Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Vanity Fair podcast

1000 replies

Atlasvue · 17/01/2025 17:38

Carrying on.

Employee feels Harry is happy doing charity work and is happy for meghan to do all the work to make money so he doesn’t need to

OP posts:
Thread gallery
44
KatherineParr · 18/01/2025 16:41

EdithWeston · 18/01/2025 16:34

There were rumours about 5 years ago (period between when the exit was announced and their final UK engagements) that the RF would only interact with both Harry and Meghan when there were third parties present.

IF that's true, then by the time of the funeral and after everything the couple had said publicly, I'm not surprised that people were wary of even small talk with him

It makes sense - why would you want to interact with H&M when you know there's a chance that what you say could end up in a book/reported on in an interview, and potentially slightly distorted? I'm not surprised if it's true and the RF don't want to interact with them. It is very sad though. It's nice that Harry seems to have kept in contact with Eugenie.

Lavenderandbrown · 18/01/2025 16:59

I can only add when VF released the “mad about Harry” issue featuring Meghan on the cover here in the states it was reported Meghan was very upset with the portrayal as a “girlfriend” when she thought she was going to be portrayed as a philanthropist first international personality interested in global missions then actress then GF. Although no longer as profitable (as all magazines in the USA sadly are ) VF does extensive research and vetting on articles. It actually has content to read not just pictures and fashions and advertisements. VF could not find any evidence of this philanthropy so refused to stage the article under this guise. My limited understanding is philanthropy is a business unto itself in New York and VF knows this. Nothing done no credit given the public is keeping account.

itsstillmehere · 18/01/2025 17:07

ChimneyRock · 18/01/2025 16:04

Yes, that little nugget about the diary never really got the attention in commentaries at the time it deserved. There is no WAY that Meghan "happened across it" when clearing out a drawer at Frogmore, it having lain there, forgotten, for a year or two. That outright lie anecdote was a clear warning to people that she has further ammunition she can use if she chooses to. Same with the veiled threat about "being silent until she isn't."
Calculating and threatening behaviour. She won't go quietly.

There is nothing that Meghan would ever forget.

JSMill · 18/01/2025 17:12

I think what is even worse for H and M is the story is on the cover of VF with the title 'American Hustle'. Anyone looking at the newsstands will see it, not just those with the money and inclination to actually buy the magazine. This happening around the same time they have been lambasted all over social media for being 'ambulance chasters' is an absolute calamity for them.

JSMill · 18/01/2025 17:12

Ambulance chasers!! Not chasters'

Puzzledandpissedoff · 18/01/2025 17:12

I can only add when VF released the “mad about Harry” issue featuring Meghan on the cover here in the states it was reported Meghan was very upset with the portrayal as a “girlfriend” when she thought she was going to be portrayed as a philanthropist first international personality interested in global missions then actress then GF

VF could not find any evidence of this philanthropy ...**

Apparently nobody else could either, @Lavenderandbrown - or about the "humanitarianism" come to that - and at the start when these words were flung around constantly I asked the question quite a lot

It seems the whole thing was an act then just as it is now, except that with more exposure the deceit's become clearer

itsstillmehere · 18/01/2025 17:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Saw this response 😂 didn't report it but thanks to those who did !

itsstillmehere · 18/01/2025 17:17

I couldn't care one way or the other whether they split up or not. Perhaps they are deemed to live out their lives like the Windsors in a false echo of their great love story. I can't imagine for a second that William or Catherine would welcome Harry back here. He's said too much. Their future is with their children not back in the past. You live and learn.

Janiie · 18/01/2025 17:17

JSMill · 18/01/2025 17:12

I think what is even worse for H and M is the story is on the cover of VF with the title 'American Hustle'. Anyone looking at the newsstands will see it, not just those with the money and inclination to actually buy the magazine. This happening around the same time they have been lambasted all over social media for being 'ambulance chasters' is an absolute calamity for them.

It is a calamity. Makes the UK media seem polite in comparison. We could've told him this would happen back in 2020, the problem isn't the UK, the problem is his entitled attitude.
Where next, shine a light back in Canada perhaps or maybe Nigeria for a bit of virtue signalling?

itsstillmehere · 18/01/2025 17:18

I mean Willian and Catherine's future is with their children but yes to the Sussexes too.

ProjectFailed · 18/01/2025 17:19

Puzzledandpissedoff · 18/01/2025 17:12

I can only add when VF released the “mad about Harry” issue featuring Meghan on the cover here in the states it was reported Meghan was very upset with the portrayal as a “girlfriend” when she thought she was going to be portrayed as a philanthropist first international personality interested in global missions then actress then GF

VF could not find any evidence of this philanthropy ...**

Apparently nobody else could either, @Lavenderandbrown - or about the "humanitarianism" come to that - and at the start when these words were flung around constantly I asked the question quite a lot

It seems the whole thing was an act then just as it is now, except that with more exposure the deceit's become clearer

Was nt there something from Lainey Gossip about MM change of tack re philanthropy in 2016? Sounded like she targeted him and created a persona that would attract him....

Puzzledandpissedoff · 18/01/2025 17:28

ProjectFailed · 18/01/2025 17:19

Was nt there something from Lainey Gossip about MM change of tack re philanthropy in 2016? Sounded like she targeted him and created a persona that would attract him....

I don't know what Lainey Gossip is, ProjectFailed, but as we've seen time and again, creating a persona which is in no way authentic is certainly Meghan's MO

Harry's too come to that, except in his case it was the "men in grey suits" who created it for him - possibly because he hasn't the wit even for that

IdaGlossop · 18/01/2025 17:33

Lifestooshort71 · 18/01/2025 14:54

Surely Meghan's love for her children would stop her dishing dirt on their father in a post-divorce book?

I wouldn't bank on it. Harry sold out his family for millions. If you operate in a moral vacuum, why not sell out your ex-husband and upset your children?

OP posts:
Hillcrest2022 · 18/01/2025 17:33

LaMarschallin · 18/01/2025 08:05

Interesting.
How do you think they would have done that?

I think our idea of them at the time potentially could but as things panned out we see they don't have the substance to revitalise anything. Kate and Will on the other hand are getting on with the job and will be the ones to evolve what the Royal Family means in modern terms.

StrawberryWasp · 18/01/2025 17:37

I've listened to half of it.

A couple of things that struck me:

It presumes that they were treated badly by the RF and the press. It doesn't criticise them for Oprah or Spare, Only comments that Harry doesn't understand the impact it would have. It doesn't criticise any of their decisions actually, it just reports the outcomes and others comments on them.

It is more, how has it worked out for them rather than were they wrong to do this, whhc is an interesting angle given that so much time is sent elsewhere about whether they are right or wrong, this just describes what they have done and how it has gone.

A thing that surprised me is that everyone described them as being so In Love. I presumed there was a lot of acting going on in public and behind the scenes they'd be strained. I also beleived the rumours about things not being good and time spent aprt etc.
This article seems to contradict all that.

I wonder if the extreme pressure they are under is trauma bonding them into this intense love people see? Which may seem amazing but can be easily destabilised.

Or maybe they are just amazingly In Love? But TBH I've never been around a married couple who act In Love constantly after several years of marriage. And if I did I'd avoid them.

And surely if you are a married couple who work together you don't act In Love while at work?? You put a professional persona on, even if you secretly can't wait to get home and jump on them?

Even so I can't believe the divorce book rumour. I can't stand MM but don't believe even she'd doo that!

wordler · 18/01/2025 17:43

EdithWeston · 18/01/2025 16:14

The Sussex DC are in the same position as Lord Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto.

There really would have to be a terrible catastrophe for the Waleses before they needed any royal training

And that’s why it’s such a shame they are not getting to know their cousins. Sarah and David were very close with their cousins growing up - there’s loads of photos and footage of them all being together as children - although Charles was a lot older. My favourite photo of Charles and Sarah is this one. Imagine that could be George and Lili.

Although they’ve dropped down the line of succession they are still very much at the heart of the family for family occasions.

Vanity Fair podcast
EdithWeston · 18/01/2025 17:47

Janiie · 18/01/2025 17:17

It is a calamity. Makes the UK media seem polite in comparison. We could've told him this would happen back in 2020, the problem isn't the UK, the problem is his entitled attitude.
Where next, shine a light back in Canada perhaps or maybe Nigeria for a bit of virtue signalling?

But, but, but, weren't we told (over and over again) that US doesn't have nasty gutter press?

Also, there's a second rumour about the "Wild About Harry" article, which is that Meghan was by that time receiving advice from the men in grey suits" and she didn't like it (eg thinking it outrageous that she was told that wearing the H necklace drew attention, and if her wish was for greater privacy in budding relationship, she should stop wearing it). And she had to say that this article was meant to be about her and her charitable work, because talking about that was OK. And it was mean nasty interviewer that stitched her up.

But the rumour was that she wanted public image of them as an established couple to be fostered at all times and in all places.

IdaGlossop · 18/01/2025 17:55

EdithWeston · 18/01/2025 17:47

But, but, but, weren't we told (over and over again) that US doesn't have nasty gutter press?

Also, there's a second rumour about the "Wild About Harry" article, which is that Meghan was by that time receiving advice from the men in grey suits" and she didn't like it (eg thinking it outrageous that she was told that wearing the H necklace drew attention, and if her wish was for greater privacy in budding relationship, she should stop wearing it). And she had to say that this article was meant to be about her and her charitable work, because talking about that was OK. And it was mean nasty interviewer that stitched her up.

But the rumour was that she wanted public image of them as an established couple to be fostered at all times and in all places.

I wasn't there when the interview happened but, but, but...I think it was absolutely M's intention to use the VF article to further cement her status as H's gf and that her protest afterwards about wanting it to be about M the philanthropist was an act. Also, conveniently, the strapline 'Wild About Harry' gave her the opportunity to pull the race card. As the article reveals, she told the journalist herself about Harry. It was obviously going to be the main story. She would have had zero news sense not to realise that.

Onlyonekenobe · 18/01/2025 18:15

Meghan‘s history has been to cut and run when circumstances stopped working in her favour: first husband, the chef boyfriend, the agent in the UK, Linda Something (British socialite), Piers Morgan (yes even him), her dad, her sister, Jessica Mulroney, the UK, the royal family (these are the ones we k ow about).

Would she do the same now, three weeks into the new year and a full year’s worth of bad press and aggro from all corners, Netflix coming to an end, nothing meaningful on the horizon? Her chickens are coming home to roost, and she must feel that the walls are closing in on her.

She’s never had this much to lose before: two children, money, a profile which someone at least must be telling her she can turn around. Then again, Harry must feel like a ball and chain to her. He is a dolt who can’t navigate the real world, easily upset, dumb, entitled. She probably has to do everything. Not a life that can possibly be happy.

I wonder whether she ever hankers for her life pre-Harry: none of the highs, but none of the lows. Has it all been worth it?

The thing with hustlers (which is what I called her on a MN thread right before they got married) is that they’re always hustling. Always on the lookout for the next thing to exploit. Always ready to cut the string. They’re always running, because they can’t sit still otherwise they’d have to look at themselves and see how hollow they are. Between South Park, THR, the Daily Beast, VF, Endgame, Netflix, it’s all there to see. They’re both extremely damaged people looking to fill the hole inside them. It’s tragic.

Thedom · 18/01/2025 18:17

Oprah Daily did an Insta post about the 'Duchess of Sussex' trailer for her new show when it was released., they have since posted about 'Kate Middletons' visit to the Royal Marsden.

Really the Sussex Royal titles need to go, their sycophants love to big up their title and then disregard and disrespect the real Royals.

StrawberryWasp · 18/01/2025 18:25

It was interesting that they said Harry just wants to kiss babies and do charity work. Well, he should have stayed in the Rf then as that was literally his job.

I actually feel a bit sorry for MM that the money making and 'hustling' is now down to her. What's he going to contribute?
What does he do now? How he is making any money?
Since Polo flopped how is he now spending his days??

I also thought the refection on MM high school days was interesting. She had no one to sit next to so she joined and chaired clubs. This is impressive that instead of feeling sorry for herself, she found a strategy that gave her a role and status. Good thinking. But it also raised the question: why did no one want to sit with her?
It suggests she does not connect naturally with people and instead she needs a role to play to maintain social interaction.
This seems to fit with how things have continued for her in life. She seems to view even very personal relationships as quite transactional. And then be able to drop them when they no longer fulfill the function she needed. And she doesn't unedrstand how tis looks.

JSMill · 18/01/2025 18:36

I was very surprised a couple of days ago to find that my local Waitrose stocks the National Enquirer! Guess who was on the cover? Yes Meghan Markle, the woman who said America doesn't have tabloids.

FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger · 18/01/2025 18:38

IIRC from Tom Bower's Revenge, the main thing the "Wild About Harry" failed to do was give credence to 11 year old Meghan's soap commercial victory and that she received a letter of congratulation from Hilary Clinton about it. The author of the piece could find no evidence that Meghan was either responsible for the change in the ad, nor could the Clinton people confirm they had written to her (and frankly, if you'd received a letter from Hilary Clinton, you'd have it in a frame and be able to produce it). MM goes back to that story again and again, because it is her only pre-Harry "achievement" of note that could be counted towards her having been a feminist/humanitarian/world changer/political influencer before she entered the RF.

StrawberryWasp · 18/01/2025 18:43

I once wrote to Margaret Thatcher about the Ethiopian famine after seeing it on the news. (True story, I was 11).

If I ever become a princess I will regularly bring up how I solved African famine.

BTW I still have the letter but it's somewhere in the attic in a box but if I become a princess I'll make the effort to find it.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread