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.

@Rousette, It isn’t toilet paper. I don’t buy it, but I used to read it at salons and in the checkout lane. It’s actually quite entertaining. I haven’t read it in years, but a lot of their stories did prove accurate. You could always spot the fake stories, as they almost always contained an outlandish claim. It’s likely a shadow of its former self,

How often have you read it to make a definitive statement about its contents?

The Enquirer is not obligated to print stories. In fact, it sits on a lot of stories, as I noted previously. It paid the price for the publisher’s relationship with Trump, and is now under new ownership.

@Sittingontheveranda I never claimed it was proper journalism.

I would love to know how the clothing budgets for Kate and Meghan worked ... does each bill get submitted to Charles for him to check

If it's anything like the arrangements for the Highgrove lease, I doubt Charles gives a damn just as long as he can palm the costs off on someone else

I don’t buy (the Enquirer), but I used to read it at salons and in the checkout lane. It’s actually quite entertaining

It's even more entertaining when, as a Brit in the US, you get people behind you in a queue who start asking about the latest silly story, somehow expecting you'll have the inside track

I may or may not have had fun adding a few of my own if the (human) enquirer seemed especially gullible

cool I have read it a couple of times.

My DSis used to live in US and brought a few home for a laugh.
I'm quite prepared to say only a couple of times, so obviously not as much as you. That was enough for me.and I can still have an opinion on it. Supermarkets are considering not stocking it any more, I think.

@Roussette

I think you were referring to this article and others. It was stated that MM bought more clothes than KM because she was starting out in 2018 while KM has been spending for almost a decade. This story of MM costing money has been doing the rounds in tabloids this week (presumably to take attention away from PA). Someone also did a long thread, combing through the finances and concluded that MM did not cost PC much more than normal.

Last year insider showed their most expensive outfits. For MM her most expensive was when she went out with HMQ, but for both the Wedding dresses were the most expensive. And MM engagement announcement

Insider listed
www.insider.com/kate-middleton-most-expensive-outfits-2019-3#1-kate-middletons-most-expensive-outfit-to-date-however-is-her-wedding-dress-estimated-at-332000-13

www.insider.com/how-much-do-meghan-markle-outfits-cost-2018-7#in-late-january-she-wore-a-blush-pink-ensemble-that-is-estimated-to-cost-around-5000-27

It's even more entertaining when, as a Brit in the US, you get people behind you in a queue who start asking about the latest silly story, somehow expecting you'll have the inside track.

Americans have a skewed view of the importance of and interest in the British royal family here on a day-to-day basis. Having grown up there I can tell you this is egged on by the US tabloids. People (publication of choice for the sympathisers) has been keeping itself afloat for years on them. It's hysterical Meghan tried to claim she didn't really know who Harry was - what would possess her to even say something close to that, regardless of whether the Diana book story is true.

But her take on feminism seems to allow her to overlook the financial dependence on others.

I think if you went on the feminism boards and said a SAHM can't be a feminist because she is financially dependent on her husband you would get ripped to shreds.

Thank you Mummy195 I knew I'd seen some articles somewhere

It's hysterical Meghan tried to claim she didn't really know who Harry was - what would possess her to even say something close to that

Maybe the "momentary reality" I mentioned before - that thing where today's story is the be-all and end-all but is instantly tossed aside for a newer, shinier story when it suits, with folk expected to swallow it wholesale?

Unfortunately most folk possess this thing called a memory ...

Re the tiaras. From what I understand Meghan wanted the Vladimir tiara. Eugenie wore a different tiara.

I wonder why she wasn't allowed it? I see Camilla and Kate have been allowed to wear it. I must admit to a real fascination with the royal tiaras now. I hadn't realised there were so many and the history that is behind each one.

I cannot believe this tiara story is still going on and has not been debunked yet.

The tiara story never happened. I am surprised that we have so many royalists on these threads and no one has brought up the fact that it is unlikely to have happened.

Last winter 2018/2019, there was an exhibition of the royal wedding at Windsor Castle. There were some artefacts from the wedding : the dress, H's outfit as well as Charlotte and George outfits as well as pictures. There was information given on the items displayed like at a museum. On one of the items - it was the tiara itself if I truly recall - there was a voice recording of H&M talking about some of their choices and on the tiara they were full of praises about how it suited the dress. H says to MM that he did not need to be there because she knew exactly which one to choose and he knew nothing about tiaras and how they fit the dress etc. He said , you knew which one you wanted and went straight for it and it looked great with the dress. There is no mention of there being other tiara fitting beforehand that were not suitable or did not work out.

I would have presumed that RRs should have gone to this exhibition as part of their job and surely would have heard this. But I am not too surprised they did not report on it tbh.

www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/a-royal-wedding-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/windsor-castle

This story of MM costing money has been doing the rounds in tabloids this week (presumably to take attention away from PA)

That would make perfect sense, as would the idea that Meghan had to spend more from 2018 as she was going from a standing start

However while nobody suggests she trurns out in Primark, there's an awful lot of choice between that and Dior/Givenchy - especially for someone who'll be going nowhere near the throne

I must admit to a real fascination with the royal tiaras now

Join the club Following link just for you ... orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/p/jewel-central.html

It's like the film of the Queen processing back down the aisle after her coronation; I realise I should be thinking of the solemnity of it all, but all I can see is the glare of the diamonds

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

Kate has a rather old-fashioned and boring style, but unfortunately Meghan does wear ill-fitting clothing, for whatever reason. There was a photo of her attending a wedding with Harry in a voluminous blue horror that looked at least three sizes too big.

I think if you went on the feminism boards and said a SAHM can't be a feminist because she is financially dependent on her husband you would get ripped to shreds.

But she isn't a SAHM is she? She has staff and a full time nanny! She isn't staying at home to care for her chid whilst her husband works to keep the household. Neither of them work, they have staff and a nanny and they live in a house which is on loan currently. Basically nothing they have belongs to them and all the bills are paid by Charles. M had the option to continue her acting career at the start, but she chose to become a Royal instead. That meant giving up all financial independence, and accepting she was there to SERVE the institution under the direction of the Queen. Her husband's status determined everything. Not very feminist at all.

@YgritteSnow

Re the tiaras. From what I understand Meghan wanted the Vladimir tiara. Eugenie wore a different tiara.

I wonder why she wasn't allowed it? I see Camilla and Kate have been allowed to wear it. I must admit to a real fascination with the royal tiaras now. I hadn't realised there were so many and the history that is behind each one.

Camilla and Kate have never worn the Valdamir Tiara. Kate has only worn the Cartier Halo, the Lotus Flower, and the Lover's Knot. I think the only tiaras that Camilla has worn are some from the Queen Mothers collection.

As far as I know there is a hierarchy for everything in the RF including which tiaras can be worn and by whom, some are reserved soley for the use of the Queen / future Queen consort.

So feminists cannot be trust fund kids? They cannot work for an establishment and obey the rules of that firm like everybody else?

Don't understand what feminisms has to do with anything here.

Regarding MM's apparently expensive taste, there was a story that when she got the job on Suits, she had a goodbye to Zara party, presumably as her new salary would allow her to splash on designer clothes. Meanwhile Kate has been seen in Zara clothes many times. I remember the day after her wedding, she left BP in a skirt/dress by Zara.

I'd have thought it would have been more savvy to champion British designers. It is like the RF's unspoken message through clothes. HMQ wore Norman Hartnell, Kate wears a lot of Alexander McQueen and Katharine Hooker, mixed with High Street, which I'm sure is to show 'frugality'(!) It's a tricky road to walk - you need to look fabulous, but you can't be seen to spend too much!
For what it's worth, I've always thought MM is stylish and beautiful, it's hers and H's entitlement and behaviour I don't like at times.
I have always been a Royalist, love a bit of HMQ, Anne, the Cambridges and Camilla.
I just think with the advent of unregulated social media, the world is able to scrutinise the RF closely. Certainly what I see, even with the ones I like, doesn't sit well with national poverty/recession/health crisis etc. Why should one family have such privilege?
Add in the horrible antics of awful Andrew and any of the RF looking dissatisfied with this immense privilege and this is why I think they attract such criticism.

She wore a Zara dress, but then got on a helicopter to take her to the airport to go on her honeymoon to a Caribbean resort that cost £9000 a night a stay at.

@MissEliza

Regarding MM's apparently expensive taste, there was a story that when she got the job on Suits, she had a goodbye to Zara party, presumably as her new salary would allow her to splash on designer clothes. Meanwhile Kate has been seen in Zara clothes many times. I remember the day after her wedding, she left BP in a skirt/dress by Zara.

What a lovely story, pitting the saintly frugal Kate against the spendthrift wastrel Meghan. Maybe more unicorns and less misogyny for the next one though?

I haven't liked MM since the engagement interview when it was obvious that he was a lovesick puppy and she was in the driving seat. I'd never heard of the Z-list actress until he started going out with her and I thought she'd be an a amazing breath of fresh air for the RF, just what was needed to make them more relevant. Instead she had a sulk and a whinge when her control was limited and then did a runner. It will be almost impossible for her to emerge from the court case with any dignity.

[quote Mummy195]I cannot believe this tiara story is still going on and has not been debunked yet.

The tiara story never happened. I am surprised that we have so many royalists on these threads and no one has brought up the fact that it is unlikely to have happened.

Last winter 2018/2019, there was an exhibition of the royal wedding at Windsor Castle. There were some artefacts from the wedding : the dress, H's outfit as well as Charlotte and George outfits as well as pictures. There was information given on the items displayed like at a museum. On one of the items - it was the tiara itself if I truly recall - there was a voice recording of H&M talking about some of their choices and on the tiara they were full of praises about how it suited the dress. H says to MM that he did not need to be there because she knew exactly which one to choose and he knew nothing about tiaras and how they fit the dress etc. He said , you knew which one you wanted and went straight for it and it looked great with the dress. There is no mention of there being other tiara fitting beforehand that were not suitable or did not work out.

I would have presumed that RRs should have gone to this exhibition as part of their job and surely would have heard this. But I am not too surprised they did not report on it tbh.

www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/a-royal-wedding-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/windsor-castle[/quote]
Well, if the tiara fiasco had happened, H would hardly have referred to it, would he? "And you wanted another tiara and threw a tantrum."

So feminists cannot be trust fund kids? They cannot work for an establishment and obey the rules of that firm like everybody else?

Yes of course, but every other person who works for an establishment is working for their own money, on their own merit. They aren't there purely because of who they married.