Harry & Meghan #54 H&M to fall off their perch. More money needed, what won't they 'merch

[liar liar]

There is a really insightful story in Forbes by Guy Martin, which pinpoints gently but forensically how unimportant and, well, boring the Harkles are in the USA, and that's the sticking point for their Netflix deal. They aren't interesting or entertaining people. He's right.

Prince Harry And Meghan Markle: The Hollywood Production Deals, The Lawsuit, And The Press

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will be producers now. At the same time highly insular, they are proceeding with her lawsuit in London against Associated Newspapers, and they are retiring from social media. Here's how the flailing looks on the ground.

www.forbes.com

As has been routinely and universally pointed out, the feel-good, do-good Archewell philanthropic projects are not likely to make a return on Netflix's reported $100 million investment, so, fine: Maybe Montecito's new Windsors will let a camera team follow them around and just call that a documentary. Whatever they might imagine such a production to be, it's still going to be a reality-based non-fiction narrative with a few inevitably homey touches, approximately, sofa time in the den with Archie watching whatever approved children's programming can be ginned up.

The ball is in Netflix executives' court whether that wan product or others like it would have enough narrative meat on it to make money. At the end of the day, some of these content decisions are not going to be controlled by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and some of those same decisions will, necessarily, be about maximizing an audience. Though they have as a family been in the States for something like ten months, and though they've gained a sizable professional foothold in Los Angeles, a lot has happened in America over that time in which they have played little or no role. Boiled down, in box-office/eyeball terms: Sympathetic as they are as a couple, in Los Angeles and certainly in the broader United States, they simply do not have the same reach and certainly only a fraction of the wattage that they had in Britain.

There is exactly none of the heavy, courtly, castle-like apparatus of the Royal Family at hand in Los Angeles, no Trooping of the Colour, no balcony appearances with the Queen, no pheasant shoots, zero pomp, and even less circumstance........

That was an interesting article. I also enjoyed the fact that at the bottom was an invitation to e-mail and join the Forbes Passport newsletter which is a First Class Guide to Luxury Travel

 

[Minky Billups]

Gotta love that judge


You clearly have more to tell us. Spill!!!!!

Yes! More beans please!!

 

[liar liar]

In early October last year the press including Daily Mail commented on Sir Richard Dannat's letter to Hazzno, that the veterans needed him and missed his support. I wonder if BP sanctioned this with a view ahead to relieving Hazzno of his military roles. The former head of the British Army would not speak to the press about a member of the RF without BP approval. I'm probably being cynical here but BP are crafty and ruthless, and I hope they have this pair of hustlers trussed up well and good by the time this is over.

In court Hazzno discredited the Richard Dannatt letter. It's not true Your Honour, I am a veteran and have always had the backs of my men. Always serving, me. ANL and Dannatt are wrong, I'm right. The motive for Hazzno's suit against ANL was to prove his support for the military. However he has without any concept of the gravity of his actions thrown under a bus the former head of the British Army. You couldn't make it up.

This demeans Hazzno further and I wonder if that's why ANL conceded as they seemed to have a clear-cut case. It's highlighted his vindictive nature, and reminded people of his lack of support for the military and very public let-down of the Royal Marines in Deal. He's congratulating himself on a victory but it's another PR cock-up for our toy soldier.

Well we are already aware that there a number of servicemen who would completely contradict JCMH ever having had the backs of his men. Everyone had to guard his Royal Ineptness at some considerable loss. 'His men' - he doesn't deserve his own goldfish imo.

 

[Cinnamon.girl]

There are some wonderful comments at the DailyFail. One of them seems to be right onto something regarding the birth certificate change. Another is totally to the point. Just don't mind the stupid sugar inbetween. ;-)

View attachment 413410

What if the changes make A. the responsibility of GanGan in case of divorce? Would certainly explain her venomous reaction.

On a personal note: I am in a rabbit hole over at L S A. While I am still reading everything you write, I am too tired and lazy to like, heart or emoji anything right now. So any absence of mine, no matter how keenly felt by @Cinnamon.girl, is of fleeting nature. Or in the words of one of the greatest bards of our time: "I'll be back, baby!"

What's LSA? Glad you are OK, stay safe and you can always catch up later x

 

[Baguette]

Interesting detail in Newsweek

However, court documents show the original draft statement was altered to remove or change a number of the prince's criticisms.

The Mail on Sunday is the same newspaper wife Meghan Markle is suing for publishing extracts of a private letter she sent her father.

Judge Matthew Nicklin wrote in a court filing seen by Newsweek: "[Prince Harry's lawyer's] original draft statement in open court was unduly tendentious and it included criticisms of the [Mail on Sunday] which have, by agreement, now been removed or amended."

Prince Harry Slammed by Judge over Tabloid Criticisms, Ordered to Pay Costs

Prince Harry was accused of making "unduly tendentious" attacks on U.K. newspaper the Mail on Sunday by the judge in his Royal Marines libel claim, Newsweek can reveal.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Cinnamon.girl]

Well we are already aware that there a number of servicemen who would completely contradict JCMH ever having had the backs of his men. Everyone had to guard his Royal Ineptness at some considerable loss. 'His men' - he doesn't deserve his own goldfish imo.

Of course you are right that Hazzno was a liability in the military (and is a liability now). What puzzled me was that the Dannatt letter was widely published. I'm very surprised ANL apologised and settled, and wondered if there was something else going on as for me they had a clear case. That's what I meant to say!

 

[Wightgirl]

Interesting detail in Newsweek

However, court documents show the original draft statement was altered to remove or change a number of the prince's criticisms.

The Mail on Sunday is the same newspaper wife Meghan Markle is suing for publishing extracts of a private letter she sent her father.

Judge Matthew Nicklin wrote in a court filing seen by Newsweek: "[Prince Harry's lawyer's] original draft statement in open court was unduly tendentious and it included criticisms of the [Mail on Sunday] which have, by agreement, now been removed or amended."

Prince Harry Slammed by Judge over Tabloid Criticisms, Ordered to Pay Costs

Prince Harry was accused of making "unduly tendentious" attacks on U.K. newspaper the Mail on Sunday by the judge in his Royal Marines libel claim, Newsweek can reveal.

www.newsweek.com

I came on to post the same link. I thought Royston was another Scooby but this is a hatchet job! The judge removed sections of the statement (Smeggy insisting on over-egging?), denied the level of costs requested AND made hazza pay some costs to the paper

 

[cosmo girl]

What's LSA? Glad you are OK, stay safe and you can always catch up later x

I think LSA is lipstick alley ?

 

[Scotch Mist]

Article on Haznos petulant court case

Prince Harry Slammed by Judge over Tabloid Criticisms, Ordered to Pay Costs

Prince Harry was accused of making "unduly tendentious" attacks on U.K. newspaper the Mail on Sunday by the judge in his Royal Marines libel claim, Newsweek can reveal.

www.newsweek.com

So this is hardly a win for Hazno. He didn’t get the DM to pay his court costs, he did not get to read in court his completely insane rant AND he has to pay some of the DM’s fees for having them have to appear in court for this nonsense.
ETA Sorry didn't know that it had already been posted

 

[Baguette]

Of course you are right that Hazzno was a liability in the military (and is a liability now). What puzzled me was that the Dannatt letter was widely published. I'm very surprised ANL apologised and settled, and wondered if there was something else going on as for me they had a clear case. That's what I meant to say!

Angela Levin on Talk Radio this morning said it was simply ANL being sensible and choosing not to invest too much time and expense in this case. ot unusual for a paper to settle and limit their potential costs - after all, that was what Megzy was banking on with her case.

When I read their 'apology' it was much more like 'here's Harry's side of the story which he didn't give us as at the time', so felt like a clarification in spirit at least.

I came on to post the same link. I thought Royston was another Scooby but this is a hatchet job! The judge removed sections of the statement (Smeggy insisting on over-egging?), denied the level of costs requested AND made hazza pay some costs to the paper

Royston is actually writing some balanced journalism. What happened? Not complaining - it's very welcome!

 

[Minky Billups]

Interesting detail in Newsweek

However, court documents show the original draft statement was altered to remove or change a number of the prince's criticisms.

The Mail on Sunday is the same newspaper wife Meghan Markle is suing for publishing extracts of a private letter she sent her father.

Judge Matthew Nicklin wrote in a court filing seen by Newsweek: "[Prince Harry's lawyer's] original draft statement in open court was unduly tendentious and it included criticisms of the [Mail on Sunday] which have, by agreement, now been removed or amended."

Prince Harry Slammed by Judge over Tabloid Criticisms, Ordered to Pay Costs

Prince Harry was accused of making "unduly tendentious" attacks on U.K. newspaper the Mail on Sunday by the judge in his Royal Marines libel claim, Newsweek can reveal.

www.newsweek.com

He’s a pompous tit!

 

[LadyMuck]

For some reason I cant do links this afternoon! Maybe some kind tattler can. In Mail just now, H says we mustn't forget vulnerable children. Hmm...

 

[freda19]

In early October last year the press including Daily Mail commented on Sir Richard Dannat's letter to Hazzno, that the veterans needed him and missed his support. I wonder if BP sanctioned this with a view ahead to relieving Hazzno of his military roles. The former head of the British Army would not speak to the press about a member of the RF without BP approval. I'm probably being cynical here but BP are crafty and ruthless, and I hope they have this pair of hustlers trussed up well and good by the time this is over.

In court Hazzno discredited the Richard Dannatt letter. It's not true Your Honour, I am a veteran and have always had the backs of my men. Always serving, me. ANL and Dannatt are wrong, I'm right. The motive for Hazzno's suit against ANL was to prove his support for the military. However he has without any concept of the gravity of his actions thrown under a bus the former head of the British Army. You couldn't make it up.

This demeans Hazzno further and I wonder if that's why ANL conceded as they seemed to have a clear-cut case. It's highlighted his vindictive nature, and reminded people of his lack of support for the military and very public let-down of the Royal Marines in Deal. He's congratulating himself on a victory but it's another PR cock-up for our toy soldier.

Good point. I can never repeat it often enough and with this pair we have living proof time after time ... "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel".
That's a really good theory of yours re ANL choosing to let him think he'd won. Clearly they knew the compo would be a derisory sum falling well short of whatever demand the pompous ginger hole had made because it simply is a shite case, really a waste of court time and the kind of vexatious litigation that I could well imagine irritates the tit out of the legal system forced to handle it from the bench. When hazza insisted on making a statement in court ANL must have been rubbing their hands in glee because he's such a clown. Hilarious that they didn't even turn up to listen to his bullshit ... virtually ignoring him as not worth racking up the cost of a rep in court.
I would imagine that ANL took a gamble on this, figuring that any basic monetary award would be worth it to watch hazza puff his chest out and paint himself as a caring leader of the Military community when the UK at large know that he very publicly ditched an important military family memorial service to take smeggy to see a disney movie and pimp her out for work.
It tickles me hugely to visualise hazza running to mummy smeggy chanting "I did it babe! I told those bastards off and I even got money I can brag about donating to charidee. Aren't I marvelous? Are you proud of your brave soldier hero meggypops? Can we play roast chicken as my reward?" And she will be just as thrilled because they never look to the long game. They can't see past their immediate satisfaction to the fact that this is a pyrrhic victory. They look ridiculous, again.

 

[Scotch Mist]

For some reason I cant do links this afternoon! Maybe some kind tattler can. In Mail just now, H says we mustn't forget vulnerable children. Hmm...

Prince Harry children 'should not be forgotten' amid Covid-19 crisis

The Duke of Sussex, 39, who is currently living in his $14 million California mansion, has said vulnerable children 'should not be forgotten' amid the global Covid-19 crisis.

www.dailymail.co.uk

duck off Harry what the hell do you know about this more stating the obvious and making it all about them.
Harry is going to end up hated (and not just by Tattlers) if he carries on lecturing us all.

 

[Baguette]

And Tom Sykes in the Daily Beast (full story archived here https://archive.ph/mvmbR ) isn't pulling any punches either - 'sweating the petty'

Meghan Markle Shows Just How Much She Still Really Hates the Palace in Birth Certificate Row

Resentment drips out of Meghan Markle’s statement attacking the palace for “dictating” her nomenclature on Archie’s birth certificate. But permanently aggrieved isn’t a good look.

www.thedailybeast.com

Meghan Markle Shows Just How Much She Still Really Hates the Palace in Birth Certificate Row

SWEATING THE PETTY
Resentment drips out of Meghan Markle’s statement attacking the palace for “dictating” her nomenclature on Archie’s birth certificate. But permanently aggrieved isn’t a good look.


...But it seems, at least from the Sun on Sunday’s account of events that she was asked to comment on the very odd change of name on Archie’s both certificate, which is after all a matter of public record, and chose not to.
That hardly counts as being silenced, and that means this is hardly a tale of outrageous press abuse that Meghan’s statement seems to suggest it is. It more seems to be a cautionary tale about the inadvisability of responding in a timely manner to genuine press enquiries. And given that Meghan and Harry have a $100m deal with Netflix and a lucrative podcast deal with Spotify, complaining about agency-denial by the palace several years ago seems a bit like fighting yesterday’s war.
As they note, there is “a lot going on in the world” right now.
On Sunday, Buckingham Palace sources suggested that a “clerical error and nothing more than that” was to blame for the alteration to Archie’s certificate.
One has to wonder whether Meghan, in using this story to pick at the scab of her troubled relationship with the palace and the press, is really making things better.
For, whilst it remains unclear why the birth certificate was altered, Meghan’s statement makes it quite clear that her aggrieved resentment of the palace is still not in question at all.......

 

[cosmo girl]

Angela Levin on Talk Radio this morning said it was simply ANL being sensible and choosing not to invest too much time and expense in this case. ot unusual for a paper to settle and limit their potential costs - after all, that was what Megzy was banking on with her case.

When I read their 'apology' it was much more like 'here's Harry's side of the story which he didn't give us as at the time', so felt like a clarification in spirit at least.



Royston is actually writing some balanced journalism. What happened? Not complaining - it's very welcome!

Markled

 

[liar liar]

Of course you are right that Hazzno was a liability in the military (and is a liability now). What puzzled me was that the Dannatt letter was widely published. I'm very surprised ANL apologised and settled, and wondered if there was something else going on as for me they had a clear case. That's what I meant to say!

I think it is more along the lines of teaching him a lesson and also maybe that all the UK media now see them as fair game whereas before they were more politic towards matters concerning the Royals. An earlier Tattle alluded to this. Law courts over here really aren't too interested in endless battles purely for the sake of saving face. It's counter-productive really when you think about it. Something so silly that no-one noticed suddenly becomes the largest boil on a nose possible.

 

[Wightgirl]

The Telegraph are saying that Hazza had to pay the rest. Who spends £35k on a statement????

 

[Allflightscancelled]

The Telegraph are saying that Hazza had to pay the rest. Who spends £35k on a statement????

View attachment 413871

Will they EVER learn not piss money up the wall on ridiculous lawsuits

 

[NutMegandCinnamong]

Money that could be spent on “those paw orfuns an’ that” went to Harry’s tantrum instead. Bravo, my petty little “philanthropists”.

And good Lord, the venom from Smegma over that birth certificate! I thought they were free and happy now, unshackled and out of the shade of BP? If that were true she would have rolled her eyes and laughed at the speculation. What a dozy witch.