As ever and PR disasters continued

[AtIusvue]

So Meghan lost her fathers number but is ringing round hospitals and will send a handwritten note, as per Sussex sources speaking through the Sun, the Telegraph and the Times.

I mean I have no idea, how it works with PR for very famous people, but surely there are scenarios they prep for?

Her dad is in his 80s, severely obese and has suffered ill health for years. You would think, there would be protocol in what to do should the worst happen.

That would include having up to date contact info. This isn’t something Meg would need to have/get involved with if she’s estranged, but surely ‘The Office of the DDOS’ would. Then engage in their set plan- whether that’s a public statement that this is a private affair or that contact has been made through the proper channels.

Whatever this is, it isn’t professional-it’s complete chaos.

They wanted to live in Windsor castle but were told no.

Adele bought Sylvester Stallones home a couple of years ago. I’m sure it was lovely….he was mega rich A lister…..but she paid a fortune and then ripped it down.
Why? Because it isn’t as expensive to build a home when much of it is just timber framing. These aren’t homes built of brick and mortar.

Elin Nordregen did something similar with one of the houses she bought after her divorce. Ripped the whole thing out and donated the salvageable furnishing to charity. The Miami beachfront location was the prize, not the building. The same is true for a Monecito home.

Their home is a very dated 90s/early 2000s Cali McMansion look. I get that she may be into that…..but that’s not how the rich over there live.

I was going to say that that is Meghan's era! She's always about two decades behind trend, so I guess the dated decor kind of figures. But I would say in this case it's more likely that they really stretched the budget just to buy the house, and there was little left over for renovations. But I'm sure her Montecito neighbours find it terribly last century.

@Mylovelygreendressif it’s true, it reveals how incurious she was about her newly adopted country. Any intelligent, curious person would have said ‘well that obviously doesn’t mean ‘dumb’ so what does it mean?’ She could have googled it while she was googling the words to the national anthem!

I knew about a Scottish title being given but not about this one's military links ... still think they could surely have chosen a different one though!!

@Puzzledandpissedoffwhy should they have chosen a different one? What’s wrong with Dumbarton?

I think Meghan would have had a problem with any title other than Prince ! On Oprah she said that she had expected “ the convention” ( Letters Patent) to apply to the Sussex DC as well as the then Cambridge DC.
I seem to recall that the Earl of Ross was considered but was dismissed for some reason .

There's nothing wrong with it at all to a British ear, JSMill, but Meghan's not British and to an American those first four letters can be considered unfortunate

And you're most likely right, @Mylovelygreendress, in that nothing less than "prince" would have done from the very start

Anyone see this?

WTF is going on?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yde5p9kw9o

Was his licenses linked to his previous military titles or something?

Why would the MET ask him to surrender?

This is all I can find:

Key Reasons for Seizure
No Valid Licence: Possession without a valid Firearms Certificate (FAC) or Shotgun Certificate (SGC) is illegal.

• Criminal Use/Suspicion: If the firearm was used or suspected to be used in a crime.
• Public Safety: To prevent a breach of peace, if you're a danger to yourself or others, or if a risk assessment indicates high risk (e.g., high crime area, large number of guns).
• Unsafe Storage: If firearms aren't stored securely according to Home Office guidelines, making them vulnerable to theft or misuse.
• Terrorism/Serious Violence: If linked to terrorist activity or areas with potential serious violence.

Firearms Act Violations: Breaching conditions of your licence, such as possessing illegal components.

I've heard (so to be confirmed) it's not a case of weapons or licence being seized...he has handed over the licence voluntarily, no idea why.

AFAIK his previous military career would have no bearing on his entitlement to a licence.

So, a H&M thread is wandering down the Andrew route. These threads all merge into one eventually.....

Tbh I presumed it may have been a request from KC - out of concern for A’s state of mind.

That is very odd about the shotgun license.

I used to have one, but just let it expire when I moved (no longer needed it) I didn't have a visit from the police.

I've known people lose them due to MH.

It comes from 'Dun' which means 'fort' in Scottish and Irish Gaelic and is found in many place names in Scotland and Ireland. Dundalk, Dundee, Dunfermline, to give just a few examples. 'Dumbarton' means something like 'The Breton Fort' as it was once the centre of Breton power in Scoland. But of course Meghan has zero interest in history or culture so none of that would have resonated with her.

Agree . Especially with the constant drip feed of new revelations.

https://pagesix.com/2025/12/22/royal-family/prince-harry-amp-meghan-markle-down-to-just-2-staffers-for-charity/

Just a little more info on the foundation.

• they struggled to raise funds
• they couldn't afford to run the foundation
• they were in talks for months about what to do
• the new model means they have a sponsor that gives them funds, and takes care of all liabilities, staff costs etc but also means Meg n Harry don’t have full control over projects they get involved with. They have to follow the rules of the sponsor …so we all know how well that will work out!!
• That 3 staff have gone from the foundation on top of the 6 staff that left their personal team in the summer

It seems they are in some sort financial trouble since the NF money stopped.

I can’t see how they can afford the two left at the foundation…..as their wages are over 500k. The whole point about a fiscal sponsor is they take on the admin costs. So I think James holt and the other woman will be dropped soon too. But maybe this has already happened. Didn’t James return to the UK in the summer?

I see their website is still basically blank.

I assume that means no web designer, or IT function. There is not exactly a shortage of freelance web designers out there.

And yes, I get it that might be busy at other stuff, but given that they have changed from a 501(C) to a different 501(C), I would have thought that transparency on how they spend the raised money would be right up there.

Or have they transferred the charity spend report to Instagram ?

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle down to just 2 charity staffers out of desperation to save cash: ‘All smoke and mirrors’

The headline says it all. Those poor suffering grieving parents this hideous grifting couple exploited for The Parents Network. Feel for them.

Two obvious questions:

Apart from daddy, who the hell could be leaned on/misguided enough to sponsor them now?
And what has the $5.1 million in Archewell "expenses" gone on, since it hardly seems active?

@AtIusvue thanks for the article. Reading it, doesn’t seem to me that they actually have a sponsor at this time - just that this is the model they’re hoping to move towards.

I suspect that if they don’t find someone, then all remaining staff will be let go and the charity will cease to exist at all (or perhaps in name only to give them a front for those who won’t question it too closely)

It’s going to be all their personal expenses!

they run Archewell out of their house, so possibly charging their mortgage and other upkeep expenses to it, security, private travel for their faux Royal tours etc.

I suspect Archewell has been basically funding their lifestyle, propped up by some anonymous donations from their billionaire pals. Possibly as the Netflix and Spare money started to wane they may have been dipping in to the charity funds more and more, but unfortunately for them the donations have now dropped to a level that it can’t sustain their wild spending.

chickens coming home to roost on this I reckon.

I suspect you're right, @elessar, but it hardly fits with the compassionate philanthropists they pretend to be

But then nothing does ...

I did wonder if they ran it all from their house.

Would that not mean their house becomes a workplace, and liable to cali workplace law ?

I would have thought they would need a separate office somewhere to run their foundation from. I assume domestic workers are under different rules,

I know I am stretching it here, but to me there must be a difference between working from home, and actually running a business with a fair few staff from home ?

Ahah. A quick google, and yes, 5 employees max before the full law book applies.

From the site I linked below : " Unlike some states that exempt small employers from labor laws, California applies many of its requirements to companies with as few as five employees. This means that even a small retail store, consulting firm, or contractor must follow complex rules on pay, breaks, leave, and workplace conduct."

So yup, if you have 5 employees, it's not good enough to say " use the poolside toilet", or " eat your lunch ate the kitchen table". You need dedicated facilities, plus all the fire stuff etc.

And when we add up the other staff: security, cleaner, groom for the polo ponies, raspberry pickers, raspberry packers, nannies...

California Labor Laws: What Small Business Owners Need to Know (californialaborsolutions.com)

If H&M are making more use of the obscure Delaware rules than even that obscurity should allow them then they ( and any one else doing it ) should be investigated. But laws in the US are beyond my ken so who knows 😊