Harry & Meghan #53 Ginge & Cringe have no shame, manipulating the public using Diana’s name
- Thread starter Scotch Mist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- harry and meghan
- Status
1
kev1974
VIP Member
Remember the episode of Only Fools and Horses where Rodney wore a clip on ponytail to impress Cassandra
. She ended up thinking it was a rat.mylifeisasillymoviefail
VIP Member
I'm just thinking. If she loses the judgement it can be hidden, and if she wins it can be hidden, depending on any press release. Once again her time in the spotlight clashes with a bigger issue i.e. video's inauguration.
Anyone see this article
www.legalcheek.com
Anyone see this article
What's next in Meghan Markle's privacy claim against Associated Newspapers - Legal Cheek
Northumbria law grad and aspiring barrister Benjamin Ramsey considers the former Suits actress' causes of action and chances of success if her case goes to trial
www.legalcheek.com
liar liar
VIP Member
It can't be hidden - it is a matter of English law and the outcome will be duly noted and available for those that wish to find it. You think Harrymarkle.wordpress ain't gonna put it out there?I'm just thinking. If she loses the judgement it can be hidden, and if she wins it can be hidden, depending on any press release. Once again her time in the spotlight clashes with a bigger issue i.e. video's inauguration.
Anyone see this article
What's next in Meghan Markle's privacy claim against Associated Newspapers - Legal Cheek
Northumbria law grad and aspiring barrister Benjamin Ramsey considers the former Suits actress' causes of action and chances of success if her case goes to trial
Tiddlypom
Active member
That’s a fascinating articleI'm just thinking. If she loses the judgement it can be hidden, and if she wins it can be hidden, depending on any press release. Once again her time in the spotlight clashes with a bigger issue i.e. video's inauguration.
Anyone see this article
What's next in Meghan Markle's privacy claim against Associated Newspapers - Legal Cheek
Northumbria law grad and aspiring barrister Benjamin Ramsey considers the former Suits actress' causes of action and chances of success if her case goes to trial
although it makes my brain hurt trying to follow it. Gidget where are you??Essentially it makes it sound like she has a reasonable chance of success? Unless can be proved it was in public interest to publish. I also didn’t know that if I received a letter from someone (which I had assumed was kind of my property once in my hands) I couldn’t do what I wanted with it due to copyright laws...
NotDumbNotBlonde
VIP Member
It just looks like their hair has slipped backwards.
liar liar
VIP Member
I think the laws are different here as compared to the US. But the point surely should be that she showed parts of all of this letter - yes actually copied it - to 5 of her friends. Hello - wake-up and smell the coffee Megrat. I truly believe that her failure to secure a 'win' against ANL will result in the toppling of her tower and the opening of the cesspit that her life has been that she has tried to hide. The only thing that will stop the court case will be some sort of intervention by Kensington Palace by order of Her Maj which will make the Royals look completely stupid.That’s a fascinating article
Essentially it makes it sound like she has a reasonable chance of success? Unless can be proved it was in public interest to publish. I also didn’t know that if I received a letter from someone (which I had assumed was kind of my property once in my hands) I couldn’t do what I wanted with it due to copyright laws...
or 'heir'?
a.nonny.mouse
Active member
Bloody orange Hell
VIP Member
Hilarious. Perfect expression
Allflightscancelled
VIP Member
I can totally see the RF intervening, whether blatantly or behind the scenes, to stop all the dirt pouring out and spilling all over the ginger idiot. But I really wish they wouldn't.
'Heir' Nice one. Boom Boom <channels Basil Brush
>
liar liar
VIP Member
I love BasilI can totally see the RF intervening, whether blatantly or behind the scenes, to stop all the dirt pouring out and spilling all over the ginger idiot. But I really wish they wouldn't.
'Heir' Nice one. Boom Boom <channels Basil Brush
Mr Derek...ResidentMerkin
VIP Member
Comic Book Guy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Next they will be selling/producing/broadcasting tutorials: Makeup, Haircare, singing to your toddler while tumbling dramatically to the ground, brain surgery while the patient is awake, root canals without anaesthetic, how to polish your veneers, how to turn your entire wardrobe grey, minge management....
Baguette
VIP Member
(snipped out scary blackhead picture)
Great summary of the Archie tragicomedy btw!!! You did us proud, sista!
Regarding Rob Lowe, I thought it sounded like he was ordered to say something by SunshineSucks and made a funny cryptic remark which is the 'said something as you wanted me to, but you can't make me lie' version. Thought it was their answer to the rumours they don't live in the house. But then again, I could be wrong. I don't know if he even is represented by them. Or he was just pointing out they are not living there in a very naughty way. Which would make my day, week and month!!!
I can! A comb-over!
It was an odd comment from Rob Lowe, wasn't it? What came over was that Harry is a laughing stock amongst the Hollywood set. Harry wearing a pony-tail? Is that a jab at his hairloss? Rob Lowe is A-list and immensely well-connected, and has owned a string of jaw-dropping houses in Montecito for years. So he will know all about exactly where the Harkles are actually based. I thought the line about 'I tailed him back to where he lives' was definitely hinting at the open secret that they ain't living at that Montecito property.
A Sunshine authorised comment would be 'oh yes, I've met them, they are just so humble and down to earth, blah blah, charidee, shine a light' Not 'Hazza is a friendless weirdo who drives around by himself wearing a glue on ponytail....'
(Small point. Harry is long past being able to drive a car on a tourist visa, so he'll need some sort of visa that allows him to drive legally in the US)
mylifeisasillymoviefail
VIP Member
Hidden may not have been the correct word. Overshadowed would be better. As in they have an uncanny knack of promoting themselves but being overshadowed by other events.
bubbadabut
VIP Member
Another good article in The Spectator this week. I've linked but you only get 2 free articles a month, so copied and pasted the article below:
www.spectator.co.uk
The Echoes of Diana in Prince Harry = by Melanie McDonagh
Oscar Wilde’s Algernon observed: ‘All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his.’
No man? Not quite. Prince Harry is in so many ways turning into a version of his mother. The first sentence of the joint new year statement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on their Archewell Foundation website declares: ‘I am my mother’s son.’ For those of us who were around when Diana was on the scene, there’s a pang of recognition here. Prince Harry is indeed his mother’s son. He’s what might have happened to Diana if this essentially English girl had been transported to California, had learned to think and speak woke, and had the redemptive down-to-earth aspects of her character removed.
Harry is what happens when royalty is crossed with celebrity and ends up as a new kind of privilege, without duties but with lots of attitude. Did you make it through the Archewell Audio Holiday Special? It was beyond awful — emotional effusion as a substitute for politics — but it was interesting in that it showed how royalty, unanchored, can be captured, lobotomised, capitalised and monetised. It could, you think, have been Diana’s fate.
Consider too those alternative awards that Harry and Meghan launched last month as a kind of rival honours list to the Queen’s. The checklist of progressive causes, from environmental stewardship to mental health, shows what might have been if Diana had lived to institutionalise her own value system.
This year Diana would have turned 60. Undoubtedly she’d still be beautiful, undoubtedly we’d still be obsessed by her, undoubtedly she’d still be the most fabulously glamorous and devoted grandmother. She was frozen in time when she died at 36 (Harry’s age now), but her life already had some of the dangerous elements that are manifest in Harry’s fate.
Have a look at that riveting Netflix documentary, Diana: In Her Own Words — prefaced by the useful observation that it represents Diana at difficult points in her life and gives just one side of the story. What it shows is that her decision to leave the royal family was based on a sense that she could do her thing — relating to people and helping them — just as well outside the family as within it. But what was never really thought through was how to manage to play royal without being anchored in the royal family. She, like Harry, could not have become the phenomenon she was without that status. She wanted to keep that mystical element, the royal touch, without the constraints of royal life, without a relationship with the Queen. Well, that’s now her son’s — or his wife’s — project.
Harry shares an awful lot with his mother: divorced parents and family trauma; emotional neediness (call it an excess of sensibility); no great academic abilities but an instinctive ability to relate to people. Diana was good at talking human to everyone she met; Harry’s cheerful mateyness derives from his time in the army. They also have in common a weakness for the company of celebrities (though in the case of Prince Harry, that’s probably his wife’s predilection), and it’s interesting that the only useful contribution to the Archewell broadcast was from Sir Elton John, his mother’s on-off intimate, talking about being an alcoholic during lockdown. Diana and Harry both collaborated in ill-advised biographies from which they tried to distance themselves. But as a friend who knew Diana well observed, what really unites mother and son is their impulsiveness, the tendency to act first and think later. Diana acted impulsively in divorcing herself not just from Prince Charles but from the royal family; a year ago, Prince Harry did the same.
Of course, the similarities can be overplayed. Diana was, for all her rubbish academic qualifications (attributable to her flaky education), an intelligent woman with genuine cultural interests — ballet, for instance. She also was fabulously manipulative; once she got the hang of her relationship with the press, she displayed a native cunning which was really impressive. She was astonishingly emotionally intuitive, far more so than her son. She understood the relationship between Camilla and her husband almost from the start, and it seems to have contributed powerfully to her destructive self-harming ways. The one legacy of that which remains is the way Prince Harry omitted any reference to Prince Charles from his Archewell new year statement.
The sad reality is Harry and Diana shared attributes that could have been enormously valuable to the royal family. Diana acknowledged as much in a lunch she had in New York with Tina Brown for Vanity Fair not long before she died. ‘What a pair we could have been,’ she said of herself and her former husband. He could have done his thing; she could have done hers. Harry too could have been an asset rather than an embarrassment, had he not cut himself adrift from the family from which he derives his identity. Both are, then and now, a loss to British public life.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/writer/melanie-mcdonagh
The echoes of Diana in Prince Harry
Oscar Wilde’s Algernon observed: ‘All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his.’ No man? Not quite. Prince Harry is in so many ways turning into a version of his mother. The first sentence of the joint new year statement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
www.spectator.co.uk
The Echoes of Diana in Prince Harry = by Melanie McDonagh
Oscar Wilde’s Algernon observed: ‘All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his.’
No man? Not quite. Prince Harry is in so many ways turning into a version of his mother. The first sentence of the joint new year statement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on their Archewell Foundation website declares: ‘I am my mother’s son.’ For those of us who were around when Diana was on the scene, there’s a pang of recognition here. Prince Harry is indeed his mother’s son. He’s what might have happened to Diana if this essentially English girl had been transported to California, had learned to think and speak woke, and had the redemptive down-to-earth aspects of her character removed.
Harry is what happens when royalty is crossed with celebrity and ends up as a new kind of privilege, without duties but with lots of attitude. Did you make it through the Archewell Audio Holiday Special? It was beyond awful — emotional effusion as a substitute for politics — but it was interesting in that it showed how royalty, unanchored, can be captured, lobotomised, capitalised and monetised. It could, you think, have been Diana’s fate.
Consider too those alternative awards that Harry and Meghan launched last month as a kind of rival honours list to the Queen’s. The checklist of progressive causes, from environmental stewardship to mental health, shows what might have been if Diana had lived to institutionalise her own value system.
This year Diana would have turned 60. Undoubtedly she’d still be beautiful, undoubtedly we’d still be obsessed by her, undoubtedly she’d still be the most fabulously glamorous and devoted grandmother. She was frozen in time when she died at 36 (Harry’s age now), but her life already had some of the dangerous elements that are manifest in Harry’s fate.
Have a look at that riveting Netflix documentary, Diana: In Her Own Words — prefaced by the useful observation that it represents Diana at difficult points in her life and gives just one side of the story. What it shows is that her decision to leave the royal family was based on a sense that she could do her thing — relating to people and helping them — just as well outside the family as within it. But what was never really thought through was how to manage to play royal without being anchored in the royal family. She, like Harry, could not have become the phenomenon she was without that status. She wanted to keep that mystical element, the royal touch, without the constraints of royal life, without a relationship with the Queen. Well, that’s now her son’s — or his wife’s — project.
Harry shares an awful lot with his mother: divorced parents and family trauma; emotional neediness (call it an excess of sensibility); no great academic abilities but an instinctive ability to relate to people. Diana was good at talking human to everyone she met; Harry’s cheerful mateyness derives from his time in the army. They also have in common a weakness for the company of celebrities (though in the case of Prince Harry, that’s probably his wife’s predilection), and it’s interesting that the only useful contribution to the Archewell broadcast was from Sir Elton John, his mother’s on-off intimate, talking about being an alcoholic during lockdown. Diana and Harry both collaborated in ill-advised biographies from which they tried to distance themselves. But as a friend who knew Diana well observed, what really unites mother and son is their impulsiveness, the tendency to act first and think later. Diana acted impulsively in divorcing herself not just from Prince Charles but from the royal family; a year ago, Prince Harry did the same.
Of course, the similarities can be overplayed. Diana was, for all her rubbish academic qualifications (attributable to her flaky education), an intelligent woman with genuine cultural interests — ballet, for instance. She also was fabulously manipulative; once she got the hang of her relationship with the press, she displayed a native cunning which was really impressive. She was astonishingly emotionally intuitive, far more so than her son. She understood the relationship between Camilla and her husband almost from the start, and it seems to have contributed powerfully to her destructive self-harming ways. The one legacy of that which remains is the way Prince Harry omitted any reference to Prince Charles from his Archewell new year statement.
The sad reality is Harry and Diana shared attributes that could have been enormously valuable to the royal family. Diana acknowledged as much in a lunch she had in New York with Tina Brown for Vanity Fair not long before she died. ‘What a pair we could have been,’ she said of herself and her former husband. He could have done his thing; she could have done hers. Harry too could have been an asset rather than an embarrassment, had he not cut himself adrift from the family from which he derives his identity. Both are, then and now, a loss to British public life.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/writer/melanie-mcdonagh
Baguette
VIP Member
Harry shares an awful lot with his mother: divorced parents and family trauma; emotional neediness (call it an excess of sensibility); no great academic abilities but an instinctive ability to relate to people.
I used to see Harry being able to talk easily to people but not in the past five years or so, and he seems to have lost it altogether now he's with Lady Harkleton. Was it all just RF PR?
They are talking here about the Harkles using the suggestion box on the Archewell website to get ideas for the podcast.
www.express.co.uk
Honestly, any business knows you don't put a spam-trap like that on a website - it's inviting all sorts of junk and rubbish to be posted. So as everyone knows that, are they trying to set up a trap? Is the real story going to be 'we asked for suggestions and got hate mail instead'?
I used to see Harry being able to talk easily to people but not in the past five years or so, and he seems to have lost it altogether now he's with Lady Harkleton. Was it all just RF PR?
They are talking here about the Harkles using the suggestion box on the Archewell website to get ideas for the podcast.
Meghan and Harry 'crowd-sourcing' podcast guests via Archwell form
MEGHAN MARKLE and Prince Harry's Spotify podcast may not be as celebrity-filled as the Holiday Special in the future after royal commentators discovered the story submission page on the Archewell website.
Honestly, any business knows you don't put a spam-trap like that on a website - it's inviting all sorts of junk and rubbish to be posted. So as everyone knows that, are they trying to set up a trap? Is the real story going to be 'we asked for suggestions and got hate mail instead'?
bubbadabut
VIP Member
It could be they just don't have any decent ideas so are (ph)ishing and will then pass someone else's ideas off as their ownHarry shares an awful lot with his mother: divorced parents and family trauma; emotional neediness (call it an excess of sensibility); no great academic abilities but an instinctive ability to relate to people.
I used to see Harry being able to talk easily to people but not in the past five years or so, and he seems to have lost it altogether now he's with Lady Harkleton. Was it all just RF PR?
They are talking here about the Harkles using the suggestion box on the Archewell website to get ideas for the podcast.
Meghan and Harry 'crowd-sourcing' podcast guests via Archwell form
MEGHAN MARKLE and Prince Harry's Spotify podcast may not be as celebrity-filled as the Holiday Special in the future after royal commentators discovered the story submission page on the Archewell website.
Honestly, any business knows you don't put a spam-trap like that on a website - it's inviting all sorts of junk and rubbish to be posted. So as everyone knows that, are they trying to set up a trap? Is the real story going to be 'we asked for suggestions and got hate mail instead'?
I used to enjoy seeing him out and about on his Royal duties pre-Meghan. Usually featured on the end of the news for the light and fluffy piece, because he seemed like a nice bloke who was fully engaged in his job and the people he was meeting. IIRC he often ranked highly in the 'favourite Royal' polls too. He appealed to the younger generation who saw him as cool, but also to the oldies who appreciated his army stuff. Its no surprise he's now nearer the bottom of the pile since he met Meghan.
Like Rob Lowe says, he's a recluse these days (unless he's being wheeled out by her and is only interested in meeting celebs/people who suit their agenda).
Last edited:
liar liar
VIP Member
I really hate this 'what if' journalism. Deal with the facts as that is all there is. Harry is simply a pathetic nobody who was pretty happy when he could party with his mates, knob a woman whenever and know it wouldn't really become press-worthy. Now he is like a ghost with no substance and seemingly no voice. He can't legally do anything over there - including driving. He is still hemmed-in by security. And then there is her baggageness Smegan... Rewriting Diana as having an insight into things early in her marriage is just crap too. She simply had no-one to talk to.Another good article in The Spectator this week. I've linked but you only get 2 free articles a month, so copied and pasted the article below:
The echoes of Diana in Prince Harry
Oscar Wilde’s Algernon observed: ‘All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his.’ No man? Not quite. Prince Harry is in so many ways turning into a version of his mother. The first sentence of the joint new year statement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
The Echoes of Diana in Prince Harry = by Melanie McDonagh
Oscar Wilde’s Algernon observed: ‘All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his.’
No man? Not quite. Prince Harry is in so many ways turning into a version of his mother. The first sentence of the joint new year statement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on their Archewell Foundation website declares: ‘I am my mother’s son.’ For those of us who were around when Diana was on the scene, there’s a pang of recognition here. Prince Harry is indeed his mother’s son. He’s what might have happened to Diana if this essentially English girl had been transported to California, had learned to think and speak woke, and had the redemptive down-to-earth aspects of her character removed.
Harry is what happens when royalty is crossed with celebrity and ends up as a new kind of privilege, without duties but with lots of attitude. Did you make it through the Archewell Audio Holiday Special? It was beyond awful — emotional effusion as a substitute for politics — but it was interesting in that it showed how royalty, unanchored, can be captured, lobotomised, capitalised and monetised. It could, you think, have been Diana’s fate.
Consider too those alternative awards that Harry and Meghan launched last month as a kind of rival honours list to the Queen’s. The checklist of progressive causes, from environmental stewardship to mental health, shows what might have been if Diana had lived to institutionalise her own value system.
This year Diana would have turned 60. Undoubtedly she’d still be beautiful, undoubtedly we’d still be obsessed by her, undoubtedly she’d still be the most fabulously glamorous and devoted grandmother. She was frozen in time when she died at 36 (Harry’s age now), but her life already had some of the dangerous elements that are manifest in Harry’s fate.
Have a look at that riveting Netflix documentary, Diana: In Her Own Words — prefaced by the useful observation that it represents Diana at difficult points in her life and gives just one side of the story. What it shows is that her decision to leave the royal family was based on a sense that she could do her thing — relating to people and helping them — just as well outside the family as within it. But what was never really thought through was how to manage to play royal without being anchored in the royal family. She, like Harry, could not have become the phenomenon she was without that status. She wanted to keep that mystical element, the royal touch, without the constraints of royal life, without a relationship with the Queen. Well, that’s now her son’s — or his wife’s — project.
Harry shares an awful lot with his mother: divorced parents and family trauma; emotional neediness (call it an excess of sensibility); no great academic abilities but an instinctive ability to relate to people. Diana was good at talking human to everyone she met; Harry’s cheerful mateyness derives from his time in the army. They also have in common a weakness for the company of celebrities (though in the case of Prince Harry, that’s probably his wife’s predilection), and it’s interesting that the only useful contribution to the Archewell broadcast was from Sir Elton John, his mother’s on-off intimate, talking about being an alcoholic during lockdown. Diana and Harry both collaborated in ill-advised biographies from which they tried to distance themselves. But as a friend who knew Diana well observed, what really unites mother and son is their impulsiveness, the tendency to act first and think later. Diana acted impulsively in divorcing herself not just from Prince Charles but from the royal family; a year ago, Prince Harry did the same.
Of course, the similarities can be overplayed. Diana was, for all her rubbish academic qualifications (attributable to her flaky education), an intelligent woman with genuine cultural interests — ballet, for instance. She also was fabulously manipulative; once she got the hang of her relationship with the press, she displayed a native cunning which was really impressive. She was astonishingly emotionally intuitive, far more so than her son. She understood the relationship between Camilla and her husband almost from the start, and it seems to have contributed powerfully to her destructive self-harming ways. The one legacy of that which remains is the way Prince Harry omitted any reference to Prince Charles from his Archewell new year statement.
The sad reality is Harry and Diana shared attributes that could have been enormously valuable to the royal family. Diana acknowledged as much in a lunch she had in New York with Tina Brown for Vanity Fair not long before she died. ‘What a pair we could have been,’ she said of herself and her former husband. He could have done his thing; she could have done hers. Harry too could have been an asset rather than an embarrassment, had he not cut himself adrift from the family from which he derives his identity. Both are, then and now, a loss to British public life.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/writer/melanie-mcdonagh
Scotch Mist
VIP Member
Yes I agree. We simply don't know what would've happened if Diana had lived. Diana was certainly good with people but I'm not convinced that Hazno has the same ability at all. Away from the palace aides doing his PR he comes across as an arrogant belligerent tosser with no self awareness.
Diana would have become less relevant over the years and would probably have remarried someone rich and stepped back a bit as she got older, but none of us can know what would have happened.
I do believe that Diana wouldn't have wanted Harry to marry Smeggy and leave the royal family.
Diana had to leave following her divorce but Harry has thrown a hissy fit because nobody likes his wife and William is in line to the throne not him (boo hoo
).I don't see them as being very alike at all.
- Status