REVENGE, Harkle-style

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Looks totally unremarkable to me

Does it? Looks pretty damn good to me, r1.

I think this is a fake book, OP. I was fooled by it yesterday, too. It's listed on several UK bookshops so seems legit initially, but there's zero news about its release.

Whatever.

Waterstones is the preeminent bookseller in Britain, r3, and has been for a long time.

I realize you would never know that, being a yank Sewage Squad member, but if Waterstones is selling it, it is all too real (for your tastes).

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

F&F R5’s cunty limey ass please and run it back to that miserable third-world island it calls home.

Thete is is also a thread on it already with barely 35 posts.

Why open a second one?!

I saw the book was available and made a thread on it. If someone else has done so then that is not my problem, r8.

Anyone can respond in either one.

OP certainly has her knickers in a twist over any negative comments...seems a bit odd to be so triggered over yet another insipid Harkle book. Wonder why? Promote much, OP?

OP's headline makes zero sense.

Oh no, dear r10. I'm just a normal LA gay who happens to be VERY excited to read the definitive on the two gossip-Gifts Who Keep On Giving.

And Giving

And Giving

Already preordered it.

Revenge is a curious title? Revenge for what and by whom? Meg's revenge on the world for not being named Empress of Earth?

That is my question, r13. It's entirely unclear why Harry would want "revenge" on the Windsors, or Meghan, who was only there for two minutes.

Also it seems unlikely the Windsors wanted "revenge" on Harry, unless it was for his casual racism at parties.

This book is nothing but a rehash and reprint of stories already running every 24-hours in The Daily Mail Online for the past four years.

[quote]A "fake book", r3, that is referenced in media

There is no book by Tom Bower entitled [italic] Revenge [/italic] referenced in the media at all, except the Simon Cowell book from 2012. Would you like me to link you to Google?

Oh really? Tom Bower is renowned in the UK for breaking news with his investigative biographies.

Mirror Newspaper owner Robert Maxwell sued Bower for his biography of him, so did Telegraph owner Conrad Black. Both lost.

Good luck, Meghan!

r16, It's on sale at Waterstones.

But keep pretending it doesn't exist, if you like.

Yes—I can’t imagine why Harry would want revenge on the Windsors.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm asking why this book was released without even a cursory press release from his publisher. I'm asking why not a single website has any mention of the book's release or its title. If he is as famous and important as you say he is, it's curious that the book was released without mention anywhere.

r20 I don't know.

Maybe because the publisher is trying to avoid being bombed by Meghan's insane supporters?

Who knows, but to pretend the book is "imaginary" is stupendously dumb.

I didn't say it was imaginary. Stop claiming I did.

It's stupid to suggest that a publisher would hide the release of a book because it might garner attention.

Someone please post some juicy bits - something new!

r22 He's was all over UK tv during the Jubilee, but I agree with you this seems like an unusually low-key roll-out.

.....

R20 agree. There's no news on it. Don't know how easy it is to post fake books on reputable websites, but think that's what happened her. I can't find it listed on the alleged publisher site (Bonnier Books Ltd ), either

I've ordered it. Can't wait.

Tom Bower is a highly respected biographer. He's written loads of books and no one has successfully sued him. I doubt that Harry and his wife will be able to sue either.

It's also available at Amazon. The Kindle Edition is £6. 66. Which is amusing.

Well, r26 and r20, If it's" fake" and still on Waterstones' website then lawsuits ought to be launched by tomorrow at the latest.

Publishing houses, after all, Do Not Fuck Around on Intellectual Property rights.

What will you say when there are no lawsuits and it turns out that Bower merely didn't want to do a publicity round, knowing full well that this will sell like hotcakes?

What will your pro-Harkle rejoinder be then?

I also went to the publisher's website and saw nothing about it. I went so far as to put the barcode into a database, and its barcode 9781788705035 brings up a different book called [italic] Families [/italic] which I believe is a placeholder for Bower's book. The cached copy of Waterstone's page with that barcode had [italic] Families [/italic] too, now it has [italic] Revenge [/italic]. My suspicion is that some publication information was accidentally released early.

It's on amazon.co.uk but not the US amazon. Why so low-key about a book that should sell well? Release date: July 21, 2022. Very strange indeed.

If Waterstones is accepting money for it, then Waterstones is liable in the most incredibly horrendous, house-destroying way.

If the Sewage Squad's dreams come true and this is a "fake", then that will - easily - mean the end of Waterstones.

Do you think that is likely?

I do not.

If the release date turns out to be later than July 21st, it's not going to ruin Waterstones. Where do you even come up with this stuff?

If Waterstones has the release date as July 21, I have every reason to believe the book will be released on July 21.

They are a serious bookstore. They're not Amazon or Barnes and Noble. The only bookstore more serious is Blackstones, and the only reason they're more serious is because they originally publish academic and legal texts.

^^^Apologies I meant Blackwells, not Blackstones

FF and block OP for yet another thread.

The Sunshine Sachs intern at r35 has just logged on (it's exactly 9:30 am in Los Angeles).

LARGE and in CHARGE!

R28 I want to read this book as much as any DLer, but it doesn’t seem to be legit. The one Tom Bower is publishing will be legit and maybe this even is an early leak of the book jacket, but no info on the sites pages checkout —wrong isbn #, different publishers listed on different sites, etc. and absolutely no news except for Twitter links to the store sites.

I imagine people will be refunded by the legit book store sites if this is a fraud but not sure how that works.

[quote]I want to read this book as much as any DLer

Say what? Don't lump me in with this shit. Been here since 1995 and I have zero interest in thes book or these people. From the responses most other DLers don't either.

The ISBN 1788705033 also goes to that book called [italic] Families, [/italic] which I think is a placeholder that was generated at book stores online once the real Bower book officially got an ISBN and UPC. The publishing house didn't want to release the title early, so they used a generic title and name until it was ready for release My understanding (though it's been a while since I was a regular on publishing forums) is that this is common practice.

Waterstones isn't a publishing house. The publishers are Bonnier Books, although some of the stores show it's one of Bonnier's smaller imprints known as Blink. If Bonnier or whoever handle's Bonnier's releases accidentally sent out information on this book before it was available, that wouldn't be Waterstones' fault, and they wouldn't be flooded with lawsuits or sued out of existence.

It's just odd that no one has any review copies yet, or proofs, and there was no press release, and no one has any other information on it yet.

No one thinks the book is fake, they think this information on some bookstore websites is incorrect.

It’s a glitch, no? The book was originally due to come out mid July and (somebody) had a draft process in place, which somehow got released. Like publishing an obit before a person has actually died.

R38 - That's your ham-fisted attempt at irony, is it?

The number of these threads that have reached 600 posts and gone on to Part II et al iterations is staggering.

And if you're not interested, why are you checking in here?

Yes, we know you're a troll, we just want to hear you spin it that you're here protesting for the health of the site . . .

And, those hoping to FF new threads as the Bower book emerges . . .

Good luck with that!

The reason there are no advance copies being circulated and no huge roll-out is likely to stop the Harkles from suing to halt distribution in the UK before the actual publishing date.

The book is still not showing up on any publisher's sites, nor mentioned anywhere except a few UK bookstores, which is weird because everyone involved in publication by now has to know that people are wondering what's going on.

I did enjoy how r41 said straight up that these Markle ladies are trolls who are PLANNING to spam the board with their threads. Of course, she called someone else a troll, because that's what trolls do these days.

I think I may have read it on here 🤔 but if true, I wonder will there be any info on the whole supposed connections as a so-called “yacht girl” Megan made after being introduced to that “life” by the Soho house fellow who I also believe introduced her and Harry?

It must have also been here I read that it was being theorized that the reason H&M have been schtum on the whole Andrew scandal, and same way the Yorks have maintained relations, offered support to them in “exile” is that both M and A were guests of Epstein and know what the other got up to.

I wonder if this is how the 1915 St Petersburg Datalounge felt viewing the slow demise of the Romanovs?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I want to learn all the dirty details withut buying or reading the book, so I will be reading all the reviews of it. I think most people will do so, even if they act like they don't care and faux yawn or such. People are being dishonest about their interest, in my opinion. We want to hear from the other side. I mean, we've been hearing from Harry & MM for years, all their POV. I want to understand the facts, which requires getiing a lot more info than the resentful, self-serving press releases from Harkles and friends.

There is no doubt that this book will cover anyone Meghan has fucked over.

Bower said as much in May, when, I presume the copy had already gone to the publishers.

So... people from LA, maybe including Trevor?, people from Toronto, the very long list of people she abused to the point they left thir jobs at the palace, and perhaps also people who've been through the revolving door in Montecito.

To say nothing of covering the various family members and how she and Harry attempted to take "revenge" on them.... for God only knows what.

464 pages from one of the BBC's most distinguished investigative journalists turned biographer.

It's going to be nothing short of EPIC.

Hold on to your hats, Sussex fans, because this book will blow the roof off.

I'm interested in recollections (varied, of course) of the ex-hub Trevor Engleson and the ex-live-in Cory Vitiello. Those are the only two who got on with their lives and don't seem to have a personal agenda to spin.

We've said multiple times that the release date seemed incorrect, not that the book was fake. Everyone knew Bower was doing a book, he's the "brazen hussy" dork. We remember that because you spammed us with threads on it. Apparently, he's a hero and a savior for calling women "hussies."

I guess it makes sense that someone who thinks people are "sewage" for asking why his low-rent publishing house botched the release of his latest book would think that calling a woman a "hussy" was the height of wit and intellectual discourse.

Seethe, r50.

Seethe.

[quote]The reason there are no advance copies being circulated and no huge roll-out is likely to stop the Harkles from suing to halt distribution in the UK before the actual publishing date.

I love that you think this is a good thing. How is this shitty little publishing house going to make money if they have to sneak the book out without even putting it on their own website, and crossing their fingers in hope that they won't get sued about it?

Publishers LOVE books that generate controversy. That's how they sell books, geniuses. None of this bodes well for the book. You guys are going to love it of course, and you've already promised to spam us about it, so thanks in advance for that, but if it was a good and important book it would have a larger publisher and actual publicity and advertising behind it.

Bower has been sued by Richard Branson, who lost, by Robert Maxwell, who lost, and by Lord Conrad Black, who, like all the others, lost.

Bower started out as a barrister before getting snapped up by the BBC for their investigative journalism flagship program Panorama, where he worked for decades before becoming an investigative biographer, famous for uncovering his subjects' best kept secrets.

I have a feeling that every 'i' is dotted, every 't' is crossed, and every claim is triple sourced and documented for this book.

In other words, while the Sussexes may desperately want to sue, and indeed may sue, I doubt they will have a hope in hell of winning against Tom Bower.

Usually books like this are serialised in the UK papers. If they follow that path, it has to start this weekend (if publication day is July 23rd), likely Sunday, which is a big day for the UK papers. It does seem like an unusually muted approach. (Myself I never got serialization... it seemed to condense all the good stuff for free.) But if the goal is to sell books on their own merit and word of mouth (and presumably book publicity tour) why isn't it on Amazon everywhere now? Seems unusual.

All you have to do is look at the authors's fawning book over Prince Charles to see how this is going to go.

Chock full of "palace insiders" getting the nastiest stories they can in print to try to get revenge against Meghan and Harry.

The book is titled correctly, but it means the Palace's Revenge on Meghan and Harry, not their revenge on the Palace.

Over the last two days it has rocketed up to no. 2 on Amazon.co.uk on pre-orders alone.

It's clearly going to be a monster smash hit, even if they are keeping it dead quiet until it actually hits physical bookstores /copies are sent out (in order to prevent the Harkles from using UK law to prevent publication altogether).

I predict any serialisation will start the day after it is published and not a moment before, in order to stymy the Harkles's ability to additionally sue any papers.

After all, can't be too careful with the court-happy Harkles.

HARKLE BARKLE FARKLE HA HA HA

r55 Charles was none too happy with Bower's book on him. It was called a "hatchet job" by upper class mag "The Oldie"

I'm as astounded as anyone that a C-list actress from a TV show on basic cable managed to ingratiate herself into the British royal family and then proceeded to emotionally abuse her pampered, weak-willed husband by alienating him from his family and amplifying his sense of victimhood, but, God, they are so tedious.

R59, I think she managed to ingratiate herself to Charles, but I’m pretty sure Anne and William caught on quickly. It really is remarkable how quickly she got a ring on it.

I guess after waiting so long for Trevor to propose, she wasn’t going to let it happen that way again. It’s also amazing how quickly she got pregnant.

[quote] I think she managed to ingratiate herself to Charles

Yes. For all the developments he’s rendered as the Prince of Wales, Charles does not come across as the brightest bulb in the box. Thinking of Jimmy Saville, his assistant that was fired for corruption (and Charles then re-hires in a “different” position), and all his spider correspondences.

Can't wait for tit to show up on Amazon US. Seems like a great beach book for sure!!

^ Whoops.. Tee Hee , meant it..not tit, but tit can work in a pinch, or for a pinch, as well..

R58 of course he did because that's what they do with any biography, but the book is actually quite fawning and makes the Prince to be a well-meaning respectable figure who is perfect to lead the monarchy into the future. If it just wasn't for those darn polls showing people don't really like him!

Long live the Sussexes! I wish them and their offspring a healthy life. Success is the best revenge, isn’t it?

What success do you envision for them, r65? Personally I don’t wish them ill at all; I just wish they’d go the fuck away and stop lecturing the peons.

R66 you realize YOU choose to listen to them and obsess over their every utterance. And the posters who flock to the DL to post every time the DM invents a story out of nothing featuring Meghan and Harry because they want to boost clicks that week.

If a Markle lectures in the forest…

And r67 is here lecturing us, too. What’s that called?

Preordered it! Sounds like a delicious read.

Id say it's a reality check R69.

Markle and supporters thrive on preaching and lecturing.

Who are they: a dumb prince and failed z-list actress to tell others what to do?

They are repulsive.

R67 is probably a mod on a subreddit or a DMV clerk.

Begone! You have no power here.

what a bizarre book rollout! I was certain this was a mistake. But it appears like it's really launching next week. Anyone have any idea why it's not available in the US yet? Of course because I'm a mentally ill DLer, I preordered mine from the UK. Can't wait for DL to explode next week!

R74 where did you preorder it from? I want to do that too!

It appears you can pre-order in the U.S. from Book Depository.

R75 from Waterstones

Do we think lack of publicity might suggest it's not all that we've hoped it might be? Or is there a strategy/benefit in sneak publishing?

[quote]A confirmed publication date was announced on July 14, with just a week to go before the book hits shelves and with little fanfare from the publisher, BLINK Publishing, an imprint of Bonnier Books Ltd.

So it IS from Blink Publishing, then. They are a very low-rent, bottom-of-the-barrel publisher, I'm afraid. You can take a gander at some of their books here.

That explains the lack of publicity. I don't think this book is going to be what a lot of you want it to be.

I meant to mention at r78 that Blink publishes novelty books called "The Wit and Wisdom of [blank]" and "Senior Moments," which sound like boring, G-rated Datalounge posts.

R73 I can understand you not liking reality. It's been unkind to you.

I ordered from Amazon (UK), despite misgivings.

Given how much virtually free advance PR the book has gotten, they may have felt sneak publishing worth it.

It's not as if it's not going to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb by every paper in Britain.

It's also possible that it IS exactly what we thought it might be and the bigger houses were afraid to touch it because of the Harkles' appetite litigation.

But Bower is a barrister and prevailed against every subject who pursued him in court. So he has form here, too.

If that happened again, the small time op could find itself The Little Publishing House That Could.

Maybe BLINK thought it was worth the risk.

Preorders going like mad on Amazon. I think it's already the #2.

[quote]Long live the Sussexes! I wish them and their offspring a healthy life. Success is the best revenge, isn’t it?

When did that start? Examples?

The Times have announced the serialization of the book will begin on Saturday. So no one has to wait too long.

It's going to be so exciting.

R80 except I'm the one grounded in reality. You, who claim to loathe this Markle person, keep giving her attention which makes her wealthier.

That is not behavior grounded in reality or common sense.

^I just checked Amazon and it is already listed as the #1 seller in Biographies. That's pretty good for low-rent publishing op, occurring virtually overnight on a couple of sudden rumours.

I think the advance PR would have been a waste of money. The book has already gotten what it needs in that line.

It's up to the reviews now and word of mouth.

With any luck, a frenzy of a accusations, legal threats, horror, and dire warnings of retribution will be filling threads here as the Meghaloon trolls and the We Told You She Was Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know! fations have at it.

I get a lot of fun out of ridiculing Judas and Jezabel. They're the gift that keeps on giving. Just when you think they can't go any lower, there they are surrounded by bullshit.

But then I'm one of the tax payers who paid for the £32 million wedding and then got called a racist. I have to admit that I was a touch miffed.

So let the fun keep rolling.

My guess is that the people who are looking forward to the book are doing all the marketing, via a sort of grassroots campaign. The preorders drive the title to the top and then the media covers this surprise best-seller that struck with little fanfare. Bowers doesn’t have to travel, he can just do interviews via zoom. And he doesn’t have to do book signings because many people buy digital copies.

Penguin Random House is probably kicking themselves that they signed the wrong author.

[quote] You, who claim to loathe this Markle person, keep giving her attention which makes her wealthier.

And how does this new theory of economics manifest?

The Miror is covering the book " "This is the book Meghan will be dreading.

"Tom doesn't pull his punches and is terrifyingly thorough in his research. No stone will be left unturned.

"Tom has previously worked with some of his subjects, and even spent time trailing them, but it has been made perfectly clear to him that this will not be an option with Meghan."

The release of the book comes just days after insiders claimed that Prince Harry's own memoir will be "juicy" and should make the Royal Family "nervous".

R85 I think you have the wrong person.

[quote]Jezabel

Tom Bower is going to need a bodyguard.

He certainly will, r93.

The Sussex Squad have become notorious for their repeated death threats to journalists: they threatened Camilla Tominey of the Telegraph, forcing her to move house, threatened to send a sniper to the Royal correspondent for the Daily Express (forgot his name), sending multiple death threats to Dan Wootton of the Mail. Constantly threatening Richard Eden of the Mail as well.

They're very busy bees, the Sussex Squad.

Newsweek just published an article about the book's release, says it will be "Brutal"

I hope he takes this lying Z list POS bad actress down to hades, she RICHLY DESERVES it.

R87, no you don’t. You’re not getting anything from it or else you would have stopped. You’ll never be satisfied by your trolling of the Sussexes. Why do you and your ilk keep doing it?

r84, Could you link to where you saw that the Times will serialize beginning on Saturday? I can't find it anywhere.

I ask because I'd be really surprised if any serializations began before publication, as to do so could potentially invite a publication-halting injunction from the litigation-happy Harkles.

The Montecito Journal is eagerly anticipating Bower's book:

"Former actress Meghan Markle “came from nothing” and “trampled on others to get to the top” like a politician or a tycoon, her acid-penned biographer has revealed. “Victims” of the Duchess of Sussex, 40, are telling all in a new book by British investigative journalist Tom Bower, 75, he claims. Bower, speaking to GB News, says the book will contain “extraordinary information” about Markle, who lives in Riven Rock with husband Prince Harry, and their two children, Archie, 3, and Lilibet, 11 months.

The book is now completed and is due for publication later this year. “I’ve found out things which are really quite extraordinary about her,” says Bower. “And I think the public perception of her will be confirmed or outraged, or in any case, it’ll be a great surprise.”

The author, who has also written books on British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Virgin tycoon Richard Branson, former Harrods department store owner Mohamed Al-Fayed, and, four years ago Rebel Prince on Prince Charles, adds: “It has turned out to be a very, very hard slog because people were pretty reluctant to speak and her lawyers had done very well to keep people silent, but I got through enough.” Stay tuned…"

Apparently the source of the Yachting rumors is a public tweet sent in February 2016 by one Adam Haun asking her if she'd be "in the market" to join himself and his friends on a yacht in Croatia that summer. Allegedly it was later reported that she said or posted something about going to Croatia that year.

Who knows but it will be AMAZING if Bower uncovers the actual truth about all that, whatever it may be.

The Feb 2016 yacht invitation tweet itself is still up, and predates her meeting Harry, so at least we know that it's real:

Is it possible to accept an invitation to someone's yacht and not be a yacht girl?

^Think code. You are being invited onto a yacht for???To swab the decks?, Scrape the barnacles, polish the brass? More like polish the knob. It's the world of escort services while floating on the water, with its own rules, expectations.Quite prescribed & quite insular. You put yourself out there, you know what you are getting into. That's why you get invited. Its not a Pretty Woman Scenario.

As Nana Momma would say, Prostitution Whore, Prostitution whore. Puta

r102, To be a d-list actress invited, via open twitter post, onto a yacht by a complete stranger - who asks you if you're "in the market" to accept? Sounds like a job offer to me.

r103 is exactly right.

Eh, Adam Haun is cute, yacht girls would be on old grizzled men's yachts, or Middle Eastern men.

If Adam were that hot, he wouldn't have to ask, they'd be asking him. if he has to troll the waters for a date, he ain't that hot.

It's not a date. No one asked anyone on a date. He's a booze executive who rented a yacht for Yacht week 2016 and asked stranger Meghan Markle, D-list actress, if she was "in the market" to join him and his other guests.

It was a job offer.

According to his Linkedin profile, in 2016 Adam Haun was a sales representative for a company specialising in European tours.

The invitation was in 2016. The picture of MM in Croatia was from 2014. We do not know if she accepted Haun's invitation unless there is a link to the interview where she says she has been in Croatia that summer.

As to Tom Bower - he was a barrister before being an investigative journalist on BBC's Panorama for many years. Now he is a very successful author. But his books must wreak untold emotional harm on his subjects, some of whom possibly do not deserve it. Sooner or later, someone may actually kill themselves after being the subject of one of his exposés.

None of Bower's 25+ subjects have ever committed suicide, r109.

Is this the Sussex Squad's new angle? That we should stop all investigative journalism just in case the subject feels bad about getting caught?

Because LOL if it is. Makes you look even more desperate, which is hilarious.

Only SIX more days until your entire worldview comes crashing down around your ears, Sussex Squad. Make the most of the calm before the storm.

Fuck off, R110, I am hardly in the Sussex Squad. I look forward to Bower's book as much as anyone. People have the right to better their lives, but not on a basis of hypocrisy, concealment, and lies as MM clearly has based her ascent.

R109

On cue, the moment it got out that the Bower book was about to drop, leaks appeared that Harry's book is also about to drop and it's filled with "juicy truth bombs".

You have to wonder if this will ever stop.

It's perfect timing, too. Harry's speech at the UN on the 18th will be obliterated five minutes later as the Bower book hits the stands on the 21st.

As for the suicide bullshit . . . Oh, please.

Not whilst she can go on calling herself Duchess as she salivates waiting for the Queen to die so she can point to her (at last!) HRH kiddies.

Harry is, as usual, in a tricky position. If his book is dirty like Bower's, he ends up in the same category as all the people he's tailed against for so long.

No one expects Brown, Morton, Bower to be decent.

But they aren't carrying titles given them by the Queen, or holding leases on Crown Estate property, or suing the government for a change in laws and status for personal benefit.

How would a book deliberately defamatory of the monarchy help Harry's cases against the government re his security - based precisely on his membership in the royal family?

You could not make this saga up.

^*railed (not tailed) against

Harry's hard to understand. How can anyone expect to succeed if they bite the only hand that feeds them? It would have been so simple if they had accurately assessed their capabilities and prospects and and stayed in their lane, as the Americans say. They could have had a pretty good life and generated a lot of goodwill. The public wouldn't be salivating for hatchet jobs like Bower's book. Now they have sunk cost and really no good way out.

No, you really couldn't make it up.

Not that hard to understand, r114, if you factor in:

Harry grew up, courtesy of HRH Diana's faux egalitarianism, believing he was equal to William in every way and it was a shock when he really absorbed the fact that William was going to be King and he would be, well, left to make his own way.

Harry was insanely spoilt by Diana, because, as she said (I paraphrase) "He's thick like me".

THEN he was insanely spoilt by his father and his Grandmother, who were left in shock not only by his mother's insanity but by the insanity that followed her death, and followed tabloid orders to treat him as a "treasure" needing reassurance rather than a boy needing guidance.

THEN a D-list actress shows up to suck his dick like an industrial vacuum, and in between dives tells him he's more important than his "trapped" brother. To tell him "how can you put up with all this pressure and media attention without getting PAID? To tell him, and this is the really important bit, Harry, there are many hands to feed you. Look how they LOVE YOU! They worship you! They will pay top dollar just for you to show your face!

And it just so happened that the D-List actress was nearly half-black, which was very politically chic at the time - her "colour" would be something with which Harry could control the BRF who had so recently controlled him.

All he had to do was utter several magic words to the family, to the media, to the public, and he would automatically get his way: "You're only doing this because she's black".

So a shockingly grand, speedy marriage happens, no questions asked in order to avoid any accusations of racism. All abuses of staff by the LA d-lister are quietly swept under the carpet, and the couples' heads grow and grow, believing they have REAL power...

But the D-List actress wants to ensure she is not left out of all this luxury if she ever truly tires of him. That means they need to leave the BRF, and move to a 50-50 state. One where they can buy a pricey asset, say like a mansion, where she can raise the meal tickets in style AND profit off of raising them in style. And where she can keep a sharp eye out for new opportunities.

But, having said all that, basically Harry was mangled by induldence, heady ideas, and blow jobs.

[quote]That's pretty good for low-rent publishing op, occurring virtually overnight on a couple of sudden rumours.

You still don't make a lot of sense, but I will admit, your English is getting better.

I didn't think that you guys would be so upset to find out that the book is being published by a cheap novelty press without any fanfare, that you'd turn the thread into rumors of Meghan having been a whore. That doesn't even make any sense, in terms of British royal history and courtesans and mistresses and scads of illegitimate children.

She is the most boring, bland C-lister ever, but you all hate her so much that you've had to invent a monstrous persona, to explain the amount of time, energy and emotion you've spent on this.

No matter what the book says, you'll love it, you've said so for weeks now, having read not even one word of it.

We'll see if her "monstrous persona" is "'invented" or based in hard reality and sourced facts in only six days, r116.

I, for one, am really looking forward to finding out.

I suspect, however, that you are not.

Ah, well. What will be will be.

R116. The persona she publicly displays is repugnant. No one needs to fantasise anything to have a negative impression of her.

[quote]The persona she publicly displays is repugnant.

It's boring. That's why you have to make things up, like the yacht girl stuff, or obsess over the color of dress she wore back in 2019.

Made up?

Perhaps.

But here's a man who didn't know her, openly asking if she's "in the market" to join him and his friends for Yacht Week in Croatia, about 5 months before she officially met Harry....

In the market....

Sorry, I missed an iportant part of that tweet.

He didn't just ask if she was "in the market".

He asked if she was "in the market LOOKING TO".

He had clearly hear throught the grapevine that she might be hunting around for a yacht gig, but didn't have the contacts to get her number.

Which says to me that she wasn't just a well-known yacht girl, but a relatively cheap well-known yacht girl.

(If true, it would, of course, explain those industrial vacuum level blow jobs...)

R97 You think I don't get any fun out of it? Of course I do.

As for " You’re not getting anything from it or else you would have stopped." ROFLMAO!!! How does that work? 'Oh, I don't need to go scuba diving thank you, I've had my fun so I done? What an idiotic thing to say.

Me and my ilk? Lol, is that supposed to be insulting? Lame, dude, lame. Me and my ilk,loathe and detest liars, hypocrites, bad fashion sense, overprivileged dickheads, the list goes on. So we ridicule them because that's all they deserve.

Neither of the two have any importance whatsoever but they are good to laugh at.

Apologies for my post at r121.

Not because anything I said was untrue, but because I used 'speak to text' instead of properly typing, with indecorous results.

I don't believe Meghan was a yacht girl (i.e. prostitute), R19. That tweet is a random trying it on with a pretty Z-lister and there has never been a whisper of anything real. I also think her children are biologically hers, carried by her. But...boring? Meghan on her own? Yes. Obviously. If she hadn't married Haz, no one - including myself - would care.

But she did marry Haz, and now we have the spectacle of 2 talentless, vindictive, utterly unself-aware aristo-scrubs publicly and genuinely under the impression that they're going to save the world and become billionaires at the same time, all whilst the public worships them (especially her). Meghan is a better villain than most scriptwriters could ever dream up, a vapid, control freak stunt queen of epic proportions with no ability to hide her narcissism. This whole thing has been wildly entertaining.

He tweeted her a second time, r124. Reiterating his offer.

He knew to focus on her, not once but twice? Ok. I suppose.

Perhaps it was just a coincidence.

Great response, R115.

R109, R114

I wonder if Bower interviewed Tom Inskip, Harry's former best friend, now banished, who reportedly enjoyed MM's yachting favours and thought Harry wanted to do the same.

Harry's close knit group of friends - all now banished - have never spoken about Harry because of loyalty.

When it was announced that Harry was publishing an autobiography, they all contacted him and made it clear that if he told their secrets, they would be telling his. And who can blame them?

Tom Inskip didn't even get a proper invitation to the wedding. He could go to the daytime ceremony but not the night time party. (Might have been the other way around, can't remember)

So what, R126? She was an attractive Z-list actress. Attractive Z-list actresses get propositioned all day every day. IF this was really "yachting" it wouldn't be taking place in public. And the second tweet indicates he received no response anyway (which, of course he didn't, he was a nobody and Meghan was correctly not interested in responding).

I could go proposition some semi-famous hottie on Twitter right now. It wouldn't make them a whore. There's zero proof she was ever involved with that world. I'll eat a hat if Bower has any - and if he doesn't, you KNOW there isn't any.

Meghan is a twisted, bitter, fucked-up narc. Anyone with any observational skills can see that. And if someone has proof she was a hooker, cool, that would be funny as hell. But so far, there is none.

Ok, r129.

Whatever you say.

From what I've seen of Markle, it wouldn't surprise me if the man posting the tweet wasn't a friend of hers, letting other people know that she's for hire.

Especially if he posted it twice.

Uh huh, r131.

Sure.

R132. I said it wouldn't surprise me. Not that it was true. This is a gossip site. We speculate here.

It wouldn't surprise you if some random man, just given a taste of C-Level corporate, randomly and publicly tweets her to yacht with him and his friends, not once - but twice?

The tweets strongly indicate to me that not only was she a well-known yacht girl, but that she was someone who was so well-known to be an easy to book yacht girl that he thought it fine to casually ask her over open twitter. Twice.

The rumour back around the time of the wedding was that Harry's lifelong best friend Tom Inskip had previously met Meghan via yachting, and after being introduced to Meghan had apprised Harry of this fact.

Why best friend of over 20 years Tom Inskip was, astonishingly, disinvited to Harry's wedding party (while multiple strangers like Oprah and the Clooneys were feted) was a bit of a mystery to everyone, but, if the Yachting stories are true, all the pieces fit together. It suddenly makes sense.

She was a suitcase girl. It’s not a far stretch to believe she could be a yacht girl.

I agree with the poster that says this was probably an acquaintance letting it be known that she was looking. We’ve all seen her thirst trap picture sitting in the bleachers with her legs spread wider than the Grand Canyon.

The irony of Megxit is that it removed the protective screen that the BRF erected in front of so much bad behaviour of rogue members. Harry and Meghan were the beneficiaries of that tradition. They were fools not to appreciate how badly they needed it. Now, they spend their days in court.

Harry's childhood rages were so extreme that his nanny had to pin him against the wall physically, like a living temporary straight-jacket.

As historian Max Hastings said, "Everyone knew that when Harry left the military, he was a train wteckcwaiting to happen."

I think Harry and Meghan believed they could step from behind the screen without blowing their cover. That if they said the right things, the world wouldn't suddenly see a pair of angry, vicious, self-pitying yet breathtakingly self-regarding liars.

To the sneering troll upthread: my English is fine, my typing, notoriously, often not so much.

In fact, my English is apparently of a far higher calibre than your values. Because those reflect the view that sticking the boot into a 95-year-old woman attending her husband's deathbed with what was quickly revealed to be a pack of lies isn't really an indication of bad character.

The nauseatingly indecent photo op in Uvalde, the farcical appearance on Ellen, the FUCKING PERJURY she committed before an English court, the whingeing in Botswana about her awful life, the rude cold-calling of American elected officials who never gave their permission to give their numbers out. whilst blocking her own number, the bleats about climate change whilst she and the hubby drive two huge gas guzzlers to go a mile for a photo op at the absent Oprah's estate gates, the race card at suitable intervals whilst naming her daughter after two of the whitest women who ever lived but somehow there was no room for her black mother's name . . .

Why, none of this tells us anything about this public figure. How arrogant are we to hold so negative a view of the former Suitcase Girl upon so little evidence!

Head off to one of the Sussex Squad's feeding grounds, you psycho mofo.

^* he was a train wreck waiting to happen

She sold her pussy like every other actress out there. Maybe she didn’t get cash on the nightstand, maybe it was a role or a chance to attend a glitzy party or a trip to Spain.

And so fucking what? Quid pro quo makes the world go round.

So fucking what indeed, r138?

If she'd been an honest whore like Koo Stark, I think everyone might have had been willing to overlook.

But the blindingly white wedding, with the mile-long train..

We all initially thought it was just maybe slightly off because we knew she was a divorcee being married as a first time bride.

But there was a lot more "off" with that wedding, and with deeper hindsight, more still.

The whole thing was odd.

All this harkle shit is the OP and perhaps one or two more posters (or sockpuppets). I block rabid harkle obsessed freaks and most of the posts in this thread are invisible to me.

Sure, r140.

No one on the DL is interested in watching a slow-motion trainwreck.

Perish the very thought.

R99 The Montecito Journal has written more than one somewhat gleefully shade-like pieces on Meghan. Given that this is her home community, it is more evidence of how unlikable she is, that in two years she has managed to generate not a shred of loyalty of affection inside it, except possibly, of course, Oprah.

The last post I can see is R119 before mine at R140.

r140 commented bang on 9:03 am, New York time.

Get up from your desk and get some coffee, dear. You're not on your game. Probably that late night. We all know that Sunshine Sachs do not pay much, but I presume that at least they provide decent coffee.

Actually, who knows what kind of coffee Sunshine Sachs provide - if the PR they provide is any indication, it's probably utter shit.

Oh dear, Sussex Stan r143, are you feeling shut out?

Oh dear.

Someone’s idea of entertainment is coming to threads and telling its denizens their idea of entertainment is stupid.

He won’t see this comment.

r143's comment reads exactly like a Sunshine Sachs intern's explanation to its boss on why they have yet to get purchase on this thread...

A low class whore actress ( who will do anything to become famous) marries a stupid and slow prince then proceeds to try to make it look like she is betterthan the Royal family whom made her famous. So i need to add a low class STUPID whore actress.

It is a shame that what r148 so accurately describes is indeed what (already challenged) Harry married, but that is indeed what he married.

Best draw a veil and never think of it again.

R143, congrats! Is there a Nobel prize for blocking, because, wow, you've really accomplished something!

I wonder if DL is the low priority assignment for the interns? Because their work is evident but they only ever get two WW. One for me, one for you. R116.

R119... she is NOT dull. She is hilarious. Every stunt she pulls turns backfires or blows up or goes way not according to plan and now she's an international joke. That is NOT dull. I can't wait for her Ivana Trump years.

R109, it's not easy to post one of the stupidest things on the board, so... gold star, baby!

Orchestrated. All of it.

*** ALERT*** THE FIRST EXCERPT IS OUT!!! ***ALERT***

Holy shit. It's already a doozy.

Wow...

Non-paywall version of the first article"

It opens with Philip's funeral: “Thank goodness Meghan is not coming,” the monarch said in a clear voice to her trusted aides. Buckingham Palace declined to comment last night."

"The Inside story of Meghan and Vanity Fair"

They were already secretly engaged by the time Sunshine Sachs arranged for her to appear on the cover. Many months before it was officially announced.

Also, Serena Williams specifically denied being Meghan's friend:

"Over the next few days Kashner called those who Meghan had recommended as her friends. The tennis player Serena Williams denied she was Meghan’s friend but just an acquaintance. She gave him an enigmatic quote: “You’ve got to be who you are, Meghan. You can’t hide.” Kashner’s unease grew."

"Pre-publication copies were released to Sunshine Sachs and Buckingham Palace in early September. The front-cover photograph of Meghan was covered by the headline “She’s Just Wild about Harry”. Meghan’s unprecedented brazenness took Buckingham Palace by surprise — and electrified the British media. The interview triggered sensational reactions: Meghan had used her relationship to promote herself. The Hollywood-isation of the royal family had sealed Meghan’s fate as Harry’s fiancée.

Within hours, Meghan called Ken Sunshine and Thomas Morgan. Hysterically, she described Buckingham Palace’s fury at “Wild about Harry”. Sunshine Sachs, said Meghan, should have ensured that her comments about Harry were removed. Why wasn’t the focus on her philanthropy and activism?

Sunshine feared that Meghan would fire his agency. Puzzled why Buckingham Palace was angry, he called the magazine’s editor to deliver what he imagined to be the ultimate threat. “You’re going to have to deal with the Queen,” he said. The furious monarch, he imagined, would pick up the phone and berate the editor. The editor was bemused. Meghan, Sunshine was told, “didn’t get the cover in her own name . . . but because of who she was likely to marry”.

Destabilised, soon after Meghan called Kashner: “I thought this could have been an actual friendship. I don’t now think that can happen.” Kashner, she implied, had “queered the deal” with Harry.

Kashner was puzzled. How could she hate a blatant puff piece? Then her feelings were explained. Of course, she hated the title “Wild about Harry” because she was promoting her philanthropy. She was equally furious that her battle with P&G was omitted. Kashner resisted revealing that Vanity Fair’s fact checkers had raised questions about its accuracy and, after consulting P&G and advertising historians, had concluded they could not prove the whole story. They could also find no evidence, as Meghan claimed, that she received a reply from Clinton. Unknown to Kashner, Thomas Markle knew Clinton and P&G had not replied to Meghan. The success of her “campaign” was fictitious, invented by an adoring father.

“She complained because she wasn’t presented in the way she wanted,” recalled Kashner. “She demanded that the media do what she expects. I felt manipulated.”

And all I got were some lousy spices.

The Sun, the tabloid sister publication to the Times, has summed up the funeral excerpt, including interesting bits of context:

I really look forward to the part where sMEGs threw stuff at KP staffers. Bitch got spunk!

I would be surprised if Meghan or Harry were particularly surprised that the Queen didn't want Meghan at Philip's funeral, which took place, what, a month after the Oprah interview?

They would all have been quite relieved if Harry hadn't come, either.

R160 - See, this is what I'm talking about. She told this "only to her most trusted aides" . . . who then eagerly agreed to be interviewed by the notorious Bower so they could mention it?! Those most trusted aides are her most trusted aides because they don't talk to people like Bower.

That said, BP declined to comment. I dunno. Maybe HM really was that appalled.

Trusted Aide: "Ma'am, the author Tom Bower has rung up and asked if I would agree to speak with him for a book he's writing about Meghan and Harry and the Palace. You remember him: he did that hatchet job on the Prince of Wales in 2018. Permission to speak frankly?"

HM: "Is this new book also going to be a hatchet job?"

Trusted Aide: "I imagine so, Ma'am."

HM: "And it focuses on Meghan?"

Trusted Aide: "Apparently."

HM: "Go for it."

Ohhh this dirt is great ! Its going to bury smegs the Bully !

So:

The Queen vocally stated Meghan was unwelcome to Philip's funeral

The Harkles were determined to be on the balcony at the Jubilee and that was the only reason they stopped off to visit the Queen before Invictus - to try to get her to change her mind on the balcony. Part of the desperation was due to pressure from Netflix.

The Harkles registered lilibetdiana months before the birth, but waited until after the birth to contact the Queen regarding the name. Harry told the press she had been asked and had consented to the name, in response to which Buck House took the unusual step of counter-briefing that on the contrary, HM had been informed of the name, but never asked. The BBC duly reported this, and the Harkles threatened to SUE the BBC, until they realised that the Palace supported the BBC's reporting. The Harkles quietly dropped the suit.

[To be continued below when I get the time]

continued:

It was CHARLES, rather than William who vocally insisted on giving the Harkles any role in the Jubbly, especially on on the balcony denial. When Harry & Meghan flew over to try to get the Queen to overrule this decision, demanding a central role in the celebrations, she made the meeting conditional on their meeting Charles and Camilla first, which the Harkles did, albeit showing up disrepectfully late.

The Harkles were enraged at the denial, and this was the impetus behind Harry's comments days later that the Queen had bad people around her, and that (essentially) no, he didn't miss his father and brother.

^^^^ Charles insisted on NOT giving them a role. Apologies for the missing "not"

I was floored that the VF writer went into such detail, ubtil I read the part where she shamed him about his stutter. Something about the law regarding stepping on people on tbe way up ..

I think it also notable that it is the TIMES carrying the extracts - the TIMES is the country's paper of record, not some red-top tabloid.

The TIMES also ran excerpts from the Lacey book that Meghan lodged a press complaint against (went nowhere).

And, the TIMES' Valentine Low broke the bullying story. He is also publishing a book on the world of the Palace courtiers on 29 September.

She shamed him about his stutter, and brazenly flirted with him when the only reason he was there was her relationship with Harry.

He almost immediately found out that she was a liar when he called Serena, and then again when the fact checkers confirmed to him that she lied to him and that the entire P &G letter story she keep telling and retelling was made up (by her adoring father).

He said that even though Sunshine Sachs had imperiously told VF that she wanted the article to be entirely about her "as a major actor" and her lifelong philanthropy work, they could find little actual evidence her being a major actor and even less evidence of her philanthropy. This is why VF had to cut all references to both, which enraged her.

Serena pulled an "I don't know her", hahaha

I thought they registered that website as soon as LD was born, before her birth was announced.

r172 They claimed that at the time, but they lied. Bower's research shows that the website was registered by Markles' lawyers a few months before the birth.

I think it's hilarious that Sunshine Sachs got her a teensy role and a speech at the UN on the basis of her "Pre-Teen's Activist Letter to P & G" story, which included imaginary responses from Hilary Clinton and that P & G changed their ad campaign in response to it.

Bower said that VF fact checkers called everyone they could think of, including P & G's in-house historians/archivists and could not find a single shred of evidence that any of this ever happened. Bower says her father made up the story and she ran with it.

Could this be the source of her later "Fued" with the UN? The one which saw her enraged and refusing to fulfil her Australian market engagement because the UN was pesent there too? That the UN somehow found out she lied to them and lied during her speech there?

Hmmm.

The Serena/Meghan “friendship” is pure PR. They’re both Sunshine Sachs clients. They used to be thrown together a lot and framed as “BFFs”.

I guess Serena put a stop to that.

Releasing that Vanity Fair section first, especially the bit about Serena, is a pretty aggressive move. Why would they release such incendiary details that Meghan, Serena, and maybe even Proctor and Gamble would be inclined to dispute immediately and discredit the book before it's even released? Unless of course the VF writer has Meghan (and maybe Serena) on tape and lots of contemporaneous notes, so they can't possibly deny it without being made to look like liars themselves.

The one to watch is Serena. Unless she really said that, there's no reason for her not to challenge this "attack" on her "good friend" Meghan by telling the world Bower's book has a big lie in it.

^ Sorry, should say "Unless they can prove she really said that."

Why do you doubt it? Bower is not Omid Scoobie or other imposter. He QUOTES Williams, telling me he has an email or audio.

Sorry, I’m stuck on the “Thomas Markle made it up”. How would Bower know which one of them lied about the letters? Thomas Markle must have told Bower that. Or did the Vanity Fair fact-checkers tell Bower that?

It was VF's fact checkers who said she lied. So any disputation would include disputing with the editors at VF.

Serena and Sunshine Sachs are not going to go to war against VF for Meghan, r176. Maybe they would have once, but they won't now. They both value their reputation/relationship with VF more than they value Meghan.

Because the father was one of Bower's sources, r179.

^Obviously true.

R178 I'm not sure if you're talking to me, but I'm not saying I doubt it. I'm saying releasing that particular excerpt first was a very aggressive move. If Serena (or anyone else) refutes it, it raises questions of credibility before the book is even out. If they can't refute it (or try and fail) because there's solid proof, well Bower just threw a vicious punch before the fight even began. Serena is in a very tough spot.

The timing of the Serena quote is interesting. She was interviewed by VF before the wedding. I'm sure the writer had it on tape but i wonder if Serena will try to deny it. After all, she was invited to the wedding and "hosted" the baby shower. (I know it was SS's doing but she did have to agree to it)

R181, okay, didn’t want to assume. Thanks for answering. If T Markle talked to T Bower, it could be devastating to Meghan.

R180, that's what I mean. It's a pretty solid punch he's throwing by putting this out there first (again, assuming it's really irrefutable).

We know the palace isn't going to clearly refute or confirm anything. At most we'll get a mealy mouth statement about recollections varying or H&M still being beloved members of the family, because that's what they do and we have no reason to expect otherwise.

There's ZERO reason for a supposedly good friend of Meghan's to stay silent or not clearly refute a lie that implicates them. So anything her friends or people unconnected to the Firm don't challenge is going to become true by default in a way that is not the case for stories that center around the royals and their staff.

I love the bit where Harry calls Tom Markle if he can have Meghan’s hand in marriage, and Markle replies: “As long as you never raise your hand to her.”

[quote]Sorry, should say "Unless they can prove she really said that."

But he can. Tom Bower is THE "he can definitely back this up" guy in British publishing. He's been sued repeatedly and never lost, it's the whole reason he is so feared by A listers. There is no doubt here that he can back this stuff up, too. And if you read the articles in the Times, it's clear he spoke to Thomas Markle as well as Graydon Carter and the journalist who did the interview with Megan.

I love that Bower confirmed thet Meghan went behind Harry's back to confirm to the VF writer that she and Harry were "in love", while she had told Harry the VF wanted a cover interview because of Suits 100th (200th?) episode was such a big deal!

He really thought Meghan was on a super-famous show in America, the dolt. She lied to Harry to be able to talk to VF, always with the intention of going public on their relationship without his knowledge, hence fencing him and the family in and all but guaranteeing the marriage would go through and if it didn't she could scream Waycism to the same VF editors and get another cover as the victim of the BRF.

R185, Bower called Thomas Markle after his heart attack, and gave an interview saying how bad he felt for him. He definitely spoke to him for the book.

Williams is as thirsty as Markle, has her own problems, and won't want to be dragged alongside of this clown car. She might have even reassured Bower of it.

Serena publicly supported Meghan after the Oprah interview, specifically criticizing malicious gossip and tabloid journalism. More recently (and hilariously) she called Harry her "life coach." So up to now she's been OK with the clown car.

Alright dear, I'll wait for Serena Williams to file a cease and desist or whatever the equivalent is in Sweden in order to cast doubt on the book that is hurting her very bestie.

Meghan during this perfume shoot is beyond parody

Here is an (unsourced) Bower quote, very likely from one of his several recent GBNEWS interviews he gave them at the time of the Jubilee :

"I expect a tirade of deflective Sussex PR spun articles over the next week, and on the release date of the book of 21 July 2022, where the few loyal supporters of the duo will give interviews on anyone who will listen. People/charities will post gushing comments on their social media accounts to deflect from the book, but let us see who has spoken out and whether it will lead to a #MeToo movement, where people will finally speak out after being bullied into silence."

Ah, the bullying. We already generally know that Melissa Tbouti left their employment with a fat check and a public apology/recommendation from BP; maybe she gave Tom the specific details.

[quote]But she did marry Haz,

Do you have any idea as to how stupid you sound?

Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz. Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz, Haz, Haz,Haz, Haz.

You sound like retarded. Simply retarded

It's great to read the UNedited version of Mega and Dim, isn't it?

Kind of like seeing it, before Netflix gets ahold of video, right? Fascinating.

This latest Daily Beast Harkle puff piece is notable in that they describe Harry's upcoming appearance at the UN as being a "relaunch of Harry's career".

"Prince Harry will relaunch his career as a global humanitarian with a keynote address to the United Nations in New York next week to mark Nelson Mandela day."

That of course implies that his previous "career launch" as a celebrity has ended up with the ship foundering in heavy seas.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

^^^^ Best comment on the DM's article:

"Harry was stitched up like a killer by this hillbilly opportunist."

Meanwhile, Meghan has been given an unflattering nickname by Montecito neighbours, some of whom I am CERTAIN were sources for Bower:

The Daily Beast has served up a hilarious opening line there.

"Could there be a more perfect stage from which to erase the embarrassment of the Platinum Jubilee."

Just as the embarrassment expl9des of the publication of excerpts from the Bower book that will totally eclipse the launch of the New Humanitarian Harry.

The Harkles have always had amazing timing.

If the dumped Jessica Mulroney spilled to Bower, now, that could be interesting...

What I can't get over is the Vanity fair extract, which tells me two amazing things:

1. She clearly lied to Harry about her "philanthropy", AND about her acting career. She must have told him the same fake P & G story she had told to Sunshine Sachs (in order for them to get the one brief UN charity gig she ever had) and now that story has been publicly disproven. She also told him that Suits was SO BIG in the US that one of the biggest magazines in the world wanted to put her, a supporting cast member, on the cover merely to recognize on the show's anniversary. She basically seems to have told or allowed Harry to believe that she was like Jennifer Aniston on Friends, all the while knowing she was the polar opposite to that. No wonder she did so much to keep him from meeting her father before the ring was securely on her finger.

I wonder what else she lied to him about?

2. She knew she was being interviewed by VF because of Harry, and DESPERATELY wanted to take it so she could "accidentally" announce their relationship to VF and therby either trap him finally, or, if he protested, she could then sail off back to Hollywood as a proto A-lister, famous for being the victim of the "racist BRF" who intervened only because she's "black". It was her pincer move, and Harry would have never allowed it if he had known she was only invited because of him (he specifically only allowed her to do it on the condition he and his family was never mentioned) and that she was going to spill the beans.

That's a huge mindfuck and betrayal - about which he will only NOW be finding out.

This book does not auger well for their relationship.

You could be right, R205, but my read on this is that she already had Harry absolutely wrapped around her finger and all it took to "explain" the mention of the relationship to him was some blather about how the journo tricked her - or Harry just fell for her "oh I don't want to talk about this, it's totally private, but also yeah we're totally in love and it's a great love story" horseshit. Poor innocent naif, Meghan, so unwise to the ways of the world - how was she to know this journalist would betray her confidence like that? I think Harry loves playing the big strong man to Meghan's guileless naif persona.

I've never believed she "trapped" him. Same for Kate and the rumours from her haters she did the same with William. Neither of those two privileged Princes were trapped into marrying women they didn't want.

R204, I have barely allowed myself to hope for this. Can you even imagine?

r199 It is certainly a demeaning of the word keynote to describe his speech as such.It is a flat out deceit.

I agree with your general assessment, r206, that it was easy for her to lie to him because he was pussy whipped, but the thing is he now KNOWS she lied to him.

That could seriously change things for the worse between them, depending on how happy or unhappy Harry is now.

Eww. There is a video in the tweet where M is extremely inappropriate during an interview. I believe when people say that she has been hitting on men to get what she wants since she was a teen.

"Touch me, interviewer, I'm Smooth like a Dolphin!"

Jesus she is weird.

R209 that interview is so awful. She has zero charisma. I watched it thinking I might see something that I’m missing about her—that she’s smart, engaging, funny. But, nope, she’s just a hack in a highly inappropriate dress. She can’t even fake laugh convincingly.

It still beggars belief that this person is what Harry threw so much away for. And she didn't even tell him the basic truth about herself. He's in for a hard, hard crash when the full truth emerges.

I almost - almost - feel sorry for him.

But only almost.

I'm wondering if the reason this books appears to be dropping so suddenly, is to get out before Meghan's lawyers have a chance to try and stop it because you know she's going to sue.

The fact that the Queen allegedly told people she was "thankful" Meghan wasn't coming to Philip's funeral is probably one of the most damaging revelations out so far. The Sussexes' whole brand is really based on milking the Queen's popularity by trying to play up their closeness to her. The Queen might still love Harry, but she clearly just tolerates the wife.

As of right this moment, the word "Harkles" is trending on twitter.

"Harkles" was an early Datalounge invention, from the Dangling Tendrils threads!

I just wanted to let you girls know. Thought it would make you proud.

The extracts coming out for this book have actually changed my mind about Lady C a bit. I thought Lady C was basically BSing that she had inside connections and yet Bower seems to be confirming something Lady C has been saying for two years. The real reason Meghan cut off her father was because he knows so much of the stories she told Harry early in their relationship are BS and if Harry ever met her, the relationship might blow up.

The excerpts released from the book are amusingly distracting and entertaining. Netflix should be dramatising these stories - a stand alone series on their meeting and life together. That’ll bring in the viewers.

R155 R156 Bowen book excerpt reveals nothing hasn't already been speculated about and discussed/dissected into atomic particles both in the media and here on DL. I'm beginning to believe that all the hype about "juicy relevations" has more to do with marketing spin than reality.

I think Meghan never really thought she could land Harry, rather (in her mind) they would be a sizzling hot super couple for awhile, she would get great publicity, be hounded by photographers, and garner even more publicity after a tragic breakup splashed all over People magazine. Then she would leverage the royal fairy dust to become an A lister in Hollywood and get the career she always wanted.

Just my own hunch. I don't think she loves him at all and going through with a wedding was truly not how she envisioned things going. She is too mercenary to be with one person long term. And Hollywood success is her yardstick of measurement, nothing else will satisfy.

The much viewed ‘polo prize’ video at r198 could be interpreted as offering some insight into their current working lives. She seems to be attempting to continue to act her way through but she lacks the talent, charisma and much needed script, direction and editing. He in stern faced earnestness is defaulting to his experience of public life as a royal but now lacks the support of the ‘men in grey’ to make things happen seamlessly. They present as a pair of comically hopeless amateurs punching chaotically well above their weight and professionally.

r228

It's one thing to have had these stories speculated at and bandied about in various comment sections.

It's quite another thing to have them confirmed and expanded on in a deeply sourced, triple fact-checked and legally airtight book from a biographer with a stellar reputation.

I remember her often claiming she gave a speech to the UN General Assembly to a standing ovation. There is video of that event out there, which I am far too uninterested to search for. It was some sort subcomittee event and she received polite applause, nothing like a standing ovation.

Yes, and in that speech she told the UN her story about being the little girl whose letter forced P & G to pull their ad campaign, and who got a letter of congratulations from Hillary Clinton for it. That story was what she got the applause for (ridiculously). That story is what got her in the door at the UN in the first place, as Sunshine Sach used it to get her the gig. She's been dining out on it for years. she's repeated it over and over and over.

And now Tom Bower and the Vanity Fair Fact-checking department have definitively said is a lie.

It may not seem like it now, but to see that particular story debunked is remarkable as it strongly implies that she is a inveterate and remorseless liar, even about the small things.

She's a liar? Well, I never in all my life. She sure had me fooled!

[quote]It's one thing to have had these stories speculated at and bandied about in various comment sections.

R221 Comment sections? Uh, no. Much of the meat in the excerpts have already been served up as the main course in the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Mirror, the Observer, as well as US media. Bowen simply recarves what has already been served up.

Bowen got the Vanity Fair editor who interviewed her on record saying she was a manipulative liar to him and that the magazine couldn't verify half of everything she told him in the interview. I've never read that before in any publication.

Bower also got to hear the tapes of Meghan's Vanity Fair interview, proving that even though Harry told her she could only do the interview if she never mentioned him, in point of fact, she LEAPT at the chance to talk about Harry and how in love they were. Not even one attmpt from her to fob the writer's questions off.

It heavily implies that she wanted to use the VF article to go public and force an engagement from Harry, and that she lied to him when she told him it "was for Suit's 100th episode anniversary".

Imagine what Harry will be thinking when he reads that excerpt and hears how she actually conducted herself in that interview. Total betrayal of him in order to trap him. I'll be the crockery was flying in Montecito last night, but that this time it was Harry smashing up the place. What Bower basically proved is that Meghan lied to Harry about a crucial event in their courtship, one which forced his hand from prevaricating and "waiting on the Queen" to get engaged to getting immediatwely engaged because the news was out and now she was "in danger, Harry, like your mother. I need protection! I need security!"

After all, he told William, per the Daily Mail that Meghan's sudden rise to ultra fame and the "danger it put her in" meant he "had to get married soon."

It all fits together. She stitched him up with that Vanity Fair article, and now, if he's read that excerpt - he knows it.

No, we might have thought the P&G story was exaggerated (I read a version that said it was a class assignment and everyone wrote letters but most versions make it sound like something she just up and did herself) but Bower writes about her father's embellishment that MM repeats endlessly.

Meghan telling the VF reporter that her relationship with Harry was “a great love story” while at the same time trying to strike sexy poses for him, the reporter, is a killer detail.

Get it right, lackluster intern. It's TOM BOWER, not Bowen. Former barrister, respected biographer, BBC researcher and producer for a couple decades, known for the best verified sources. The two excerpts we've read were packed with juicy nuggets, so the 450 total pages should make a splash. Don't drown little intern.

[quote] The two excerpts we've read were packed with juicy nuggets

"Juicy"?? Perhaps if you've been on the Mongolian steppe for the past couple of years.

[quote] Get it right, lackluster intern

Given your absurd over-reaction to a simple observation, one can only wonder whose PR slave you are.

R175, not the dumbest thing to do, particularly after Meghan flashing her snatch to Serena's husband.

From what I’ve read so far in the excerpts, the beauty of the book will be in the contextual nuance of some well-trod Meghan-alia with an occasional small new-reveal explosion.

It doesn’t seem to be as witty as Tina Brown’s masterful Diana Chronicles, but the excerpts suggest it’s following a similar model. Brown’s book didn’t contain many new revelations, but she presented a cunning new perspective on the Diana story by editorializing throughout.

In the Revenge excerpts, the deliciously small but withering details—Meghan’s kitchen filled with framed photos of herself, her subtle game of seduction with the VF writer, “complimenting” the writer’s stutter—are key in creating a devastating portrait of a manipulative, desperate aging actress who clearly is using every trick in her diminishing arsenal to force thrust a marriage to an emotionally unstable but very prominent dimwit.

I’m hoping the book takes a long swim I’m the muddy waters of her wedding guest list. I find the fact that she had only one member of her family at her wedding. I understand why she didn’t include her repulsive half siblings. But not an aunt, uncle or cousin? And, seemingly, no longterm friends? The only explanation is that Meghan design her guest list to support her narrative as little-girl lost—someone who had to make her own way in the world and needs the world to now cheer her on.

It might have worked if she then didn’t then pack all of those empty church pews with a gaggle of A-list celebrities who she never met but was desperate to rub against.

[quote] The only explanation is that Meghan design her guest list to support her narrative as little-girl lost

Remember what Harry said about her marrying into the BRF?

Something along the lines of "Now she'll have the family she never had".

[quote] I find the fact that she had only one member of her family at her wedding. I understand why she didn’t include her repulsive half siblings. But not an aunt, uncle or cousin?

What R233 said. That set the tone for the rest of it. How would it look for Megs to play the "orphan taken in" role and then have uncles, aunts - she has several from her grandparents' multiple marriages - and cousins showing up at the wedding. To say nothing of Megs manipulative need to keep her disparate marks as far apart as possible so they can't compare notes and discover what a grifting conner/liar she is.

She did have at least one college? friend at the wedding. They’re not famous so they weren’t identified and photographed. Remember the “Doria sitting alone at the wedding” sad little photograph that was splashed all over the news? A wider angle showed one of MM’s friends sitting a foot away. The first time I saw it, I thought it had been photoshopped.

So, Megs does this ‘I MUST HAVE MY PRIVACY’ thing which backfires when the press makes it look like she has no friends. Same thing with the baby shower. There were 20 people invited according to Funding Freedom, a lot of Names like Gayle King and Serena but also a few non-famous friends. (Not her mother though, I wonder why).

Suspicion and confirmation are different animals.

Whilst some of this could have been written by a DL Writer's Club, there are some quietly devastating nuggets in here, most notably cold hard evidence that Meghan is a pathological liar without a shred of moral boundaries. The VF interviewer's primary facile testimony of her two-faced behaviour, VF never wanting to work with her again, and the Queen stating openly how relieved she was that Meghan stayed away from Philip's funeral, and, in my view, that Harry went forward with the engagement despite knowing that she lied her face off to him, as well as to VF.

I doubt Harry is reading any of this. He's clearly never going to do anything but double down on his ghastly mistake. He'll ignore this and put it down to vicious media slander.

He can't let the truth in. He wagered everything he had on Meghan. and his emotional survival now lies not in accepting the truth, but in keeping it at bay.

Just as he's done with his mother's ghost.

^*prima facie

Someone feed a law textbook into autocorrect.

[quote] He'll ignore this and put it down to vicious media slander.

. . . and racism.

To the narcisssit, the only truth that matters is that which absolves them from all responsibility and renders them the perpetual "victim".

^^ n a r c i s s i s t

Harry wanted to marry Meghan for one simple reason: because William cautioned him not to. William, more than Charles, is Harry’s paternal figure. The stubborn determination to marry her after everyone important in his life agreed with William to slow down repeats a disturbing pattern on self destruction.

He’s always been considered the impulsive, immature dumb dumb to William’s centered, responsible elegance. Until the disastrous Meghan marriage, the public mistook Harry’s messy life choices as charm instead of what he is: an emotionally stunted, entitled rage pot who resents his family’s—and especially his brother’s—efforts to keep him from self-imollating. Instead, he prefers time and again to douse himself in gasoline and strike a match.

I’m this case, though, it was Meghan, with a feline plastered smile, waiting at home with a roasted chicken and a full matchbook, at the ready to start and fan the flames.

What neither thought thru was that by cutting ties to all of Harry’s traditional authority-figure boogeyman, they were creating a job vacancy. He needs a critical, demeaning target to rebel/rage against. With William out of the picture, who fits that role to a T? Spoiler alert: he does not have a happy marriage and, I suspect, is longing for the controlling—but loving—protection of his family.

I’m certain he will crash out of the marriage in a dramatic fashion. Unlike a lot of others on this thread, I believe he’ll be the one who leaves and will gladly sacrifice full-time fatherhood for a return to be petted and coddled in his royal nursery.

NARCISSIST.

Pronounce like ASTROPHYSICIST!

Those excerpts truly contain juicy morsels: the tidbits about Meghan enthusing about the wedding ring Harry design, only to be scheming immediately to have it redesign; using the term “cryptic” to characterize her “acquaintance” Serena’s comment to Vanity Fair to ensure we all knew it was shady (I might not have interpreted it that way—but rather as a friendly warning about the cost of fame); Thomas Markle’s response to Harry’s request to marry his daughter that he approved as long as Harry agreed never to raise a hand to Meghan (talk about foreshadowing!).

These tiny editorial choices are sure to build into a fully fleshed portrait of a catastrophic union between a scheming, desperate Control freak and her willing dupe.

How could anyone think a constantly drunk, NAZI uniform wearing pre-Markle Harry was "charming"? Was it because of who his mom and brother are?

That he was a full, reeking dumpster just looking for the right arsonist was obvious to everyone else, I guess.

His royal media pals still think he is charming and not getting a fair shake. He can always count on them should he need to bolt. And Uncle Andy and the rest of the Yorks.

I think she did have friends at the wedding--from college and her acting days in LA. They just aren't famous and/or are ugly, so they didn't get any attention. But the lack of any family besides her mother is pretty telling.

I don't expect any dramatic revelations from the Bower book, but the Vanity Fair interviewer's bitchy takes were good enough for me. If there's more of that, I'll be glad to read the excerpts.

i dopubt Harry will read the book or any of the excerpts. And no doubt Meghan will forbid it even if he tried. It will all just quickly be rationalized as garbage in their minds and they will sail on, entertaining the world with their complete and utter ineptitude.

As much as I'd prefer to, I don't believe the Queen said anything about Harry's first wife such as has been attributed to her.

First, it seems very unlikely by nature and training that she would be so indiscreet.

Second a statement like that, on the day of the funeral, would be easy to pin on the culprit. There's only so many people around her in spaces she'd feel comfortable stating her mind at any time, let alone during the COVID bubble formed around her.

Third, because it wouldn't be hard to figure out, it suggests someone was authorized to share publicly something explosive said by the Queen in private - that permission comes from the highest level. But what's the upside? Why antagonize them when a consistent strategy of polite indifference has worked well without fuelling their dysfuction and opportunism? The only thing that you could argue motivates them is grievance. The royal household and royal family seem too canny to motivate them.

I take that one with a huge grain of salt, much as I would rather not. The VF stuff seems believable and demonstrated.

I agree with the post here or elsewhere that it looks more like this was an attention grab for the short term until it became obvious the big fish wasn't going to slip the hook. It all got out of control, given the evident talent for strategy and planning.

Maybe Meghan didn't invite specific family members to the wedding as a way to get back at them for specific past transgressions.

Meghan was spotted today out shopping for a glass case in which to display Harry's balls.

R247, what’s the upside? A clear statement of disapproval from the Queen destroys any further attempt to exploit their connection with her. It’s a massive hit to their “brand.” Abandon all hope, Netflix.

I agree with R247's reasoning and grain of salt, though I would expect that's how the Queen did feel. My problem with the quote is that nobody who's reported it has said what it meant. It's a statement taken out of context.

Obviously, it's not a positive thing to say you're glad a family member isn't there, but I'm interested to know--assuming she did say it--*why* she did so. I think the interpretation "She doesn't like Meghan" is too simplistic and just what a lot of people want it to mean. The Queen isn't a "mean girl" who advertises who she does or doesn't like. Was it because of the logistics involved? Because of the additional distraction it would provide the press? Because she might misbehave?

I just read today's excerpts, the Vogue issue one and I forget already what the second one was. Neither one matched the precision of the Vanity Fair excerpt, probably because Bower doesn't have as good an ear for the telling description.

The main takeaway seems to be that Megs kept her agents and PR people (which we knew) and they were working on her stuff while she was part of the BRF.

I just remembered what the second excerpt was: it began with why Megs "couldn't" call her father (the prelude to the infamous letter ) and nothing new there. It also included the Australian tour but NO mention of tea throwing.

The funny part was about Camilla's opinion of Meghan. "Adventuress", " coquettish", "minx". Like a 30s novel. He also describes Camilla as " uneducated".

Today's excerpt is technical and dull. The Australia tour is mentioned, but nothing about or complaining about purpose.

The best was this: Every night, Harry trawled social media, searching for snide comments on the internet. Every morning he and Meghan turned on their phones to surf the internet. Thin-skinned, they were inflamed by the slightest criticism. Both bombarded their staff with demands for removal of the criticism.

"I think Meghan never really thought she could land Harry, rather (in her mind) they would be a sizzling hot super couple for awhile, she would get great publicity"

Yet another way in which Meg and Harry are David and Wallis 2.0!

Wallis didn't really want to marry a King, she was happy to be his mistress and to go on with her life when things ended. And by all accounts, David loved Wallis with a needy love, and she didn't really return his feelings, but well, she was a professional wife after all, and she was hardly going to turn down a rich and fabulously bred husband.

"Under-educated," not "uneducated."

Today's episode was just as interesting to me; engrossing, even. It tells the story of how the Harkles became convinced that they needed to get out, what their goals were, and how they set it up. In the meantime, the Queen and the Palace are realizing that they have a couple of untrustworthy loose cannons on their hands and start the process of sidelining them. Fascinating!

Yes, we want you to confirm what we already know.

Don't be so sure that Hazbo isn't hyper aware of Bower's book. He admitted he reads whatever he can about himself online, and no doubt the DM is high on his hate list. I saw that his own memoir will not be out until "next year" amidst rumors the writer has long ago fulfilled his obligation. I

Don't believe anyone who tells you that there's nothing really too pertinent in Bower's book, or that the BRF/staff did not provide source material

The extracts in The Sun today are juicy! Meghan was furious that the Palace would not openly trash her father, rather, they could not understand why she couldn't just try and make peace or at least the appearance of it. Also Meghan was terrified of her father meeting Harry, once she met Harry, she seemed to do everything she could to keep him away from her dad.

The Times also goes into details about Meghan's attitude towards Kate. She was absolutely enraged that Kate got better coverage than her, and couldn't understand why the Palace wouldn't openly attack Meghan's critics. What she failed to understand is Kate when through her own period of press attacks and just rode it out looking at the long-term picture (same can be said of Camilla). Kate on the other hand, found Meghan to be very self-centered always talking about herself LOL! William allegedly also expressed concerns that Meghan was trying to take pages out of his mother's playbook and set herself up as Diana 2.0 forgetting that Diana actually put the work in for over a decade.

Please post non-paywalled links.

Oh another tidbit that's coming out today, apparently while Meghan invited the cast of Suits to her wedding, they weren't invited to the reception, something none of them knew until the day of the wedding.

I really think the reasons Thomas never met anyone, or came to the wedding were:

1. Thomas himself was nervous about it. He always conveniently seems to have a hospitalization anytime he is due for a public appearance. I think the guy might have a phobia, that exacerbates his many comorbidities.

2. Meghan, for good reason is embarrassed of him. He really ruined his relationship with her by running his mouth. It's clear where Meghan's need to get a word in comes from.

3. She was afraid he would ruin all the lies she told. As the article pointed out Thomas allegedly went a long with a few lies about her stupid Proctor & Gamble thing she has been dining out on since forever, and the fake Hillary Clinton letter. Who knows what else he covered for, but it was enough to let Meghan cut him loose, when it was apparent he wasn't going to keep his mouth shut.

Before Harry she sought Rory?

More from ‘The Sun’, sister paper of ‘The Times’.

Now it makes sense why she got that stupid award, or whatever it was from some random institution in Ireland...She was fucking on the hunt for Rory McIlroy! She really is an adventuress!

R263, "hectic night" hahahaha. She spread her legs for his, ummm, golf club.

The excerpts are clearly heavily edited. They jump ahead time in an awkward way.

The account of her guest editing of Vogue coupled with the Vanity Fair interview really demonstrate why she hasn't been able to sustain any kind of project since leaving the UK. She just seems exhausting to deal with. Also explains the huge staff turnover they've had both as working royals and since leaving.

Yes, these excerpts are like paragraphs chosen from random pages. At least I hope they are not verbatim.

Both of them reading about themselves online makes me think they read the DM comments. The comments were always MUCH worse than the articles.

I agree with poster upthread that the excerpts so far seem disjointed.

I suspect they have been chosen to provide juicy bits that highlight the overall portrait of Meghan that the book will present: willful, manipulative, totally self-absorbed, astonished that the environment she entered as a guest didn't immediately reshape itself to her views and needs, cavalierly dishonest, and clueless re the obvious: the 1,000 year old British monarchy and its Sovereign weren't there to serve her, but the other way round as the price of entry.

I suspect that the groundwork, so to speak, the biographical path leading to these bits, may be seen as not toothsome enough to drive sales.

I do hope some of that groundwork is there.

I also suspect that some of the best juicy bits have been held back, and that these excerpts are the tantalising views of "insider" stuff that the book has more of.

Well, whatever we may think of it, it is now Amazon's #1 in Pre Orders in Best Sellers/Books.

Omid Scobie is probably green with envy.

You know, the good thing about Scobie being full of rage is that he might be able to move his facial muscles in that Play-Doh face again for a change.

I'm eager to read the reviews because so far there's been a few small but surprising new finds (cited above) but I'm generally not excited by what I'm reading. It lacks cohesion or something.

I'm getting the impression of a spoiled little shark, covetous but thoughtless, hungry for a Californian's version of success, who mostly stumbled into a hugely prominent opportunity that got out of her control because she didn't really understand it - a mess worsened by her own clumsy instincts, unfettered want and complete ignorance of the system she meant to milk.

I guess I expected a portrait of a schemer who is smart and cunning, not a climber in over her head without the plan or capacity to turn it skilfully to advantage. She just seems so unremarkable, such a pedestrian wannabe with equal mean and petty streaks. I guess I wanted more Becky Sharp, less Heather Mills.

[quote]I doubt Harry is reading any of this. He's clearly never going to do anything but double down on his ghastly mistake. He'll ignore this and put it down to vicious media slander. He can't let the truth in. He wagered everything he had on Meghan. and his emotional survival now lies not in accepting the truth, but in keeping it at bay.

I completely agree with you, R236. I imagine Harry is raging right now, not at Meghan but at the evil, racist media and evil, racist Tom Bower.

[quote]Unlike a lot of others on this thread, I believe he’ll be the one who leaves

Right there with you, R240, and have been from the start. As I see it whether or not this marriage lasts rests entirely on Harry and at what point (or IF) he ever turns his famous petulant, zero self-awareness spoiled bitch anger on Meghan or not.

Meghan ain't goin' anywhere. Not without a better offer. And as someone who is as intensely concerned with status as well as money, there are very few men on earth who would qualify as threats to Harry. His own brother is probably the big one. Not that any of it matters because none of those men will ever have any interest in Meghan, so she's, as I said, not going anywhere. She's also got quite the task on her hands to spend her life redirecting Harry's rage anywhere but towards her.

From the Vogue excerpt:

"With unprecedented disguise, Enninful assigned one team to produce the normal September issue unaware that it would never be published. In parallel, Enninful and a team of 13 produced the special issue."

WOW.

I worked for CNP for over 20 years and if any editor did this to us I swear we would have gone straight to the publishing side (the enforcers), then if that didn't get up to Si, to Page Six and W, and we would have somehow got that editor booted. That is an inexcusable waste of time, money, skill and hard work. Even just reading it makes me feel angry.

Enninful is an asshole.

Harry is as thick as shit and totally whipped. If he does end up reading the excerpts, he'll believe whatever excuse she gives him. The only problem that may come up is if he insists on suing about the "lies" and she doesn't go through with it (knowing it's all true).

Where's the Vogue story? Have.'t found that.

[Quote]But Bower writes: “Meghan was allegedly abrasive towards her four female staff and even towards the local British diplomats. According to one report, Meghan allegedly threw a cup of tea into the air.

JFC, we heard about this like, the next day. I thought this guy was supposed to get people to talk, none of this rehashed stuff. Abrasive how?? How does one come to throw a tea cup into the air? Just on a whim to see if it floats?

Is there any site where I can read today's excerpt without having to pay the Times?

Here's the Vogue extract, r276.

Sans paywall.

Harry's dumb, but he's just an ineptly scheming as she is. Maybe more so. And he has as big a self-aggrandizement problem as she does, likely more so. The issue is not whether he "believes" her, it's to what extent he thinks it benefits him for the public to think he believes her. I think he's far more the driver of some of their stupidest decisions; he just lets her take the heat for it. Right now he's still in revenge mode against the palace and he needs her for that, but when the time comes I have zero doubt he'll be weighing the risk/benefits of turning on his poor, maligned wife.

To whatever extent she "used" him and whipped up a persecution complex to prey on his need to play savior, he also used her to lash out at his family and position in a way he was just too cowardly to do before she came along. He's been whining his whole life about what a drag it is to be him and how much being a royal is a trap. Being Meghan's savior became the excuse he needed to finally act on it. Harry's no victim.

Thread closed

Thx, R276. I subscribe but I missed that entirely.

"I think he's far more the driver of some of their stupidest decisions; he just lets her take the heat for it. "

Absolutely! The whole narrative of Harry being abused by his family and that THEY are the ones who need to apologize to HIM comes from Harry.

And IMHO that's one of the reasons their long-term decision-making is so poor, because they're using the belief that Harry is a victim as the basis for all their decisions. I have no idea whether Meghan really believes that Harry is a victim, but she has to *act* like she does, to get Harry on board with whatever she does. And working from a flawed premise like that can sink just about any strategy, they're trying to win over the public with a narrative that includes Harry being abused and traumatized, when the public believes he's a spoiled brat throwing an extended tantrum.

Come to my wedding, bring ne a nice present, and beat it immediately afterwards. You all will have to get dinner on your own dime.

[quote] That is an inexcusable waste of time, money, skill and hard work.

It was a dick move, wasn't it? Enninful sounds like he bought into Meghan's PR about how great she is. He can't be too bright.

Thank you r279!

Meghan and enninful lied to the media about Meghan "choosing" not to be on the Vogue cover.

She WANTED to be the cover and editorial had to talk her out of it...

"That left the important decision of the cover. Meghan wanted to feature on the cover, just as Kate had done in 2016 to mark Vogue’s centenary. But during many discussions the editorial team persuaded her that it would be “boastful”. In public, Enninful would say that it was Meghan’s decision not to appear on the cover because she wished to remain “humble”.

Sorry, in my comment at r274 I see I wrote "W" when I meant to write "WWD".

"Perhaps encouraged by Harry, Meghan appeared to conjure a fantasy that she could provide the leadership the monarchy required. Her activism would enhance the brand. To her staff, she gave the impression that she believed she personified the monarchy’s importance...

Harry and Meghan seemed to have convinced themselves that William was jealous of their success in Australia. The time was right for “change”. They needed to break out of Kensington Palace’s claustrophobic fishbowl. Harry proposed that the Palace should rewrite the rulebook. Rather than Meghan being a dutiful member of the supporting cast she should star as a campaigner, independent of the Cambridges and even of the Queen."

The arrogance and entitlement just beggars belief.

I'd long ago read the stuff R253 mentions about M&H being on their phones immediately in the morning and reading all the comments. You could see it in real time, too: back then, they were constantly reacting to the latest DM sideswipes with a counter narrative.

I simply don't believe any friend or relative close enough to have been with the Queen as she was getting ready for her husband's funeral would have been the kind of person to talk to a biographer who had already upset at least one member of the royal family (Charles) in a previous work.

I also cannot be convinced that the Queen would have wanted what she said leaked, let alone leaked to deal a "massive hit to their branding." The Queen does not care about Harry and Meghan's "branding."

A staffer told Bowers that story, I'm sure of it. Those who obsess over hating Meghan love the story, of course, but I think a lot of others are going to read that excerpt and wonder who would betray the Queen's trust like that, for such a petty reason.

It's possible that TQ wanted to put a stop once and for all of the Sussexes mythologising their putative close connection to her, eg, naming their daughter her childhood nickname, Harry claiming he had a uniquely special relationship with her. She is pretty much on her last legs and will not be able to refute their claims once she's gone.

r291, It's obvious that there was a tacit decision to allow this to leak this to Bower, probably via Angela Kelley's office.

This way the Palace, with clean hands, has helped to firmly nip in the bud any idea that the Harkles can use their obviously fake professed "love for the Queen" as the centrepiece of their Netflix show. It also shows that the Queen, after long having been as kind as possible to the two of them, has finally come round to sharing her subjects' majority view on Meghan.

It's a win-win for the Palace and helps clear the road ahead of both debris and some potential mines.

[quote] Those who obsess over hating Meghan love the story, of course, but I think a lot of others are going to read that excerpt and wonder who would betray the Queen's trust like that, for such a petty reason.

Nice try of turning Duke Dimwit and Duchess Diva into the victim when they were the ones who betrayed the Queen on a regular basis.

Nice try.

What r251 wrote.

If Q E II said it, because of Covid protocols and that Markle was 7 months pregnant, it could just as easily be speculated, in the best, most generous light, that it was out of safety and logistics.

R16 Yes there is. Are you perchance using a Commodore 64?

R293 is right.

When the Palace wants to make sure misinformation is corrected, like Harry's lies about having discussed giving his baby her private family nickname, it makes itself clear.

When the Palace declines to comment, it's because it's perfectly happy to let the story keep its legs with a deafening silence.

Would it really surprise the poster trying hard to deny that the Queen actually dislikes Meghan profoundly, to find out that a month after Meghan's defamatory pack of lies on Oprah, HM was glad not to see the bitch's faux mourning face at Philip's funeral?

The Queen isn't a saint. What Harry and Meghan did to her whilst Philip was dying, which everyone knew, including DL, was fucking obscene.

The comment stands on its own. And the reason Meghan didn't come (she managed trips to NY and Morocco whilst heavily pregnant) was because she bloody well knew that the entire family except for Eugenie now regarded her as vermin, and she'd be lucky if Pss Anne didn't spit on her outside St George's Chapel where all the press could see.

The Palace let's outrageous "leaks" stand when it wants to.

What the Jubly and stories like this one are doing for the Palace is finally making it impossible for the Sussexes and their PR machine to circulate any more fables about olive branches, thawing relationships, the Sussexes ever being welcome as working royals again, and Meghan calling the Queen when she feels like it so HM can get to know the kids.

The Queen doesn't give f.a. about those kids. She has 11 other great-grandchildren closer to home, and the York girls are likely to give her a couple more in the next few years.

This book and the Jubly show what went down and why: two insufferable, arrogant, overreaching, deluded mental cases alienating an entire family before she even got the ring on.

Damned right the Queen appreciated Meghan reading the room right, for once.

r296, learn to read time stamps, and learn to read a thread. It was obvious that last Wednesday, when that was posted, there was nothing about the book released publicly yet except a few websites listing it as pre-order.

One of the reasons that all this Meghan spew is so tiresome is because you people are embarrassingly stupid, to the core.

This Keleigh from Sunshine Fibbers sure does have low standards. There isn't anything prestigious or distinguished about a firm that spends 24/7 inventing and disseminating fake news for a couple of mental cases with the mentality of teenagers.

Is William still praising Meghan's amazing parenting skills? LOL.

[quote]Would it really surprise the poster trying hard to deny that the Queen actually dislikes Meghan profoundly

I'm doing no such thing. Come on, guys, try to actually stick to the discussion being had, and not the one you WISH you were having. I know you want there to be a ton of Meghan-loving stans on here, but there aren't. All you've got are a handful of people who question the sources of gossip, because we've been reading gossip for decades, and we know when something is sketchy.

This story, as published in the excerpt, is great fun for you, but for those of us who have actually followed the royal family for a while (and aren't people who only became interested when they decided to hate Meghan), the story raises a lot of eyebrows. The Queen is not someone who would reveal anything about her personal feelings during the funeral of her own husband, let alone just because she wanted to "hurt their branding." The Queen does not care about anyone's branding.

Whoever leaked the story had no regard for the Queen and the things she said in a private moment, which she absolutely, without question, intended to keep private.

What I said has nothing to do with Meghan or the Queen's opinion of her, and everything to do with the sourcing. You want me to believe that the palace has sunk so far that the ailing 96-year-old Queen told a staffer to go plant some petty, bitchy comment in a book written by a guy who trashed her son and upset the entire royal family, just to zing a nobody like Meghan Markle.

Impossible.

R300, I get what you’re saying. It does seem unlikely to me that anyone close to the Queen would go on record to divulge that utterance.

The only way would be that the palace authorized him to speak to a single source, about a few instances, and that person spilled a little too much. The palace will not bother slapping Bower’s hand about it because it’s of no great consequence.

But I still wonder who.

Thank you, r300. Great post and totally agree with it. Q E II has weathered more in-family scandals than you can shake a stick at.

It gives the Sussexes far more significance than they have coming to suggest they're even a gnat she has to swat away from her.

I've written this many times but, I'll do it again. Anything less than "Markle was spotted on the grassy knoll" won't suffice for her heavily invested haters.

r302 Some of us have not forgotten how you got egg on your face defending her over the Texas shooting massacre. That really hurt your credibility didn't it defending and deflecting on something so obviously despicable?

[quote]Queen told aides ‘Thank goodness Meghan is not coming’ on day of Philip’s funeral

Maybe the Queen didn't want to reorganize her guest list, or maybe not. Meghan and Harry just assassinated her husband with the Orca interview. Harry was forgiven since he's her grandson, but for Meghan, it was an unforgivable sin!

Hmmm. I'm a longtime royal gossip watcher, hate what Meghan and Harry have done, do think the personal hatred we see in some posts (the stupid nicknames, the foul insults etc) is deranged. That said, I tend to believe the Queen said what she said and it made its way to Bowers second- or third-hand through people who were fed up on her behalf.

R289 Yes, I believe they got very carried away, especially with the surge of unrest and social justice movements in 2019-2020. They thought they were perfectly cast to ride that wave, rock the institution, and personify "change." They did manage to give the monarchy some dings, but their moment in that regard seems over now.

I doubt the Queen's comment was about personal dislike of Meghan as opposed to just relief from the fucking drama circus she'd cause if she came to the funeral. If it was just about personal dislike, the Queen just wouldn't see or be near her. If there was some way to keep H&M on a tight leash and make sure they pulled no stunts, I'm sure she would have been fine with both of them coming to the funeral and maybe even exchange pleasantries for the camera. That was the real problem--she could easily avoid Meghan personally, but there was no way Meghan was going to avoid the cameras.

I wonder how careful the Queen is about discussing personal matters is front of household staff. By this I mean footmen, maids, the people who bring her tea, clean up after work the Corgis, etc., not Angela Kelly or her private secretary whom she would confide in. Perhaps it was overheard and it became something they whispered about? I mean they've got to have their internal gossip networks...

[quote] Some of us have not forgotten how you got egg on your face defending her over the Texas shooting massacre. That really hurt your credibility didn't it defending and deflecting on something so obviously despicable?

I'm laughing out loud and thank you for proving my point.

I asked for credible proof that she had a camera crew with her, but just that act alone is perceived as "defending and deflecting".

As I said, nothing less than Markle was seen in a white smock in the Wuhan lab suffices for you. And, it's so tiresome, and worse, no fun.

Markle lost whatever shred of credibility with me when she told Oprah the Whopper about not having Googled Prince Harry and the BRF before meeting him. Even Oprah stared at her for a few seconds in disbelief.

Tina Brown in "The Palace Papers" also signals her skepticism about that, but I didn't need either of those two to do my thinking for me. I knew the instant that came out of her mouth she was cooked her own goose with that lie.

You see? Unlike you, I'm capable of analyzing gossip that has the ring of credibility, not just nursing an unhinged hatred of her by internalizing anything about her that someone pulls outta their ass.

R307, thank you for your rational explanation.

Must say, Bower's excerpts are solid and juicy. Better than Tina Brown, who basically rehashed stuff stylishly.

R300 You're naive. You haven't a clue what the Queen would or would not have approved. And TQ didn't have to tell a staffer to "plant" a bitchy story. The likelihood is that Bower got to Angela Kelly, whom the Harkles antagonised almost immediately. Kelly knows the Queen better than probably most of the other people around her. If Kelly felt safe letting that bit out, it is likely 1) true, and 2) wasn't discussed with the Queen at all - the Queen doesn't have to discuss matters like that, she leaves it to other people. All TQ had to do is green light Kelly talking to Bower. The term "closest aides" is a nice cover for one aide, and the likely suspect amongst those IS Kelly, whom the Harkles trashed in Finding Freedom.

You know the old saying, "Be careful who you kick on the way up, those are the people who will be waving as you pass them going down."

Kelly, Latham, Pickerill, Knauf, Cohen, Touabti . . . my guess is that the Palace either green-lit or intimated it would turn a blind eye to any suspected collaboration with Bower.

Everything in these circles is done in code. If the Queen wanted to clarify what her remark meant, she'd do so. When she wanted to kick Harry in the balls for lying about her agreeing to him using Lilibet for his kid, she did.

She won't.

The Palace will decline to comment on any of this because this is the portrait of Meghan that they saw from the beginning, and that they want out there.

The Palace sent Meghan and Harry off to Morocco when Meghan was seven months pregnant.

You're a fool. This is Game of Thrones. The Palace knows how to play it.

How they treated the unwary Harkles at the Platinum Jubilee should have told you that.

As they say, revenge is a dish best served cold.

Maybe Meghan shouldn't have tried to have her cake and eat it, too: trashing the family every which way she could, but airily also making it look like she and the Queen were on fond, intimate terms and she Zoom called the Queen on a weekly basis.

You notice those stopped, right?

[quote]It gives the Sussexes far more significance than they have coming to suggest they're even a gnat she has to swat away from her.

Exactly. No one is going to make me believe that the Queen cares that much, if at all. Staffers, Harry's dad and brother, certainly.

I would have had no problem believing that the Queen said this during the planning stages of the funeral, when they had to pare down the attendee list, and knowing that Meghan isn't very well versed in royal protocol, and was pregnant, and with all the family tensions going on. However, that was all decided before the day of the funeral, and once it was decided, I doubt the Queen thought about it again. Why would she? Others handle those things for her.

r306 Excellent post. They definitely overplayed their hand and in truth they were not after real radical change but rather a self serving superficial riding of the waves to tilt things in their egos favour. The global humanitarian circuit of wealthy 'benefactors' really needs more scrutiny in general. r309 My God you are so dishonest and you did and said a lot more than that. Your achilles heel is you are identity politics on steroids always seeing the characteristic rather than behaviour. I would never defend a despicable gay person just because they were gay. I followed that thread closely and you are stripping out all of the nuance hoping people won't remember your defense of her vulture like behaviour .It was about more than film crews it was about you defending her press leaks about her saintly behaviour turning up and you trying to rationalise her behaviour flying all that way to intrude on peoples grief. I don't believe all the negative stuff about Markle but Bowers has an excellent reputation, I don't believe the surrogacy rumours for example. But I do believe that a 96 year old woman who had just lost her husband and had experienced elder abuse at the hands of a pair of entitled brats on global television might have expressed relief that one of the culprits wasn't coming to the funeral. My position has long been that Harry is far worse than Meghan.

R312 - yes, and look who is now a trustee of the William's new independent charity, The Earthshot Prize.

JASON KNAUF.

I'm absolutely floored that Meghan believed she could dictate the publication date of the Vogue issue. Poor Sara Latham reduced to tears when she failed to deliver the impossible. This is a woman accustomed to working in the high pressure, unforgivig environment of a political campaign.

[quote]You're a fool. This is Game of Thrones.

No, this is real life. You want it to be "Game of Thrones," but it isn't. If the royal family were "Game of Thrones" then they wouldn't be handling Andrew in this clueless, bungling way they have been. The story is still going today, despite everything they've done to try to nip it in the bud for years, and you want me to think they're capable of "Game of Thrones" style maneuvering. That's ludicrous.

I'm not sure Sara Latham was "reduced to tears" by Meghan. Lathan had run Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, but we're supposed to believe that Meghan made her cry. Again, there's nothing about Meghan that tells me that she could make someone with decades of experience in working in high-pressure situations cry, especially over a Vogue cover.

The articles about this make it sound like Buckingham Palace's demands were the ones stressing Latham out, which makes more sense. The first is Daily Beast, the second quote The Sun.

[quote]Then followed demands from Meghan to promote the magazine, and demands from Buckingham Palace to cease promoting it, Bower says—phone calls that left Sara Latham, head of communications for Meghan and Prince Harry, in tears, Bower says.

[quote] Latham was seen weeping. Under pressure from Buckingham Palace, Latham was fighting a thankless battle.

Latham works for the Queen now, I believe.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

"Buttery lip!" That's absolutely incredible.

“Thank goodness Meghan is not coming,” the monarch said in a clear voice to her trusted aides. Buckingham Palace declined to comment last night.

^ That's the exact wording from The Times story.

I'm among those who thinks the remark is out of character for the Queen and the leak from her staff is unlikely. First, does it sound like something she would say in front of more than one member of staff? Even if so, HMS Bubble was still in effect at the time of the funeral... she was surrounded by people so loyal they reconfigured their private lives in the extreme in order to serve. They are the least likely to go rogue by betraying her privacy or - more importantly - weakening her confidence in her privacy.

So then you'd have to accept staff did it with permission. I concede it is a credible argument the Queen or someone close to her [italic]might - might -[/italic] have wanted to put paid to the notion she and those two share some secret deep bond and affection, [italic]but[/italic] if she did, I don't see her authorizing a leak that was also such a personal insult. It is inconsistent with what we know about the Queen's character. And this is a lady whose preferred course of action we do know is to do as little as possible for a long as possible. She stalls, she buys time, she waits for things to quiet down or evolve (sometimes, as with York, when you wish she wouldn't.) If she wanted it made clear the Sussexes are selling fiction, there were ways to do it plainly without directly insulting the children and prompting yet another tanty. A source close to Buckingham Palace says there is confusion about claims the couple are in constant contact with the Queen, not thank goodness Meghan's not coming. Recollections may vary was a masterpiece of saying bullshit without calling anyone creative with the truth.

Plus and finally, she's Queen. She believes she is a Queen. The whole absurd ordained by God don't think about it too much or it all falls apart shooting match. There is a story - if true - that Blair once referred to it as the Golden Jubilee to which she is supposed to have replied My Golden Jubilee. She takes herself seriously. Which is to say I theorize it is beneath her dignity to muck in by any means with a book about the Harkles. There is a way. There are means. And there will be a pecking order with loyal biographers who would get material or leaks. Bower, after the toilet seat story and all his other hits on Charles in Rebel Prince, seems unlikley to be among them. If they wanted to plant slams against the Sussexes there's probably ten books in the works right now and ten writers they trust who would be happy to start writing another one.

The only route I can come up with to explain this attribution is she said it in private to someone else and it got back to another household, which then figured out a grapevine to get it to Bowers. Or somebody plain made it up and got it to Bowers. I still think it is highly unlikely anyone within the working ranks of the royal family would do something to antagonize those two that directly.

I think the Montecitans have done a great disservice to the monarchy. I think they've used all four of their hands to throw away the opportunity to do exactly the kind of work they wanted to do because they wouldn't accept the rules. But I don't subscribe to the Game of Thrones school of thought about stripping titles and leaking revenge and all that (as entertaining as it would be.) This is not even Real Housewives of Windsor Castle. It's not how they move forward. Camilla and Charles first stepped out of the Ritz in 1999. They married in 2005. In the last six months the Queen has put forward "let her be Queen." It's almost twenty years. To the extent they strategize, this gang moves slowly, cautiously, incrementally and quietly.

^ All good points. One more thing: these are very choppy excerpts that are designed to be sensational. There *might* be some missing context that further fleshes out the Queen's comment or at least gives us a better idea of how it got out.

Which household would profit from more discord between the monarchy and the Sussexes?

[quote]Which household would profit from more discord between the monarchy and the Sussexes?

Netflix, of course!!!

So the throwing of a teacup in Australia was real, but will it feature more details in the book?

I think HMTQ said what she's supposed to have said, and the Palace don't mind that the world knows. In terms of their relevance as well as their credibility, Harry and Meghan are toast.

And Della, you've messed up your former credibility by defending Meghan's atrocious Uvalde stunt, so please just stfu for a change with that "haters" nonsense.

R298 Thanks for the correction. I am as tired as you are of the Markle Harkle nonsense and mind games, but even I knew weeks ago that there was a book in the offing.

[quote]I'm among those who thinks the remark is out of character for the Queen and the leak from her staff is unlikely.

You should probably rethink that, because it means you're agreeing with me, someone who you have repeatedly accused of being an employee of Meghan Markle's.

It's odd that you would say you don't believe this is a "Game of Thrones" situation, because accusing everyone you disagree with on Datalounge of being a paid employee of Meghan's is the exact same level of delusion as the "Game of Thrones" stuff.

Have I disagreed with you? You pay closer attention to the score than I do and I've been on vacation for the better part of three weeks, posting only occasionally. Whoever you are, I doubt you're that important to me, but you appear to know better. I think you better block me and check my post history. It may put your fevered mind at ease. And in any event, a Game of Thrones analogy is frenzied silliness, at best.

I can believe that the queen thought "thank god Meghan isn't coming" to Philip's funeral because then 99% of the press reports would have been about Megan's return to the UK (how are they treating her? what is she wearing? did she bring the kid?) and NOT about Philip, his life, his service, his long marriage.

The queen wanted to focus of the day to be on *Philip*, not Meghan.

I believe , without being able to prove it obviously, that that is what the queen meant. It was not uttered out of enmity to Meghan, whether she has it or not. It would be nice if the full context is included in the book and this sensational quote was just to boost circulation and book sales. Because this seems really out of character otherwise.

R330, I agree with your interpretation (am R321.) Still can't quite square if she said it aloud it would have got out. Am inclined to agree with those who think the excerpts have been very selectively cherrypicked.

If true as presented it's explosive. Is that the kind of thing you confine to a couple of sentences?

If TQ didn’t utter the words that Bower ascribes to her, I am sure the Buckingham Palace staff will find a way to make it known. However, isn’t it interesting that there is so much discussion about that morsel of information (after several posts saying that there is nothing juicy in the Bower’s book at all)? Not about the part where the P&G story is apparently a lie concocted by Thomas Markle Sr (as a way to “empower” his daughter, but still), or that bit where MM lied to Harry and they both lied to TQ and Charles about MM’s father. Or that part where MM wants to postpone the publication of the British Vogue, or where MM holds W&C in the same contempt she has for Samantha and Tom Jr. I’m not the one for conspiracy theories, but it is strange.

I would counter, R332, it's because it's the only real surprise - that the Queen is attributed with saying something out of character.

The details you cite are all new, but at this point, is there anything surprising about those details in the context of the characters in the book? It all falls within the realm of about what you'd expect at this point. I agree the P&G thing should have been a far bigger point of discussion but perhaps it's that the two of them are so over exposed and one note, they lack the power to shock anymore. It all seems consistent.

BP has no comment on both the Queen's alleged relief at MM's non attendance, or the wreath merching press release Markle issued as Philip's body exited the church that day.

R307 agree. No 96 year old gives a damn about anything but peace. I’m sure she neither loves nor hates Meghan. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t give one damn about Meghan other than not wanting to put up with her bullshit. So I’m strongly in the camp of a.) she said she was glad Meghan wasn’t attending the funeral because b.) she didn’t want a the associated hubbub that result from her appearance.

And, the only reason Meghan didn’t attend is because she knows the family despises her.

I remind you, dearest Meghan, that I am AHEAD of your dimwit husband in the line of succession to the throne the United Kingdom.

I think we all can agree that if one loses a significant other while a possibility exists that Meghan Markle could show up at the funeral, and one gets the news that Meghan is not coming, one must express a profound gratitude to whatever higher power one believes in.

Also, if R336 will do this, R336 will cut a bitch.

Excerpt #5

‘Harry must be nuts’ — what his old Etonian friends made of Meghan

R332, I think it’s because the Queen is more interesting than Thomas Markle’s hot air. And it’s especially notable because it’s something she said privately.

I do agree with r330’s interpretation as well.

I realized on my last visit that my mother, more than 10 years younger than the queen, is losing her filter and blurts out all kinds of semi-shocking things. So I can imagine the queen saying something less than diplomatic that her younger self might have held back.

Team Della, though, vs those who use silly nicknames and get so frenzied. It's a good gossip story, that's all.

Wow, R339, it gets worse and worse with every excerpt. I've always been critical of her and found her to be a ridiculous person, but I've never hated her. I'm starting to now.

It's not something I'm personally invested in---e.g., I'm not going to make up a bunch of spiteful nicknames or interpret minutiae to mean that she was a prostitute or whatever---but these revelations taken together paint a picture of a person who's much worse than I thought. Dumb, delusional, and selfish, too.

Some quotes from R339:

[quote]Like other shooting weekends, Harry was looking forward to endless banter, jokes — and a lot of drinking. He had not anticipated Meghan’s reaction. Their jokes involving sexism, feminism and transgender people ricocheted around the living-rooms and dining-rooms. Without hesitation, Meghan challenged every guest whose conversation contravened her values. According to some of Harry’s friends, again and again she reprimanded them about the slightest inappropriate nuance. Nobody was exempt. Harry’s world would not be her world.

[quote]A seminal moment occurred during the couple’s trip to Jamaica in March 2017 to celebrate the marriage of Tom “Skippy” Inskip, Harry’s Etonian friend who had been present in Las Vegas during Harry’s nude romp. Harry flew premium economy from London; Meghan arrived from Toronto in a friend’s private jet.

[quote]Next, Meghan demanded that she be registered in the hotel under an alias, Jane Smith. “Her identity must be kept secret,” said her agent, Lori Sale. “Meghan doesn’t want to be hassled by the hotel staff, other guests or photographers.” The production team were flummoxed. No one in French-speaking Montreal really knew Meghan. In the event, the hotel refused the request. No paparazzi gathered outside the hotel.

[quote]Throughout the day Meghan appeared for her shots escorted by her entourage — Felix the hairdresser and Marco the make-up artist — and then returned to her room. Both were ordered never to leave her side. “She was always fed up,” one crew member noted, “sighing, huffing and rolling her eyes at things. It was heavy-going working with her.” Another claimed that she would be “super sweet” with Felix and Marco and then within seconds turn to the crew and be “super-disagreeable”.

[quote]In the post-production of the advertisements Meghan sent countless demands about changes to the colour of her lipstick and her waistline. One request regarding a photograph of her sitting down with open sandals generated particular mirth: “Please fix my feet for me — I get slaughtered online for [sic] people picking apart my feet, sadly. There’s a scar on my left foot + my right foot isn’t the prettiest (long toe etc) ...”

She sounds like obnoxious Miss Bunting from Downton Abbey at the Sandringham shooting party.

Also she looks downright evil in those photos at the Inskip wedding with her claws gripping halfwit Harry.

I thought she and Harry had broken up and she crashed the wedding to reel him back in. There are pics online of her being rude to a waiter and Harry looking mortified.

I always thought that Harry's aristo friends had closed ranks and iced MM out from the start - black, non-U and AMERICAN. But now it appears she was provocative and insulting to them.

The excerpt at R339 is the best yet. What a bitch!

R343, she seems to have a personality disorder. A clever, calculating person would not behave the way she did.

Meghan is the epitome of someone who kisses up and kicks down: sucks up to anyone who has more power and abuses anyone who doesn’t. My least favorite personality type. The most recent book excerpt demonstrates that repulsive behavior perfectly. I don’t say this phases often or lightly: What. A. Bitch!

I laughed that she demanded expensive shoes for the photoshoot and then waltzed off without returning them!

That she didn't like Harry's Eton friends and confronted them about "their jokes involving sexism, feminism and transgender people" isn't great gossip. Bower could have at least (as Tina Brown would have) raised the question as to why she was dating a dude whose values were so obviously not hers.

R339 My favorite part of this, Meghan stealing the Aquazzura shoes from the photo shoot later claims she "forgot" to take them off. I guess like she forgot she did help Omid Scobie with Finding Freedom.

Apparently a set of new T-Shirts have appeared at London tourist shops. One says "Thank God Meghan isn't coming." The other says, "Keep Calm, Meghan's not coming." They are selling like hot cakes and the company making them have increased production to keep up with the orders LOL

R339 This cracked me up

"During a trip to London she went to a small meeting addressed by Emma Watson, her hero and role model. At the end, she asked to meet Watson. The actress rejected the request. The snub was mortifying. Watson’s rebuff was not mentioned when Meghan described her UN role in The Tig. “I was in London,” she wrote to her followers, “to support Emma Watson in her HeForShe Initiative for UN Women.”

What I find very interesting about these excerpts is that many of these people are talking on record about their dealings with Meghan. The stories about her dealing with Vogue and Reitmans are being recounted by the actual journalist at vogue and the marketing director at Reitmans.

Well, why not? They haven't signed any NDAs, R354. The 3rd director who said MM was the meanest person he'd ever met has stated that before.

[quote] What the Jubly and stories like this one are doing for the Palace

Oh, [italic]dear.[/italic]

I so want this t-shirt!

The t-shirt is question.

I hope the Queen has this engraved on her tombstone!

Gossip aside, I find the writing very pedestrian. I hope the choppiness is due to the newspaper making edits to the chapters.

The Reitmans story had some good detail but the shooting party weekend boils down to: crude jokes, humorless Meghan. Needs more specifics. Same with the Inskip wedding. Were she and Harry broken up at the time? What were her quibbles about the food? Too spicy/too fried/too carnivore? What?

R350, today more than previously I got a real sense this was edited pulling bits almost sentence by sentence. I don't know if that is the quality of the prose or what.

R353, I laughed out loud.

[quote]During the filming, Meghan was asked: “What Canadian woman inspires you?” She laughed and asked for examples. “None of them inspires me,” she replied. “You can’t make me say something I don’t want to or don’t believe in.”

I guess the Commonwealth dodged a bullet when they yanked that title.

Today was more what I expected. Nasty, nasty piece of work. She couldn't have fit in the royal family if she tried. What a dope he must be?

Reading today alone, going back to the great mystery, who do you really suppose made the other cry during tightsgate?

What a desperate slapper. How did Rory McIlroy "unexpecedly" ask her to do an ice bucket challenge when he didn't know her but she was staying with friends near his hotel?

Where's DL psychologist -- what's your armchair diagnosis today? I've never thought Markle is a plain old convenient NaRcIsSIsT and that there's several overlapping problems going on.

I agree with other people that it feels like chopped out partial paragraphs, rather than a serialisation of an abridged book. Hopefully the entire book makes more sense.

R350 Come on, she went for him because he was the world's most famous and eligible prince, and she would be a princess and the daughter-in-law of the iconic Diana, beyond set for life. There was no way she wasn't going to be with him. And I don't blame her! One of the greatest climbs in modern history. I do marvel that she blew it all up. As for Tina Brown, she wrote a book - did she ask that question?

I’m rather enjoying the thought of the crew members she shat on reading the account of the Reitman’s shoot. Revenge, indeed — served up on ice.

R364, that's why I'm keen to read the reviews.

R353 Well, that was cunty of Emma Watson, if true. She's so overrated, a little girl who got lucky.

R366, apparently Canadians aren't as nice as is believed. I wonder what Tits Mulroney thinks, reading some of this.

Emma Watson has the clout of one of the most successful franchises in film history. The other one has a cable show, a suitcase full of prop money and job selling polyester.

Sorry, make that side hustle. It suits. Pun intended.

So Meghan has problems with: her father, her sister, Reitman’s staff, Vogue staff, Wimbledon staff, royal staff, Harry’s father, Harry’s brother, Harry’s SIL, Harry’s friends, the press. Are will still going to maintain the illusion that Meghan is a victim or just finally admit she's a diva with a delusional of greatness?

R345 Can't reliably read anything into still photos. Any one of us could be caught asking a waiter "what's this canape?" with a quizzical face and it would look like "abuse."

R370 Like I said, Emma got lucky early on. And now takes herself VERY seriously. Feh.

[quote]Without hesitation, Meghan challenged every guest whose conversation contravened her values. According to some of Harry’s friends, again and again she reprimanded them about the slightest inappropriate nuance.

How tiresome.

[quote]“Seriously, this doesn’t make sense!” Meghan exclaimed about the storyboard. “I’m a brash American and if my name is going to be on something, I’m going to have my say.”

"I'm a brash American"? Who talks like that?

Just for those questioning, it does appear that these articles are multiple excerpts from the book that are "pasted" into one article. This is increasingly common for these kind of "tell-all" books were you just want to get enough out there to entice people to buy, but save the most scandals details to come out when the book is officially on the market.

Re: R373: When, wherever you go, drama and assholes seem to abound...it's not other people who are the problem.

She wanted to be a celebrity chef like Gordon Ramsay, problem was she couldn't cook. S she was copying her boyfriend at the time, yet also on the hunt for a British man. Good Lord.

In retrospect, especially after reading the Bower book excerpts, that Kate, Pippa and Markle appearance at Wimbledon was a master class in professional, polite, public behavior.

And all accomplished while all 3 are simultaneously experiencing hyper awareness that every facial movement and conversational exchange is being scrutinized like an Old Masters painting expert scrutinizes a work of art to detect whether it's real or fake.

If anybody thinks that isn't a 4 letter word: W.O.R.K, then you're just plain wrong.

Not fun, not relaxing, just plain mental toil. Perhaps another way of characterizing at Kate's "Waity"ness is steely perseverance. In her own way, she's the other side of the coin from "Body Heat" villain Maddie Walker - She would do what's necessary.

I've observed it before and I do so again. Markle was in way, way, over her head.

She'd have been better off letting Harry marry some other fool and agreed to be his Mistress, money and fab LA Condo upfront, of course.

Now, that would have earned my respect and enduring interest in her. And spare me pearl-clutching and beclouding the issue with "whore" and moral outrage.

As a wise person pointed once out to me, "We all pay for it one way or another."

Oops - As a wise person once pointed out to me, "We all pay for it one way or another."

According to the excerpts (all of which I've read now), the book doesn't seem to be well written, but it does have some fascinating bits in the excerpts (which i've read all of now). One of my favorite things was how it clarifies that after Meghan was dating Harry she was already preparing to be famous, and so she kept trying to such up with famous publicists, magazine writers, photographers, and Bower keeps repeating the phrase, "XXX had never heard of Markle and had never even seen an episode of 'Suits.'"

What emerges is what Dataloungers have already believed for months: Meghan is an extremely manipulative person and wanted to be a huge celebrity, and when she couldn't do it via Hollywood she did it via marriage to a prince; she screwed up repeatedly because she always thought the royal family and the court worked according to a Hollywood model, and then thought would embrace it when they found out how effective she was; she's obsessed with her jealousy of Kate and how glowingly the British press treats Kate; she's mean to people she thinks are beneath her; Harry is obsessed with his fantasy of his mother; neither of them yet fully understands the stupidity of treating Charles, Camilla, William and Kate so badly when their money and future rest in the Wales's and Cambridge's hands.

So she's like Meghan Markle, R374, except successful and liked.

Oh, ffs, the Queen invites the outcasts to the Jubilee and then ensures they're diminished, demoted, and humiliated before the world, refuses to let them get a photo of her with Lilibet, they can't get a photo OP with Charles or William, either, Charles knows a kiss to Kate in the Abbey before the world but does6so much as glance at Meghan and Harry, who exit exposed to the boos of the public that the BRF know hates them . . .

And calling this GoT is "delusional"?!

The senior royals waited quite some time for their moment, but when it presented itself, they seized it, and paid the Sussexes back for Oprah, Finding Freedom, the abused staff, Gayle King threatening them, and the Lilibet lies

And it was the Queen's final decisions that clinched it.

And the fools walked right into it.

I'd bet there were some hearty cheers and hoisting of vintage champagne in KP, Clarence House, and BP after the Harkles fled.

On basis of what’s been made available, hoping that there will be some detail in the book about her time as a Soho House ambassador. Talk about PR and self promotion …

[quote]I've observed it before and I do so again. Markle was in way, way, over her head.

That is the one stunner to me out of all this. She is playing a user's game with no clue what she's doing. Like the Sandringham shoot stories... lady, you generally burn bridges behind you, not in front. She is so lucky Harry is what he is. Any other man would have pumped and dumped at warp speed.

[quote]She'd have been better off letting Harry marry some other fool and agreed to be his Mistress, money and fab LA Condo upfront, of course.

Exactly. Take the notoriety and market that. This misadventure got out of her control and then backfired. She's doomed to some list other than A. Clueless, rude, and now exposed. All she's got is some money. For the time being.

I’ve never observed anyone in public life whose desire to be famous is so intense but so undirected. How many avenues to fame has she explored—-acting, cooking, royalty, writing, philanthropy, lifestyle blogging, politics, content creation? She’s failed miserably at all of them except acting in which her success was minor.

I for one like Bower's writing. Straight to the point. Tina Brown was more clever and artful, probably to ensure she wouldn't get accused of - well, you know.

R386 Well said and the mess that is Meghan in a nutshell.

Hence, the bandwagon jumping.

The thing is, though, she IS famous now.

But apparently it's not enough.

She wanted to be famous and adored.

And that last is what has eluded her.

[quote] She is so lucky Harry is what he is. Any other man would have pumped and dumped at warp speed.

That sums up perfectly my reaction, r385 when I read the excerpt describing that weekend.

And/or, she should've taken the measure of the sexist, bigoted, all backed up by money and position attitudes of Harry's set of which he is part and parcel, and, if she's so offended (a totally legitimate reaction) fucked him and forgot him, too.

Well, she hung on for dear life because she was a mid-30s, divorced C-List actor with not many, or no, moves left.

And he saw benefits to her too, which obviously outweighed whatever impression she made on that weekend with his friends.

Au contraire, her "challenging" all his friends and everything he'd known was probably quite exciting to Harry.

R390 I agree. As so many have pointed out, Meghan was Harry's ticket out, just as he was her ticket in.

There is even something odd about Harry even arranging a shoot in order for his friends to meet Meghan.

Harry couldn't not have known what would happen.

He's been the puppeteer the whole time

^ You're giving Harry WAY too much credit. Remember his own mother called him Thick & dumb. Think that got better with his drug use? Harry, well what can you say? Maybe the old say well know in drug circles, "Stuck on stupid, parked on dumb"

Bowers books aren’t ever “poorly written.” These are edited excerpts and they are a delicious sizzle that absolutely have me longing for the steak. Just placed my order!

That’s good to hear, because I was unimpressed by the choppy nature of what I was reading in these excerpts.

The people criticising Bower’s writing skills appear not to know the difference between “serialisation” and “excerpts”.

The Times is publishing excerpts.

Kate and William are the stars, the leads in the Royal movie. Meg and Harry, along with Beatrice and Eugenie are supporting players. Even Kates kids are more important in the story than Meg and Harry, that's the way hereditary works. Meghan's Hollywood size ego can't handle this fact.

Jesus, Harry's a moron.

Posters upthread are assuming Harry was even aware that she was challenging and being rude to his friends and that they hated her.

All of them probably kept a smile firmly fixed on their faces during the whole shooting weekend, just as we see in the pictures from Jamaica wedding, where one friend comes over to their table enthusiastically, sits forward interestedly, and likely with a big smile on her face, while Meghan visibly scowls at her as if the girl had murdered Meghan's favourite pet. All with Harry oblivious.

Look. Let's finally admit it. She is a low rent classless and badly behaved whore who, clearly, pegs him with a strap-on. He loves it so much that he notices almost nothing else.

R397 That headline under that photo is simply priceless.

All this backstory with the friends, has the Jamaica photographs making much more sense. She must be so competitive, jealous, and threatened by all females it must take all of her strength to suck up to one when she needs to. She got her way an isolated him, but that is a sad accomplishment. If she was smart, it's the wives, and girlfriends of the group you really have to charm. Get in good with them, and they can really open the doors for you.

HAZ, I know you just momentarily noticed me being viciously rude to one of your oldest and dearest friends because I'm well on my way to separating you from all of your anchors of stability, but just THINK for a minute about what I've got sitting waiting for you in my suitcase for later tonight back at the room....

Come ON Haz, I brought the BBC version this time....

[quote]The thing is, though, she IS famous now.

Infamous, more like. It literally means "Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious."

She's a cliche.

DISGUSTING is what she is.

She's actually worse than anything anybody here threw at her.

She's so common.

Everybody broadly smiles at the bride...but Meghan.

Beyond Harry’s hearing, some friends questioned Meghan’s “wokery”. Meghan was a dampener on the party, they concluded. She lacked any sense of humour. Driving home after Sunday lunch, the texts pinged between the cars: “OMG what about HER?” said one; “Harry must be f***ing nuts.”

A seminal moment occurred during the couple’s trip to Jamaica in March 2017 to celebrate the marriage of Tom “Skippy” Inskip, Harry’s Etonian friend who had been present in Las Vegas during Harry’s nude romp. Harry flew premium economy from London; Meghan arrived from Toronto in a friend’s private jet.

About 40 guests, including Harry’s oldest friends, gathered for the three-day party at the Round Hill Hotel in Montego Bay. Some of the parents in attendance fondly remembered giving Harry cottage pie and comfort during his teenage years. The close-knit group keenly anticipated meeting Meghan. They were quickly disappointed. Not only did she quibble about the food, but behaved “princessy”, refusing to engage with Harry’s friends, some said. “She wasn’t interested in us,” said one mother.

R408, of course she didn’t care about them. It’s always about her and her hurt feelings. Why don’t people understand that she is all that matters?

I bet she regrets kicking off her shoes in those pics from the Jamaican wedding!

R395, the editing of the most recent excerpt is actually pretty clever. First, we see her lecturing Harry’s friends about her “values.” Then we cut to an episode in which see her “values” in action: she is greedy, abusive and status-obsessed. And we already know she’s been accused of being particularly nasty to female staff members, so her criticism of Harry’s friends as “sexist” rings very hollow.

[quote]The close-knit group keenly anticipated meeting Meghan. They were quickly disappointed. Not only did she quibble about the food

Let me guess: "IS THERE EGG IN THIS?"

She’s like every asshole who bludgeons you with their liberal superiority to cloak the fact that they are an asshole. I’m a Democrat, hate the fucking GOP, but can’t stomach her ilks’ hypocritical ass. The endless preaching and judging..Al to deflect from what a fucking asshole she is.

Nice tent she's wearing.

Fix my feet for me, why don't you.

"Like other shooting weekends, Harry was looking forward to endless banter, jokes — and a lot of drinking. He had not anticipated Meghan’s reaction. Their jokes involving sexism, feminism and transgender people ricocheted around the living-rooms and dining-rooms. Without hesitation, Meghan challenged every guest whose conversation contravened her values. According to some of Harry’s friends, again and again she reprimanded them about the slightest inappropriate nuance. Nobody was exempt."

This is the one thing I've ever read about Meg that makes me like her even a little! Calling Harry's friends on their shit couldn't have been a strategy to rope Harry in, in fact, it was incredibly risky, the sort of thing that makes a person's friends band together to stop a relationship before it gets started. So if she really did that, then it would be an incredibly rare example of her doing something because she thought it was right, not because it would get her something.

I don't mean to praise her or anything, in fact I think she's an angry, petty, small-minded, grasping little asshole. But here, for one brief moment, she used her powers of assholery in a good cause.

[quote]The best was this: Every night, Harry trawled social media, searching for snide comments on the internet. Every morning he and Meghan turned on their phones to surf the internet. Thin-skinned, they were inflamed by the slightest criticism. Both bombarded their staff with demands for removal of the criticism.

"Wound collectors" intentionally look for and collect social slights for their personal benefit in a way that's toxic or pathological.

[quote]This is the one thing I've ever read about Meg that makes me like her even a little! Calling Harry's friends on their shit couldn't have been a strategy to rope Harry in, in fact, it was incredibly risky, the sort of thing that makes a person's friends band together to stop a relationship before it gets started. So if she really did that, then it would be an incredibly rare example of her doing something because she thought it was right, not because it would get her something.

I think that makes her a massive hypocrite. Whether this was also a strategy to isolate him from his friends, I don't know. But I'm sure she knew she had Harry by the balls by this time in their relationship.

She routinely treats the little people like shit -- how is she any different from the gang she is criticizing? She's worse really, because she inflicts real damage as opposed to words in the air.

R414 I’m not so sure about that. And I say that someone who has been in a similar dynamic.

It’s all about power. Meghan realized she had power before she met his friends. She was not still in the position of trying to win him over—like she was when she first met William and kissed his ass. Instead, she knew Harry was under her control and she exerted it by posturing as morally superior to his pals and newly culturally sensitive Harry heeled at her command.

I’m not saying that his friends weren’t crass, entitled assholes—I’m sure they were. But that’s not why she distanced Harry from them. Look at who she’s consorted with—she’s not exactly egalitarian. This was all about her putting his friends down to draw him closer to her…and she wouldn’t have done it if she didn’t sense how insecure he was and scared of losing her.

R415, Bower really knows how to stick the knife in. It’s not exactly a great romance if your husband is searching the internet “every night” for hurtful comments on social media, is it?

How embarrassing that Serena said they were "acquantices" after Smegs crowed about them being friends.

Aaaaand…here’s the commercial described in today’s Meghan is horrible excerpt. Also our first official glimpse of her whore sashay.

So, the posters over on LSA are tracking the shoes. You know, the ones she didn't return after the photo shoot.

There is speculation that those are the shoes she wore for the engagement photo where she was wearing the white coat.

The Times just did a 5 minute interview with Bower in which he goes over the Queen's quote in his book, who Meghan is, and what made him decide the Harkles were a good topic for his latest biography.

Good, short interview.

The bad acting and "you're Meghan Markle!" in the commercial at R421 is better than most of this weekend's excerpts, which have primarily shown a woman determined to be rich and famous, and we all knew that. Bower could have been describing most A-listers' dealings with Vanity Fair or production staff or loutish Eton alumni.

The best story to be had here is not tales of throwing hot tea or sleeping with rich guys on yachts but rather how she, a talentless, aging divorcee managed to reel in Harry and then take him to exactly where she wanted to be: world-famous, living in a compound in a wealthy enclave, hobnobbing with Oprah.

Not addressing this to r414 specifically, but I'm surprised that any of the Meghan haters would say they liked her for that incident, because the overriding theme in all these threads is that Meghan challenged the royal family, and the royal family is an authority who should not be challenged, and how dare she think she's a better person than they are. In fact, I remember long threads during the time that it was speculated that Harry and Meghan were distancing themselves in part because of Andrew, and people insisting that Andrew's behavior was just fine, it was expected of royals, it was Meghan's behavior that was repulsive, evil, awful, and crossed every line of socially acceptable behavior.

I would politely suggest that a lot of you saw her willful, opinionated behavior, like what's described in the story, and her American attitude toward the royal family and, for reasons I won't even guess at, decided that the secret truth behind it all was that she was an evil, hateful, cruel whore of a cunt of a bitch who wanted to take down the monarchy and make women cry.

It's far more likely that she's a socially awkward but determined person who is as exhausting and self-absorbed as every other public figure out there, more so to Brits, especially royals and the aristocracy. The usual hazing by tabloids of new royal family members got out of hand, thanks to the far-right culture wars, and now things are so confused that this "hit job" book which is meant to "finally destroy her for good" is releasing excerpts that even you guys can't turn into "Meghan is Hitler only not as cute or likeable."

Her attitude was, if we are to take the most charitable interpretation, that of a terrible, rude, egomaniacal, selfish, arrogant ungrateful guest, and BORING guest.

That, in case you're wondering, THE WORST CRIME ONE CAN COMMIT in Britain, socially speaking is to be a rude, boring guest. It will make you automatically hated by everyone, of all classes, immediately, and their opinion of you will be written in stone.

If you admire her actions, r425, then you should probably avoid the UK, r425, as should r414.

And I haven't even got to the other 462 pages worth of bad behaviour chronicled in the book.

I'm strictly referring to the 2 pages of the book documenting the two times she spent a weekend insulting Harry's former friends.

>>>>how she, a talentless, aging divorcee managed to reel in Harry and then take him to exactly where she wanted to be: world-famous, living in a compound in a wealthy enclave, hobnobbing with Oprah.

You make it sound like she's a resounding success! But in a few short years, Meghan Markle has become one of the most reviled and ridiculed people on the planet. Surely anyone with a minimum of intelligence and self-restraint could have done a better job of upgrading their life within the context of the BRF and retaining everyone's goodwill.

And as for reeling in Harry - as far as I know, there wasn't much competition.

This is from the DM comments and details a rumour, widely reported, about the Inskip wedding in Jamaica. Will be interesting to see if this fact checked with Bower’s research and made the cut for the book. ‘They had broken up before Inskip's wedding and Harry took a friend as a date. Markle turned up uninvited (gate crashed) the wedding. Then dragged Harry off to a corner where he sat looking miserable and she sat looking spiteful. Several guests told Markle to leave, she refused. It was reported the bride was upset as Markle was now the centre of attention and Inskip was furious. Hence the reason Inskip and his wife were invited to the church but not the reception. Markle's revenge’

R425. The number of people who feel the royal family is above criticism is quite small. Typically, critics of the royal family want it to be abolished or reformed to make it smaller, cheaper, and even more limited in its governmental role than it already is.

Are these criticisms Meghan made? Emphatically no. The continued existence of the royal family is desperately important to her. She wants as many of her descendants as possible to have royal titles. She is also extremely upset that her opportunities for self-enrichment as a royal were limited, that her ability to wield political influence was limited and that her ability to censor the press was limited. She is not being lambasted because she is a brave and principled critic of the monarchy.

Nobody thinks she’s as bad as Hitler but she is a seriously unpleasant human being who is nasty in the most comical fashion. That fact, combined with the fact that she insists on making us all aware of her every thought and action explains the ridicule and contempt she is exposed to, not any royalist sentiment or sun conscious bias.

[quote]because the overriding theme in all these threads is that Meghan challenged the royal family, and the royal family is an authority who should not be challenged

Not everyone here is a monarchist, R425, and I have very rarely seen anyone implying that it was Meghan's challenging of the royal family that makes her disliked. I actually like the royal family a lot more now than I ever did, and it's down entirely to her assholery. Well done, lady, you've made a pack of extremely wealthy, privileged aristocrats who wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire sympathetic.

You appear to be a stan taking a different, non-YOU'RE RACISTS FOR NOT LIKING MEGHAN, tack (which, thank you for that) but as someone who has suspected Meghan is a weapons grade asshole from the start the confirmation that she is indeed a weapons grade asshole, possibly even more of one than even her biggest "haters" ever imagined, is, I have to say, *immensely* satisfying. You either haven't read the excerpts, are being disingenuous that they aren't damaging, or you think the described behaviour is OK.

It’s quite possible to think that both Harry’s circle of friends AND Meghan are assholes. In fact, it explains rather nicely what such an accomplished career woman and humanitarian could have in common with Harry that she would jump at the chance to marry him.

She stole some expensive shoes from the Reitman's set. What the fuck?

So what, r431? She accepted the "assholes'" invitations. From that point on it was her duty, as someone accepting hospitality, to avoid being a loud, scowling, criticising, imposing, insulting, imbecilic bore.

But of course she couldn't manage that. which makes her the much, much bigger asshole.

I'm surprised Meghan accepted the invitation to the shooting party. Wasn't she vocal about her negative views around such events? Why go at all, unless to make trouble?

r434 Perhaps it was in order to alienate Harry's friends from the two of them, and thereby considerably move forward with her plan to completely isolate him from all his support systems?

Or maybe she's just a classless, rude and boring bitch.

R433, are you questioning why an asshole behaved like an asshole? Perhaps, and it’s just a guess, because she’s an asshole?

No, r436. I'm saying that even assholes are capable of being semi-decent guests when they try to be.

The sign of an exceptionally, irredeemably hideous asshole is someone who repays hospitality with boring rudeness without a second thought.

Not only a whore but also a bore! She's even more repulsive than I had previously thought. Which is saying something.

Meghan and Elton John are so much alike: they treat the plebs like shit when there's no cameras around. But if there's a TV crew showing up, suddenly they turn into Mother Teresa. That's who they are - hypocritical fakes. That's why they flock together.

Agreed, r438.

However, do you think Uncle Elton is still inviting these two to the South of France? Or even inviting them to his house in LA?

Lady Furnish dropped out of "Pearl" even before Netflix cancelled it. That can't have gone over at ALL well in Montecito...

That Reitmans commercial is hilarious. The person who applied her eye makeup did her no favors. When she turns around to tell the females about Reitmans, all I can see is her crossed eyes.

In other words, R437, to borrow R425’s analogy, if Hitler not only practiced mass murder, but also was a bad houseguest, the former could be excused or explained as a personality trait while the latter would make him an exceptional, irredeemable, hideous asshole?

My point is that being a rude, insulting, demanding, imposing and boring houseguest is the sign of a terrible person and should have been a red flag to everyone near him.

But you knew that, Sussex Stan. You juat wanted to work in a reference to Hitler where it doesn't belong because that's the only bit of history the uneducated ever (think they) know. Their only reference point.

Next time make it Ghenghis Khan, or Idi Amin, or warlord Mohammad, r441.

Try, if you can (which I doubt), to be a touch less hideously boring.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall at that shooting weekend. Harry's aristo Hooray Henry pals are not shy about expressing their opinions, especially if drunk and some jumped-up outsider has criticised them. The only thing that would have kept them from tearing MM a new one would have been the awareness that they were Harry's guests.

Here’s more from the book. The sum of the excerpts amounts to one screaming headline: There is absolutely nothing special about this woman.

My fav bit from this article: Meghan pitching the idea of herself as a celebrity chef, but she can’t cook. So then pitched traveling the world to try different foods, but “a short video of her tasting pickles in Brooklyn exposed her limitations.”

This stuff is hilarious! Keep ‘‘em coming!

Smug and Mug were guests, not hosts that weekend (unless I'm mistaken) r443.

According to Bower's account they saved all criticism until the weekend was over and Harry was safely out of earshot, but you can only imagine the silent looks they were giving each other as she banged on and on with her Very Important Opinions of them and their banter.

Meg's comments from the pickle tasting video. (All made while attempting to crunch seductively.)

"That one has a good taste. It's good."

"I like the sliminess on that one."

Yep, she could have given Anthony Bourdain a run for his money.

It's not clear who else was in the shooting party apart from Harry's 16 friends. To me, the article implied that Harry was given the use of Sandringham to invite his friends for the weekend, but perhaps he and his friends were part of a larger party. In any case, Harry's friends had been invited by Harry and they may not have wanted to insult his girlfriend.

But what happened after she told them all off? Did they all go, 'Erm, yes, perhaps you have a point. I'll have to give that some thought'? Or did they just drunkenly laugh?

[quote]To me, the article implied that Harry was given the use of Sandringham to invite his friends for the weekend,

The excerpt does not imply it, it states it outright. Harry was the host at his Grandmother's estate.

They probably just Boris Johnson-ed it to her face. "Oh, right, yah, of course, har har, so sorry, har har" etc. and then laughed their asses off as soon as they left.

Bower, in his interview with Times Radio, directly quotes the Queen's "thank goodness Meghan's not coming" statement and sounds 100% confident, for what that's worth to anyone.

It's even worse if she was the host, meant to put her guests at ease!

I wonder if it was this shooting party, the one where Meghan ordered Melissa Touabti to order engraved red shooting blankets for each gust, then created out of the request one of the bigger employee- bullying events out of it:

"Meghan Markle reportedly flew into a rage at a PA because blankets were the “wrong shade of red” and her outbursts left her entire staff on the verge of quitting, insiders claimed last night.

It comes after claims the Duchess of Sussex bullied and humiliated aides at Kensington Palace – which she denies.

But according to a report in the Sunday Times, a former aide to one of the most senior members of the royal family claimed “half the staff threatened to quit” over tensions allegedly caused by the Sussexes.

Another Palace source claimed: “The entire household was on the verge of quitting … it was drama, drama, drama with those two.”

The former aide said one incident that caused alarm occurred when Meghan hosted a shooting party at Sandringham for Harry’s friends, shortly after their engagement.

She had ordered personally embroidered red blankets for each guest, but was not happy with what she received.

“When they arrived, they weren’t the right shade of red for Meghan and she went mental at Melissa (Touabti),” the source said,

Melissa was Meghan’s former personal assistant, who is alleged to have left “traumatised” because of Meghan’s volatile behaviour."

Oh that makes it even funnier if she was the host. My god.

Here's a better link to the Sandringham shooting party blanket meltdown story that was "drama, drama, drama" when Meghan had "the household on the verge of quitting". The Aus one has loads of pop-ups.

[quote] First, we see her lecturing Harry’s friends about her “values.” Then we cut to an episode in which see her “values” in action: she is greedy, abusive and status-obsessed.

Bingo. I can greatly respect someone who refuses to tolerate the likely-vile jokes of a bunch of Old Etonians and refuses to concede to the (stupid) class system, but a sincere person like that would treat “the little people” with respect - wouldn’t be abusive to staff herself. So what does this mix of excerpts show? Her desire to lecture others is not about the principle of the thing, but about wanting to assert superiority and status herself, the same thing that drives her lofty demands of Reitmans and Vogue - and perhaps that thirst for status and superiority is Bower’s larger hypothesis for why Meghan ended up where she did, with Harry.

The PG&E story is interesting because I find myself more sympathetic to Meghan, as I do with almost anything involving her father. During her childhood, someone (presumably her father) was pushing this story in the media, including on Nickelodeon (the Linda Ellerbee news show). So, what’s fictional about it isn’t that Meghan was publicly hailed as accomplishing this - it’s that Clinton wrote her a letter and/or that PG&E changed the ad. Meghan’s father could have lied to her about both of those things as well—she was a precocious child at the time, but still a child. I wonder whether even she knows the truth.

^ and I agree as well that Della has the right of it with regard to the Queen’s exclamation. Personally, I think the most plausible driving factor there was COVID - there was a COVID wave at the time and Meghan was seventh months pregnant after already miscarrying once after Archie. The Queen obviously took COVID seriously and other royal family members had caught it.

There would still need to be a larger reason for a staff member close enough to the inner circle to leak the comment - ESPECIALLY if it was to leak it without context that could soften it. I doubt Angela Kelly would be where she is now if she had a tendency like this. But perhaps Harry’s insult at the Games about the untrustworthy people surrounding his grandmother was an unusually motivating factor.

R425 Yes, let's forget about the lies she told on Oprah while Philip was dying, her whingeing about her tough life in Botswana, her abusive behaviour to underlings whilst bleating about "compassion", and her perjury in sworn testimony to England's High Court.

Did we forget to mention that utterly obscene visit to Uvalde within 48 hours, film crew in tow? How many other A listers did you see heading down there we'd with a film crew in tow?

She is just as horrible, ugly, pathologically selfish and self-obsessed as we all suspected she was.

She married someone just like those nasty aristos for fame and money. He doesn't seem to have gone all pure since meeting her, has he? He may have dropped the friends, but he's still obsessed with his tank, status, and trying to stickk the UK taxpayer with the bill for his security when he visits Blighty.

Nice try, but, no, it won't fly. We weren't wrong.

Bottom line: given the way she clearly treated staff, Meghan and Harry's friends had quite a bit in common.

She doesn't talk their talk but ffs, she sure walks those shitty aristo's walk, and then some.

And leave us not forget in the pious fog you spout, that women, feminism, et al. are often roundly jeered at right here on DL.

^*rank (not tabk) and status

She's a shoe-stealing asshole. You know someone likely got in trouble for that.

Yup. Some poor stylist or fashion assistant probably caught nothing short of holy hell for that.

The shooting party at Sandringham that Harry hosted was to introduce Meghan to his set. (Monogrammed blankets seems a bit much at this stage, no?) Turns out that they're all really entitled and obnoxious. Similar to being stuck with a bunch of Trump voters braying about Brandon and stolen elections and owning the libs. I would've freaked out. Outnumbered, I'd probably say I had a headache, go back to my room and pack and leave.

Can you imagine how unbelievably awful the entire experience of that shooting party must have been if she was banging on criticising her guests in between running to scream at the staff so much they all "nearly quit"?

Lends new meaning to the phrase "The Hostess with the Mostest".

She is truly mental: a bipolar narcissist with delusions of grandeur and the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Meghan freaked out at the monogrammed blankets being the wrong shade of red.

I mean, really?!

Anyone who really sees much of a difference between Meghan and Harry's pals, with her penchant for white upper-class men, living, and taste, is only falling for her game.

That's the source of her appeal for Harry. It was never about giving up privilege: it was about how to maximise privilege from behind a mask of performative bullshit.

Frankly, I have more trsorct for the aristos who never made a secret of who they were.

And I don6remotely buy that Harry didn't know what he was doing when he set up a shoot, a SHOOT! in Norfolk to introduce her around. As if Meghan, like Diana, didn't loathe the idea and Norfolk.

Instead of, say, a drinks party in London.

He chose the framework most likely to point up the gulf between her and his old life. She was there as a fool to his old life to justify him leaving it.

He may be intellectually deficient, bit his demons have known exactly what they're doing te Meghan from the get-go.

Give me an upfront gobshite toff any day over the pretensions of a woman claiming the moral high ground who treats people around her like dirt and tells lies routinely to make hersel look good.

Including to a court of law to hide that she and her husband lied to the public when they insisted they had nothing to do with vomit-nducing book.

Which, as HG Tudor said, read like Meghan's diaries as read to Omid Scobie.

A shoot really isn't that outrageous. If you have the land and the staff, it's a fun way to spend a weekend, and a weekend is a nicer way to introduce someone than a single evening's drinks.

Having said that, wasn't she a "vegetarian" (although a Roast Chicken-cooking one) who later banned Harry from ever shooting again? To the point where she had him sell the Purdeys that his grandfather gave him?

Perhaps it was her utter failure at the Sandringham shooting party, rather than any faux "humanitarian" ideals which actually had her later forcing him to give up shooting?

Was it just an ordinary shooting party weekend?

R464 Hecsokd the Purdeys, a gift from his grandfather, to pay the first round of fees that Meghan had to pay when she lost one of the pretrial rounds in the ANL privacy case. He sold them for, I believe, 60,000, which was exactly what her fees came to.

Oh, is a shoot a fun weekend? Come on. For someone unused to the whole gestalt, inimagine it's as daunting as "fun".

And what the fuck were the monogrammed blankets about? She wasn't the host, Harry was. Sandringham is owned personally by the Queen, whi, in reality was therefore the titular host.

It reminds me of the story of guests arriving at Fort Belvedere after Edward became King, only to find themselves "received" as hostess by his American divorced mistress, one of the many in-your-face faux pas that the couple made that turned the aristocracy against them.

The similarities are remarkable.

Now, as then, it's trashy cafe society who fsvour the rude, crude outsider revelling in her new status and unable to navigate the territory gracefully.

But what they wanted was the people who mattered - the great landed families of the aristocracy. And those were/are the ones neither couple could attach, precisely because of how badly they read the room.

And in both cases, I would wager the men in each case knew exactly what they were doing.

Edward also didn't want the responsibilities of his position, but he very much wanted to retain its status, wealth, deference, and privileges, especially for his wife.

Harry and Meghan are totally Edward and Wallis 2.0.

Meghan, like Wallis, is likely a bigger snob than the aristos whose tiresome humor she was so keen to correct.

And a proven pathological liar.

It's possible MM felt really outgunned and defenceless, hence defensive, listening to the toffs sneer at marginalised groups like trans (and probably gays). Their arrogance no doubt extended to blacks, working class, foreigners, etc, whether they jeered at them or not, we do not know. After all, Tom Bower only got their side of the story, that she was humourless and judgemental.

Correct on all points, r466. Shoots can be very stressful - all the more reason to be as gracious a 'hostess' as possible (and yes you're right again, it was actually the Harry's party). What I basically meant was that if there are the resources to have a shoot, it's a much nicer thing to do than to have just Another Drinks Party.

She showed no humility in the face of hosting. Her idea of "hosting" was to concoct some tacky Hollywood idea of engraved shoot blankets and screaming at staff. Tacky tacky tacky tacky.

I must say, having been casually acquainted with a few upper-class Brits, they're not the nicest people at least on the surface. If you're demonstrative and tend to overshare, they'll cut you to the quick. I can see why someone like Meghan would struggle. It takes a personality who is able to rise above, see the big picture, and enjoy the privilege and power long-term, but I am willing to consider that it was just too much. I wouldn't blame her and Harry for getting out, IF they were truly living a quiet, private life and not acting so bitter and destructive.

Is it customary to give swag bags (engraved blanket) to the guests at shoots? Or did she think she was hosting the Oscars and her celebrity guests would be expecting swag?

Not one I've ever been to, r470. At the ones I went to, if the hosts wanted to honour you somehow they might give you a good bird, or maybe one you shot, cleaned. Maybe things have changed though. I haven't been to one for a while and a lot has changed, everywhere, so who knws. What I can say is that individually engraved shooting blankets seems very extravagant and showily OTT to me. If the host is a super rich Russian or Chinese, maybe. But many of them are fairly studied in proper form and probably wouldn't. Too flash.

[quote]There would still need to be a larger reason for a staff member close enough to the inner circle to leak the comment - ESPECIALLY if it was to leak it without context that could soften it. I doubt Angela Kelly would be where she is now if she had a tendency like this. But perhaps Harry’s insult at the Games about the untrustworthy people surrounding his grandmother was an unusually motivating factor.

I think that's very plausible, although leaking this information would honestly prove Harry's point. They wanted to hurt Harry and Meghan, but they took advantage of the Queen to do so.

If she pissed off the staff all the way up at Sandringham, all the way back in 2016, that helps to explain exactly how a leak like this could have very easily happened.

Imagine how many other members of staff she must have driven to tears before the two of them finally fucked off.

It must have all been very new and highly unfamiliar territory, that shooting world. I imagine the best way to navigate would be complete openness, admit it's all new, don't even try to pretend, ask for help - maybe?

[quote]You appear to be a stan

You say that about everyone you disagree with. It doesn't mean anything anymore. You can try to find me saying something positive about Meghan Markle all you want, but you won't be able to.

[quote]You either haven't read the excerpts, are being disingenuous that they aren't damaging,

I NEVER said they weren't damaging. NEVER. Again, the problem with you is that you cannot argue any of your positions without resorting to lying.

[quote]or you think the described behaviour is OK.

In many cases, I think the described behavior is being inaccurately described by people with an agenda. Some behavior ascribed to her is entirely invented, without a single bit of evidence to support it. A lot of other behaviors are misrepresented by people who hate her. For instance, the claims earlier that she made Sara Latham cry. When I went to read the excerpts for myself, I saw that Latham's tears were described as being the result of being stuck between Meghan's wishes and the palace's wishes. That's a whole different situation.

I was just thinking that. Why the fuck wouldn’t she ask someone like Camilla, who no doubt has been to dozens of these things, for advice? The blankets were super tacky and no doubt tossed in the trash upon departure.

Why would she ask for advice? Don't you know she's the foremost superior person in the world? She was there to lead, not take advice.

R469, my experience is the opposite. They are at worst a room full of Labrador Retrievers... boisterous, loud, excitable - it can be deeply annoying if you're not used to their sheer delight and their loudness. (I will always remember a painful Boxing Day breakfast in Devon when tweedy Tom from the Foreign Office dropped by, with girlfriend Georgie (guessing Georgian) in tow, on their way to lunch at Mummy's and wanting to murder them for their braying exuberance. I was so hung over.) But they were never rude in the vulgar sense. That's about the worst sin you could commit with that lot, at least at a party. I can see a Markle type mystified by it all - they don't talk about labels or prices or anything she'd understand. She would have felt like it was a different language, especially given how pedestrian the book shows her to be. She's a mall girl. She couldn't hold up her end of a decent conversation if you paid her. She doesn't know how. Wasn't raised to it.

I really have trouble squaring the notion they were freely and ceaselessly cracking racist or sexist or transphobic jokes at all, let alone in front of someone they'd never met. Anything's possible but it isn't anything I've ever experienced. One thing about middle and upper middle class Brits - they know how to talk, either at you or with you and as importantly, maybe more, they know how to keep it light enough.

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

- Oscar Wilde.

The Sussexes should hope this book sells. Even negative attention is, well, still attention.

Real, actual indifference, apathy, ignoring them, is the death knell to their ambitions.

I'm getting there myself.

Assuming I outlive Q E II, for the funeral pageantry, a nuclear crowbar wouldn't be able to pry me from my TV and the DL threads.

Are the Sussexes both there? Where are they seated? It's a measure of their declining interest that I'd only be wondering (in sure fun and suspense) that, not because of them as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (yawn) but only in relation to somebody of actual importance and interest : Q E II.

^ Georgiana...

I no longer agree, Della. They are trying to front a brand to make change and money. What are they associated with? What do you think of when you think of them? Who of any quality wants to be associated with them? Their ambitions are more likely delusions now.

For me the biggest shock - and disappointment in a way - is that this books shows her to be so basic.

She can't even make a success of being seen as a lousy person. So basic. Her kind of lousy is a dime a dozen, she just lucked into a rare setting to expose herself.

What I’ve learned in my limited experience with these snooty aristo types: If you’re not going to be fun, be a mild-mannered good listener.

Meghan is incapable of being either.

R473. I agree and the upper classes all agree that it's vulgar to talk about money.

For all that they were a bunch of Eton tossers, they'd have been very nice to her if she had made the effort. If nothing else, they have good manners. She wouldn't have understood them at all. But then she didn't understand English culture either.

I would have loved to have seen Kate's face when Markle offered to get her tickets for Wimbledon through Sienna Williams. Kate is the person who presents the trophies at Wimbledon. She always gets tickets, lol.

Also I bet a lot of the jokes were coming from Harry.

R444 here! DL sleuths! Let's find that pickle video!!!!

r478 Just out of curiosity, what sort of topics would be discussed that Megan wasn't brought up to be familiar with? I can't imagine that guys of that age are discussing history, architecture etc on a fun weekend. Granted, they would not be talking about money and name dropping the way Meghan does....

R478 You're right, I didn't mean to imply they would be outright rude. But I've seen them let's say withhold, which to someone like Meghan would be (probably rightly) interpreted as a cut.

At least she didn’t give a food gift for once, but monogrammed blankets? She’s hopeless at playing famous and aristocratic. Who wants to lug a blanket home? Who wants a monogrammed blanket? And she made her staff cry over them.

Pickle video (very short)

There would be a lot of gossip about people they all new, either as family, or from school or university. Being Hooray Henrys, there would be a lot of talk about their drunken exploits. If they were all men, there would be a fair amount of talk about women and their sexual conquests, possibly imaginary. As for the rest, a lot of raucous jokes.

r487.... it isn't about subject matter, it's about skills. These people at Sandringham weren't strangers at a cocktail party... they all knew one another really well so there would have been a lot of shared experience talk - that might have made her feel excluded to some extent but it wouldn't have been the big problem. I bet money she doesn't know how to engage except about herself and about what matters to her (and then ponderously and laboriously with all the stern, sodden wokeness for which she is no doubt justly famous.)

Conversation with Brits from the middle class up, frankly, involves a lot of small talk about nothing consequential and that's something you're taught or you learn from watching your parents. It's a skill that combines avoiding silence at all costs and keeping it light. Keeping company is meant to be fun, not thought leadership.

There's a Camilla story going about that illustrates it perfectly:

"That silver-tongued gift of gab, however, was not something she was born with, but a learned skill that was drilled into her by her mother when she was being raised. "My mother could be quite fierce sometimes," the Duchess of Cornwall confessed in an interview with the Daily Mail. As an example, she recalled a dinner party her parents were hosting for "some of the most boring neighbors in the world and we were dragged down to join them for dinner." According to Camilla, her mother would force her and her siblings to sit at the dinner table, "and the minute there was silence, she used to say, 'Talk! I don't care what you talk about, talk about your budgie or your pony but keep the conversation going...' And so I've never been able not to talk. It's in the psyche, not to leave a silence."

It's a two step. Make a statement, ask a question, and if you've got a decent dinner partner they'll reply with a statement and a question of their own. It requires listening, staying in the conversation, a willingess to be curious even if you're not, and above all a will to think about the other person and not talk about yourself for your own gratification. There's nothing to suggest Markle has any skill in talking about anything but her own needs, desires and views.

Too many filling in the dots about the country house weekend shooting party. She is an actress. She should have been able to rise to the potential challenge of fitting in when in acrelatively unfamiliar social situation. Had she wished to do so. Instead she apparently chose to stand out as a woke kill joy.

^ a relatively

I'm not convinced the blanket story intersects with the Sandringham story. Harry would have thought it was nuts, even if was Harry doing the thinking. It was a pheasant shoot, not an awards show with a gift bag. Are we sure these two things are connected?

That VF writer said her entire flat was filled with books about England. It seems very likely she would have had this book, and so knew fully well what to expect.

[quote]I would have loved to have seen Kate's face when Markle offered to get her tickets for Wimbledon through Sienna Williams. Kate is the person who presents the trophies at Wimbledon. She always gets tickets, lol.

Where was this part? How did I miss it??? OMFG!!!!

R496, flat where? How do you assume she would have had a book out of print, published in 1983 and selling on Amazon for in excess of $425? Facts not in evidence, if you ask me.

^ Answering my own question... From The Times excerpt: Looking around, Kashner noticed that the kitchen walls were covered with photos of herself and the books piled on the coffee table were picture guides and history books of London. “Only the A-Z of London’s streets was missing,” he thought, uncertain whether she had actually read any books about Britain.

She must be going nuts if all she can is the same excerpt access as everybody else. I wonder if she got an advance copy?

[quote] [bold]I would politely suggest[/bold] that a lot of you saw her willful, opinionated behavior, like what's described in the story, and her American attitude toward the royal family and, [bold]for reasons I won't even guess at, decided that the secret truth behind it all was that she was an evil, hateful, cruel whore of a cunt of a bitch who wanted to take down the monarchy and make women cry.[/bold]

Wow! That sure IS polite!

H & M make their entrance for the Nelson Mandela Day event today.

Black dress. Check. Stilettos. Check. Handbag. Check. Sexy Sashay. Check.

Here's one for $55. I was all excited thinking my copy was worth over $400. But I think a lot of used bookstores in the UK would have a copy for little cost.

Harry looks disheveled, distant, disturbed and devastated.

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

"Reclaim our democracies"? Didn't Harry question the right to free speech?

^ I swear I only pressed post ONCE. What the fuck is wrong with DL today?

^ LOL... I thought the stress had given him a stutter.

Do they ever stop holding hands in public? It's so adolescent.

Oh and he brought up his mother Diana just in case you forgot that he's her son.

What about The Queen's LONG relationship to Nelson Mandela?

In his keynote @UN speech, #PrinceHarry also paid tribute to his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, who met #NelsonMandela in 1997: “On my wall and in my heart every day is an image of my mother meeting Mandela…the joy in my mother’s face, the playfulness and cheekiness.” - Roya Nikkhah

Priceless.

Does it just kill her on those wife-of days?

Is she thinking: It would be so much better for everybody if [italic]I[/italic] was giving the speech.

LOL on my Twitter, Megain is trending.

Looks like he was pontificating to a mostly empty room. N

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Pockets at the hips are not a good choice for her.

While I do actually agree with some of things Harry said, he looks like crap. A mix of jet lag, depression and hang over? There are literally only a dozen people in the room and the actually delegation from South Africa were totally snubbing Harry as he spoke, looking at their phones and whispering to each other.

I did enjoy the moment they walked into the UN and several reporters were yelling questions about the Tom Bower book including "Did you lie to Vouge Meghan?" LOL.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I don't understand at all why he's being allowed to talk at this event. He no longer represents the royal family in any capacity, and he is hardly anyone's idea of one of our great minds.

[quote]I would have loved to have seen Kate's face when Markle offered to get her tickets for Wimbledon through Sienna Williams. Kate is the person who presents the trophies

Of course, she knew Kate has access to the Royal box, probably on demand. This reeks of an act of one-upmanship. "I can get tickets through my friend, the real star of the show." Kate must have had the most quizzical look on her face.

Those pictures of Harry Thunderface with Meghan seated by his side giving him the beatific Nancy Reagan gazes. 🤭

R532 - "lie to Vouge"??? Vouge????

Vouge. It's how the bougie know what you're talking about.

Why can she not wear a dress that actually fits?? She must have to hand this one back so no alterations. We know she voraciously reads everything about herself- yet years in, she still looks a mess. (And Harry looks hungover.)

Open question... do you think she cares that she's so poorly thought of? Obviously she knows. They both do.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Are we surprised or shocked?

Hapless Hyprocrite Harry.

Rest assured that the wife gave him his talking points and no doubt approved his speech,

A delusional narcissist wrote him that speech. How else should it be like? me me me me me me me me me

Did he even make more than a passion reference to Mandela?

Yes, she had her ‘means business’ bag r543, in all likelihood containing iPad plus beautifully handwritten notes of speech as backup. No doubt who carries the bag and wears the trousers in that relationship.

Our plebeian opinion might not matter much to her, but that repudiation that came from Serena must have hit her very hard.

SERENA WILLIAMS reportedly DENIED being friends with Meghan Markle, a new book on the Duchess had claimed.

People are pointing out it was actually Charles and that first brought Harry and William to Africa, that Diana only met Mandela once while the Queen, Philip and Charles were actually friends with Mandela.

Harry and Meghan are obsessed with Diana the issue is no one wants a new Diana. She was one of a kind. William understands this and is working on his own legacy, but Harry is obsessed with his mother in a very unhealthy way. I almost wonder if he and Meghan do Diana cosplay in bed.

What did she wear a dress with pockets on her hips that accentuate her Sponge Bob physique? She might as well have put a couple of refrigerator handles on each side.

I'm starting to believe she has an NPD-related body dismorphic disorder. But not the one we're familiar with that leads people to think they look fatter, uglier, or worse appearing than reality. She thinks she's hot shit with "legs for miles." I crack up at the memory of her swinging her hips to and fro as she climbed the stairs to the tractor stage in stilettos. It only served to accentuate the bird legs and stringy calves.

Either she has no sense of what works for her, or she’s making the best of what freebies her assistant can still scrounge for her. I can’t imagine most major fashion houses are clamoring for their brands to be associated with her and you know she would turn her nose up at smaller houses. The question is why is she not championing small, women owned brands or brands by African American designers ?

R475 There is nothing invented about her perjury, the lies she and Harry told on Oprah, or that revolting trip to Uvalde.

For starters. If you choose to discount the revolving door of staff at Archewell, starting with losing a plum prize like Catherine Saint Laurent in less than a year, then you're fooling yourself.

In fact, Meghan and Harry have made their nauseating hypocrisy, lies, and bad intentions unmissable by the naked eye.

I notice you keep evading the perjury and Oprah lies.

Those weren't invented. Those are public record.

Yet, somehow, they don't seem to count with you as evidentiary material.

We'll invent a new category for you: a Stealth Stan.

Speaking of Revenge, I predict Thomas Markle will do a big explosive interview on the Oprah level once he regains his speech or maybe even before which would garner more sympathy. It will be a big payday for him that he will need for his increased health problems.

Maybe with Piers Morgan or whoever the American counterpart is that would be sympathetic. Ignoring him during his major medical crisis will not go unpunished. The silence from both him and Samantha tells me something big is in the works.

Although I do believe he has been treated horribly by the daughter he doted on and spoiled I also, like HG Tudor of YT fame, believe he is a low level narcissist and she learned from her father and mother many of her machinations and shady behaviors. HG says Harry's wife is a "mid level narcissist" and in my opinion Pa Markle is a low to mid level narcissist with Saint Doria also being a mid level. Last time I mentioned how curious it is that Saint Doria is exempt from media criticism in this clown show I was called racist by the Sunshine Squawks Interns who infest DL.

^body dYsmorphic disorder

Autocorrect has it misspelled in its dictionary!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Harry and Meghan want to talk politics that's fine, but they need to give up their titles. Also, it's bad optics for your husband to talk about poverty while you're carrying a $5000 handbag and wearing thousands of dollars of jewellery.

[quote]The question is why is she not championing small, women owned brands or brands by African American designers ?

Have we been crediting her with far more intelligence than she actually has?

[quote]We'll invent a new category for you: a Stealth Stan.

They've been trying that tactic on and off for a long time. Eventually they crumble and start with the old fags and klan granny ignorance that is their natural habitat. Won't take long.

R548. But I wrote the letter that got Mandela released from prison. Not many people know that.

I can and can't believe he referred to Constitutional rights being stripped away.

The slap downs will be amusing.

Most people don't know this, but Uncle Nelson could tell me things he couldn't tell others, despite me being a school boy. He told me so himself

If only Harry had been there to make sure Mandela had the right people around hm.

It's been quite a couple of days.

Has anyone asked if Meghan's OK or have.we.done.it.[italic]again???[/italic]

[quote]Sienna Williams

There's never a dull moment on the Meghan Markle threads.

Which other soul brothers and soul sisters did they ask to speak for this Nelson mandela event besides Prince Harry?

Brooke Shields? Anderson Cooper? Gwyneth Paltrow?

One thing I like about the Megtards is they're never around when the going gets tough.

South African Media is trolling Harry.

I HATE Piers but his impression here is hilarious. Harry does look absolutely miserable and seething throughout his speech.

Boy, do they ever draw a crowd.

^^^LOL!

This was such a disaster, from every angle.

Today, 7/18, is Thomas Markle's birthday. Did the humanitarian who so frequently speaks of kindness wish her father happy birthday or ask if he is o.k.?

What makes this especially pathetic is that if William or Kate had delivered the speech, the place would have been packed.

If these two don't know how to make themselves happy, nothing they will make the other happy. All you are doing is buying temporary peace between each of their tantrums. This is the Sussex life in a nutshell.

No wonder he looked so grim. Speaking to an almost empty room. The UN is becoming their favorite venue for humiliation.

I love how everyone in the audience is so enthralled and engaged by his speech.

"I think we made a huge difference today with your speech, H!"

--Meghan tonight in their hotel room at the Pierre

Didn’t watch much of it, but did he say much beyond a depressing litany of the world’s problems?

He named checked Diana, Meghan, Archewell, his kids, and ran off at the mouth about disinformation, democracy, climate change, and managed to mention Mandela as "a man as colorful as his shirts". It reeked of Meghan's writing style.

I’m sure they accepted the request to speak before learning that the UN is in recess. Of course they couldn’t back out. She’s still gunning for a UN appointment.

But it was the keynote address!

Do they have any fans left outside of Lipstick Alley?

Piers Morgan is right about that at least, their brand is so negative. It’s all about grievance and dysfunction. Bummer. They need to produce something that people enjoy. I’d respect them more if they put out a line of tasty whole-grain energy bars or sustainable home goods. Where’s Meg‘s podcast, by the way?

Harry seems to have "borrowed" from William....

To continue my train of thought: Consider what Paul Newman did with all his products. They’re good products, the packaging and marketing is playful and upbeat, and all toward a good cause. Imagine if the Sussexes did something like that. Enough of this playing at being humanitarians. Hell, not everyone likes Ben & Jerry’s politics, but at least they make something that everybody loves. This is my free advice to Harry and Meghan.

Are you kidding r578? The MM Unpopular Opinions thread is one of the most active on there. They seem to monitor the board topics rigorously too. Unlike DL, there’s never more than one thread on there whenever anything is going on with them. There were maybe two during the jubilee—one discussing their antics and one on the jubilee. They have a lot more users, so the board is less of a free-for-all than DL, they run a fairly tight ship. Dump is another example—there are rarely threads on him, and only when something is going on. But most of the fun of DL is the fact that it’s somewhat of a free-for-all. Finally, they do have a fun forum called Celebrity Dark Room.

Why, oh, why, do they always end up looking so pathetic yet unlikable at the same time?!

R583 because they're pathetic and unlikeable.

R502 And...clutching hands, check!

Excellent points, r581. It's remarkable a company that started out on a bit of a lark and with charitable intent has lasted so long. And their track record for donations is pretty good from what I gather. Two differences: Newman actually offered a useful product, his own homemade salad dressing and, more importantly, he let the experts run the company. Over 30 years later here it is still thriving with over half a billion in sales and many diverse offerings.

Newman understood his limitations -- he was an actor with a good heart and good intentions, but he wasn't a captain of industry. The Susseses have no such levels of awareness. They don't even know to focus on one or two issues like Newman and his foundation did in the early days -- giving underprivileged kids a fun camp experience away from home. Newman didn't think his magnanimity and mere presence could save the world.

LOL! Look at the audience for his speech. Nothing but empty seats. Hilarious

This is from Piers Morgan's show tonight, which included an interview with Mandela's grandson, Ndaba:

. . . "Morgan revealed that Mandela’s grandson Ndaba told him in an exclusive interview for tonight’s Piers Morgan Uncensored, 'Harry should practice what he preaches just as Nelson always did to such powerful effect. I don’t think you have any understanding of what real suffering is, or what it really means to be a victim.'"

Harry is getting mocked across the globe for his naked hypocrisy, the half-empty room, the images of diplomats ignoring his speech as they look at their phones and talk to each other . . .

^Forgot link to article mentioned above.

Ummm... yikes.

Do we need a part II?

New thread. Sorry for the non-fancy name.

Does Markle steal shoes, R591?

Bet that was one very uncomfortable private jet ride home for the Harkles

R590 I’ll second your “yikes” and add a “good grief how embarrassing!”.

It’s the first time that I’ve seen them so off script.

That link at R590 looks like Meghan is going to give him a major dressing down for doing that in front of cameras!

Oh my gosh, for a moment I genuinely thought she was going to drag his hand into her crotch! And the she pats and strokes his arm as though he's a toddler who needs soothing. What an act of dominance and power. TBH, that's precisely how he was acting. And the mismatch between the emotions projected, Meghan's benign glazed smile doing the Nancy Reagan while Harry's looks could kill...

I've been reading the Nicole Brown Simpson thread and this couple eerily gives off the same vibes as OJ and his victim. This will not end well, hopefully not as badly. If the rumors of Harry beating up prostitutes in drunken blackouts during Apache training in California are true, this could get very volatile.

R590 That clip is very telling. Serious trouble in paradise.

They are both very acutely aware of how unpopular they are. If they spend as much time on social media as indicated, they know.

R597 - Also, keep in mind that according to the Daily Beast she's holing up at the Beverly Hills Hotel (or whichever one is the Pink Palace) to work on her podcasts, despite Spotify opening a large, luxurious podcast facility.

Thread Closed!

New Thread