When I looked at the original language, I thought it had no place on the Royal Family website, which is normally more factual in tone. Someone slapped up her PR copy without a rewrite - or maybe the tantrums weren't worth it.Excellent news isn't it? At last they are getting wise to her and frankly it's embarrassing that they have to have anything about this woman on their website other than 'currently married to Prince Harry'
if it were subject to California law (as far as I am aware) it comes down to splitting the money which was made during the marriage (I am going by the Johnny and Amber divorce). There would be the problem of the marriage taking place in the UK and the child of the marriage being born in the UK, and the Queen apparently has custody of the child. However, try getting Archie back from the US who presumably couldn't care less as to whether the Queen has custody of royal kiddies.does anyone know what will happen if there is a divorce in terms of finances.. especially since he doesn't have a prenup....
B**chIf Harry is calling Doria "Mom" - I wonder what Archie is calling her?
It seems like they let her have it when she joined because it wasn't a fight worth having so yeah she can blow smoke up her our ass in something that reads like a Z list actress definitely trying to polish up her limited resume. Then she left a hot minute later so now they're paring it down to reflect that because all that guff was hot air and insincerity anyway.When I looked at the original language, I thought it had no place on the Royal Family website, which is normally more factual in tone. Someone slapped up her PR copy without a rewrite - or maybe the tantrums weren't worth it.
It's not too surprising it's had a rewrite to remove the fluff and to ensure that every item can be fact checked - but they've gone further and pruned it right back. None of her patronages are named. The contrast between her minimal entry and Haz's long text is striking.
His money is tied up in an iron clad trust. She'll be lucky to walk away with a portion of his army pension and a handshake. Two to three years isn't a long time.does anyone know what will happen if there is a divorce in terms of finances.. especially since he doesn't have a prenup....
@Campagne
All aboard the Freedom bus, cries Meghan as her friends are crushed under the wheels
Camilla LongJuly 26 2020, 6.00pm
You will by now have hopefully recovered from Prince Harry and Meghan’s latest round of tiara-twanking and courtier-yanking. In Finding Freedomwe were treated to a devastating string of teeny tiny regal microaggressions including the humiliating non-moment the Duchess of Cambridge didn’t give the Duchess of Sussex a lift to the shops in her Range Rover. We also learnt that Prince William had not always been one hundred per cent complimentary about La Sussex. He’d once referred to her as “this girl” in a private (he thought) conversation with the dedicated privacy crusader Prince Harry, who promptly leaked it. It was astonishingly petty stuff.
Meghan seems to expect such blind loyalty that friends routinely feel obliged to telephone newspapers and give anonymous quotes about her “calm” and “penmanship”. In some cases, the duchess knows they’re calling. In others, she claims she doesn’t. In February 2019, for example, five friends secretly telephoned People magazine to gush about “how much Meghan loves her animals”. Meghan says she didn’t know about the interviews but I can’t help wondering who else would have come up with the phrases “she makes everywhere she goes feel like a holiday” and “she personifies elegance, grace, philanthropy”? It’s pure Meghanese.
Prince Harry has apparently leaked details of a ‘private’ chat with his brother, while Meghan’s legal action against a newspaper risks exposing her loyal friends
YUI MOK
One of the friends even cleverly thought to mention that Meghan had selflessly written a letter to her father to mend their broken relationship. This letter is now the subject of a court case the duchess is waging against The Mail on Sunday. The duchess says the paper shouldn’t have printed a private note. The paper says the letter wasn’t really private because it had already popped up in People magazine. If the Mail can prove Meghan sanctioned the letter stuff by cross-examining the five friends in open court, her privacy case collapses. A lot’s riding on these friends.
At this point, as one of Meghan’s matcha-licking buddies, I might be vaguely asking whether friendship with Meghan has been all it’s cracked up to be. Having spent the past five years secretly, or otherwise, conducting a PR campaign for her by feeding stories about her bomb-ass roast chicken, I now risk being further thrown under the bus and unveiled just so that she can have her triumphal post-court, tear-choking, street-style moment à la Amber Heard. On Wednesday, in a fresh submission to the court, the duchess said unmasking these friends would be an “unacceptable price to pay” as they were private citizens and “young mothers”. But Kate’s a young mother, and Meghan hasn’t ever defended her. Far from it: she has apparently allowed a whole book to be published tearing her down. Why wouldn’t she screw over her mother friends if it suited?
She’s already thrown away far more than mere friends: her own family, his family, even their home over here. It’s devastating to think how far this humourless couple have fallen in their pursuit of what they call “happiness”. They’ve gone from hanging out with Jay-Z and Beyoncé to trying to persuade a judge that Meghan has some kind of psychic hold over her mates (who leaks positive stories without telling the subject first?). There are the sad video messages with the usual authoritarian language: just a few days ago a comatose Prince Harry issued one from some rapper’s brocaded toilet, reminding us of “what is right”. Whoever’s words he was reading, they didn’t feel like his. The script’s now all wrong.
Harry isn’t an eco-travel crusader any more than Meghan’s an anti-bullying campaigner or a feminist. Using “young mothers” as bargaining chips in court is about as feminist as marrying your husband for status or being a princess. It is about as feminist as allowing gossipy anecdotes that spark a public catfight with your sister-in-law to go unchecked because you v Kate is the bitchy story that will generate the best headlines.
Sponsored
Lots of women use feminism merely for self-promotion: Meghan isn’t a feminist, never was. And yet nothing will stop this couple trying to prove they are victims.
Batteries are not that expensive surelyHis money is tied up in an iron clad trust. She'll be lucky to walk away with a portion of his army pension and a handshake. Two to three years isn't a long time.
Child allowance will come into it, that'll be a fair old chunk. Poor Charles.
What's half of minus numbers?Well if Cali law means she will get half of what they have made whilst being married...that won't take alot of counting unless I missed some news...maybe she will owe him
Or maybe they won't need any money where they are going...just pity
if it were subject to California law (as far as I am aware) it comes down to splitting the money which was made during the marriage (I am going by the Johnny and Amber divorce). There would be the problem of the marriage taking place in the UK and the child of the marriage being born in the UK, and the Queen apparently has custody of the child. However, try getting Archie back from the US who presumably couldn't care less as to whether the Queen has custody of royal kiddies.
thank you! yeah, i don't know much about california laws. they might as well keep all their lawyers on speed dial at this rate.His money is tied up in an iron clad trust. She'll be lucky to walk away with a portion of his army pension and a handshake. Two to three years isn't a long time.
Child allowance will come into it, that'll be a fair old chunk. Poor Charles.
It’s still there. You can find it under the Headline biography.So apparently there has been some updates on the RF website to do with biographies of the different members. They've deleted most of Meghan's supposed background in philanthropy and just mention the fact she withdrew as a working royal and is in North America. Everyone else in the family has stayed the same on there...
Meghan Markle's royal biography STRIPS her of her HRH title
The page's bio, which details senior members of the royal family's background and duties, now refers to Meghan Markle, 38, as 'she' or the 'Duchess', instead of 'Her Royal Highness'.www.dailymail.co.uk
Nobody who is on her payroll in any form will ever say no, or even "Maybe that's not the thing to do your High Highness" because they're enjoying sending another invoice for their services and it's all very easy money ... ker-ching! Nor do they have friends who give a shit enough to point out potential own goals or mishaps. Nobody cares about them. Just Haz's family(about him) and they are keeping their noses out and letting the farce play outso they can't be accused of shit stirring.How did Scobie and his mistress ever come to think that exposing what is so obviously emnity, spite, treachery and cowardice was going to rehabilitate them? I know were talking a massive delusional bubble here but in truth, apart from the poor sad creatures who think shes Diana come again only better, EVERYONE else can see it. Surely someone at some stage would have said "are we sure this is good idea?" Its another fascinating aspect of the story - I mean have you heard one defence of the book or its subject matter anywhere but Sugarland?
Can't help feeling that as and when a divorce is announced that there will be national outpourings of joy and corks a-popping......does anyone know what will happen if there is a divorce in terms of finances.. especially since he doesn't have a prenup....
Malibu MegI Hope Prince Harry Finally Accepts What We Know of Meghan Markle
Prince Harry has used many excuses why Meghan Markle isn't well-recieved by the public. But the truth is it's because she's not Kate.www.ccn.com
The next thing is they'll take out a page in the Times to deny rumours of a split (like Cindy Crawford and Richard Gere), which will, of course, preempt a splitIt seems like they let her have it when she joined because it wasn't a fight worth having so yeah she can blow smoke up her our ass in something that reads like a Z list actress definitely trying to polish up her limited resume. Then she left a hot minute later so now they're paring it down to reflect that because all that guff was hot air and insincerity anyway.
With Haz they're still hoping he'll come back one way or the other and he's still a member of the family, albeit the very black sheep prodigal son at the moment.
If a divorce happens it's going to be nasty. What's the betting that Harry will suddenly be as snobbish, uncaring, racist and nasty etc etc as they and Scooby Doo said about the rest of the family? With lots of extra awful ISMS added in. And that's just the printable parts. The rest will be Depp/Heard and Waleses in toxicity and TMI.
I read her book during lockdown. Yes she was much maligned and thrown under the bus over her sleeping around, but she also knew what she was doing and thought long and hard(she says) before delivering the stolen papers to the russians on behalf of Stephen Ward because she knew they were dynamite that Ward was too cunning to deliver himself. She knew what Cliveden was about and introduced Mandy R D and other girls into that group so was a bit of a recruiter of fannies for hire, which could have had her charged with pandering style charge as well. The big names involved over Cliveden and who was shagging who and who had open marriages was one hell of an eye opener for me. I thought such orgiastic behaviour in politics a more recent invention,I just have to comment here a little re Christine Keeler. She had a pretty bad childhood and was just 19 years old when the affair with John Profumo and that pool party at Cliveden took place. It is true that we all are responsible in the end for our own lives, but compared to our two protagonists Harry and Meghan, I think she deserves to be excused. Christine died in December 2017 and it is such a terrible shame and a sign of those times how her life turned out to be.
Same way people defend Michael Jackson..?i hate those sugars! I still don't understand how they can support and defend someone they have never met in real life! She's enabling them to do all the dirty work for her, while she sits behind that borrowed mansion planning who to litigate next.
There was a case not so long ago, where an american actress has 2 children by a man who lived in Monaco. The kids were taken to the USA and the actress grassed him up about how he'd obtained his visa and he was sent back. Because of her devious and underhanded behaviour the courts (both american and European) granted full custody to the father.if it were subject to California law (as far as I am aware) it comes down to splitting the money which was made during the marriage (I am going by the Johnny and Amber divorce). There would be the problem of the marriage taking place in the UK and the child of the marriage being born in the UK, and the Queen apparently has custody of the child. However, try getting Archie back from the US who presumably couldn't care less as to whether the Queen has custody of royal kiddies.
It will be a triple paid public holidayCan't help feeling that as and when a divorce is announced that there will be national outpourings of joy and corks a-popping......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?