As ever/WLM2- puts the boasting into hosting

[AtIusvue]

Continuing the on from the As ever thread

• Funny article from Jan Moir

https://archive.ph/UfTPx

• Turns out Chrissy wasn’t the only known bully that Meg invited onto the show. David Chang has serious anger issues and has bullied staff

https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/tvfilm/meghan-markle-s-shameless-pr-stunt-with-david-chang-is-disgusting-b1244549.html

• Megs new show hasn’t appeared in the Top ten on NF in the UK or US, which she had done for the first series. NF aren’t promoting it other that in the ‘new this week’ section. You also have to scroll along to find it.

• No stock sold out yet

I agree with that. My sense of her is that she is dignified and independent - from the little we have seen or heard from her. I always think that her values seem to be the opposite of her materialistic, grasping, grifter daughter.

We've just watched the first three episodes and they've slightly lost the compelling ghastliness of S01 but still we got ratted by having a drink every time there was sprinkles or something was elevated.

Had to rewind to confirm that the totally cringe book wrapping sequence actually had her giving her own book as well as some others! WTAF. Who would do that, and the name stamp thing for children you've never met and don't know, so strange and kind of stalkery.

I honestly thought she was going to snog the queer eye bloke when they were on the beach, it was like a date scene in a film. Really odd vibes there too.

Also the dog died at the end of season one and having the poor thing tottering around the whole time was weird too.

😂😂😂

If in doubt…..merch the kids

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-15055703/meghan-markle-kids-archie-lilibet-reviews-netflix-show.html

I’ll totally watch that programme now because I’ve seen the back of some kids heads…

Everything she does and says is just so utterly ill judged and cringe. She even uses her children as props to her own narcissism. What can you say.

I don't get why we can't see the faces? We've seen them before? We've even seen Archie in the bath. Bit odd really.

@FleurDeFleur we now even know the name of the soccer school Archie attends - it’s all over the back of his Tshirt. Not that his absolutely beautiful hair colour would make it easy to pick him out from the rest of the kids there.

It wont be long before we see the first pap shots of Archie - Meghan has just scored a very magnificent own goal. 🙈

The Queen offered her one of her own experienced equerries, Lt. Col. Nana Kofi Twumasi-Ankrah but this was rejected by Meghan as "insulting". Meghan's friend and author Omid Scobie wrote “Though a charming and intelligent man, it stood out like a sore thumb to Meghan and her friends,”

It "stood out like a sore thumb" because he's black, presumably? Couldn't be anything else. So anti-racist Meghan and her anti-racist friends rejected a black mentor because of his race?!

Fuck me, you couldn't make it up.

How insulting, Your Majesty! Trying to fob me off with this high-ranking African, the first Black person ever to be entrusted with the role of Royal Equerry. I am Very Sensitive to racism, you know! I'm not having a black mentor! The very idea.

Because the whole 'not showing faces' thing is how she thinks she can get away with using her children for publicity while pretending not to. You only have to look at some discussions here to see people saying that the Sussexes are not being hypocritical about having their children on social media, because 'you can only see the backs of their heads'.

I also find those heart emojis over children's faces to be creepy. Show your kids or don't. Nobody much cares. There was absolutely no need for her to share photos of the children at all. Plenty of celebrities never publicly post photos of their children and nobody even knows their name or gender. But then I guess these celebrities actually have something to offer.

She would only be The Duchess of Sussex if she had the title by birth, not marriage. Hence she is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

No, only if she were divorced.
Her correct title is the Duchess of Sussex. This is because she is married to the Duke of Sussex.
Meghan would only be used in the event of a divorce.
Like Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah, Duchess of York etc. Divorced.

They all gravitate towards each other.

I totally agree, I find it a really irritating habit and that’s not constrained to Meghan.

I follow a couple of influencers who do this (not influencers for anything to do with children) and since they’ve had kids they’re always posting photos showing the backs of their heads or with emojis or similar concealing their faces.

I totally respect not wanting to show your kids on social media, but then just don’t show them? Something about it feels obnoxious to me, it’s like a deliberate tease as if they’re doing their followers a favour by giving them a sneak peek of their kids, but not the whole thing. I don’t follow them because I have any interest in their kids and frankly wouldn’t care less if they never showed anything.

And as you say, it’s not even taking the moral high ground. As if someone couldn’t identify Archie or Lili just because they haven’t (recently) seen their whole faces?

It is using the kids but leaving them with the fig leaf of 'but we don't show our kids on social media'... I don't know the names or ages of George Clooney's kids (for example ) - but he doesn't need to use them for attention.

I've been trying to trudge my way through her show...I think I've seen four of the episodes now. But then I thought there is so much amazing TV out there, made by genuinely talented people - stop wasting your time on this drivel.

You really don’t understand how a Dukedom works do you? 😂

I so wanted that Bloomberg interviewer to ask her about the ‘dukedom’. About how often they visited it, where their ancestral seat is, which county town they preferred, how much she has taught her children about this birthright, if it has primogeniture and what she thinks about that as a feminist and US citizen, and isn’t her ‘married name’ should she use one Mountbatten-Windsor after all is said and done?

So much to play with.

Harry spends his whole life talking about keeping his family safe, how the uk is not safe for them and how he needs world wide protection. He also believes his mother was murdered by the paps' interest. Now Meghan is posting pics of their children which stimulates interest in them. These two things are at odds with each other. What is going on here ? It's insane!

100% agree. And those DCs are specifically very easily identifiable just by their red hair. My cousins are redheads and I could find them in an instant in a school playground of 600 children.

MM is only using / exploiting them for financial gain to grow her brand - there are zero benefits for A&L - only risks in the short and long term of being exposed globally on SM.

'Archie's beautiful hair colour'......I know it's not good of me to notice how people look, but I must say that as I gazed at the back of Archie's head I thought that he has lovely hair as in the hair itself as well as the colour.

There will now be paps going along to the GB soccer school sessions to try and get a picture.

Utter stupidity on the parents part.

I wonder if it's deliberate. They need to stay in the headlines. Those children are prince and princess for a reason. It's not an honourable tribute to his family.

It’s not the paparazzi I would worry about, it’s stalkers or obsessive people that would concern me.

It's only a 'dukedom'. An honorary title which comes with no lands or wealth attached, unlike a duchy.

But then, an interviewer who didn't understand that 'Meghan Duchess of Sussex' couldn't possibly be a legal name probably isn't going to get that distinction.

Is it just a coincidence that the football school is called ‘GB soccer school’?