Harry and Meghan News thread

[Viviennemary]

I thought we could have a thread for latest news. MN did say they didn't mind one or two threads. And no rules except stick to MN guidelines. It's Meghans birthday today I just read. And the Queen has wished her a very happy birthday on the royal Instagram page according to that popular Oracle the DM.

@Marlboroughdreams there are pictures of her smoking, and pictures of her with cigarettes in her bag.

@TheCraicDealer

We use the fag packet thing at work, and I'm early thirties. BUT I do agree it sounds like an secondhand anecdote related by someone who doesn't understand the term (US?) and took it literally to mean it was actually written on a pack of smokes.

Me too, though I have now edged into mid 30s Used a fair amount in school.

[quote Shabooma]@Marlboroughdreams there are pictures of her smoking, and pictures of her with cigarettes in her bag.[/quote]

Which is why I've said a number of times that I'm not commenting on Kate smoking or not smoking - I think it is someone mangling a metaphor.

@Marlboroughdreams totally agree - Kate can jot down half formed ideas but it takes someone like Harry to actually bring them to fruition. That was the tone.

But why use the fag packet metaphor- doesn't fit with the rest of the tone. Could have said - on the back of a coaster/back of hand etc - I think the cigarette reference was deliberate

I thought a fag packet would be more likely to belong to Harry (pix of him smoking in the media up to at least 2018)

Not sure Kate has ever been caught on camera (awaits evidence to contrary!!) and not since marriage/motherhood

I always think the issue with these two is that they forget that they’re this generations version of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson. I don’t understand why so much fuss and money is made of and given to them? It must grate being one of the queens other grandchildren and seeing the one that isn’t the future king of England treated so much more favourably. Imagine one of them posting on Mumsnet; ‘it’s an inheritance one’

In the book review that tattychicken linked to there's another link to an article about Montecito:

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/14/prince-harry-meghan-montecito-california-duke-duchess-sussex

I found the Versailles comparison amusing.

Re the cigarette packet:
It sounded odd to me.
I thought "back of a fag packet/paper" is quite a British metaphorical phrase, even if "fag" is translated to "cigarette".
Surely these days "back of an envelope" would come more naturally?

If it was literally true, I wouldn't have thought there was room on one these days with all the health warnings etc to write much at all.
Lifelong non-smoker though, so I totally see I could be wrong.

Does it really matter if Kate smokes? Meghan does too and there are pictures to prove it.

I think it is a sign of insecurity that M has to tear down Kate to feel good about herself.

Sorry - meant to add after the "British phrase" bit above "but maybe they were trying not to sound overwhelmingly American".

It's possible.

I think Kate has a very clean cut public image - and smoking doesn't fit with that. It is something she has clearly wanted to hold back from public view herself.

I used to smoke and hold no judgement- as soon as I heard that part of the book - and they say it more than once, my gut feeling was this is an attack. The animosity towards Kate is one of the most surprising parts of this book to me.

@LaMarschallin

Sorry - meant to add after the "British phrase" bit above "but maybe they were trying not to sound overwhelmingly American".

It's possible.

If you read the whole book its obvious that it's a dig at Kate, because anytime Kate is mentioned it's always followed by a dig or an negative comparison of her compared to MM.

Earlier in the book it uses the term 'pack of smokes' when talking about Thomas Markle. So they weren't worried about sounding too American at that point.

I thought the topless pictures of Kate (taken by the paparazzi who subsequently was successfully sued) also showed her smoking?

And that they sued for invasion of privacy because it had been a long lens, on a private property miles away from everything? I thought a PP mentioned that it was an example of a “good lawsuit” as the only downside was information that Kate smoked and sometimes sunbathed topless (looking great) would be more widely distributed and that they could live with that given the near certainty of case, the future deterrent and the potential for money to charity?

The issue here is whether charitable donations should have been transferred to Harry's not-for-profit. But I imagine the RF lawyers and accountants wouldn't have authorised it if it wasn't above board

Doesn't that hang on whether the lawyers and accountants were consulted? Personally I wouldn't want to take anything on trust about the finances - not when Harry has a grandmother who tried to dip into a deprivation fund for palace heating and a father with a vast record of selling access to himself

Overall I'd say that - like the rest of his ghastly family - Harry will be convinced of his right to do whatever he wants financially, safe in the knowledge that the chances of him being held accountable are less than nil

Not sure Kate has ever been caught on camera

She was at least papped with a pack of smokes in her bag, and the guy who papped her topless said she was smoking but those pics never surfaced afaik.

But it’s a popular and effective method of weight control so I expect nearly all celebs sneakily do it.

But I imagine the RF lawyers and accountants wouldn't have authorised it if it wasn't above board

The transactions have been reported to the Charity Commission for investigation (this was discussed in an earlier thread) so we'll find out at some point if it was all done properly. The Cambridge's foundation issued a short statement: “The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently.”

The Charity Commission has not made a determination against either (but I'm not sure if there is anything still pending)

The Sussex response was rather wordier. If you want to read it, it's reported in fairly fully here:

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-charity-watchdog-sussex-royal-republic-schillings-meghan-markle-a9629746.html

alliwantisagoodnightssleep

Does it really matter if Kate smokes? Meghan does too and there are pictures to prove it.

I don't think it matters at all.
I think it matters much more if, as WindsorBlues suggests:

If you read the whole book its obvious that it's a dig at Kate, because anytime Kate is mentioned it's always followed by a dig or an negative comparison of her compared to MM

because if it were a deliberate attempt on behalf of the people who are responsible for the book to "out" Kate's smoking, for example, that would be quite unpleasant.

Earlier in the book it uses the term 'pack of smokes' when talking about Thomas Markle. So they weren't worried about sounding too American at that point.

That's interesting.

In my opinion, purely based on excerpts of the book read here and in the press, it probably was an attempt to highlight Kate's habit.

But I'll be told I'm just speculating.
Which is all any of us can do, of course.

If Kate is only mentioned negatively, how does William fare in the book?

For William it's a strange mixture of fawning over him and slagging him off. Kate is mainly slagged off - or the odd back handed compliment.

The transactions have been reported to the Charity Commission for investigation ... so we'll find out at some point if it was all done properly

Do you really think so, given that - although non-ministerial - the Charity Commission's a quasi governmental body fully funded by the Treasury?
And isn't it likely that, if they dared to publish anything critical about a RF member, that funding could be compromised?

Even if the movement of funds turns out to be a stinking mess, I strongly suspect that the very most we'd get is some poppycock about the Sussexes having been "advised"

The point is that Travelyst is not registered as a charity. Therefore presumably H as majority shareholder has large influence over what money is spent on. Not sure charity commission could do anything as Travelyst not registered as a charity. H states it is his not for profit though. If Travelyst is not registered with charity commission I don't think it can be a charity. Clearly money was paid into Travelyst from the Royal Foundation and originally into there from a Princess Diana charity. Originally money was donated to a charity and some of these donations ha e ended up in an account that is not registered as a charity and in its Articles can purchase property in the world for use of Travelyst or its shareholders or Harry.

or Harry.

Nobody does it better than Meghan....another dig at Kate

This is just so purposely hurtful towards Kate. How can there ever be a way back again? I would never so much as glance in their direction again if I was her. So spiteful.