Not quite four months ago, this blog posed the question of Frogmore Cottage, where Meghan and Harry supposedly live but where none of the locals has seen anyone come or go.
No construction vehicles, no supply vehicles, no waste removal vehicles, and certainly no Royals.
Since then, there have been numerous articles detailing the Sussexes' glamorous life in the cottage, which is located on a swamp, looking out on a graveyard, directly under the Heathrow flight path and perilously close to a public road. (An odd location for a family so worried about security that they are forced to fly on private planes.)
However, I've yet to hear about any local sightings of the Sussexes. Have you?
One suggested that Harry and Meghan were putting in an 4000 pound outdoor barbeque area at Frogmore.
Barbeque areas work great in Mailbu, where Meghan supposedly really wants to live, but they are chancey with the British weather. Outdoor cooking is really only suitable from May to perhaps early September, and from mid-July on your guests will be feasting on barbeque while the mosquitos feast on your guests. (Frogmore is a swamp.)
Why is more money being put into a residence where it appears that no one currenly lives, and in fact no royal person may ever live?
The house was originally being fitted for Royal staff members, who will likely be the ones to inherit it whenever Harry and Meghan either move abroad, divorce, or convince King Charles III to give them something fancier.
This may seem like a small thing, but it's part of a pattern with the Sussexes of ignoring the rules when they feel like it.
Refusing to announce the names of Archificial's godparents, which hard-working reporters discovered is legally required even for Royals, is another example. (It was suggested this week that PR lady Izzy May, who accompanied Soho House's Markus Anderson to the Sussex wedding, may be Archificial's godmother.)
At any rate, it's hard not to wonder how many rules and regulations are being shortcutted in the setup and operations of the Sussex Foundation.
However, two major US outlets ran slightly negative stories about the Duchess of Sussex connected with last week's unveiling of her unimpressive "capsule collection" of garments that were already available elsewhere. (And in the case of the cheap-looking M&S dresses, had already been available for more than a year.)
Both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times raised questions about the collection, which the Los Angeles outlet called "so generic it is tabloid-proof" and referred to Meghan as "a duchess who invested in her own public image."
Could this be a break in what has been largely positive coverage of Meghan in the US?
There have also been trial balloons sent out that Meghan and Harry will do a sit-down tell-all with Gayle King to address the "unfair criticism against them."
Small violins all over town are being booked in advance of what will inevitably be a right Royal self pity party.
Or new to the public, at least. The image was part of the shoot for Archificial's baptism in early July, although image data at the time revealed that at least some of the baptism photos were taken in early May.
Even if this shot was taken in July, that would make it more than two months old, which is a rather odd choice for besotted new parents. If babies change a lot in two weeks, as Harry bumblingly said at the birth announcement, they change even more in two months.
Don't they have iPhones? Aren't they taking new shots several times a day of Archificial doing something adorable?
Most new parents tend to overshare, not undershare, images of their newborns, particularly their first child.
But those parents, of course, have custody of their babies.
Maybe the Sussexes don't.
No construction vehicles, no supply vehicles, no waste removal vehicles, and certainly no Royals.
Since then, there have been numerous articles detailing the Sussexes' glamorous life in the cottage, which is located on a swamp, looking out on a graveyard, directly under the Heathrow flight path and perilously close to a public road. (An odd location for a family so worried about security that they are forced to fly on private planes.)
However, I've yet to hear about any local sightings of the Sussexes. Have you?
More money put into the cottage
Instead, the past week has brought two new stories about ongoing improvements at Frogmore Cottage.One suggested that Harry and Meghan were putting in an 4000 pound outdoor barbeque area at Frogmore.
Barbeque areas work great in Mailbu, where Meghan supposedly really wants to live, but they are chancey with the British weather. Outdoor cooking is really only suitable from May to perhaps early September, and from mid-July on your guests will be feasting on barbeque while the mosquitos feast on your guests. (Frogmore is a swamp.)
Why is more money being put into a residence where it appears that no one currenly lives, and in fact no royal person may ever live?
The house was originally being fitted for Royal staff members, who will likely be the ones to inherit it whenever Harry and Meghan either move abroad, divorce, or convince King Charles III to give them something fancier.
Garden alternations
In addition, the Sussexes made some changes to Frogmore Cottage's approved garden arrangement without telling the local council. They are now applying for retroactive approval.This may seem like a small thing, but it's part of a pattern with the Sussexes of ignoring the rules when they feel like it.
Refusing to announce the names of Archificial's godparents, which hard-working reporters discovered is legally required even for Royals, is another example. (It was suggested this week that PR lady Izzy May, who accompanied Soho House's Markus Anderson to the Sussex wedding, may be Archificial's godmother.)
At any rate, it's hard not to wonder how many rules and regulations are being shortcutted in the setup and operations of the Sussex Foundation.
More press drumbeats against the Sussexes
The British press has continued its low-key negative coverage of the Sussexes, which is part of a triangle of difficulty for the Royal Family that includes the Queen's role in Brexit and the continuing disclosure of Prince Andrew's misbehavior and ties to suicided sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.However, two major US outlets ran slightly negative stories about the Duchess of Sussex connected with last week's unveiling of her unimpressive "capsule collection" of garments that were already available elsewhere. (And in the case of the cheap-looking M&S dresses, had already been available for more than a year.)
Both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times raised questions about the collection, which the Los Angeles outlet called "so generic it is tabloid-proof" and referred to Meghan as "a duchess who invested in her own public image."
Could this be a break in what has been largely positive coverage of Meghan in the US?
There have also been trial balloons sent out that Meghan and Harry will do a sit-down tell-all with Gayle King to address the "unfair criticism against them."
Small violins all over town are being booked in advance of what will inevitably be a right Royal self pity party.
New image of Archificial
Finally, Harry's birthday on Sunday, September 15 was an occasion for the @SussexRoyal Instagram account to release a brand-new image of Archificial.Or new to the public, at least. The image was part of the shoot for Archificial's baptism in early July, although image data at the time revealed that at least some of the baptism photos were taken in early May.
Even if this shot was taken in July, that would make it more than two months old, which is a rather odd choice for besotted new parents. If babies change a lot in two weeks, as Harry bumblingly said at the birth announcement, they change even more in two months.
Don't they have iPhones? Aren't they taking new shots several times a day of Archificial doing something adorable?
Most new parents tend to overshare, not undershare, images of their newborns, particularly their first child.
But those parents, of course, have custody of their babies.
Maybe the Sussexes don't.
Comments
This is so off topic but I hope you can appreciate it. This is the pic of Harry sulking at a public event with William and Catherine that I was talking about previously but did not provide a link.
https://twitter.com/BananaScribbler/status/1173133409918566400
Also interesting that the Royal Family used no images of Meghan in Harry's birthday greetings.
I noticed that the previous thread got a little out of hand near the end, and I had to delete a few comments, which I rarely do.
Please, Nutties, be respectful of each other. Thank you!
Secondly, I doubt anyone has the intestinal fortitude to linger over an image of hers to choose one. I know I wouldn't. I am so over Markled.
Speaking of photos, there hasn't been enough emphasis put on the photos of her recent appearance where she is trying to tame her excess of artificial hair. I've seen a few memes on twitter that were hilarious.
Has she no idea that the over over abundance of fake hair makes her look odd? She seemed so proud of "her" hair at that event. I am thinking more and more that she suffers from body dysmorphia because she sees herself in a distorted way.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7465723/Prince-William-upset-Princess-Diana-topless-picture-scandal.html
Let’s hope the rather more truthful American press continues with the negative press about the Sussex’s!
("What I can tell you is that Meghan looked darn good in her non-Givenchy-couture. She was very keen on this idea of creating a capsule for Smart Works. ‘Those key pieces you can mix and match,’ she explained. ‘We all know that right. Then suddenly you have ten outfits.’" ) Ten outfits?
Otherwise I agree that there was really not much to write about, except Meg's jeremiad against the lilac blazers other people had donated to SmartWorks.
I don't think blaming all of Meg's failures on racism will necessarily fly with the Black community in the US - most Black Americans have seen enough real-life racism to sort out the fake stuff. And I see no real evidence that the Black community is buying into (biracial) Meghan as a Black heroine.
What I think Meg is probably hoping for is that the far-left types who populate much of the US media - the Sarah Jeongs of the world - will buy in.
I don't think they will. The overspending and designer labels are a turnoff for them. If Meg really had been a humanitarian heroine, they'd be behind her all the way, but she's not, and the more they find out about her the less they like her.
@Nutty, it will interesting to see how this plays out in the end.
Seems to be standard practice to add a little something. Someone pointed this out regarding Meghan’s birthday greeting from everyone. And here it is again. Wonder if it signals they are really out.
Even The Guardian is figuring out now that Meg isn't much of a heroine.
And I don't buy the PR story that "young people love Harry and Meghan."
Young people love Ariana Grande, K-Pop, and Stranger Things.
Two mid-30s/early-40s Royals with unimpressive fashions? Nah.
I know Frogmore very well. It is located inside Windsor Great Park which covers miles much of which is open to the public. We lived quite near (we've moved away since we retired 6 years ago) and I often walked my dog there. At the time Frogmore was empty (had been for years) and was quite dilapidated, but you could just push open the gate and walk around. So being nosy I did.
The windows are small and peering through on the ground floor, the rooms were all poky and dark. I wouldn't live there if they gave it me for nothing.
You're right, Nutty, about the garden. It's a bog because there are streams running under the ground so when you walk on it it's spongy. Horrible in the winter months. And that's why there are so many frogs there hence it's name. You can hear them quite clearly in the early evenings. The garden isn't that big either so I don't know where this BBQ area would go, to be honest.
You can easily see Victoria and Albert's mausoleum from the garden which I wouldn't like because that is quite a creepy
building. Perhaps that's why I see they have applied to have a screen of trees put in. They have also been granted retrospective planning permission by the local council for the work they had done without planning permission. Surprise, surprise!
I have a friend who still lives in the area and dog walks there. She has told me it's empty. She's never seen sight nor sound of anyone. Although the electric bars/gate has been erected she has never seen it manned which it should be.
Unfortunately, the queen was with Andrew again today to show the world he has her support. She shouldn't be seen to be openly supporting Andrew until the Epstein issues blows over at least. She's giving Meghan stans more ammunition against the Royal family as they justify why Meghan needed to 'snub' going to Bamoral because of her support for Andrew. That's already the narrative on sites like Celebitchy. If she wants to continue supporting Andrew so openly, then anything done against Meghan will be seen as double standards.
Quentin Letts said on Twitter that his friend was told not to discuss the Sussexes during a horse ride with the queen. The post has been picked up by the Sun.
As per Gayle's planned interview with the Sussexes, I feel strongly that it will happen, it not, of what use is Sunshine Sachs?
About the royal family's bday tribute to Harry, I don't see the need to to include Meghan's picture. During Charles bday, was Camilla's pic included? Can't remember.
What's so odd is the continuing stream of publicity about expensive renovations to Frogmore when nothing seems to have been done. Where did that money go? Was it spent somewhere else, or not spent at all?
And why hasn't the British media written about what every local seems to know?
"Unfair" is such a cheap choice of word for someone who employs such an expensive PR firm...
I wonder if the Telegraph reported something they shouldn't have and needed to work their way back into the Sussexes' good graces to avoid legal action.
As for Toad Hall, well, it seems obvious that they are not living there and never have. My only questions are a) why is the media - which has it in for these two big time- not at least dropping hints about this and b) if not Frogmore, then where are they living? I highly doubt it's in Kensington or Buckingham Palace, and if they were in some private London property, wouldn't there have been sightings of them and/or their security entourage by now?
I have some contacts in the national media from my working days. From what they tell me I get the impression they've been asked to hold off for now which is why I think something is going down. It will be interesting to see if the SA trip goes ahead.
Agree, where on earth are the Sussex’s actually residing, and why the lie if no one is living at Frogmore? Perhaps they are still at Nottingham cottage.
I'm also on record hoping that "Archificial", whatever his true parentage, is in the custody of a kind, loving, and secure family, not the Sussexes.
And if Archie exists, he doesn't seem to be in the custody of the Sussexes, who as of now appear to have no domestic help to take care of him, and travel abroad frequently.
Meg saying she had to rush off an hour after her return from maternity leave for Archie's "feed time" was just too much.
Have the little fellow wait in the John Lewis lounge if necessary and then take a break to feed him, or pump a bit and have Harry give him a bottle.
It's not like this fashion event was spontaneous and unexpected.
Check mylittlepetal on Twitter. She all but shouts it’s her account. There are several photos of outdoor areas from her (or more likely the nanny’s) walks with Archie. Do any look familiar to you? One of of ducks in water.
As far as the interior of Frogmore when you peeked in, I am guessing they knocked down all sorts of non-load-bearing walls to open it up to a more modern floor plan.
After all, it’s difficult to put a large hand-hammered brass tub in the midst of the master bedroom unless the room is large. Who wants to get out of bed in the middle of night and fall into the bath tub? However, it would be quite funny!
He tweets about nothing in particular, but he's had the handle for longer than Harry has been Duke of Sussex.
The Celebitchy crowd are certifiably insane though. They could kidnap any of the posters' first-born child and they'd still say she was a saint.
So really, who cares what they think? The notion that anyone in the world's most prestigious monarchy knows or cares about some 'woke' American gossip site is laughable.
"As per Gayle's planned interview with the Sussexes, I feel strongly that it will happen, it not, of what use is Sunshine Sachs?"
For members of the royal family to give an interview to an American network, and slag off their own country and even the royal family itself, would be an enormous blunder. Pretty much unprecedented and utterly stupid even by the standards of the gruesome twosome.
And it's not even an attractive wig - it's Party City Halloween costume level.
I thought the whole idea behind a wig was to have beautifully-done hair with minimal effort, particularly for older women, Raquel Welch style.
Oh the whole ‘ I must get back to feed Archie’, was indeed farcical! As so many of the DM commenters noted, she didn’t mind her trip to NYC, but no mention of Archie.
Their actions following the birth haven't made sense either. Even with the help of staff and nannies, the couple have rolled out the Vogue issue, Travalyst, the Smart Works collection and managed to make several overnight trips in the weeks since his birth. Best case scenario, they are incredibly energized people but it still appears they are ignoring the first few months of their son's life while promoting their own projects. Harry and Meghan could have easily let other staff promote Travalyst (Travesty)? and Smart Works instead.
Look at Thislittlepetal on Twitter. Good chance it’s Meghan. It seems to be a replacement for one called M_Mount_Win that was taken down around August 1, 2019. It seems to be a “secret” Meghan account. If it’s not her account, someone is trying to make people think it’s Meghan.
The negative USA press: a trickle, but it exists. I think most of the USA population does not have her on their radar so it is a tiny blip in the media over all. She's far away. Just not part of their day to day world or what they see in the papers at the checkout stand. If she moved back, then the daily articles would raise her visibility. Given her often negative behavior, it would not take long for the negative articles to go out (not certain about the superinjunction but the USA press aren't as interested in maintaining ties to the Palace).
Do I think the Gail King interview will happen? maybe. The thing about it is that it will be over in a media minute unless one of them says something like "... the family she never had.".
What about the charge of racism? America seems to have become a place where the charge of racism gets airplay daily in the news. I'm not convinced that if you are fleeing racism, America is the promised land.
@Cookie, agree. 😔
Here's my theory: Megs controls her PR no matter who she hires/fires. The FrogCott and Archificial stories are part of the "oh so happy, so in love, blessed family" narrative. She dribbles out stories every few weeks to keep it in the news cycle and on people's minds. She must not understand that loads of people are on social media getting the truth from locals about FrogCott, or she thinks shouting racism will stop the press from publishing it.
I think they borrowed/rented a baby for the christening photo shoot, (which we know did not happen on 6 July from metadata on the images), and perhaps digitally altered its features a bit. The baby can hold its head up and sit up, which a two-month old can't do. It's also too big for a two-month old. We haven't seen any full-facial images of the baby other than the ones from this photo shoot, which is very dodgy. Why wouldn't they include a more recent image for Harry's birthday? Never using Archie's name is odd, too.
It all smacks of them trying to cover up that they don't have an actual infant living with them (for whatever reason). They're trapped now, and M is still scrambling for a solution. I suspect SA tour is about sourcing a suitable baby. If she gets one, we'll start to see more images.
Maybe this is how she's forcing Harry to keep up the sham marriage until she wants to go; if his complicity in this mess comes out, he'll be ruined, at least for several years. She could use it to get a bigger divorce settlement when she's ready to leave, too.
I'll also check out the twitter feed, although I'm not good at twitter, and let you know.
I think they are typical of Americans who really have no clue about British society and the role played by the role family. Like a lot of Americans - sorry if that offends any Americans posting here - they seem to think that what is true for America is or should be true for everywhere else, and as a result are very ignorant of the world outside their borders.
On the CB notes: I think it would be great if we could avoid how crazy their commenters are but you can't. Their style of emotional blackmail in lieu of argument is dominating our society. I go to read CB to find out what talking points will dominate the next few months. Learning how to push back against their brand of McCarthyism is important to our future. I hope the RF won't be held hostage by the likes of their shrill attacks and learns to ridicule them as mercilessly as they deserve. Until we all do that our future will get progressively bleaker and nastier.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/t-magazine/the-distinctly-american-ethos-of-the-grifter.html
It certainly is an indication of what the BRF are dealing with as I doubt he has changed much since then. Seems almost inevitable that a manipulator would get him in the end. They would have needed him under 24-hour guard instead of 24-hour protection to stop that from happening.
By the way, for the Brits, there is a programme called Secrets of the Royal Flights on channel 5 @ 9.15 Friday. Unsure if it’s a sort of damage limitation piece, or or just a coincidental topical programme!
This is LittlePetal's tweet three days ago... certainly sounds like MeAgain!
ThisLittlePetal
@ThisLittlePetal
All threats of abuse including death threats and threats of harm, either tweets, direct message or indirect threats of violence are forwarded to the authorities to deal with.
Well I’ll look forward to your update on the property. 🤗
However I do think it more than likely H&M are not based at Frogmore. The whole thing has seemed like an elaborate joke from the start anyway, with the swamp and the frogs and the graves and the planes. The same little touch that gave her the Wallis Simpson car to take her to the altar.
http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/2694779/duchess-kate-prince-william-watch-zara-win-silver-medal-15/
From the DM:
“Praising the American-born duchess, RuPaul added: ‘Meghan’s arrival in the Royal Family marks a whole new era. I like the way she challenges the norm.’ “
Wonder if Ru will be the next victim of the Markle curse.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2181493/Duchess-Cambridge-Princes-William-Harry-watch-Zara-Phillips-Team-GB-silver-team-eventing-jumping-final.html
Would be interesting to know what PR firm represents him......
Re Frogmore- Maybe that was the Queen thumbing her nose at those two idiots way back at the beginning of the marriage. What young couple who are presumed to have children are going to want to live on a swamp with a graveyard and mosquitoes? Maybe the Queen was pissed that they ran off and married in Africa so she banished them to Frogmore. They can't admit they don't live there so they are royal couch surfing.
Speaking of which, while looking up officially released photos of Kate's children, I came across the photo from 2016 of the Queen with her two youngest grandchildren (Edward and Sophie's) and all her great-grandchildren, for her 90th birthday. The one with Charlotte on the Queen's lap. If the Queen remains in good health I would expect another one to be taken for her 95th birthday. Surely Archie would have to be included ...
Seems to be a wall of silence where this house is concerned. The newspapers photographed Diana & loads of other Royals going in & out of Kensington/Buckingham Palaces. William & Kate are pictured in vehicles out of KP going to official engagements all the time. All very strange. More comments yesterday on Daily Mail saying FrogCott is empty even one person asking why people are posting this? & have they heard something? I did read MM was living in a townhouse in Mayfair, London but surely she'd be photographed coming in/out? Maybe she's living in that Cotswold's farmhouse they rented on a 2 year lease but had to give up the lease early due to the media printing a photo of it - I never fell for that cancellation explanation, maybe MM is there alone.
Another blog said she was merching the rent, basically they were getting it at reduced/cost, if you like, basis & MM was asking Prince Charles' office (or whoever pays their accounts) for the full monthly rental value - prob a cool £3,000 or even more in her account. Who knows though but I literally cannot wait till this is blown up all over the media & we can find out exactly what's been going on.
Love this blog - everytime I read it it feels like we're all sitting round a big kitchen table with some wine & having this great discussion :-)
King album flopped. She's airing the making of the album on ABC tomorrow. Let's see how the ratings will be. Who knows how well Meghan's Vogue UK sold? And who knows if Gayle's documentary on H and M had high ratings. I hope the Markle curse is just a conspiracy theory.
Plus, there's a tendency for the Flying Monkeys to create unified swarms like those who supported the likes of wife and baby killer Scott Lee Peterson. Why? Why why after mountains of evidence proved he was guilty? Because, as many of his supporters raged, "It's because he's so good looking. Nobody with such good looks could do such a thing..." I know, makes ZERO sense, but consider the source who organizes and gathers such a mob of idiots.
They think Sussex attract the younger set like the teens? Really? I double dog doubt it. My grandkids are both teens and know nothing of the royals, let alone Mugsy and Henry. Their passions are binge watching fave shows on Netflix, usually Marvel movies or teen sit coms, paranormal, Ariana Grande and Young Life meetings after school.
I think all of the numbers of Sussux followers are grossly exaggerated, and the rest are fake sock puppets and bots.
What I really wonder is where oh where do the Sussex actually live right now? You'd think that someone, somewhere would be able to spot them, even an odd off chance. I guess it's possible that there's a blackout by the Paps to stand down and not reveal where they are really living? Why hide it?
Ha!! Well said, Ava!!
CookieShark, one of my pet peeves (I have several pet peeves, my husband can probably name them) is that so many people seem to think that talking about a subject on social media makes them an expert. It doesn't. Doing it does. The saddest thing for me is that the people doing the lecturing to others about a subject often know very little about it because they haven't bothered to take the time to learn, probably because they know everything already. It does annoy those of us that ARE experts in the subject matter, however.
and gullible, after all you can’t put an old head on young shoulders as they say.
Remember the tacky warning to not make eye contact or talk to the Sussexes or Artificial Archie .... kidding.
I have gotten plenty of California birth certificates pre and post the the new laws that put that red non legal comment down them and have never been asked about gender. California is actually one of the easiest places to get birth certificates. In New York state they are hard to obtain. I was a professional astrologer for years, so I was always ordering people's birth certificates to do charts. I learned a lot with celebrity birth certificates.
Kate is known for her glossy, long, straight hair (some people say she has extensions. I am not good at spotting wigs or extensions).
Meg's hair looks ratty, dry and unkept by comparison.
Parting her hair in the middle and pulling it back makes her face look puffy.
She can say that she needed a change being a busy new mother, bla bla.
She seemed to have naturally curly hair in childhood. Changing to an attractive natural style could help other black and biracial women embrace their natural beauty.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2019/09/15/why-was-mms-smart-works-capsule-launch-overhyped/
I know little about the clothing industry but this seems an excellent deconstruction of the whole Smart Works venture with Meghan, that puts major publications to shame. This is what they should be doing.
If she did, she’d likely make sure photos and at least basic details of the relationship were long ago made public knowledge so she could use to the guy as a virtue signal. All of her known boyfriends and husbands have been white.
I actually think Sparkles and Haz don't live together and haven't for quite some time, there is certainly no one at Frogmore and it astonishes me they think people are so stupid they wouldn't notice the lack of activity.
And yes. The name Archie is very suspect. It's like the name you'd give as an inside joke, not a real baby.
I don't think anything much is real with the Sussuxes. Their Frogbottom cottage is fake, trips, fake, baby, fake, banana bread, faked. Diana's butterfly earrings, faked. It's like they are playing an ongoing, perpetual crazy shell game and made it into an industry. And what's driving this crazy clown car? Greed.
They would target youth like Goebbels propaganda aimed at the Hitler Youth. Easier to control and convince and get them to call everything racist. Extreme example but still, like you say old head on young shoulders can't be done.
Defines Sussux doesn't it? At this point it's rather obvious that nothing they do or say is the truth and they delight in the act of deceit, no matter who it hurts, robs, offends.
everything she touches turns to shit.
I have to say that the only reason that I know any of these things is because I've been waiting to find out what the deal is with her 'pregnancy' & her 'baby.' I was only vaguely aware of what goes on with the BRF, but I'm a news addict & do a daily scan of various news websites, including the Telegraph. I saw a photo of her in a beautiful turquoise gown that she wore while in Fiji & the caption mentioned that she was preggers. I knew Harry had gotten married recently, & I thought, 'wow that was fast, they must have jumped the gun a bit, but who am I to judge? Maybe this is what the RF thinks 'modernizing' is. ' Then I saw subsequent photos in the Telegraph, which likes to follow royal fashions, in which her baby bump seemed to vary wildly in size, & not in any sequence that made sense. I even googled 'baby bump changes sizes day to day,' & got several articles in which 'experts' explained why Megs' bump seemed to grow & deflate, so I knew I wasn't imagining things. I should explain that what put the wind up with me is that I've had two children who had the same gestational arcs that Megs claimed her 'baby' had. One was born in early April, the other in early May. One was even born in London with a hand written city of Westminster birth certificate, & believe me, my baby bump, the birth certificate, my post baby body or behavior were nothing like Megs'. Baby bumps gradually get larger, & mostly stay in the same place on your body, at least until the due date approaches, when the babies seem to be trying to get ready for their exit. Oh, and a breastfeeding mom usually quickly loses the baby weight because it takes so much energy to breastfeed. The fact that Megs & Harry were so vague about the due date was another red flag. Your ob-gyn whips out his or her little chart & tells you the exact due date on your first visit, based on when your last period was. Babies aren't born on their exact due dates, but you always have a good idea within a week or so. I just want to know, is there a baby? If there is, who gave birth to it, & whose DNA does it have? If there is a real baby, based on my experience, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that says Megs didn't carry it. I think faking a pregnancy is a pretty cynical thing for a public figure to pull off, although I know a lot of Hollywood types apparently do it. For someone in the BRF to do it is profoundly shocking to me, especially with all of the historical emphasis on legitimacy & so forth. So I want to know what's up with this s*** show!
around by the Queen’s 95th, I don’t think I can take it!
The Duchy is CONTROLLED by the current Prince of Wales, but it is not his personal property. It is, in the end, owned by the United Kingdom, which at the end of the trail, is the public.
Yes, the RF does have some personal wealth, but if it is wealth acquired by investing their allowances or other monies from the government, it still has roots in the benevolence of the citizenry.
Shirt can be hand washed (who the heck wants to do that?)
in arms about the cost. If this money wasn’t spent, the taxpayers would be relieved to know that.
The birthday wishes for PH from HMTQ, Chas, the Cambridges do not include any photos with Princess Pole Climber, either. That speaks volumes IMO.
https://twitter.com/JoCoCo20/status/1173265475163344898?s=19
It sounds like I'm not alone in saying that I'm very intrigued and excited by your input. I have a dreadful lack of patience so it's very encouraging to hear that there are definitely undercurrents of activity going on behind the scenes.
First can I thank you all for your kind comments. This really is the nicest blog (is blog the right word?) I have found and I enjoy reading all comments and insights.
I looked at three photos: 1. The one at the top of the page, the banner, I would call it. 2. The one with the ducks. 3. The sunset.
Photo 1. Taken from a high position. Certainly not taken from her bedroom window. Frog Cott isn't that high. In the bottom right of the pic is water. I think this is the River Thames which flows through several counties including Berkshire and Surrey on its way to London. If you look you can see people on the far bank on the tow path. Anyone can walk or cycle along the Thames.
I think this photo was taken somewhere in Runnymede, not far from Frog Cott, but too far to walk. Runnymede was where the Magna Carta was signed, but there is also a JFK Memorial which is high up on a hill. This may have been taken from there. This area is outside (just) Windsor Great Park.
2. The ducks. This is not a pond. Again, it's the River Thames. If you look to the left you can see the towpath I mentioned above. I think this is in Runnymede too. This is all common land where anyone can walk, cycle, have picnics, bbqs etc. Plenty of car parks and on nice days, even in winter, people come from miles.
3. The sunset. Well, this is a generic photo and could be taken anywhere in that area.
I read quite a few of her tweets. She really is deceitful. There is a photo (presumably) of her holding a bottle with the name 'Sipsmith' on it and she tweets about having non alcoholic cocktails. But Sipsmith is a gin and she holds the bottle in such a way that the word gin is hidden. This twitter account is definitely her, it reads like her turgid, banal Tig. And any woman who has to keep banging on about her amazing, incredible life makes me think that it's not. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Hope this is useful.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BMCWK2_LlXk
I've transcribed a section with Brian Hoey, an experienced writer and broadcaster. (As to credentials, his publisher's website notes he secured the first TV interview ever with Princess Anne.) What he says isn't new to anyone, but it reinforces the strength of the Queen's resistance to engage with family issues:
"The queen will go to almost any lengths to avoid confrontation. She simply doesn't like confrontation with family business at all. She leaves most of that sort of thing to Prince Philip anyway, who doesn't avoid it. He doesn't mind confrontation at all, but the Queen will avoid it. She is very likely, if somebody went up to her and said something like 'Don't you think it's time you had a word with Diana or with Sarah about the state of their marriage[s]?' she would be just as likely to say 'I think it's time the corgis had a walk in the garden' and she would walk away and leave it, and believe it would have disappeared by the time she came back. She simply would not involve herself in any of the private squabbles or relationships of her family at all."
Her reliance on Prince Philip in this area has long been recognised (with unfortunate results at times), but he has disappeared into deepest Norfolk and we have perhaps overlooked the effects of his absence. The lack of response to all the challenges Meghan is throwing down may just reflect a vacuum in the heart of the family. And the PM has a lot to deal with at the moment(!) Usually we might expect a little steer there, Ã la Tony Blair in '97.
Whether they live at Frogmore is pretty interesting though. I always wondered if there was a secret, very large underground tunnel installed by order of Queen Victoria from Windsor Castle to Frogmore Cottage so that visits with her astrologer/philosopher confidant could be kept secret. I can also imagine that they have a second residence because they believe they're entitled to such a lifestyle.
All I can say about this debacle is that I was speaking to a senior news reporter on one of the tabloids who is also an old friend. I asked him why they weren't printing all the gossip on the net. All he said was "We haven't enough proof....... yet. It's got to be cast iron".
Also, it's only puzzling & irritating, not depressing, like so much news is these days.
The area is a huge swamp and with that one would have concerns of water seeping in, flooding, the threat of collapse because not being able to keep the tunnel dry enough to seal it off initially before the water starts leaking in.
I do not know if they did have the capability back then to work around that (they might - I have been wrong before in life) but I do know that the water at ground level would be the first of many structural difficulties.
The next would be what kind of rock underlies the area. Granites, hard to deal with. Limestones - water dissolves (you know, most caves). I don't know the geology but that would be the next consideration. Geology in college.
If they really do believe they are entitled to more, more, more then a different place (given what has been said about this one) would likely be on the list.
(Elle, nice to see you).
Where exactly does MM fit into this? Is she a mere grifter out for as much as she can grab before the game is up? Has she been carefully placed in order to negatively affect the RF? Is she just a California doofus, or somebody far more nefarious? What I do not think is that PH met MM by happenstance. I also don't think we'll ever know the truth about what has happened/is happening.
The renovations that were supposedly done at Frogmore would have lasted months and months if the renovations were so extensive. There was no way they were done in the short period of time between the announcement and the date they announced they moved in. They would require permits and these take months to grant because architects and engineers are needed to study the dossier.