How Meghan Markle Is Planning to Celebrate Her 40th Birthday

Entertainment

HarpersBAZAAR.com 03 August, 2021 - 12:07pm 17 views

When is Meghan Markle's birthday?

For Meghan Markle's 40th birthday on August 4, her husband Prince Harry has ordered a special cake from a bakery in California's Santa Barbara named Posies & Sugar. India TodayPrince Harry got Meghan Markle a cake on her 40th birthday. Can you guess its price?

Tom Bower says his Meghan Markle biography 'will tell the truth'

Daily Mail 04 August, 2021 - 03:50am

Biographer Tom Bower has vowed to tell the 'truth' about Meghan Markle after reportedly agreeing to a six figure sum to tell the Duchess's story.

Mr Bower, 74, is renowned for his unsparing, unauthorised biographies of towering figures including Boris Johnson, Prince Charles and Robert Maxwell. 

Speaking to The Express, he said: 'I'm writing it now. It will tell the truth when it comes out next year.'

It's thought the writer embarked on 12 months of meticulous research speaking to friends, foes and associates of Harry and Meghan before putting pen to paper. 

'This is the book Meghan will be dreading,' a source told The Sun when the six-figure book deal was first announced earlier this year. 'Tom doesn't pull his punches, and is terrifyingly thorough in his research. No stone will be left unturned.'

'Tom has previously worked with some of his subjects, and even spent time trailing them, but it has been made perfectly clear to him that this will not be an option with Meghan. She wants no part of it.'

In 2018, Mr Bower wrote The Rebel Prince about Prince Charles which explored how the heir to the throne sought to overcome Princess Diana's death.

The author's comments come shortly after the Duke of Sussex last month confirmed the forthcoming release of his autobiography, which he has collaborated on with a ghostwriter and is due out late next year.

It is believed Harry did not warn The Queen, Prince Charles or Prince William about the tell-all book until 'moments before it became public' in a press release by publisher Penguin Random House. 

His decision to write the book has been branded a 'moneymaking exercise at the expense of his blood family' by royal experts and insiders who predicted it would be 'a book by Harry, as written by Meghan.'

Harry said of the book: 'I'm writing this not as the prince I was born but as the man I have become. 

'I've worn many hats over the years, both literally and figuratively, and my hope is that in telling my story— the highs and lows, the mistakes, the lessons learned — I can help show that no matter where we come from, we have more in common than we think.' 

Meanwhile, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's 'heartbreak' following the Duke of Edinburgh's death will be documented in the new epilogue of Finding Freedom.

The couple's biography has been updated with a new chapter that publisher HarperCollins said will also recount 'Meghan's emotional healing journey from losing a child to the birth of their daughter'. 

The first edition, by authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, was published on August 11 last year and painted a flattering picture of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from when they met in 2016 to their departure from the Firm in early 2020. 

It is now being updated with an epilogue, set to be released on August 31, which will detail the couple's explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, their move to California and is also expected to discuss their multi-million pound deals with Netflix and Spotify.

PS4 Console Sales Limp to Just Over 116 Million

Woman & Home 04 August, 2021 - 03:50am

The PlayStation 4 has had its time in the sun now as Sony focuses its manufacturing efforts on the company's new bit of hardware, meaning the last-gen piece of tech is sort of limping towards sales milestones instead of pushing for a last-minute dash. The company today recorded its results for Q1 of the 2021 fiscal year, and the PS4 managed to sell 500,000 units. That brings its lifetime sales up to 116.4 million.

Compared to other consoles on the best-sellers list, the PS4 is still nowhere near close to hitting the highs of the PS2. It sold more than 150 million units, closely followed by the Nintendo DS. Then the Game Boy and Game Boy Color handheld systems take bronze. The PS4 is currently sitting pretty in fourth position, which Sony must surely be fairly chuffed about. Given the challenge Sony has faced manufacturing enough PS5 systems to meet demand, we can't imagine producing more PS4 consoles was very high up the list of priorities.

As for the PS5, we already knew it had reached the 10 million milestone as of 18th July 2021, making it the fastest-selling PlayStation console ever. Since then, the firm has sold a further 100,000 units, bringing the current total up to 10.1 million.

[source resetera.com]

About Liam Croft

Liam grew up with a PlayStation controller in his hands and a love affair for Metal Gear Solid. Nowadays, he can be found playing the latest and greatest PS5 games as well as supporting Derby County. That last detail is his downfall.

Comments (8)

Favourite Playstation console so far for it's exclusive titles! Amazing what they can get out of this old hardware still.

Those figures, nearly 30 million more than the PS3 and about 65 million (!!!) more than the xbone, are testament to their great work this past generation. What's a game pass again?

i only bought one last year and still believe its a great time to get a PS4, an embarrasment of riches.

a price cut would push even more sales to around 120+ million units

More like slows down near the end of the race to appreciate the view, greet a few friends and shout back some encouragement to its new sibling before being greeted at the finish line by its older relatives as the champion it is with a lot of life left to give.

The PS4 is one of my favourite consoles ever. I didn't appreciate the simple design until my PS5 was in front of me and the games, well they are some of the best titles ever created.

It was a great gen and let's hope the next is even better.

PS4 was a wonderful console. Given the long tail this gen created by shortages of PS5's, as well as the cross-gen support we should definitely see this reach 120 million with further price cuts etc before all is said and done. Unless Sony stop production entirely to try and get all hands on deck creating PS5 hardware.

Its unlikely to reach 3rd place at this point, but represents a huge success for Sony nevertheless.

I dont think PS5 will sell as well by the end of its life cycle. Seems like much stronger competition this time around, so sales likely to be spread more evenly

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...

Ghost of Tsushima Director's Cut! Hades! Deathloop!

Join 369,641 people following Push Square:

© 2021 Nlife Media, partner of ReedPop. Hosted by 44 Bytes.

Opinion | The tenuous legal premise threatening Prince Harry, Meghan and their children

NBCNews.com 04 August, 2021 - 03:32am

If Markle were acting in good faith, as opposed to self-interest, he’d have petitioned the California courts quietly, without running to the media in advance.

I don’t have children, but I have skin in this game. I was born into a toxic family — the kind in which emotional, financial and sometimes physical abuse was a legacy passed down through the generations. As Markle continues humiliating his daughter and her family in the media — despite her clear wishes to be free of him — I am reminded why I was relieved that so-called grandparents’ rights laws were not in vogue when I was growing up in the ’80s and the ’90s.

The premise of these laws is that “children need grandparents,” as grandparent advocates put it. However, each state deals with grandparent access laws differently, from short and vaguely written conditions for visitation to long, detailed and specific laws outlining grandparents’ rights. Some of the differentiation might stem from the fact that “grandparents' rights by state legislatures is a fairly recent trend, and most of the statutes granting these rights have been in effect for less than 40 years,” as FindLaw’s legal writers put it.

I understand the concerns upon which these statutes were founded. But these laws presume that grandparents are genuinely concerned for their grandchildren’s welfare, that they desire to have positive and healthy relationships with their children’s children and that they are good influences. This is, of course, the best-case scenario.

In my own family, I never had much of a relationship with one of my grandparents because she was a profoundly difficult person. We’d go long stretches — sometimes years — without seeing her at all, an intentional choice on my parents’ part. As I entered adulthood, my parents’ decision to shield my sibling and me from my grandmother began to make sense. I consider myself lucky that she never took advantage of grandparents’ rights laws to demand access to me. My parents were teenagers when I was born and would not have had the resources, confidence or knowledge to fight such a petition.

That grandparents’ rights laws hold the potential to grant dysfunctional relatives access to minors on the basis of shared DNA is, at best, unsettling. The law is supposed to take into account whether such access is in the best interest of the child, but that’s far from guaranteed. Several people in my online recovery group have said that grandparents were granted access against the parents’ wishes, particularly in situations in which the abuse their own parents had caused them had never been documented and they weren’t able to afford quality legal representation to oppose the grandparents’ petitions.

I assume that if Markle were acting in good faith, as opposed to self-interest, he’d have petitioned the California courts quietly, without running to the media in advance. But he has a history of selling stories to the media in an attempt to strongarm his daughter and Prince Harry into speaking to him; before her wedding in 2018, he staged paparazzi photographs of himself after his daughter and the prince explicitly asked him to avoid the media for his own protection; later, he released his daughter’s personal letter to him to the media in what appeared to be another attempt to remain in the tabloids at the expense of his daughter’s image and requests for privacy.

After several years of this questionable behavior, he came forward to announce that he’s pursuing legal channels for access to grandchildren he’s never met — a noxious layer of icing on an already bitter cake. His behavior should disqualify him from any access.

Thankfully, California is one of the states whose laws are highly specific about the conditions under which grandparents can petition for access to their grandchildren, and they seem designed to handle requests from grandparents that appear dubious. According to the California courts, Markle will have to prove a pre-existing relationship with his grandchildren “that has engendered a bond.” His daughter and her husband’s rights to make decisions about their children will also be considered. And finally, according to California law, “grandparents cannot file for visitation rights while the grandchild’s parents are married,” with few exceptions.

The premise upon which grandparent access laws are built is tenuous at best. Sometimes, grandchildren are better off having never known their grandparents. If the media reports are to be believed, Meghan and Harry are smart to shield their children from a man who’s done nothing but create drama and heartache for their family. Hopefully the California courts will vindicate Meghan and Harry’s decision to keep a toxic grandparent far from his grandchildren.

Christina Wyman is the author of the forthcoming middle-grade novel “Jawbreaker.” She is a writer and teacher and lives in Lansing, Michigan, with her husband and their border collie, Frankie. Follow her on Twitter @CBWymanWriter

Opinion | The tenuous legal premise threatening Prince Harry, Meghan and their children

The US Sun 04 August, 2021 - 03:32am

If Markle were acting in good faith, as opposed to self-interest, he’d have petitioned the California courts quietly, without running to the media in advance.

I don’t have children, but I have skin in this game. I was born into a toxic family — the kind in which emotional, financial and sometimes physical abuse was a legacy passed down through the generations. As Markle continues humiliating his daughter and her family in the media — despite her clear wishes to be free of him — I am reminded why I was relieved that so-called grandparents’ rights laws were not in vogue when I was growing up in the ’80s and the ’90s.

The premise of these laws is that “children need grandparents,” as grandparent advocates put it. However, each state deals with grandparent access laws differently, from short and vaguely written conditions for visitation to long, detailed and specific laws outlining grandparents’ rights. Some of the differentiation might stem from the fact that “grandparents' rights by state legislatures is a fairly recent trend, and most of the statutes granting these rights have been in effect for less than 40 years,” as FindLaw’s legal writers put it.

I understand the concerns upon which these statutes were founded. But these laws presume that grandparents are genuinely concerned for their grandchildren’s welfare, that they desire to have positive and healthy relationships with their children’s children and that they are good influences. This is, of course, the best-case scenario.

In my own family, I never had much of a relationship with one of my grandparents because she was a profoundly difficult person. We’d go long stretches — sometimes years — without seeing her at all, an intentional choice on my parents’ part. As I entered adulthood, my parents’ decision to shield my sibling and me from my grandmother began to make sense. I consider myself lucky that she never took advantage of grandparents’ rights laws to demand access to me. My parents were teenagers when I was born and would not have had the resources, confidence or knowledge to fight such a petition.

That grandparents’ rights laws hold the potential to grant dysfunctional relatives access to minors on the basis of shared DNA is, at best, unsettling. The law is supposed to take into account whether such access is in the best interest of the child, but that’s far from guaranteed. Several people in my online recovery group have said that grandparents were granted access against the parents’ wishes, particularly in situations in which the abuse their own parents had caused them had never been documented and they weren’t able to afford quality legal representation to oppose the grandparents’ petitions.

I assume that if Markle were acting in good faith, as opposed to self-interest, he’d have petitioned the California courts quietly, without running to the media in advance. But he has a history of selling stories to the media in an attempt to strongarm his daughter and Prince Harry into speaking to him; before her wedding in 2018, he staged paparazzi photographs of himself after his daughter and the prince explicitly asked him to avoid the media for his own protection; later, he released his daughter’s personal letter to him to the media in what appeared to be another attempt to remain in the tabloids at the expense of his daughter’s image and requests for privacy.

After several years of this questionable behavior, he came forward to announce that he’s pursuing legal channels for access to grandchildren he’s never met — a noxious layer of icing on an already bitter cake. His behavior should disqualify him from any access.

Thankfully, California is one of the states whose laws are highly specific about the conditions under which grandparents can petition for access to their grandchildren, and they seem designed to handle requests from grandparents that appear dubious. According to the California courts, Markle will have to prove a pre-existing relationship with his grandchildren “that has engendered a bond.” His daughter and her husband’s rights to make decisions about their children will also be considered. And finally, according to California law, “grandparents cannot file for visitation rights while the grandchild’s parents are married,” with few exceptions.

The premise upon which grandparent access laws are built is tenuous at best. Sometimes, grandchildren are better off having never known their grandparents. If the media reports are to be believed, Meghan and Harry are smart to shield their children from a man who’s done nothing but create drama and heartache for their family. Hopefully the California courts will vindicate Meghan and Harry’s decision to keep a toxic grandparent far from his grandchildren.

Christina Wyman is the author of the forthcoming middle-grade novel “Jawbreaker.” She is a writer and teacher and lives in Lansing, Michigan, with her husband and their border collie, Frankie. Follow her on Twitter @CBWymanWriter

Opinion | The tenuous legal premise threatening Prince Harry, Meghan and their children

PureWow 04 August, 2021 - 03:32am

If Markle were acting in good faith, as opposed to self-interest, he’d have petitioned the California courts quietly, without running to the media in advance.

I don’t have children, but I have skin in this game. I was born into a toxic family — the kind in which emotional, financial and sometimes physical abuse was a legacy passed down through the generations. As Markle continues humiliating his daughter and her family in the media — despite her clear wishes to be free of him — I am reminded why I was relieved that so-called grandparents’ rights laws were not in vogue when I was growing up in the ’80s and the ’90s.

The premise of these laws is that “children need grandparents,” as grandparent advocates put it. However, each state deals with grandparent access laws differently, from short and vaguely written conditions for visitation to long, detailed and specific laws outlining grandparents’ rights. Some of the differentiation might stem from the fact that “grandparents' rights by state legislatures is a fairly recent trend, and most of the statutes granting these rights have been in effect for less than 40 years,” as FindLaw’s legal writers put it.

I understand the concerns upon which these statutes were founded. But these laws presume that grandparents are genuinely concerned for their grandchildren’s welfare, that they desire to have positive and healthy relationships with their children’s children and that they are good influences. This is, of course, the best-case scenario.

In my own family, I never had much of a relationship with one of my grandparents because she was a profoundly difficult person. We’d go long stretches — sometimes years — without seeing her at all, an intentional choice on my parents’ part. As I entered adulthood, my parents’ decision to shield my sibling and me from my grandmother began to make sense. I consider myself lucky that she never took advantage of grandparents’ rights laws to demand access to me. My parents were teenagers when I was born and would not have had the resources, confidence or knowledge to fight such a petition.

That grandparents’ rights laws hold the potential to grant dysfunctional relatives access to minors on the basis of shared DNA is, at best, unsettling. The law is supposed to take into account whether such access is in the best interest of the child, but that’s far from guaranteed. Several people in my online recovery group have said that grandparents were granted access against the parents’ wishes, particularly in situations in which the abuse their own parents had caused them had never been documented and they weren’t able to afford quality legal representation to oppose the grandparents’ petitions.

I assume that if Markle were acting in good faith, as opposed to self-interest, he’d have petitioned the California courts quietly, without running to the media in advance. But he has a history of selling stories to the media in an attempt to strongarm his daughter and Prince Harry into speaking to him; before her wedding in 2018, he staged paparazzi photographs of himself after his daughter and the prince explicitly asked him to avoid the media for his own protection; later, he released his daughter’s personal letter to him to the media in what appeared to be another attempt to remain in the tabloids at the expense of his daughter’s image and requests for privacy.

After several years of this questionable behavior, he came forward to announce that he’s pursuing legal channels for access to grandchildren he’s never met — a noxious layer of icing on an already bitter cake. His behavior should disqualify him from any access.

Thankfully, California is one of the states whose laws are highly specific about the conditions under which grandparents can petition for access to their grandchildren, and they seem designed to handle requests from grandparents that appear dubious. According to the California courts, Markle will have to prove a pre-existing relationship with his grandchildren “that has engendered a bond.” His daughter and her husband’s rights to make decisions about their children will also be considered. And finally, according to California law, “grandparents cannot file for visitation rights while the grandchild’s parents are married,” with few exceptions.

The premise upon which grandparent access laws are built is tenuous at best. Sometimes, grandchildren are better off having never known their grandparents. If the media reports are to be believed, Meghan and Harry are smart to shield their children from a man who’s done nothing but create drama and heartache for their family. Hopefully the California courts will vindicate Meghan and Harry’s decision to keep a toxic grandparent far from his grandchildren.

Christina Wyman is the author of the forthcoming middle-grade novel “Jawbreaker.” She is a writer and teacher and lives in Lansing, Michigan, with her husband and their border collie, Frankie. Follow her on Twitter @CBWymanWriter

Entertainment Stories