The Duchess of Sussex: Family and Background

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

I'm glad that more media sources are abandoning trying to coerce Meghan to contact toxic family members. This article is really good: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0fd5c73c7c4a1...

Yep, this article has some good advice. But the part about setting ground rules for contact with the scenario of Meghan telling the Markle trio: "I'm happy to talk with you, as long as you don't speak to the media," is simply a non-starter in this particular case. None of the Markle trio can be trusted in any way, shape or form. Especially not Samantha and Jr.! Sam is continuing to whine and kvetch to the media in hopes of getting more fodder from Dad if he makes further contact with Meghan. And Dad has proven he can't be trusted. He's too prideful, careless and resentful, and he has very poor judgment. The fact that none of Sam, Markle Sr., nor Markle Jr. have gotten along well with each other over the years is particularly instructive! It tells us all we need to know.

This part of the article does make a lot of sense in regard to Meghan's new family and how they should support her:
"The royals have no shortage of experience dealing with unruly family members... Their reluctance to comment on the Duchess of Sussex’s relatives’ antics is likely intentional says therapist Land ... 'Rather than responding to each story, if they want to support her as best as they can, the royal family should focus on listening to Meghan and asking her on occasion, not constantly, if there is any way they can help. [Meghan has] lost a sense of control of her life with all the gossip her family has publicly spread. She needs to feel like she has some power in the situation and that she doesn’t have to deal with the additional stress of feeling guilt because of how this reflects on the royal family.'"

Also, the article I posted a bit earlier in this thread about seeking acceptance rather than forgiveness is very apropos and pertinent to what Meghan is facing with the Markles right now:
https://blogs.psychcentral.com/relat...e-best-option/ Ten Steps of Acceptance When Forgiveness is Not an Option

[Rudolph]

EXCLUSIVE: I'm worried what Meghan will think, says her sister-in-law to-be after she was arrested for domestic violence 'attack' on the Duchess of Sussex's brother

Read more: Meghan Markle's sister-in-law to-be tells of domestic violence arrest | Daily Mail Online

Talking to the Mail online again

[jacqui24]

I recently heard a line from a presenter "At 20, you worry what others think about you. At 40, you don't care what they think about you. At 60, you realize they haven't been thinking about you."

She's not 20, and, for some reason, I doubt Meghan has been thinking about someone she's never met and will never meet.

[Cocoasneeze]

She needs to worry about her and her fiance's violent tendencies, and less about Meghan whom she has never met and will most likely never meet.

[Kataryn]

One is suddenly really glad that Meghan now has personal protection officers... What a family!

[Osipi]

All I can say about the latest of a long string of dysfunctional relationships in Thomas Markle, Sr.'s family is that now I have a glimmer of what would have happened should Charles Perrault had decided to keep his story going and gave us an inkling of what life for the stepmother and the stepchildren was like.

Charles Perrault wrote the story "Cinderella" in 1697. Now we have the revised and updated version.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

I'm glad that more media sources are abandoning trying to coerce Meghan to contact toxic family members. This article is really good: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0fd5c73c7c4a1

I just read that Peirs Morgan wrote a letter trying to guilt her into talking to her dad. Is there really anyone out there who doesn't see what this git is trying to get her to talk so he can have something to write about? Man Meghan and I both fell for this guys fakeness when he wad on TV in the US; I thought he was an upstanding sensible man back then and like Meghan I appreciated his opinion on gun violence.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Charles Perrault wrote the story "Cinderella" in 1697. Now we have the revised and updated version.

This is what I thought. The stepsisters and mother would have been just like this to punish Cinderella. Though back then if you get on the kings nerves he can kill you or have your money taken away.

[Rudolph]

“The BBC do not want to host someone on Strictly who would be so anti the Royal Family. And ITV’s top brass feel they would not give a voice to these people.”

Insiders say ITV controller Kevin Lygo was a driving force behind the decision.

However, it is understood it will not affect speaking to the family for “news purposes” – like Piers Morgan’s Good Morning Britain interview with Meghan’s dad, in which he revealed private conversations with Prince Harry about Brexit and President Trump.

ITV declined to comment. But asked about the Markles, a second ITV source said: “We aren’t currently considering them for any entertainment shows.” A Strictly spokesman said they “don’t comment on speculation”.

Read more: EXCLUSIVE: ITV and BBC want to shy away from “cashing in” on the potential PR exposure – fearing it could be in bad taste

[Purrs]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Read more: EXCLUSIVE: ITV and BBC want to shy away from “cashing in” on the potential PR exposure – fearing it could be in bad taste

It would be in bad taste & I think it would backfire on them. I didn't see Big Brother mentioned - hopefuly Channel 5 will come to the same realization and not give Samantha a platform or any more notoriety.

[Osipi]

I guess there is a glimmer of hope yet for serious and responsible journalism. It's a good thing that two major British media organizations have spoken out against being party to the antics and the ploys used by the Markle trio.

There will always be those channels and tabloids that care little about what they report on and print as long as it creates the clicks and brings in the money.

[jacqui24]

What people have to keep in mind here is that it's not just that there is a fear of speaking out against monarchy. They aren't trying to censor anyone. But when you have a situation where you know there is NO inside information or constructive criticism, and just an unfair and baseless accusations to capitalize and publicly abuse someone who can't defend themselves. At that point, do you contribute to that for entertainment values.

Originally Posted by Osipi

I guess there is a glimmer of hope yet for serious and responsible journalism. It's a good thing that two major British media organizations have spoken out against being party to the antics and the ploys used by the Markle trio.

There will always be those channels and tabloids that care little about what they report on and print as long as it creates the clicks and brings in the money.

From my understanding, they aren't banning them for new purposes, just not to feature them on any of the entertainment programs. So it's not really about journalistic integrity as that only applies to journalists. This is about what the station overall wants to present as their values, which isn't any less important. Just different than news coverage.

[Cocoasneeze]

Basically, they don't want to sponsor estranged relatives of Meghan, who have no info about her, no connection, and they would be used as a one way street to only trash Meghan.

CBB is trashier than these other reality shows, but I'm almost certain, that they fear Samantha being on the show wouldn't be worth the backlash they'd get. I also think the palace lawyers have been working long hours behind the scenes.

[loonytick]

There's a saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity, and to an extent shows like CBB buy into it...but the attention can backfire if the personality or the situation overshadows their show itself, or if the viewing public starts thinking that the show is more mean or unpleasant than it is empty, voyeuristic fun. So even for them there's a line to be drawn, if only in terms of the amount of time and manpower it would potentially require of their staff to keep the PR headed down a path that benefits them rather than complicates their situation if someone like Samantha really goes off the rails on their watch.

[Cocoasneeze]

Even for someone like me, who has never had career in PR or entertainment business, it's clear where this all would go. Very bad for the Channel 5. The viewing public pretty much knows, that Samantha has for almost two years trashed Meghan publicly, non stop. Everyone knows they're estranged, have been for a decade. Meghan has never said a word about Samantha publicly. Nothing.

Bringing Samantha on CBB would make Meghan the underdog, unable to defend herself from her bully, and Channel 5 would get an enormous amount of backlash for being an accomplish to the bullying, giving Samantha a huge platform to continue her one sided campaign to hurt Meghan and to try to ruin her life any way possible. There's no other way this would go.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

Even for someone like me, who has never had career in PR or entertainment business, it's clear where this all would go. Very bad for the Channel 5. The viewing public pretty much knows, that Samantha has for almost two years trashed Meghan publicly, non stop. Everyone knows they're estranged, have been for a decade. Meghan has never said a word about Samantha publicly. Nothing.

Bringing Samantha on CBB would make Meghan the underdog, unable to defend herself from her bully, and Channel 5 would get an enormous amount of backlash for being an accomplish to the bullying, giving Samantha a huge platform to continue her one sided campaign to hurt Meghan and to try to ruin her life any way possible. There's no other way this would go.

Quite reasonable line of thoughts.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

Bringing Samantha on CBB would make Meghan the underdog, unable to defend herself from her bully, and Channel 5 would get an enormous amount of backlash for being an accomplish to the bullying, giving Samantha a huge platform to continue her one sided campaign to hurt Meghan and to try to ruin her life any way possible. There's no other way this would go.

I think there is. The one and only "claim to fame" that Samantha has is what she has garnered in the past two years ragging on Meghan any way that she can. There is nothing else interesting about her from her own merits. This program is geared (from what I understand) to encourage drama, meltdowns and pits the participants against each other so as not to be "evicted" from the house, I see a very big possibility that instead of Samantha being there to rag on Meghan, she'll have a household full of people ragging on her because of her poisonous treatment of Meghan.

In one article (I forget which one) Samantha states that she will not be talking about Meghan on the program. Maybe she won't but the other participants will know why she was invited in the first place and throw each and every nasty remark, blatant hatred and admonitions that she's heaped on Meghan and they will use it to their advantage to "smack down" Samantha.

I sincerely believe that Samantha has no clue of what she's going to be walking into and its not going to be pretty or end up making her look like a "celebrity star" but rather serve her up with a heaping dose of her own brand of medicine.

What goes around comes around.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

Even for someone like me, who has never had career in PR or entertainment business, it's clear where this all would go. Very bad for the Channel 5. The viewing public pretty much knows, that Samantha has for almost two years trashed Meghan publicly, non stop. Everyone knows they're estranged, have been for a decade. Meghan has never said a word about Samantha publicly. Nothing.

Bringing Samantha on CBB would make Meghan the underdog, unable to defend herself from her bully, and Channel 5 would get an enormous amount of backlash for being an accomplish to the bullying, giving Samantha a huge platform to continue her one sided campaign to hurt Meghan and to try to ruin her life any way possible. There's no other way this would go.

Well said! That's exactly what Samantha is: a bully. Good summation of her intention: to ruin Meghan's life.

[rominet09]

Very happy to read that info.... I really feel for Meghan !

[Madame Verseau]

I am glad to read that BBC and ITV are not going to put a Markle on their shows. I think the decision is based on economics: public backlash could cost them ratings and advertisers; any unsubstantiated nasty comments about Meghan opens the networks up to a Kensington Palace lawsuit; and the royal family can cut those networks' journalists off for access. Channel 5 has not confirmed Samantha is going to be on Celebrity Big Brother; it's just rumors and only Sam is claiming she is on the show. CBB has been in danger of being cancelled earlier this year. I think there's is a huddle between the network's accountants and attorneys, weighing the option if Sam is worth the financial risk in the long run.

[Madame Verseau]

Originally Posted by wyevale

Dignifying these ghastly people with ANY response [legal or otherwise], would grant them an importance [in their heads, and the public's] they simply don't merit. They do no damage to the Institution, and the damage to the unfortunate Duchess is ALREADY done, and their relationship with her [and any potential one with her husband] is as dead as a Dodo.
BLANKING them completely is the wisest course of action.

Agreed. We say "ghosting" them in the U.S. And I think Tom Sr. can forget meeting future royal grandchildren at this point.

Has anyone noticed when Daily Mail did the story that Tom Sr faked the heart attack and Sharon Osbourne said he had a drinking problem there is no threat of a defamation suit? I think they realize if they go to court their pasts will be scrutinized a lot more so they are staying silent.