Jump to content
Kath

British Royals

Recommended Posts

Do we all agree this marriage won't last?  I'm guessing 5 years, but not 10.  I'm such a cynic :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I sort of figured they'd stick it out. True love, yeah, but also - how could they give the racist assholes who undermine them the satisfaction of a divorce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the Netflix deal confirms that in the 21st century, it’s still who you are, and not what talent you have, that matters. Unless I’ve somehow missed the acres of fantastic programming they’ve produced that justifies this multimillion pound backing. I don’t think Suits or “my uncle once made It’s A Royal Knockout” counts. 

I’m a cynic on the longevity front but given how stubborn both Harry and William appear to be, I can see an unwillingness to let go if it does go wrong. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he’s madly in love with her and so long as he stays madly in love with her they’ll stay together. I think she’s in it for the long haul regardless unless he acts up very badly and humiliates her. If feelings start to wane on his part it’s a toss up for me. I could see him either sticking it out so as not to be proven wrong, or as someone who has followed his feelings and whims his entire life not being able to keep up the charade and ending things. They say Harry is a lot like Diana and Diana wasn’t able to stay in a loveless marriage with all the pressure that was on her to keep up appearances, and Harry would be under considerably less pressure than she was. Then again, Charles and Diana’s marriage was particularly toxic and I’m not sure, even if things do go south, that Harry and Meghan would ever reach that level of toxicity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am getting an Angelina Jolie/Gwyneth Paltrow vibe from her.   You know I cannot stand AJ, and like GP only when she is not GOOPing it.  

It seems altruistic but it is not.  
 

I am not opposed to them making money, per se, but while the Obamas and Oprah have earned my respect by their accomplishments, I sort think she feels we should afford her the same respect because she has made a few speeches talking in an impassioned hopeful tone that I feel has been well taught in acting classes (see AJ and GP above).  
 

I kid you not - this was the first story that popped up on my reddit:

 

 

Edited by branchop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just feels unearned. Three years ago she was a mediocre actress on a cable tv show I had never heard of. He’s probably a cool guy whose done lots of interesting things but again, this feels like it’s so out of nowhere. I get that she’s well educated and has an interest in these Topics, but she’s like, the new college graduate who doesn’t understand why they aren’t the boss in their first job out of college. They both just feel like they are getting these opportunities that they aren’t really yet qualified for. I’ll give them a shot, they need to work, but I’m skeptical that they can pull this off.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have liked about their approach thus far is they are choosing DIVERSE charities/groups to work with. And to me it seems they try to center those groups and not themselves. I really think they're trying to use their celebrity to bring attention & shine a light. Yes, I'm sure I have my rosy glasses on - that's ok sometimes when it comes to philanthropy. Does it really matter how it happens when the Hub cookbook is a best seller, raising funds for a good cause?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hoyaheel said:

What I have liked about their approach thus far is they are choosing DIVERSE charities/groups to work with. And to me it seems they try to center those groups and not themselves. I really think they're trying to use their celebrity to bring attention & shine a light. Yes, I'm sure I have my rosy glasses on - that's ok sometimes when it comes to philanthropy. Does it really matter how it happens when the Hub cookbook is a best seller, raising funds for a good cause?

I think it does matter, though, when it perpetuates the idea that to be able to have a success like the cookbook, you need the support of a rich benefactor to get noticed - it still doesn’t result in a more level playing field in the end. I’d prefer there to be space for all to have the potential to succeed regardless.
 

Likewise, could Netflix not have used that money to directly take a chance on female or minorities who are trying to make a name for themselves in the business?  That could result in actual diversity rather than those of good fortune getting to pick the causes. Sure, it’s better than nothing, but it’s not the statement it could be - to me it seems a short term business decision (as Netflix will rake in money due to the royal connection) rather than an actual commitment to ensuring long term change at this stage. 
 

just my opinion, though - and I like that you bring balance to the force Hoya! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm too pragmatic to think that Netflix or any other big company would do the right thing because it's the right thing. They do what will get them a lot of press and money and if they choose the more diverse option among a couple of big potential earners, for now I'm happy with that. They gave Ava Duvernay & Shonda Rimes good deals too - which is good for everyone - they are proven talents who ALSO make money, they are committed to diversity at depth - at all levels, they rise and pull up others behind. So far, I'm not sure there's another entertainment company doing as much. So, pragmatically ? I'm going to continue to praise Netflix a little. 

EVERY charity wants visibility. Whether it's a royal patronage or Hollywood celeb or something going viral in social media - it brings attention, and attention can bring money.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t know how reliable this source is, but if true this is an AWFUL look for them. The Invictus Games are like his signature accomplishment. Honestly, I know it would really change my impression of the couple if he bailed on them long term, so I hope this is either not true or a one off conflict.

 

https://www.inquisitr.com/6265949/prince-harry-meghan-markle-cancel-invictus-netflix/

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing that link, dixiedoodah.  I would go a step further and argue that whether the article is true or not is irrelevant - it's a bad look regardless. 

It seems like any Invictus conflict could have been avoided if they had simply waited a few months to begin negotiations with Netflix.  They haven't even formed a production company yet so what's the rush to finalize the deal now?  It's not like they have content that is ready for immediate release pending resolution of the financial details.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.  Meghan and Harry have got zero breaks in the court of public opinion but they often can't seem to get out of their own way on this front either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware that I am influenced in my views by a lifetime of watching the British class and education systems hand out undeserved advantages to the “old boy” network. This seems just like another of those to me. But at least it looks like Harry got the first Netflix instalment payment through ;) 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54062799

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now see that the Daily Mail have also linked the Frogmore repayment to Netflix money in their headline, so I’d like to confirm that I am not an official source, just bad at jokes. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just the other night, Eugenie & Beatrice out partying giving yet more bad optics to the royals. (well, hopefully not actually "partying" as in drinking, but apparently since the UK is going to have to lock down bars/restaurants again, not very good to be seen out at an exclusive club with bodyguards trying to block photos with umbrellas....)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Hoyaheel said:

and just the other night, Eugenie & Beatrice out partying giving yet more bad optics to the royals. (well, hopefully not actually "partying" as in drinking, but apparently since the UK is going to have to lock down bars/restaurants again, not very good to be seen out at an exclusive club with bodyguards trying to block photos with umbrellas....)

We aren’t locking them down fully again (not yet) but we are closing them at 10pm, because the virus only attacks after then...! A lot have said they’ll just open earlier to compensate.

And this is the trouble with much of the current approach to covid, stuff may be technically within the rules and being encouraged by some parts of government, but regardless it looks terrible on the front page. It also shows the hypocrisy in approach versus H&M, when the latter are getting nonsense bad press for being “too political” right now. 

But we don’t forget, as seen in this random jogger’s cry: 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is San Diego, CA I've seen the college kids going into the bars while mostly maintaining social distancing and following the rules.  Then as they drink, they get sloppy and next thing you know they are all hugging each other and going home with people that are most certainly NOT in their COVID circle.  I would think that closing the bars a few hours earlier might help with some of that, on the other hand maybe that will just make them drink faster?!?!  The colleges that opened up for onsite classes are finding out all the kids aren't getting sick from the protocols in the classroom (for the most part), it's the socializing they do after that is causing all the problems.  Generally it's the young kids and the tourists that are really making it bad for us locals.  :ph34r2:

 

Uh, I digress.  At least the royals can know they aren't the only idiots.  :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we have the earlier curfews/alcohol stops being served as a way to prevent late night drunken crowds, esp in college towns. Makes complete sense - it's not the virus they're fighting, it's human nature. And drunk human nature is touchy feely as hell ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, witchkitten said:

I’m confused as to why bars are open at all, at least here where schools can’t be open. Priorities. ?

We have schools and universities back open here and apparently closing bars earlier is going to help them remain open...there have predictably been outbreaks at a number of unis already due to inadequate social distancing. I think again the uni halls of residence are more of a problem than restaurants at least, although late night in pubs I can see where there’d be an issue. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belgium not Britain, but what a heck of a story. Good plot for a trashy novel!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/delphine-boel-belgian-kings-daughter-wins-right-to-call-herself-princess

 

Delphine Boël: Belgian king's daughter wins right to call herself princess

Artist whose mother had affair with former king Albert II wins the right to use royal title and father’s surname

 
Thu 1 Oct 2020 15.21 EDT

Last modified on Thu 1 Oct 2020 15.38 EDT

An artist who successfully fought a seven-year legal battle to prove she was the daughter of the former king of Belgium, Albert II, has won the right to be recognised as a princess.

The Brussels Court of Appeal has ruled that Delphine Boël, 52, had the right to her Royal father’s surname after a bitter battle for acknowledgement.

Boël will be called Delphine of Saxen-Coburg-Gotha, princess of Belgium, her lawyer told the Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad. Her two children, Joséphine and Oscar, will also be recognised as a prince and princess of Belgium.

In a statement, Boël’s lawyers said their client was pleased that she would be treated the same as Albert’s three other children, including the current king, Philippe.

They added: “She is delighted with this court decision which ends a long process which is particularly painful for her and her family. A legal victory will never replace the love of a father but offers a feeling of justice, further reinforced by the fact that many children who have gone through the same ordeals will find the strength to face them.”

Albert, 86, who abdicated in 2013 partly because of legal battles over the paternity claims made by Boël, was forced to acknowledge she was his daughter in January after a court ordered a DNA test. Boël was the result of an extra-marital affair between Albert and Baroness Sybille de Selys Longchamps.

Boël had spent time with Albert as a child, nicknaming him “Papillon” (Butterfly), but she had vainly sought acknowledgement for more than 20 years.

She launched a legal battle to prove paternity in June 2013, after the elder of her two children, Joséphine, was admitted to hospital with pneumonia, and she felt the absence of her biological father.

Boël’s claim received a vital boost last autumn when the court of appeal ruled that Jacques Boël, with whom she grew up, was not her biological father and instructed an expert to carry out a test to compare her DNA with Albert’s.

The king agreed to provide a saliva sample – which proved his paternity – after the courts threatened to fine him €5,000 (£4,370) for every day he refused.

On the day Albert stepped down from the throne seven years ago, citing ill-health, Boël’s mother, Baroness Sybille de Selys Longchamps, gave a TV interview where she spoke publicly for the first time about her affair with the king.

“I thought I could not have children because I had had an infection,” she said of the relationship, which is said to have lasted from 1966 to 1984. “We had not taken any precautions.”

She continued: “It was a beautiful period. Delphine was a love child. Albert was not the father figure but he was very sweet to her.”

Edited by dixiedoodah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

woman-eating-hamburger-2.png

This Video Bites

October 1, 2020

[Blind Gossip] Less than a decade ago, before she achieved worldwide fame, this fortyish actress did a spread for a men’s magazine.

While she did not take all of her clothes off, the shoot is certainly meant to portray her as every man’s fantasy. You know, the kind of seductress who could make something as mundane as eating a hamburger look sexy.

During the video, she removes some clothing and preens for the camera and seductively sucks on her finger.

You know. Your typical feminist film.

Just kidding!

Anyway, at the time, she was proud of the feature, as she thought it would help elevate her profile and her acting career.

However, after she met a rich guy from a prominent family, she just wanted to make it go away.

She could not mess with her acting roles but she thought she could do something about this one. She had her reps contact the magazine and ask if they could take down the video from the shoot.

Since the video was still generating traffic (and income) for the magazine, they were not eager to do so.

A negotiation ensued.

Basically, what was she willing to give to make the video go away? She was more famous now, so the magazine was willing to take it down, but only if she did a new feature for them. She declined.

So, why was our actress so darn eager to get this video taken down?

Is it because she looked ugly in the shoot?

No, she actually looks very pretty.

There were two other reasons.

Posing for a men’s magazine did not fit her new, elevated position in society. Oh, and she really hated how her chest looked.

Our actress is no stranger to plastic surgery. The size of her chest has actually changed quite a bit over the years. It seems that she she got breast enhancements many years ago but had the size modified a couple of times after that.

This was one of her flatter periods.

And, yes, there is a marked difference between what she had then and what she has now.

Anyway, the next time some magazine lauds her “natural beauty”… just know that she isn’t completely natural.

Similar: He Changed Their Shapes

Actress:

[Optional] Do you think the rest of her is natural?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×