Spare a Moment for H&M, Part 3

[Derfel Cadarn]

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

Indeed. 

You're talking to an American - the country where for 25 years violent crime perpetually decreased but that didn't prevent the media from amplifying such threats at every opportunity.  And now that crime has marginally increased after covid, the nominally "liberal" party is so afraid of not being tough on crime they're willing to vote against DC's right to govern themselves.

Right, they just should have relied on the firm's protection!  That clearly was working out great for them!  What a load of fucking horseshit such cognitive dissonance engenders.

Yep, Harry is of the belief staff working for other royals (Charles, William) were briefing the press agsinst them. 
Also speculation that William got court orders preventing the press in England from talking about his alleged affairs, the media instead went after Meghan.

[kiko]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

And just look at this list of times they are being photographed in California. The idea that they are just being left alone is pure fiction. 
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-paparazzi-california-1567634

The fact that a news magazine chronicles those things tells you everything you need to know about how twisted the press behaves here.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 3/10/2023 at 5:55 AM, DMC said:

Maybe, just maybe, the Sussexes safety concerns had more to do with the British paparazzi which is always going to hound them incessantly in London but is far easier to mitigate when you're neighbors with Oprah?  I mean, I dunno, crazy thought, but maybe that was Harry's predominate safety concern considering the role they played in his mother's death.

Or that their position as working royals required them to make public appearances in a country where the non-stop tabloid narrative was making said public increasingly hostile to them? How about the mental toll this was taking on both of them?

A few people involved with their security over the years have commented on this publicly. And there's a big difference between getting pap'd coming out of a restaurant and what she went through in Toronto, for example. 

One anecdote from Spare that infuriated me was that they had to give up one of her dogs when she left Toronto. A consequence of the neighborhood disruption caused by the press was that he started going into guard-dog mode whenever he was with Meghan and started getting aggressive with people. That's just wrong. 

Not to mention that she was contemplating suicide at one point; Piers Morgan's skepticism notwithstanding. 

Edited March 14 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:53 AM, Cas Stark said:

Again, no.  They were not physically hounded by the paparazzi in the UK.  It didn't happen and it does not happen and has not happened since Diana died. 

Don't worry. The actual extent of press intrusion and illegal news gathering relating to Prince harry is about to be decided in court. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 3/6/2023 at 11:53 PM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

He follows this up with, "She didn’t know? It’s the royal family! They’re the original racists!"... conveniently  out of the NY post review. 

I’ll try to judge the people heaping praise on Rock over his Megan comments in the best of faith.

I think most of her detractors—especially conservatives who’ve hate boner for Markle—who are heaping praise on him are actually listening to what he’s criticizing her for and just instinctively praised someone for speaking negatively of her. His claim here is that it’d be unreasonable for Markle expect the Royal family to not be extremely racist.

 

Also I’m going to be a bit more generous.

think most of her detractors—especially the conservatives—could spot the non-sequitor in someone saying x isn’t racist because black people do x.
Even if you think a Royal asking how a brown Megan’s baby would be isn’t racist—it would be—the logic Rock used can still be dismissed as nonsensical.

 

On 3/9/2023 at 11:34 PM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

You know what I find interesting? When it comes to Prince Andrew; about whom there are credible allegations of participation in the sexual exploitation of a minor, who herself was the victim of an alleged conspiracy involving sex slavery and human trafficking; call him a, "pedophile" and there are (multiple) calls for restraint and precision in the language we use.

When it comes to the Sussexes, every distortion, every exaggeration, every bloody tedious non-sequitur gets embraced, enthusiastically.

Only an observation, not a judgment.

Truth isn’t as important as establishing a positive narrative around traditional cultural icons to many people unfortunately.

anyone who can jeopardize that narrative generally will be type casted as devil incarnate.

Andrew likely did have sex with sex slaves younger than the 17 year old sex slave we know was provided by the man whose sex trafficking hundreds minors.

I don’t ultimately it’d make him less popular in the Uk. than Megan.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[Cas Stark]

The devil is in the details as they say.

Apparently, H and M neither paid back the cost of the renovations to Frogmore Cottage, as was said, nor paid any actual rent on Frogmore, as was also said.  Instead, the cost of the rent they would have paid was applied to the cost of the renovations.   

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-in-tense-talks-with-palace-over-coronation

As for Meghan's dog, there are several versions of why she rehomed him.  First, it was said the dog, then 6, was 'too old' for the transatlantic flight.  The next version was that the dog didn't like Harry.  Harry's version in Spare is yet a third iteration where the dog became aggressive as a result of the paps.  It's odd that they wouldn't have told this version from the beginning as it would have created huge sympathy for Meg.  

ETA...that may be wrong, it's different from the Daily Mail story, which says they did pay the cost of the renovations and then the rent was used to offset that cost, e.g. they never paid any rent.

Edited March 19 by Cas Stark

[Wall Flower]

7 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

The devil is in the details as they say.

Apparently, H and M neither paid back the cost of the renovations to Frogmore Cottage, as was said, nor paid any actual rent on Frogmore, as was also said.  Instead, the cost of the rent they would have paid was applied to the cost of the renovations.   

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-in-tense-talks-with-palace-over-coronation

As for Meghan's dog, there are several versions of why she rehomed him.  First, it was said the dog, then 6, was 'too old' for the transatlantic flight.  The next version was that the dog didn't like Harry.  Harry's version in Spare is yet a third iteration where the dog became aggressive as a result of the paps.  It's odd that they wouldn't have told this version from the beginning as it would have created huge sympathy for Meg.  

ETA...that may be wrong, it's different from the Daily Mail story, which says they did pay the cost of the renovations and then the rent was used to offset that cost, e.g. they never paid any rent.

I think you've misread the article. According to the Daily Mail's version from my newsfeed, Harry and Meghan did reimburse the cost of the renovations with a lump sum of 2.4 million pounds but then ceased paying rent as part of an undisclosed deal with their landlord. Supposedly, the increased value of the property as a result of the renovations, which the Sussex's effectively paid for, was applied as rent in lieu. The property was previously a series of separate cottages so the Royal Estate (and maybe Andrew) has had a win at Harry and Meghan's expense.

Of course, this all depends on the reliability of the Daily Mail (parent company being sued by Harry) and Palace sources.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Why is a rent even involved with this cottage, was Elizabeth or Charles needy or something?

^^^Its poor taste for billionaires.

The only way id burden a member of the extended family for rent would be if i fell on hard times. I guess i shouldve chiseled the kid for using the loft last summer?

Again, the Queen stood mum as the press called the cottage a gift from her. I guess my house is a gift from the mortgage company that I pay monthly?

Im glad H&M didnt fork over any rent to such vultures.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 3/19/2023 at 4:18 PM, Wall Flower said:

Daily Mail (

This may be unfair to introduce in the conversation but I still remember this gem from them whenever I seem them cited 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11212515/Putins-limousine-hit-loud-bang-possible-attack.html

Quote

Putin's limousine is 'hit by loud bang' in possible 'attack' – but Russian leader is left unharmed – according to anti-Kremlin sources who revealed health scares… and also claim 'he has ordered gymnast lover to have an abortion'

 

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Interesting thread. 

 

[Fragile Bird]

Stories keep popping up on my Google News page saying Kate has left William because he’s having an affair with her former best friend.

Guys, don’t hold out on us! Is it true?

[Tywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Stories keep popping up on my Google News page saying Kate has left William because he’s having an affair with her former best friend.

Guys, don’t hold out on us! Is it true?

This same story seems to pop up every 6-12 months. I'm not seeing anything recent.

[polishgenius]

Yeah a story pops up that he's cheated on her because he likes to get pegged and she doesn't want to, and then they get pictured going to church together with the woman who's supposedly ramming him. 

It seems unlikely.

[BigFatCoward]

Of all the rumours in all the world, the one i most want to be true is the pegging love triangle. 

[Cas Stark]

On 3/20/2023 at 11:22 AM, DireWolfSpirit said:

Why is a rent even involved with this cottage, was Elizabeth or Charles needy or something?

^^^Its poor taste for billionaires.

The only way id burden a member of the extended family for rent would be if i fell on hard times. I guess i shouldve chiseled the kid for using the loft last summer?

Again, the Queen stood mum as the press called the cottage a gift from her. I guess my house is a gift from the mortgage company that I pay monthly?

Im glad H&M didnt fork over any rent to such vultures.

 

As I understand it, they were 'gifted' Frogmore based on them being full time working royals.  That's why the renovations were initially paid for by the sovereign grant, and why when they quit, they paid the money back and were allegedly paying rent, which it turns out, they never did.

There may be some mandates on paying market rate rent on some of the crown properties now.   I know in the past QEII was criticized for renting apartments to her cousins as a pittance.  Worth noting again, that the rf does not own most of the royal residences or properties.  They only outright own, e.g. if the monarchy ends they keep them Balmoral, Sandringham and Highgrove?.

[SeanF]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:24 AM, polishgenius said:

Yeah a story pops up that he's cheated on her because he likes to get pegged and she doesn't want to, and then they get pictured going to church together with the woman who's supposedly ramming him. 

It seems unlikely.

If Kate’s not into it, presumably she’s happy that her friend performs that particular task, in her place.

[Derfel Cadarn]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

If Kate’s not into it, presumably she’s happy that her friend performs that particular task, in her place.

I’m sure she was *thrilled* to learn her best friend was ramming her husband up the arse with a strap-on.

Or not, since there was definitely a falling-out between them. The media reported that but left out the runours of affairs.

[kiko]

On 3/24/2023 at 6:54 AM, SeanF said:

If Kate’s not into it, presumably she’s happy that her friend performs that particular task, in her place.

Unfortunately wifes are one area in the hectic world of business where outsourcing tasks are met with energetic resistance by the stakeholders. Even when they themselves refuse to hold said stake.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]