In Prince William and Catherine Middleton's engagement interview, William famously said that while the pair appeared calm, "We're like sort of ducks, very calm on the surface with little feet going under the water."
The phrase occurred to me again the other day when I saw yet another anti-Meghan screed from the Sun's Royal reporter, the New Zealand-born Dan Wootton.
Wootton, who is openly gay, is what Popbitch in its recent issue called "such good pals" with the Cambridge's press secretary, Christian Jones.
What role might Jones and the Cambridges be playing in the recent run of negative press about the Sussexes?
The phrase occurred to me again the other day when I saw yet another anti-Meghan screed from the Sun's Royal reporter, the New Zealand-born Dan Wootton.
Wootton, who is openly gay, is what Popbitch in its recent issue called "such good pals" with the Cambridge's press secretary, Christian Jones.
What role might Jones and the Cambridges be playing in the recent run of negative press about the Sussexes?
Keeping the kids away
William and Kate may not be the smartest people in the world, but they're also not the dumbest.
Along with Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, they seem to have had Meg's number early on, and William famously encouraged Harry not to marry her, or at least wait until he got to know her better.
They've done a good job of keeping their children away from Meg as well; apart from Meg's surprise appearance at last month's polo match, the only time they have been photographed with her is at formal family events and at Meghan's own wedding.
(There was a rumor at the time that the Cambridge kids had been kept so insulated that George asked at the wedding "Who's that lady with Harry?" I have never seen this rumor confirmed; as I recall, it came from a lipreader who had been watching the footage.)
The birthday greeting
Will and Kate have also done their very best not to be photographed with Archificial, the Sussexes' mysterious son.
While they were not able to avoid appearing in Archie's baptism photo - the one with metadata showing it was taken on May 8, only two dates after Archie was supposedly born - they look stiff and uncomfortable.
(Internet sleuths have since taken the photo apart, suggesting it was Photoshopped. I'm neutral about that myself, but the odd metadata suggests something is off.)
One image that is certainly not Photoshopped is the footage of the Cambridges and the Sussexes together on Christmas Day 2018.
This was the day that William "scarfed" Meghan, doggedly directing his attention towards rearranging with his scarf to avoid interacting with her. The insult was obvious enough to create a new entry on the Urban Dictionary.
How telling that the Cambridges (or their press secretary) would choose images from that day for Meghan's birthday greeting on August 4.
Even in chilly Britain, celebrating a summer birthday with a photo of everyone in thick winter coats is unusual.
(The always-bitchy Duke of York Instagram account saluted Meghan's birthday with an unflattering photo of Meghan looking heavy. It's a bad photo of Harry as well - the angle makes it look like he has an extra bone sticking out of his skull. And it's the wrong size for Instagram, but apparently Andrew's people didn't care.)
Feet beneath the water
Anyway, it sounds like the Cambridge duck feet may again be swimming rapidly beneath the water when it comes to removing Meghan from the Royal Family.
Along with Charles, they have the most to lose from Meghan's devaluation and commercialization of the monarchy.
Unlike Charles, they may still have enough energy to do something about it.
It's also interesting that Christian Jones appears to be the weapon of choice. Jones was originally hired to work for both the Cambridges and the Sussexes; Meghan famously paraded him around a restaurant in Notting Hill shortly after he came on board, having called the paparazzi in advance.
Jones seems to have gotten to know Meghan well enough to be resistant to her charms; when the courts of Cambridge and Sussex split, he went with the Cambridges.
Will he be an active participant in Meghan's defenestration? He's one to watch, at least.
If nothing else, silent approval
Royal reporters are careerists; most stay in the job for a decade or more.
The last thing they want is to be on the palace's bad side, because that can mean a withdrawal of access to even the simple stories and events they need to please their editors (and readers, but of course it's the editors who sign the paycheques.)
It seems extremely unlikely to me that longtime Royal reporters like Camilla Long of the Sunday Times, whose article this Sunday was brutal, would be going as far as they do without at least tacit approval from the palace.
Charles may or may not be offering that approval, but William almost certainly is.
-----------
Edited on August 10 to add:
In a video interview on August 9, Wootton says:
"(Harry) will sit in that publicly funded mansion - because it’s not a cottage, it’s a £2.4million mansion refurbished by us on taxpayers money - he’ll watch the TV coverage and he’ll flick through the newspapers and look at all of those articles online about him, cursing his staff.
"Rather than actually addressing the fact that much of the negativity towards the couple is coming from within the Royal Family.
-----------
Edited on August 10 to add:
In a video interview on August 9, Wootton says:
"(Harry) will sit in that publicly funded mansion - because it’s not a cottage, it’s a £2.4million mansion refurbished by us on taxpayers money - he’ll watch the TV coverage and he’ll flick through the newspapers and look at all of those articles online about him, cursing his staff.
"Rather than actually addressing the fact that much of the negativity towards the couple is coming from within the Royal Family.
“The Royal Family and staff of the Royal Family are the ones that are very often leaking these stories to the press.”
Top candidates from my point of view: Prince Andrew plus Williams press secretary Christian Jones and Lord Geidt's BP team.
Longshot candidate: Camilla.
Comments
I was fairly ambivalent about MM at first, she seemed a more interesting choice than some dull Home Counties deb. However, it has become apparent that she is Fergie 2.0 - a bit trashy/vulgar, doesn't understand why she is unloved and the more she tries to impress with projects to make people love her, the more the great British public and press dislike her.
She could rescue it if she buttoned her lip, took some advice and lowered her media profile, whilst upping the genuine charity work. I mean, there's NO WAY she will do that, as she wants to be an international celeb, so I'd give her three years tops.
https://www.target.com/p/his-royal-dogness-guy-the-beagle-the-rebarkable-true-story-of-meghan-markle-s-rescue-dog/-/A-53992675
https://www.target.com/p/the-duchess-and-guy-by-nancy-furstinger-hardcover/-/A-53962694
I'm just saying that Nutty's points make total sense, Cambridges clearly keep themselves as far as possible. But this argument about bad press against Meghan is spreading in her fan community really well, and they will used it more and more, blaming William for everything.
Also, in-laws or not, there's no way they would take all this slander lying down. It's been rudiculour for the past years - name calling Kate for every single thing, from her personality to her looks to her education, even dragging her family into this ! Plus, they say digs at the xhildrec which just seem to be growing by the day. So it's only understandable that while Willls may have decided to stay out of it initially, and even let the digs at Kate go, he would be filed by now , now that his kids are being dragged into it.
They have so many resources at their disposal - the press, world class PR gurus, palace advisors, loyal friends and all the Goodwill earned o ER the years...at some point they will want to use that to their advantage. If not them per session, then maybe the Cambridge's loyal friends/advisors/family members/staff might just have decided to stick up for them and do something about it.
It's not like any of them don't have enough ammo to use against the Sussexs in this fight.
He was never mentioned again. It is presumed that he is dead.
Reality is that being in the RF is a job, but she wants to opt out of the duty aspect in favour of meeting Beyonce at film premieres.
I wouldn't doubt for a minute that William is behind the negative press... and it's about time! With so much public sentiment against Smeg, the calls for a republic are becoming louder and louder. Not so loud that Charles has heard them though, but I doubt he reads the comment section of the Daily Mail or Daily Mirror.
Does anyone have the inside scoop as to why Smeg was kicked out of the polo match before the marriage?
Where was Smeg during (someone else's term, which is hilarious) Wankstock last week? Global elite meet seaside to virtue signal on climate change, you just know she was salivating at the mouth to be there. Why wasn't she?
What was apparent was the fact that there was definite avoidance. Even with Prince George and Princess Charlotte who didn't clamour to see the babe. Prince Louis was being a normal babe sticking his tongue out playing with Mummy's sun shades. There was no interest in the babe nor Megan.
In my personal view, since Prince Harry and Megan have asked for privacy for their babe, the royal family are giving them that ten-fold by not interacting with the babe. For Megan, she will reap what she sows. Herself and the babe will not be included in the 'family' as other children who are born royal.
And as we know, Marcus Anderson has some type of connection, possibly romantic, to Edward Enninful.
$mirkle was famously photographed out for tea with Jones in January, the same month that $mirkle claims to have met Enninful over a "steaming cup of tea".
At the time, everyone was asking why they hadn't just met at Kensington instead of making a big spectacle of meeting at a public restaurant.
As usual, all roads lead back to Soho house.
It sounds to me like their were some broken romantic relationships in the "Whooten/Jones/Enninful/Anderson/ insert other names here" circle that caused them to realign their allegiances.
But as to why the press is turning on Harry Markle, it seems pretty clear that the tipping point was the birth announcement, which had them reporting that $mirkle was in labour as the US networks were reporting that she was giving birth. The secret christening and the "no pictures" at Wimbleton also didn't help.
There is more than enough to turn the UK press against both Harry and $mirkle, without any help from William.
As for not let the kids wander over, my guess is that they didn't want one of the kids to say (in that loud piercing child voice) Why is she carrying a doll Mommy? My guess: the players in this chess game didn't want that revealed at that moment.
While we only saw pictures, it looked like a couple of strangers minding their own business, not family.
Okay, not really.
Hells to the yeah, I hope William or some of his fellow ducks are paddling hard to keep the BRF safe, but even more than that, to protect Kate and the children. I would not leave any living creature alone with that angry and contemptuous and disrespectful scarfee. I have read many times that contempt is the most dangerous of the emotions because, once felt, it is difficult to let go. And mix contempt with some of her other festering issues... yeah, no.
If Charles isn't appalled by her crass-and-trash harlotry of all things BRF, I'd be very surprised. He, too, may be allowing all of this negative press to happen. It's hard to imagine that just because mm supports a cause he has long supported that he is willing to throw the entire monarchy into the fiery abyss, and that is what she is doing with both hands. And Harry seems to be helping.
On a related note, I haven't read the 'my wife is amazing' merde. Anyone seen that? Because I just can't.
Until he was able to reunite with Camilla, Charles seems to have led a rather sad life, starting with his mother ignoring him at that infamous meeting at the train station, on to Gordonstoun "prison", being denied the chance to marry the woman that he loved, the misplaced blame for Diana's death and on to the endless mockery of his environmental interests that were considered unusual at the time but which are today considered mainstream.
Although Harry likes to play the victim, the truth is that Charles was far more badly treated throughout his life.
I noted that while Kensington and the Palace tweeted or Instagramed birthday greetings to $mirkle with one photo, Clarence House attached 3 photos.
Charles does seem to have a softness for $mirkle, and I'm wondering whether it is because she is wreaking revenge on the Palace in a way that he never could do himself. At his age, he knows that his reign as King will be very short and he has little to lose.
Unless William is able to wrest power from Charles, $mirkle may be unstoppable.
I think if there is a slow poison being seeped out to the media by the Cambridge's then it is probably the best & most effective lethal method.
MM has a very malicious & destructive character trait.
She is not happy until she has taken everyone down that she sees as a threat or are of no value.
I fully believe that she leaked that story about William having an affair with Kate's
friend Rose to Celebrity gossip, i for one don't believe it happened
So if anyone has an invested interest to cut the fungal Markle from the tree, it's Prince William
I hope William is playing MM at her own game and he is the one that gets rid of her because it won't happen with airy fairy Charles.
Although Camilla could totally be relied on for support along with Princess Anne and Prince Andrew (wow...what a formidable force of characters Will has got behind him!)
The sooner the better, for everyone
I have a feeling that the only person in the family that remotely likes her is dimwit Harry
Also on another note
Did anyone else find it odd when Harry mentioned on Instagram for MM birthday's, he said 'an amazing wife'...but he failed to mention, 'and an amazing mother'....a little shout out from Archie would have seemed appropriate and fun, cheeky...all the things people used to say about Harry's personality before MM
It's also kind of normal for a new father to include a new baby in the greetings, especially in the early days
Nothing simple ever adds up with these two
Even Harry was stunned she was at the event with 'Archie', the entire thing still rings as desperate to show they're normal, yet nothing she sets up will ever be normal.
I believe that this is very telling .. I do believe that there is a baby of unknown provenance and that Mr and Mrs $mirkles have not bonded with him.
How much is Charles really aware of? Much of the outcry has been in the comment sections of articles and on social media? We would have to assume he reads the gossip sections of traditional newspapers (either print or online) to be aware of what is going on. He's been through this before with Diane. Camilla, and Kate. The press building someone up and/or taking them down. (Less so with Diane.) He may consider it lather, rinse, repeat... and that it will blow over, so he's not currently stepping in. Do you think he's seeing more than just the screaming headlines? Are his advisers being truthful? Is he listening to anyone?
Charles's goal is to streamline the royal family and he's already shown a proclivity to meddle in political affairs. With $meg he could kill 2 birds with one stone. Placate the public by streamlining the royal family, that is, reduce the number of members of the royal family supported by the taxpayers. He's always meddled. I doubt having a few letters leaked stopped his meddling. With $meg he gets to test the waters to see how far the monarchy can tread into political affairs.
She could be sweetness itself to Charles, long enough to cover up her social and financial ambitions. I'm fairly sure she knows exactly which members of the royal family she needs to please... and right now, William is #3.
$meg's time is limited. Charles will have the regency position in a couple of years. William will take on more duties at that point. As William's duties and responsibilities increase, $meg and Harry will be increasingly sidelined.
Brand Suxxit is about making themselves relevant to avoid the inevitable sidelining.
‘Happy Birthday to my amazing wife. Thank you for joining me on this adventure!’ - Love, H"
No mention of Archie.
Are we sure the amazing wife didn't write this?
Also, this could be the reason for the birthday wishes, especially those from C&C. Sometimes we kill them with kindness. I often do that when someone is being particularly rude to me. It makes them look worse and I don't have to sink to their level.
From a tweet in the Sun article: Another wrote: “Seriously all the royal accounts wished her a proper birthday wish!! Something that she (Meghan) couldn’t do for them!”
I do not believe that Chas can be fooled by the ever-crass-and-always-inappropriate mm, not even for his tender ego's sake (and maybe because of it.) I am about to sound very snotty here, but I'm just basing this on what I've read about him and what I've seen in real life:
Chas is obviously conscious of class and "good breeding", etc. He would notice (and be offended/contemptuous of) mm's lack thereof. There is no other way to say it but that she will always be a Tanya Harding and never a Nancy Kerrigan (I use these two as archetypes, not as a judgment on their lives.)
It is hard to explain, but if you've been around old money and the old families (even old money that has run out), there is an innate (genetic?) quality to the snobbishness, and even if the old moneyer is the nicest and most down-to-earth type and may mingle with everyone happily and unpretentiously, that person is still going to deep-down notice.
In the case of mm, I'm sure Chas noticed right away, but if she had been a decent person otherwise, he would have overlooked it and been happy with her. But that is not the case w/mm. No, she has brought so much crassness into that family, and I do not see how he can overlook/accept that, and I believe that is just as much about who he is as it is about who she is. And I believe that she insults his deeply held values and reflects badly on him (and his ego). They may agree on the environment and a few other subjects, but who she is offends much more important and this is a man who values the opinions of others.
I also agree with what @Wizardwench wrote: "These are THEIR choices for all the world to see. They clearly to not give a damn and expect everyone around them to ignore what is, again, their arrogance in assuming that whatever they do is acceptable because it is THEM. They have done nothing to stop this ever-escalating mountain of criticism, indeed, they seem to feed it without even half trying, e.g., ditching the Lion King premiere for the commemoration of those soldiers killed by the IRA bomb would have been a simple and honorable thing to do and would have given me pause in my growing contempt for them. Simple stuff like that would take the winds out of the sails of the hungrier reporters. Now there is blood in the water, and the reporters are going to go for the juggler. What William and company might have done is just step back and not protect them anymore. They have brought this on themselves with public relationship gaffs that are unforced. William doesn't have to do a thing."
I have said repeatedly that stopping the sussexes from their behavior would be the worst tack to take if the BRF want to be rid of her. Stopping mm makes the situation (and her) look better in the short run, but it doesn't solve the problem. Allowing her to administer her own poison in copious quantities is the solution.
It would have been better if it was the photo of the family and all you saw of MM was the plume from her hat....haaahaaa
Party pooper definition is :
a person who refuses to join in the fun of a party; broadly : one who refuses to go along with everyone else.
As the song lyrics say "I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger, but she ain't messin' with no broke...."
It's all conjecture. I really can't say what's going on in any of their minds... alas, I don't read minds. I can only go by what is made public.
I've said the same thing another way... giving them enough rope to hang themselves. It's a dangerous game though. They need to give just enough rope or poison to do the job of getting rid of her (Harry as well?), without so much that it destroys the monarchy. Remember the balcony scene with the Queen, Prince Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, and children. No Harry present. Could Charles be letting it happen so that when Harry is cut off he still has some standing in the world? Brand Suxxit an established brand of ecowarriors with their very own charitable foundation, chaching.
I have been wondering about the cheating story (William and Rose.) What did the person who leaked it hope to gain? Was it merely deflection? Revenge? A calculated hit to damage their marriage? Only someone who is delusional or an imbecile would think there was a possibility that William and Kate would divorce and/or that William would renounce his title and claim to the throne. What was the benefit to the leaker? Why was it leaked at that particular time?
"Party poppers are basically tiny sticks of dynamite inside a plastic seal."
It could be that mm is just a small bit of fun, or it could be something about to blow. Hard to say, but if Andrew does indeed know about her past yachting, he may be dangling that party popper to make her uncomfortable.
Her mind is set to kiosk option on her own mental powerpoint presentation.
As for the rest, possible, but I say if mm is her own worst enemy, why fight it for her? Let her fight it herself, lose every time, and leave herself on the battlefield. I'm not doing CPR & from the looks of it, they aren't either.
I have never given any thought to Wills cheating. I think it's up there with his head on his MIL's lap. Something to leak to the press to take the heat off for one hot second.
just keep scrolling, it's there :)
And the Cambridges won't have to lift a finger.
I said then (at meet Archie) that she looked more pregnant than any time in the past 10 months. The past few outings she has looked immediate post partum, not resolving post partum. For someone fixated on outward appearances, I figured she would be in immediate slim-down mode, choosing her wardrobe carefully to hide and not emphasis her now- changed body. I just don't get it. And I do not wish to come off judgmental. The end does not match the beginning. SMH
"I say if mm is her own worst enemy, why fight it for her?"
So much this. I have to scoff at the $meg syncophants screeching about protecting her. Protect her from herself?
Because I am petty, I checked the birthday wishes from the BRF to MM and compared those to wishes to Catherine.
Four photos of Kate w/ a lovely note re her service.
"Happy Birthday to HRH The Duchess of Cambridge!
The Duchess undertakes royal duties in support of The Queen, both in the UK and overseas – and devotes her time to supporting charitable causes and organisations, several of which are centred around providing children with the best possible start in life."
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsaJOTZH1i9/?utm_source=ig_embed
One of MM reminding of the year she was born.
"Happy Birthday to The Duchess of Sussex. 🎂
The Duchess* was born on this day in 1981."
https://www.instagram.com/p/B0vBJirnjEA/
*I'll put 20 lbs on a hard choice between calling her "The Duchess" and "The Cheap Whore". And yeah, that 20 lbs was inspired by the photo they chose.
Charles has 3 of mm, 4 of Kate.
Related note: I'm having such a hard time deciding between the light cheese popcorn and the full-on butter with cajun seasoning popcorn.
And Elle, dang your party poppers sound dangerous. Mine have confetti inside.
That said, I prefer the pop of the bubbly bottle to anything wrapped in plastic with explosives.
The royal reporters are reporters; they're trained to go after stories. They can't be blind to the number and tone of negative comments on all the sugary puff pieces about M, and they must be aware of the growing frustration with her reckless spending at taxpayer expense and self-righteous hypocrisy. Unless M's PR team is paying them to write/print fluff, they'll write what they think readers want to read (it's their job); right now, readers seem to want more tea and truth about the DivaDuchess. RRs will provide, unless there are explicit orders from KP or BP forbidding them.
The RRs are still angry about the shady way M and her PR people $crewed them over about the pregnancy, birth, birth certificate, godparents, and christening (only a few short months ago). RRs are used to having a cordial relationship with the RF, where certain rules and protocols are observed by both parties. They are not used to royals lying, gaslighting, manipulating, and treating them like vermin, denying everything, then screaming for privacy and pulling the race card while sucking up to celebrities. M and H have done it to themselves but are simply too woke and precious to understand, let alone take good advice from those who want to help them repair the damage. The press, like the public, is sick of getting burned by these two and gloves are coming off.
I'm sure W&K have been paddling away beneath the surface for some time, as they try to limit damage to the RF now and in the future. It's possible that HMTQ and the PoW have even delegated to them many of these behind-the-scenes tasks. I don't, however, see them waging a secret negative media campaign against M; she's doing just fine all by herself.
at that point & she was stalking him. William had her removed.
there.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1161520/meghan-prince-harry-privacy-public-blacklash
I also agree that William does not want his children photographed with Meghan. He will not let Meghan use them for her branding and PR purposes, as she is a master at the photo op. William quickly escorted his kids out of Windsor Chapel as soon as H&M’s wedding was over and they are never near her on the balcony. The polo match was beyond strange and will be referenced in all future biographies of this strange couple. I also think Edward Enninful’s days at British Vogue are numbered. More collateral damage for Meghan to step over....
(and YAY!! After following this blog for the past several months, I've finally come out! So nice to be around my peeps and have a place where I can safely share my thoughts. But UGH, the fear of Meg's peeps doxxing folks is real.)
I'm sure Megsy regards herself as the Mistress of the Photo Op merching opportunity. She's great at putting herself in front of cameras. The end result isn't exactly masterful. She looked like she'd well and truly lost it at the polo . . that was a huge poop emoji merching FAIL for that green designer burka she had on. $500 Givenchy sun shades or no, she really and truly looked like a homeless dreanged woman who'd wandered over to the polo ground from the adjacent tent city. I know the christiening photo had to have been taken/digitally altered well before it was posted, because that whole week leading up to the christening and the aftermath was a steadily increasing case of 'Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs'. She was obviously high/out of it at the baseball game, when being presented with two tiny jerseys for 'Archie' sent her into hysterics (either consciously or unconsciously copying 'Diana's laugh that bent her double') only it looked more like severe abdominal pain. She was obviously high, on Herself and possibly substances, too, at the Wimbledon, when her two friends were physically holding her up and giving her her stage directions.
The apex of the insanity was the polo match. She well and truly looked mad as in, barking, and the faces of any who were in her proximity reflected this. At the Lion King premiere she did not look anywhere near her best, but she at least looked like she'd rejoined the ranks of the sane. All in all, it's been a run of Epic Photo Op Fails for the Queen of Self-Promotion. Looks like her media darlings are throwing her to the wolves, finally.
I've read all the persuasive arguments for the RF's possible strategy in seeming to do nothing while London burns and their Mrs. Rochester is running merrily amok with the torch. They want her to utterly destroy herself . . which she is well on the way to doing, but readers of Jane Eyre will recall that the madwoman's eventual demise was gained only at the cost of supreme destruction. The 'castle' was reduced to smoldering embers and the 'King' was nearly killed. He survived, but he maimed for life.
Chas. and Co. should take that under advisement.
This madwoman seems to be Teflon; whatever mess she embroils herself in, whatever poison she flings slides off her and sticks to other people. She will eventually leave, or be escorted out of the family with a healthy cash settlement . . her reputation in tatters, but she does not care about that. She's well aware that she had no reputation to lose. Harry's reputation will be tainted forever, along with the rest of his family's. Her next liaison won't be so high profile, but a professional grifter like her will always find a way to get money and come out on top. Like the rats of Chernobyl, Meghan is a survivor.
Imagine my chagrin, shock and disgust when the Baby Archie Circus Show kicked off in earnest with: false reports of labor/delivery; details of a hospital stay that never occurred; a false birth announcement--its falseness testified to by the lack of physicians' signatures; a fake birth certificate, also unsigned, even by the alleged father . . this is a form from the Internet that would not fool a savvy 8 year old, and yet we are being expected to accept it as 'proor' of Archie's legitimacy . . . fake photo calls, fake photos featuring members of the royal family. Wouldn't using the sovereign's image on unsanctioned press releases and disseminating them as genuine be tantamount to treason, essentially? The whole Fake Archie scam is treason. They *must* have definitive proof that if there is an Archie, he is not a Mountbatten-Windsor and he is not in the Sussex's custody. If they are failing to make a move against her because there is going to be splashback on themselves for being deceived, that's cowardice. It's not going to get any better with the passage of time, only worse. There is nothing preventing her from having another fake baby, seeing how she's gotten away with it the first time.
How can they end this now? "Archie" has been invoked in supposedly 'official' Palace announcements and portraits with the Queen . . he's receiving gifts. To announce NOW that the Sussexes are not the parents of him . . this is complicity in one of the most monstrous frauds of our time. The most audacious, certainly. Many royals of times gone by have had their provenance questioned--Harry being the latest--and there are whispers to fairly convincing proofs that many folks closer to the Crown--Victoria, for example--might not have been strictly legitimate. But back when royalty maintained an air of mystery, when there wasn't a 24/7 news cycle with endless photography and most people passed their entire lives without seeing their sovereign in person, these kinds of shenanigans were easier to get away with.
I'm not even convinced it is real, not padding, which she would definitely do to show she was preggers. IDK. This whole mess is weird.
Kate Gosselin is an example of what Meghan's post-Royal celeb life will be like. I believe KG also suffers from NPD; she was a modestly attractive woman with aspirations to celebrity but no actual talent for it who got a taste of stardom when she got a TV show that was entirely predicated on a biological fluke of hers in producing multiple births. That exposure fed the monster and Kate morphed quickly from 'ordinary mom' to limelight-hogging narcissist. That narcissism was always there and just needed the right conditions to become full-blown. KG is now pretty much a laughingstock in the entertainment business who has alienated most of her former fans who loved her on her show with her husband. The Gosselin foundation was faulty and blew up under pressure. The Sussex one will too,. At least Kate Gosselin had real babies.
I think the entire Harry-Meghan marriage was conceived by the Soho House crowd as a drugs and drink-fueled bet that they could help one of their own 'bag a royal' for their own amusement and social advancement. Megsy was their Eliza Doolittle. Ed ran with this crowd, and anyone who rises to the top job at a fashion institution like Vogue knows all about how that clandestine bitchy world of air-kisses and payback for favors operates. He wasn't played by Meghan; the two of them together were playing both the RF and the magazine buying public. EE is just as clueless to how regular people live and how her screeds would come across as she is . . I don't think anyone who doesn't buy into that vapid candy floss bellybutton gazing world could work in it without going mad from the hypocrisy and the shallowness of it all.
To EE's credit, he may not have been aware that she did not have permission from the Palace to do this project. I'm sure she lied to him routinely as well. She will say anything to anyone, promise anything, even to so-called 'dear friends' to get what she wants, and thent the fallout is never 'her' doing. She already threw EE under the bus when she 'apologized' for all the ads and the 'constraints' she was forced to work in. EE has realized by now that he didn't put nearly enough constraints on her. The cover was abysmal and the content was worse. Ultimately, the buck (or the pound) stops with him. He is editor in chief; she was a temporary employee whom he hired. If he does lose his job over this issue, he will be just the latest casualty in the MM trainwreck of broken dreams (other people's, never hers.) I'd be willing to bet anybody a pot of tea that MM has already ghosted Ed. She's gotten what she wanted.
I think it's important to point out, however, that when Ed agreed to have Meg as a guest editor in January 2019, it wasn't publicly clear what a nutjob she was.
Sure, she'd announced her "pregnancy" at Eugenie's wedding and her tantrums at Australia House were well-known, but Ed could have written that off as nasty rumors from the racist British press.
It wasn't entirely clear until Archificial's birth in early May that Meg was totally cuckoo, and by that time it may have been too late to come up with another September issue, which probably goes to print in early July.
Google openly leans left, and when I call up a controversial topic, I find that left-leaning sources always fill up the first page of results.
Lots of CNN, Washington Post, Buzzfeed, Vox, MSNBC etc.
So I'm not surprised that the Harry results are slightly tilted as well.
At some point, this is going to harm their competitive position.
Charles is a whiner, and has never understood why he hasn’t the gift of connection with the people like that of his late wife and their oldest son, he will soon have to come out of his self imposed see nothing, do nothing state as his job will soon be on the line.
Much like after Diana’s death, the Royals are terrible at taking the public’s temperature.
At the time of Diana's now-famous first public engagement as Princess of Wales, when she wowed the Welsh people and won their hearts, it was publicized at the time Chas's pouty reaction to his new wife's instant popularity with the people. I will never forget my dad's reaction: "What's wrong with him? What an a**hole!"
Indeed, it was an a**holey reaction, to be jealous of his young wife who had made such a success of her her new role, instead of being proud of her and thinking "Thank God! She's a natural and she can take some of the pressure off of me." You'd have thought after 36 years' worth of being continually in the spotlight, Chas would have been glad for a little break and someone to share the burden so brilliantly. But no. Jealousy is the reaction of the maturationally-stunted individual. It'd be like that for the rest of their marriage; she eclipsing him at every turn and he stewing in acidic jealousy.
William no doubt recalls vividly all those times that he sat outside the bathroom stuffing tissues underneath to his weeping mother on the other side. Charles is reaping what he's sown now. He is probably not even aware that he is repeating the very same patterns his own mother did with him . . . being chilly and remote with him, jealous even of the fact that his son will supercede him one day while at the same time being over-indulgent, publicly so, with his screw-up second-born son and his liaison(s) with unsuitable actresses. It'd be kind of funny if it weren't so sad.
I would like to think that anybody bat merde crazy enough to fake a pregnancy and a childbirth would be locked up undergoing intensive psychiatric medication administration. I really, really would like to think that. If she hasn't actually assaulted anybody or physically stolen anything, it is very unlikely that she would be involuntarily committed in America. In England, I don't know.
The Family should have denounced her the moment they discovered the baby brokerage/Moonbump situation, and not allowed her to continue the monstrous charade. That would have entailed issuing a statement about the level of deception which had already occurred, and how much the Palace was complicit. I know that medical issues are supposed to be private, but Meg is no longer a private citizen. She is a subject of her Majesty. The time to demand answers would have been when Meg refused to be attended by the Royal physicians. This would have occurred months before the sudden announcement of 'home birth/her own medical team' plans. The Palace should have been informed of the prenatal care she was receiving and by whom . .as a minimum. Meghan was supposedly carrying an heir to the throne of England; the Queen had a vested interest and therefore a right to be kept informed about how the pregnancy was progressing. Smeg was able to carry on her scheme for all those months owing to the natural distaste for and potential invasion of privacy issues over being demanded to provide 'proofs' of her pregnancy and share details of her medical care with third parties. But . . there was always going to be a day of reckoning--the day the baby was to be 'born'. That portion was certainly not thought out in advance. Now I have a sinking feeling that we, the public, are going to be expected to swallow the fiction that Archie is a normal baby and this is a normal family for years to come. Years.
Even Meg's supporters must feel that there is something quite 'off' about this baby and the contradictions between Meg and Harry supposedly having a new baby at home and their actions subsequent to becoming parents. The silence on behalf of the Palace is deafening, though. The crazy mad cow dressed in a burka and crashed the polo, carting around an oversized doll, playing her 'practically barefoot and possibly pregnant again' abandoned wife' schtick.
It's inconceivable that everyone is going along with such a crackpot scheme, I agree totally that it is. Many people cannot accept the Baby Archificial theory owing to how many people would have to be complicit in the pretense that Meghan's baby has been fake since the moment he was 'conceived'. They did get hold of a real infant for a few photos, it seems, but in no way shape or form has 'Archie' come to seem like a real person in many minds. He's a character which his parents have created and are exploiting. Owing to Meghan's lack of even basic proficiency in acting, though and her rampant narcissism, she really and truly believes that her scams are passing muster. That she could actually bring a plastic baby out in public with Harry's friends and family present and not be challenged. So far, it's working.
How long are they going to allow her to proceed with the charade? Will she get a wind up dolly and release pics of 'his first steps'? Pose with a larger inanimate child on his first day of nursery school? Eton? Is Archificial going to sit his A-levels for Cambridge and then do a stint in the Royal Navy, all lovingly captured on SussexRoyal (c)? How long can this seriously go on?
These are rhetorical questions, because no answers are forthcoming. Maybe they are waiting for her to debut Moonbump #2 and then they will nail her.
Maybe that will be our Christmas present? That'd be a present that kept on giving.
They are obviously Jolie-Pitts, though. Shiloh, what of her?
If Angie did not give birth to the twins, then she quite disingenuously allowed herself to be praised by her 'Salt' director and marveled at by the general public for getting into such kick-ass shape and doing all her own stunts on an action film just four months postpartum.
I seriously don't trust anything I read in print any more. Nothing. Unless it concerns a mass shooting, and then I believe that. About celebrities and politicians I will believe sod all going forward. I guess I have Meghan to thank for that.
If there were a surrogate (or not), and there is a child, can you imagine the uproar if there were an accusation and a DNA test could be produced proving that he is their (biological) child? The consequences for being wrong are enormous. I think the RF would have to proceed very cautiously indeed.
If there is an actual nanny taking care of an actual child, I'd think that the bodily wastes have already been sneaky DNA tested.
The continuing silence from the RF on the matter of Archie and the non-participation of the Queen or any of the RF members in official announcements and photographs, no gun salute, etc. means to me that if there is a baby, he has no genetic tie to the House of Windsor at all. They may have tried to adopt 'a' baby, and Lord G. or whoever made it worth the mother's while to keep him. Because if Meg and Harry had a little baby at their house, even if he were adopted and ineligible for a title, it's hard to fathom that a sweet baby would be completely ignored by any of his father's family.
Ergo . . . There is no baby at Fraudmore, which most likely does not exist, either, and Harry and Meghan are both crackers.
My sympathies were with Harry in the beginning of all this. Our man was crazy in love, thought I. He would not be the first, nor the last, man to be captivated by an entirely unsuitable woman and rush headlong into marriage, either from his own impetuous nature or because he was told (erroneously) that there was a little bun in the oven. Then of course the rapacious nature of the woman he has brought into his family was revealed in all its breathtaking audacity.
I no longer sympathize with Harry. He's as big a douche as his wife . . bigger, really, if she's the puppetmaster pulling his strings and he's dancing to her tune. I do not think there was ever love there, on either side. I think he met her on a yachting excursion and they did have some fun together for a few months. Then he thought he was moving on, only she refused to leave his life like his other flings had done. Maybe she's got some huge dirt on him. At this point, Harry's involvement in the death of an underage prostitute is the only thing bad enough I can imagine to have this kind of a potent hold over him. Drugs alone wouldn't do it because it's well-known that he uses drugs already. Maybe some autoerotic thing gone wrong, perhaps . .and the girl was underage.
Maybe. Or, maybe Smeg convinced him into going along with a 'Reality Show Marriage' as a way of sticking it to his brother, of whom he has always been jealous. She played upon his long-festering bitterness over his place in the pecking order and convinced him that with her, he could be A Star! . . eclipse William and Kate and rake in tons of money denied to him by his dad, and they could really live in style . . buy their own yacht, homes in several countries, et al. She sucked him into her glam-fantasies of the perfect celebrity lifestyle, and he bought it, because Haz is a shallow and immature person . . her perfect dupe, in a word. By this point, he's realized that she sold him a bill of goods and it's not working out, but he's in too deep now.
And we wonder why Harry is never at home? He's fleeing from the spectre of his own spectacular misjudgment. I'm glad I never bought any magazines or DVDs featuring the wedding because I would have to destroy them now. This couple has been bogus from Day 1, I'm afraid.
But . . Meghan is not in the United States any longer and she is not just any subject/citizen of the Queen. She is the consort of a direct heir to her line. This makes the product of her womb, also a direct heir to the Queen's line, her property, in a word. This is an odious concept perhaps, and it certainly ain't 'woke' to use one of Meghan's pet terms . . the oldest constitutional monarchy in the world is an archaic institution, with archaic protocols and traditions. This is, nonetheless, the institution with which Meghan WILLINGLY has joined and tied herself to. By saying 'I do' to Harry in an Anglican Church with the head of the Church of England and her new sovereign looking on, she vowed before God that she was OK with the terms and conditions of her new life.
Imagine if Kate, the mother of the future King had demanded absolute privacy, refused the Queen's doctors, refused medical witnesses, insisted on a home birth with non-official medical personnel and refused to release details of the birth or pose for photos outside the hospital. This wouldn't have flown, obviously. As the direct heir to the throne, George had to be known unconditionally and unquestioningly as the issue of William and 'of the body' of his legal wife. Catherine complied with all of this because she had nothing to hide. The complete and total noncompliance of Meghan points to everything to hide. Her baby is not important to the line of succession; Archie, if he exists, will never be a factor. But allowing the increasingly elaborate lie to spin out wider and wider in the public eye without correction sends the message loud and clear that the entire Royal machine is OK with such monstrous lies being disseminated as truths.
I don't see why exposing this lie has to be difficult. Her Majesty visits Harry and Meghan wherever they are living now and demands to see her new grandson. They produce him immediately or she will know the reason why. A live child, not a doll. If Archie is not at home, perhaps having taken himself out for a stroll, HM will settle in and wait with a pot of tea until he gets home. In the meantime, she will tour the vegan baby nursery and all the items which she has paid for so the baby can have a comfortable life. She can ask to see all the baby pictures they have taken.
They will not be able to produce any of the above. The Queen has to have been briefed that she was supposed to have met her latest great-grand several months ago and even posed for a photo with him at Windsor. It's damning that she was not in attendance at the christening . . if she cared for Harry, she'd be at such an important event in the life of his first child, wouldn't she, even if she had to come down from Balmoral for it.
They know . . they just are not letting on that they know, and that is what's infuriating.
@Humor Me, I would guarantee you she hit on him and that that is just the tip of the iceberg of his clear disdain for her. If for no other reason than she was disrespecting his brother by doing so.
Ironically, I saw a website on thyroid/adrenal dysfunction and MM has many of the symptoms of cortisol dysfunction: defensive, argumentative, condescending, highly opinionated, brittle, negative, blaming everyone/thing else, obstinate denial of any of the above behaviors.
@Tin Hatter, look for more pettiness where that came from... and yes, @Indplsbear, I believe that the
"Happy Birthday to The Duchess of Sussex. 🎂
The Duchess* was born on this day in 1981."
was the bish-slap heard round the world. I've now seen it coming out elsewhere. I believe that there are others following the Nutties, just sayin', and dearest Catherine, if you are among us reading anonymously, please know that I'm always available to dish confidentially. Also, I will babysit (well, as long as the nannies are around, too) and if Lupo needs a puppynanny, do ring me. Elle
PS your SIL is merde o' the bat bonkers, so please be safe.
Of course, she'd be doing lines off some naked guy, but you get the idea.
Alas, it'll be something far more subtle (mm's own brand of poison tea). I also like the theory that the way the BRF are letting this blow up is by buying the surrogate off and having her keep the baby and then letting mm & Harry writhe in fear and pain. (I also like to imagine that this is on Lord G's Bump-And-Claw Playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4dzPIha93M inspired by Bobby A.)
I have read this theory and love it. It also speaks to the Lord-Gness of it all.
I'm eller from TX and I wrote the above reply about what I think happened to Guy the dog. ETX.
And to think that I might never have been inspired were it not for markle's collective thumbprints...
Happy Birthday to The Duchess of Sussex. 🎂
The Duchess* was born on this day in 1981."
HMTQ can throw some shade. It's inspiring.
-- Elle, Reine des Abeilles
Not born on this day in 1981.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7326005/Queen-unusually-close-relationship-Meghan-doesnt-feel-isolated-like-Diana.html
So, I guess Markle wasn't invited last year after all, and now this year:
"This comes following reports that the Queen invited Meghan to celebrate her 38th birthday at Balmoral Castle in Scotland over the weekend.
The Queen, 93, along with the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, is said to be particularly fond of Meghan, who recently welcomed Archie with Prince Harry.
The trip would have been Meghan and Archie's first trip to the Scottish Castle, and the invite from the monarch was said to be a 'great honour'."
And that last bit is interesting -- this trip "would have been" her first trip. That has a "whoopsy daisy, it would have been your first trip, but guess what, so sad, not this year either" ring to it.
My first thought was that this whole piece was more PR from The Duchess born on *that* day in 1981.
But then I had another thought:
Maybe this is part of the see-how-hard-we-tried?-we-really-really-tried-and-it's-not-our-fault campaign. I've always thought that Duchess Hot-to-Yacht was treated so 'warmly' early on to provide this cover later, when it would inevitably needed. If that is the case and Buckingham Palace is laying the groundwork, then the duchess needs to line up another suitcase, and if Vanna White goes missing, we have a suspect.
Since foiling the Sussexes' plan to buy themselves a baby, the RF (and we) have had plenty of time to see how Harry and Meghan have reacted. They have reacted by: alienating the British press; releasing false statements; forging official birth documents; staging false photographs with HM and other members of the Royal Family; spreading rumors about the Cambridges; abusing social media; continuing to insist on privacy while flaunting themselves at various celebrity-studded events; dressing like homeless people; acting high; going AWOL without explanation; continually telling lies to the Queen; ignoring royal duties of long-standing and meaning to those involved because they want to hobnob with movie stars instead; pushing in where they are not wanted and were not invited; disregard any and all protocols for public behavior during engagements, including in the presence of the Queen; set up a bogus charity in their own names to grift money from donors on the pretext of being humanitarians; submit dodgy expenses to the Duchy of Cornwall; alienate the neighbors in a place where they don't even live; get embroiled in court proceedings over property . . . and continue to pretend when it's expedient that they actually have an infant at home, and generally look like the biggest asshats in the world while they demean their position and make the Queen look like weak and silly old woman and that goes double for Charles.
Did I miss anything? How much more 'reaction' from the Sussexes can we expect before they are well and truly dealt with in some definitive way?
If Smegs turns up pregnant now, after all of this, it's either an immaculate conception or she went donor-shopping again. Does anybody besides the sugars believe that they are living at Fraudmore in connubial bliss? I really don't think Harry would be interested anymore in her yacht girl tricks, especially the way she looks now. Her looks, very modest to begin with (all the wizards at Vanity Fair couldn't really turn that dog into a swan) are completely gone. The veneer is shattered and we all see the madness underneath.
And I think this "Well, we definitely tried" campaign has been going on for awhile, ever since Markle got the chance to ride with the Queen on her private train.
The idea is to give journalists data points for a post-separation article, to rebut Markle's inevitable charges that nobody welcomed her because of her ethnic heritage.
For the same reason, Doria has been included in every possible official photo (the "Archie" presentation with the Queen and Prince Philip, the confirmation image) even though there's no proof that she ever left Los Angeles after last autumn's cookbook launch trip.
"We welcomed you, and we welcomed your Mom," is the narrative the royals are trying to sell.
What are your feelings vis. 'the Official Photos of Archie'? I do believe that Doria made a few trips to London, probably paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall . . the wedding, the cookbook jaunt and a trip of undeterminate length when supposedly coming after Easter to 'help with the new baby'. I believe that she was in England in May but did not fly all the way from Los Angeles for the July 6th 'christening'.
My (cynical) take is that there haven't been any 'official' photographs of 'Archie'. I"m no Photoshop expert but my eye is very unsettled and unhappy with what it perceives from the images we have so far received purporting to be the happy family with members of the Royal clan. I believe both the presentation photo with the Queen and Philip and the formal christening portrait are fakes. Tech specs aside, something does not gel correctly about either composition.
Both are credited to Chris Allerton, the Sussexes' personal paid photog and first appeared on the Instagram accounts, right? This does not ring true of Elizabeth's MO--so submit to a photographer which is not the official Palace photographer and allow her image to be disseminated (most likely for money) by the Sussexes, and not the Palace. I believe that Doria was present in Windsor for both photo opportunities, but I don't feel the same about the presences of HRHs Philip, Charles, Camilla, Kate, William or the Queen. I think they were stuck in from other existing images, and that these little collage projects, the property of SussexRoyal, do not therefore constitute official photographs of the Royal family acknowledging Archie.
If, as I suspect, the Queen had nothing whatsoever to do with the placement of the unsigned announcement at the gates of BP or the release of the bogus birth certificate in which Harry's name is typed in but no signatures appear, then Archie has *yet* to be officially acknowledged by any members of the Royal family in the first three months of 'his' life. The Palace has not denounced any of these fraudulent images or documents, which I find interesting in the extreme, but maybe they are going with 'A non-denial denial is as good as a welcome.'
Finally Zahara’s husband Mike, not known for his verbal caution, slipped up and said his daughters had not met Archie since he was born in April. On some level the Royal family is complicit. Wonder if the truth will ever be fully revealed?
Then I start thinking about getting the husband involved in the fraud, and I'm back to "Naaaah, can't be!"
I'm dizzy from all this back and forth, y'all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7323039/Meghan-Markle-snuck-baby-shower-avoid-optics-attention-seeker.html
The ENTIRE reason of that NYC trip was to be seen enjoying her transcontinental royal lifestyle . .aka 'The Duchess Does New York!' with all her bestie celeb pals!! Of course, this Duchess dressed like a Kardashian on the way back from the gym and forgot completely to bring her fetus with her, it seemed . . but we were supposed to be impressed. Apparently from what I read somewhere (probably Charlatan Duchess) the street was deserted and Smegs had to make some calls and rent some photographers to show up. If she and her guests and just slipped into the back entrance discreetly and stayed in the hotel, nobody would have noticed her or cared. New York City and the Mark hosts far bigger celebrities and dignitaries than Smeghan every day of the week.
If she'd had any interest in being discreet about partying with her rich friends, Amal Clooney could have hosted this do at her home in Oxfordshire, not far away and the guests could have flown to *her*. None of the guests were based in New York, so everybody had to get on a plane anyway . . and at least 3 or more of the guests were coming from the UK.
Oh, indeed. Isn't it a little bit funny, to quote Sir Elton, that the grandmother of the bambino-to-be was not among the glitterati guest list? It's her first grandchild and she was so warmly greeted by Prince Charles, who escorted her from the church and all . . can Markus Anderson and Smegsy's make-up guy claim to have met the Prince of Wales? But alas, Grandma Doria is a person of no account amongst this glittering circle . . she's just a humble yoga instructor who has managed to keep her dogs alive. It'd have been easier for her to fly to NY from LA than it was for the London-based celebrities to fly across the Atlantic . . unless of course they *all* practiced their environmental consciousness by taking Amal's private jet. Nobody seems to have captured any footage of Doria actually leaving the US/entering London Heathrow at any point since the wedding. Not good enough to rate an invite to the shower, but she turns up for the 'christening' across the water, wearing a new outfit. Those don't seem like her regular church clothes, so it seems that Meg did import her mom at least one other time during this sh*t show. Perhaps Doria was photographed in her pink finery when she came over for the cookbook thing and was inserted later? Or if she was there in May--wearing the same outfit as before isn't too odd for her . . she would have a modest wardrobe, nothing like the royals. Though--if she knew she'd be meeting 'The Duke' and the Queen at Windsor for a photo op with the new baby, she'd have probably dressed a bit smarter. Oh, that's right . . she never met HM and PP that day. She may have been introduced to them at the wedding, but not since. The christening outfit was lovely. Question is, when was it actually worn? My money's on May 6th, directly after the presentation of Archificial to the press. Her Maj and PP probably weren't in residence at all, leaving the kids to run amok playing dress-up and taking fake pictures, just like those Glamor Shots kiosks at the mall! Meg finagled one more all expenses paid trip to London for her mother to stand as a prop for these 'official' photos to demonstrate how devoted she is to her amazing woke Dior-clad daughter. I'm going to predict that that's it for Doria--she's served her purpose as mother of the bride/beaming grandmother of the spawn. Meg has probably ghosted her by now, too. At least until Megsy needs somewhere to stay in LA when she gets the boot. Then Doria will be useful again.
Doria is cute as buttons, but study her face closely in any of the images we've got of her . . at the wedding, she looked petrified and in the christening photo, that is the saddest new grandmother I have ever seen. Harry's aunts also look like they are suffering from dickey tummies. The whole charade is so very pathetic.
Smeaghan won't be in Harry's life forever; long after she's a sordid footnote in Windsor family history, Harry will have the long reign of King William to reflect on his screw-ups. He'll be lucky to get a job cleaning up after the polo ponies in Durban or somewhere. I don't take Wills for a vindictive person, but Harry has proven that he's not trustworthy and his judgement is terrible. A King has to put the security of his house before a renegade brother.
Diana would be weeping at this. The estrangement of her boys is tragic . . and Harry has done this. We love bashing Megsy, but at the end of the day, Harry's the one that invited the vampire in. He is the author of all this, really . . .it's because of his flaws of character that she got anywhere near his family, and he didn't cut off her head (figuratively) when he had the chance.
C'mon, pull my finger!!
I think if Doria had been to London, the Sussexes would have released more photos of her.
Anyway, why go to London? What is there for her to do there?
I can't see her helping out with Archificial; she only had one child herself, 38/42 years ago, and doesn't seem to have worked in any child-facing jobs since that time. What expertise would she have?
If she had been doing the tourist circuit, West End, etc. someone would have spotted her.
I say she never left LA.
There is no excuse for him to be attending public functions as a royal looking disheveled. England is known for impeccable tailors. He is hurting their livelihood and reputation representing the British public in rumpled, mismatched clothes, worn shoes, etc.
Standing next to the queen of label whores makes him look even more rediculous.
He was raised to be a royal. They obviously could have been better support for him.
I know, he lost his mother at a young age.... boo hoo.... bla bla bla. Tragic. I lost my father at 14. Many people are raised in single parent households - without public sponsored royal lifestyles. Challenging childhoods do not excuse bad adult behavior.
Few men who have the low intelligence, combined with drinking and drugs are able to have much, if any impulse control. Harry's temper tantrums are well known, so it wouldn't be a stretch to include DV. Megs would use that to her advantage, because well... DV is very bad, but to call himself a feminist, etc? Whoa.
Domestic abuse is not limited to violence. Emotional and verbal abuse can be just as damaging. As a male, your spouse or partner may:
Verbally abuse you, belittle you, or humiliate you in front of friends, colleagues, or family, or on social media.
Be possessive, act jealous, or harass you with accusations of being unfaithful.
Take away your car keys or medications, try to control where you go and who you see.
Try to control how you spend money or deliberately default on joint financial obligations.
Make false allegations about you to your friends, employer, or the police, or find other ways to manipulate and isolate you.
Threaten to leave you and prevent you from seeing your kids if you report the abuse.
Harry no doubt is an immature rich boy who has never had to grow up or take any responsibilty for his life/actions. I see markle as his wake up bitch slap from the universe. But I don't see him being a DV kinda guy. Even Celt News did a couple of videos on him with convincing arguments that he's just an idiot, not an axxhole, and I concur. Again, my opinion means pretty much nada :)