"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/

@Mustardseed86

You do indeed remember correctly!

Considering that she gets slammed for ignoring "Royal Protocol" all the time, people should be happy she sticks to the naming convention under the applicable Letters Patent.

They don't have a "surname", they have titles.

And if Jacob Rees-Mogg can Sir himself before the ink on Boris's shameful honours list was dry, then yes, I am happy for the son of the King and his wife and children to use their titles! Because they are theirs as much as JRM's!

She was calling people on their private lines. Public servants who want to hear from their own constituents. It seems she thought the title she obtained via married would give her an intro and gravitas. It backfired. But it says a great deal about her mindset at the time.

Yep Ingrid Seward, Dicky Arbiter and two more. It's on YouTube if anyone wants to see it. Critical unpleasant and nasty wiffle waffle whilst never having seen it then having to answer
"What does Meghan's support of Balham Donkey Sanctuary tell us about her?"
They still didn't twig they were being scammed.
Bias at its very worst, yes.

Oh it's such. good watch, they got so exposed for the biased idiots that they are! Dicky used to one the queens press spokespeople too, says a lot.

I thought we were talking about Meghan as serious political contender though? Do you think it shows she wanted to be taken seriously in that way?

@Mustardseed86
Is her legal name in the United States actually Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex?

It's her legal name everywhere AFAIK.

Oh come off it, of course he is! He wrote in his book about what happened when Harry and Meghan got engaged, including her wonderful perfect "warrior pose", how could he possible have known that without her telling him?! He was even with her on the day she left the UK!

Omid Scobie spills the tea on his relationship with the Duchess of Sussex | Tatler

@Qbish again, the fact they have spoken to him or provided him and other journalists with press statements is not a sign he is their spokesperson. Jeremy Clarkson has a closer relationship with Camilla than they have with Scobie. Perhaps you think Clarkson is Camilla's unofficial spokesperson and his article about Meghan was direct from Camilla?

Yes, I think she was laying groundwork. Just as @Serenster described. I think she already believed she would be taken seriously.

“If you get to thinking you're a person of influence, try ordering somebody else's dog around.” – Will Rogers.

Do you have a reason for believing that is true in the United States?

So did they confirm that at some point? I thought it was either unconfirmed or pretty much contradicted by them? We know for certain they didn't provide that kind of detail for the book anyway because it came up in that court case there was a sort of background list Meghan sent over I think, that was all.

He was even with her on the day she left the UK!

And he admitted it was the first time he met her, together with another journalist from Town and Country - who is never mentioned for some reason.

As he said in court,I summarise " does everyone who has ever met the royals their mouthpiece then?"

Surely you should be going on about Richard Kay /Eden and Dan Wootton being Kate and William mouthpieces.
Jeremy Clackson and Piers Morgan being Charles and Camilla mouthpieces too?

And Piers Morgan has spoken about how senior figures in the Royal Family have sent him messages of thanks for what he says and writes about Meghan.

Is he their unofficial spokesman too?

If so, we have to blame the Royal Family for his obsessive, venomous screeds.

And Dan Wootton said a lot of the negative stuff abut Meghan was coming from Kensington Palace.

Are William and Kate using a barking mad GB news anchor as their unofficial spokesman too?

Lilibet’s birth certificate shows Rachel Meghan Markle.

I don’t think she can be a duchess in the US. Well, you can name yourself anything, but Royal titles don’t exist here.

He’s not a citizen so he used “his Royal highness” as his last name. Which makes me giggle.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/07/meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-titles-lilibet-diana-birth-certificate#:~:text=The%20document%20requires%20both%20of,well%20as%20her%20maiden%20name.

Reason to believe? It's common knowledge, surely. What do they call other royals - Chaz, Cam, Wills and Kate?

shock horror Meghan uses the title that is her title.

You wrote that it was her legal name. She was calling US senators trying to sway them to vote a certain way

i just thought maybe you had a reason for writing that. (Other than, because using it sounds more reasonable that way.)

But no, it’s is not her legal name in the United States. We don’t use or recognize Royal titles from other countries here for US citizens. Out of courtesy for short term visitors we would.

Bit like an English PhD going to a hospital and telling everyone there to call them Doctor. While she is a duchess somewhere, she is not one in the USA.

When Will and Kate go to the US, they use their titles too.

Right, and this is several posts on from claiming it shows her political ambitions which makes me think it's just someone trying to throw a bit more mud rather than discussing.

• she used the title to show she was a serious political person
• it's not her real name anyway
• let's get into the legalities of using titles in the USA and ignore the absurdities of the previous two statements.

I have to laugh!

When the Queen and Charles lobby the Uk government to exempt themselves from laws the rest of us are subjected to, do they sue their titles? 😂

Do you feel the same way about the rest of the royals using their titles in America? Or just Meghan because you don;t like that she has one?

m:“it’s her legal name”

A: ”is it?”

M: ”well of course it is!”

A: ”I just looked it up, not it’s not.”

M: ”why are we even talking about her legal name?”

I am definitely laughing!

Yes, I would think anyone living here is silly and pretentious for using a title conveyed in another country. Doubly so if they were American born and an American citizen.

Visitors, no.