

I agree about the future being very different to how things have been in terms of work/speaking events/lecture tours/fundraising events/public events in general!

It's going to be challenging for them to find a way to make themselves relevant in a manner that doesn't involve showing up as a shiny (ex) royal couple with some earnest word-salad. That's really been the only thing they can offer so far.

In the near future I can't see a place for them as they lack substantive experience/specialist skills or knowledge and money - which since they want to be philanthropic is hard to do when they will rely on other people to fund their philanthropy.

I think as has been said many times before, Meghan thought her new status meant she was elevated to super star level in Hollywood terms. So designer outfits at watering cost all the way. She clearly hadn’t paid too much attention to what the rest of the Royals usually wear. Kate wore a lot of High St when she was first on the scene. If she wore designer clothes they were usually by British designers, not eye wateringly expensive and were reworn . The trouble with a lot of M’s clothes is they also often didn’t fit well and weren’t particularly flattering.

Strange. I thought MM has a great sense of style. I didn't think her clothes were unflattering and didn't fit.
And wasn't it disproved that MM spent far more than K on clothes? There was an article in one of the red tops saying so if I remember correctly.

There are more reasons it didn’t win than its reputation, @Sittingontheveranda. Moreover I never claimed The Enquirer was a model of journalistic integrity, just that it often does report accurate information. That is because it pays for information.

@Roussette, I think she has little style, except when she dresses casually. Other than the engagement gown, most of her high end clothing was ill fitting.

I don't think she's naturally a formal dresser. The ripped jeans and white shirt look is a better one on her

To be fair to Meghan she was pregnant or post partum for most of the time she was a working royal - it really wasn't very long at all. Difficult to dress well for most women during those times.

I personally prefer her informal style but think the whole RF dress code is a difficult one for most women.

I would love to know how the clothing budgets for Kate and Meghan worked. Is it like when you are 15 and your parents give you £50 a month for clothes only slightly different figures or does each bill get submitted to Charles for him to check

I imagine for MM it felt very odd being answerable to Harry's dad and having her expenses scrutinised/queried when she was used to earning and spending her own money.

I thought the National Enquirer was toilet paper, given the crap it churns out.

They are paid to kill stories not paid for information I read.
Hence why Trump has numerous affairs and unsavoury stories killed stone dead, they disposed of all the dirt they had on him before the election.
Yep. Toilet paper.

I think she has little style, except when she dresses casually. Other than the engagement gown, most of her high end clothing was ill fitting

Really? Totally disagree. I find her style interesting and more edgy. Prefer it to Kate's although she can look fabulous at times, and is obviously more restricted in what she can wear perhaps. I've never looked at M's clothes and thought ill fitting at all.

I imagine for MM it felt very odd being answerable to Harry's dad and having her expenses scrutinised/queried when she was used to earning and spending her own money.
But her take on feminism seems to allow her to overlook the financial dependence on others.
Just another example of their do as we say, not as we do attitude.

That (throne room) made me really angry as well - not sure why. Obviously the brain washing goes deep!!

Not sure about the brain washing; I've always believed (hoped?) that most recognise coarse behaviour for what it is whether it's from some sleazy prince or anyone else. And why would anyone doubt Andrew was heavily involved when he knows there are no brickbats coming from mummy no matter what he does?

Coming up to date with Meghan's clothing choices, perhaps she's calculated that massively expensive "big name" pieces will fetch the most if she ever wants to do a Diana and auction them? FWIW, if Charles paid, I've no idea who legally owns the clothes, but I wouldn't rate the chances of getting them back any higher than his chances of ever getting Archie back to the UK

That is because it pays for information. Which is why it is not recognised as proper journalism. You are backing up my argument here.