Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[jrmasm]

What confusion? What was inaccurate? Both articles said the same thing. Both from US media. Semantics.

The confusion was mine. The headline you posted yesterday was that staff was let go. I did not read the article that you posted (beyond the headline) because let go means let go. This morning I saw that H & M were trending on CNN so I clicked to see what the latest was. Turns out, it was the same thing you posted yesterday but with redeployed instead of let go in the title. I replied to you at that time because the headline you posted was contradicted by what I read. Had the MSN headline said relocated or redeployed or transferred I would have continued to stay out of this train wreck of a thread. My bad. But 100% not semantics.

 

[gwynne]

The confusion was mine. The headline you posted yesterday was that staff was let go. I did not read the article that you posted (beyond the headline) because let go means let go. This morning I saw that H & M were trending on CNN so I clicked to see what the latest was. Turns out, it was the same thing you posted yesterday but with redeployed instead of let go in the title. I replied to you at that time because the headline you posted was contradicted by what I read. Had the MSN headline said relocated or redeployed or transferred I would have continued to stay out of this train wreck of a thread. My bad. But 100% not semantics.

Headlines evolve fairly frequently on both sides of the pond.
Sometimes the source(s) add clarity. Occasionally it seems the subjects involved choose an altered course after reading. Or events in general encourage/force a change.
Every day is a new day.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

The confusion was mine. The headline you posted yesterday was that staff was let go. I did not read the article that you posted (beyond the headline) because let go means let go. This morning I saw that H & M were trending on CNN so I clicked to see what the latest was. Turns out, it was the same thing you posted yesterday but with redeployed instead of let go in the title. I replied to you at that time because the headline you posted was contradicted by what I read. Had the MSN headline said relocated or redeployed or transferred I would have continued to stay out of this train wreck of a thread. My bad. But 100% not semantics.

Ok. We can agree to disagree on semantics.

Different topic, but not sure why the thread is a train wreck. Sure, people have different opinions and those are sometimes polarized, but there’s been lots of good information brought up and it’s always interesting to see how people choose to express themselves and their opinions. A good thread, IMO.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Btw I wish more of our posters from the UK would chime in.

 

[cabanafrau]

Headlines often “evolve” and stories change or update. When news first breaks everyone is scrambling to publish their information “first”; then others jump on the bandwagon, which seems to be the case here. England’s news is (at least) five hours ahead of our own (sometimes we seem to lag even more). Once the dust has settled after the initial frenzy it’s not unusual to see clarifications or changes to content, etc. Yesterday’s headline was “let go”; today’s it may be “redeployed”, but in fact the story hasn’t changed.

The confusion was mine. The headline you posted yesterday was that staff was let go. I did not read the article that you posted (beyond the headline) because let go means let go. This morning I saw that H & M were trending on CNN so I clicked to see what the latest was. Turns out, it was the same thing you posted yesterday but with redeployed instead of let go in the title. I replied to you at that time because the headline you posted was contradicted by what I read. Had the MSN headline said relocated or redeployed or transferred I would have continued to stay out of this train wreck of a thread. My bad. But 100% not semantics.

I agree. I saw the Let Go headline as well and thought it was a lazy and misleading headline.

Allow me to put on my Fancy Pants Bragging Hat and say that I actually have some qualifications to be Judy McJudgerson about the headline since I took several journalism and expository writing classes in HS and college AND was editor of my HS newspaper. Okay, okay, it was a very small, private HS with a total student body significantly less than my husband's HS graduating class, so even for a HS paper we had miniscule readership.

Even in HS I would have received no higher than a D for using Let Go in the headline for this story, and I would have been very fortunate to walk away with something as high as the D.

 

[jrmasm]

Headlines evolve fairly frequently on both sides of the pond.
Sometimes the source(s) add clarity. Occasionally it seems the subjects involved choose an altered course after reading. Or events in general encourage/force a change.
Every day is a new day.

True but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The headline was never supported by the article that followed it.

 

[jrmasm]

I agree. I saw the Let Go headline as well and thought it was a lazy and misleading headline.

Allow me to put on my Fancy Pants Bragging Hat and say that I actually have some qualifications to be Judy McJudgerson about the headline since I took several journalism and expository writing classes in HS and college AND was editor of my HS newspaper. Okay, okay, it was a very small, private HS with a total student body significantly less than my husband's HS graduating class, so even for a HS paper we had miniscule readership.

Even in HS I would have received no higher than a D for using Let Go in the headline for this story, and I would have been very fortunate to walk away with something as high as the D.

And that explains why I am completely baffled by this argument. The headline was wrong.

 

[gwynne]

And that explains why I am completely baffled by this argument. The headline was wrong.

You may be entirely 100% correct and that is the whole story.

On the other hand...what follows is my speculation only:
Maybe the initial plan was to let the employees go.
Once that word got out, it seemed to be a rather unpleasant way to treat decent folks so a modification was in order.

 

[cabanafrau]

And that explains why I am completely baffled by this argument. The headline was wrong.

I agree. It also illustrates exactly some of the issues surrounding this whole circus that I've been pointing out in the overall discussion.

Who put the Let Go headline on the story? I highly doubt it was the author, and frequently isn't from what I understood about print journalism. It could have been put there by some low level, cog in the wheel who once upon a time wouldn't have had the credentials and experience to be handed the task. In today's compressed journalism environment it might be considered a post that is simply a low paid body to fill a job that's not considered "vital" to news operations. Did it get put there somewhere along the line by some news aggregator organization that merely rechurns the work of others in high volume as cheaply as possible with no time or care taken as to consider how word choices impact reader understanding? Could it have been placed there by someone who simply wants to sling mud at one side or the other -- or maybe even both depending on the story, as long as it keeps attracting eyeballs, which equals $$$?

 

[snappy]

You may be entirely 100% correct and that is the whole story.

On the other hand...what follows is my speculation only:
Maybe the initial plan was to let the employees go.
Once that word got out, it seemed to be a rather unpleasant way to treat decent folks so a modification was in order.

That was in the back of my mind too. I wouldn’t expect anything to be confirmed or denied by “official sources” though.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I agree. It also illustrates exactly some of the issues surrounding this whole circus that I've been pointing out in the overall discussion.

Who put the Let Go headline on the story? I highly doubt it was the author, and frequently isn't from what I understood about print journalism. It could have been put there by some low level, cog in the wheel who once upon a time wouldn't have had the credentials and experience to be handed the task. In today's compressed journalism environment it might be considered a post that is simply a low paid body to fill a job that's not considered "vital" to news operations. Did it get put there somewhere along the line by some news aggregator organization that merely rechurns the work of others in high volume as cheaply as possible with no time or care taken as to consider how word choices impact reader understanding? Could it have been placed there by someone who simply wants to sling mud at one side or the other -- or maybe even both depending on the story, as long as it keeps attracting eyeballs, which equals $$$?

The thing was, that there were dozens of articles with the “Let go” headline that essentially said the same thing. We see this all the time - same story with a few details changed around a bit and maybe - or maybe not - a different or varied headline. Who is putting this stuff out? Do they care about the content? What part does a sensationalistic headline play to, well, make money for them, and is it required? I have a journalist and professional writer in my life and I always remember her saying you don’t/can’t outright lie, but you can present things in certain ways to get your point across. I see evidence of this every time I read a story.

 

[snappy]

Clearly we all read with our own bias.

oops your bias is showing.

 

[Maggie Gallagher]

Getting back to this. I posted it last night but didn't have a lot of time then to talk about its contents, in case people glossed it over, and in light of the discussion yesterday about the relationship between Meghan and her father.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...star-witness-against-High-Court-showdown.html
So Meghan herself filed a lawsuit against the Mail for publishing parts of private electronic communication between her and her Dad, Thomas Markel, in 2018 just before her wedding.

The case is coming up to the High Court in London.

At the time, Meghan apparently allowed five of her friends to discuss a letter's contents with People Magazine, and essentially, as the communication trail has shown and will show, they lied.

Thomas Markel was hurt and wished to defend himself, so he provided communication to the Mail himself to show the truth.

It is all right there for the whole world to see how she and Harry treated him while he was in medical crisis, as well as how he responded to her.

It will be hard to deny the facts here.

"The devastating breakdown in Meghan Markle's relationship with her father was laid bare yesterday in a series of messages between the pair detailed by court papers.

He has handed over previously unseen messages and letters which set out how he made desperate attempts to mend their relationship after heart surgery forced him to miss her wedding.

In one message he accused Prince Harry of treating his heart attack as an 'inconvenience', adding: 'I've done nothing to hurt you, Meghan or anyone else.'

In another, he said that Meghan had effectively 'written me off'. The exchanges between Mr Markle and his daughter were detailed in documents filed to the High Court in London yesterday.

He has handed over his own medical records and his correspondence with Meghan, which reveals how their relationship broke down in the final fortnight before her wedding.

According to the messages detailed in the defence papers yesterday, Thomas Markle initially sent touching messages to his daughter, which spoke of his excitement about her upcoming wedding – before he told of his devastation when a heart attack forced him to abandon plans to walk her down the aisle. In the messages, he repeatedly told Meghan that he loved her.

In documents lodged at the High Court, defence lawyers said Meghan had shown a disregard for her father's wellbeing. They said that even after he explained his cardiac condition and that doctors said he couldn't fly, he was on the receiving end of an admonishment from Harry.

According to the defence papers, Mr Markle texted his daughter to say he had dropped off some flowers at her mother's house for Mother's Day. In a touching message, he told Meghan he was excited about trying on some shoes she had bought for him to wear to her wedding. She had also bought him a new suit.

He ended the text with a poignant message that it was 'past her bedtime' because of the time difference, adding: 'I love you.' He wrote: 'I look forward to trying on my shoes and see how we look thank you for getting it ready for me its [sic] probably past your bedtime so have a good night I love you Dad.'

The news is about to break that Mr Markle had secretly agreed with a photographer to stage a series of paparazzi-style pictures – despite pleas from Prince Harry for the media to leave his future father-in-law alone. At the time, it was reported that CCTV had caught him posing in an internet café for photographs which showed him looking at a news story about his daughter's romance with the prince.

Kensington Palace had previously issued a warning to publishers to respect his privacy, saying he had been 'harassed' by paparazzi. A letter by Prince Harry's communications secretary Jason Knauf said he had been followed and urged editors not to publish pictures of him. But the Mail on Sunday revealed a series of photographs had been taken with his co-operation in March. Mr Markle, Meghan and Harry spoke on the phone before the story broke.

Kensington Palace issued a statement in which it confirmed that Mr Markle would not attend the wedding. It said: 'This is a deeply personal moment for Ms Markle in the days before her wedding. She and Prince Harry ask again for understanding and respect to be extended to Mr Markle in this difficult situation.'

The defence papers say that on that day, Mr Markle wrote to his daughter to apologise for the furore over the posed photographs, and offered to make a public apology to both Meghan and Prince Harry. He said he loved her but would not go to her wedding as he wanted to spare her from any further embarrassment.

Prince Harry sent him a message in response, saying he did not need to apologise, and that he should call them. Later that day, Mr Markle suffered chest pains and shortness of breath and was taken to hospital and diagnosed with suspected congestive heart failure.

Mr Markle had an emergency operation – an angioplasty to unblock two arteries to his heart.

The defence papers say that on that day, he texted Meghan to tell her about the surgery and said he could not attend the wedding because his doctors would not allow him to fly. He apologised for missing the wedding and said he loved her, and wished her the best, saying he had had surgery.

According to the defence papers, he sent a later message, asking who would walk her down the aisle to give her away, and said he would come if she really needed him. He apologised again for not being there. He told Meghan he loved her and wishes her the best.

In response, he received a text message which he believed was from Prince Harry, which he described as hurtful.

According to the legal documents lodged at the High Court yesterday, it was signed 'Love M and H' but did not ask about his emergency heart surgery, or even ask him how he felt. Instead, it accused him of ignoring some 20 phone calls from Meghan.

The court papers said of Thomas Markle: 'He received a text response signed 'Love M and H', but which read as if it was from Prince Harry, (amongst other things) admonishing Mr Markle for talking to the Press and telling him to stop and accusing Mr Markle of causing hurt to his daughter.

'The text did not ask how the surgical procedure had gone or how Mr Markle was or send him good wishes.' Mr Markle was said to be 'deeply hurt' by the tone of the message, and replied curtly.

According to the defence papers, he said: 'I've done nothing to hurt you Meghan or anyone else I know nothing about 20 phone calls. I'm sorry my heart attack is … any inconvenience for you.' The court papers allege he received no reply and that his daughter did not speak to him again in the final days before her wedding.

Kensington Palace issued a statement from Meghan, saying: 'Sadly, my father will not be attending our wedding.

'I have always cared for my father and I hope he can be given the space he needs to focus on his health. I would like to thank everyone who has offered generous messages of support. Please know how much Harry and I look forward to sharing our special day with you on Saturday.'

In a statement the following day, Kensington Palace said Meghan had asked Prince Charles to walk her down the aisle at her wedding. It made no reference to her father or his hospital treatment.

Meghan Markle married Prince Harry and formally became part of the Royal Family.

Her mother Doria was at her side and Prince Charles walked her down the aisle.

The defence papers lodged yesterday, said that Mr Markle had insisted he made multiple attempts to contact his daughter by phone call and by text message, but received no response.

When he tried to call, he said his calls were blocked and that he believed she had changed her number without telling him.

Mr Markle said he had no communication from Meghan at all until her letter in August, three months later. Apart from that single letter, the defence papers said he had not heard from his daughter since he told her he was too ill to attend her wedding. He had never been introduced to her husband Prince Harry, nor met his eight-month-old grandson Archie.

He continued to try to make contact, and texted her in November 2018, according to the defence papers. The message read: 'I want to reach out to you or try to reach out to you one more time.

'You apparently have just written me off and now it's telling me I guess for the rest of my life?' He has received no response, the legal papers said.

Thomas Markle released a letter from his daughter Meghan to the world to show it was not the 'loving' plea her friends had been making out, court documents said yesterday.

He kept her handwritten note private for months, and only revealed it to expose 'false' claims that the duchess had been trying to repair their relationship.

The letter – from August 2018 in the wake of her wedding to Prince Harry – was an 'attack' on Mr Markle and signalled the 'end of the relationship' between father and daughter, the court papers said.

According to defence papers filed at the High Court yesterday on behalf of The Mail on Sunday, the Duchess of Sussex's estranged father only decided to release extracts of the letter to the Press after she had allowed her friends to talk about it first.

The newspaper's documents stated that Meghan 'knowingly' allowed her friends to leak details of the letter to the media. She 'caused or permitted' five close friends to speak anonymously to the US magazine People to attack Thomas Markle, the court papers said.

The result was a bombshell interview published on February 6, 2019, in the celebrity weekly headlined: 'Her best friends break their silence' and 'The truth about Meghan'.

It quoted the Duchess of Sussex's friends saying she had written an impassioned plea to her estranged father to stop 'victimising' her in the media. They said she had been so upset by his repeated public attacks on her and Prince Harry that she had sent the letter begging him to sort out their differences privately.

The People interview said Meghan had written to Mr Markle: 'Dad, I'm so heartbroken, I love you, I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship'.

But this article gave a 'one-sided' and 'false' account of the situation and of her letter, yesterday's defence papers said.

Far from being 'a loving letter aimed at repairing their relationship… her letter was an attack on Mr Markle. Amongst other things, she accused him of breaking her heart, manufacturing pain, being paranoid, being ridiculed, fabricating stories, of attacking Prince Harry and continually lying'.

Among the false claims, it was wrongly said that Mr Markle had refused to get in the airport car to attend the royal wedding, according to the court papers.

The People interview also said that Mr Markle had 'never called... never texted', and that he had falsely claimed that he could not reach his daughter. This was, according to the Mail on Sunday's defence, untrue.

Following the wedding, Mr Markle had tried to contact Meghan by phone and text, but had received no response until the letter, it was said.

'Except for the receipt of the letter, Mr Markle had not heard from his daughter since he wrote to tell her he was too ill to attend her wedding, nor has he ever been introduced to or met Prince Harry or their son, his grandson,' the defence document said.

Mr Markle was therefore entitled to set the record straight by allowing the British newspaper to publish extracts of the letter four days later, said the defence document, which added that he released it 'in direct response to the publication of the People interview'. It said: 'Thomas Markle had a weighty right to tell his version of what had happened between himself and his daughter including the contents of the letter. She did not suggest that they try to repair their relationship.

'On the contrary, the final words of the letter, 'I ask for nothing other than peace, and I wish the same for you' suggested that their relationship was at an end, and Mr Markle understood those words to signal the end of the relationship.'

The court filing insisted the Duchess of Sussex had never denied that she gave her consent to People magazine's five sources, described by the weekly – which has 40million readers in the US alone – as an 'intensely loyal circle of close friends'. The defence document said that Meghan 'knowingly caused or permitted information' about her relationship with her father and a description of the letter's contents to enter the public domain.

The meaning and effect of the 'one-sided and/or misleading' account in the People 'was to suggest Mr Markle had made false claims about his dealings with his daughter'.

The Mail on Sunday's defence also said: 'The People interview stated that Mr Markle had responded to the letter with a letter of his own in which he asked for a 'photo op' with [Meghan], with the implicit suggestion that he was seeking to make money from a photograph of him with [her]. This was false.

'Mr Markle had in fact written, 'I wish we could get together and take a photo for the whole world to see. If you and Harry don't like me? Fake it for one photo and maybe some of the Press will finally shut up!'. None of Mr Markle's account of events or feelings about those events was mentioned in the People interview.'

The defence lawyers said it was apparent from Meghan's neat handwriting and immaculate presentation of the letter that she anticipated it being read by others or possibly disclosed to the media.

One of Meghan's best friends once intervened to try to fix a 'favourable' press article for the Duchess of Sussex, it has been claimed.

Canadian fashion stylist Jessica Mulroney tried to 'influence' an interview that former Meghan adviser Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne had granted the Mail on Sunday.

The claim is part of the newspaper's case that the duchess was well versed in the art of attempting to manipulate what was written about her.

She has complained about her father allowing parts of a letter she wrote to him to be published in the Mail on Sunday.

But the paper says Thomas Markle only did so after Meghan had colluded in an article with People magazine. Mrs Mulroney's intervention was given as an example of Meghan using friends to influence what was written about her.

The duchess and her style guru are said to have been in touch after Kensington Palace was informed by the Mail on Sunday about its interview with Mrs Nelthorpe-Cowne, a former friend and adviser.

The court papers say Meghan 'caused or permitted a close friend to seek to influence what is published about her in the media'. They said Mrs Mulroney tried to intervene in relation to the interview.

A Mail on Sunday journalist had notified the Palace about the contents of the story. The paper's lawyers suggest Meghan then passed this message on to Mrs Mulroney 'with a request that she intervene to try to ensure that a more favourable article was published'.

Later that day – April 7, 2018 – Mrs Mulroney wrote to Mrs Nelthorpe-Cowne 'putting pressure on her to withdraw or change statements', it was claimed.

Defence lawyers stated they would seek 'disclosure' of all of Meghan's communications relating to this intervention and any other occasions in which she had permitted her friends to provide information to the media to influence what is published about her.

Mrs Mulroney, the daughter-in-law of former Canadian PM Brian Mulroney, met Meghan while working on the TV drama Suits. Known as 'Toronto's answer to Gwyneth Paltrow', she is a social media star and is married to a friend of Canadian PM Justin Trudeau.

That letter is at the heart of a court case in which the Duchess of Sussex has accused the Mail on Sunday of breaching both her privacy and her copyright after it published extracts.

The newspaper, which is the sister paper of the Daily Mail, was given the letter by Thomas Markle after five close friends of the Duchess gave anonymous interviews to a U.S. celebrity magazine attacking him and which he said were false and had left him 'devastated'.

The new details are contained in the defence document, lodged with the court by the Mail on Sunday, which paints a vivid and disturbing picture of the deterioration and breakdown of the relationship between Meghan and her father, a retired Hollywood lighting director.

For the Royal Family, this is another unwelcome move which looks certain to lead to the extraordinary spectacle of Thomas Markle giving evidence in the Queen's court against Her Majesty's granddaughter-in-law.

These are uncharted waters for the royals, who have for generations avoided courtroom dramas. No wonder informed sources say other family members, while sympathetic to Harry and Meghan's predicament, are 'queasy' about the developments.

They were surprised when the Duke and Duchess decided to move the case from the usual royal lawyers to another more aggressive firm. It not only raised eyebrows at the time, but also suggested the couple were set on their path.

Not since the Old Bailey case against Princess Diana's former butler Paul Burrell, which collapsed so dramatically 17 years ago and in which there was a real threat that members of the Royal Family would be forced to give evidence, has a royal been so close to a legal showdown as Meghan is now.

In 44 pages, the Mail on Sunday sets out its case and the background to Thomas Markle's absence from his daughter's wedding. He reveals how he fully intended to travel to Britain for the nuptials, giving the date of his departure for London from his home in Mexico as May 16, 2018.

The tragedy of this family breakdown has haunted the royals ever since. To some, Mr Markle seemed an unpredictable, possibly vulnerable, figure. To others, he was a victim who had been ruthlessly driven out of Meghan's life because she was now a royal duchess.

To compound the difficulties, in February last year People magazine published a story in which it claimed to 'put the record straight' over the Duchess's relationship with her father and criticism of her style as a royal.

It was based on interviews with five friends — at least one of whom was thought to be one of the Duchess's co-stars in Suits, the TV legal drama in which she starred for six years.

The article painted Meghan in a glowing light, while insisting the negative stories about her were lies, and, crucially, referred to the private letter she had sent him the previous August.

The magazine also claimed that Mr Markle's response to the letter had been to ask for a 'photo-op' with his daughter. The court papers say this was false.

In fact, Mr Markle suggested a photo only to take the media heat off the three of them by suggesting a harmonious relationship.

There is one other twist. The Mail on Sunday documents reveal how Meghan 'caused or permitted' one of her close circle, the Canadian Jessica Mulroney, to put pressure on Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne — a former business associate of the Duchess — to change an interview she had given to ensure a more favourable impression was conveyed. It is a sign of the sophistication of Meghan's circle where media management is concerned.

The next step could well be the High Court in London and the unbelievable prospect of the wife of the Queen's grandson battling with her own father over truth and lies, like an unedifying scene from a soap opera."

OMG. These people are so extra.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

My palace sources tell me the employees are ecstatic to be “redeployed” back into the roles they held prior to being transferred less than a year ago into that musty old fixer-upper where they had to endure working around months of renovations. Now they get to work with all their old friends again just like old times.

Jokes aside, portraying this change as a hardship on the staff is a bit silly. They had this job for less than a year and they are still going to remain employed at Windsor, so not even their commutes are affected. They’ll just have to report to a different building on the estate grounds. For some, the changes might even be preferable, we don’t know.

Curious to know more about who paid for what in the Frogmore renovations, I came across this article, below. Apparently the renovations were already underway as part of basic upkeep and maintenance when the Queen offered the cottage to the couple. H&M then put their own funds into it to cover design and decor expenses. If they did pony up to cover a share of the expenses then I would say they do have some argument for maintaining partial ownership of the property (in whatever way “ownership” is handled with these royal properties).

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-windsor-home/

 

[Pea-n-Me]

My palace sources tell me the employees are ecstatic to be “redeployed” back into the roles they held prior to being transferred less than a year ago into that musty old fixer-upper where they had to endure working around months of renovations. Now they get to work with all their old friends again just like old times.

Jokes aside, portraying this change as a hardship on the staff is a bit silly. They had this job for less than a year and they are still going to remain employed at Windsor, so not even their commutes are affected. They’ll just have to report to a different building on the estate grounds. For some, the changes might even be preferable, we don’t know.

Curious to know more about who paid for what in the Frogmore renovations, I came across this article, below. Apparently the renovations were already underway as part of basic upkeep and maintenance when the Queen offered the cottage to the couple. H&M then put their own funds into it to cover design and decor expenses. If they did pony up to cover a share of the expenses then I would say they do have some argument for maintaining partial ownership of the property (in whatever way “ownership” is handled with these royal properties).

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-windsor-home/

Nice article.

House Beautiful had a piece with the breakdown:

"Today, the final renovations to the royal home have been revealed by a Buckingham Palace source who spoke to People. Though the renovated mid-1800s cottage, which is on the grounds of Windsor Castle, doesn't include a "mother-and-baby yoga room complete with a 'floating' or sprung wooden floor"—as prior reports suggested—it did cost the public $3 million, so there's that.

According to the source's breakdown, the money initially went toward renovating the interior of the historic home. They had to update the home's old ceiling beams and floor joists, heating and electrical systems, and gas and water mains. Most recently, they finished work on the exterior, including doors, windows, walls, outbuilding upgrades, and some garden landscaping.

Of course, Meghan and Harry paid for items like curtains, furnishings, fixtures, and fittings, along with certain upgrades—like kitchen, bathroom, or flooring projects—that were "deemed too expensive for the public to provide." Who paid for the rosemary and eucalyptus-infused paint in the royal nursery is still yet to be determined, but either way...it's a necessary purchase.

 

[snappy]

Rosemary and eucalyptus infused paint is absolutely required.

 

[BLAZEY]

Prince Harry has a duty to the Queen and this country. He has failed in that duty.

And the country failed him when the allowed the British press to stalk, lie harass and ridicule him and his young family. He's what, 6th in line, they will still support their patronages, but if they want to move to have some personal privacy, all the power to them.

 

[cabanafrau]

The thing was, that there were dozens of articles with the “Let go” headline that essentially said the same thing. We see this all the time - same story with a few details changed around a bit and maybe - or maybe not - a different or varied headline. Who is putting this stuff out? Do they care about the content? What part does a sensationalistic headline play to, well, make money for them, and is it required? I have a journalist and professional writer in my life and I always remember her saying you don’t/can’t outright lie, but you can present things in certain ways to get your point across. I see evidence of this every time I read a story.

Which may point to something I was referring to, a news aggregator, who simply bundles and repackages the reporting from a stream of sources, quite often with minimal care, attention or effort expected in professional journalism, but slanted with the idea of getting readers to click and read. More eyeballs is generally understood to generate more $$$.

 

[gwynne]

I think in reality Prince Charles likely paid for the Frogmore furnishings. He gives then their allowance, they place the orders.

 

[cabanafrau]

Rosemary and eucalyptus infused paint is absolutely required.

Ironically I have a daughter who has developed allergies to both as an adult.