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.
Archie, or whomever is playing the part of Archie this week, doesn't need a rescue dog. He's less than four months old.
He needs something to eat, a safe place to sleep, and warm loving arms to hold him. (Apparently not Meghan's, based on the baptism photos, but perhaps we haven't seen the true extent of their mother-child relationship.)
A PR pro would know that the rescue dog story was poorly timed and didn't make sense. (Maybe an alternate story about some celebrity giving Archie a dog-patterned blanket or onesie?)
What is a baby going to do with a dog that's probably bigger than it is?
But Meg is trying to push her dog credentials - the late lamented Guy is described as alive and well in the Sun article - so she may have also been the source of the rescue dog adoption news.
There are more tells, including a tone to the text that sounds like what Camilla Long of the Times UK calls "a sanctimonious monthly social awareness approach" that feels "entirely detached from reality."
"It's a syrupy, fantasist's medley of sub-Beyoncéan baloney...a selection of vague, non-commital subjects."
Sounds like Meghan to a T.
And the photo choice for the account also seems to reflect Meghan's point of view: there is a great deal of her looking at Harry or Harry looking at her, as opposed to either one of them sincerely interacting with their employers, the people of the UK and the Commonwealth.
Whether or not you believe the whole image is a fake, Meg's hair looks like it has been colored in with a black Sharpie - there are no light reflections at all.
No Photoshop professional would do that. But Meg might.
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 Meg has been doing her own public relations work. Today The Sun ran a piece, echoed in the New York Post's Page Six plus the Australian media that Meg was considering buying a rescue dog for Archie.Archie, or whomever is playing the part of Archie this week, doesn't need a rescue dog. He's less than four months old.
He needs something to eat, a safe place to sleep, and warm loving arms to hold him. (Apparently not Meghan's, based on the baptism photos, but perhaps we haven't seen the true extent of their mother-child relationship.)
A PR pro would know that the rescue dog story was poorly timed and didn't make sense. (Maybe an alternate story about some celebrity giving Archie a dog-patterned blanket or onesie?)
What is a baby going to do with a dog that's probably bigger than it is?
But Meg is trying to push her dog credentials - the late lamented Guy is described as alive and well in the Sun article - so she may have also been the source of the rescue dog adoption news.
The Instagram Account
The detail that @SussexRoyal Instagram texts consistently use American spelling has been seen as evidence Meg is writing them herself, instead of relying on a British social media expert.There are more tells, including a tone to the text that sounds like what Camilla Long of the Times UK calls "a sanctimonious monthly social awareness approach" that feels "entirely detached from reality."
"It's a syrupy, fantasist's medley of sub-Beyoncéan baloney...a selection of vague, non-commital subjects."
Sounds like Meghan to a T.
And the photo choice for the account also seems to reflect Meghan's point of view: there is a great deal of her looking at Harry or Harry looking at her, as opposed to either one of them sincerely interacting with their employers, the people of the UK and the Commonwealth.
The Black Sharpie
Some of the less competent Photoshop work done on this week's baptismal picture may have been Meghan's handiwork as well.Whether or not you believe the whole image is a fake, Meg's hair looks like it has been colored in with a black Sharpie - there are no light reflections at all.
No Photoshop professional would do that. But Meg might.
The social media comments
While The Strong Write PR Twitter account (currently set to private) is often assumed to be Meg's, she also appears to be commenting on others' stories using a variety of pseudonyms.
In the Daily Mail comments, "April Brown" from Colorado and "Unemployed from Bongor" and "Bingofan" as well as "Debunker 36" and "Citydweller" can be counted to turn up on any given story and sing Meghan's praises.
It's always hard to tell if these commenters are real Meg fans with an enormous amount of time on their hands, paid sock puppets (easy to purchase online), or Meghan herself.
The CDAN connection
Social Media Shark Meghan can boast one major hit when it comes to getting her message across using online placement; the gossip about William and Rose Hanbury has had surprising longevity, and somebody is feeding it to Enty.
(Enty has frequently confessed on his podcast that he has no Royal sources, and only knows original Royal gossip when it relates to Los Angeles, such as Meghan's house search there. Somebody is feeding him Rose stuff. It would be interesting to know who, and why.)
On yesterday's item suggesting Rose will be divorcing her husband soon and is still seeing William, there were two commenters I'd never seen before - "Meredith" and "Samantha."
That's an oddly uniform name choice for a site where people call themselves things like "CheeseGrater15" and "Count Jerkula".
(Meredith's profile is private. Samantha's is brand new.)
(Meredith's profile is private. Samantha's is brand new.)
Getting her hands dirty
Anyway, Meredith and Samantha are big Meg supporters. "Meghan looks good in white or ivory. She wears it a lot lately. Is she making that her signature look?" asked Samantha.
Neither Meredith nor Samantha thought much of Kate's outfit or shoes. "It is a bit too short," said Meredith. "The hat was a little strange, and the shoes didn't seem to match the dress," said Samantha.
The ladies also interacted and argued with each other about Kate's role in the affair. Both seemed to be certain that the report was correct and William was still seeing Rose.
Are any of these commenters really Meghan Markle, or someone paid by Meghan Markle? Impossible to know.
But it wouldn't be out of character for a royal who was ready to "get her hands dirty" and to do things herself.
Comments
For example, it would be a great idea for her to leverage her Royal Theater patronage by directing a play for young people - perhaps something that would mix kids from different racial backgrounds and economic classes in a classic British play. (She might not be up to Shakespeare, but she could do David Hare or Joe Orton or Tom Stoppard) We could follow the play as she casts it, begins rehearsals, and ultimately presents it to the kids' families and friends.
Or they could go for a humorous approach - Meg the chef tried to cook Harry a traditional British dish and did a horrible job of it, or misunderstood some aspect of British nature or culture (as she did when wearing Wellingtons in downtown London early in their courtship.) That would go a long way towards making her more accessible to the UK public.
You know, a PR pro can come up with this kind of thing. That's their job. Meg should let them do their jobs.
A good communications professional could come up with some earned media that would address her actual audience, the people of the UK and the Commonwealth.
But that would require listening to someone else instead of doing everything her own way, which is not how Meg rolls.
I agree with others that she has no interest in the UK or Commonwealth whatsoever; neither its people, nor its history and traditions. Her decision to not attend the D-Day anniversary ceremonies whilst making time to attend a baseball game is proof of that.
But this just leads me back to my usual question, i.e., why are the Queen and Charles allowing this? We know that the Queen insisted that Sophie , Countess of Wessex, fall into line. I just don't get it.
I spotted the 'rescue' dog article too this morning and had to roll my eyes. Whether shes getting help with Archie or not, the last thing you need is another pet when all the baby knows is food, pooing and sleeping. MegCon is building her own narrative...cookie cut lifestyle in a cottage with a new born. Why is she trying so hard? enjoy the moment and calm down. I can't understand how showing up to Wimbledon in stained jeans and a see-through top and rocking up at a baseball game would be seen as necessary to anyone? To me it doesn't come across as a new mother to her first baby but a orchestrated media move.
I would also like to add my friend from Uni's parents live near Frogmore House (Adelaide Square) and like most burrors are protective of the land and occupants. I asked her a few days ago to ask them if they'd heard any mention of MegCon and Harrsilly in the area...apparently nadar. No-ones heard anything, no staff, no vehicles, no activity.
As I say on CDAN in my response to another question today, Markle has had tax problems in the past and given her mysterious merching income will probably have tax problems in the future.
US expats are supposed to declare the value of housing provided by their employer on their 1040s - Markle's was due June 15, unless she filed for an extension.
If the IRS examines her return for any reason, I'm sure they'd find plenty of irregularities related to Frogmore Cottage.
I also don't think there was a financial angle to Sophie's misdeeds, the way there may be with Markle's.
Finally, Edward wasn't involved in Sophie's mess (although he had plenty of messes of his own.) Harry may very well be involved in whatever Meghan is up to.
Yes, she did . . on instructions from Meghan, 100% positive. In fact, Katie probably just edits (nominally) copy that Smegs sends her and submits it verbatim. Interesting that this article appears the day after the christening, with the two photos being widely mocked by people with eyes who have not drug the Meg-Ade. Katie covers a number of other topics, including the couple's glittering international tours which were such successes for Britain (koff), their compassionate 'charity work' via their Instagram account (koffkoff), their glorious new digs at Frogmore (I think I need a doctor . .), Baby Archie of course and how over the moon they both are at their perfect infant . . it goes on.
All public figures engage in a little positive self-promotion from time to time; goes with the territory. But what we are seeing from the Smeaghan camp is so utterly disconnected from reality, it is stupefying. In our InstaTweet, relentlessly merching age where every bit of information is for sale, does NO ONE in the business care about journalistic integrity anymore? I didn't think that reputable (once reputable) publications could print balls-out fiction day after day after day like this without consequences. I mean, from a self-regulating standpoint--censuring/firing the 'reporters' responsible. Isn't this proof that Katie Nicholl and others like her, not to mention the publications they represent, are taking money to reproduce flagrant lies?
Woodward and Bernstein, we need you! It's to the point were I no longer trust or want to read *any* so-called 'news' at all.
If you are familiar with the movie Shattered Glass starring Hayden Christiansen, it depicts the sailing close to the wind, acclaim and eventual downfall of a young reporter at the The New Republic. Glass's pieces were the talk of the town . . not only his facility with words and images, but his incredible scoops. It was later discovered that Glass had fudged nearly all of his pieces, with only the barest bones of actual fact holding them up. The story was broken by an intrepid reporter for a small and insignificant online magazine. This was back in the late 1990s, when the fifth estate was just getting started, and the zeal was high to make online journalism the new Woodstein era Washington Post in holding the traditional print media accountable. How nostalgic is all is, since 15 or so years later . . online media is the very depths of the swamp for journalistic integrity. But with many, if not most, print publications closing shop on their unprofitable print editions to focus exclusively on their digital editions, that line between formats isn't just blurred; it's gone.
Stephen Glass was swiftly fired from his job at TNR and faced criminal investigation for fraud. Like Smeaghan, I peg him for a narcissist, though of the vulnerable/fragile variety, rather than the malignant variety. His con started because he was afraid to let his editor down with subpar, 'boring' pieces, and wanted to be liked and respected in his field, where he was a young pup of only 25. His recurring refrain in the film: "Are you mad at me?" Glass enjoyed the attention of being a boy wonder, but he was operating more from a place of being a people-pleaser, at least at the start. He got a taste of success, faux though it was, and couldn't stop.
Smeaghan wants to be 'popular' and adored and envied and copied; she doesn't care a whit about being 'liked', however. She exists in a permanent high school girl mentality where to be the reigning Queen Bee of popularity has little to do with being liked. Envied, yes. Envied and respected but it's a respect coming from a place of fear and/or jealousy in others. Genuinely good, kind, authentic people very, very rarely are catapulted to the upper echelons of popularity, in school or the adult world, either. Truly nice, good, authentic people do not have the stomach for utter ruthlessless which is required. Both Smeaghan and Glass operate from a place where the *appearance* of authenticity gains one the perks of the real thing with only a fraction of the work.
Steven Glass had psychological problems, but he was a far superior writer to Smeaghan. Her copy is instantly recognizable by the same repetitive, grandiose phrases. She's delusional and ruthless--a bad combination--but unlike other delusional, ruthless narcissists we could mention (a number of world dictators come to mind), she completely lacks the necessary personal magnetism and charisma to sway people to her will. She can buy people to say and print what she wants to disseminate about herself, but even with dipping into Royal funds to do it, it doesn't seem like there's enough money in the world to buy as many magazines and outlets as she's bought. SM bots are cheap; they work for pennies, most of them being from developing countries. Even so, to purchase 6 million IG followers at even a dollar apiece would add up. Not to mention all these formerly esteemed flagship magazines. It's like the entire universe has entered some sort of twisted wormhole where the Duchess of Smirkle has absolute power in controlling her own narrative. She's not that good. Nobody that meets her in person can believe that she's pulling it off because they've met the incredibly gauche real thing. The rest of us, all we get are smoke & Meghan's mirrors.
Here's a supreme irony for you: The magazine that dedicated a long piece to the saga of Stephen Glass and his downfall? Vanity Fair.
https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/09/bissinger199809
As for HM, PC, etc., I hate to say this, but I think they have adopted a "hands off" policy with MM due to the potential for racial allegations being slung around. As I think someone here has observed before, the royals have probably decided to back-off and let MM screw herself over.
"So these renovations appear in the accounts produced by the Duchy of Cornwall or some other institution. Has there been some fraud perpetrated regarding the amounts supposedly spent on the Frogmore Cottage renovations? And if so, where has that money gone?"
*************
That was the burning question for me, and the centerpiece of my thesis in a previous entry that for this amount of money to just go 'poof', with nothing to show for it in terms of purchases made at Frogmore . . MM has got to have some sort of collusion from within the Royal family, no? By all accounts, Harry's been going around like a hobo because he has lost his valet. Meg 'styles herself', with predictable results, and the couple has no household staff nor evidently a nanny for their baby. And yet 2.3 million pounds have supposedly gone into FC . . and the Sussexes are allegedly living in remodeled splendor with Archie by themselves? Also apparently incorporeal, since nobody has seen them at all around there.
Meg's a grifter, but padding one's expense account for clothing is a lot different than claiming massive reno work on a public trust building. There should be visual evidence of the expenditures. She couldn't just ring up Charles's banker and say "I need 3 million dollars for my new house". Doesn't work that way.
Renovations for FC had been in the works long before HM 'gifted' the property to the couple. Shouldn't she have been kept apprised of its progress? And Charles? to see where he money was going? The point is, this amount of money shouldn't be available to Harry's wife to just spend up. Where's the paper trail? The receipts? The items?
Fraud on this massive a scale can't be tucked under the carpet . . unless someone much higher up the chain than the Sussexes are in on it.
That's why I suggested money laundering. Why is there no mention of this in the press, unless the family is colluding?
That said, were the renovations genuine, 2.3 million pounds is quite modest, for the sheer magnitude and comprehensiveness the property required to make habitable.
But it's understandable. When you've based your whole life on your (average) looks and your (questionable) sex appeal, the approach of age 40 ( or age 40 a couple years in your rear view mirror) and it's attendant grey hairs, sagging parts, and so on must be the worst thing that's ever happened to her.
Vanity Fair plays an interesting role in the Meghan saga, since of course its longtime editor Graydon Carter resigned on September 7, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/business/media/graydon-carter-vanity-fair.html
That was the day after Meghan's Vanity Fair cover story:
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/meghan-markle-cover-story
Graydon Carter is also caught up in the Epstein case, having removed some info from a VF article at the last minute at Epstein's request. The information stated that Epstein had assaulted a 16 year old girl.
To Der Speigel's credit, they sent another reporter to re-report some of the stories, which turned out much more pleasant.
But Glass was not unique. There was also Jayson Blair at the New York Times, and Janet Cooke at the Washington Post.
Bluestar, I don't mind if the conversation wanders a bit, as long as it wanders back to the Sussexes, which is the reason we're all here.
It helps put the whole story into perspective.
Yes, they were long, and I had to split them into three parts. I appreciate that a lot of people don't want to read lengthy comments, though the Scroll feature is always an option. I would respectfully disagree that I was off-topic, since Nutty's theme in this entry is MM's consistent manipulation of social media across platforms to burnish her own image. Since there's nothing real there, and she's a hollow suit with no real achievement to her name, she's all about her image, and what she can convince people, via inflated puff pieces and purchased SM followers, that she is a person of substance, importance, and a real world influencer. Her tactics worked to snag Harry, but this community is just one of the proofs that the world is weary of the charade put on by this delusional woman and her dim spouse. It is obvious that none of their actions match their words, but the media, by and large continue to insist upon Meghan's own version of herself as the truth. In actuality, this Duchess has no clothes, just like Frogmore doesn't have any new floating yoga floor or vegan nursery.
I was attempting to compare MM's sway over the media to paint a completely false image of herself with another narcissistic word spinner of 20 years ago. There are decided similarities between them, but in SG's case, only one magazine was duped by his fabrications, not the literally hundreds that are spinning Meg's spin for her. Also the response was completely different: Glass was fired and criminally investigated. I am not alone in wondering what is taking so long, since a number of MM's frauds have come to light, to see her reap negative consequences for what she has sowed, and get her 'fired' from the family she's conning and embezzling from.
I think it has a lot to do with the slippage of not only journalistic ethics, but a decline in morality worldwide, and in its place, cultural obsession with materialism and being famous for no other reason than being famous, even if you have to sell yourself to get it or buy it via other means. Meg is the product of this culture, and a particularly egregious example of it.
If you can track down that Vanity Fair article, I encourage you to read it. MM's middle name truly is Shameless. Her tenure will be remembered as a very dark time for the Royal family. The mystery endures as to how she's managed to get this far. I wove in the story of Steven Glass because Vanity Fair published an expose of him in 1998, and 21 years later, they are lapping up whatever lies MM wants to shovel out, in exchange for a fee, of course. I call that a pretty devastating turnaround, ethics-wise. Just a caveat lector to anybody reading any media outlets these days, but MM seems to have tainted a very large pool of formerly reliable magazines. Basically every American fashion/lifestyle mag appears to be in the tank for her.
Maybe one day I will be able to start a blog of my own, and I can only hope it will be as high-quality and lively as Nutty's. I'm just glad to be here. If she feels my comments are off-topic, I will delete as needed.
MM is all over the shop...she can't seem to concentrate on anything with any degree of dedication or investment, except poor Harry
I for one, would be focusing on the baby, trying to find a decent nanny that can tolerate them both, not thinking about another dog
And i haven't stopped laughing about the Christening photo...her hair 'sharpie' that is a perfect description, her hair just looks soooooo bad it is ridiculous...why??
Why would you try and pass off something so amateurish to millions of people...the audacity of MM is beyond the pail
I think that MM is trying to 'wearing all hats' & the micromanaging has become hilarious...she must be running around like a lunatic trying to make it all happen, inbetween breastfeeding (with breast that look like they have never produced an ounce of milk)
I will never forget the 'banana loaf brick' she tried to serve those poor Aussi Queenslanders.
I have never seen such a sad looking banana loaf.
But to her credit, at least she didn't write a 'sweet little note' on the banana loaf
From her brief history with banana's, it does seem like she doesn't relate well to them, they just don't seem to be her thing
I really should proof read before i hit the publish button...haha
After the recent avalanche of Meghan fluff PR in the papers, I've started to wonder just how much is being spent on this relentless push.
We're all already pretty pissed off about how much has been spent on her (third) wedding, Frogmore Cottage (Especially considering they don't seem to live there) and her tacky wardrobe and jewellery, but I want to know exactly how much money has been handed over to try and force us here in Blighty to love her. A fruitless endeavour, I may add.
Sara Latham is clearly shite at her job. I always thought hiring an American was an odd choice, as our countries are very different in a lot of ways. A British agent would have been the better choice. Giving the job (in this time of high unemployment) to a British person would have been a good move, for a start. The fact that said Brit would understand the people they are selling to, know the history of the BRF and the love and respect that the people .... had. They would understand how our media works.
SL seems to have no idea of how the game works here and I wonder if she was bought on primarily to sell MM to the US market for her triumphant return as 'America's Princess' when the inevitable divorce goes through.
At this point they are throwing away good money after bad. But it's only the tax payers picking up the bill, so who cares, right?
Re: Frogmore: I agree that the whole thing is fishy & nobody is living there. The taxpayers are already up in arms about the cost, so what’s going to happen when the truth finally emerges? IMO, the renovations were never done. It’s a scam.
People are tsk, tsking at MM at Wimbledon elsewhere--the common folk, that is. Until the CEO of her Firm or Her deputies publicly decry MM and oust her, we are just going to keep seeing more of this. She's embezzling and defrauding them on the world stage and the Queen, Charles, and the courtiers are permitting it.
Frogmore really sticks in my craw as a potentially separate volatile issue. This is one area in which I feel that MM is potentially innocent . . or as innocent as MM gets. I wouldn't put it past her at all to demand the very most expensive home furnishings and interiors, but my question remains--there's no way she personally is handling all the contractors for the work. Their invoices have to go directly to Charles's representatives . . so where is the follow-up to supervise the work? Harry's wife cannot just take 2.3 million pounds of Duchy of Cornwall's money off her own bat and claim 'home renovations'. HM and Charles would want to *see* it with their own eyes, not to mention, HM's auditors. If there's nothing there, how does MM explain it? What kind of lame accounting practices are in place if Megs can have carte blanche with all the funds, not just the Sussex allowance, but that much of Charles' money, without oversight? Given her spending record, particularly?
If FC is indeed the 'empty house' the continued tolerance of the Sussexes; extravagance is beyond baffling. If not a money-laundering scheme in progress in echelons higher than Smegs, I would suspect Charles of purposefully tanking his own ascension. Maybe he's come to the conclusion that he doesn't want to be King after all, but doesn't know how to say it.
‘Samantha’ went crazy on me, & sent a nasty response saying ‘so what, it doesn’t matter.’ Of course it matters because I for one, don’t believe that a Christening ever occurred, and if it did, she presumably would’ve used the Royal Christening gown. (Unless this is another case of the BRF giving her enough rope to hang herself.)
Shows that she also has very little interest in the Commonwealth because she spells it without using a capital C ( commonwealth)
Any half intelligent person, even with a mediocre education wouldn't make such a basic mistake, especially when running an international social media page
It's insulting.
I know, it is all so 'off the wall' and bizarre that I'm sure people think we are the ones wearing tin foil hats! haa haa
But there is evidence
Especially the TOC .....the carriage ride (obviously hell for Harry,Camilla & Kate) MM seemed to be the only one enjoying herself!
The 'turn around' was harsh, but in retrospect, fair
And her latest gig at Wimbledon with her strange behaviour plonking on the hat backwards...acting very stoned ( i use the term 'acting' loosely with MM, because it is evident that she cannot act very well)
It's all there if you know what to look for
The proof is in the pudding ; )
Hiring a British PR would have been a savvy move
It would have shown some foresight and intelligence and the ability to assimilate into your new country, embracing the Royals & the British citizens
Common sense is severely lacking when it concerns MM
Perhaps she feels she can better manipulate the American PR company to her own advantage, which in fact is clearly becoming a disadvantage.
I'm flummoxed.
A pro social media person would make sure his or her posts had 2-3 different sets of eyeballs to pick out dumb typos, incorrect tags and links (of which Meg has had many), and anything that might be offensive in a diplomatic sense.
She clearly has none of those things. She's a one-man band.
Thank Goodness she hasn't said anything yet that would offend a Commonwealth government, but she has done idiotic things like unfollow the Invictus Games and fail to add Harry's own conservation charities to her "environmental month" follows.
So predictable... my daily soap opera though ;-)
No way is she submitting bogus receipts for work done or not done. She probably never sees an invoice. Neither does Harry.
Apparently meghan made Kate cry at Archie's christening rehearsal. Here it is.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle held a very private christening ceremony for baby Archie and, while the public will never know what went on behind closed doors, there are reports swirling that there was some drama at the rehearsal for the christening. Did Markle really make Kate Middleton cry?
According to a report from New Idea, Middleton was bothered that Prince Harry and Markle were able to have a private baptism ceremony as she and Prince William have to follow royal protocol and Harry and Markle can “play by their own rules.”
If the rumors are to be believed, Markle allegedly confronted Middleton at the rehearsal for Archie’s christening and had a “heated” warning, as a Buckingham Palace source told the outlet: “Tensions have been brewing between Kate and Meghan for a while, so no-one was surprised that it all boiled over at the christening rehearsal. Meghan basically went after Kate while there was a break in the rehearsal — it was very heated and the whole Palace is talking about it.”
It started when Meghan asked Kate not to do anything to steal her thunder at the christening. Kate was pretty taken aback and said she would never do that, which only set Meghan off more,” the source shared.
Markle was also reportedly upset about Middleton going to see her friend Serena Williams at Wimbledon. The whole exchange left Middleton in tears, with the insider noting: “Kate was very upset after and was visibly shaken. She knows Meghan is emotional at the moment and was taking everything out on her at the rehearsal, but it didn’t make it any easier to take.”
The source added: “She tried to keep it in but ended up leaving the rehearsal in tears and Prince William had to comfort her. It was awful.”
Royal fans may recall rumors that Markle reportedly made Middleton cry when they fought over Princess Charlotte’s dress for Markle’s wedding to Prince Harry. Sources shared that Middleton was “left in tears” over the incident.
Oh boy oh boy. I really hope this is not true but judging by their reactions in the official photos there is certainly bad blood between them all. If this does turn out to be true then I hope her fans start to really see her for the bullying, self obsessed, raging lunatic that she is.
If I don't want to read something I think is too long, I just scroll on.
One wonders how long this hands-off policy will continue. It's already been 2 years, if we count the pre-engagement period, when she was already posing for magazines, giving interviews and making Harry release 'official palace press statements' to make the media 'be nice to his girlfriend.'
In the run-up to the wedding, she alienated all of Harry's friends, as well as all her soon-to-be marriage family. She revealed her true colors with ridiculous diva demands for the wedding. Since the marriage, she is doing her very best to run the Crown into the ground financially and has just about used up the good will reserves of the British people, not just for 'the Sussex brand' but for the monarchy in general. If a regular British citizen or a foreign power was attempting the same, the security services would be dealing with the responsible parties. Charges of treason would likely be brought against British nationals. Yet, Harry's wife tramples through their well-mannered and regimented world like a banshee and there are no consequences.
Smeaghan seems to be like Teflon . . she's not screwing herself over so much as she's screwing them over. Royally, and in ways that will linger on for years even after she's gone. If she ever is. The distrust and feelings of betrayal run that deep, I imagine, and I'm not even a subject.
As for her current tax situation, is the Duchy of Cornwall her employer for tax purposes? Does she actually have an employer?
But if she already has a dog, why does she need another dog just for the baby?
And anyway, she refused the offer of a dog from Mayhew, stating that she was too busy being pregnant. Surely she is more busy with the actual baby, not less.
l think that is horrible and maybe that is why Wills was on edge in that photo.. Actually no one looks happy in the photo, except Camilla...
You said: "Do you really think she's hiring her own contractors? They are regulars used by the crown with extensive background checks on all employees . No way would they be involved with money laundering or ripping off the crown.
No way is she submitting bogus receipts for work done or not done. She probably never sees an invoice. Neither does Harry."
************
I am in agreement with you. Let me clarify my position viz. Frogmore. In this instance, I think we are talking a level of expenditure and layers of accountability which would stymie even Smarkle's creative fiscal efforts. It may have been hard to tell, given that I don't have anything good to say about her, but I do not think that she and Harry are personally responsible for running the reno tab at FC to 2.3 million pounds. Harry would not be entrusted with that kind of sum, and his wife certainly wouldn't.
This is why FC deeply unsettles me, because it seems to indicate that these matters are well above the heads of the Sussexes. Renovation work (ostensibly) had begun, or at least applied for and approved before HM announced that the Sussex couple was getting the cottage. At that state, the major contractors (electricians, plasterers, carpenters, plumbers, et. al,) would have been dispatched to start work. Charles or HM or someone acting on their behalf would have given those orders, and the bills gone directly to BP and/or Charles's accountants.
Given the sheer magnitude of work to be done, I'd say the 2.3 mil estimate, not to mention the time frame was much too low/short. More like 5 mill and a full year to outfit that place for a single-family royal dwelling.
Meghan's only level of discretionary spending (and they would have been insane to give her that much) would have been for cosmetic things like the vegan paint or the soft furnishings. If they had to entirely furnish the house, too . . .well, that's a lot more than 2.3 mil required. And in this case, were the renovations genuine, I wouldn't have faulted them spending to make the place nice for their baby. After all, HM allegedly was basically exiling them there, but had already approved extensive work.
What I'm wondering is . . . is there a 2.3 mil discrepancy *spent/diverted by someone else in the Royal family* who is using the Frogmore/Meghan's extravagance as a cover? And what this senior, highly placed person has done is so scandalous, that's why the Sussexes are going to such lengths to fluff out the tale of their renovations? Because they were told they had to, and if they went along with it, Meg could spend all she likes on clothes and baby showers in New York?
If the refurbing of FC is a demonstrable lie, then for once Megs is being blamed for spending money that she hasn't, do you see what I mean? She is a useful distraction, possibly, to cover up the real culprit. Meanwhile, I am convinced that Harry at least is living in Windsor Castle apartments. Maybe Megs is bunking with the Clooneys, but neither of them appear to be at Frogmore with Archie, poor mite. Archie might be in a box under some servants' stairs at Windsor Castle for all we know.
I don't know who would be guilty of this . . .but Charles would know. He *must* know . . it's his money, after all.
I know I write long. It's the aspiring novelist in me. I'd never be able to cope on Twitter with only 140 characters to use. It's just that when I get a conundrum between my teeth like this one, I can't let it go. I have a need to analyze and understand the 'why' of things, and with this, I just don't. Every day brings fresh outrages to our collective intelligence. Writing is my way of working it out for myself.
When this full story is finally written, it's going to be a doozy. I think even Edward and Mrs. Simpson will pale in comparison, because after all, they basically went away for good after a couple of years. We are already at that point now.
And this woman has sole charge of an infant. That is very comforting . . .!
Personally, I think not when I first read of it.
Kate looked a little like Ok, yeah just take the picture, I'm over this (which is really hard to pull off if your were crying/still steamy mad) and PW is a little smirky.
When exactly would this rehearsal have been? Wasn't PC and C out of the area the day before? I've been to a lot of christenings and never have I heard of a full blown rehearsal needed. And everyone (we know of who was there) has been to one or more christenings and most also to a royal one or two.
For the Archbishop, this is not his first time with the water. I could see him perhaps wanting to review all the particulars of the various names but that isn't anything someone under him could not verify as he, too, was out of the area the day before.
Why would a rehearsal be needed? Staff are usually on top of who needs to be where in a procession by rank. So why take time out of everyone's busy day to do this which everyone could have done almost in their sleep?
On the other hand, a lot of drama does seem to trail MM on a regular basis. A lot of drama where everyone else around with claims that they are jealous of her and are doing/saying spiteful things to hurt and just make her look bad. It's funny how this isn't the kinds of things we were reading about any of these people three years ago so either, after many years we are just now seeing their real colors without any sort of precursor nasty behaviors ... or ... the pot is being stirred or projected from some place else and these people are the collateral.
but this is just an opinion and I know none of the players
Vogue is not the first one I think of humanitarian articles which I thought was her goal (as Diana 2.0). She has worn a lot of clothing which doesn't always make her look as pulled together so I would have a hard time buying a pitch that says she's the leading edge for where fashion is headed so you need to get a subscription.
OTOH, maybe she wants to do something like what she did for Tig but through the magazine? Not sure if that would be ok with the grey suits considering she closed Tig.
And yes regarding the stealing her thunder comment if ever she did say that, considering it was a highly private affair how could the doc do that. But then knowing meghan's seemingly desperate state of mind recently I could imagine that it would not take an awful lot for her to get enraged about something like that, considering how desperate she is to be center of attention all the time.
"I hire people brighter than me and get out of their way." - Lee Iacocca
She can't do it all.
I didn't pay much attention to the Photoshop until I did a double take at the pics of Archie because they looked like 2 different babies to me. I thought I was crazy until I saw KayCe's comment. For me it was the babies' cheeks and head shapes. Maybe Photoshop explains it? Everything is just so opaque and insincere with Sparkles.
I really am not for conspiracy theories but I find taking things at face value with Sparkles impossible. In the pic, the rug borders look off along Will's and Kate's feet. Why would that even be a thing? The pic shows a united front but perhaps it is severely manufactured. The secrecy makes it hard to check for timelines especially not knowing when Doria was around.
I am one of the few people familiar with Sparkles pre-Harry. I watched Suits for several seasons. Gina Torres and Gabriel Macht were what gave the show some *sparkle.* Meghan was awful and grating from the get-go. Before they were retired, the IMDB Boards were brutal towards Meghan and kept calling for her to be written out. Her storyline with Patrick was always blasted and considered a drag on the show. How her biracial storyline came about was interesting too. IIRC, her storyline of being biracial wasn't introduced until all the buzz and acclaim Gina was getting for playing such an awe inspiring black female character. Many speculated including me that the show and Meghan wanted to capitalize on it hoping it would translate to better feedback for her character. Meghan's racism and black queen narratives while with Harry was no surprise to me.
I was absolutely shocked to find Harry with such an obscure and talentless actress. Taking their relationship at face value would not compute in my head. I wen to the Daily Mail comments, then CDAN, then Nutty's blog, and so on to find out what was going on. This adventure has been amazing and I have to say my favorite place is Nutty's blog. Thank you Nutty, it has been quite a ride and it's so fun tagging along.
One thing for sure, Meghan's fakeness is so blatant that I went out of my way to slowly get an education on PR, Media, and News. Yes Sparkles, you are that bad of an actress! Mainstream media was very frustrating because I could feel a very badly put-on con. This place is a refuge for my sanity :)
SL was Hillary's campaign manager, and considering that Hils technically won the popular vote although losing to Trump in the Electoral College, it appears that SL is competent at her job. She's got vast experience in making a profoundly unlikable and divisive client with a tendency toward self-sabotage palatable enough to nearly win the Presidency of the U.S. MM might outdo HRC. Latham was obviously hired to be the inevitable patsy, because I think a person who can manage a successful Presidential campaign and all its moving parts is capable of sending out a birth announcement in a timely manner. SL was obviously instructed to fall on her sword over that.
Meghan will not be 'managed' under any circumstances, even if it's in her best interest. Why would a semi-intelligent person agree to ever work for her?
I refuse to believe it is "hormones" but more like Sparkles is realising that she isn't as high on the royal totem pole as she thought - i actually wouldn't put it past her to make a play for William to get Kate out.
The marriage of Rose and the Marquis was for dynastic purposes. He needed an heir. Rose was available and has an ambitious Mother. Son and a couple of children provided. Rose has a good life (in appearances) and is financially secure.
i swear i am not trying to be one of those weirdo conspiracy theorists but saw this posted and looked at each comment and, gee whiz. my mind is boggled
What amazes me is that not only are H&M saying that they live at FC, but everyone is saying it. Supposedly she’s had so many visitors there to see the baby and nobody, except commenters, those who live in Windsor and those who attended the Frogmore House tour are speaking out and saying that they don’t even live there. Why hasn’t anyone from the press explored this? Could there be a press black-out on reporting where the Sussexes do/ or don’t live? And the fact that they most likely do not even live together?
A better movie comparison is Matt Dillon and Sean Young in 90's noir "A kiss before dying."
A young psycho kills his secret girlfriend, then moves on to her twin. She comes from a very rich industrialist family. He drops everyone from his past in his quest to marry rich.
The Talented Mr. Ripley is another good example of such a psychopathic cipher.
@Hikari, I agree that she was a hot mess at Wimbledon & she looked 20 lbs. lighter, with a much thinner face in the Christening photos. I don’t necessarily believe that the photos were taken on the day of the Christening (or that there even was a Christening); they could’ve been taken at any time since most of it was photoshopped.
*probably obvious, but TBC, this is snark, not actual defense of Andy
And if there were actual money-laundering being done, it would be foolish to do that much in this short amount of time and in one place. It's spread about and filtered thru a number of channels, it's not just in and out and to the bank with it. That's why it is so hard to follow the money trails required of launderers. Just sayin'.
Does nobody remember that Harry and Meghan supposedly adopted a black Labrador named Ozzy? People sure do seem to forget things ...
HushHush, I absolutely love that movie (The Talented Mr Ripley)! I watched it the other night, forgetting how long it is. Gosh, everything about that movie was just perfection ... the cast, the gorgeous scenery ... it's one of very few movies that I could and do watch over and over again.
Back to Meghan ... she has the coldest eyes. I pick up on peoples' energy which can be a good and bad thing, and from the moment I saw her (I had to Google her when the spooning bananas article came out, as I'd never heard of her), I felt a bit sick. She is not a good person. I'll leave it at that.
https://fabfoxly.tumblr.com/post/186109623972/fun-with-photos-the-gangs-not-all-here
I can't put my finger on exactly what's wrong with the whole bloody thing, but it just looks like each one of them was beamed down instead of actually being in the room. Strange things are definitely afoot...
Time for the Queen to shut off Meg's I ternet access and order a psychiatric evaluation.
Original Date of Family Christening Photo was MAY 8th, 2019. Same day as they introduced Archie/Darren to the press. Her photographer was there. That’s why Harry is wearing the same outfit. And Doria was still in town then, so maybe she was also originally in the photo (although her lips look much plumper than in the past.) Assuming everyone else was photoshopped in. I posted that I didn’t think that this was taken on the ‘Christening Day’ but could've been taken at any previous time. Didn’t know how to prove it, but someone more tech savvy than me did. Pulled up the photo on Meghan’s Mirror of all places & found the specific info.
May 8, 10:56 pm
How on earth did they have at minimum a 2-month baby for the pic when they just presented Archie to the world as a newborn? Some people are saying the baby looks 3-4 months. This is insane! Was the baby 2-4 months in May or did they take the pic and photoshop Archie in later. Is this baby even Archie? I thought the baby doll theory was ludicrous but after this, who knows anything anymore. All of this explains the secrecy about the visuals of who is involved in the Christening ceremony. Something is really not kosher with Archie and his Mama Sparkles.
They know how much interest this case has generated, and it didn't take long for the metadata to be found.
I'm not sure who her employer is for tax purposes. It would be interesting to look at other Americans who married royalty and see how they were treated, although of course tax regulations are changing all the time.
Some were apparently held against their will, or deceived into interacting with the celebrity men.
I don't believe the money laundering or embezzlement at all. Just spending. Access to funds due to Royal status. The controls are only appearing after the fact, after the spending. It is this part , where the microscope shines. Unfortunately it is too late by then. Once the free for all spending is over , the next binge starts and the cycle continues.
Having never been an actress or anything remotely connected to that world, it's easy to see what is driving the Duchess (forced myself to type that word) of Excess. It's that buzz ,the feelings of superiority, the goofy lightheadedNess, euphoric sensations of bliss, blah blah, that known actresses speak of. She is living on one out of this world binge after another. That's an obscene and unhealthy amount of energy to be flowing in a person. I believe when the energy crash happens , it will be internal, the public won't see it.
I feel for the people in the path of this storm, even the readers , as we are all getting affected one way or another.
After reading so much of superficial one liner news headings, and so much of public distaste, I feel quite switched off . Haddictable Harry has brought in a cataclysmic disaster, it's bad weather every day.
Why would anyone want to be in the public eye, 24/7 ? Something is horribly wrong here.
**As a seamstress and costume-maker, I cannot stand when something doesn't fit properly. Literally would take someone 30 mins to adjust! Any body shape can look nice in properly fitted clothes!! Where are Stacy and Clinton?? (What Not to Wear)
It'd be very typical of a narcissist to assume that her deception is so good that nobody will check obscure details like the metadata. At first glance, from a distance (ie, regular size), it passes muster, if one doesn't look at it too long, or study it blown up to epic proportions. Most of Meg's audience will take it at face value and be satisfied.
And then there's us . . .
Even at regular size, it's hard not to notice that the eye lines of Charles and Camilla don't match up with everyone else's. Either Chas has a wonky eye, or he was looking at a different photographer, on a different occasion altogether. It's hard to tell exactly what Camilla's looking at, but she does rather look three sheets to the wind. There is something off about the outline of her light-colored hat against Chas's navy suit. A similar effect is happening at the other side of the photo, with William's navy suit against Lady Sarah's cream dress. Why is William casting such a shadow on LS's left arm?
William's watch is a full hour behind the mantel clock. Or maybe 11 hours behind, but his watch distinctly says 10:56 . . .which would align with the metadata that says the photo was taken at 10:56 . . PM . . on May 8th.
Harry and Smegs and the green and gilt sofa look pasted on top of the standing group. Charles' hand gripping the back of the sofa looks so very odd.
I am struck by the profoundly desolate look in the eyes of Lady Jane Fellowes. I suppose the absence of Diana on a day like this is keenly felt . . . however, if this is a real christening, why did she wear *that* hat? She looks like she's off to a day at the regatta, not a church occasion. Not the most appropriate headgear . . so perhaps she was at another occasion when the photo was taken? It looks like she and her sister are dressed for two entirely separate events.
Smeaghan seems to be favoring her favorite pair of dirty blush-colored heels, with toe cleavage showing. Kate's shoes look impeccable. She's worn this outfit before . . were any of those occasions in the Green Drawing Room? If so, it would explain why there is a gulf between her chair and the sofa wide enough to drive a lorry through. She also seems rather clumsily pasted in on top of her husband. The contrast of her headband against his arm seems oddly flat, and check out the weird squiggly line of his shoulder against the green brocade background.
The fact that Haz is wearing the identical outfit to the photo call shouldn't be too surprising; he seems to only own the one any more, and it hasn't been ironed or probably taken to the cleaners' since ELF left him. Megs is going to great pains to show off her ring, but I do not see any evidence of the new pave band or the matching eternity ring that she had on at TOC, which happened nearly a month before . . .
Or did it . . ?
If these photos are all altered/staged, along with the Pregnancy Performance, it points to a level of insidious insanity that boggles the mind. But even more mind-boggling is why none of the royals will step forward and say that their images are being used fraudulently. How does a hoax on this scale happen with the cooperation of its victims?
At this point, I'd be willing to swear that the Loch Ness Monster is more authentic than anything about this marriage. I wonder if we will ever know anything approaching the full scoop.
We all make minor mistakes.
I usually have the habit of proof reading after i hit publish ; )
But for MM it is crucial at this point, especially as her popularity is at an all time low that she gets the diplomatic stuff right
She doesn't need to alienate anymore people than she already has
I find it hilarious how she always tags the Royal theatre incorrectly...and she is the Royal patron for chrikes sake...haahaa
Even after they have mentioned it, she still does it!!
Sometimes the most stupid person is convinced that they are always the smartest person in the room...and that is MM to a T
I'm sure that's what turned William and of course the many other multitude of things she does
Yesterday 'Harry Markle' had a scathing account of her behaviour towards her father, if you haven't read it as yet, then it is definitely worth a read
I gave the incident over Charlotte's dress some credence, because Kate had only given birth two or three weeks prior and would have been feeling emotional. Imagine being a post-partum mother, tired, not feeling one's best, having left your newborn to endure a dress fitting with your strong-willed toddler and your brother-in-law's nightmare of a fiancee, and she starts screaming at you and your daughter for no good reason. That would set anyone off.
I think this new allegation is bogus. Kate has her natural poise, the strength of her position and the Family on her side. I don't know what might have been said to her about having to make nice with Harry's Harridan in front of cameras, but privately, I hope Kate's read Smeaghan the riot act. As in "When we are behind closed doors, you will not approach me or speak to me, nor any of my children. If you persist, I will have you removed." I think Kate's behind crying over Smeaghan now; let's hope she's dug deep and found her inner Queen.
I don't foresee Smeaghan's tenure in the family lasting much longer . . .a year, tops. So she will not be married to Harry when Kate becomes Queen. It would be so tasty to see the Charlatan Duchess forced to bend the knee to her new Queen, though, wouldn't it? It's not worth the wear and tear on us all to keep her around that long in the family, but it's an enjoyable idea.
This whole thing is very suspicious. @hikari, I agree that the money spent doesn't match up with what appears to have been done (nothing) to FC. Where did that money ACTUALLY go?
FS vets like Piers Morgan have longstanding palace sources and will know every salacious detail of what’s been happening. His was the opening salvo on MM and his subsequent columns all have the same theme: her modus operandi ( social climbing and ghosting), her ability to lie, and her hypocrisy. I think PM is too thick skinned to be terribly butt hurt at being ghosted, he knows whats up but he’s holding back while laying the groundwork and so are other FS vets.
It has to be something big and of great sensitivity for them to hold back like this but it will only last so long and then like TP1 said....BOOM. Signs are pointing to a sonic boom, the public are now getting very riled up and something is gonna give.
On another note, does any one else wonder if MM’s salary demand to replace her Suits income was made to the Royal Foundation, aided and abetted by the the fighter of white man power Natalie Campbell? I think William turfed them as a result.
As for Fraudmore, I’ve done a lot of renovations and you have to have a detailed list of works to be done, and a cost itemization to make a budget before the project even starts. The contractor bills would go directly to whoever administers the Crown Grant for payment and budget overages would be picked up on right away. I’ve seen fraud committed whereby contractors are lined up to give inflated bids for their work, and then provide a kickback after payment. You see this in government jobs all the time, but I really doubt MM had the time, or British connections to do this. The cost of Fraudmore is likely more related to MM extravagance and vindictiveness at being ejected from KP to the Royal
At any rate, things are heating up and lots of vague plans being thrown around for Sussexes without anything concrete. I’m really getting the buying time vibe, we’ll see.
Prince Charles' hand seems a tad larger than anything else around but I can and have been wrong. Could just be perspective as it is coming at you and maybe he has really large hands.
Camilla's eye looks wonky because it sort of closed. (and you are really right about the water staining of her shoes).
Possible only one back leg on her chair (could be just our angle with the exact alignment to cover most of it) but when you move past it, you don't see the other one or the pant leg/shoe. Almost everywhere else, the dark patches of the carpet still show some faint detail.
The hair and lack of reflection (oh that is much more obvious in blow up).
The hat in the mirror is too low unless that camera, for that part of the photo, was much higher than eye level and way off to our right. (perspective) And then, we probably ought to have been able to see a tiny bit of the straw hat at the edge of the mirror as well.
Kate's neckline - I cannot speak for everyone but if I have something touching the front of my neck, it is because it also sweeps around close enough to keep close to the entire neck. This has all the space across the back.
Everyone keeps saying there is something off about the photo. I think it is that there is a certain sharpness to edge and a certain flatness to every body and every where. It just looks layered in a weird way. And then you throw in the facial expressions, the time differences, the warped horizontal piece in the mirror and missing chair legs and walk away with questioning how real it all is.
Interesting.
Money laundering is something else entirely, and what I tried to briefly explain above - but this is not money laundering.
Back in MMs yachting days, if she yachted enough and if someone needed to make a financial exchange, I could see her being used as a strawman for a fee or to transport debit cards. I could think of ways her Soho pal could assist in laundering (easy enough with hotel rooms and properties), but regardless, that's history and not related to FC.
I do think there's something sincerely wrong with MM and I think Harry is a sucker and a victim. I think that it should be examined *reasonably* but about the time space aliens start landing in the possible scenarios, that is off-putting and minimizes the credible theories. That's my opinion.
And i took a screen shot for good measure, as i am sure it won't stay up for too much longer
I am amazed at the audacity of MM
Also a few people are talking about the hour time difference with Will's watch and the gold clock
My theory is the antique gold clock wasn't changed back manually after daylight saving started which would have been at the end of March if i am not mistaken
Also, are you KIDDING me with the "I'm going to rescue a dog for a 2-month old child" routine? Puh-leeze!
I don't know what to make of the discrepancy.
NEWS EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NO COMMERICAL USE. NO MERCHANDISING, ADVERTISING, SOUVENIRS, MEMORABILIA or COLOURABLY SIMILAR. NOT FOR USE AFTER AFTER 31 DECEMBER, 2019 WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM ROYAL COMMUNICATIONS. NO CROPPING. Copyright in this photograph is vested in The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Publications are asked to credit the photographs to Chris Allerton. No charge should be made for the supply, release or publication of the photograph. The photograph must not be digitally enhanced, manipulated or modified in any manner or form and must include all of the individuals in the photograph when published. This official christening photograph released by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex shows the Duke and Duchess with their son, Archie and (left to right) the Duchess of Cornwall, The Prince of Wales, Ms Doria Ragland, Lady Jane Fellowes, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, The Duke of Cambridge and The Duchess of