Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 4

[Anonymous]

In addition to Knauf, Markle said he worked with Dylan Howard to mess up the wedding. Howard ran the National Enquirer, was Harvey Weinstein's fixer, buried negative stories about Trump, and was part of the blackmail scheme against Jeff Bezos.

I'm thinking Markle is going to end up dead before he has a chance to say more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In addition to Knauf, Markle said he worked with Dylan Howard to mess up the wedding. Howard ran the National Enquirer, was Harvey Weinstein's fixer, buried negative stories about Trump, and was part of the blackmail scheme against Jeff Bezos.

I'm thinking Markle is going to end up dead before he has a chance to say more.

Absolutely wild. And really, really disheartening to think that their scheme worked, what with the thousands, if not millions, of people who outright despise Meghan due to the contrived scandal mill — many of them here on DCUM itself.

The prestige TV show a la The Crown in a decade or two’s time covering this chapter of the BRF history will be juicy, no doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. How much more transparent can the pro-royal media be? Such blatant favoritism and bias.

It’s not just favoritism. This interview aired on September 14th, by September 17th it was stripped from every media site and will not be re-aired in circulation. Plus an on-air apology within 48 hours. That is simply because the BRF woke up and realized Thomas had implicated Kensington Palace in his interview. Don’t forget KP was also name checked in the sworn testimony for Meghan’s trial. Within weeks she had won her court case and no more trial or testimonies.

They’re protecting the heir.

https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/sunrise-slammed-over-thomas-markle-interview-harry-meghan-new-low-002135998.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. How much more transparent can the pro-royal media be? Such blatant favoritism and bias.

It’s not just favoritism. This interview aired on September 14th, by September 17th it was stripped from every media site and will not be re-aired in circulation. Plus an on-air apology within 48 hours. That is simply because the BRF woke up and realized Thomas had implicated Kensington Palace in his interview. Don’t forget KP was also name checked in the sworn testimony for Meghan’s trial. Within weeks she had won her court case and no more trial or testimonies.

They’re protecting the heir.

https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/sunrise-slammed-over-thomas-markle-interview-harry-meghan-new-low-002135998.html

Despicable. Honestly, it just makes me wish Harry and Meghan even more success. Success is, after all, the best revenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to Knauf, Markle said he worked with Dylan Howard to mess up the wedding. Howard ran the National Enquirer, was Harvey Weinstein's fixer, buried negative stories about Trump, and was part of the blackmail scheme against Jeff Bezos.

I'm thinking Markle is going to end up dead before he has a chance to say more.

Absolutely wild. And really, really disheartening to think that their scheme worked, what with the thousands, if not millions, of people who outright despise Meghan due to the contrived scandal mill — many of them here on DCUM itself.

The prestige TV show a la The Crown in a decade or two’s time covering this chapter of the BRF history will be juicy, no doubt.

Everything from the false ‘Kate cried at wedding’ story to the non-existent floating yoga studio was part of a narrative to vilify her. While she was pregnant.

We told you. What’s worse - KP started this hate storm then worked to strip her of her security when she fled it.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

Why is it off putting? As a American this is par for the course. The Clintons and Kennedys did the same thing for decades. The Gates Foundation fundraises even though the founders are self-made billionaires. The wealth of Billy Graham and Joel Osteen is directly tied to their churches.

Doesn’t mean they all don’t do good work and we need more Americans like them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

Why is it off putting? As a American this is par for the course. The Clintons and Kennedys did the same thing for decades. The Gates Foundation fundraises even though the founders are self-made billionaires. The wealth of Billy Graham and Joel Osteen is directly tied to their churches.

Doesn’t mean they all don’t do good work and we need more Americans like them.

And would you still have found it off putting if you hadn’t been fed the false narrative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

Why is it off putting? As a American this is par for the course. The Clintons and Kennedys did the same thing for decades. The Gates Foundation fundraises even though the founders are self-made billionaires. The wealth of Billy Graham and Joel Osteen is directly tied to their churches.

Doesn’t mean they all don’t do good work and we need more Americans like them.

And would you still have found it off putting if you hadn’t been fed the false narrative?

I think it's really weird that the counter-argument is, "But other jerky celebs and rich people do it, so why shouldn't they?"

I mean, that's fine...but it doesn't persuade me to believe H&M are actually good people. They come off as jerks. So do the Clintons (for myriad reasons) and some of the Kennedys (I adore the young Joe Kennedy, and as far as I can tell he is just an all around good guy who doesn't seek fame or fortune). I have never liked Bill and Melinda Gates...fake, self-absorbed, privileged weirdos. And Billy Graham and Joel Osteen are legit grifters...which seems akin to H&M. H&M's "church" praises them as heroes.

Like I already said, the false narrative didn't impact me at all. I take everything published by tabloid media with a grain of salt. There's no way to know if any of it is true. But, when you hear H&M in their own words being videotaped and interviewed or using their social media platforms, I assume they are presenting their best selves and I feel entitled to judge them based on what they say/do for public consumption. Based on their own words and actions shared by them using media surrogates or directly themselves, these two are jerks not saints.

I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks they are equipped to pontificate about anything. They lack credibility and expertise, and they operate in a very transparent money-grabbing sort of way. No clue why you wouldn't find that off-putting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

Why is it off putting? As a American this is par for the course. The Clintons and Kennedys did the same thing for decades. The Gates Foundation fundraises even though the founders are self-made billionaires. The wealth of Billy Graham and Joel Osteen is directly tied to their churches.

Doesn’t mean they all don’t do good work and we need more Americans like them.

And would you still have found it off putting if you hadn’t been fed the false narrative?

I think it's really weird that the counter-argument is, "But other jerky celebs and rich people do it, so why shouldn't they?"

I mean, that's fine...but it doesn't persuade me to believe H&M are actually good people. They come off as jerks. So do the Clintons (for myriad reasons) and some of the Kennedys (I adore the young Joe Kennedy, and as far as I can tell he is just an all around good guy who doesn't seek fame or fortune). I have never liked Bill and Melinda Gates...fake, self-absorbed, privileged weirdos. And Billy Graham and Joel Osteen are legit grifters...which seems akin to H&M. H&M's "church" praises them as heroes.

Like I already said, the false narrative didn't impact me at all. I take everything published by tabloid media with a grain of salt. There's no way to know if any of it is true. But, when you hear H&M in their own words being videotaped and interviewed or using their social media platforms, I assume they are presenting their best selves and I feel entitled to judge them based on what they say/do for public consumption. Based on their own words and actions shared by them using media surrogates or directly themselves, these two are jerks not saints.

I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks they are equipped to pontificate about anything. They lack credibility and expertise, and they operate in a very transparent money-grabbing sort of way. No clue why you wouldn't find that off-putting.

What do they pontificate about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

I don’t find them off putting at all. I think they seem to be finding their way quite nicely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

Why is it off putting? As a American this is par for the course. The Clintons and Kennedys did the same thing for decades. The Gates Foundation fundraises even though the founders are self-made billionaires. The wealth of Billy Graham and Joel Osteen is directly tied to their churches.

Doesn’t mean they all don’t do good work and we need more Americans like them.

And would you still have found it off putting if you hadn’t been fed the false narrative?

I think it's really weird that the counter-argument is, "But other jerky celebs and rich people do it, so why shouldn't they?"

I mean, that's fine...but it doesn't persuade me to believe H&M are actually good people. They come off as jerks. So do the Clintons (for myriad reasons) and some of the Kennedys (I adore the young Joe Kennedy, and as far as I can tell he is just an all around good guy who doesn't seek fame or fortune). I have never liked Bill and Melinda Gates...fake, self-absorbed, privileged weirdos. And Billy Graham and Joel Osteen are legit grifters...which seems akin to H&M. H&M's "church" praises them as heroes.

Like I already said, the false narrative didn't impact me at all. I take everything published by tabloid media with a grain of salt. There's no way to know if any of it is true. But, when you hear H&M in their own words being videotaped and interviewed or using their social media platforms, I assume they are presenting their best selves and I feel entitled to judge them based on what they say/do for public consumption. Based on their own words and actions shared by them using media surrogates or directly themselves, these two are jerks not saints.

I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks they are equipped to pontificate about anything. They lack credibility and expertise, and they operate in a very transparent money-grabbing sort of way. No clue why you wouldn't find that off-putting.

What do they pontificate about?

They fancy themselves mental health experts (they are not).

They lecture about global warming and the environment—even going so far as to publicly share their procreation plans limited to 2 kids when nobody had bothered to ask (while jet-setting around the globe in private planes, living in a huge estate with massive gardens in a state suffering drought, wearing high end merchandise manufactured around the globe, etc.).

They are literally building a brand based on compassion and kindness as a means to remain relevant and generate massive amounts of personal wealth without actually working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

Why is it off putting? As a American this is par for the course. The Clintons and Kennedys did the same thing for decades. The Gates Foundation fundraises even though the founders are self-made billionaires. The wealth of Billy Graham and Joel Osteen is directly tied to their churches.

Doesn’t mean they all don’t do good work and we need more Americans like them.

And would you still have found it off putting if you hadn’t been fed the false narrative?

I think it's really weird that the counter-argument is, "But other jerky celebs and rich people do it, so why shouldn't they?"

I mean, that's fine...but it doesn't persuade me to believe H&M are actually good people. They come off as jerks. So do the Clintons (for myriad reasons) and some of the Kennedys (I adore the young Joe Kennedy, and as far as I can tell he is just an all around good guy who doesn't seek fame or fortune). I have never liked Bill and Melinda Gates...fake, self-absorbed, privileged weirdos. And Billy Graham and Joel Osteen are legit grifters...which seems akin to H&M. H&M's "church" praises them as heroes.

Like I already said, the false narrative didn't impact me at all. I take everything published by tabloid media with a grain of salt. There's no way to know if any of it is true. But, when you hear H&M in their own words being videotaped and interviewed or using their social media platforms, I assume they are presenting their best selves and I feel entitled to judge them based on what they say/do for public consumption. Based on their own words and actions shared by them using media surrogates or directly themselves, these two are jerks not saints.

I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks they are equipped to pontificate about anything. They lack credibility and expertise, and they operate in a very transparent money-grabbing sort of way. No clue why you wouldn't find that off-putting.

What do they pontificate about?

They fancy themselves mental health experts (they are not).

They lecture about global warming and the environment—even going so far as to publicly share their procreation plans limited to 2 kids when nobody had bothered to ask (while jet-setting around the globe in private planes, living in a huge estate with massive gardens in a state suffering drought, wearing high end merchandise manufactured around the globe, etc.).

They are literally building a brand based on compassion and kindness as a means to remain relevant and generate massive amounts of personal wealth without actually working.

How do you know they're not "actually working"? I don't think sharing that they're limiting themselves to 2 kids is "lecturing," and I think their activism around global warming/the environment was part of their work with the Royal Family, no?

I don't think they've portrayed themselves to be mental health experts. But they've certainly helped to advance the discourse in pop culture, which I can appreciate.

I really do think so many of the things they're roundly criticized for are due to the fact that their entire image is colored by the way they've been massively antagonized by the press. Everything they do or say will be painted in a very specific light by certain corners of the internet.

[Anonymous]

DP. When they stop calling themselves the Just Harry and Duchess of Sussex, then I won't think they are ridiculous strivers.

Can they hear themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the false narrative spun before the wedding, etc., H&M have been free of the BRF (aside from money from Prince Charles) and living in CA for quite some time now...controlling their own lives and media narrative (with their own media surrogates).

And, the end result is they seemingly demand praise and top dollar payment for their "work" while desperately curating a brand that puts them on a global pedestal as Prince and Duchess of Compassion. It's off-putting, and it has nothing to do with whatever false narrative was planted in British tabloids years ago. Rather, it's off-putting to see them demand to be treated as mental health and charity experts when we know they are strategically building their wealth through these schemes.

Why is it off putting? As a American this is par for the course. The Clintons and Kennedys did the same thing for decades. The Gates Foundation fundraises even though the founders are self-made billionaires. The wealth of Billy Graham and Joel Osteen is directly tied to their churches.

Doesn’t mean they all don’t do good work and we need more Americans like them.

And would you still have found it off putting if you hadn’t been fed the false narrative?

I think it's really weird that the counter-argument is, "But other jerky celebs and rich people do it, so why shouldn't they?"

I mean, that's fine...but it doesn't persuade me to believe H&M are actually good people. They come off as jerks. So do the Clintons (for myriad reasons) and some of the Kennedys (I adore the young Joe Kennedy, and as far as I can tell he is just an all around good guy who doesn't seek fame or fortune). I have never liked Bill and Melinda Gates...fake, self-absorbed, privileged weirdos. And Billy Graham and Joel Osteen are legit grifters...which seems akin to H&M. H&M's "church" praises them as heroes.

Like I already said, the false narrative didn't impact me at all. I take everything published by tabloid media with a grain of salt. There's no way to know if any of it is true. But, when you hear H&M in their own words being videotaped and interviewed or using their social media platforms, I assume they are presenting their best selves and I feel entitled to judge them based on what they say/do for public consumption. Based on their own words and actions shared by them using media surrogates or directly themselves, these two are jerks not saints.

I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks they are equipped to pontificate about anything. They lack credibility and expertise, and they operate in a very transparent money-grabbing sort of way. No clue why you wouldn't find that off-putting.

What do they pontificate about?

They fancy themselves mental health experts (they are not).

They lecture about global warming and the environment—even going so far as to publicly share their procreation plans limited to 2 kids when nobody had bothered to ask (while jet-setting around the globe in private planes, living in a huge estate with massive gardens in a state suffering drought, wearing high end merchandise manufactured around the globe, etc.).

They are literally building a brand based on compassion and kindness as a means to remain relevant and generate massive amounts of personal wealth without actually working.

Harry has done a TON of work during most of his adult life, far before Meghan, bringing attention to mental health issues, particularly in men and veterans. And he has struggled with mental health issues himself. I don't think they are perfect, but people who are well known and well admired talking openly about mental health issues is IMPORTANT. If it was just a bunch of psychiatrists no one would listen. Big name poeple lending their names to these type of awareness campaigns is actually really important.

I will never understand this take that it would have been 'better' for H&M to take Diana's 30M, go hole up somewhere obscure and never be heard from again while they live on interest. That would be throwing away the good they are capable of doing, which does rely on using their name.

As for making money off of it, well that is as American as apple pie.