Continuing HR article, Netflix

[Twistybranch]

See all these wise posters, lots of what we have said has been ‘confirmed’ by other sources

article in the DM:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-13874743/Harry-Meghan-Hollywood-turns-Sussexes-ALISON-BOSHOFF-venom-schadenfreude.html

https://archive.ph/xgEdv

One senior Hollywood publicist tells me: 'First of all, everyone industry-wide, EVERYONE reads The Hollywood Reporter. It's really striking that WME did not stop this running.'
She adds: 'WME normally – you would think – would have been threatening and denying access to other stars. Was this done here?

Thats exactly what we all thought! it’s strange how they are letting this stuff out.

As we have all seen in recent days, the dark art of covering up and killing stories- look at Al Fayed and what he got away with. So WME have done nothing???

Also, Harry attending an event in his own because Meghan is sick. No. This is part of separating their ‘brands’- I doubt she will attend any future events like these with Harry.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13875773/sick-meghan-markle-prince-harry-kevin-costner-charity-event.html

Seems like the wheels are falling off to me!

She has gone on record denying them.

She has not denied the allegations.

She had her lawyer issue classic, carefully worded 'non denial denials' which clearly worked on you, as they were designed to do. However, she has not once denied the allegations and there's an obvious reason why.

THR is a reputable publication. Certainly far more so than the crackpot website you linked to above. It's not at all clear why they would just make stuff up about someone who is basically a nobody in Hollywood. It's also not clear why her powerful agents didn't lift a finger to have it stopped. Well, actually, it's quite clear. Meghan doesn't make money for anyone and isn't worthy of any effort.

Why are you so convinced the allegations are false? You don't know Meghan. None of us do. There are plenty of people who behave obnoxiously once they get a bit of power, and there's plenty of evidence she is one of them. What makes you so certain there's this great conspiracy on both sides of the Atlantic, against someone who is really unimportant in the scheme of things?

I think things would have to get an awful lot worse before she would humble herself in such a way. I've never once seen her refer to any kind of fault her part, ever. In all honesty I don't think she's capable, she only has two acts, the wide-eyed ingenue and the victim. And she does not deviate from those scripts in public.

Americans aren’t falling for it. The magazine People, you may not like, but has over a 40 million readership and it and many more even handed publications focus on the positive and facts.

Why havent People magazine then published the facts on the positive rebuttal (two weeks later) from MM staff?

I do know a fair bit about the media & PR industries and now own my own small business in a related industry - just to establish my bona fides without being too outing.

I can confidently say based on my 3 decades of professional experience: they do not have good PR counsel, or if they do, they're not taking the advice.

What I suspect happens is that they pay for initial strategic ideas (activism around social media / faux royal tours) but then, either due to arrogance or due to lack of funds, they don't pay the agency to develop the idea or implement it tactically. They try to do that themselves with probably a handful of directly employed staff. That's why everything is poorly done and looks amateur.

They don't appear to employ a speech writer either - Harry's speech and panel discussion with the Diana Award winners regarding social media was so poorly done I was watching through my fingers at some points. He was stuttering, spoke brokenly and his wors had no underlying substance. He may have been unwell/having an off day but he clearly hadn't role played that appearance with a proper adviser and he hadn't used a speech writer either.

I also suspect that Meghan does media relations herself. I think it's literally her placing stories with Us Weekly. She only seems to have contacts at that one publication and she didn't seem able to get ex-employees to praise her naturally and convincingly. Her approach to media is OK for a hustling d-list actress but not for a globally respected activist which is what she positions herself as. The people who play that role well, the Obamas or the Clooneys, they have dozens of really experienced experts in media relations alone.

So in summary, I think the air of amateurishness and half-assed-ness that surrounds their public endeavours is simply due to arrogance or lack of funds - they're either not paying for best-in-class agency advice or they're paying for the advice and not taking it, or not going on to pay for the implementation.

I know that Sunshine Sachs fired them for non-payment of bills, that's well known.

As for the attacks of their personalities, that is an inevitable result of explicitly setting yourself up as morally superior to another group (the RF in this case). If your product is your personality, then you can't complain when people test-drive the product, find it lacking, and decide to say so publicly.

You’re surprised? We’ve had women MPs stand up for Meghan, we’ve had her friends write exclusives, we’ve had ex colleagues and all sorts of professionals write glowingly. People have gone on record too saying how much they have been offered by UK tabloids to give dirt (in other words make up stuff) and they have refused the Judas coins. Now we have ex employees who have put their name to the Weekly article. James Holt is loyal and has been with Harry and now Archewell for years too. I’ve no doubt he had enough of the evil octopus tentacles reaching out across the waters hence we have the appreciation expressed in Weekly.

It takes a certain type to ignore the mountain of data that supports Meghan.

@Alectoishome I think I agree with you but Hollywood seems to be complete smoke and mirrors with probably the majority of celebrities being very different from how they present to the world but presumably they do take advice and play the game at times.

I’d have have thought the professional advice might be to do a bit of a mea culpa interview with a really reputable publication, a bit like Brad Pitt did in his GQ interview when he talked about his drinking and his divorce. You know - Meghan in jeans and jumper, hardly any makeup, slightly messy hair, sitting somewhere wholesome like a kitchen table or by a veg patch looking older wiser and reflective , saying things like “you know what I can be difficult at times, I get really passionate and focussed on things (insert reference to some good works), I don’t pretend to a be a perfect human being, I’m a work in progress, we have amazing employees who are at the top of their game and who I value and rely on but I’m sure I annoy the hell out of them at times, but I always try to be fair and I don’t bully etc etc

This kind of interview with ONLY work if:

1. You rehearse again and again and again with a very senior media adviser and a lawyer
2. You're famous enough and have enough credit in your Hollywood bag, built over years, to get a sympathetic hearing
3. You have true star power

"People" magazine is basically a PR outlet for whatever celebrities' publicists send to them. For a poster above to refer to it as some sort of serious publication is laughable.

As for Americans and them not 'falling for it', I suspect the overwhelming majority never give the 5th in line to the British throne and his former cable TV actress wife a single thought.

🙄

You are so not right.

Well, that's me told!

The emoji just confirmed it.

@GiveMeSpanakopita yes I think that’s true. It’s a shame, I thought she did have star power back in 2018, she seemed great. Not my impression now.

As told to Valentine Low (the journalists the former employees first approached) and recounted in his book Courtiers, one former staff member gave a detailed account of Meghan’s behaviour towards them on one Friday night in particular. Something had not been to the Duchess’ satisfaction and she and Harry continuously rang their staff member to berate them.

"Every 10 minutes, I had to go outside to be screamed at by her and Harry. It was, 'I can't believe you've done this. You've let me down. What were you thinking?' It went on for a couple of hours. You could not escape them. There were no lines or boundaries—it was last thing at night, first thing in the morning,"

This is malicious bullying, absolutely. And that’s just one of the stories. He recounted plenty more.

I can understand reluctance from believing sources but how do people square that with Harry's own words. Staff slump over their desks crying and not an isolated incident. Staff unable to take "constructive criticism", skilled staff as opposed to Harry, I'd be miffed at taking any sort of criticism from him. That is not in the slightest how an office of any sorts should be run. But it's okay as Meghan will provide ice cream. Harry confirmed the toxic atmosphere of working for them. His sympathy was not to the staff though as why would he be openly tell the world that the staff at Buckingham Palace were incompetent who needed to be critiqued (constructively of course).

Chickens are finally coming home to roost. That's why Harry is doing this absurd Halloween maze - trying to look like a fun guy again. Just like the Palace always portrayed him. They are both entitled bully's.

No, she had 'new star' power, in that everyone was curious to see what she would say or do and wanted a piece of that. But the kind of star power Brad Pitt has, has been built up .over decades of showing up, doing his job well, being professional and generally not being an arsehole to colleagues and crew....and in doing so, made a lot of people a lot of money.

(This is not a moral judgement on Brad Pitt btw, just explaining his star power from a Hollywood economics perspective.)

It takes years of doing your job well to build up that kind of credit. What Meghan had was 'new kid on the block' power and she has squandered it by not being a convincing star, not doing her job professionally and, I suspect, losing a lot of people a lot of money.

Whether we think she's wonderful and living her best life or a narcissist or whatever doesn't matter, from a pure economics of showbiz perspective, she's a busted flush and no studio or company is going to invest a lot of money upfront in her ever again.

I am highly confident in my opinion here.

"People" magazine is basically a PR outlet for whatever celebrities' publicists send to them.

Very odd to me that People havent then covered the positive rebuttal/clap back - its silence / ommission is saying a lot here - when prior to the THR expose People magazine was wall to wall MM.

Have noticed though that the last two weeks its wall to wall PH?

And the fact that her emotional intelligence is so spectacularly bad - how is she sustaining her marriage?

With the usual caveat that none of us know what goes on behind closed doors, it probably helps to have a husband nailed there by two children who'll almost certainly never be allowed to be taken out of the US by their father on his own - and especially not to the UK

She has gone on record denying them

She has not denied the allegations

You're right @IcedPurple, she hasn't, but there's a long history of these sort of made up "facts" being dripped in, presumably in the hope they'll be believed

Harry "apologising" for his own racism is another we still see, and expect many more which are all equally easy to disprove

Thanks for the insight, that makes complete sense. Presumably best course of action is to lie low for a bit? Let Harry attempt his fun and charming prince thing?

Also just a reminder that the whole reason for Harry and Willia’s dog bowl argument was that William was unhappy with the way Meghan was treating staff - she was “rude and abrasive”. Harry told us that himself.

Harry wrote that he was defensive, saying William read that in the papers. But why would William have read that in the papers? The Cambridges and the Sussexes shared offices. They shared the staff in question. William most likely saw the impact of Meghan’s behaviour personally (according to Valentine Low, he absolutely did).

William subsequently took steps to separate their households, moving many of the staff away entirely - we know that happened.

Agree with you assessment @Puzzledandpissedoff but on this quote:

And the fact that her emotional intelligence is so spectacularly bad - how is she sustaining her marriage?

Would add that both H&M had similar dysfunctional blueprints for marriage and are similarly and 'compatibly' emotionally flawed.

This is their normal.

PH is f**ked tho - her plan was always (as a well infromed late 30s woman) to get any kids back on US soil to her home and her life goals.

Although he will have enough cash to fly back and forth to the UK - I doubt he will be accompanied by his DCs.

Very interesting post, thanks.

I definitely think she is doing her own PR, and has been for a while.

Firstly, I don't see how she can afford all those 'Chiefs of Staff', 'global spokesperson' and the like. Secondly, the PR is so amateurish and has all the tell tale Meghan hallmarks about hugs, cutesy gifts and boring anecdotes about the children.

I also thought Harry behaved weirdly in that speech in New York. Almost chastising the attendees and giving them the evil eye, with that bizarre anecdote about having his kids as his screensaver. I think he is deeply uncomfortable in this sort of environment and in well over his head. This is the sort of thing which used to be expertly handled by the 'grey men' he was so disdainful of. He looks like he could use the help of a grey man or two now. But I guess that's for another thread.

... both H&M had similar dysfunctional blueprints for marriage and are similarly and 'compatibly' emotionally flawed ...This is their normal

Very much agree, @Hiji, and even more so that the return to LA was always the plan for Meghan

It could be argued that on this point at least she's played a blinder, but I can't imagine it's how most would choose to behave

I think that may be the plan but it comes with dangers. As Shakespeare once had another Royal Henry say "How ill white hairs become a fool and jester". While stunts like the Jimmy Fallon scary maze thing might have raised a smile in his 20s, he's now the 40 year old father of 2 and this sort of staged public "fun" can look a bit strained and try hard. It shows a lack of maturity not to realise this

I also thought Harry behaved weirdly in that speech in New York. Almost chastising the attendees and giving them the evil eye, with that bizarre anecdote about having his kids as his screensaver. I think he is deeply uncomfortable in this sort of environment and in well over his head.

He used to have his own speech writer when he was with the RF. If you look at old footage you can see he was always quite reliant on the script too. William could do a bit more extempore. I reckon they had different speechwriters as their two styles were quite different. Or possibly just one very talented writer who had worked with them long enough to be able to convincingly capture each of their unique tone of voice.

In New York, and elsewhere, Harry uses quite a few Meghanisms, so what I think happens is that she writes out talking points for him, but she either doesn't have the time or the writing talent to write the whole speech plus Q&A, which is why he gets so lost.

'Chief of Staff' is a lovely hifalutin title but a real CoS will be at least in their 50s and have loads of experience and a huge price tag to match. I don't think they're anywhere near able to be able to attract or retain anyone of that calibre. The best people in LA will be with the big agencies, not available as permanent staff. And the big agencies are $$$$$$$$$$$$