The Sussexes (plus Archie!) video-conferenced with the Queen on her b-day

Royal baby

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex did not mark the Queen’s 94th birthday on social media, because Harry and Meghan are “between social media accounts” at the moment. I expect that they will probably launch their new post-royal Instagram at some point soon though, because Meghan must be itching to use social media to highlight some coronavirus charities. So, no, the Sussexes didn’t post any photos or birthday wishes online. But they did speak to the Queen, who is in semi-isolation at Windsor Castle. Apparently, they Zoom’d (??) in with baby Archie in tow:

Prince Harry, Duchess Meghan—and baby Archie!—are wishing Queen Elizabeth a happy birthday from their new home of California. BAZAAR.com can confirm that the Sussexes and their 11-month-old son video-called the 94-year-old monarch for her birthday today.

Members of the royal family are all celebrating the queen’s special day virtually this year due to government orders to self-quarantine and self-isolate amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis. While the Sussexes are currently residing in Los Angeles, the Cambridges are quarantining at Anmer Hall on the Sandringham estate, the queen and Prince Philip at Windsor Castle, and Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla in Scotland. While other members of the royal family have been sending the queen well wishes via Instagram, the Sussexes haven’t utilized social media since their official transition into post-royal life on March 31.

[From Harper’s Bazaar]

Omid Scobie confirmed on Twitter that this information was legit. It wasn’t until the Daily Mail published their hilariously butthurt version that I understood what happened: the Sussexes’ new PR firm sent out an email blast to a handful of friendly outlets confirming the video-conference call with Archie and the Queen. I know there are a lot of people who believe this sh-t, but you just have to see how the Mail framed it!!

It has been months since she held her youngest great-grandson. So it was a real birthday treat indeed for the Queen to catch a glimpse of 11-month-old Archie yesterday – even if it was only over video call. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex called the monarch from their new home in California to wish her a happy 94th birthday. But it was hardly an intimate affair. The privacy obsessed couple were so keen to tell the world about the afternoon chat that they instructed their spokesman to email a selection of hand-picked publications to share the news shortly afterwards.

It comes after the pair were forced to suspend their own Sussex Royal website and Instagram page after quitting royal duties. Harry and Meghan’s rush to make the news public was at odds with the wishes of Buckingham Palace, which had expressly stated that details of any calls between the Queen and her family on the occasion of her ‘low-key’ birthday should be private.

[From The Daily Mail]

This is known as “hitting them coming and going.” If Harry and Meghan hadn’t released any information whatsoever, the story would be “cruel Sussexes refuse to wish poor old queen a happy birthday.” Because they confirmed the call to friendly, non-toxic outlets, the story is “Harry and Meghan are famewhores who refuse to allow a petty old woman access to her great-grandson, and they refuse to play ball with the rancid gutter press that smeared them for years, WE HATE THEM SO MUCH.” I hope that was clear to everyone.

The Queen and Meghan The Duchess Of Sussex open the Mersey Gateway Bridge today, the bridge goes between Runcorn and Widnes in Cheshire.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid and Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

107 Responses to “The Sussexes (plus Archie!) video-conferenced with the Queen on her b-day”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Feeshalori says:

    The only people you have to please are yourselves, Harry and Meghan, so just continue on with what you’re doing. The RRs are going to stomp their feet and throw around their toys, no matter what. I love seeing their meltdown.

  2. Royalwatcher says:

    Watching the gutter tabloids lose their $hit every time the Sussexes give information to Omid and the like is going to be sooooo much fun!! Get my popcorn ready.

    Also, of course the Daily Fail got it wrong when it said the queen didn’t want anyone talking about birthday wishes, because both the Cambs and Charles made public birthday wishes on KP and CH SM. So…a double standard once again for the Sussexes. We see you.

  3. Ali says:

    “Privacy obsessed” There are crazy people trying to figure out where the Sussexes live.

    I swear the British media are itching for something bad to happen to the Sussexes.

  4. Yoyo says:

    The BM was just waiting to announce that the Sussexes didn’t not acknowledge the Queen on her birthday, but boom the Sussexes sent out a message and now they’re running with, the Queen told her family to keep their birthday wishes private.
    So if she wanted their wishes private, why did CH and KP put birthday wishes for her on Instagram, guess to the media that is private.
    Not trying to be funny, I wonder if the Queen ever held Archie.

    • Marie says:

      Kier Simmons has said the Queen doesn’t like babies. I’m almost positive she hasn’t held him. They act like she is a regular grandma and she isn’t.

      • Sound just Queen Victoria, she didn’t like her kids as babies …and didn’t Camilla say once that a Charles didn’t interact much with her grandkids until they could walk and talk properly? He wasn’t overly fond of others’ babies either. Must be in their genes.

      • aria says:

        holding babies is peasants’ job not royal. that’s why most brf hate Diana because she was a hands-on mother.

      • DarlingDiana says:

        I wouldn’t be surprised if The Queen has not held him. Charles may not have been interested in other people’s babies or children but it was well-known that he was a hands on Dad with his sons. It was reported that Prince Phillip found it ridiculous how much Charles scaled back his schedule to with them and that he changed their diapers.

      • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

        That I can understand. My sister was like that…NO interest in friends’ babies at all…then she had her two, and she is an AMAZING mom. Her boys (my wonderful nephews 😊) will be 20 and 22 this summer, and they are still close.

        There are a lot of people like that. They can love their own, and not stand other people’s. There are some that love the hell out of their own kids, and can be warm and loving to other people’s kids… takes all kinds. But TQ…she has NEVER been a warm, cuddly “mum”. This is a woman who gave her first born a handshake after not seeing him for months after a tour. FEH!

      • February Pisces says:

        Yeah the queen probably looks at the babies for a second, says something complimentary, then moves on. In the picture with her and her great grandchildren when she had Charlotte on her lap, you can tell she’s thinking ‘get this baby off me!”

    • Dinah says:

      Reminder, just hours earlier the British tabloids in unison blamed H&M for ‘the timing’ of publishing their ‘tabloid boycott statement’ in the heart of the coronavirus pandemic, when they and the public have other things on their minds’. Well, the Fail published this trashy piece on the queen’s birthday, front page! They can’t even allow the old woman to have the royal spotlight for herself. The irrelevant Sussexes need to be put on the front page as well.

      I suggest, that, from now until the end of the corona pandemic, we bombard her/them with this phrase, every time they report about the Sussexes: ‘the timing of this report on xxx (H/M/A) in this crisis is inappropriate. How is this relevant; you said you were not gonna report about them anymore’.

    • The Other sofia says:

      According to the Palace the queen asked for calls to be private not for wishes. I don’t think this is a problem, but would also feel weird if someone who congratulated me on my birthday then tells the world proudly that they congratulated me. But I guess this is a one time thing because they could not send public wishes/acknowledge it. As Kaiser said

      • PrincessK says:

        No, the Palace had announced to the media that the Queen would get Zoom calls from family members. Since the Palace no longer speak for the Sussexes, they got their own spokesperson to make a similar announcement. What is wrong with that?

  5. Ali says:

    Daily fail are just mad they can’t run a story about the Sussexes ignoring the Queen on her birthday.

  6. Hirut says:

    They are pissed off the Sussexes beat them to the punch and anticipated their next headline of “ harry and Meghan ignored the queen on her birthday” crap and to round it off they did and, told it to a newspaper that isn’t the daily fail. 🤣

  7. Belli says:

    The DM screeching “But they didn’t tell MEEEEEEE!”

    They are so butthurt at having to get info second hand now.

    • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

      SOOOOOO butthurt. I scrolled down the side of the front online pg of the Fail, and there is Sarah Vine, Rose WHO’s friend, who’s writing: “Don’t miss us, because we don’t miss YOU”…

      I swear, all that was missing was a pic of her sticking her tongue out, and a vid. of her stomping her feet and twirling away, running home to tell Mummy that those mean Sussexes won’t play with her anymore lol

      • Ruby_Woo says:

        Sarah Vine is a real peice of work! I take comfort in the fact that Sarah Vine in trapped being Sarah Vine – that is the worst punlishment someone can have.

      • Dinah says:

        You’re funny, hahahha.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Biggest problem Sarah Vine has is that she is married to Michael Gove.

        I have no idea what Michael Gove, MP has done in parliament this week but the commentariat of the Daily Fail is out for his scalp with torches and pitchforks in hand.

      • The OG —. I can picture NO-NECK Sarah doing just that!

    • Olenna says:

      @(The OG), when I read your comment I thought, “Gooses, geeses!”, it’s Veruca Salt, LOL! Becky really is butthurt and salty.

  8. February Pisces says:

    The daily mail are turning into that crazy jealousy ex who won’t quit bitching over the fact they got dumped. Glad another publication got the exclusive. Oh well, at least they have endless William and Kate stories to publish, cos I’m sure people love clicking on stories about how perfect and wholesome they are. Lol

    • DarlingDiana says:

      Yep and the DM are not going to get over it. They may have a restraining order so to speak but they will stalk them from afar.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The Daily Fail has planted the idea that the Sussexes got paid by The Times for the “exclusive”.

      Is this completely bonkers or what?

      • February Pisces says:

        The more hysterical the DM r the more obvious it is that they are f*cked over the lawsuit so are gonna get as many digs as they can while they can. They are going down screaming.

      • The Times is also owned by Murdoch, just as he owns The Daily Mail, so I don’t see the Sussexes talking to The Times.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Murdoch does not own the Daily Mail. Murdoch owns The Sun.

  9. lemonylips says:

    Daily Fail’s treatment of M&H should be a case study on how media manipulate stories and the need of certain limitations of opinions (cough Piers Morgan) which are contributing to the hate. There is freedom of speech but this is not it. Seriously, I don’t remember seeing anything like this. It’s crazy.

    • Bella says:

      I agree. I’m all for free speech normally, but this is downright dangerous. There has to be some sort of sanction for this sort of bullying.

      • DarlingDiana says:

        There is sanction available. In Harry and Meghan’s case, they’ve chosen a two prong approach to sanctions. The first is that they are suing them and the second that they have severed all ties with them. I’m glad that they have the money and wherewithal to pursue this as many lack one of the other particularly your every day person.
        I’m still against governmental intereference in media, even tabloid media. No one should take it seriously anyway.

    • DarlingDiana says:

      It’s freedom of the press which, sadly, usually has nothing to do with journalism. I still wouldn’t give it up in favor of censorship. To be clear, none of the aggrieved media have been victims of censorship. They can still write what they please. Harry and Meghan simply are not obligated to engage with them which I both approve.

      • Thirtynine says:

        It’s a difficult line to walk, I think, Darling Diana. I also agree with freedom of the press, and am against governmental interference. I think where it gets tricky is that there are other kinds of censorship going on at tne same time. Certain stories witheld or others distorted to present a certain way, only one side of a story deliberately presented to bias an audience, usually in the favour of those with power or money, or at the policy of the media owner, or falling into line with certain advertisers eg. “We withdraw our advertising if you have a story about x.” So not overt, but still censorship, and still crafting the cultural climate of a place, especially for those who aren’t naturally, or have never been taught to be critical thinkers. Where tabloids go too far- slander/libel, blackmail, copyright theft etc, they can be prosecuted/sued. Or, as in the case of the Sun, blacklisted by consumers and celebrities alike. Basically, that is also what H&M are doing. But I also think there is a place for something like the Leveson inquiry, because self-regulation of the media by themselves is obviously not going to restrain the tabloids in any way, not when they have whole budgets set up ready for when they are sued for printing lies. And that is not even taking into account the human cost, the damage to innocent lives- lets just say the lie might be a front page headline, but the retraction might be 2 tiny lines on the bottom of page 10 3 weeks later. Damage done. Anyway, I’m waffling, but I really don’t think there is an easy, black and white answer. I subscribe to independent journalism and support it financially, it’s the best I can do.

  10. Becks1 says:

    LOL, the Mail is really so mad. It’s hilarious to see. I agree with others that they definitely had their “the Sussexes ignored the Queen” stories ready to go.

    did the Sussex team email some reporters, or were they asked? I can see a reporter reaching out for comment “so did the Duke and Duchess talk to the Queen today?” and getting confirmation.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      I’m guessing they released the info to certain reporters since they don’t have any SM currently. I think if they still had IG they would have just released a message there, like the KP and CH SM did.

    • Melissa says:

      They sent an email to various news outlets. It seems on the surface a bit trivial, but I think it is their way of demonstrating that they are open to certain media while at the same time squashing the “oh poor queenie” narrative before it starts.

    • Nic919 says:

      Becky English was big mad in her article today. Sorry you have to share a name with her. 😄

  11. aquarius64 says:

    RRs and BM are finally getting it. Two members of the BRF are not going to bend over for them especially when you have attacked them And the Sussexes are making it clear they will notify reporters and media outlets that have been reasonable and fair. Toxic Tom is throwing a fit that he will not get a Zoom of Archie. – ever ( cue the story). I also think it’s strategy for the lawsuit, showing the queen has not cut the Sussexes off and she is not ordering them to drop the lawsuit.

  12. emmy says:

    I’m laughing so hard right now. Nobody, and I mean not even the hardcore royalists, believes that QEII is baby crazy and just CRUSHED that she hasn’t held her great-grandson in months!

    • pottymouth pup says:

      I’m kinda dying at the complaint is that conferencing by zoom from LA isn’t intimate as if conferencing by zoom from the UK would be intimate

  13. minx says:

    She has other great grandchildren that she “hasn’t held” for months, I’m sure.

  14. Juniperus says:

    Do we actually think TQ really regrets not interactIng with Archie? I mean from all reports she was a very hands-off mom and in my own life it’s seemed by the time you get to having great-grandkids the interest has died down somewhat.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      Nope. It’s just one more angle that the tabloids and Sussex-hating trolls can use to bash Meghan and Harry. They never mention it in relation to any of her other great-grandkids or even grandkids.

    • Becks1 says:

      No, I don’t think the Queen really cares about any of her great-grandkids, aside from George. and I don’t mean that in a callous way. I’m sure she loves them, wants them to be healthy/happy, etc – but I think if she doesn’t see them for months on end she’s fine. I get the impression she was more into her grandkids than her kids or the great-grandkids, and that’s not saying a whole lot.

      But that said – any stories about the Queen getting along with H&M never got traction. There was one blurb last fall about how the Queen often visited them at Frogmore on Sundays, after church, and around Christmastime there was a line about how the Queen actually sees them more frequently than other members of the family, since they lived so close to her.

      But those stories are less “fun” than “The queen never saw Archie!!!!”

    • minx says:

      As far as her great grandchildren, I picture her peering at a screen and thinking, which one is this again?

    • Sofia says:

      I mean all 3 of them were basically living in her garden from May to November. If she didn’t or barely saw Archie when he was walking distance from her, I doubt she suddenly has the desire to see him when he’s 5000+ miles away.

    • DarlingDiana says:

      I think she regrets it in the way any Great Grandmother would. She isn’t the Grandmother and she is 94 years old. While I am sure she would enjoy seeing him in person, it isn’t that unusual for such a more removed relative to see great grandchildren only on special occasions.
      I think she likely misses Harry. I think she has always kept a special eye on William and Harry becomes of Diana’s untimely and tragic death.

      • The way the Queen and Royal s treated Diana, she should be remorseful. Ole Charlie acted despicable from day one in that marriage. What they did to that young girl is simply awful. They were about to do the same shyte to Meghan, who is so much stronger than Diana. But look at Diana’s childhood-her own mother abandoned her and her father remarried a horrible social climber who didn’t like her new husband’s children. That poor girl never had a chance. So very happy Harry and Meghan left!

  15. Sofia says:

    I think the info was released to stop the whole “Harry and The Queen hate each other!” narrative. You can tell the Fail is pissed because they probably had a million think pieces from Piers Moron and Sarah Vile on how the Sussexes have abandoned the Queen. (Vile’s already got a think piece saying they don’t care about the Sussexes. If that was the case why are you writing about her?)

    Anyways I though the Sussexes were irrelevant and that the reporters have better things to do? But guess who’s sharing the DM’s front page with the Queen? Hint: Not the 1st, 2nd or 8th in line and their (ex-)wives and kids.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Yesterday the Daily Fail had 4 separate articles on Meghan and Harry with the commentariat of the Fail posting thousand of comments basically saying “they need to go just away”. If this is so why does The Fail keep writing stories on them. Wonder??? LOL! LOL!

      • VS says:

        @BayTampaBay —— sometimes I wonder if people can stop and think; they are away, you want them to go away, yet you comment on every single article about them; yet you don’t ask the newspapers to stop talking about them……….I guess I am asking too much out of maga and some brexiters

      • Bella says:

        @VS
        So true. They can’t afford to think rationally, because then they would have to give up their hateful narrative which is all they have in life.

    • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

      Sofia, you lost me at “*think* pieces from Piers Moron and Sarah Vile ” lol. Those two don’t have a functioning thought between the two of them! It’s all spewed vitriol, jealousy (like a spurned lover), and racist bile.

    • PrincessK says:

      They were just doing exactly what the Palace had done for the royals they speak for.

  16. Feeshalori says:

    I had read somewhere that the Queen only has interest in children when they’re walking, talking and ready to ride horses.😆

    • YT says:

      That makes sense. Babies are cute and adorable, but they are much more interesting when they are older.

  17. Busyann says:

    They’re better people than I am. Old biddy and her klan would never see me or my baby again, zoom or no zoom, if I were in that situation. Eh, maybe Charles and Camilla. That’s about it.

    • Lady D says:

      Charles refused to defend his newborn grandson when he was compared to a chimpanzee. It completely changed my opinion of him. He’s no better than the predator protector.

  18. Amy says:

    Wouldn’t they have had to do a video conference birthday call even if they were senior royals? It’s not like the entire royal family is in one castle (although I imagine they could all fit) so I would assume she hasn’t seen any of her children, grandchildren or great grand children since this started.

  19. Digital Unicorn says:

    The Fail headline was hilarious, esp as further down the page it had a nice big story about how the rest of the family released a video to mark TQ’s birthday which was sent out by the palace PR team.

    Plus, why is everyone obsessed with Zoom – I know its free (only for the first 45mins) but there are other platforms out there. Google Hangout, normal skype, FaceTime, WhatsApp video calls etc..

    • Amy says:

      I have used all of these for work, or fun etc and I will say that if you are with a group I like Zoom the most- because if you are doing a happy hour or a project you can see everyone. Which Google Hangout defers to the person talking.

      Now here I would assume all three were on the same camera so it would not matter what they used.

      For me Skype is the worst one my former job used it and would constantly crash and was a mess.

    • C-Shell says:

      Zoom is imperfect, but for group calls still the best, as has been said because you can see everyone at once. Google is phasing out the video piece of Hangouts (if not the whole app), and not supporting it. They may have a new product to replace it, but it’s not available now. Similarly, Microsoft is getting rid of Skype and not supporting it. They’ll probably buy someone like Zoom to replace it, but I haven’t heard what. Just no good options.

      • Nic919 says:

        Microsoft has Teams which works pretty decently. Have been doing it for work and it handles large group calls with ease. The only issue is adding someone outside of the main group. Zoom seems more user friendly to have groups where people from anywhere can just join in.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        WebEx is a pretty good tool and I have used the free version for work. Its similar to Zoom but am sure Zoom are loving all the free PR they are getting LOL.

        BlueJeans is another I have used which is pretty good.

        MS Teams is not bad – I also use the call option on Slack which is also pretty good, a lot more stable than Skype for Business which sadly a lot of my clients still insist on using even thou its being phased out and not supported.

  20. Loretta says:

    The Sussexes are so winning this media/tabloids game, it’s so fun to see all those pressed royal reporters

  21. C-Shell says:

    The release of this to the other media outlets was a simple, master stroke that shows the Four Rags how it’s going to work now. Their zero engagement policy is crystal clear in operation.

    I’m heartily sick of the rant that they are “privacy obsessed.” They are not, never said that their wish, desires, plans were to go private. They’ve been clear that Master Archie is a private citizen and no one is entitled to access to him, unless his parents say so. That’s entirely different.

    • Bella says:

      It’s just the narrative that has been pushed by the tabloids to avoid responsibility and accepted by other media outlets which should know better.

    • betsyh says:

      C-Shell, The only times I can remember that they wanted privacy was when Meghan gave birth and when they did not reveal the identity of Archie’s godparents. Am I missing anything? So I don’t get this rant of their being privacy obsessed.

    • L4frimaire says:

      The media say they are privacy obsessed because the Sussex won’t let them inside every aspect of their private life. The press wanted access to them, their home, their friends, where they go and what they do off duty. They thought they deserved sit downs, drinks and gossip, while still being able to trash them with impunity. I still can’t figure out all the birth hysteria from last year. Trash and slander the mother during her entire pregnancy, then be mad she won’t parade her baby in front of you, or invite you to their christening. So let them bitch and moan all they want.

  22. Jen says:

    They truly can’t win. Before this was released I read people saying that they wouldn’t be able to do a social media greeting to the Queen because of no social media at the moment, and was that a snub? So they said “hey, we video called her” and it becomes a big thing again.

    Not to mention, I doubt she has seen her other great-grandkids much lately. And if she is missing them, maybe she’s going to learn that actions have consequences?

    • DarlingDiana says:

      With Covid still active, I don’t think The Queen, or any elderly person, should risk exposure for a 94th birthday. The idea that her everyday life is consumed with any of her grandchildren or great grandchildren is erroneous I think. I’m sure she does her work and spends time with contemporaries or long time friends and advisors. That’s what I would expect to happen more and more as she ages.

  23. ABritGuest says:

    Why does the Fail have multiple stories on the Sussexes in the middle of a pandemic? Aren’t they irrelevant? And i thought the pandemic should be the sole focus right now?

    • Harper says:

      And why did the Queen have a birthday in the middle of a pandemic? Doesn’t it take away from the needs of the frontline NHS workers, the unemployed and the Covid Dead? She is a narcissist!

  24. Abena Asantewaa says:

    The hypocrisy from the British media is breath taking! Here they are, talking about privacy for the queen’s birthday, yet plastering the pages of their sordid rags, about CH & KP’s posts on their respective IGS. about the queen’s birthday. The sheer prejudice, is obviously, oblivious to them. However, the great Bob Nesta Marley once sang, ‘ You Can Fool some of the people, some of the Time, but You Cannot Fool All The People All Of The Time’ Food for thoight.

    • betsyh says:

      I don’t think it’s oblivious to them. The British tabloids know that being malicious makes them money.

  25. Yoyo says:

    Harry and Archie officially welcomed to California, their first earthquake 3.7.

    • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

      Looks like the quake was about 20-25 mi. away from where the Sussexes “supposedly” are (near the coast). I live on the Westside (in the middle, btwn where the quake hit and the coast) and I didn’t feel it. And I’m *super* sensitive to shakes lol. Seems it struck a little after midnight here, and it was felt more east and south, than westside.

      But yeah…it’s definitely a fact of life here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • Kkat says:

        I’m in Lakewood, near long beach. And my older son and I felt it.
        I thought for a second he had come up behind me and shook my office chair I was in.
        Then realized it was a little earthquake.

        On the upside I think California has never been more stocked up and earthquake prepared before 😂

  26. Mumbles says:

    I really hope they start up their Instagram soon. I know they’re itching to start posting about coronavirus charities and there is no other way to find out about those.

  27. Awkward symphony says:

    Even piss moran couldn’t last 24hrs before mentioning them again!! One Squaddie said it best “they’ll be repeating how they’ll stop reporting on them for dayssss”😂
    This ranting as if they’re a spoiled child is not being received well in the comments section. Now that the Sussexs have stated that they’ll boycott DM+other trashy tabloids, the trolls can no longer claim that it’s by Sunshine Sachs or Meghan

  28. Dinah says:

    This is the D Fail kind of bitter, childish playground bullying like, gaslighting, unprofessional reporting style, not worth to be named journalism.

    What is so funny about her writing this piece is that, within hours her paper declared that the Sussexes are irrelevant, attention seekers not worth reporting on, they published this piece. We know why;

    the tabloids need H&M more than they need them. They can’t resist nor afford not to report about their meal tickets. And their businesses are dying. So will this vile piece of sh*t’s job, as not only the whole world, but also their advertisers, know that there will be no credible reporting (if ever) in their publications about H&M, since they have zero own reliable info, access to or acknowledgement from H&M to back their trashy stories. They will only be able to reprint what others have scooped/published first (like this piece. Ha ha ha).

  29. Ruby_Woo says:

    “the Sussexes’ new PR firm sent out an email blast to a handful of friendly outlets”

    Friendly outlets. FRIENDLY OUTLETS!!!

    I love how they have successfully taken control of their narrative and can CHOOSE who they want to interact with. The Royal Rota thought they had an iron clad sweet deal, and could bully whoever they want. It probably never occurred to them that their two biggest money spinners would up and leave.

    It must sting even more that they get to watch the Sussexes not completely blank the media, but interact with outlets who are actually fair. They could have that if they weren’t so terrible.

    • DarlingDiana says:

      You know what is really sad? This won’t effect the Daily Mail’s bottom line at all. If anything there will be more negative, clickbait stories. We’ve already seen a substantial uptick. Eventually, they may suffer for it but it will take time for that to happen.

      • Lanne says:

        At least they can now play the game on their own terms. this was never going to be about making the tabloids see reason. They can’t. Their mandate is to appeal to the basest of emotions. The tabloids are what they are. Now, the sussexes don’t have to take the abuse from the royal rota anymore. Tabloids are clawing for purchase like a drowning person. They will continue to lash out at the Sussexes no matter what

      • DarlingDiana says:

        @Lanne, I agree that the tabloids are going to continue the negativity, likely threefold now.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Yes the Spectator had article with threats about the kind of coverage they can expect going forward eg stalking for sunbathing pictures at the beach. But think she’s already had hacked naked photos out.

        But they are kicking themselves that they went so hard already with the Markle family attacks and headlines eg she’s done porn, surprising links with Weinstein, desperate to land a rich Brit, she did drugs at her first wedding, she could have killed Charlotte with her wedding flowers, shes causing drought and murder with her avocado eating, she’s helping to fund Islamic terrorism…

        The coverage has already been so negative that it’s become like a parody& it will be interesting how long it will be high clickbait.

      • Agree Lanne. The Sussexes having to work with the RR and interact with them at events, knowing the very same reporters are trashing them constantly, is sort of like having to live with a spouse that beats you while pretending in public you have a wonderful, healthy relationship. I’m so glad that part of their professional life is over and they have the freedom to interact with the press they choose.

  30. Lisa says:

    They are so bitter. The Sussex’s still won’t be dealing with them at all.

  31. L4frimaire says:

    I like how they put that info out there. It shot down any potential “ Harry and Meghan snub Queen on her birthday” stories. Also it showed, we’ll talk to media , we just won’t talk to YOU, and you specifically. They also mentioned Archie, just for emphasis. Becky English was swimming in saltwater 🤣. Of course, they put it on the front page, then complained about it.

  32. Vanessa says:

    We all know that the royal reporters and the British tabloids were ready with knives to write a story about how the rude Meghan and Harry ignored the queen on her birthday. The daily mail is just pisses that they got played before they could even come up with twisted narrative to sell papers Meghan and Harry let it be know that they both and Archie video chat the queen . So now the daily mail has to come up with something so their trying to claim that the queen didn’t want to publicize her birthday and some how even though the Cambridge’s Charles and Camilla all wish her happy birthday public that’s ok but Meghan and Harry are horrible people because they let it be know that they did in fact wish the queen a happy birthday. The daily mail and the royal reporters are just bitter and angry that their money makers are gone all they can do is continue to push articles with lies .

  33. Mtec says:

    I read on Twitter that is was certain journalists who called them to see if they had done anything for the Queen’s bday, and they confirmed it? So I’m confused, was it that or was it them seeking out media outlets to publish this info?

    • Yoyo says:

      Why does it matter?
      They wished her happy birthday, is that not enough for you.

      • Mtec says:

        @Yoyo
        I’m normally one of the regular defenders of H & M on this site, so you can calm down ‘cause there’s no reason to lash out at me over a simple question that wasn’t in any way critical of them. I just wanted to know the facts cause as usual people on Twitter are being illogically critical of them, and I like to know the correct information if/when i ever decide to engage with them crazies.

      • Yoyo says:

        It is really not worth it, some will be believe what they want even with the evidence in front of them.

      • Mtec says:

        @Yoyo
        You are 100% right about that. But sometimes it’s so ridiculous I can’t help but say something. But it’s true, they choose to see what they wanna see and never see any hypocrisy in anything they say. It is a waste of time 🤷🏽‍♀️