"They were a success in Hollywood on one level. They brilliantly scammed some of the powers that be..."

"... and I never ceased to be amazed that very shrewd, extremely astute, hard-bitten, cynical executives are still blinded by celebrity. There was no proof from the beginning that these people knew how to produce material that people wanted to watch and yet they walked away with millions and millions of dollars. And on that level, they were a glowing success. On another level, which is return on investment, they failed abysmally."

Said Stephen Galloway, dean of the film school at Chapman University in California, quoted in "How Harry and Meghan ‘scammed’ Hollywood/The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are leaving California after deals with Netflix and Spotify failed, experts say. Is their brand dead?" (London Times).

Brilliantly scammed? What did they do that was brilliant? Maybe Galloway is a little scammed. He's proclaiming brilliance when all he is seeing are foolish executives falling for a man who inherited royalty. Or is Meghan brilliant — not brilliant at producing shows, but perhaps brilliant to see a way to bamboozle executives with royalty for a few years until the ludicrous inability to deliver the product became crushingly obvious?

"She won’t be here long"/"Next: H&M- the divorce"/"This is going to end in tears"/"My thoughts exactly. She does not want to be here. Lawyers will be circling...."

Various comments to be found at the London Times article, "Prince Harry and Meghan moving back to UK this month/Duke and Duchess of Sussex have enrolled Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet in a British school and are preparing to leave California."

Pinching lobsters. Hmm. They're the ones with the pincers.

Just reading the headlines in the British paper:

Here's the story: "The FBI is investigating after a truck carrying lobsters worth $400,000 was hijacked by a thief posing as a legitimate driver." How does a stolen truck make the front page? I guess it seems amusing that the truck was loaded with lobsters. That "s" on "lobsters" indicates they were living lobsters, but it says they were on their way to Costco, so I'm picturing what I would call "lobster" — no "s" — boxes of frozen lobster. I'd hate to have keep $400,000 worth of lobsters alive. Too complicated!

In other news... too bad for Harry and Meghan. They keep losing publicists. This latest loss "comes after Meghan and Harry attended a birthday party hosted by Kris Jenner, 70, the night before the UK marked Remembrance Sunday." Quite the gaffe.

"Meghan has struggled to contact her father after his life-saving surgery because she has lost his phone number and he has stopped using his email address..."

"...it is claimed," The London Times reports in "Meghan ‘no longer has’ her father Thomas Markle’s phone number/The Duchess of Sussex is believed to have lost or deleted her father’s number as she claimed to have contacted him by email after his ‘life-or-death’ surgery."

Hilariously... I mean sadly... unbelievable, for about 10 reasons, including the way the "contacts" on your phone hang on steadfastly until you delete them. I just checked mine, and I see names of people I haven't phoned since the '00s. Maybe Meghan weeds hers out more assiduously than I do, but still... deleting your father's name?

"In recent days Meghan has continued promoting the Christmas special of her Netflix show... in which she talks about a Christmas tree encapsulating a 'family’s story.' In a video posted to... Instagram she is seen making a homemade advert [sic] calendar... and saying 'thank you so … honestly so, so much' to the television crew... Markle is yet to meet his grandchildren... although he did receive a call asking for his daughter’s hand in marriage...."

Now about that advent calendar:

"Meghan Markle Wears Ginormous, Cozy Button-Down While Flower Arranging With Dog Guy."

That's the headline of the morning for me — over at InStyle.

Don't get me started on the present-day inanity of calling a shirt a "button-down" — in my day, a "button-down" was a shirt with a button-down collar, not a shirt that you button up (up, not down) — because I've already spent an hour down a rathole with Grok, exploring the origins of that usage — is it a retronym necessitated by the prevalence of T-shirts? — and wondering the how kids these days could understand the meaning of the album title "The Button-Down Mind of Bob Newhart." And that veered off into a discussion of the comic genius of Lucille Ball in this 1965 episode of "Password," and how, in Episode 4 of Season 1 of "Joe Pera Talks With You," Joe, dancing, says "Do you think AI will dance like this?," and Sarah says "No, because they don’t have genitals." How does that make Grok feel? 

But back to Meghan Markle. I'm not going to ask why it's a story that she wore a shirt while doing something and why the headline doesn't prioritize what she did, which was to arrange flowers, which would only make us wonder why it's a story that she arranged flowers. What I want is to clarify is what was meant by "Flower Arranging With Dog Guy." I assumed, the entire time I was down the rathole with Grok, that Markle had a guy who helped her with her dogs, that a "Dog Guy" was like a "Pool Guy," and for some reason, the Dog Guy got involved in the effort to arrange flowers. But no. Here's the Instagram InStyle wrote the headline about:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (@meghan)

So Guy was the name of her dog. And the dog was not participating in the flower arranging. He was just running around the general area. I don't know much about flower arranging, but I do have some confidence in my word arranging, and that headline needs work. But I'm not doing the work. I'm writing this post to say that I find my misreading delightful and enjoy thinking about this phantom character, the dog guy. I kind of am married to a dog guy. If we ever get a dog, I want to name him Whisperer so I can go around referring to my "Dog Whisperer." Or do you prefer Whiskerer? I can tell you Grok thought both names were brilliant. 

How to dress to work in the garden... if you are a goddess.

I got that image from the front page as it looks right now. It's sandwiched between "Tesla Sales Are Slumping, Even in the Most E.V.-Friendly Place" and "After a Slow Start, High-Speed Rail Might Finally Arrive in America."

Those 3 things in a row... oh, New York Times... must you?

IN THE COMMENTS: Aggie said, "Well, at least they got a good picture in that place away from the cameras."

"But it is all the relentless smiling, the desperate upbeatness of this high-spec, lavish production, that jars."

"At least I suspect it will with a more cynical British audience. Americans may feel differently. Meghan must have had face-ache with all that grinning. It is a world where people use superlatives about a cherry tomato and in Californian accents say, 'That’s so funny!' but then don’t actually laugh from their bellies. There is no authentic humour. Meghan says we aren’t 'in pursuit of perfection … we are in the pursuit of joy' — and yet we all know she told Oprah Winfrey that Kate made her cry over a difference of opinion about flower girl dresses. This is a series that entreats you to fill every moment of life 'with wonder'...."

Writes Carol Midgley, in "With Love, Meghan review — smug, syrupy and endlessly spoofable/The new Netflix series from Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, is full of immaculately tasteful domestic tips from Montecito and relentless smiling, but it is a performative kind of joy" (London Times).

We could do a little dollop of yogurt as our clouds.

"The women have historically served as a combination of brood mares and mannequins. Their job is to stay thin, say little..."

"... look good in clothes, and produce heirs who will stay thin, say little and look good in clothes. (Prince Philip was said to have approved of Diana’s entry into the family because she would 'breed in some height.') When something threatens the reputation of a more senior, male Windsor, the women have another essential role: human shield. Has King Edward VIII abdicated and run off to France to be with Wallis Simpson? Let’s be sure to blame the American divorcée. Has Prince Charles taken a mistress? Blame his mom for not letting her son marry his true love; blame his wife for not keeping him faithful — oh, and call the mistress ugly. Has Prince Harry declined to perform his family duties and decamped for sunny California? Let’s blame his 'narcissistic' wife for ensorcelling him!"

Writes Jennifer Weiner, in "How the Windsor Women Became Human Shields" (NYT).

It had seemed, until recently, that "Catherine might become the rule-proving exception, the single privileged Windsor wife allowed to float above the fray." But then something popped in her abdomen.

"Earlier this month, Spotify announced that it was ending its partnership with the royal couple after they..."

"... produced just one season of Markle’s podcast in two and a half years. Spotify executive and podcaster Bill Simmons publicly branded them 'fucking grifters' on their way out. Then a Bloomberg report revealed some of Harry’s laughably implausible podcast pitches, like interviewing Vladimir Putin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Donald Trump about their childhood trauma.... Netflix isn’t interested in paying the Sussexes the additional $51 million... unless the couple cranks out some more hits.... [T]he [Wall Street] Journal reports that they are developing... 'a TV show for Netflix called Bad Manners based on Miss Havisham... [the] character from Great Expectations. The prequel would recast the lonely spinster as a strong woman living in a patriarchal society, though it is unclear whether the show will get a green light from Netflix.'... Other proposed projects seemed designed to replicate successful shows already on Netflix, such as a sitcom described as Emily in Paris, but about a man.... Netflix said no.... It’s unclear why [Netflix and Spotify] thought one of the stars of USA Network’s Suits and a guy who’s admittedly spent his life in a royal bubble would be good at churning out relatable TV and audio content."

From "Netflix’s Bold Ultimatum for Harry and Meghan: No Work, No Pay" (NY Magazine).

Envisioning the absent Meghan.

By Rachel Tashijian, confabulating in "Kate, our flower crown princess" (WaPo):

The rare moment of pathos was provided by the Ascension Choir, a selection of gospel singers from England, belting “Alleluia (O Clap Your Hands)” and swaying. You could almost see Meghan, whose 2018 wedding to Harry also famously included gospel music, smiling victoriously as the sun began to rise in southern California. (Perhaps she’s even pajama-clad on Oprah’s sofa for a watch party?)

AND: Visions of those who are on the outs but were in there nonetheless (and what they wore): 

Non-working royal Prince Andrew arrived at Westminster Abbey in full regalia while Prince Harry wore a plain suit. Follow live updates: https://t.co/jJaucoQ4tU pic.twitter.com/2JsMTAPtTy

— Yahoo News UK (@YahooNewsUK) May 6, 2023

"Will and Kate came over and I met her for the first time, for dinner, I remember I was in ripped jeans, I was barefoot."

"Like, I was a hugger. I’ve always been a hugger. I didn’t realize that is really jarring for a lot of Brits."

From "Harry and Meghan series, likely to anger British royals, drops on Netflix" (WaPo).

That quote is at the end of the article, which has just 2 more lines:

She described how the royals’ “formality on the outside carried on to the inside.”

This is a developing story.

It's breaking news? Presumably there will be updates. About what, you wonder? About other things to be found in this 6-part Netflix documentary that just — as they say — "dropped." 

ADDED: I don't believe for one minute that an American-based "hugger" doesn't understand that not everyone accepts being hugged on first meeting. It may be more disturbing for some "Brits," but she well knew that Kate and William weren't just random Brits. They are people who expect special deference. It you want to deny them that, that's your business, but don't expect us to believe you just didn't know, you're just brimming with hugginess, and that's American. Maybe that plays more believably to Brits, who might think we Americans are mindlessly casual. Maybe we are, but we're not ignoramuses.

"In the first episode of Archetypes released since the Queen’s death, Meghan recalled her 'adolescent embarrassment' at being naked at a Korean spa with her mother as a teenager."

I'm reading "Meghan podcast hits out at films’ ‘toxic’ Asian stereotypes" (London Times).

She may have suffered "adolescent embarrassment" long ago, but she's far beyond embarrassment now. She's got a very popular podcast, and now, championing Asian women, she's citing her experience on "a trip to a Korean spa with her mother where swimwear was not allowed.

Piers Morgan gently rebuffs Sinead O'Connor (whose 17-year-old son died in January).

Link.

"Set against a pastoral Californian back yard, it at times resembled a play with three characters: a discontented (for good reason) woman, her angry and accommodating husband, and a mediator..."

"... tasked with drawing them out while acting as a stand-in for the curious public. Winfrey... is not just an interviewer but 'something of an emissary, a reactive translator of emotion, a master weaver, pulling disparate revelations into a collective portrait that colonizes the mind.' Some of Winfrey’s lines—like a simple, incredulous 'What?'—were among the most emotionally lucid moments of the broadcast. Of her many successes, this may be what she does best: listen, react, and press a little harder for the truth. As a television performance, it was a role that perhaps no other human being was equipped to play."

From "The Best Performances of 2021/The people who burst through the excess of amusements, onscreen or onstage, and did something extraordinary" (The New Yorker), designating, among the best, "Oprah Winfrey in 'Oprah with Meghan and Harry.'"

"Is Harry and Meghan’s Time profile a parody?"

Asks Joanna Williams (at The Spectator), looking at Time's "100 most influential people of 2021," which has a silly photo of them on the cover.

Harry and Meghan, we are told, ‘turn compassion into boots on the ground’. They ‘give voice to the voiceless’, ‘mental-health support to Black women and girls’ and feed ‘those affected by natural disasters’. Okay so maybe not with five loaves and two fishes, but ‘hand in hand with nonprofit partners’. In short, ‘They run toward the struggle.’ Or should that be fly? They fly toward the struggle, right? And the ‘struggle’ is a charity polo match in Aspen and the flight is a £45million private jet. The ‘voiceless’ now being given a hearing can surely only refer to the Duke and Duchess themselves: certainly it’s the case that since leaving the royal family they rarely miss an opportunity to remain silent. And the ‘springing into action’ must mean firing off a quick text to Netflix or Oprah, or, more likely, their lawyers.... 

“Shocking behaviour and all about getting their own back. Queen said can’t use titles to make money but she has no control over a nickname. They will milk it."

Tweeted royals biographer Angela Levin tweeted, quoted in "Prince Harry, Meghan Markle didn’t ask Queen to use Lilibet name, palace source claims." 

Harry and Meghan named their new baby Lilibet (Lilibet Diana), Lilibet being the pet name used for Queen Elizabeth since she was a little girl and her effort to say her own name came out "Lilibet." It really seems to be the Queen's special name, not to be appropriated with the assumption that she'll feel honored. She's the Queen. What could possibly make her feel honored? It can't be the would-be honorer's push for intimacy, and in this case, it's not believable as a genuine gesture of intimacy. They're gesturing from Hollywood!

ADDED: "Harry and Meghan accused the BBC of libel after it reported that a senior Palace source had claimed the Queen was not asked permission to use her childhood nickname, Lilibet" (London Times).

"I feel strongly that the longstanding tradition of having one’s father or other prominent male figure walk a woman down the aisle is a tradition worth tossing."

"This tradition always felt frankly gross to me, deeply rooted in patriarchy, and the notion that a woman must belong to a man."

Said Lauren Nolan, a recent bride, quoted in "Walking Down the Aisle Alone/Meghan Markle did it. Many other brides choose to do the same, often because of the sexist origins of the tradition."

In the case of Meghan Markle, she was estranged from her father. Is there a trend of women who love their living, ambulatory father choosing to walk down the aisle alone?

Instead, Ms. Nolan said, when she met her fiancé at the altar, she was making a joint decision to combine their lives, rather than participating in a handoff between men.

If it's a matter of the man and woman in exactly the same position, fully independent human beings joining their lives together, why is he standing at the altar while she takes a long, slow walk for the assembled crowd? Isn't that also a relic of the sexist tradition?  

If you keep the bride's walk and the groom's positioning at the altar, why are you excluding your beloved dad from the old-time-y spectacle? What does it mean for the groom to stand at the altar and watch his bride slowly approach? Is that really devoid of sexism? But you want to deprive Dad of a profound moment that he may have dreamed of all your life? Why? 

If the honest answer is that you don't have a sufficiently worthy dad, fine. Do your solo walk. But don't make other women feel they need to sideline their dear dad to prove their feminist mettle. Your solo-walk wedding isn't solidly founded on feminism. It's selective feminism — cafeteria feminism. Show us a sacrifice you're making for feminism, and maybe you'll have some moral standing. Even still, people putting on the theatrical show that is their wedding should figure out their own values. They don't have to put feminism first. 

But if they're going to preen about putting feminism first, they'd better actually do it. Let the bride and groom walk separately down the side aisles and meet in the middle. Let the groom wear an outfit as gaudy and eye-riveting as the bride's. Let petals be scattered in his path. Give him a veil too. Let them lift each other's veils simultaneously. And so on.

"What would you say to people who may feel that while you're standing by your friend, it appears you gave validation or safe haven to something that he has uttered that is racist, even if you don't agree?"

Said Sheryl Underwood, quoted in "'The Talk' goes on hiatus after Sharon Osbourne defends Piers Morgan/On Wednesday's episode of 'The Talk,' Sheryl Underwood and Sharon Osbourne got into a heated exchange" (NBC). 

I hope you have a sense of how convoluted that is. The accusation of racism against Piers Morgan is already flimsy, but Sharon Osbourne is getting intimidated for saying something supportive about her friend — as if the new rule is that you have to proactively denounce people, or you yourself will become the target. Not only is the first person (Morgan) denied a fair hearing, but the second person (Osbourne) — the one who tries to slow things and ask to look carefully at the accusation — is deemed an accomplice. 

We saw that term "cancel adjacent" the other day. Osbourne is caught on camera experiencing the terror of being cancel adjacent.

Osbourne said: "I feel like I'm about to be put in the electric chair because I have a friend who many people think is racist, so that makes me a racist."

From the NBC article:

Charlie Hebdo appropriates the death of George Floyd to mock Meghan Markle and the Queen.

Via The Sun:

1. The headline translates to "Why Meghan left Buckingham...." and the speech bubble says "because I couldn't breathe anymore." 

2. Now, for the first time, I'm thinking about whether the Queen shaves her legs.

3. Is the image outrageous? But Charlie Hebdo wants to be outrageous... so it is immune to any criticism people might choose to lob. Still, the question remains: How outrageous is it and what are the elements of outrageousness?

4. The most outrageous part — if I consult my own sensitivity — is the appropriation of the pain surrounding George Floyd for a comical presentation. The second most outrageous part is connecting Markle to Floyd because she is black. 

5. Those outrageous things are not, however, purely gratuitous, so it's not just a case of laughing at George Floyd and finding it worth pointing out that Markle, too, is black. What's not gratuitous is the radical contrast between what happened to Floyd — suffering and death on the street, under the knee of a cop — and what happened to Markle — palace life insufficiently pleasant.

6. It's important that Charlie Hebdo avoided using stereotypical features in drawing Markle, but unfortunate that the drawing doesn't look much like her. I'm interested in the window pane image on Markle's cheek. I believe this is the classic cartoon way to signify shininess. I guess Markle indulges in the makeup convention of dabbing shiny highlighter on the cheekbones. It would be a real stretch to connect that to the racial slur "shine." The slur has to do with the occupation of shining shoes — though Markle's face is right next to the Queen's shiny shoe — and not to some notion about how black people look. 

7. It's important to be able to make fun of public figures. Markle is actively using accusations of racism to fend off criticism. This might work, for her and for many others, if the fear of these accusations is too intense. In that light, Charlie Hebdo is doing us a service, taking the heat, and — if you think about it the right way — contributing to racial progress.

Boy George's newest tweet about the Meghan-and-Oprah interview.

Silly but funny! pic.twitter.com/oozoMIQdsg

— Boy George (the truth is in your breath) (@BoyGeorge) March 11, 2021

I'll just quote his previous tweets on the subject, oldest to newest: 

1. "I found the big @oprah interview to be hugely dull. Is there more? I pray not!" 

2. "The one person not mentioned in any of this Harry & Meghan saga is the little boy Archie. If they had left the royals without creating a shit storm (it could have been done easily) he would still be an important future member of our royal family. I hope he still can and will be. I feel neither family deserves applause."

3. "You'd think they would have in house therapists at Buckingham Palace and if they don't, now is the time."

4. Responding to someone who said Harry needed to protect his family from the pararazzi: "You are talking to someone who knows more about the press than you could imagine? Harry, has slagged this country for years, long before Meghan. Fighting the press, then embracing the press because it tells you what you want to hear? It's a mugs game!"