Nutty Flavor Blog

Anyone who follows the non-establishment media about Meghan Markle is probably familiar with Skippy, a Tumbler blogger who was one of the first to write about Meghan. Skippy, the pen name of a Canadian woman who claims to be in late middle age, pours out dozens of items about Meghan every day. Her blog is definitely an acquired taste: she mixes cuddly animal photos, inspirational pictures of waterfalls, and Catholic prayers with some vicious invective against the Duchess of Sussex. I'm no Markle fan, but I don't like any human being called "IT" or "Maggot" or "Meg-IT" or the like. At any rate, Skippy is only relevant here because someone who appears to be Meghan, and whom Skippy believes to be Meghan, regularly sends anonymous messages to Skippy. Skippy then responds with something juvenile about how wonderful Kate is. It's all a bit silly, but the anon keeps coming back for more. Here's an example: Could this be from Duche

Confusing celebrity and royalty. Celebrity is about the celebration of an individual. A celebrity (see: Kim Kardashian, Elizabeth Hurley, any of the Real Housewives) has fans that see their own reflection made larger-than-life. Fans admire the positive aspects of their lives - the fashion, the riches - and gossip about the negative aspects, such as a revolving door of personal relationships. (This is not female-only phenomenon; for men, sports celebrities tend to create the same love-hate dynamic, and the revolving door of relationships is usually with teams, teammates, and cities. LeBron James and his various franchises is a good example.) Royality isn’t celebrity Royalty isn’t celebrity; royalty isn’t about an individual. It’s about the audience, whether broad (all the citizens and residents of the country, plus foreign admirers) or specific (whatever charity is being visited that day.) The goal is to highlight the values and bonds that hold the audience together. The Duc

Nice shot of Meghan's family, isn't it? She appears to be about 11 or 12 in this photo, which means her parents would have been divorced for several years at this point.  Still, the photo shows all three of them as relaxed, friendly, and loving. Meghan seems to have a strong connection to her father, but Mom is still clearly part of the group. According to Meghan, they all spent holidays together, and there is a 2016 Instagram photo of Mom and Dad's hands toasting at a shared Thanksgiving dinner. I don't buy the idea that Meghan and her father are estranged, and that he is some kind of monster. I think they're working together - whenever Meghan's getting particularly negative press attention, Dad shows up and gives one of his desperate-sounding interviews and then the negative attention is focused on him instead. Coincidentally, the same pap agency (Colman-Rayner) seems to be providing "candid" shots of both Meghan's Mom and Dad,

It's a general rule that if you criticize Meghan Markle for any reason, someone will be along shortly to call you a racist. ("Jealous" is another common critique, but I won't deal with that here.) It's ironic that so many WoC seem to be seeking validation from a woman is half-white, married into a white family, and seems to have only white past partners and white friends. (No, transparent publicity friendships like Serena, Priyanka and Amal do not count.) She even pledged a white sorority in college. In addition, Meghan has altered what was once a clearly "black" nose and doesn't wear her hair natural. I see very little evidence of her having celebrated her African heritage in the past, although she wrote a few magazine articles about the experience of being biracial. We also see very little of her Black family, except of course her Mom, who is always kept quiet so people can project their own idea of strength and dignity on her. (Don't ge

Prince Andrew's Instagram post from Christmas 2018 is a major dig at Meghan. She is in the frame - but she is entirely hidden behind Prince Charles. All you can see is the tiny blue feather of her hat peeping out over Charles' head. Of all the photos taken that day, why would Andrew choose this particular one to post? I see him as Meghan's greatest enemy within the family. First of all, given his own salacious habits it's not impossible that he knows Meghan from her yachting days. Secondly, Meghan is getting the kind of royal engagements and positions Andrew has long sought for his own daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie. Charles is trying to slim down the monarchy and cut costs - a basic survival mechanism in a changing Britain - and has so far refused to add the girls to the public payroll.  (I think he will need them at some point, however, since hundreds of royal engagements every year are currently carried out by over-65s like Princess Anne, the Kents, an

The bloggers at UFO (Unidentified Fashion Object) No More put together this chart of fashion purchases by female Royals in 2018. Keep in mind that Meghan only became a royal in May 2018, and that her wedding dresses were not included in these totals. It doesn't look good - particularly when the British populace has been dealing with a years-long austerity campaign - for a new (and foreign) princess to be spending nearly EUR500,000 on designer items in less than 8 months. Particularly when that is much more than any other royal woman spends, and when the clothes are largely not by British designers or brands. After publishing this chart, the UFO No More bloggers were so overwhelmed by Meghan fans calling them "racist" that one chose to leave social media entirely. They will carry on with the blog, however.

I don't get people who don't understand the Markle story's appeal. A low-talent thespian and grifter, and probably an experienced whore, has made her way into one of the world's most famous families.  Once there, she disregards all their age-old rules of protocol and deportment, while trying to grab as much fame and money as possible for herself and set herself up for a glittering career. Shocked, the family fights back with old-world tactics - like putting her in embarrassing manor homes (Frogmore Cottage, the servants' quarters) and giving her patronages that highlight her shortcomings (Bad actress = National Theater. Never finished college = Association of Commonwealth Universities. Abandoned dog = Animal charity. Trashy fashion = Clothes for homeless women.) It sounds like a comic novel by a great British satirist, but it's real, and nobody knows the ending yet.

The Daily Mail likes to give little hints to its readers when possible. For example, they could have easily just run a solo profile shot of this man accused of running a house of prostitution. In fact, they could have cropped this very shot to show his face alone. But they didn't. They chose to use a photo of him with Prince Harry. What would Harry know about whores?