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

And she sent them both off to boarding school at 8 years old. Who has the headspace, motivation and energy for an affair with a 2 year old? Perhaps if she had refocused her energy at that time on her toddler he would have been more emotionally developed now. Same goes for KC3.

I agree. An orchestrated picture running to hug them doesn't make up for this kind of childhood.

My fault for putting it badly, FleurDeFleur. Of course they're all his choices and I don't like them one bit ... it's simply that, considering their own ruthlesssness, part of me enjoys seeing the Windsors twisting and turning to get off the hook of whatever someeone else might know

Now that is interesting !

I thought he called it both, jeff, as in the "donation" being the money but the "investment" being in the childrens' futures?

Either way I don't believe for an instant this is his own personal money, but can quite see why he'd choose the state broadcaster's own charity to target.
Certainly it looks like trying to buy favourable reporting, but whether that'll work remains to be seen

Right. I think they're entitled to privacy, though. I don't think they ever twisted to get off the sharp hook Harry produced. For his own monetary gain.
They never stooped to his level, either, which is as it should be.

Agree again, FleurDeFleur, though I'd add that the RF hardly needed to push back against Harry's ridiculous barbs because he was already making an increasing fool of himself and would likely destroy his own credibility - and so it's proved

The difference, surely, is that Harry's already shot his disclosure bolt and it's done him no good at all, whereas we've no way of knowing exactly why Burrell had to be kept from giving evidence, only that it happened

Well you dont have any proof do you and well its goes against all the comments that they are running out of money. Its a sizeable amount of money to be giving away, so they clearly can afford to do this and maintain their other living costs. Good for them.

I think Burrell is a very interesting character. After Diana died, he was accused of all sorts of things, appropriating her possessions being one of them . He had some sort of nervous breakdown and saw a psychiatrist about his relationship with Diana, and how that impacted on him
He also then came out as gay. There was a lot going on. He's clearly also been quite vulnerable in many ways. He was a footman of the late Queen, perhaps she felt sorry for him and didn't want him to go to gaol?
It's certainly a very peculiar and somewhat serpentine story.

@Ohpleeeease spot on.

You really believe it came from their own purse?

Where’s the laughing emoji when we need it ???

Of course I have no proof that this isn't Harry's own money, @Spectre8; if so I'd have produced it, which is why I said instead that I don't believe it rather than stating it's not true

However for the same reason I won't be assuming they're doing okay on the living costs, though it's just possible the constant commercial failures give a bit of a clue
For all I know they could have won the state lottery, or Charles really could still be funding them, but we're unlikely ever to know unless Harry offers chapter and verse - and who'd automatically believe him now after the many lies?

Harry said of the donation: “This isn’t just charity, it’s an investment
Yes, we've no idea where the money came from (and probably never will) but the meaning of 'investment' in this context obviously means 'in the children's future' - H won't be getting a monthly dividend in return!

Or it’s an investment in his own ongoing PR efforts.

Many people are “speculating “ that this was the payment for the bbc interview!
I’m sad to say I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this was true and some agreement was reached between Harry and the bbc .
it would also explain why Harry chose children in need instead of one of his own charities to “donate “ to .

Lightbulb moment @jeffgoldblum

He says he made the donation last December.

plenty of people donate to all sorts of causes without any fanfare. He had no need to announce it at all.

Harry says a lot of things, many of which are complete fabrications.

True 🙂

So do you ...ah well peas in a pod

🙄🙄🙄

Flattered but not interested.

😂