"They don't just report the news, they create it": on Meghan, Harry and the Press

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

The much trumpeted story of the Dior deal is such a classic tabloid creation, isn't it.

I enjoyed this Grazia article that lays bare the utter nuttiness.

First the tabloids report the rumours as though they are true.

"Meghan to sign with Dior!"

No sources, just speculation based on Meghan and Harry wearing clothes by Dior a handful of times.

Then when both the Sussexes and Dior report that the rumours are not true, (Dior spokesperson said they are "nonplussed" about where the rumours came from) they spin it into "Meghan Rebuffed by Dior!"

This has also happened with Meghan's much rumoured run for the presidency: Robert Jobson actually wrote, with a straight face, in his book published in April 2023, that she was absolutely, certainly and most definitely going to run for president in 2024.

I mean any critical person would realise that the timelines don't make sense, she would have needed a fundraising Super PAC by the time the book was published, and in any event, Democrats don't normally challenge a sitting president ... but hey ho, Meghan is running for president in 2024 because a "Royal Correspondent" said so (and they are so knowledgeable about the American presidency) and a tabloid published it.

And it's the same with The Tig. She is going to launch it any day now. She wants to rival Gwyneth Paltrow! Story after story, based on nothing but speculation.

Rumour after rumour, speculation published as "news" to create media stories about a woman whose plans are not known to the tabloids because she and her husband made it crystal clear even when they were in the UK that they don't engage with the tabloid press.

And there are no "palace sources" who can speak with any kind of plausibility about the Sussexes, so the tabloids make it up as they go along, whipping up headline after headline, driving their readers into a frenzy over things they create ...

While ignoring the important news, like the damning questions by the judge in the Mirror Group case, who asked why the journalists, among them Piers Morgan, have not come to court to testify in the phone hacking trial ...

Oh no, that's not as important to report on as Meghan's fictitious Dior deal, completely implausible rumours of her presidential ambitions, and the speculated upon plans to best Gwyneth Paltrow!

https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/meghan-markle-smear-campaign-dior-spotify-faking-interviews/

Reminds me on that advert.

Big list of expenditure. Followed by something along the lines of -

Books telling all about rubbing your wee man with Elizabeth Arden and getting your stallion arse skelped soundly - priceless.

Wow.

Watched News at 10 and Question Time - no news of this. Might have been the morning shows.

Sickening.

Is it that interesting, though? The sovereign grant was the same as last year.
It cost them extra because of the jubilee and the queen died but there was no extra cost to the public.
They switched the heating down.

It's not that riveting really.

Bit of insomnia - not on rolling news…..

Is there a similar breakdown of the annual cost of Presidents? For instance U.S or France.

😂
Some things have no monetary value, it's true.

it was on the news yesterday evening. they even mentioned that H&M have given up frogmore.
I was confused as I though they were given that by the queen on their marriage. hope they get their money back,

It was given in the sense that it's a rental property on that land. They're no longer living there, so why keep it empty?
I'm sure if they wanted to come back and visit, they'd find places to stay for free. They've always been friendly with the York family, perhaps stay with them?

Its interesting about Frogmore. They just said in response to questions by helpful 'journalists' that Harry has moved out and had already repaid the money 'used from the sovereign grant' for the 'refurbishments' and that the crown now has a 'greatly enhanced asset'. Except that it is not part of the crown estate! The ICO confirmed this after a FOI request, ' Frogmore Cottage forms part of Frogmore House and Gardens, which were annexed to Windsor Castle for use but the Sovereign in perpetuity by an enactment in 1841 by Queen Victoria."

The sovereign grant should not have been used to pay for the refurbishments of the cottage because it was the responsibility of the Queen, at the time, to pay for it. She didn't. Now Charles personally has a 'greatly enhanced asset', paid for by his son who has no ownership of it or right to use it. Both the Queens and then Charles were responsible to maintain that property, not us, not Harry.

Nothing surprises me anymore, it really doesn't. Seriously wealthy people can be very greedy. I don't think the Queen and now Charles would give up a cent if they don't have to... the Queen who tried to claim a poverty grant to help heat palaces, and it had to be explained to her that it was intended for schools, hospitals and housing associations to help low income families.

He's a chip off the old block for sure

Im amazed that they used the sovereign grant for something that isn't a crown estate. How is that even allowed? Then they make Harry pay back the sovereign grant they shouldn't have used in the first place, for a property that isn't his! Pa and Wills get to benefit! Cheeky bastards.

I just don’t understand why you don’t see that H and M are also very grabby and greedy. They also don’t do anything in return for their huge riches. At least the RF support charities and raise their profile.

Yes.
Is the short answer.

For every developed country there is an intense scrutiny - as you would imagine the opposition party would not allow the ruling party to run amok, as it is. In fact there are large committees- mostly from treasury, that are dedicated to budget allocation and expenditure.

For the US, just the formal executive committee - that is just the formal top group, excluding other lower ranking officials, is over 500 person strong team working on it.

For France and other European countries, on top of their own country's teams, they also have to submit to the EU for scrutiny (one of the reasons we Brexit).

All countries also submit to the World Bank.

I cannot confirm the same, of course for Russia/North Korea and other dictatorships.

Nor our RF for that matter, since they seem to make up rules to exempt themselves from everything.

At least the RF support charities and raise their profile.

So do Harry and Meghan. In fact, they also give to those charities too.

So they don't shake hands and open little curtains, but they do some work, and they get paid heftily for it. That's just life, just like other CEOs and other business people get paid a fortune for their jobs.

They both do a lot of charity work and always have. What you're saying is demonstrably false. They're also not collecting any money from us anymore and repaid expenses for a house they barely lived in and actually is not a crown estate.

They do whatever they want, that's how.

I can't believe that Harry and Meghan are getting so royally screwed right in front of our eyes and no one bats an eyelid. Well, I do.

Surely, for next year's report, we should see a refund to them on the accounts. Thought I wouldn't hold my breath. Considering the supposed statement says they have been kicked out.

I guess it was just for PR that it was called a 'gift'. Think about it in layman's terms :
Even in court, a judge will not award 'gifts' to be refunded.
So it looks like what happened here was not a gift as we were lied to. It was a rental. A costly one, where the tenant had to convert the house that needed significant renovations, from office back to a home. Tenant did that, with upgrades they paid immediately. The landlord said it's fine, I'll pay for the costs (well for now, but it seems they forgot to inform the tenant at that time?). So when the tenant left, he had to pay the renovation costs back to the landlord. He was not going to be physically there all the time, but would pay rent to stay on when needed (and cousins too at some point). But, the landlord kicks him out.

In court, Harry would win this easy.

But, we all know he won't take them to court. Very cunning of the palace for this little strategy, they knew H&M would be hated by everyone if they were to take the RF to court on this one - they only need to run the 'he is insulting our queen' narrative.

Devious !

How is the sovereign grant worse off if Harry refunded the money?

I very much doubt that the renovations were ever paid for by H and M . That’s just the line we are being fed. Also they have continued to have the use of the house whilst they’ve been in the US. It’s just been left empty or they have sub let it to Eugenie. In addition Charles was giving them money for some time after they left the UK. I don’t think they’ve had a bad deal out of it even if they did pay for the renovations. Whoever moves in next is probably going to change everything anyway.

@MarcelProust very devious. The real crime here is that they started those renovations before H & M had the cottage given to them, they were given the option of a KP apartment but it wasn't habitable and would cost twice as much to restore as it has asbestos. They started the renovations or maintenance that was needed, and planned all along, and did in fact, use the sovereign grant to pay for it ( work started before it was given to Harry ). Hence asking Harry, or him offering to repay it. But that money is NOT meant to be used for the Monarchs personal property. Nobody is even talking about it!!

So it looks like what happened here was not a gift as we were lied to.

No one thought it was a gift, did they? It's on Windsor Estate land. The queen was never going to give away property that could then be sold on to someone else. Who'd seriously think she'd do that?

Well it isn't but the point is, they always intended to use the grant for maintenance to that property, it started before it was given to Harry. It is not meant to be used for the private property of the monarch. Had they not left, it would never have been repaid. It should not have been repaid by Harry, its his fathers property and he has, as they've admitted, a greatly enhanced asset. All planned originally to be paid for by us.

You've misunderstood. They paid for their personal changes to decoration etc at the time. The 2.4 million was for required maintenance and other works that was planned all along. All along The Queen planned to use the sovereign grant for her own private property.

Harry paid rent on the property also.

The numbers are sickening as it is.

But you think of a 3 day trip costing over 150K - a price of a house.

Sophie and Edward spent 85K to give the St Lucia pm a picture of themselves.

5.9M for six months work for William.
Double that for Charles.

When they say 2.4M for 'housekeeping and hospitality' are they saying materials/flowers/cleaning etc. products only? Or are they including cleaning staff?
Bet most of the staff , annually, are not paid anywhere near that 25K that 'Cost of a residence-to-residence charter flight for the King, when he flew from Aberdeen to Northolt in October 2022.'

I curious to know the breakdown of those ethnic minority background staff roles - how many are management etc. as well as what the ethnicities are.