Anorak

Meghan Markle | Anorak

Posts Tagged ‘Meghan Markle’

Princess Diana’s ghost has Harry and Meghan’s lives all planned out

Right it is that we finally get to hear from Princess Diana. For some months we’ve been told by experts that Diana “would have” been delighted with Harry for marrying Meghan Markle. “Diana wold have loved Meghan,” says former Royal Butler Paul Burell in the Chester Chronicle. “Princess Diana would have loved Meghan Markle,” says Naomi Capbell on the BBC’s website. “Why Diana would have been so proud of her youngest son today,” says a Telegraph writer. Princess Diana “would have been in tears” at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding, says Andrew Morton. “Princess Diana would have wept with pride,” says Arthur Edward, Sun photographer. And the pick of the bunch: “Princess Diana would have helped Meghan avoid scandal, says former aide.”

But now “Princess Diana has spoken from beyond the grave to reveal newlyweds Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will have at least two children.” No recording of the address, sadly. Testimony is provided by “The Psychic Twins” who have “revealed to Daily Star Online the ‘People’s Princess’ has told them her son and new daughter-in-law will have their first child in 2019.”

This is a “stunning revelation” channelled from Terry and Linda Jamison, “dubbed ‘Nostradamus in Stilettos'”. Can they be trusted? YES! As if Diana would pick a fool to broadcast her message. You want proof? Here goes:

They told us that Diana would attend the Windsor Castle wedding and appear as a butterfly, then during the ceremony a fly was captured on video hitting Meghan’s face.

If you mumble ‘butter’, ‘butterfly’ can sound a lot like ‘fly’. And, sure, whilst colourful butterflies are known to hang around with flowers and sip flower nectar, and flies are more associated with imbibing liquified turds and disease, one can easily be mistaken for the other – especially if you pull their wings off. Anyhow, Diana told the twins: “I feel there may be a pregnancy fairly soon, before the year 2020, and both of them will be wonderful parents. Meghan will be a wonderful mother… another child may follow in a few years. I see at least one girl for them.”

And: “Their children will be very close with Will and Kate’s children, and I see them doing many play dates and activities together.”

Previously:

 

diana kate ghost diana princes kate

 

It’s what Diana ‘would have’ wanted.

Posted: 27th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Harry and Meghan and the modern myth of inclusivity

David Starkey is here to tell Sun readers that when Meghan Markle married Prince Harry the Royal Family modernised. Starkey tells us, and “it’s worth repeating”, that Megan is “mixed-race, American, of uncertain religion, an actress, divorced and with a sexual history”. She’s nothing like Kate Middleton, then, you know, and it’s barely worth repeating, who is a mixed-race Commoner, of uncertain religion, a part-time shop worker and with a sexual history”. Good wedding. Lovely do. But it wasn’t all that new and it wasn’t all that modern.

Undaunted by the repetition of past marriages that also spoke volumes about how modern the Family born to rule had become (yes, and to stop one of us uppity plebs having too much power) Starkey says that any “one” of the attributes on Meghan’s checklist “would have rendered her deeply doubtful as a royal bride”.

Jessica Bouton tells Mirror readers is was very… Well, see if you can guess: “Meghan’s gown was…a modern look for a modern duchess. And her story is a modern Cinderella.” Yeah. Modern. It was a “magical modern wedding,” says the Mail.

The Telegraph says the wedding was “modern”, and in it Britain “sees a mirror image of our times”. And you thought the royals’ job was to transcend the times, to add a divine-given thread of continuity beyond the grasp of prevailing trends, mores, lusts, thrusts and fashions. When did the royals get to be inclusive? When did we raise expectations of their capacity to do anything other than shoot, breed and ride?  If they are just as meaningless as the rest of us, do we all get a go at being one? If they’re just like us, what’s the point of them?

Posted: 21st, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family | Comment


Meghan’s spare wedding dress cost £100,000 (or not)

Thomas who? Thomas Markle… Anyone? Having rolled over Megan Markle’s father, the news cycle gets to focus on the honeymoon and the dress. Not that the new Duchess of Sussex’s dress was a surprise to Daily Mail readers who on April 4 got a sneak peak of her walk-on look. Rebecca English told us:

EXCLUSIVE: Meghan’s £100,000 wedding dress revealed: Royal bride will wear hand-stitched, beaded design made by British couturiers Ralph & Russo (and paid for by Prince Harry’s family)

 

daily mail meghan dress

 

The price then doubled. And the designer changed their name. Although no longer an “exclusive”, the story remained a revelation: “Givenchy’s Clare Waight Keller has been revealed as Meghan’s wedding dress designer.” There had been lots of “speculation” –  surely “exclusives”? – with with “Ralph & Russo hotly tipped”:

 

 

meghan dress daily mail

 

 

But if it’s guff you’re after, step forward and take long obsequious bow, Robin Givhan, who writes in the Washington Post:

…what was most noticeable were all the things that the dress was not. It was not a Hollywood red-carpet statement. It was not a Disney-princess fantasy. It was not a mountain of camouflaging tulle and chiffon.

The dress, designed by Clare Waight Keller, was free of extravagant embellishments. It was not covered in yards of delicate lace. It did not have a single ruffle — no pearls or crystals. Its beauty was in its architectural lines and its confident restraint. It was a romantic dress, but one that suggested a clear-eyed understanding that a real-life romance is not the stuff of fairy tales. The dress was a backdrop; it was in service to the woman.

Weekend in Blackpool, right?

Posted: 19th, May 2018 | In: Fashion, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Prince Harry to Meghan: ‘I’m shitting it’

To the Royal wedding, then, as Prince Harry meets Meghan Markle at the Church. What did he say to her? Well, its looks lot like, “Im shitting it.”

 


 

‘Do you promise… to honour… and forsake all others…” Camera did not pan to Prince Charles and Camilla…

Posted: 19th, May 2018 | In: Royal Family | Comment


Meghan Markle: darts walk-on girls and The Naked Rambler should get the nod

As Meghan Markle straps an inflatable bellend to her neck and brandishes Harry’s loyalty card for for the mother of all hen nights at SophistiCats night club, the papers all lead with the “sad” announcement that her dad, the much-maligned Thomas Markle, will no be walking her down the aisle. Who will is the matter of heated debate, the smart money being on the her mother, darts walk-on girls, Naomi Campbell, the Naked Rambler and Ian Botham, should he be seeking a new sponsorship role: it’s £1000-a-yard for charity. (TV executives, call me I have ideas – Sue Perkins presents The Hard Yards, a pro-celebrity walk down the aisle.)

 

the sun markle harry sex

The Sun plan for the next generation

 

Anyhow, California-gal Meghan stuffed in a plum and issued a statement via the Kensington palace twitter feed: “Sadly my father will not be attending our wedding. I have always cared for my father and hope he can be given the space he needs to focus on his health.” Shades of Adrian Mole’s mother saying she’s “fond” of him. Harry has never met Thomas. But “nothing’s going to spoil our big day,” thunders the Daily Mail’s lead headline – although you’d imagine a few of the paper’s hacks will give it a whirl.

In the Sun there’s lots of gush about Meghan being a “silver-lining girl”as the paper joins “fans” sleeping on the streets of Windsor. Best not get there too early, mind, lest the police give you a kick and move you on. The homeless and rough sleepers have been swept from the town’s streets. “Crazy Corner” looks like the “Calais Jungle”, says the Sun’s man on patio furniture. But there’s no Lily Allen, just people like Skye London  – “People call us mad. Well, we are mad but we always gets the best seats” –  and Terry Hunt – “I’ve been doing this since I was four. I’m at every wedding and outside the hospital at every birth.”

Posted: 18th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Thomas Markle declared clinically sane

Thomas Markle will not be at this daughter Meghan Markle’s wedding to Harry Windsor. The groom’s family is hosting the do, which means Thomas Markle flying from his home in Mexico to London, meeting myriads of strangers, being shackled and shaped by their huge teams of minted PRs, obsequious lackeys and armed goons, and welcomed warmly into the bosom of what absurdly passes for a modern twist on monarchy. All tabloids lead with the news. But none of them know for certain. He might come. He might not.

In this age of fluid gender roles, it’s a gentleman’s prerogative to arrive at the wedding. We used to like the story of the groom being jilted at the alter, now we’re wondering if a 73-year-old bloke can be arsed to go though all that guff to see his daughter married for the second time.

 

Thomas Markle

Get Thomas!

 

The Mail, which “exposed” “fake” photos of Thomas being boring as he looked at screengrabs of his daughter and her Chinger prince, tried on a suit and rode a cheap exercise bike, now invites Richard Kay to says the “world” feels “nothing but sympathy” for a man possessed of a “quiet dignity”. But he is “humiliated” by his “reckless agreement” to broadcast and allegedly flog photos of himself to the Press rather than lettering the Mail broadcast and flog photos of him without his permission. It is “regrettable and sad” that this “basically honourable man” will be absent from Meg’s big day. The Sun calls it a “bombshell”.

The Express says Thomas doesn’t want to “embarrass the Royal Family”, something you’d think impossible to do, given that the clan of feckless ninnies ride around in gold coaches, suck toes, cheat on their spouses, hang out with paedos (allegedly), dress up as Nazis (both real and for larks) and gave us this:

 

 

The Star and Mirror, however, wonder if Thomas has suffered a heart attack. The Mirror also says Thomas “claims” he has “been harassed by snappers”. Or as the Sun notes: “He was pictured driving away from his home last Wednesday and staying the night at a motel in San Diego after crossing the US border. The next day… he lifted two heavy pots of flowering plants on Doria’s [Meghan’s mother] doorstep in Los Angeles with a card. He was then seen driving around LA, visiting the post office, pharmacy and bank before heading bak to Mexico that evening.”

Who’d envy that?

Posted: 15th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Thomas Markle should profit from Meghan’s wedding like the Royals do

The Daily Mirror picks up the story which first appeared in the Mail on Sunday – the one about Thomas Markle allegedly earning a few quid by posing for photos which can be sold to the Press. Thomas is, of course, Meghan Markle’s father, and when he’s not being door-stepped by Mirror reporters, he’s getting on with his own life. But his alleged staging of a set of photos with British photographers has upset the tabloids, who presumably wanted their men in the bushes to shoot pics of Thomas being a “virtual recluse” for less and syndicate them for more, packaging the album as “The Royals DO Deserve Privacy”, “Has Meghan Inherited Her Dad’s Fat Genes?” and “How Did Thomas Markle Afford A Five-Star Holiday To Thailand?”

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

The paper quotes the father-of-the-bride’s son, also called Thomas, who apparently said: “He’ll apologise sincerely to Meg.” Why? The Royal Family are often caught guffing out photos of their lives and their children, including ones taken by Kate. The no-expense spared PR drive that frames Harry, Kate and Wills as a trio of caring, down-with-the-proles workaholics is not just about us loving absurdly entitled, wildlife slaughtering billionaires when they’re between private islands and ski lifts, but the Royals being able to carry on after Her Majesty waves her last and we’re invited to defy gut feelings and nature by looking up at Prince Charles and Camilla. Princess Diana left such a stain on The Munsters that our view is being directed over the crowns of the two people that cheated and lied to the Windsors’ brood mare, falling instead on her children and Kate.

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

The Standard updates the story by leading with news that Markle’s half-sister is to “blame” for Thomas’s “fake pictures”. “The bad press over my father doing staged photos is my fault,” says Samantha Grant – who is not invited to the wedding. No. It isn’t. The bad press is over the scurry for post-wedding stories, when the Markles become old hat and we crave scandal and division over “love at first sight” tedium and a marriage”destined” ever since Meghan tried on a Disney Princess outfit when she was five and Charles fancied the Three Degrees. Although the Standard does deliver a two-page feature on the “unlikely love story” of an “ambitious girl from LA” and – get this – “the rebel prince”. Oh, do the other one. The only rebel Prince in recent memory was Edward VIII, formerly a Prince of Wales, who rather than merely pratting around dressed as a recreational Nazi, wore the authentic garb and politics of the Herrenvolk; and married a woman with two living ex-husbands who referred to staff as “lazy, thriving niggers”; and advised Britishers to survive the war on roasted terrapin. Harry’s less rebellious than a weather cock.

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

And, reportedly, Grant is here to help stir the pot. She’s rumoured to be penning a rift ‘n’ tell called The Diary of Princess Pushy’s Sister. “The media can be so cruel,” Grant is quoted by the Daily Star. But at £15 a pop with serialisation rights, a book packs a bigger whack.

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

Note: The Daily Mail vowed on 8 September 1997, eight days after the death of Princess Diana:

Mail leads the way in banning paparazzi pictures.

The proprietor of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening Standard announced last night that his papers will not in future purchase pictures taken by paparazzi Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc said: ‘I am, and always have been, an admirer of Diana, Princess of Wales, and nagged my editors to protect her so far as they could against her powerful enemies. In view of Earl Spencer’s strong words and my own sense of outrage, I have instructed my editors no ‘paparazzi’ pictures are to be purchased without my knowledge and consent.’

Such are the facts.

Posted: 14th, May 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Prince Harry can’t recall meeting Meghan’s dad Thomas in Toronto?

Time to catch up with Thomas Markle, Meghan Markle’s dad. The Mail says the “virtual recluse” has still to meet Prince Harry. In the build up to the wedding, the Queen will be hosting a do at which Thomas will meet Her Maj and the rest of The Munsters. “Remarkably,” says the Mail, “it will be the first time that Prince Harry will meet his fiancee’s father.”

Aside from Thomas Markle being anything but a recluse, the Mail might care to note on January 4th 2017 we read that Thomas and Harry met in Toronto a while back. And where did we read that news? In the Mail:

 

thomas markle daily mail

 

Such are the facts.

Posted: 7th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Meghan Markle, Princess Michael and the Windsor weirdos

Did you notice that Princess Michael of Kent wore a “blackamoor” brooch, depicting a black person in a turban when she attended a free lunch where Prince Harry and his lover, Meghan Markle, were also dining? The Sun, Mail and Telegraph all did, describing the brooch as “racist”.

That each of those organs couched the word inside inverted commas reveals that they don’t know if it’s racist or not. Is it more racist than dressing up as a Nazi (Prince Harry), having a dad who was an officer in the SS (Michael) or calling a man a “Paki” (Harry again)?

Is it less racist than pointing out that Markle is mixed-race and must therefore be offended by a piece of jewellery worn by a foreign-born divorcee of non-royal birth who married into the weirdest clan this side of the Appalachians? Might Mike and Mark not be kindred spirits who got into bed with people of lower moral worth?

 

 

The Times stirs the bedpan by throwing the matter into the debating ring: “Princess Michael of Kent: racially insensitive – or something worse?”

 

Pricne Harry NAzi

Just larking about

 

The Times informs us that blackamoor tut “is part of a tradition of jewellery and art that was popular in the 18th century, but in recent years has come to be regarded as highly racially insensitive.”

The princess was condemned in a series of posts on social media. One woman wrote: “Ah, the Princess who wears racist jewellery to lunch with Meghan Markle.” Another said: “That looks inappropriate in any setting.”

What else looks inappropriate at a lunch with a woman who rides about in a gold coach and whose eldest son was shagging a married woman while we all simpered at Diana? Poor people? Terry Waite tied to a radiator drinking a glass of urine? Prince Andrew getting a rub down?

A third wrote: “Has no one noticed the Blackamoor pin that Princess Michael of Kent is wearing? Really? #MeghanMarkle officially meets the family and is greeted by THIS? #racism #BritishRoyals.”

And:

Although Ms Markle is not thought to have dined at the same table as Princess Michael, it is likely that they met.

Possibly as Mike handed Mark her coat and asked for a gin and spite.

It’s all huge news, of course. But Harry and his paramour are so much in love no mere trinket can break them. Just get a load of the official photo that shows us how much in love they are (“whatever ‘in love’ means is” – Prince Charles).

 

The official photo

 

Gosh. I’m welling up:

 

harry meghan

 

 

Image: Richard Littler

 

Posted: 22nd, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family | Comment


Thomas Markle gets doorstepped

Turns out that Thomas Markle is’t all that “reclusive” after all. He’s on the Daily Mirror’s front page talking about his daughter, Meghan Markle.

 

thomas markle

 

“I’m delighted,” says Thomas of the wedding. For reasons that are not clear, the Mirror presents Thomas Markle with a bottle of French champagne and some Darjeeling tea. “Thank you, that’s very kind,” says Thomas as a stranger gives him free treats.

Not that Thomas needed a free drink. The Mirror’s says it “tracked him down” to his, er, home, and looked on as Thomas Markle “bought a four-pack of Heineken and cigarettes”. Lest we be disbelieving, the Mirror features a video of Thomas walking from a store.

Lest you think that invasive and not in the least bit newsworthy, the Mirror uses an editorial to tell readers: “Thomas Markle’s eyes will have a little more sparkle than most” when he walks his daughter own the aisle. The booze, right? The Mirror says the “British public” will “instantly take to such a down-to-earth chap”.

That’s the divorcee sat in the gold coach, scarfing booze and puffing on a fag. And that’s Camilla wondering what might have been…

Posted: 8th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Meghan Markle’s dad Thomas is an international man of mystery

Meghan Markle has a “mysterious dad”. And by mysterious we mean not a man who weaves mysteries, vanishes in puff of smoke or is, as one dictionary defines it, “difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify.” We mean a man who doesn’t much fancy being a celebrity.

The Daily Mirror makes Thomas Markle Senior its front-page story. They say that aside from his family, “no-one even knows where Thomas Markle Senior is.” It might be less a mystery than a question of budgets and being bothered to track down a man who was living in Rosario Beach on Mexico’s Baja California Peninsular. He moved on, says the Mirror, “determined to avoid any chance of public attention”.

 

Thomas Markle

 

Not that the man’s absence detracts from the story. He “gets by on his £1,307 monthly pension”, we learn. How the Mirror knows what money he earns and spends is moot. The ‘facts’ are provided to fit the narrative of the future princess’s dad living if not in poverty then at least in humdrum simplicity. Thomas is “driving around in an old batted blue Chrysler PT Cruiser”. His new family-to-be are “one of the richest and most powerful in the world”. He “devoted his life to his daughter”. He “may” be avoiding the spotlight “due to the humiliation of bankruptcy”.

Thomas Markle’s “solitary life means Harry has still not met his future father-in-law”. Or as the Mail puts it: “EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry has met his girlfriend Meghan Markle’s father.”

 

Thomas Markle

 

 

That’s not to say the Mail isn’t also on the scent.

“Why is Meghan’s dad so determined to hide from the world?” wonders the Mail. “Where is the elusive Mr Markle? Why has this enigmatic man concealed his whereabouts so determinedly?” And: “After all, placed in his position, many fathers would be singing their joy from the rooftops.” Why, because an American – a citizen of the world’s greatest republic, a bastion of freedom and hope to the world – is getting shackled to a man who symbolises inequality? Maybe not because the Sun says Meghan’s dad is “said to be impressed by Prince Harry”.

Shedding light on the international man of mystery is Thomas’s brother Michael, who tells everyone: “Tom is trying to comply with the royal directive to keep a low profile so that’s where he’s coming from. He doesn’t want to upset the Royal Family.” Indeed, there’s nothing like a normal bloke to undo the ‘magic’ of monarchy.

 

Posted: 4th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


When Harry met Meghan: tabloids deliver the wedding, the dress and honeymoon facts

Prince Harry wedding newspapers

 

By now you’ll be wondering what Prince Harry and Megan Markle are up to. Thankfully, the tabloids understand your thinking and have produced a few words on the prince and his paramour.

The Sun: 25 pages.
Daily Mail: 18 pages
Daily Star: 6 pages, including one of Page 3 stunna “Royal fan Megan”
Daily Express: 7 pages
Daily Mirror: 9 pages

What about the wedding:

THE MOTHER-IN-LAW

“Tourits flocked to Kensington Palace last night to salute the happy couple and tell of their excitement that ‘new Diana’ Meghan’ will become a royal… She’s very appealing to people, like Diana was” – Star

“Diana would have been thrilled – Meghan’s just the kind of woman she wanted to be” – Mail

THE DRESS

“Meghan Markel’s wedding dress with a glamorous red-carpet gown” – Express

“EXCLUSIVE: Fit for a Princess! Will Meghan Markle choose an Australian designer to make her bridal gown for the ultimate modern Royal wedding?” – Mail

“Meghan Markle is likely to opt for a low-key, cool designer to create her wedding dress” – Standard

“She once revealed what her dream dress would be when talking about her character Rachel in legal drama Suits, who wore a wedding gown in one episode.  She revealed the dress worn in the show wasn’t her “personal style”, adding: “I’m a lot more relaxed than Rachel… Classic and simple is the name of the game, perhaps with a modern twist. I personally prefer wedding dresses that are whimsical or subtly romantic.” – Star, “Meghan Markle’s wedding dress REVEALED: Harry’s fiancee’s dream gown PICTURED”

THE COAT

“Did you spot Meghan Markle’s subtle fashion nod to Princess Diana?.. With the photocall taking place in Princess Diana’s former residence, it seems only fitting that Meghan would wear white, a nod to Diana and the memorial white garden that was created in her memory this year to mark the 20 year anniversary of her death.” – Marie Clair

“Meghan wore a white coat…it did slighlty resemble a dressing gown” – Sun

The coat “was not unlike something her future sister-in-law the Duchess of Cambridge would wear” – Mail

“Meghan’s journey to fashion icon status continued yesterday when she wore a white-belted coat” – Mirror

THE WEDDING FOOD

“Roast chicken, sweet potato and white-bean soup” – Mirror

THE HONEYMOON

Bostwana; Croatia; Bordeaux, Athens, Madrid, New York – Mirror

The Seychelles is “the red-hot favourite” – Star

 

Posted: 28th, November 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family | Comment


Viz predicted Harry and Meghan’s wedding to save Theresa May in 2016

Viz 258 of Summer 2016 – “And that’s supposed to be Theresa May on the right,” says @Vizcomic.

 

Viz royal wedding harry Theresa May

Spotter: @vizcomic

 

PS:

Posted: 28th, November 2017 | In: Royal Family | Comment


Tabloids lead with naked women, feuding women, mad women and lesbians

tabloids women

 

Who buys newspapers? Women and men who like looking at women do. Or at least they used to buy them – now they get them for free in supermarkets. Today’s tabloids are curious for the absence of men on the covers. They look like fashion titles, porn mag and women’s weeklies. Across all the tabloids, only the Daily Express features a man on the cover, and he’s Prince Charles, the kind of bloke who never understood what a T-shirt is and grimaces as he attempts to straddle two poles by being both relevant to the hoi polloi and beyond the reach of mere mortals. Charles is on the Express‘ front-page to illustrate how lucrative it is to be a royal. This year the proles are to fund the Queen to the tune of £82.2million, or £1.21 from each of us. That represents “such good value” says the Express. The Express costs 55p.

But the rest all focus on women only.

The Daily Star, the Express‘ fun stablemate, has Eastenders actress Jessie Wallace looking tired and emotional as she “boobs” on a bight out; “Sexy” Emma Willis illustrating the fact that Big Brother, the show she presents, is crap (yes, it is still on); Theresa May signing a deal with the DUP (pronounced D! U! P!) to give the county a working Government; and Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s current lover, often “nips over to Harry” on a plane.

The Sun leads with claims that “lesbian jailbird” Syndee Offord and “female prison guard” Faron Selvage enjoyed “LESBIAN ROMP BEHIND BRAS”; May’s deal; and the Sun’s “Chest test”, in which Alice Lazar covers her naked breasts in glitter and walks about the streets of London.

The Mirror leads with Theresa May and D!U!P! leader Arlene Foster engaging in a “handshake of shame”. It’s “May’s £1bn Bribe to Crackpots”.

 

 

But the Daily Mail takes the cake. Its cover shows a picture of Princess Diana and Camilla Parker-Bowes, once “Britain’s most hated woman” and now part of the PR camping to make us believe that after Her Majesty leaves the throne the feckless ninnies and knobs who make up her Royal Family will do a decent job of being our betters.

To recap, then: in this enlightened age, the tabloids lead with naked women, sexy women, mad women, women’s primary sexual characteristics, materialistic women and lesbians. We’ve come a long way, baby….

Posted: 27th, June 2017 | In: News, Tabloids | Comment


Meghan Markle and Jamie Vardy in ridiculous tabloid plot

Meghan Markle is to play Jamie Vardy’s wife in a film. Well, so says the Daily Star. And who better than Prince Harry’s latest flame to pump the air as her man scores for Leicester City.

In scene 1, the actress is speaking to the News of the World. It’s 2001. “He had great muscles and I thought he’d be a great lover,” she says. “He was the worst lover I have ever had. He didn’t even attempt to satisfy me.” Whoah. Stop nodding Chelsy Davy. Meghan is reading the script from Rebekah Vardy’s insight into her time with sentimental pop acorn Peter Andre.

 

Meghan Markle Vardy

 

 

Of course it’s utter tosh. Markle has not been given the role. The Star only “reckons” Meghan would make a good Rebekah. After all both are dark hairs divorcees with a random ‘h’ in their names.

 

meghan markle Vardy

 

But being light on facts fails to stop the story gaining momentum. “Prince Harry’s girl Meghan Markle will play Jamie Vardy’s wife in new movie,” thunders the Mirror.  “Meghan Markle being lined up to play Jamie Vardy’s wife in Hollywood flick,” cries the Sun.

The Mirror nails how Hollywood casting work when it says, “with Meghan being 35-years-old, she’s just one year older thank Rebekah so would be well suited to playing the Leicester City hero’s missus.” The Sun’s story is based on the Mirror’s story, which is based on the Star’s story – which is based on not a single attributable quote or fact.

Rebekah Vardy is 34.

 

Posted: 15th, November 2016 | In: Celebrities, Reviews, Tabloids | Comment


Meghan Markle: the exclusive death threats that have nothing to do with Prince Harry

Meghan Markle might no longer be in the UK, but Prince Harry Baseball-Cap’s “girl” is all over the Mail’s front page.

 

Daily Mail Meghan harry

 

It is an “exclusive encounter” with Meghan Markle.

Scoop or what?

It’s only been a few days since Harry was complaining about the Press treating the celebrity Prince like a celebrity and abusing his lover. He is upset by “reporters and photographers trying to gain illegal entry to Meghan’s home”. Should we feel sympathy for Meghan? It’s “preposterous to claim that the publicity-hungry Ms Markle is a hapless victim,” said Sarah Vine in the Mail

Now Meghan’s talking to the Mail!

No. She isn’t. She spoke with Piers Morgan in June “months before the world learned about her Royal relationship”.

Words about Harry in this front-page exclusive? None.

So if not Prince Harry, what did she talk about?

Meghan revealed some more obscure secrets about herself – such as the fact that she is a trained calligrapher who wrote the invitation cards and envelopes for pop singer Robin Thicke’s 2005 wedding.

Is that like the secret she revealed in 2014, when she told Fashion:

“I could either wait tables or use a skill I had that I could do on my own time,” she says. Markle’s calligraphy led to her addressing envelopes for Robin Thicke and Paula Patton’s wedding and writing Dolce & Gabbana’s holiday correspondence.

And the death threats? The Mail reports:

…she was bombarded with hate messages when her character in the US drama series Suits, Rachel Zane, cheated on her boyfriend in the show.  She said: ‘People wanted to kill me! Not Rachel… ME. I never knew there were so many emojis with guns and knives. It was very unpleasant. Fortunately, Rachel got back on her pedestal and it stopped.’

“Prince Harry’s girlfriend Meghan Markle’s terrifying death threats,” screams the Daily Mirror. But those threats were nothing to do with her dating Prince Harry.

Elsewhere in today’s Mail, you can read:

The Mail exclusively revealed images of Meghan this week out in Kensington, near Harry’s home at Kensington Palace.

Time to once again revisit the pledge made by the Mail on 8 September 1997, eight days after the death of Princess Diana:

“The proprietor of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening Standard announced last night that his papers will not in future purchase pictures taken by paparazzi

“Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc said: ‘I am, and always have been, an admirer of Diana, Princess of Wales, and nagged my editors to protect her so far as they could against her powerful enemies. In view of Earl Spencer’s strong words and my own sense of outrage, I have instructed my editors no ‘paparazzi’ pictures are to be purchased without my knowledge and consent.'”

Meghan is now back in her native Canada.

Best of luck to her.

Posted: 13th, November 2016 | In: Celebrities, Key Posts, Reviews, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment (1)


Meghan Markle: sex, a ginger Royal line gets crossed and Prince Harry’s moan

Prince Harry is dating American actress Meghan Markle. And he’s unhappy with the media. The celebrity Royal doesn’t much like journalists behaving like, well, journalists. Kensington Palace say the Press have subjected Markle to a “wave of abuse and harassment”. It says “the past week has seen a line crossed”.

The BBC notes: “In recent days a number of newspapers have carried front page stories about the 35-year-old actress, best known for playing Rachel Zane in the TV drama Suits.”

Tsk! Those pesky tabloids, eh. Nothing like the BBC, which punctuates that news with a link to “Who is Meghan Markle?” The Times has more with “Everything you (secretly) wanted to know about Prince Harry’s ‘friend’”.

The Beeb’s bio tells us Megan has really good handwriting, was married and is now divorced, and is mixed race.

The Daily Telegraph wonders, “Could Harry marry a divorcee (when Margaret couldn’t)?”.

In the Times Hilary Rose reviews Markle’s acting role in Suits (something the Sun likens to porn – see picture below): “The show seems mainly to consist of pretty people saying inane things with the utmost gravity which, when you think about it, is pretty much what the royal family do.”

Yes, but with more guns.

The prince’s communications secretary warns (and is that very much like a celebrity to talk through ‘my people’):

“His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.

“Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.”

 

Megan Markle tabloids the sun

 

The Guardian fingers the Sun:

Sun’s ‘smear’ about actor’s links to adult website prompts statement in which royal attacks reports’ ‘racial undertones’

Nothing like the Guardian, then, which reported:

Who she? She’s an actor, very beautiful, 35 years old. You might know her as Rachel Zane from the legal drama Suits.

I don’t. Never mind. She’s also … how can I put this?

As long as she’s not a divorced American. The royal family has had enough of them after that Wallis Simpson business. Actually, that’s exactly what she is. But I was thinking of something else.

Harry’s not going to be king, so maybe it will be OK as long as she behaves herself and offers up her body as a vessel for the royal bloodline. That’s the thing. Markle is dual-heritage. Her father is white and her mother is African American.

So? Look, most of the 20th century was a mistake and we want racial superiority back. We had a referendum about it, remember?

After the Guardian has looked down on the tabloids and smeared pro-Brexit voters as bigots (plus ca change), we hear more from Harry’s “cry from the heart” (BBC):

“He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.”

 

Meghan Markle sex

 

The Guardian then fingers the Mail:

One comment piece in last weekend’s Mail on Sunday, by Rachel Johnson, said: “Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.”

That’s racist? No. Of course it isn’t. Unless you think it nasty to mention Harry’s watery blood and accuse Johnson of gingerism?

The Guardian is in an absurd position. It wants to protect royal Harry from those awful tabloids, but has told its readers “Forelock-tugging is all the rage thanks to Harry and Kate” and that Princess Kate is trapped in a “cliched gilded cage”.

that;s the problem, isn’t it: Harry doesn’t behave like a Royal. He, Kate and Wills behave like celebrities. They don’t patronise; they endorse.

Harry and his PR team continue:

“Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads. He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life.

“He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.

“But the past week has seen a line crossed.”

A red line? Or is it a ginger line that’s being crossed?

 

Posted: 8th, November 2016 | In: Celebrities, Reviews, Royal Family | Comment