"William has been made to manage Harry - all the responsibility, none of the hard-ass financial control."
One of the things you learn quickly when writing about the Royal Family is that many other people do it better. One of those people is a Lipstick Alley font named Aunt Jane, whose comments are always perceptive and thoughtful.
I know nothing about Aunt Jane, who doesn't even use a profile image, but Lipstick Alley is primarily a site for Black women plus a few other women of color; white participation is discouraged.
Lipstick Alley's Meghan Markle Unpopular Opinions Part 2 thread is now on 889 pages (with about 20 comments per page) and counting. The thread is public and anyone can read without participating.
Today's comment from Aunt Jane was particularly good, so I am reproducing it here. (Aunt Jane, if you would prefer that I take this down, drop a quick comment below and I will do so.)
The BRF is ultra dysfunctional thanks to the example set by HM. It also seems to me that the toxic example set by Diana - using a much too young William as a principal counsellor and advisor she often quoted to others - has been selfishly carried out by HM and PC. In other words, it's been down to William to manage Harry, contain Harry, front for Harry.
Look at the first Xmas. And look at the SECOND Xmas - all the stuff MM had thrown at the Cambridges and Catherine was made to forgo Xmas with her family to walk next to Meghan and use her integrity to create an illusion.
I also get peeved that the two most dutiful female in-laws, Kate and Camilla, had to babysit Harry and Meghan at Trooping. It's ugly. It's selfish, self-serving; it's lazy, and it's enabling. It punishes those who do right and helps along those who do wrong.
I've read Charles is laissez-faire. I really do think William has been made to manage Harry - all the responsibility, none of the hard-ass financial control. He's taken advantage of. The entire shmear - the Fab Four, the Three Musketeers, all of it is sloughing Harry off on William even after William had a family of his own and should have been allowed to leave off babysitting his spoiled, treacherous, self-pitying, resentful younger brother.
Harry cheeses it up for the cameras as the scamp since he knows it sells, but I don't believe it's really him. I think he's been poisoning the well about Will for years. ("Will's just like me - only in secret! At least I'm HONEST and CANDID and show my business in the street!")
I think Aunt Jane makes an excellent point; for some reason, William is paying most of the psychic bills for Meghan Markle's extravagances, with Harry's tacit acceptance.
Markle is damaging the monarchy which William will be expected to reconstruct whenever the Queen passes and Charles does whatever he does to it - probably nothing good.
And in the meantime, Markle is using her contacts in her press and her social media accounts to try to damage William and the people he loves, particularly his wife. (Although she's also not above going after the little Cambridge children in a passive-aggressive way.)
So - who has the cojones to stop Meghan Markle?
Clearly not Charles. Probably not the aged Queen or Prince Philip. Prince Andrew has always detested her but lacks power. The same is true for Duchess Camilla. William has done his best to cut off his family from the Sussexes, but perhaps he can do no more.
Who's left? Coup by Eugenie and Jack?
Lipstick Alley's Meghan Markle Unpopular Opinions Part 2 thread is now on 889 pages (with about 20 comments per page) and counting. The thread is public and anyone can read without participating.
Today's comment from Aunt Jane was particularly good, so I am reproducing it here. (Aunt Jane, if you would prefer that I take this down, drop a quick comment below and I will do so.)
The BRF is ultra dysfunctional thanks to the example set by HM. It also seems to me that the toxic example set by Diana - using a much too young William as a principal counsellor and advisor she often quoted to others - has been selfishly carried out by HM and PC. In other words, it's been down to William to manage Harry, contain Harry, front for Harry.
Look at the first Xmas. And look at the SECOND Xmas - all the stuff MM had thrown at the Cambridges and Catherine was made to forgo Xmas with her family to walk next to Meghan and use her integrity to create an illusion.
I also get peeved that the two most dutiful female in-laws, Kate and Camilla, had to babysit Harry and Meghan at Trooping. It's ugly. It's selfish, self-serving; it's lazy, and it's enabling. It punishes those who do right and helps along those who do wrong.
I've read Charles is laissez-faire. I really do think William has been made to manage Harry - all the responsibility, none of the hard-ass financial control. He's taken advantage of. The entire shmear - the Fab Four, the Three Musketeers, all of it is sloughing Harry off on William even after William had a family of his own and should have been allowed to leave off babysitting his spoiled, treacherous, self-pitying, resentful younger brother.
Harry cheeses it up for the cameras as the scamp since he knows it sells, but I don't believe it's really him. I think he's been poisoning the well about Will for years. ("Will's just like me - only in secret! At least I'm HONEST and CANDID and show my business in the street!")
I think Aunt Jane makes an excellent point; for some reason, William is paying most of the psychic bills for Meghan Markle's extravagances, with Harry's tacit acceptance.
Markle is damaging the monarchy which William will be expected to reconstruct whenever the Queen passes and Charles does whatever he does to it - probably nothing good.
And in the meantime, Markle is using her contacts in her press and her social media accounts to try to damage William and the people he loves, particularly his wife. (Although she's also not above going after the little Cambridge children in a passive-aggressive way.)
So - who has the cojones to stop Meghan Markle?
Clearly not Charles. Probably not the aged Queen or Prince Philip. Prince Andrew has always detested her but lacks power. The same is true for Duchess Camilla. William has done his best to cut off his family from the Sussexes, but perhaps he can do no more.
Who's left? Coup by Eugenie and Jack?
Comments
I am still trying to wrap my head around the lack of action from the senior royals who we can see clearly are not overly fond of her judging by the frosty reception on the balcony at totc. I would love to be a fly on the wall in there. Someone said strongwrite was writing some pretty messed up angry tweets the other day I have tried to follow her so I can have a nosey ;)
The problem is - like in politics - the vast majority of people just shout and scream, but there's always the chance of one nut who will take it out of the virtual world and into real life, like the man who shot up a baseball field full of US Congress members a couple of years ago.
Could this happen to the Cambridges or, for that matter, to Meghan?
I certainly hope not.
I wonder if her support for Meghan is a positive for her in terms of traffic; the raw info from TV ratings and magazine covers is that Meghan does not generate a lot of interest.
Perhaps Lainey is on Meg's payroll.
It is interesting to think about how the personalities of the parents and the traditions of the BRF play into keeping people in their channels (roles is a nice description but it is more like a long channel, bricked/cemented sides to keep one moving forward until death) .
As a side note, Diana wasn't the first divorced woman to lay the adulting onto the kid but she was very public about it. One wishes someone would have said something abut long term fall out back then but criticism of her didn't happen like what we are seeing today. Given the princes' push for support of mental health, I would hope that her kids might be able to get help now to help deal with the tangled past before it strangles their future more than it is right now.
When I have read about this or that famous family (Bush, Kennedy, Trump, BRF for example), I have often thought how difficult it must be become part of it from the outside. One must become part of the Borg and leave your past behind.
I'm agree with the part of the innocent being made to the heavies as not great but I could see them playing a part if they knew it was part of the end her game.
>>>I really do think William has been made to manage Harry - all the responsibility, none of the hard-ass financial control. He's taken advantage of. The entire shmear - the Fab Four, the Three Musketeers, all of it is sloughing Harry off on William even after William had a family of his own and should have been allowed to leave off babysitting his spoiled, treacherous, self-pitying, resentful younger brother. <<<<
Spoiled, treacherous, self-pitying and resentful pegs H. to a tee. If this were the 17th century, I might expect him to be leading a coup or trying to poison his elder brother. This is NOT how I enjoy thinking about Harry. He used to hero-worship his big brother and somewhere along the line it curdled in a big way. Had H. not gotten embroiled with Smegster, he could be doing such good things with his charities . . William could have given him greater responsibilities within the Royal Foundation. Now, alas, I think their relationship is irretrievably ruined . . and it's all Harry's doing. Meg is the outward cause, but H. himself was the catalyst for this whole sordid state of affairs. He is the one who invited her in to wreak havoc on his family and I think he did it out of a desire to thumb his nose at William as much as for any 'soulmate love' of Meg.
I really feel for William . . .don't know what state things are going to be in when it comes time for him to take over.
Mischi, its funny that we think of the royal family as different (and they are in certain terms), but when it comes down to family dynamics, its the same as in every family!!
"I keep asking myself, why has Harry become so controlling?
"I have photographed him all his life and he has never been like this before. He’s always been full of joy and enthusiastic about all he did.
"The old Harry is no longer there, and he seems to have forgotten that being a royal is a two-way street."
Oh to be a fly on each of their walls.
Mike Tindall? Jack Brooksbank? He looks weedy, but he has been in the bar and pub business for many years, which I'm sure is not for wimps. Pretty Edo Mozzi? Peter Phillips?
As far as MM’s “fan base,” they are no different than Mariah Carey’s “Lambs," Lady Gaga’s, "Little Monsters," or "Trumpsters." All of them, blinded by their fanaticism.
William may have to become more ruthless than is his natural personality if he is to preside over the Family in the future. Lord Geidt is only 57 (born 1961, same as Diana). He will stick around for a while if needed. He terrifies Charles . . but Chas is a delicate snowflake . . Lord G. may have to go underground in the capacity of 'special advisor' to William. With their two forces combined, I think they will be able to roll over dithering Charles . . .
Take out the "younger" and Aunt Jane has also described Edward VIII. And sadly, I'm beginning to think the only way to get out of this for William and the entire BRF is the same way George VI did: exile. Complete, total, here's-your-allowance-don't-ask-for-more-don't-return exile. And for two brothers bound by their mother's death, that's just sad. Really sad. Meghan, so completely clueless in many areas, knew exactly how to play Harry. Pettily evil, nasty woman.
I remember the pictures of PH in Vegas. He was about 29 maybe 28 years old. Old enough to know better. You can let it slide if he were 20 but beyond that, no quarter. The boy is spoiled. And MM has his number. I don’t have a solution. Wish I did. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. Buckle up, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride darlings.
My unproven theory about Harry is he seems to not be playing with the full deck of cards - I dont know if he has a impairment or this is just the result of all the drugs and alcohol, but i can see how Sparkles got her hooks in.
Does anyone see any correlation between Lord Geidt being brought in and the barrage of negative media towards sparkles?
This is supposed to be about H/M. Or at least that's my impression
Who will be the fixer for William's generation?
Hikari is right that Zara seems to be liked and trusted by everyone, including both Charles and William. But does she have the "hatchet man" personality? If she does, she's kept it well-hidden.
I think that is another point we are all missing....literally missing mothers!! The Queen, however great a monarch, was not the typical nurturing mother to PC. William and Harry lost their mother, and MM's mother was absent, as well.....that is why I think that DoC focusing on raising her children is her most important job.
As to Harry and Chelsea, of all his public girlfriends, he seemed the most at ease and natural with her, but this could have been due to their age at the time. Maybe he still hasn't met his perfect mate?
She is really ruining the Monarchy. I have never seen so many negative comments about HM and the rest of the BRF & people wanting a republic. If they let her go through with this faux ‘Christening,’ I’m going to assume that they are continuing to cave into her demands.
Finally, why is nobody in the press calling out the fact that they don’t even live at Frogmore? If I was a citizen of the UK and found out that this was all a lie, I’d be infuriated. I think William is trying his best, but something’s got to give. Soon.
How does one get to be 'the fixer'? The D. of G. looks like a retired college don, not a scary type at all. Guess it's all in the delivery . . .
I suggested Zara because I know she and Wills are very close as cousins and just a year apart in age. Maybe since everyone likes Zara, she can usher in an era where the fixer gets things done with smiles and cajolement, not threats. We'll see. People naturally smile around Zara . . she is very pallsy with Kate and Charles in particular, seems very happy around his niece. Probably thinks of her as the daughter he always wanted. She's not a working royal, but she turns up at all the family functions. Richard, D. of G. is not a working royal, either . . but when one's the fixer, it's a good thing to fly under the radar.
I think Markus, and/or her first husband will be the ones to break cover, but i could be wrong.
Why is Meg, who is technically still on maternity leave, going to South Africa only to sit in a hotel for 10 days surrounded by expensive security while Harry goes to Malawi, Botswana, and Angola?
Why is she taking Artifichie, who would only be about four months old at the time and unable to participate in any events? Prince George was about a year old when he went to Australia, which at least allowed him to hold a stuffed koala and be photographed.
The whole thing is stupid. Also, the idea of a British Royal Family visit to Africa is prickly in the first place for historical reasons. As I've said elsewhere, I do think they have a role in bringing international attention to international issues with a connection to Africa - such as elephant poaching, since the ivory trade is largely fueled by Asian buyers.
But showing up in a couture dress for a party in the fanciest part of Cape Town doesn't benefit anyone but Meg and Givenchy, provided they haven't thrown her overboard yet.
The whole thing is incredibly tone-deaf.
Harry should go by himself if an African tour is really necessary.
William, in particular, is getting a lot of good press from his appearance at the LGBTQ center the other day and his statement (in answer to a question that was almost certainly staged) that he would be open and accepting if one of his kids were gay.
A few thoughts:
The publishing industry is in trouble, with very low profit margins, declining head counts, and editors in a constant race to get clicks. If Meg's PR people provide a mostly packaged story that doesn't require much work from a reporter and will generate a lot of clicks (either love-clicks or hate-clicks), that's very tempting to an editor.
Many PR agencies "bundle" - ie, if you would like to get my client Zendaya for an hot interview about her love life, you'll need to play ball with me on my other clients X, Y, and Z. I don't know which PR agencies Meg uses - probably several, one of which may be Sunshine Sachs - but perhaps they are using their other clients to get the press to run flattering articles about Meg.
Finally, "super-injunctions" are a major factor in the UK media - you can get an injunction not only to prevent you writing about some topic, but to prevent you from writing about the injunction itself.
(The One Direction boy band stars Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson supposedly had a super-injunction to prevent all discussion of their love affair and shared housing situation, since they were being sold as heartthrobs for young women. One random Londoner took a photo of the two stars buying cupcakes in a bakery together and posted it on Twitter; an hour later he posted that lawyers had been harassing him; an hour later his account was gone.)
Is there a super-injunction against writing about some aspect of Meg's past? It seems likely. Of course, a foreign publication could still write about it.
My money is on the Australians. Or maybe the South Africans, depending on her behavior in September.
Also, I know from experience and observation that anyone can become bored and jaded - wealthy and not. I have extremely wealthy friends who contribute their entire lives and a good deal of their money to active charity work. Also, working class friends and coworkers who do nothing but become bored and jaded with a day job they're afraid to leave for another and nights filled with TV and wine. So, there are other sides to the "wealthy people" argument, and I think a more complex evaluation of how one becomes gay might be in order.
@Mischi,
No, they generally didn't . .I've read my E.M. Forster. Though it was not *done* to be widely *known* as a homosexual . . hence all the beard marriages that are still in practice today. The aristocratic classes have always been renowned for their embrace of personal conduct which shocks the bourgeousie. But I'm sure you can agree that were George, in particular, to not marry a woman and have children, it would be a tad touchy for the line of succession after him. Victoria and Elizabeth both became two of England's greatest Queens on account of the designated sovereigns before them not producing heirs, so there are certainly contingency plans in place.
After we see what transpires with Archie ('Archificial' in some quarters . .) ie, if he is indeed a product of surrogacy who is eventually recognized as a legitimate heir (a whopper of an IF at this point) . . perhaps George can stretch the boundaries of royal tolerance even further and have a gay wedding in St. Paul's and then adopt some multiracial children representing the Commonwealth. Or maybe he will eschew his gender altogether and declare themselves non-binary. We live in interesting times and anything can happen!
A two-bit grifter/D-list actress and part-time prostitute is now the Duchess of Sussex . . anything really can happen, and just might.
There have been two bit hustlers and part time prostitutes married to royalty not very long ago. Wallis Simpson comes to mind. I don't remember the floodgates opening afterwards. Because the problem with two bit hustlers are that they are two bit hustlers.
We are occupied with more immediate concerns like: "Will Meghan really still be in the family by the time fall rolls around to go 'on tour'? I'm not sure my nerves can take much more of this drama.
Is the DR part of the Commonwealth? Can a case be made for sending S'MeGain there on a solo tour? If she somehow never made it back to England, wouldn't that be a shame? I bet a lot of celebrities would come to her final service.
The Mail talking about the vulger amounts spent on Frogmore
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7194079/How-Meghan-Harry-spent-2-4m-cottage-TWO-orangeries-floating-floor-cashmere-throws.html
And The Sun highlighting the Harkles have gone through their third nanny in six weeks.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9398006/meghan-markle-prince-harry-three-nannies-six-weeks/
These legacy churches are losing members and losing influence. I think they're just happy to see anybody come through the doors, gay or straight.
What will be possible by the time George is ready to start a family?
It's not out of the question, for example, that the DNA of two same-sex partners could be merged to create a child that is related to both.
There's nothing that makes taxpayers angrier, particularly when they are suffering the effects of austerity themselves.
He needs to make Meghan so widely disliked that no one will be sad to see her go.
It's also odd that the baby's photo has not been circulated. The supposed July 4 date for the Christening has never been officially announced, either.
I see the US media is being fed the line that the marriage is in trouble. This may be a setup for Meg to return to the USA with some baby - any baby, perhaps even a trafficked baby - and resume her life there with a baby that "doesn't see his father" like Tom Cruise and Bradley Cooper.
Also, I notice that the articles are really just a headline matched with a picture and filled out with a little text. Basically just one idea per article. Classic clickbait.
Compare it to the Daily Mail's long piece today about the cost of the Frogmore Cottage, which adds details like the two orangeries, the cost of high-end window glazing, and the elaborate sound system, because "Meghan has spoken of the ‘positive vibes’ she gets from music."
As the Pippa character told the Meghan character on an episode of The Windsors, "Oh, do talk like that, Meghan. British people don't find it at all irritating."
"The 17th-century property will have been rewired, in part to comply with building regulations, but also to allow for the use of the ‘smart’ technology Harry reportedly wanted. This would enable the couple to control lighting, heating and security through an app on their smartphones. They could even open curtains, windows and activate CCTV. "
Dumb idea, as these smart home systems are very easily hacked. In fact, the New York Times ran a piece about a year ago talking about how domestic abusers were using them to harass their former partners, by turning the heat up high and turning the lights on and off.
And how could all those renovations at Frogmore be done without any signs of same? Was a Muggle-repelling charm put on the place? It's not like the BRF can make up stories about what has been done and how much has been spent in the report.
The sequential pregnancy photos at Charlatan Duchess raise so many questions. It's quite possible, I think, that MM lied and said she was pregnant, and by the time the BRF found out, there was little they could do without looking like fools. But if that is the case, then they and Harry are all complicit. It's just so strange. And for no one to have seen MM or talked about the baby or anything, even stranger. Of course, she *is* supposed to be at Wimbledon, but this from the Express: "Entertainment Tonight’s source said that the only way Meghan will not be at the tournament is if “the baby [Archie] keeps her home last minute.” It's like she's been imprisoned.
And instead of this: "Meghan appeared to find the cute gesture of the new shirt for baby Archie hilarious as she was joined by her husband in the locker room at the London Stadium",
t should read "Meghan appeared desperate to seem happy and find the gesture "hysterical" but because of her D+-list-bad-acting skills she just looked fake and attention-seeking"
Get ready, she’s going to be center stage at Wimbledon.
She looks very Doria when zoomed, too, but I also noticed that her nose seems to be sinking in places. Anyone else see that?
Also, something I've wondered about for ages now: when she's doing the double-suction cling-on, what happens if her hands are ripped off Harry's skin suddenly? Does it leave marks? Do the suction cups come off? Will PHs flesh be permanently damaged? Because it does not seem possible to cling to tightly without risk of bodily injury.
@Mischi - It does look like linen, which always wrinkles. It’s one of the fabrics the BRF are encouraged not to wear, for that reason.
I get that her stylists were trying to make her look as slim as possible, with the wide belt, accented in the middle with the metal adornment, but she should have been styled much more casually, in keeping with the event. If she still has too much baby weight from “pregnancy” in the middle for pants, then a summery, flowy dress, with a cute pair of white sneakers would have been a better choice.
I'm not convinced that the dress is linen. Many viscose blends (e.g., wool and viscose), crease as well. The dress is possibly from the fall/winter collection, although Stella McCartney made something similar in 2017.
Smirkle seems to always be wearing samples from the next season.. darks in summer and whites/beige in winter. I am presuming that these are samples since they never fit correctly. Smirkle is short waisted and unless she has sleeved dresses made to measure, nothing will ever fit her properly. (you can see this dress bunching near the armholes). Sleeveless dresses are easier to alter.
We have a semi-'smart' house and last year there were several power cuts. We were absolutely stuck! Not only could we not open any of our doors - they didn't previously have manual locks - but we couldn't do a darn thing in the actual house either. It all sounds very cool until you realise how reliant on power you really are.
I'm calling B.S. She probably didn't like the original carpet that she chose and used this as an excuse to replace it.
'It's almost like an official response to show that they are still in love after this,' Judi added. "
Ya think?
Because it was all mostly on MMs end and her "shy, teenager in love" stuff smells just like Rachel-left-eye-tear-on-3 stuff to me. Harry's teeth are clenched and his lower jaw is jutting out in one of those and she's staring dreamily at his teeth. And he knows he better look happy or he gets the claw. Of course, he gets it anyway.
At the baseball game he cleverly had his hands behind his back, while she stood infront
Nope, no claws today for the 'Duchess of excess'
Judging from the video it also looked as though they exchanged some curt / terse words
MM can pretend all she likes that all is perfect.....but I think Harry (with gritted teeth)......has seen through her little charade.