American Riviera Orchard and Meghan Markle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

It's entertainment. We can even use tabloid articles as "facts". None of it has to make sense. I'm sure there are other threads you can visit that would be more fun for you.

Lol. Wannabe moderator, just keep calm and carry on reporting everything. The PP and everyone else can choose what to read and what to respond to. Unless of course you need to again unburden yourself with screeds about what is entertainment….

Okay... back to the topic.

I wonder if the new CA state income taxes for the 1% will hasten a decision to look for greener pastures elsewhere. It's an insane expensive lifestyle in an insanely expensive state. Makes it even harder to keep your head above water.

They made such an absurd real estate decision. Their Russian oligarch owned mansion (but is he kind) was on the market for years with several price cuts. They claimed to put in an offer before they saw the interior. The Cut interview had Tonsure whining about the plumbing. They successfully scored deals that may put them in the tip-top but RE taxes seem the least of it; how would anyone not bringing in constant high income like an Aniston type —who markets and endorses as much as she puts out in terms of product lines - be able to afford repair, landscaping, domestic staff salary, lolz security detail?

I think their bills grow as the same rate as the inappropriate attention whoring. Thus the rush to “launch” this mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t love the idea of yet another celebrity lifestyle brand, but what else is MM supposed to do? I loved her on Suits but I can see why she wouldn’t want to be a struggling actress. I don’t think she has any other work history and I can’t see her working a corporate job. So lifestyle influencer actually sounds like a good fit.

As for Harry, I don’t know where he goes from here. Speaking engagements, maybe? Working for a non-profit?

Nobody likes a complainer so he can’t even be a motivational speaker. What would he speak on?

He talks about mental health and overcoming trauma. But I agree that I don’t find him inspiring or helpful. He’s built a brand on being a victim. There’s nothing noble in whining while living a privileged life. There’s nothing inspirational about not being able to get over your mother’s death. There’s nothing motivational about a guy who doesn’t have a real job and hasn’t accomplished anything in decades.

He hasn’t overcome trauma.

I didn’t say he overcame trauma. I said that’s what he talks about: mental health and overcoming trauma. That’s his brand: a grown man with a very public history of screwing up and doing nothing notable who rebranded under the bulletproof umbrella of mental health and trauma.

I’m not a fan, btw.

How can one talk about overcoming something they haven't overcome? Speakers aren't supposed to be de-motivational and depressing. Everyone wants an uplifting story. Which is why he's not going to be a sought after paid speaker.

I think he is working to overcome true trauma (major dysfunctional family, mom's mental health issues, dad's infidelity, mom's death) without many role models for emotional maturity and strength, but being born into insane wealth makes him unrelatable. He'd be better off devoting his life to charities for trauma survivors, especially underprivileged survivors of trauma, without trying to get pity for his own story.

Megan's life is not aspirational because she only has this platform due to marrying a royal. I think she also would be better off leaning into working for charities and keeping the spotlight on the cause, not herself.

They should have lived more below their means so they wouldn't have to make desperate moved. If they are paying for their own security detain that is tough, but nobody needs that big a house.

I always thought he should have stayed in the military. It seemed to be good for him.

His military image and care were greatly manufactured thanks to grandma. Harry is no different than many of the rich boys some of us encountered in college and early adulthood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

Don't blame everyone else that you don't understand what a burn rate is...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

It's entertainment. We can even use tabloid articles as "facts". None of it has to make sense. I'm sure there are other threads you can visit that would be more fun for you.

Lol. Wannabe moderator, just keep calm and carry on reporting everything. The PP and everyone else can choose what to read and what to respond to. Unless of course you need to again unburden yourself with screeds about what is entertainment….

Okay... back to the topic.

I wonder if the new CA state income taxes for the 1% will hasten a decision to look for greener pastures elsewhere. It's an insane expensive lifestyle in an insanely expensive state. Makes it even harder to keep your head above water.

They made such an absurd real estate decision. Their Russian oligarch owned mansion (but is he kind) was on the market for years with several price cuts. They claimed to put in an offer before they saw the interior. The Cut interview had Tonsure whining about the plumbing. They successfully scored deals that may put them in the tip-top but RE taxes seem the least of it; how would anyone not bringing in constant high income like an Aniston type —who markets and endorses as much as she puts out in terms of product lines - be able to afford repair, landscaping, domestic staff salary, lolz security detail?

I think their bills grow as the same rate as the inappropriate attention whoring. Thus the rush to “launch” this mess.

Not just property taxes, income tax in CA is now around 13% for the 1%. CA has been hemorrhaging high earners for a few years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

Don't blame everyone else that you don't understand what a burn rate is...

I didn’t comment on that particular topic. That said, I have my doubts that you’d get the details right anyway.

[Anonymous]

Oh gosh they’re probably already bankrupt!! Maybe that’s the big BBC announcement they’re waiting for in the other thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

No, if it doesn’t make sense we will not accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

Don't blame everyone else that you don't understand what a burn rate is...

I didn’t comment on that particular topic. That said, I have my doubts that you’d get the details right anyway.

Mmmhmm sure. When called on your bull you resort to "doubts". Find a new schtick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

Don't blame everyone else that you don't understand what a burn rate is...

I didn’t comment on that particular topic. That said, I have my doubts that you’d get the details right anyway.

Mmmhmm sure. When called on your bull you resort to "doubts". Find a new schtick.

Well, stop being wrong. 😆😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh they’re probably already bankrupt!! Maybe that’s the big BBC announcement they’re waiting for in the other thread!

That’s what I think too! Based on their burn rate all the money is gone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

Don't blame everyone else that you don't understand what a burn rate is...

I didn’t comment on that particular topic. That said, I have my doubts that you’d get the details right anyway.

Mmmhmm sure. When called on your bull you resort to "doubts". Find a new schtick.

Well, stop being wrong. 😆😆

You're contradicting yourself now. Stop embarrassing yourself, genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

Don't blame everyone else that you don't understand what a burn rate is...

I didn’t comment on that particular topic. That said, I have my doubts that you’d get the details right anyway.

Mmmhmm sure. When called on your bull you resort to "doubts". Find a new schtick.

Well, stop being wrong. 😆😆

You're contradicting yourself now. Stop embarrassing yourself, genius.

Where’s my contradiction? You were wrong about me speaking about burn rate, and I’m sure you were wrong about many other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP a few pages back was correct: Meghan was hoping to "break the internet."

She'll be "broke" soon, so she's at least got that part right.

Which is it? She will be broke soon or have more than enough money? Both things have been claimed in this thread. You all need to get on the same page about their financial health.

It's all speculation which is why it's in the entertainment forum, remember?

Absolutely. The PP was just asking for clarification because there’s a conflict with the messaging here.

Or maybe anonymous people have different opinions. It's doesn't have to be a coordinated effort as I'm sure you're aware.

Of course. As suspected, there’s no logic behind your opinions.

They’re poor! They’re rich! They use their kids! They don’t care about their kids!

Carry on.

We're trying, but you keep interjecting with your inane "gotchas". Take a break, the grownups are talking.

We like it here, we like to be observe what grownups talk about. If we need clarification we will ask for it.

And when you get it, accept it like a good little girl.

We will if it makes sense. Based on your history, I have my doubts.

Don't blame everyone else that you don't understand what a burn rate is...

I didn’t comment on that particular topic. That said, I have my doubts that you’d get the details right anyway.

Mmmhmm sure. When called on your bull you resort to "doubts". Find a new schtick.

Well, stop being wrong. 😆😆

You're contradicting yourself now. Stop embarrassing yourself, genius.

Omg shut UP. You’re all making fools of yourselves arguing with strangers on the internet about how to participate in a discussion forum. Back to the topic please!