Meghan Markle: Family and Background - November 2017-May 2018

[AlowVera]

A palate cleanser from the family silliness. I hope Meghan sees the tweet about how her UN speech inspired a young boy to write his local news anchor.

https://twitter.com/FairbroPeople/st...87273280622593

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by ACO

If you read the documents in the article it is kind of indirect. The lawyer said "I can't help you as long as your sister is saying 'That is distant family', you need to talk to her." I don't think it is a direct quote but basically the sense they got when they were shut down by her people. And good for her.

Thank you. I'm not following it all that closely, rarely read this stuff from her extended family. Interesting, though, in a generic way.

Originally Posted by Tianna

The big misconception here is that Meghan grew up with Sam and Tom jr., they did not. Tom sr. and Doria were divorced when Meghan was six years old. Her half siblings were well into their twenties and was not around. Sam was already married to her first husband and had her first child around that time, whereas Tom jr. moved out to live with his mother. The only contact between Meghan, Sam & Tom jr., took place at their grandmother’s home and that was mainly during the summer.

That's the way I see it, too. And I agree with someone else that half-siblings who are 10 years or more older than one are pretty much strangers unless there are unusual child custody arrangements.

[Madame Verseau]

Karma has come back to Samantha and Tom Jr. News.com.au has done a piece about the Markles: Meghan Markle - inside her dyfunctioional family. Sam's jealousy of Meghan is chronicled by other members of the family, along with her running to the press and selling her book. Jr's brushes with the law are reported too, along with his story of Meghan turning his back on him. There are positive accounts: her relationship with Doria and Tom Sr. And nieces Nicole and Ashleigh. This is the first time I have seen a semblance of balance of the reporting of Meghan's family, but it clearly shows Samantha and Tom Jr are the embarrassments who have dirtied the Markle name. Sam and Tom Jr's spite and greed has hurt every family member, not just Meghan.

[Biri]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

And nieces Nicole and Ashleigh.

Meghan's younger niece is named Noelle, not Nicole.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

A palate cleanser from the family silliness. I hope Meghan sees the tweet about how her UN speech inspired a young boy to write his local news anchor.

https://twitter.com/FairbroPeople/st...87273280622593

This is very sweet. I hope she sees more of this and less of the likes of her siblings. The rumor now is that Samantha might be working for ITV to cover the wedding as a celebrity correspondent. How cruel! This is her big day and they will actually hire a woman they know she can't stand to try and taint her special moment? I hope it backfires on them.

[Osipi]

Let me put it this way. If, by any sane reasoning, ITV did hire Samantha as a royal wedding correspondent, I would presume that their goal would be to present this royal wedding as a comedy of errors.

Somehow, I don't get the feeling that Samantha is well informed on the subject of British royalty, protocol and the ins and outs of royal weddings. I can hear her now stating "We're expecting the arrival of Her Royal Highness, The Queen of England at any moment now".

I would sincerely hope that ITV has more brains than to actively seek out this woman as being a plus for their coverage.

[wyevale]

hope that ITV has more brains

The sad reality is that ITV, the BBC, Sky [in fact any and ALL TV companies] employ presenters with NO command WHATSOEVER 'of their brief'. The disastrous coverage of the Diamond Jubilee 'River Pageant' is proof enough that they set no store on knowledge for these people [as they used to in the past].
I regret to say that this Woman will MORE than 'pass muster' given the 'standards' expected.

[Osipi]

Ahhh... checking off another thing to be grateful for today.

With being severely hearing impaired, I generally do not listen to "talking heads" when it comes to royal weddings or actually, any events. Most of them don't come with closed captioning and now, should Samantha be a "correspondent", I'll just make sure to keep closed captioning off should they be offered.

[Curbside]

It doesn't seem as if Meghan even lived with her half-siblings, in keeping with the usual custody situation where mothers more often have custody of children in divorce.

[Cocoasneeze]

I think more and more reporters are catching up to what and who Samantha and Tom Jr are, to the fact that they haven't had any contact with Meghan for many years. I've seen 3 shows call Samantha and opportunist, and state the fact, that they've been estranged for years.

I highly doubt Samantha has signed any concrete contracts yet, and there's still three months of her exposing her lies and flip flopping in multiple interviews. I'm hoping she will be left with an egg on her face in the end.

[Madame Verseau]

A contract for Sam to be a wedding correspondent for ITV would be a lose lose proposition for both parties. For Sam, it would announced to the world she wasn't invited; and that's humiliating given her delusions of grandeur. If she thinks the media has been hard on her, what does she think it would do to her if it's true? She sells herself as an insider; the correspondent gig makes her look like she's on the outside looking in. Loyal loving insiders who keep their mouths shut would be sitting in the family section in St. George's Chapel on May 19.

It's a poor business decision for ITV. There's going to be a lot of competition for viewers for each station covering the wedding. Announcing Sam would motivate the other outlets to remind everyone of Sam's transgressions (I'm being charitable here) and reveal new ones if there are any. The other stations would make ITV coverage unwatchable, thus taking out the competition. Even if they spring this on viewers the day of the wedding, during a live broadcast, nothing would be stopping viewers from switching the channel right then and there. And ITV risk live negative comments for putting Sam on TV that day.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

A contract for Sam to be a wedding correspondent for ITV would be a lose lose proposition for both parties. For Sam, it would announced to the world she wasn't invited; and that's humiliating given her delusions of grandeur. If she thinks the media has been hard on her, what does she think it would do to her if it's true? She sells herself as an insider; the correspondent gig makes her look like she's on the outside looking in. Loyal loving insiders who keep their mouths shut would be sitting in the family section in St. George's Chapel on May 19.

For all we know and with going with the concept you've wisely presented as "delusions of grandeur", perhaps Sam's motivation lies with the belief that with being an ITV commentator, she'd be commentating on the wedding from inside St. George's chapel itself. She did say previously that she'd stop at nothing to be at that wedding. Now that would be quite a grand delusion.

Most likely, just one network (ITV, BBC etc.) will be selected for the live, video coverage from inside the chapel feeding all the other networks as been done with previous royal weddings. No commentators, just a few video feeds. This is less intrusive within the venue itself.

[Madame Verseau]

I'd like to see Sam, or any other uninvited Markle, try to crash that wedding by any means. The RPOs and other security organizations are probably fully aware of public statements of getting to the wedding (and Sam's gun collection thanks to the A Current Affair interview). They may have standing orders to detain them if they come on the property, arrest them if they get ridiculous, and put them on the next plane back to the States. Harry and Meghan would not be damaged by the optics. Sam will be branded in a way that her illness and disability would not be mitigating factors with the press.

[wyevale]

[QUOTE ] if they come on the property,[/QUOTE]

NO-BODY, without the requisite passes gets into the precincts of Windsor Castle.

She/they could traipse around after buying a ticket [as any Tourist can], except that the Castle will be closed for the Wedding Day itself, and [probably for a day or so before and after].

[Royal Suitor]

Omid Scobie's reporting is usually pretty solid. Seems like Samantha is going to milk her 15 minutes for all it's worth.

https://twitter.com/_mio/status/960494281243971584

[MARG]

Any TV reporters or photographers that are allowed past the barriers are accredited and vetted by Security. The BRF also would have input since it is a "Private Wedding". Samantha would not make the cut.

[O-H Anglophile]

If Samantha actually got a gig as a commentator for her half-sister's wedding, she'd likely be relegated to being in a tv studio in London.

[ACO]

I can't imagine she will be at the chapel but if she is she will just be in the crowd outside. This will not go well.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by ACO

I can't imagine she will be at the chapel but if she is she will just be in the crowd outside. This will not go well.

I doubt she'd get even that close without an invitation.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by ACO

This is very sweet. I hope she sees more of this and less of the likes of her siblings. The rumor now is that Samantha might be working for ITV to cover the wedding as a celebrity correspondent. How cruel! This is her big day and they will actually hire a woman they know she can't stand to try and taint her special moment? I hope it backfires on them.

How tacky of ITV, they are clearly not a legitimate news program and are trying to bully and humiliate Meghan with distant family members who are trying to extort Meghan.