Nutty Flavor Blog

Most people are deeply influenced by the music, fashions, and culture they experienced in their teenage years - in fact, brain science confirms that we are particularly susceptible to influence during young adulthood. Meghan Markle's deep attachment to the 1990s was clear this week, when her intro to the Vogue UK issue she guest-edited  strongly recalled the narration Carrie Bradshaw read out at the beginning and end of each episode of "Sex in the City." When the show premiered in 1998, Meg was either 17 or 21, depending on which of her birthdates you believe. Dressing like an extra Meg dressed like an extra from "Sex in the City" for most of the following decade - short tight dresses, stiletto heels, long loose hair. And until her engagement to Prince Harry, Meg was regularly sharing Carrie-Charlotte-Miranda-Samantha type images of herself and her girlfriends on exotic vacations, colorful cocktails held high. It could also be argued that both her w...

If the people at Vogue UK were very angry at Meghan Markle - she has, after all, been working with them since January, and must have thrown at least one or two teacups at editorial assistants during all that time - their attempt at revenge might be the newly-published interview with Michelle Obama. The revenge would be not editing it. The text that was released today is breathless, giddy, and overstuffed. In particular, Meg's intro makes her sound like a moron. In formulating the content of the Forces for Change issue, I knew that I wanted to create a magazine that would speak not just to where we are, but to where we hope to be. In doing so, I knew we needed to both open and close strong. Like a beautiful meal: the first bite sets the tone and the final spoonful leaves you satiated, smiling, and sometimes (if you’re dining under the direction of a forward-thinking chef) even inspired. So how could I bring this issue to its logical conclusion? How could I meet that very loft...

Early on Monday Vogue UK released an image of its September issue, edited by the Duchess of Sussex. The issue features 15 women Meg feels are "forces for change", most of with some connection to the entertainment industry. There are no businesswomen on the cover, no scientists or researchers, and only one woman who holds public office. (There is, however, a tiny mirror, so if you've founded a company, are developing lifesaving drugs, or are a member of Parliament or Congress, you can see yourself next to Christy Turlington and Gemma Chan.) Not on the cover, but reportedly inside the magazine, is the sole A+ celebrity. That's Michelle Obama, exclusively interviewed by Meghan. Michelle's motives in agreeing to the interview are unknown. Vogue for change There's certainly some irony in using Vogue UK as a medium to affect "change", since it's raison d'être is to sell a constantly updated carousel of clothing, shoes, and make-up...

When questions are raised about why Meghan and Harry have been allowed to get away with so much, all roads seem to lead back to Prince Charles. Charles reportedly calls Meghan "tungsten", an allusion to one of the hardest metals on Earth. (Only diamonds have a harder rating on the Mohs scale - 9 for tungsten, 10 for diamonds.) That would suggest that he knows very well that Meghan is not the kind, soft-hearted personality she likes to suggest she is. Press manipulation He should also know that she likes to manipulate the press, dating back to the time when she supposedly took photos inside Kensington Palace for sale to the tabloids and he sent her on a plane back to Canada. And Charles must know that she cannot be trusted, given the drama surrounding the wedding, when she insisted that "everything is under control" with relation to her father's appearance, only for it to become a tabloid drama that overshadowed the ceremony. Why, then, doesn't C...

Many readers responded to our previous challenge about reviving Meghan's image by saying it is simply too late to do so. Meghan needs to leave the Royal Family and return to the US, they said, possibly taking Prince Harry with her. But so far, Meghan has shown no inclination to do so. If you were Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Charles, (who is supposedly in charge at the moment), what would you do to encourage her? What type of "exit package" would you offer? And would Harry and Archificial come along? We should probably consider the angle that the Sussexes are currently setting up a foundation which seems to be up to no good, and which could damage the reputation of the Royal Family as a whole. (This question was suggested by reader BooBigly.)

Here's a challenge to consider. You have just been hired as a PR consultant to improve Duchess Meghan's image. You have unlimited funds and the power to do anything - including plan a big confessional interview in which Meg admits her previous mistakes.  What would you do? Which journalists would you involve? Which clothes and hairstyles would you choose? Which Royal Family members would you select to accompany Meg on a potential apology tour? Where should she go on that tour, what type of organizations should she meet with, and what should she say? The goal is to give Meghan a second chance at impressing the British public and the citizens of the Commonwealth, who are her employers. Impressing the US media and Meghan's pre-existing sugars is secondary. 

Last night's premiere of The Lion King presented us with two women, Beyoncé and Meghan, who are a bit bigger than they were a year or two back. That's fine, from my point of view: they're both 37 (although both have been rumored to be older), both recently gave birth (well, at least Beyoncé did), and both are well within healthy weights for their heights. That's where the similarities end, however. Beyoncé appears to be embracing her new figure, turning up in a goldenrod dress that showed off her thicker legs and stronger torso. (In fact, came close to showing off too much of it - the dress kept tumbling off and Beyoncé had to clutch at it to hide her modesty.) Meg, however, seemed to be fighting it with a dress that is clearly a size or two too small. The cheap-looking shiny fabric is straining at the back, and her breasts are flattened and look ready to squeeze out the top of her bodice. Ageing with grace One of the worst things celebrities do is try to c...

I'll be away from my desk today, but for those of you who would like to discuss Meg and Kate's appearance at Wimbledon today, here's a place to do that!

Sitting on an embroidered couch in a receiving room at Windsor Palace, The Duke of Sussex exchanges a smile with his four-month-old son, Archie Harrison. "He's wonderful," he says, holding the baby on his lap and enjoying its healthy grip around his index finger. "I don't want anyone thinking I love him any less because of the manner in which he came to us. This is my son." A mature man and a father Harry is no longer the little boy who walked behind his mother's coffin or the muscular soldier who volunteered for the front lines in Afghanistan. This is a stronger, more mature man - and a father. "When we married, Meghan and I were eager to hit the ground running quickly, and that included starting a family," he says in measured tones. "The truth is, both of us had experienced medical problems which affected our fertility. I don't want to be more explicit than that.  "But I can say that the ordinary way of bringing a...

Supposedly Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born on May 6, 2019. Maybe someone was born on that day, but it's not this kid that Meghan is toting around today at a polo match, just 8 weeks later. This kid is least 4 months old, and possibly as old as 6 months. More photos here in The Sun , including some awkward-looking ones where Meghan tries to kiss the baby. She looks like a newly-hired babysitter or a single, happily child-free aunt meeting the kid for the first time. Zero parental connection. Born in January? Anyway, it all lends more credence to the theory that not only was Archie born via surrogate, but that he was born in January, not May. That would suggest, of course, a massive lie by the British Royal Family. The birth announcement! On the easel! And the Christening! And the photos! But more sadly, it suggests that after 6 months his 'mom' has not bonded with him. That's really concerning. It's just gossip for us, but for this kid...

There's an old joke among journalists that the world's dullest headline is "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative". Nobody wants to read about charity and good deeds. Our brains are hard-wired to seek out news about conflict, and we particularly enjoy conflict that includes the 7 Deadly Sins: lust, greed, envy, gluttony, pride, wrath and sloth. The Meghan Markle saga contains most of the seven deadly sins, with the possible exception of sloth, although Harry might be able to take over that one. But Meghan's proposed column for Vogue - both US and UK Vogue - would not. It is supposed to be about her "charity work." In other words, Worthwhile Canadian Initiative. I can see why she would be interested in writing it, but I can't imagine who would be interested in reading it. ----------------- Edit: The Sun reports today that Meghan has " turned down the offer to become a Vogue columnist "in order to focus on her Royal duties. That, dea...

It was no surprise to followers of the Duchess of Sussex's fashion when Vanity Fair revealed recently that the Duchess does not have a stylist - "she does most of it herself," the article read. Meg's persistently poor choices in clothes and their lack of tailoring and fit would reflect badly on any professional stylist. Back in the days right after her wedding, she did seem to have someone with a trained eye assisting her  - she had a relatively attractive wardrobe for her trip to Ireland, for example. Perhaps that person quit out of frustration. Meg likes to do things her way. Meg also reportedly does her own hair (her wigs?) as well as her own makeup (lots and lots of bronzer) whenever weepy make-up artist Daniel Martin is not around for tea and avocado toast. But these do not seem to be the only professional roles Meg has been taking on, or perhaps taking away from the people hired to do them. The bad PR article placement There are also signs that Me...

Just a few quick thoughts on the photos from today's baptism of Archie Harrison. - This baby looks older than 8 weeks. He holds his head up well, a bit like a 3 or 4 month old would. - If the baby does indeed have Meghan's and Harry's DNA, Doria's DNA is not particularly visible at this point. That can certainly change; many babies with African heritage become darker as they turn into toddlers and older children. Right now, however, the baby appears to have European coloring. - William looks over it. Kate's smile is forced. Doria looks elegant, as always. The two Spencer sisters look happy to be included, including the one who looks like she got her Panama hat from a tourist shop along with some sunblock while sightseeing. Where was their brother, the head of the Spencer family? - Otherwise, these are standard-issue baptism photos. Why was there so much drama about keeping everything private? - I see the second photo was black and white with the parents...

Why don't British journalists reveal what they know about Meghan? Probably because most royal reporters are middle-aged careerists with mortgages and school fees to pay; why throw it all away for a few quick scoops about a woman most hope will soon be forgotten? From the May 11, 2018 newsletter - one week before the wedding So instead, they write passive-aggressive pieces about costly dresses and overpriced home renovations and the lack of baby pictures, carefully edging their way around the fact that is slowly becoming clear to all: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is taking shameless advantage of the Royal family. And the future king Charles doesn't have the spine to stop it. While they don't publish pieces about Meg's merching or Harry's drug habit in their own outlets, the reporters do talk to Popb*tch. Two people in an office in London If you're not familiar with Popb*tch, it's a low-tech weekly email newsletter that has been distributed on Thursd...

When you are the parent of a newborn child, there are a few good reasons to have it baptized. If you're an observant Christian, for example, you'll want your child to have the advantages of one of the seven Sacraments that will set them on the path to Eternal Life. Even if you're only a cafeteria Christian - taking what you like and leaving the rest behind - a baptism can be a lovely occasion to celebrate the birth with your family and friends. But what if you don't care much for the Christian religion, you're at odds with your family, and you've ghosted most of your friends? Why bother with a baptism at all? The private baptism While nothing has appeared on the court calendar, there have been reports that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will baptise their son Archie on Saturday, July 6. The baptism will supposedly be "private", attended by only 25 people, and held in the Queen's private chapel at Windsor Castle . It's not unusu...