The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[Eskimo]

So what did Netflix paid them 100 million for?

Lots of people have responded to it so I’ll keep it brief: the deal is potentially worth $100 to $150 million, depending on what Netflix buys. However, the Sussex are responsible for delivery of a fully produced, ready to air program to Netflix. I’ve had sources on other boards claim that they were probably paid as little as 5% of that as a seed payment to get Archwell Productions off the ground and rolling.

 

[Alisa]

Meghan has been bashed by the UK press for four years for various reasons. Race did play a role. Adding on weaponizing Meghan's disgruntled and greedy relatives.... Add this into the mix:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/12/...gbr-intl/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Black British journalists and some Black Britons of note have come on US news programs and backed up the aura of racism.

Thank you for sharing this article. The racism was very obvious in many of the bad press the Duchess received. No surprise there that journalists wouldn't admit to it.

 

[Heavs]

The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.

Well I'm personally annoyed because I'm an active member of the CofE but I know this isn't a huge deal to many people. This doesn't even really have to do with Harry and Meghan. If the ABC did agree to do a full "real marriage ceremony" complete with vows and declaration before God and agreed to fake it again three days later "for the spectacle", then yep that's a problem - For Him, he's in big trouble.

I agree if she/they want to consider their rehearsal their "real" wedding or wanted to say some personally written "I love you more than all the cheese in the moon" type vows in the garden and agree that's much more special/"real" than St George's with the world watching then fine.

However that's not what she said. She said

'Three days before our wedding, we got married,' 'No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said: 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us.'

'So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.' Harry added, singing: 'Just the three of us!'

Like she believes or is trying to say they literally got married and even called in Justin Welby specially to do it to make it real rather than just them alone. Which is what caused all the confusion even though she didn't mention anything legal. Because again he can still get into trouble for it.

Because 1) He pronounced them married without witnesses, which is against the rules
2) He allowed them to say two sets of vows/declarations before God, one of which he knew was fake and would be a reason for anyone who knew about it to object. And the "fake spectacle" ones were the ones with the actual witnesses.

It's problematic on a few different levels beyond "just three of us in the garden" sounds at first glance.

And if that's easily fact checked and proved to be stretching the definition of factual then it can be used as a barometer for many of their other eyebrow raising statements.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.

Because that's not what MM said. She stated outright that she and Harry were married three days before the "spectacle" of their televised wedding. Period. She didn't offer any qualifiers such as..." our wedding rehearsal felt so special and intimate that we like to consider it as our real wedding". BAM.

I agree with the poster who wondered why she even broached the subject in the first place...?

 

[Prinsara]

If you want to say whatever you want and it's not in a court of law, say whatever you want. But you probably should leave the troublesome priest out of it. Dragging him that publicly into something questionable and ecclesiastically problematic is not a good idea.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -

Because that's not what MM said. She stated outright that she and Harry were married three days before the "spectacle" of their televised wedding. Period. She didn't offer any qualifiers such as..." our wedding rehearsal ceremony felt so special and intimate that we like to consider it as our real wedding". BAM.



I agree with the poster who wondered why she even broached the subject in the first place...?

I think she wanted to sound down to earth.

But it doesn’t sound very down to earth when you’re saying you called the Archbishop up and he agreed to do you a special favor. Lol Anymore than it sounds down to earth to whine about HRH for Archie, or complain about the Bank of Dad closing from your 14M mansion after quitting your job.

Agreed. She said they were married. Not that it was a blessing or a rehearsal. She said married. There were no qualifiers. To me, and I think most people, that means a legal marriage. For reasons that many posters stated, I don’t believe it was a legal marriage. So, she lied. I don’t like that.

 

[Moran]

The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.

My problem with this is twofold: first, it sounded a lot like the princess condescending to the great unwashed, agreeing to lower herself to a spectacle for their sake. I'm quite sure people would have been happy to leave her to her ever so intimate wedding and spare themselves the multimillion cost of the public "spectacle" if they knew that was how she felt. To me, this is indicative of why Meghan was never destined to succeed as duchess and princess. She had no respect for people who were so happy for Harry - and I say Harry because it was him they turned up to see. If he had married Chelsy or Cressida, or Miss Jane from Plain Square, they would have turned up in the same numbers. He put her on the map, for all her fans like to claim she was a big Hollywood star in her own right.
Second: Harry's grandmother is the titular head of the CoE. He should have known better than demonstrating such disrespect to the rules and rites that dictate just one wedding legal. He cast shade upon his - and by extention his family's - devotion to the CoE, making a mockery of it. Is this the upholding of HM's values they both pledged? They did the same with CoE that they did with the Commonwealth, treating it as their chance to play up to their American audience who'd likely think it romantic.
ETA: Ah yes, I also disliked the reaffirming of their royalty, the claiming that they had the AoC at their beck and call. He isn't an entertainer, although I admit I didn't expect that he might get in trouble because of this. I was surprised when I saw it came to sources and explanations on his behalf.

 

[amaryllus]

Meghan either genuinely believes her own lies and fan fiction or she just lies very very smoothly with no compunction. I am not sure which is more frightening. Esp as Harry seems to follow her lead so blindly.

 

[Fem]

The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.

Well, I can pinpoint several issues that people can have with this. But before I get to them, a quote from the interview.

Meghan: (...) I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married...Oprah: Ah!
Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that... 
Harry: Just the three of us.

To me - and many other people - "we got married three days before the wedding" does mean exactly that, that there was a legally binding ceremony and they got married and are now married.

So now, to the many issues connected to that:
1. If it was a blessing, say it was a blessing and simply don't lie? People tend to have issues with other people lying.
2. If it was a blessing, by saying they "got married" Meghan could basically cause a HUGE problems for Archbishop of Canterbury. Two wedding ceremonies are not allowed and he's the top guy in the Church of England. He is supposed to enforce the rules, not break them.
3. If it was a wedding ceremony (which I REALLY DOUBT it was), and the second huge wedding was a farce, it invites so many questions about the validity of their marriage? It's UK, you can't get married wherever the hell you want to and you need five people present - (in this case) the Archbishop, the couple, two witnesses.
4. If it was a wedding ceremony (which I REALLY DOUBT it was), then Justin Welby should no longer be Archbishop of Canterbury, as that "wedding" would not be compliant with Church of England rules and that second wedding ceremonies are not allowed in the Church of England.
5. If they didn't want the big wedding, or the "spectacle", as Meghan said it, just don't..? We didn't see a thing from the second wedding of future king, we would be fine not seeing Harry and Meghan's? Just invite your closest friends and family (well, or just your mother ) and do the damn thing.
6. Their wedding was partially funded by British people, and it was not cheap. If they wanted it small and intimate, don't make taxpayers pay 30 milion pounds for "spectacle for the world"? If they got married three days earlier, don't make taxpayers pay 30 milion pounds for "spectacle for the world"..?

 

[Alison H]

I would really love to see someone like Jeremy Paxman interview Harry and Meghan, and ask them to explain the tale about the wedding, how they can claim that Archie not being a prince was racist when he wasn't entitled to be a prince under the 1917 Letters Patent, why they think he should be entitled to state-funded security when Beatrice and Eugenie aren't, why Harry was apparently incapable of ringing a doctor if Meghan felt so bad that she was frightened of being left alone, and why they think a man in his 30s should be supported by his dad. It won't happen, but it would certainly be interesting.

 

[Muhler]

Lots of people have responded to it so I’ll keep it brief: the deal is potentially worth $100 to $150 million, depending on what Netflix buys. However, the Sussex are responsible for delivery of a fully produced, ready to air program to Netflix. I’ve had sources on other boards claim that they were probably paid as little as 5% of that as a seed payment to get Archwell Productions off the ground and rolling.

Hmm, some 5-8 million.
On the face of it a substantial amount, but not when you break it down.

They need a concept, presumably they already have one.
Then they need someone to help do some research and perhaps find locations.
A media-lawyer.
A secretary.
A producer.
Perhaps a script writer.
A rented film crew of at the very least two persons.
An assistant of many trades, including driving.
An additional vehicle if they are going on location, can be rented.
An editor - otherwise forget it!
- That is the very least I can see they need on a more or less permanent basis.
So salaries is going to eat away a good deal of their money, even if they can draw on friends and connections.

To that comes catering, insurance, accommodation and unexpected expenses. Just to mention some.
And that is on the condition that the vast majority of their production takes place in their home or a nearby rented studio.

If they are going to travel it's going to be a lot more expensive!

If their concept is not accepted or isn't going to take off, that's it. There won't be money left for more than producing a couple of YouTube videos.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Thank you for sharing this article. The racism was very obvious in many of the bad press the Duchess received. No surprise there that journalists wouldn't admit to it.

I agree that Markle received vile and nasty racist treatment from British journalists and from certain segments of the British public on line. She still is receiving it...check out Youtube comments.

And as someone who has been an ardent Anglophile since childhood, I was surprised and heartsick.

BUT...do I think it was enough to justify Meghan's flight from England after only 18 months? No. Especially for someone who claimed to be able to block out the "noise" and not read what was written about her online.I saw her on the receiving end of much warmth and enthusiasm from Britons during her engagements and walkabouts.

My belief is that she felt stifled and homesick in England. She simply didn't like much about Royal life , she especially disliked and resented Royal protocol which she didn't understand.

She was not prepared to play second fiddle to Kate. And she is extremely thin-skinned and doesn't take criticism very well at all. This goes double for Harry.

The one thing she said in the interview that I believe and sympathize about is her suicidal depression. Under the circumstances that I mentioned, it makes perfect sense.

Last...i think it's HUGELY ironic how she has become a sort of poster girl/ victim of racist oppression. I have searched far and wide for any evidence that her minority status was a big part of her life before she met Harry. Where and who are her Black friends growing up? Relatives, other than her mother? Boyfriends and husbands?

Sorry but Black celebrity guests at the Royal Wedding didn't impress me at all.

 

[AC21091968]

Actually, it has been reported several times that the Queen was prepared to make Peter and Zara HRH and even Prince/ss of Great Britian and it was Princess Anne and her first husband who declined. There were reports she offered her oldest grandson an earldom on his wedding day and he refused.

Sounds like HM The Queen wanted equity amongst her children.

It's not equality exactly when hypothetically two grandchildren (through sovereign's daughter/female line) is styled as children of an Earl without HRH (had Captain Mark Philips accepted the Earldom), whilst the other grandchildren were styled as HRH Prince/Princesses (through the sovereign's male line). HRH Prince/Princesses outranks children of an Earl.

Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn are legally HRH Prince/Princesses under 1917's Letter Patent as children of the son of the sovereign. However, their parents decided that they are going to be styled as children of an earl.

If Mark Philips have accepted the earldom, Peter Phillips will be entitled to use his father's subsidiary title (as the eldest son) and Zara Phillips would be Lady Zara Philips at birth (similar to how Princess Margaret's children were styled, who are also grandchildren of a sovereign through a female and non-heir line). Of course when Zara gets married in this circumstance, she would be Lady Zara Tindall just like how Lady Sarah Chatto is styled. Again, they are not HRH Prince/Princesses, because they are children of the daughter of the sovereign (not the children of the son of the sovereign). Had Princess Anne and Princess Margaret had more sons, they would be styled as The Hon. [First Name] [Surname], which is below Lord/Lady but above those without any titles. In contrast, if they had more daughters, they would still be styled as Lady [First Name] [Surname] like their eldest sister. Yes, David Armstrong-Jones (son of Princess Margaret) has succeeded his father's earldom and becomes The Right Honourable The Earl of Snowdon in 2017.

To go further back into the generation of George V's children, where the King has five sons and a daughter, who are affected by 1917's LP. Princess Mary, the King's only daughter married Viscount Lascelles (son and heir to Henry Lascelles, 5th Earl of Harewood). Her two sons were The Hon. George Lascelles and The Hon. Gerald Lascelles at their birth (styled as the sons of Viscount Lascelles). Yes, Lascelles is the Earl's family surname. They were not HRH Prince either, despite being the eldest grandsons of George V. When Princess Mary's husband succeeded the Earldom and becomes the 6th Earl of Harewood in 1929, The Hon. George Lascelles became Viscount Lascelles (using Subsidiary title) and The Hon. Gerald Lascelles remained the same for the rest of his life. Of course when Princess Mary's husband died in 1947, her son became the 7th Earl of Harewood.

Pictures of George and Gerald both styled as The Hon. [First Name] Lascelles, in the labels of photographs before 1929
https://www.lookandlearn.com/histor...Mary-Princess-Royal-Viscountess-Lascelles.jpg
https://media.gettyimages.com/photo...en-gerald-and-picture-id502832061?s=2048x2048

Even if Peter Phillips accepts the Earldom, Savannah and Isla would still be Lady Savannah Phillips and Lady Isla Phillips, not HRH Princesses like Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. Similar to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy's situation (as a granddaughter of the sovereign through a male line), where The Hon. Angus Ogilvy (second son of 12th Earl of Airlie) turned down an earldom, had Jack received and accepted an Earldom, August Brooksbank would entitled to use his father's subsidiary title. Princess Alexandra's children also do not have titles: James Ogilvy and Marina Ogilvy.

The latest exception of Prince/Princess given to grandchildren of the sovereign through female line was Princess Alexandra and Princess Maud in 1905 (daughters of Princess Louise and 1st Duke of Fife), but they were Her Highness not Her Royal Highness. Between when they were born and 1905, they were Lady Alexandra Duff and Lady Maud Duff, styled as daughter of The (1st) Duke of Fife. The 1917's LP by George V did not take the HH Princess titles away from them.

 

[lirienn]

Wow, people in the UK and everywhere are tired yet Meghan sends her friends, demands proof of bullying. She can't believe we're done. I truly believe she might have some issues and really needs help. She was supposed to close the chapter. I'm so tired over this story! I thought I would never be. Several new gossip/tragedies are popping up!

 

[BriarRose]

The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.

I think it's hard for people outside the CofE to understand just how unlawful a secret wedding is in the CofE. If she said "I felt spiritually married rehearsing my vows" no one would have blinked an eye. It's also getting a lot of attention because her husband is the grandson of the Head of the CofE. And this was with the Archbishop, who is the principal leader of the CofE. All those factors combined are why this is such a big deal, even though there are people in the U.K. who are not religious.

An analogy: someone receiving a vial of holy water from the Pope, then saying on television that the Pope baptized them. Catholics all over the world would most definitely point on that there was no baptism. Or like me hypothetically telling people that my husband's uncle, a Rabbi, told me pork is kosher. My husband would immediately correct me, even if I had no ill intent. Religions have rules. Meghan told a story that sounded like she, Harry & the Archbishop broke a well-known rule.

Either the Archbishop or Harry & Meghan could have made an immediate correction Monday morning that clearly stated there was no private wedding. Letting it continue to run on did the Sussexes no favors. But I think the comment was a bigger issue for the Archbishop, not Meghan. My father is a member and is convinced the Archbishop allowed Meghan to believe that the vow rehearsal was a private wedding, and he is angry at the Archbishop. (My dad is also very old, and for some reason has never been a fan of Welby. Not sure why.)

 

[Curryong]

I agree that Markle received vile and nasty racist treatment from British journalists and from certain segments of the British public on line. She still is receiving it...check out Youtube comments.

And as someone who has been an ardent Anglophile since childhood, I was surprised and heartsick.

BUT...do I think it was enough to justify Meghan's flight from England after only 18 months? No. Especially for someone who claimed to be able to block out the "noise" and not read what was written about her online.I saw her on the receiving end of much warmth and enthusiasm from Britons during her engagements and walkabouts.

My belief is that she felt stifled and homesick in England. She simply didn't like much about Royal life , she especially disliked and resented Royal protocol which she didn't understand.

She was not prepared to play second fiddle to Kate. And she is extremely thin-skinned and doesn't take criticism very well at all. This goes double for Harry.

The one thing she said in the interview that I believe and sympathize about is her suicidal depression. Under the circumstances that I mentioned, it makes perfect sense.

Last...i think it's HUGELY ironic how she has become a sort of poster girl/ victim of racist oppression. I have searched far and wide for any evidence that her minority status was a big part of her life before she met Harry. Where and who are her Black friends growing up? Relatives, other than her mother? Boyfriends and husbands?

Sorry but Black celebrity guests at the Royal Wedding didn't impress me at all.

Doria’s half brother had a trove of photos of Meghan and her mother participating in Ragland family occasions as she was growing up. He showed some to a tabloid. He and Doris seemed to have drifted apart after their mother’s passing.
Meghan was also very close to her Ragland grandparents and wrote about the relationship and her grandmother’s death. She’s also written several times about feeling neither black nor white growing up.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hares-rare-photos-previous-Thanksgivings.html

 

[KrissyM]

I think it's hard for people outside the CofE to understand just how unlawful a secret wedding is in the CofE.

Ironic considering the CoE was founded for a secret wedding.

 

[BriarRose]

1. No one can decide for a biracial person what racial identity they get to have. It is their identity, and theirs alone, and they do not owe anyone an explanation. And for many biracial people, it is a painful fact that they feel they do not fit in anywhere.

2. Racists do not ask your personal permission before being racist. They don't check a person's love life and friend circle first. One can be a victim of racism even if they have family or friends who are caucasian. Meghan doesn't have to justify her life's choices before she is permitted to be a victim of racism.

I don't agree with many things Meghan said in her interview, but there is no doubt she has faced racism in her life, and there have been many racist comments made about her online.

 

[QueenMathilde]

1. No one can decide for a biracial person what racial identity they get to have. It is their identity, and theirs alone, and they do not owe anyone an explanation. And for many biracial people, it is a painful fact that they feel they do not fit in anywhere.

2. Racists do not ask your personal permission before being racist. They don't check a person's love life and friend circle first. One can be a victim of racism even if they have family or friends who are caucasian. Meghan doesn't have to justify her life's choices before she is permitted to be a victim of racism.

I don't agree with many things Meghan said in her interview, but there is no doubt she has faced racism in her life, and there have been many racist comments made about her online.

I'm biracial and I've also followed the royal family for years. Most of this is just the way all royals get treated by the media and the public. It's a love/hate relationship. They want the royals but they resent that they live so far above them.

 

[Eskimo]

Doria’s half brother had a trove of photos of Meghan and her mother participating in Ragland family occasions as she was growing up. He showed some to a tabloid. He and Doris seemed to have drifted apart after their mother’s passing.
Meghan was also very close to her Ragland grandparents and wrote about the relationship and her grandmother’s death. She’s also written several times about feeling neither black nor white growing up.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hares-rare-photos-previous-Thanksgivings.html

Surprising how no one in the Ragland family was considered worthy on an invite to the “spectacle”

 

[Roslyn]

I would really love to see someone like Jeremy Paxman interview Harry and Meghan, and ask them to explain the tale about the wedding, how they can claim that Archie not being a prince was racist when he wasn't entitled to be a prince under the 1917 Letters Patent, why they think he should be entitled to state-funded security when Beatrice and Eugenie aren't, why Harry was apparently incapable of ringing a doctor if Meghan felt so bad that she was frightened of being left alone, and why they think a man in his 30s should be supported by his dad. It won't happen, but it would certainly be interesting.

So would I! That Oprah thing was unsatisfying and frustrating.

 

[Curryong]

Many members of the royal family could in theory be interviewed by a Jeremy Paxman from the Queen down, about their good times, bad times, regrets, things they would have done differently, things they are proud of or not.

And, as we know, the Royal family has absolutely been engulfed in scandals and family feuds over the years that never came out at the time, and have nothing to do with Harry or Meghan. I’m sure those interviews would also be extremely interesting if they all told the truth, and revelatory.

 

[Queen Ester]

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

I just read this article and it states that Princess Anne is not HRH, yet her official biography reveals that she is in fact HRH

15 August 1950 – 6 February 1952: Her Royal Highness Princess Anne of Edinburgh[115]
6 February 1952 – 14 November 1973: Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne
14 November 1973 – 13 June 1987: Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips[116]
13 June 1987 – present: Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal

 

[Hallo girl]

I just read this article and it states that Princess Anne is not HRH, is that true?

Princess Anne is HRH, but as I have not read the article I cannot comment on what it said. Could it be referring to her children who could not inherit a title from their mother and as their father declined one they are plain Mr or miss.

 

[AC21091968]

I just read this article and it states that Princess Anne is not HRH, yet her official biography reveals that she is in fact HRH

15 August 1950 – 6 February 1952: Her Royal Highness Princess Anne of Edinburgh[115]
6 February 1952 – 14 November 1973: Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne
14 November 1973 – 13 June 1987: Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips[116]
13 June 1987 – present: Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal

Do you mean this article (Evening Standard)?

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King
EXCLUSIVE: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title "His Royal Highness"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html

I think the writer/author Robert Jobson is implying that since 1917's LP only allowed children of the son of the sovereign to have HRH Princes and Princesses, Peter and Zara are not HRH Prince/Princesses (as they are the grandchildren of The Queen through a female line). In this case, Jobson is correct. He was not mentioning Princess Anne not having HRH Princess (title), but on her children.

The George V ruling does not apply to grandchildren of a reigning monarch’s daughters - which is why Princess Anne, The Princess Royal’s children Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips are not styled HRH.

 

[Queen Ester]

Princess Anne is HRH, but as I have not read the article I cannot comment on what it said. Could it be referring to her children who could not inherit a title from their mother and as their father declined one they are plain Mr or miss.

I just edited my post and states in her official biography that she is in fact HRH

Lots of people have responded to it so I’ll keep it brief: the deal is potentially worth $100 to $150 million, depending on what Netflix buys. However, the Sussex are responsible for delivery of a fully produced, ready to air program to Netflix. I’ve had sources on other boards claim that they were probably paid as little as 5% of that as a seed payment to get Archwell Productions off the ground and rolling.

Thank you for the clarification, I guess we'll see what they come up with

Three days before our wedding, we got married,' 'No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said: 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us.'

I think Meghan like to throw names around, like Archbishop, Fergie, etc, it's a common American habit

 

[ACO]

Surprising how no one in the Ragland family was considered worthy on an invite to the “spectacle”

All the family members who were at her first wedding were at the second... minus the one who excused himself.

 

[Queen Ester]

Hmm, some 5-8 million.
On the face of it a substantial amount, but not when you break it down.

They need a concept, presumably they already have one.
Then they need someone to help do some research and perhaps find locations.
A media-lawyer.
A secretary.
A producer.
Perhaps a script writer.
A rented film crew of at the very least two persons.
An assistant of many trades, including driving.
An additional vehicle if they are going on location, can be rented.
An editor - otherwise forget it!
- That is the very least I can see they need on a more or less permanent basis.
So salaries is going to eat away a good deal of their money, even if they can draw on friends and connections.

To that comes catering, insurance, accommodation and unexpected expenses. Just to mention some.
And that is on the condition that the vast majority of their production takes place in their home or a nearby rented studio.

If they are going to travel it's going to be a lot more expensive!

If their concept is not accepted or isn't going to take off, that's it. There won't be money left for more than producing a couple of YouTube videos.

I wonder what is their concept, charity, wildlife, mental health, race relations- all of that sounds a little boring for Netflix. They need something else in order to attract any additional audience, especially now with many people out of work.

 

[yukari]

New development on the bullying allegation:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370859092206571525

Huge development in the Meghan “bullying” row as it emerges Buckingham Palace is to bring in an external law firm to handle the probe ordered by the Queen. Royal sources tell @RoyaNikkhah: “The actual worst incidences haven’t come out. There are some harrowing stories to tell.”

DM also reports that Meghan team has written to Buckingham Palace demanding to see any documents, emails or text messages relating to the bullying complaint against her.

Meghan Markle demands to see emails and texts on bullying allegations after a senior Palace aide accused her of 'unacceptable behaviour' towards two personal assistants - as Prince Charles's staff sift through files

The*Duchess of Sussex*has written to Buckingham Palace demanding to see any documents, emails or text messages relating to the bullying complaint against her, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

A senior Palace aide had accused her of 'unacceptable behaviour' towards two personal assistants and undermining the confidence of a third. The Palace has now launched an inquiry into the claims.

But in a clear indication that the Duchess is preparing to fight back against what she has termed 'a smear campaign', a senior Palace source confirmed that her office had 'written to request the evidence'.

In response, the Queen has passed the request to the Prince of Wales, whose closest aides are now conducting a search of files.*

(...)

The rest of the article is just a summary of the allegation (Jason Knauf etc) if you don't want to add another click to DM.

 

[AC21091968]

Thank you yukari for sharing and summarising the articles. I was about to post a Sunday Times article on the bullying allegation, which does include the quote on the worst incident has not come out

But a royal source claimed: “The actual worst incidences haven’t come out. There are some harrowing stories to tell.” Another Palace source said: “There’s a lot that could come out in the wash that hasn’t been told.”

Palace raises stakes in Meghan bullying inquiry
Outside law firm leads unprecedented review, and William and Harry finally make contact
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/palace-raises-stakes-in-meghan-bullying-inquiry-7v7wkjntw

Archived link with the full article: https://archive.ph/9hTtx#selection-789.0-793.87

Here is another Sunday Times article on the aftermath of the Oprah's interview

The Firm stands firm on Harry and Meghan
The royal family is licking its wounds after enduring trial by TV. The Queen will speak to Harry and Charles feels traduced over claims he cut his son off — but has the Sussexes’ whirlwind blown itself out?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-firm-stands-firm-on-harry-and-meghan-nz3lmcq6h

Archived link: https://archive.ph/Clc9N#selection-765.0-769.206