Jump to content

Spare a Moment for H&M, Part 3


Tywin et al.

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we now have the ultimate crossover, I believe.  I have been following the Disney/Florida/DeSantis/Reedy Creek saga with all of my nerdy Disney-loving lawyer heart.  Disney appears, for now, to have out-lawyered DeSantis' ability to mess with WDW.  https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-disney-new-reedy-creek-board-powerless-20230329-qalagcs4wjfe3iwkpzjsz2v4qm-story.html

Here's where it is fun.  There is an ancient doctrine called the "rule against perpetuities" (which was basically enshrined in the common law to prevent dead hand control perpetually over land).  The basic rule is you can tie things up for a life in being plus 21 years.  Historically, the person picked was the king or queen of England or their descendants, because that is a life that is well documented and known.  Well, that's what Disney did.  They picked the last surviving member of King Charles plus 21 years.  Lilibet is like 2....making her the ultimate...Disney Princess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what any of that means but it sounds amazing.

-

Dismissed.

The Morgan and Wooton types were fucking salivating at the thought of H+M being deposed. Aw shucks.


I’m also seeing that Harry et al’s lawsuit against Associated Newspapers is holding up Paul Dacre’s nomination to the House of Lords. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I have no idea what any of that means but it sounds amazing.

-

Dismissed.

The Morgan and Wooton types were fucking salivating at the thought of H+M being deposed. Aw shucks.


I’m also seeing that Harry et al’s lawsuit against Associated Newspapers is holding up Paul Dacre’s nomination to the House of Lords. 

It’s dismissed “without prejudice” which means she can try suing again. The judge states she can try one more time to get relief. I wonder if she’ll try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...