Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Neyite wrote: »

I think so. The Obamas had a very successful series and this is intended to replicate their successes but I don't think these two can pull off what the Obamas did. Unfortunately I don't think that H&M are as bright or as interesting.

Yeah, they are not the Obamas. Not that the Obamas are universally loved, but they are popular. And a big difference between the Obamas and Harry and Meghan is that the Obamas worked for everything they have. Barack's background was comfortably middle class, sure, but still just a normal middle-class background and Michelle is from a lower middle class background. They both got into Harvard Law which is incredibly hard to do*. There are wealthy kids all over America receiving their rejection letters from Harvard Law every year. Basically, they are both really smart.

Meghan is from an ordinary middle class background too but has married into privilege. And Harry seems to have good intentions despite his privilege but I just don't think he'll be able to hit the right notes. His life is so weird and so privileged and I just think that's alienating to a lot of people. And neither of them has anything all that interesting or insightful to say, IMO.

Nobody I've heard of It's pretty much everything that was ever in the press but from their point of view, and in such detail that they had to have collaborated extensively with the authors. Some are saying that much of it is reminiscent of the writing style of Meghans blog but I never read that so I wouldn't know.

God, that's a bit cringeworthy. Nothing critical of Meghan is eyebrow-raising because who has lived a perfect life?


*an utterly fascinating profile of a group of Harvard Law School grads and how the school chooses its candidates: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a842/killing-lawyers-harvard-0800/

Muahahaha

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I mean, Netflix must have some confidence in the content they will produce. But, still, flops do happen, TV shows are cancelled, films lose money. I think it's a big gamble. How much the banner of 'Harry and Meghan' will actually be worth and will it translate into sustained viewership is an unknown quantity.

I wouldn't be surprised if the headline figure of £100m is partly made up of performance related bonuses; if Harry and Meghan dont deliver the viewing numbers Netflix are projecting then they wont be getting the full £100m.

Same happened with Rory McIlroy who signed the worlds biggest sports contract (at the time) with Nike for $200m. What they didnt say was the $200m was contingent on him becoming the new Tiger Woods and winning X amount of Masters while wearing Nike clothes and using Nike golf clubs. As he hasnt taken over the space Tiger occupied like he was expected to theres no way he is getting the full $200m. He is still rather rich but left money on the table with that deal as he didnt go on to dominate golf like it once looked he might do when he was younger.

As for Harry and Meghan they'll attract an audience for the initial episodes as everyone tunes in to something new to have a gander. After that honeymoon period its hard to see how it will go well. Like they have no specific talent, they're not Louis Theroux and they definitely aren't David Attenborough. They'll just be two talking heads who happened to be once members of the Royal Family.

Humour Me

Surely the £100m isn’t money paid to them directly. Looks like Netflix are saying they will give them the money to produce content but all of the costs are coming out of that money, like script writers, camera men and equipment, directors, editors etc. They will probably claim a producer salary, so can take a significant chunk for themselves.

Streaming markets are saturated, subscriber growth in the US is very low. Netflix want to bring original content, but if they are making losses or Harry and Megan don’t bring the subscriber growth, the Netflix will cancel the contract.

blinding

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, they are not the Obamas. Not that the Obamas are universally loved, but they are popular. And a big difference between the Obamas and Harry and Meghan is that the Obamas worked for everything they have. Barack's background was comfortably middle class, sure, but still just a normal middle-class background and Michelle is from a lower middle class background. They both got into Harvard Law which is incredibly hard to do*. There are wealthy kids all over America receiving their rejection letters from Harvard Law every year. Basically, they are both really smart.

Meghan is from an ordinary middle class background too but has married into privilege. And Harry seems to have good intentions despite his privilege but I just don't think he'll be able to hit the right notes. His life is so weird and so privileged and I just think that's alienating to a lot of people. And neither of them has anything all that interesting or insightful to say, IMO.



God, that's a bit cringeworthy. Nothing critical of Meghan is eyebrow-raising because who has lived a perfect life?


*an utterly fascinating profile of a group of Harvard Law School grads and how the school chooses its candidates: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a842/killing-lawyers-harvard-0800/

I very much doubt that we would have heard about Meghan Markle but for this ~ ~

https://www.businessinsider.com/megan-markle-father-won-lottery-spent-winnings-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

You don’t ever hear Meghan talking about this and the advantage that this brought her ! !

I think the Dad should probably have kept more of it for himself and not spent so much on Meghan ! !

irishblessing

Neyite wrote: »

I assumed that much of the work involved will actually be done by talented folk in the industry with them just as talking heads reading off a script written for them.



Did anyone here read the Totally-Not-Authorised biography? I was on the fence about them and even gave them the benefit of the doubt for a lot of the stories but that book was laughably awful. I could not find a single critical moment of Meghan in it.

But you bought it and read it all :pac:

cnocbui

blinding wrote: »

I very much doubt that we would have heard about Meghan Markle but for this ~ ~

https://www.businessinsider.com/megan-markle-father-won-lottery-spent-winnings-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

You don’t ever hear Meghan talking about this and the advantage that this brought her ! !

I think the Dad should probably have kept more of it for himself and not spent so much on Meghan ! !

Private schools don't confer an advantage, it's the parents attitude and child's abilities that matter.

coffee_cake

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Meghan is from an ordinary middle class background too but has married into privilege.

was she not worth loads from Suits already

cnocbui

bluewolf wrote: »

was she not worth loads from Suits already

I believe she had earned an estimated 3.7 million, by the time Harry turned up. he's the pauper - it's all dad's money.

ohnonotgmail

cnocbui wrote: »

I believe she had earned an estimated 3.7 million, by the time Harry turned up. he's the pauper - it's all dad's money.

he had money he inherited from his mother.

Neyite

irishblessing wrote: »

But you bought it and read it all :pac:

Yes, I gave it a crack. I didn't have strong feelings about them either way, but thought a non-titled bi-racial person could bring diversity and something modern to the monarchy which I think it needs to survive after the Queen dies.

I disliked all the tabloid stuff because I feel a lot of it is racially motivated so I did want to hear the other side for balance.

But it was so very clearly Meghan's point of view. Not really even Harry's. For example when the book explains that the hairdresser was flying in for a trial and the Queen's personal wardrobe assistant (Angela Kelly) wasn't available to bring the tiara and it's implied that the woman was being deliberately evasive due to a personal dislike of Meghan until Harry rang the Queen and next thing the dresser was available.

There's no awareness in the book that the woman she's blaming is a close personal friend to the Queen and that she's been working for her for 25 years. There's not a thing mentioned about the fact that Angela Kelly is employed to be at the Queen's beck and call, not Meghan's hairdresser.

It's a tiara belonging to the queen. It's not like popping round to your Nans for a rummage through her jewellery box with your mate. There's probably very strict security and logistical issues with bringing it out of the vault and presumably vetting of the hairdresser and their team would need to take place beforehand.

If you are trying to pin down an appointment with the Her Majesty the Queen, Angela Kelly, security and your hairdresser, the appointment is NOT going to revolve around some celeb hairdresser's schedule really, is it?
Now, royal correspondents would of course know these things. Which is puzzling why they would present a narrative in the book that sounds as if it was someone with no working knowledge of how the Firm operates and who is used to getting what they want, when they want it.

irishblessing

Neyite wrote: »

Yes, I gave it a crack. I didn't have strong feelings about them either way, but thought a non-titled bi-racial person could bring diversity and something modern to the monarchy which I think it needs to survive after the Queen dies.

I disliked all the tabloid stuff because I feel a lot of it is racially motivated so I did want to hear the other side for balance.

But it was so very clearly Meghan's point of view. Not really even Harry's. For example when the book explains that the hairdresser was flying in for a trial and the Queen's personal wardrobe assistant (Angela Kelly) wasn't available to bring the tiara and it's implied that the woman was being deliberately evasive due to a personal dislike of Meghan until Harry rang the Queen and next thing the dresser was available.

There's no awareness in the book that the woman she's blaming is a close personal friend to the Queen and that she's been working for her for 25 years. There's not a thing mentioned about the fact that Angela Kelly is employed to be at the Queen's beck and call, not Meghan's hairdresser.

It's a tiara belonging to the queen. It's not like popping round to your Nans for a rummage through her jewellery box with your mate. There's probably very strict security and logistical issues with bringing it out of the vault and presumably vetting of the hairdresser and their team would need to take place beforehand.

If you are trying to pin down an appointment with the Her Majesty the Queen, Angela Kelly, security and your hairdresser, the appointment is NOT going to revolve around some celeb hairdresser's schedule really, is it?
Now, royal correspondents would of course know these things. Which is puzzling why they would present a narrative in the book that sounds as if it was someone with no working knowledge of how the Firm operates and who is used to getting what they want, when they want it.

Agree with you about Meghan's addition to the RF, definitely and the tabloid bs too. (I remember that Piers Morgan apologised for his treatment of them which is actually shocking)
I haven't read the book (would be interested to though) so I can't speak to what's in it. But as for the drama of the tiara, I have a couple of opinions. One is Meghan and Harry are both known to be very lovely people. I don't see them making a big deal about nothing if something wasn't going on that was ridiculous. And Meghan would have been very keen to start off on the best foot forward.
The second opinion I have is that no doubt the personal dresser lady Angela Kelly has been working with the Queen ages and are probably good friends. But I also wouldn't doubt that she throws her weight around a bit or at least feels above being at anyone else's "beck and call." But Meghan isn't just a celeb with a celeb hairstylist, is she? She was marrying a senior member of the royal family. Queens dresser or no she is there to serve at the end of the day and if she really respected the queen, she would respect the fact that her beloved grandson has a bit of priority in that they would have a probably quite strict timetable to need to follow. It should have been an easy enough thing, with plenty of people (and no doubt a serious wedding planning team!!) so the fact that something so simple was causing so much of an issue that Harry himself had to get involved says something. To me anyway!

Muahahaha

@Neyite might have some detail wrong but I think there was an extract of the book where Harry wanted a meeting with the Queen over something urgent (might have been them leaving royal duties). And the Queens secretary got back to him and said she wasnt able to meet him for 2 weeks. He then considered just rocking up to Buckingham Palace (which would have broke protocol) but decided against it. Is there any more detail to that event in the book? Just found it strange that the Queen was essentially brushing him off by telling her grandson that she couldnt meet him for a fortnight.

Also on tiaras -wasnt it the case before the wedding that Meghan said she wanted to wear a specific tiara from the Queens collection for her wedding day but the Queen stepped in and said 'no, you're not getting a lend of that one' ??

irishblessing

Just googled the tiara and the specific spat with the queen bit while I'm waiting on a meeting to start:

"However the author of a new biography about the couple claims that wasn't what happened at all, and said the meeting where Meghan picked the tiara was actually a lovely occasion. Omid Scobie claims that Meghan enjoyed the day so much that she was very disappointed when she saw the negative press.

Speaking to True Royalty TV's The Royal Beat, Scobie explains that the meeting where Meghan picked her tiara was actually a huge success.

He said: "The tiara selection went wonderfully. The Queen was very happy, Meghan was very happy. "In fact Meghan's words when that story came out were 'how sad, I love my tiara'."

However Scobie says that while the decision itself went smoothly, there was "drama" in the weeks that followed - but it had nothing to do with the Queen.

He claims that the Monarch's dressmaker and close friend made things very difficult when it came to arranging practise fittings.

He said: "The drama took place afterwards, when Meghan wanted to try that tiara on with her hair stylist, because there is a lot of tech that goes into this.
"They had to do an experiment with that before the wedding day. The hairstylist came in from overseas, there was an appointment at Buckingham Palalce, but nobody was there."

Scobie claims that Meghan kept trying to book in a day to do the trial run, but struggled to pin Angela down.

He said: "Each time Angela Kelly isn't available to arrange this, to facility this, despite agreeing to.

"It got to the point where staff around Harry and Meghan were tearing their hair out because the wedding was a couple of weeks away, months had passed at this point.

"Harry had to intervene. He called his grandmother and said, 'I don't know what the hell is going on, but this woman needs to make this work for my future wife'. “Meghan didn’t get to try the tiara on again until a few days before the wedding.”

And here's what Meghan said publicly about it, sounds like she chose the one she wanted from the outset, there was no drama with the queen:

"When it came to the tiara on the day, I was very fortunate to be able to chose this gorgeous art deco style bandeau tiara," Meghan said in the recording, according to Harper's Bazaar UK. "Harry and I had gone to Buckingham Palace to meet with her Majesty the Queen to select one of the options that were there which was an incredibly surreal day as you can imagine."

Harry sweetly revealed trying on a tiara was "every girl's dream," and he wholeheartedly agreed with Meghan's tiara of choice, the Queen Mary's bandeau tiara. "Funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best," Harry added. "The one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn't have really been there—but an incredible loan by my grandmother."

suicide_circus

People watching reality type shows want car crashes. I can't see Hasler & Megs making a show of themselves and being the butt of the joke.

Much more likely is that there will be plenty of po-faced lecturing and general right-on virtue signalling.

Feisar

irishblessing wrote: »

Just googled the tiara and the specific spat with the queen bit while I'm waiting on a meeting to start:

"However the author of a new biography about the couple claims that wasn't what happened at all, and said the meeting where Meghan picked the tiara was actually a lovely occasion. Omid Scobie claims that Meghan enjoyed the day so much that she was very disappointed when she saw the negative press.

Speaking to True Royalty TV's The Royal Beat, Scobie explains that the meeting where Meghan picked her tiara was actually a huge success.

He said: "The tiara selection went wonderfully. The Queen was very happy, Meghan was very happy. "In fact Meghan's words when that story came out were 'how sad, I love my tiara'."

However Scobie says that while the decision itself went smoothly, there was "drama" in the weeks that followed - but it had nothing to do with the Queen.

He claims that the Monarch's dressmaker and close friend made things very difficult when it came to arranging practise fittings.

He said: "The drama took place afterwards, when Meghan wanted to try that tiara on with her hair stylist, because there is a lot of tech that goes into this.
"They had to do an experiment with that before the wedding day. The hairstylist came in from overseas, there was an appointment at Buckingham Palalce, but nobody was there."

Scobie claims that Meghan kept trying to book in a day to do the trial run, but struggled to pin Angela down.

He said: "Each time Angela Kelly isn't available to arrange this, to facility this, despite agreeing to.

"It got to the point where staff around Harry and Meghan were tearing their hair out because the wedding was a couple of weeks away, months had passed at this point.

"Harry had to intervene. He called his grandmother and said, 'I don't know what the hell is going on, but this woman needs to make this work for my future wife'. “Meghan didn’t get to try the tiara on again until a few days before the wedding.”

And here's what Meghan said publicly about it, sounds like she chose the one she wanted from the outset, there was no drama with the queen:

"When it came to the tiara on the day, I was very fortunate to be able to chose this gorgeous art deco style bandeau tiara," Meghan said in the recording, according to Harper's Bazaar UK. "Harry and I had gone to Buckingham Palace to meet with her Majesty the Queen to select one of the options that were there which was an incredibly surreal day as you can imagine."

Harry sweetly revealed trying on a tiara was "every girl's dream," and he wholeheartedly agreed with Meghan's tiara of choice, the Queen Mary's bandeau tiara. "Funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best," Harry added. "The one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn't have really been there—but an incredible loan by my grandmother."

Never heard something more deserving of the phrase; "1st world problems"!

irishblessing

Feisar wrote: »

Never heard something more deserving of the phrase; "1st world problems"!

Ha ha, for sure. Probably even one step above that.

It is real for them though, the constant harassment and overt/covert racism and stalking, etc. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Neyite

irishblessing wrote: »

Just googled the tiara and the specific spat with the queen bit while I'm waiting on a meeting to start:

"However the author of a new biography about the couple claims that wasn't what happened at all, and said the meeting where Meghan picked the tiara was actually a lovely occasion. Omid Scobie claims that Meghan enjoyed the day so much that she was very disappointed when she saw the negative press.

Speaking to True Royalty TV's The Royal Beat, Scobie explains that the meeting where Meghan picked her tiara was actually a huge success.

He said: "The tiara selection went wonderfully. The Queen was very happy, Meghan was very happy. "In fact Meghan's words when that story came out were 'how sad, I love my tiara'."

However Scobie says that while the decision itself went smoothly, there was "drama" in the weeks that followed - but it had nothing to do with the Queen.

He claims that the Monarch's dressmaker and close friend made things very difficult when it came to arranging practise fittings.

He said: "The drama took place afterwards, when Meghan wanted to try that tiara on with her hair stylist, because there is a lot of tech that goes into this.
"They had to do an experiment with that before the wedding day. The hairstylist came in from overseas, there was an appointment at Buckingham Palalce, but nobody was there."

Scobie claims that Meghan kept trying to book in a day to do the trial run, but struggled to pin Angela down.

He said: "Each time Angela Kelly isn't available to arrange this, to facility this, despite agreeing to.

"It got to the point where staff around Harry and Meghan were tearing their hair out because the wedding was a couple of weeks away, months had passed at this point.

"Harry had to intervene. He called his grandmother and said, 'I don't know what the hell is going on, but this woman needs to make this work for my future wife'. “Meghan didn’t get to try the tiara on again until a few days before the wedding.”

And here's what Meghan said publicly about it, sounds like she chose the one she wanted from the outset, there was no drama with the queen:

"When it came to the tiara on the day, I was very fortunate to be able to chose this gorgeous art deco style bandeau tiara," Meghan said in the recording, according to Harper's Bazaar UK. "Harry and I had gone to Buckingham Palace to meet with her Majesty the Queen to select one of the options that were there which was an incredibly surreal day as you can imagine."

Harry sweetly revealed trying on a tiara was "every girl's dream," and he wholeheartedly agreed with Meghan's tiara of choice, the Queen Mary's bandeau tiara. "Funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best," Harry added. "The one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn't have really been there—but an incredible loan by my grandmother."

There's two different supposed rows. The first one was that the tabloids reported Meghan wanted a particular one with emeralds but the Queen felt it was politically unwise as it was of unknown origin possibly Russian. And according to the papers, the Queen reportedly said that she [Meghan] would wear what she was given. That's disputed in the book as you describe above.

The second row was about not being able to coordinate hair trials between the queens dresser, the hair dresser and Meghan in the months leading up to the wedding. That was in the tabloids and also described in the book but the blame is laid firmly at the feet of Angela Kelly, who's bound by confidentiality agreements and can't set the record straight.

AK has worked in that role since 1993. To put it in context, she's probably done the tiara+hairdresser stint for every royal wedding since Edward & Sophie, not to mention all the other times the queen lends tiaras out to all the other royals for various state occasions. She's well used to the drill.

I find it hard to believe that a long time employee of the Queen and someone counted as one of her closest friends would deliberately engineer something that would piss off the favourite grandson and potentially in turn, the Queen.

wyrn

Neyite wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that a long time employee of the Queen and someone counted as one of her closest friends would deliberately engineer something that would piss off the favourite grandson and potentially in turn, the Queen.

I actually can see this happening. I think she's been with The Firm for so long that she (like many others) have this very rigid notion of the family. I do think either consciously or subconsciously Angela was less inclined to work with Meghan harmoniously considering the last time a divorcée American joined the royal family. I also think being a tv star and bi-racial didn't help either.

irishblessing

wyrn wrote: »

I actually can see this happening. I think she's been with The Firm for so long that she (like many others) have this very rigid notion of the family. I do think either consciously or subconsciously Angela was less inclined to work with Meghan harmoniously considering the last time a divorcée American joined the royal family. I also think being a tv star and bi-racial didn't help either.

Exactly. If (and that's a big if because we only know what's leaked I suppose) this is the first time AK has (allegedly) acted badly, then what's different here? American, actress, bi-racial, divorcee. Who's family at the time was also dragging her name through the mud. Maybe she was being snobby towards Meghan for all/any of those reasons... to not show up at a scheduled appointment and then give them the run around for months just sounds disrespectful and difficult.

Neyite

But there's no proof that there was any scheduled appointments that were ignored. It's an allegation in a book that claims to be not authorised by anyone who would be privvy to that appointment.

It's a hefty accusation to say she was snobby towards someone due to her race when there's zero indication of any of that. It's known and documented that the Queen made exceptions to normal royal protocol to bring Meghan into the family fold, so it makes no sense that a friend of the queen would risk her both her lengthy career, senior staff position and her personal friendship with the queen to fcuk about H&M.

H&M have form for high staff turnover. So if anyone was potentially unreasonable or difficult my money wouldn't be on the Queens dresser.

McGinniesta

I'd ride her.

irishblessing

Neyite wrote: »

But there's no proof that there was any scheduled appointments that were ignored. It's an allegation in a book that claims to be not authorised by anyone who would be privvy to that appointment.

It's a hefty accusation to say she was snobby towards someone due to her race when there's zero indication of any of that. It's known and documented that the Queen made exceptions to normal royal protocol to bring Meghan into the family fold, so it makes no sense that a friend of the queen would risk her both her lengthy career, senior staff position and her personal friendship with the queen to fcuk about H&M.

H&M have form for high staff turnover. So if anyone was potentially unreasonable or difficult my money wouldn't be on the Queens dresser.

Well, considering H&M haven't taken legal action against Omid and he's now involved in their Netflix deal, I'd say that's as insider as we're going to get to the whole thing. But if we're going to be really honest here, there's no proof of anything. There's no proof of a tiara scandal then whatsoever. Because the only thing that came from the horse's lips were the statements made by H&M themselves (posted previously). Have they had particularly high staff turnover? I've also read interviews by former colleagues who say they're wonderful to work for and there were tears and sad goodbyes before they left the UK.

wyrn

Neyite wrote: »

But there's no proof that there was any scheduled appointments that were ignored. It's an allegation in a book that claims to be not authorised by anyone who would be privvy to that appointment.

It's a hefty accusation to say she was snobby towards someone due to her race when there's zero indication of any of that. It's known and documented that the Queen made exceptions to normal royal protocol to bring Meghan into the family fold, so it makes no sense that a friend of the queen would risk her both her lengthy career, senior staff position and her personal friendship with the queen to fcuk about H&M.

H&M have form for high staff turnover. So if anyone was potentially unreasonable or difficult my money wouldn't be on the Queens dresser.

Totally agree. I'm just thinking of it from real life. I know families that are cold to "outsiders" marrying in. I'm sure we've all seen it. I don't think AK acted badly but I wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't as readily available for Meghan as say perhaps, Sophie.

blinding

suicide_circus wrote: »

People watching reality type shows want car crashes. I can't see Hasler & Megs making a show of themselves and being the butt of the joke.

Much more likely is that there will be plenty of po-faced lecturing and general right-on virtue signalling.

And don’t forget the Private Jet Fumes and other Elite-ist Wind-Bagging !

blinding

cnocbui wrote: »

Private schools don't confer an advantage, it's the parents attitude and child's abilities that matter.

Not to mention the Money Money Money.

Alejandro68

Just curious why a lot of countries take such an interest in the royal business of one country?

blinding

Alejandro68 wrote: »

Just curious why a lot of countries take such an interest in the royal business of one country?

Bored.

Be right back

Neyite wrote: »

Yes, I gave it a crack. I didn't have strong feelings about them either way, but thought a non-titled bi-racial person could bring diversity and something modern to the monarchy which I think it needs to survive after the Queen dies.

I disliked all the tabloid stuff because I feel a lot of it is racially motivated so I did want to hear the other side for balance.

But it was so very clearly Meghan's point of view. Not really even Harry's. For example when the book explains that the hairdresser was flying in for a trial and the Queen's personal wardrobe assistant (Angela Kelly) wasn't available to bring the tiara and it's implied that the woman was being deliberately evasive due to a personal dislike of Meghan until Harry rang the Queen and next thing the dresser was available.

There's no awareness in the book that the woman she's blaming is a close personal friend to the Queen and that she's been working for her for 25 years. There's not a thing mentioned about the fact that Angela Kelly is employed to be at the Queen's beck and call, not Meghan's hairdresser.

It's a tiara belonging to the queen. It's not like popping round to your Nans for a rummage through her jewellery box with your mate. There's probably very strict security and logistical issues with bringing it out of the vault and presumably vetting of the hairdresser and their team would need to take place beforehand.

If you are trying to pin down an appointment with the Her Majesty the Queen, Angela Kelly, security and your hairdresser, the appointment is NOT going to revolve around some celeb hairdresser's schedule really, is it?
Now, royal correspondents would of course know these things. Which is puzzling why they would present a narrative in the book that sounds as if it was someone with no working knowledge of how the Firm operates and who is used to getting what they want, when they want it.

I remember reading somewhere, for her wedding Kate practised her hairstyle, using a plastic tiara from the likes of Claire's accessories.

Neyite

Be right back wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere, for her wedding Kate practised her hairstyle, using a plastic tiara from the likes of Claire's accessories.

Yes, I remember now - googling brings up plenty of articles about it. A £6.50 plastic one. I imagine that's what normally happens and that Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie and whoever else got lent a tiara by Granny did likewise.


If that is the case then insisting on the real one to practise would come across as a bit precious, especially if it was good enough for every other royal woman.

blinding

Meghan wanted to be Queen and not some lower rank Princess ! !

I am not sure that Royals Higher Up in Line would have been Safe with Miss Markles about.

Except this Miss Markles would have been a Prime Suspect !