Piers storming off was hilarious! To be fair to him though, they had actually told a load of lies in that interview so he wasn't all wrong in what he said.
It's crazy how polarising they are as. They really are Marmite.
Piers storming off was hilarious! To be fair to him though, they had actually told a load of lies in that interview so he wasn't all wrong in what he said.No I don't think Piers has written anything about them like this but he used to go on and on and on about him until Alex the weather man put him in his place and he stormed off GMB. I was late for work that day as I kept rewinding it
Piers is an awful man too but thats not for this thread.
That was iconic tv - what Alex Beresford said was right about them having had met prior and she being entitled to cut him out if she wanted. I don’t get what Piers thought it was going to be - that he thought she was romantically interested and it hurt his ego or he thought he could be a palace confidante like Richard Kays but it’s beyond creepy.Piers storming off was hilarious!
The media were doing this well before Netflix and we'll before Oprah. The reason Netflix gave them the money is because they know the interest in them is immense, and that is driven by media reporting of their every utterance. Meghan has done nothing to deserve that amount of nastiness or that amount of obsession from two grown men- Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson.If they don't want the media to gossip and bitch about them then they shouldn't put their private lives out on Netflix in exchange for money
Especially as she actually did have eggs and things thrown at her for having an affair with her now husband, The King.Come on TYL, I’m a Royalist and I don’t like Meghan but Clarkson’s article was abhorrent. It is indefensible. Surely you’re not too blinkered to see that?
I also very much doubt Camilla would chuckle at it. It was a disgusting piece of writing.
Ironically, Camilla is probably the person who can most relate to Meghan's experience with the tabloids. They've both had the experience of being the most unpopular woman in Britain at one stage.The media were doing this well before Netflix and we'll before Oprah. The reason Netflix gave them the money is because they know the interest in them is immense, and that is driven by media government of their every utterance. Meghan has done nothing to deserve hat amount of nastiness or that amount of obsession from two grown jen- Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson.
Especially as she actually did have eggs and things thrown at her for having an affair with her now husband, The King.
Wisely VF would withdraw any comment about a sensitive health matter as a formal challenge would open the organisation to provide proof which may expose breaking GDPR. Potential for substantial liabilities.Wasn't the redaction about a so-called eating disorder? Is that what you call "unflattering" for Catherine? You don't think the RF should step in for something like that? (Whether she has one or not is nobody's fucking business and certainly shouldn't be alluded to by a supposedly reputable magazine.)
You don't know much about history, do you?In the Middle Ages that is exactly what would have happened to the Duke and Duchess, they are just fortunate to be living in the modern age
I think his actual main problem wasn’t anything he said or did particularly about Meghan … it was that he said he didn’t believe someone (and that could have been anyone) who said they had struggled with their mental health. On a programme that was sponsored by and had advert buffers for a mental health charity.Piers storming off was hilarious! To be fair to him though, they had actually told a load of lies in that interview so he wasn't all wrong in what he said.
It's crazy how polarising they are as. They really are Marmite.
Some of the staff don’t get paid that well by the royal household so I wouldn’t be surprised if any member of staff was leaking for extra money. They’re not necessarily friends to the Royals, they’re employees first and foremost, so even Harry and Meghan’s staff will have had an incentive to leak information for large sums of money. I’d be more inclined to believe individual members of staff were leaking before family. How many people can really say they care enough about their manager to reject thousands and thousands of pounds to not spill a few secrets if there’s minimal risk to you?Beware taking for gospel one-sided assumptions.
Assuming it must be leaked by the family because apparently only their offices knew ignores the other set of staff that knew - their own.
We have a tendency (that is very much fed by the media) to assume that there must always be a goodie and a baddie, when more often it's flawed people on both sides and an inability to communicate in a healthy way.
I agree. Imagine if you were paid at the lowest end of the scale (with no perks). I don't think I'd risk approaching the press but others mightSome of the staff don’t get paid that well by the royal household so I wouldn’t be surprised if any member of staff was leaking for extra money. They’re not necessarily friends to the Royals, they’re employees first and foremost, so even Harry and Meghan’s staff will have had an incentive to leak information for large sums of money. I’d be more inclined to believe individual members of staff were leaking before family. How many people can really say they care enough about their manager to reject thousands and thousands of pounds to not spill a few secrets if there’s minimal risk to you?
I'm not sure how these things work but if Camilla had even an hour's notice of this article, despite being all dressed up and ready to go she should have cried off. But I don't know how these things work. The 'optics' are horrendous thoughWhile I am sure the RF won’t comment on this, I think we also won’t see Camilla at an event with Clarkson for some time. Her staff will check for this from now on. What I find sad is that people are so polarised. You can dislike JC (for various reason), you can think the article is vile, harmful and abusive, you can read and therefore realise that Camilla did NOT invite him to anything. They happened to be at the same event. As with most public relations they have, I seriously doubt the level of closeness tabloids love to write into it.
This article most definitely was a stupid move for the tabloid because it does give H&M claims a solid ground. It’s probably the worst thing I have heard about in an official publication to be honest. It shouldn’t have gone to print. And it will give the RF a headache because this will throw some shade on Camilla and she and Charles are still on shaky ground in terms of sympathy.
not on actual trends, it’s all World Cup. That’ll just be your for you which is based on what you view, so if you view and follow a lot of royal tweets and accounts you’ll get it. I always get #princeharryisatraitor or #meghanisaliar#QueenOfBullies and #NotMyKing are trending on Twitter.
This is terrible PR for Charles and Camilla.
Ah ok, thank you for explaining!not on actual trends, it’s all World Cup. That’ll just be your for you which is based on what you view, so if you view and follow a lot of royal tweets and accounts you’ll get it. I always get #princeharryisatraitor or #meghanisaliar
With the role that she has now surely her office would see the guest list in advance?Camilla didn’t host it- she was invited
That's where royalties need to be carefulWith the role that she has now surely her office would see the guest list in advance?
Honestly I have absolutely no idea on that I was only responding to the the previous poster who said that Camilla had INVITED Clarkson.With the role that she has now surely her office would see the guest list in advance?
I think you can tell they are finding their way into the new role and things they could probably have got away with as first in line they can’t when you are top of the tree.Honestly I have absolutely no idea on that I was only responding to the the previous poster who said that Camilla had INVITED Clarkson.
Absolutely.With the role that she has now surely her office would see the guest list in advance?
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?