Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

MLIS

Well-Known Member
Messages
352
I don't recall having seen the green dress that Meghan wears before. I like the color.

The green dress is from the Commonwealth service at Westminster Abbey in early March ... Meghan’s last appearance as a senior royal. I’m not crazy about the design, but LOVE the colour. This blog focuses on the hats, but has several nice full length photos from different angles.
 

sk9tingfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,800

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
Harry and Meghan our for a walk with their dogs. Harry, unfortunately, aptly demonstrating why wearing a mask doesn’t generally protect wearer. (Don’t pull them off by grabbing the front of the mask and dragging it down your face!)

 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
Harry and Meghan our for a walk with their dogs. Harry, unfortunately, aptly demonstrating why wearing a mask doesn’t generally protect wearer. (Don’t pull them off by grabbing the front of the mask and dragging it down your face!)


I don’t imagine that a bandana tied around ones head does much anyway. But enough to comply with the local rule requiring face masks I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mag

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,362
New media policy.


Interesting that this letter has just been issued at the moment that the lawsuit that Meghan has initiated against the Associated Press is getting its first hearing this week - albeit remotely.

Meghan Markle's Tabloid Lawsuit Hearing Being Held Remotely Next Week

I know the Sussexes have stated that this new policy of theirs isn't to hide from criticisms or censor accurate reporting but to be honest that's what it sounds like it is doing and there seems to be a subtle threat to other media that this could happen to them if the Sussexes don't like what is reported!! It will be interesting to see how this impacts the reporting of the Sussexes going forwards - both positive and negative.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
It’s a bit of an empty threat I think. I doubt ex-royals living in the USA would be giving interviews to UK papers anyway.

The main currency with celebrities is just paparazzi photos. And because they now live in Los Angeles and the paps seem to be aware of all their outings there will be plenty of those to print.

It’s not the same as when they as royals stayed behind palace walls and a publication needed to get access to offical functions to have content.
 
Last edited:

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
26,008
I know the Sussexes have stated that this new policy of theirs isn't to hide from criticisms or censor accurate reporting but to be honest that's what it sounds like it is doing and there seems to be a subtle threat to other media that this could happen to them if the Sussexes don't like what is reported!! It will be interesting to see how this impacts the reporting of the Sussexes going forwards - both positive and negative.

It doesn't sound that way to me. Why would they take issue with accurate reporting? Do you think they are so thin-skinned that every reference to them must be OTT praise? I think it's about time that ALL celebs hold tabloids accountable. In the past there was an attitude that it was more trouble than it was worth to sue for false stories but if they got called on it every time they made up something they would (hopefully) revert to honest reporting.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,362
It doesn't sound that way to me. Why would they take issue with accurate reporting? Do you think they are so thin-skinned that every reference to them must be OTT praise? I think it's about time that ALL celebs hold tabloids accountable. In the past there was an attitude that it was more trouble than it was worth to sue for false stories but if they got called on it every time they made up something they would (hopefully) revert to honest reporting.

Actually yes I do think they are that thin skinned. This - IMO - is them trying to manipulate how they are reported on. Something could well be accurate- such as the travelling on private jets last year after telling us all not to as it was bad for the environment - but is seen as negative to the Sussexes. They are - again IMO - trying to shut down anything they deem not appropriate. Well best of luck to them for trying - I doubt it will work and could well backfire.
 
Last edited:

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
26,008
Actually yes I do think they are that thin skinned. This - IMO - is them trying to manipulate how they are reported on. Something could well be accurate- such as the travelling on private jets last year after telling us all not to as it was bad for the environment - but is seen as negative to the Sussexes. They are - again IMO - trying to shut down anything they deem not appropriate. Well best of luck to them for trying - I doubt it will work and could well backfire.

You sound like AS in reverse. "They are - again IMO - trying to shut down anything they deem not appropriate." Why do you think anyone should put up with reporting that's not appropriate? But then no matter what they do there will be someone who picks it apart.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,362
You sound like AS in reverse. "They are - again IMO - trying to shut down anything they deem not appropriate." Why do you think anyone should put up with reporting that's not appropriate? But then no matter what they do there will be someone who picks it apart.

Just because they don't think it's appropriate doesn't make it not appropriate or not true. I have an opinion on this subject as have you and that's all I've been sharing. I do feel this is a subtle hint at the additional members of the media not specifically mentioned in their letter that if anything is deemed inappropriate in their -the Sussexes - opinion then they too will be added to the list of persons they won't deal with. Well as I said good luck to them for trying to force the press to report only things that they approve as I don't think it will work. Freedom of the press both in the UK and the US will ensure that.
 

MLIS

Well-Known Member
Messages
352
I guess my big question is what is the point of this letter? If you don't want to work with these specific news outlets, then ... don't? Why the big announcement? Part of their stepping away from being senior royals was to get away from the royal rota and be able to choose which reporters and news outlets they work with. So can't they just do that? If someone from the Daily Mail calls them for an interview, they can just decline? Is this because they were photographed out and about in Los Angeles this weekend? (I'm not convinced that the photographers weren't tipped off, but perhaps that's cynical of me.) I'm having trouble drumming up much sympathy for these rich, privileged celebrities who are whining about their treatment in the press at a time when the entire world is dealing with an unprecedented ********* and millions of people are ill and dying, including members of his family. As usual, any legitimate point they might have about the way the press operates and treats people is buried under poor and tone deaf timing and communications. I really want to like them and root for them. They make it so hard sometimes.
 

kittyjake5

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,344
It will be very difficult for H&M to become financially independent in a fishbowl. They need
to be seen and photographed to achieve that financial independence. Sending a cease and desist
letter will not stop the slamming and criticism from the tabloids or from social media.
Bad press even if it from the tabloids is damaging to them and can effect the start up of their brand,
so I can understand why their team sent the cease and desist letter. JMO
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
I still think these lawsuits were a terrible idea. Everyone would have long forgotten about those articles, especially now, and they have done nothing but remind everyone. Also, who writes texts like the ones quoted in the Guardian article above?

“Meghan later messaged her father in hospital to offer her support. “I’ve been reaching out to you all weekend but you’re not taking any of our calls or replying to any texts … Very concerned about your health and safety and have taken every measure to protect you but not sure what more we can do if you don’t respond … Do you need help? Can we send the security team down again? I’m very sorry to hear you’re in the hospital but need you to please get in touch with us … What hospital are you at?””

I am not suggesting she didn’t write them, they just seem very formal. The whole situation is so sad and unfortunate for everyone involved. Stirring it all up again rather than just letting it die a natural death is, IMHO, like picking at a scab. It will just leave a bigger scar. Even if they win, what will that accomplish? It is not like anyone’s opinion of the Daily Mail is going to get lower than it already is. They will pay the fine and life will go on.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,634
Just because they don't think it's appropriate doesn't make it not appropriate or not true. I have an opinion on this subject as have you and that's all I've been sharing. I do feel this is a subtle hint at the additional members of the media not specifically mentioned in their letter that if anything is deemed inappropriate in their -the Sussexes - opinion then they too will be added to the list of persons they won't deal with. Well as I said good luck to them for trying to force the press to report only things that they approve as I don't think it will work. Freedom of the press both in the UK and the US will ensure that.

A lot of celebrities have very strident publicists that threaten to sue any article that isn't approved of by their client. A beloved pop star is notorious for this. It's unusual coming from ex-royals but it's not unusual from celebrities to be very picky about what kind of news is printed about them.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,634
Some coverage from mainstream media:


Nytimes:


The timing of this is awful. They've gotten excellent press from the tabloids for the food deliveries. And no one is paying attention to whatever they're doing as long as they're not endangering other people. (I think right now with beer burden that's the standard everyone is being held to -- as long as you're not causing trouble and putting others at risk you're good).
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
As they are in a position where they want to monetise themselves, they'd never be cooperating with British press anyway.

The big $$ for interviews and photoshoots are going to come from USA magazines and television shows.

Harry obviously has a monumental hatred of the press and media. Fair enough. But it's weird that he is now living in the media centre of the world in Los Angeles and is pursuing a public life. The whole living in seclusion in Canada thing made way more sense.

If it is the case those paparazzi weren't called, they must be tracked 24/7 if the paps were able to identify them whilst masked out and about and take photos of them.

I wonder if he thinks the USA press will be fairer? Celebrities who have been hunted by them (think Britney etc) would disagree. But I would certainly say that at present, the coverage is more positive because US media outlets are enjoying that two high profile royals have fled to the US. Even if the whole concept of royalty seems to be dead opposite what the US psyche stands for.
 
Last edited:

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
Two different perspectives on Harry and Meghan’s birthday call with the Queen.


 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,408
I didn't understand the "cutting ties with the tabloids" announcement. As much as I detest the UK tabloids, they can write articles about whoever they want. They don't need someone's approval to write an article about them. "Cutting ties" is not going to make the tabloids stop H&M stories. There's also nothing to stop the tabloids writing stories about H&M based on stories from other media outlets, e.g. "In a shockingly horrific revelation, the Duchess told Vanity Fair magazine that she married the Duke for his money". (ETA: Like the Sun story linked above, where the Sun is writing about the H&M birthday call to the Queen, and basing it on a Daily Mail story.)

The tabloids can also still phone H&M or their representatives for a comment or a response. But just like anyone else, H&M or their people can say "no comment" and hang up.

One thing I was wondering about this, too, is that some of the tabloid coverage, especially the photos, comes from agencies/cooperatives that the media outlets pay to belong to. Using content from these sources is becoming more common as newspapers cut back on having their own staff and photographers. H&M have no way to stop the tabloids using material from those sources, nor should they, because the tabloids have purchased the rights to use that material.
 
Last edited:

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,612
I didn't understand the "cutting ties with the tabloids" announcement.
It means they won't be working with them cooperatively or sending them material.

So, for example, they won't be sending pictures of Archie on his first birthday. As you point out, that won't stop those outlets from writing about it. They just won't get the first-hand stuff.

They could have just quietly stopped collaborating with them, but I think they announced it so their fans would know which outlets not to trust.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
I think for Harry this whole thing has been strongly motivated by sticking it to the UK press.

Maybe the statement was released to remind everyone of that. Especially as moving into the middle of Hollywood is sending mixed messages about desires for privacy etc.

I think the message is that they don’t want to be private individuals — just that they don’t want anything to do with the UK press.

Maybe this will be possible. They’ve gone from being some of the most famous people in Britain to minor celebs in Hollywood. So chances are, the ability to be public figures but still kind of fly under the radar will be possible.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,408
It means they won't be working with them cooperatively or sending them material.

So, for example, they won't be sending pictures of Archie on his first birthday. As you point out, that won't stop those outlets from writing about it. They just won't get the first-hand stuff.

They could have just quietly stopped collaborating with them, but I think they announced it so their fans would know which outlets not to trust.

I know what they said, thanks. You don't have to repeat it to me.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,408
I think the message is that they don’t want to be private individuals — just that they don’t want anything to do with the UK press.

Only certain parts of the UK press. It looks like they are still willing to share information directly with some of the UK papers, as long as it suits their purposes.

Maybe this will be possible. They’ve gone from being some of the most famous people in Britain to minor celebs in Hollywood. So chances are, the ability to be public figures but still kind of fly under the radar will be possible.

No one can turn press attention on and off as it suits them.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,634
No one can turn press attention on and off as it suits them.

The royal family actually does just that. They have a select group of reporters whom they trust, and they work closely with the royal rota to get the coverage they want. There's an understanding that in return for access to the royals, the royal rota will cover said royals in a favorable way. The only time that doesn't happen is when the news is bigger than something the royal family can control. See: Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. Even then, it didn't really blow up until Andrew blew it up himself with that disastrous BBC interview. Another example would be the marital troubles of Charles and Diana. That was beyond something the BRF could control. Most politicians are the same way -- they establish a good relationship with a few trusted reporters and will selectively leak information to those sources.

The difference with Harry and Meghan IMO is how they've said the quiet part out loud, and made it clear who is on the good list and who isn't. I hate to make the comparison but it's a bit like the Trump news conferences where CNN, WaPo, NYT, and NBC get berated as "Fake News" and "terrible reporting" and Fox, OAN, DailyWire, and whatever else are given preferential treatment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information