Fergie writes romance novels now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mills & Boon is her UK publisher. William Morrow/Harper is her publisher in the US. She also has a 22-book contract in Australia. I've never heard of a contract that big. She must be super popular there.

Anonymous wrote:No one buys her books.

The first romance made the bestseller list in the UK. It has thousands of reviews on Amazon and Goodreads.

Ok I'll amend what I wrote.

No one with half a brain buys her books.

I've read plenty of Harlequin books, as well as the racier bodice rippers. Sure, they're trashy. And when I was younger, I used to hide the covers, to avoid the judgment. I'm older now and know better.

[Anonymous]

She seems very sweet and fun loving. She wrote kids books I believe and during covid did a bunch of videos of her reading kids books out loud. I think she was treated like trash by the media for years and has come out the other side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess you are all pretty young. No one here remembers the scandal of Fergie going bankrupt, and then trying to sell access to the Royal family?

Yeah, I don't like her tbh. She's a grifter, and you know she put up with Andrew's ways (and she definitely knew about ALL of his shady dealings, not just the sex trafficking fetish) just so that she could have a roof over her head and someone to pay the bills.

Honestly the Queen should've told Andrew that she'd cut his allowance unless he kicked Fergie out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a royal watcher but Harry & Meghan's trashy reality TV lifestyles have got me reading about the royal family this week. Anyway, I found out that although Sarah "Fergie" Ferguson divorced Prince Pedo in 1992, she's been living with him in his historic mansion all these years. They still have tea together and claim they are...a happy divorced couple living under the same roof. OKAY.

So I found her Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/sarahferguson15) and she reviews Mills & Boon books, which is kind of hilarious. And she's been writing historical romance novels, where a lady gets romanced by a nobleman. I'm just imagining Fergie lobbing one of the Mills & Boon books at her ex-husband and saying, "Shall we give it another go?" Like, how does she read these scenes and not cackle, knowing how her life turned out?

Anyone read her published romances?

Anyway, other than the weird Mills & Boon thing, she seems like a calm and polite 61-year old lady. Gives refugees a platform, lives quietly, doesn't behave like Markle. So that's nice.

This is going to end up locked like all the others so I won't hold back:

-Nice try at masking your obsession with hating Megan Markle behind a supposed interest in Sarah Ferguson. Byeeeee.

How about we start the new year not bringing Harry and Meghan into other royal threads?

NP - How about taking that up with the OP? Since the OP started the thread — making reference to “Markle”, this seems like a thread you should have avoided altogether PP.

[Anonymous]

You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.

That's the definition of trashy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.
That's the definition of trashy.

You...do know that what ends up recommended to you on YouTube, Netflix and social media is at least in part determined by your own previous searches or things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them? So some algorithms out there have some reason to think you, personally, would be interested in British royal whatever in your feeds.

I watch tons of British TV and films, read British news and watch British YouTubers (because our family is all in the UK), and I don't get any Harry and Meghan recommendations at all. So somewhere the godlike algorithms caught clicks on Harry and Meghan stuff and associated them with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.
That's the definition of trashy.

You...do know that what ends up recommended to you on YouTube, Netflix and social media is at least in part determined by your own previous searches or things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them? So some algorithms out there have some reason to think you, personally, would be interested in British royal whatever in your feeds.

I watch tons of British TV and films, read British news and watch British YouTubers (because our family is all in the UK), and I don't get any Harry and Meghan recommendations at all. So somewhere the godlike algorithms caught clicks on Harry and Meghan stuff and associated them with you.

Sorry, never searched for Harry & Meghan. I know you're desperate to call people karens and royal watchers, but this stuff has never held the slightest interest in me. Although, by your own admission, "things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them" is a possibility, and that still doesn't make anyone a royal watcher. It still makes harry and meghan trashy though, and you a karen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.
That's the definition of trashy.

You...do know that what ends up recommended to you on YouTube, Netflix and social media is at least in part determined by your own previous searches or things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them? So some algorithms out there have some reason to think you, personally, would be interested in British royal whatever in your feeds.

I watch tons of British TV and films, read British news and watch British YouTubers (because our family is all in the UK), and I don't get any Harry and Meghan recommendations at all. So somewhere the godlike algorithms caught clicks on Harry and Meghan stuff and associated them with you.

Sorry, never searched for Harry & Meghan. I know you're desperate to call people karens and royal watchers, but this stuff has never held the slightest interest in me. Although, by your own admission, "things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them" is a possibility, and that still doesn't make anyone a royal watcher. It still makes harry and meghan trashy though, and you a karen.

DP. That PP was right about the algorithms. You or those who are like you have clicked on H&M links so now the algorithms have associated that with you. That's how the algorithms work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.
That's the definition of trashy.

You...do know that what ends up recommended to you on YouTube, Netflix and social media is at least in part determined by your own previous searches or things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them? So some algorithms out there have some reason to think you, personally, would be interested in British royal whatever in your feeds.

I watch tons of British TV and films, read British news and watch British YouTubers (because our family is all in the UK), and I don't get any Harry and Meghan recommendations at all. So somewhere the godlike algorithms caught clicks on Harry and Meghan stuff and associated them with you.

Sorry, never searched for Harry & Meghan. I know you're desperate to call people karens and royal watchers, but this stuff has never held the slightest interest in me. Although, by your own admission, "things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them" is a possibility, and that still doesn't make anyone a royal watcher. It still makes harry and meghan trashy though, and you a karen.

DP. That PP was right about the algorithms. You or those who are like you have clicked on H&M links so now the algorithms have associated that with you. That's how the algorithms work.

Grasping at straws and technicalities. Still doesn't make anyone a "royal watcher".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.
That's the definition of trashy.

You...do know that what ends up recommended to you on YouTube, Netflix and social media is at least in part determined by your own previous searches or things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them? So some algorithms out there have some reason to think you, personally, would be interested in British royal whatever in your feeds.

I watch tons of British TV and films, read British news and watch British YouTubers (because our family is all in the UK), and I don't get any Harry and Meghan recommendations at all. So somewhere the godlike algorithms caught clicks on Harry and Meghan stuff and associated them with you.

Sorry, never searched for Harry & Meghan. I know you're desperate to call people karens and royal watchers, but this stuff has never held the slightest interest in me. Although, by your own admission, "things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them" is a possibility, and that still doesn't make anyone a royal watcher. It still makes harry and meghan trashy though, and you a karen.

DP. That PP was right about the algorithms. You or those who are like you have clicked on H&M links so now the algorithms have associated that with you. That's how the algorithms work.

Totally different question but is that really how the Netflix page works? I watch Netflix all the time but never click that button to say whether I like something. It never seems to suggest anything particular to me. It suggests romances, which I hate. It’s constantly pushing Emily in parks and I don’t like anything in that young person schlocky genre. The top listings are always just what’s trending and what’s new. So I usually just flip through those. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that NF is using any particular algorithm to suggest things to me—I figured that was because I’ve never told it what I like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.
That's the definition of trashy.

You...do know that what ends up recommended to you on YouTube, Netflix and social media is at least in part determined by your own previous searches or things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them? So some algorithms out there have some reason to think you, personally, would be interested in British royal whatever in your feeds.

I watch tons of British TV and films, read British news and watch British YouTubers (because our family is all in the UK), and I don't get any Harry and Meghan recommendations at all. So somewhere the godlike algorithms caught clicks on Harry and Meghan stuff and associated them with you.

Sorry, never searched for Harry & Meghan. I know you're desperate to call people karens and royal watchers, but this stuff has never held the slightest interest in me. Although, by your own admission, "things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them" is a possibility, and that still doesn't make anyone a royal watcher. It still makes harry and meghan trashy though, and you a karen.

DP. That PP was right about the algorithms. You or those who are like you have clicked on H&M links so now the algorithms have associated that with you. That's how the algorithms work.

Totally different question but is that really how the Netflix page works? I watch Netflix all the time but never click that button to say whether I like something. It never seems to suggest anything particular to me. It suggests romances, which I hate. It’s constantly pushing Emily in parks and I don’t like anything in that young person schlocky genre. The top listings are always just what’s trending and what’s new. So I usually just flip through those. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that NF is using any particular algorithm to suggest things to me—I figured that was because I’ve never told it what I like.

Yep, you're correct. PP is just grasping at straws because they don't want to face the actual issue that began the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not a Roy watcher but you've concluded that Harry and Meghan have 'trashy' reality TV. OK, karen .

I'm not a royal watcher either, but Harry and Meghan are so trashy that I literally can't avoid them. They're all over social media, their nonsense keeps popping up as recommended YouTube videos, and I can't open Netflix without having their whiny documentary stuff recommended either.
That's the definition of trashy.

You...do know that what ends up recommended to you on YouTube, Netflix and social media is at least in part determined by your own previous searches or things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them? So some algorithms out there have some reason to think you, personally, would be interested in British royal whatever in your feeds.

I watch tons of British TV and films, read British news and watch British YouTubers (because our family is all in the UK), and I don't get any Harry and Meghan recommendations at all. So somewhere the godlike algorithms caught clicks on Harry and Meghan stuff and associated them with you.

Sorry, never searched for Harry & Meghan. I know you're desperate to call people karens and royal watchers, but this stuff has never held the slightest interest in me. Although, by your own admission, "things you stumbled over and clicked on even if you didn't search for them" is a possibility, and that still doesn't make anyone a royal watcher. It still makes harry and meghan trashy though, and you a karen.

DP. That PP was right about the algorithms. You or those who are like you have clicked on H&M links so now the algorithms have associated that with you. That's how the algorithms work.

Totally different question but is that really how the Netflix page works? I watch Netflix all the time but never click that button to say whether I like something. It never seems to suggest anything particular to me. It suggests romances, which I hate. It’s constantly pushing Emily in parks and I don’t like anything in that young person schlocky genre. The top listings are always just what’s trending and what’s new. So I usually just flip through those. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that NF is using any particular algorithm to suggest things to me—I figured that was because I’ve never told it what I like.

You don’t have to rate a Netflix show to receive suggestions. If I watch a movie to its conclusion or a season of a series. I will receive suggestions with a notation of “since you watched so and do, here are some suggestions for you.” I started receiving a lot of Asian action-thriller suggestions after concluding a different series.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought this thread was about Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas.

Me too!

[Anonymous]

Fergie has been a hot mess and a leech for decades. She lives with Andrew because otherwise she would likely be homeless or get remarried to some unsavory character who wants proximity to the Royal family.

From The Firm’s perspective, it’s better to have her nearby where they can keep tabs on her. So long as she keeps her head down and doesn’t cause drama, her and Andrew will be allowed to keep up their unorthodox arrangement and get their respective monthly allowances. They both have regular side-pieces that the UK media has agreed to not report on.

This is how dysfunctional The Firm really is.