Harry and Megan dubbed "fucking grifters" Part Deux

[Qbish]

Harry and Meghan slammed by Spotify executive after podcast deal ends | The Independent

The old thread got closed, just as I was trying to quote tweet someone! So I've started this one, because this shitshow is still rumbling on

I’m not sure what difference that makes ?

It’s her local market, maybe she has an understanding with them about her dog. Maybe it’s an emotional support dog.

I think H would return to the RF in a heartbeat, he must realise how much was done for him. Didn't appreciate what he had until it was no more etc.

And I think Charles would have him back.Hes not a hard man who'd reject his own son.

I think William and Meghan will be the sticking points. I really don't think Meghan will be in any way welcome back by the public.

Naw…as they are running out of material to share they could offer to come back…then publicise the conversations to show how awful W&K are when it falls apart.

@Wheresthebeach that's a very good point. They'd need to slowly rebuild trust.
Which I think is more likely to happen for H alone rather than with M in tow.

I don't think they ever trusted her in the first place.

More likely just publicise the conversations they had in terms of ‘we wanted to come back and build bridges but they wouldn’t let us’ .

Its hilarious how desperate people are to create the story Harry wants to come back, all so they can say 'we don't want you'. As for working with back grid after the recent car chase and ensuing comments, equally laughable.

Pretty sure this nonsense stems from a TikTok.

Pretty sure this nonsense stems from a TikTok

That figures

Interesting that there were signs up saying no dogs but she had her dog with her . One rule for her and one for the ordinary people …..

It’s not an enforced rule - other people take their dogs there too. There are even stalls that give out dog treats.

Harry literally said he will never come back.

Aye but when did he say he'd never come back?
Before or after the netflix and spotify deals started falling apart, and the reality of living in the real world, paying your own bills kicked in?

Again the phrase "Don't count other people's chickens before they hatch" comes to mind. They had been doing just fine before those deals and will continue just the same if they lose them.

They had been doing just fine before those deals and will continue just the same if they lose them

Before they got those deals they were Iiving out of a borrowed house, with friends providing security, and Harry said they were struggling. Meghan also said they couldn't afford the house where they're living now.
So I don't think they were doing just fine.

They moved into their house in Montecito in the spring - they signed their deals in the winter. So yes - they were doing just fine and they will continue to be. Meghan was right to be pragmatic about a large mortgage when they were unemployed - I'm not sure why her being worried about that is a bad thing. Regardless - they were able to secure a mortgage. presumably based on what they already had.

I mean most people will hope that they continue to be able to fund their own security because regardless of what you may think of them - they are a real security risk by virtue of who they are and therefore it is important to hope that they are able to make money so as not to rely on the British taxpayer.

They moved to the US in the spring but they stayed in a house Tyler Perry lent them, where they had no outgoings and security was provided. They were still being funded by Charles. They bought a house which they moved into in the summer. Charles said he wasn't paying for anymore.
Harry had assumed that Charles would keep paying until Harry had established himself so now he realised he couldn't support himself and they couldn't live off his savings. That's when they had to start negotiating these deals to support themselves.
So they weren't doing fine. They were living off other people.

Sure. I disagree - but say for instance that you have said is correct, then what?

Tyler Perry was more than happy to lend them the house and has said so many a time.
Not sure how that is 'living off of other people' when he wanted to do this.

It sounds Grace like you don't want them to make money but also don't want Charles to fund them (understandably... they've left). Not sure what you do want?

They're fine.

Taking favours from other wealthier more powerful people is what got Andrew and Fergie into trouble. Charles has done the same and Diana also. Not sure about William and Catherine. The house H & M were loaned in Canada is reportedly owned by a Russian oligarch with links to Putin, they had never even met Tyler Perry when they accepted a loan of a multi million$ mansion, security and use of his private jet.

It all seems very seedy, to be fair !

Really? Well Tyler Perry is, I believe, not a dodgy character and is godparent to one of their children. Not sure what is seedy about him

I knew nothing about the Canadian property, it was just a stop gap wasn't it. Is it as dodgy as th £3million cash in carrier bags given to Charles by a Qatari politician I wonder...

They thought their security tab would have been picked up by the US tax payer as 'internationally protected persons' except that status was removed when they stopped representing the UK head of state.

Charles supported them for a year and kept their jobs open for them.

Could you imagine what they'd be called on MN, AIBU my friend wants to live in my holiday house rent free for a year.
CFers, would be calling it politely.

They weren't exactly doing great before those Netflix & Spotify deals.

Have you been there?! What the hell is an unenforced rule? Will you just come up with anything to excuse Megan? I’m a responsible dog owner so if I see a sign dogs aren’t welcome, I’d respect that.

@skullbabe
@Roussette

I made no comment on how their life will be in the future but I have said repeatedly in these threads that they'll be fine without the Spotify contract. And they'll pick up work here and there. So I dont know why either of you are saying that I want them to fail. I have never, ever said or implied that.

I responded to skullbabe's assertion that they were fine before they signed the contracts. According to Harry they weren't financially fine at all. He was worried how he was going to support the family. I also corrected factual inaccuracies that SB made.

I used the term "living off other people" because he was being funded by Charles and Tyler Perry and not using his own money.

I've never criticised Harry for taking those huge pay packets from these streaming companies. I'd get what I could, as well. Nor do I blame any company for ditching them if they don't meet contractual terms or are not bringing in a decent return. Both parties are entitled to look after their own bank accounts.

I've been supportive of Harry giving a proportion of his earnings to charity and have applauded them for donating to worthy causes, including the Nigerian floods and women's causes in Afghanistan. I supported Harry addressing the UN on Mandela day. And when people mocked the numbers attending, I defended that and said it would be seen by so many outside the chamber and that's what's important. At the same time, I do give a bit of side eye to how he got that gig. And indeed to the merry-go-round of charity awards.

I very rarely comment on Meghan at all. And have said that I hope the press lay off her because she looks super fragile to me at the moment.

I have consistently said that I believe they're in love, that Harry is happy with his family and his life in Xalifirnia and he'll never leave. I've denied any hint that they're going to get divorced or that either if them would ever leave the children if they ever did.

You two try to interpret every comment as a criticism. I don't hide the fact that I don't like all their behaviour. I'm not at all keen on Harry at the moment. I don't feel I know Meghan at all. She's a complete dichotomy to me and I have no idea who she is. I can't figure her out. But I am not hateful about them nor have I wished them harm or said, mooted or even impled that they would be anything but fine in their future.

The house H & M were loaned in Canada is reportedly owned by a Russian oligarch

The house they bought was owned by an allegedly violent Russian oligarch who claimed to have brought the Russian banking system to collapse,

Thankfully they got a discount 😄

The people at the Farmers Market have said this directly and strangely people who go to there have also said this. Don’t know what to tell you.