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
Since you are on the left coast, do you think that Gayle King's interview of the Harkles (if it happens) will be a big ratings winner? I have read that CBS This Morning has been struggling in the ratings since she's been the lead anchor.
/I'm not a TV watcher and prefer actual facts to opinions and happy talk.
That being said, I know how hard it is to watch an adult child make a very bad decision in a marriage partner who can best be described as a bad train wreck waiting to happen. The only thing to do is step back and see if any pieces can be salvaged when said train jumps the tracks because criticizing the marital partner only makes the one that made the bad decision dig in their heels over their decision. This is most likely the situation that the RF finds itself in.
So, the queen's aloof behavior is her normal way of doing things, but her inaction is causing a lot of damage to her legacy.
If I was Anne, after thorough investigation and evidence, force the Sussex to dissolve their foundation and all other bogus charity connections to money making enterprises attached to them. If they refuse, the consequences would be dire. Press would be given the green light to expose all of Meg's grifting and lies, including the fake baby, surrogate, all of it. And that's just for starters. And I'd advise them that any attempt, so much as the whiff of any attempt to cause a backlash or play victim would also release the press to expose them with the facts.
All I can say is that I hope H&M are put in their proper box and kept there (or Meghan runs off into a Californian sunset) before he becomes Charles III. Otherwise, if we continue to have to put up with this AND have a monarch whose personal extravagance would rival the Prince Regent, there will be a perfect storm.
sigh
"You were wondering why sightings of this child of two celebrity parents have been so rare, we have some insight for you!
She isn’t being coy because of concerns about child safety or because she is trying to be artsy. She is frustrated that her team has been unable to figure out how to monetize the baby. She feels like the coverage should be worth millions.
She wanted to do a sale of the first full photo (cover and exclusive). Even though they were trying to be creative about it (publicly announce $X million to charity but with another $X million quietly going to a “private” account), there were too many people involved. The confidentiality issue was a nightmare and people within the family were asking questions so it was deemed too risky. She is facing a lot of scrutiny. If it had leaked that she was trying to profit off those photos, she would be in a much worse position than she is now. The recent photo was her trying to deflect any speculation about that."
2. what kind of scum makes money off pictures of their kids?
3. what kind of scum insists on privacy except for money for their kids?
she is truly pond scum.
1. This would be a public slap-down of the asinine 'More than two kids harms the environment' comment by Hapless at the Google Summit.
2. Murkle would be chewing on her own liver at the thought of more positive press for the Cambs. Poor Kate does not have an easy time of it for the first three months, but afterwards she sails though. What better rebuttal to the ridiculous, cynical posturing of the Archificial Show than a glowing Duchess of C. with a healthy, normal pregnancy, looking beautiful in normal maternity outfits and another beautiful baby for the House of Cambridge?
3. Owing to #2, Murkle might be forced by her rapacious envy into announcing another Fauxgancy . . .this time with Twins!! If Kate's pregnancy is confirmed, I look for Smegs to come back from South Africa 'noticeably pregnant' . .that is, if they go, after all. If not . . .maybe a divorce for Christmas for Harry? We'll have to wait and see what's up with Kate's uterus.
If Will and Kate choose to have another child, excellent. I can't think of better parents.
I guess I'm rather old school, but to me, being a parent and having as many children as one wants or not is not about quantity. I feel that if people can afford to have as many kids as they want, and are loving, caring, healthy parents, then go for it.
https://blindgossip.com/big-baby-bucks/
I hope it's a little sister for Charlotte. It'd be a little sister for the boys as well, but then the sides would be even. :)
I had, along with millions, bought into Harry's image as the fun-loving, child adoring uncle that wanted nothing more than to be a father himself. Cynicism now clouds everything the Suxxits touch. Harry *was* adorable with babies and small children in ways that seemed natural and genuine . . but now I'm wondering if it wasn't just all part of the 'optics' to pad his popularity.
Kids have an instinctive feeling for people who like them and who to be wary of. Children always flocked to Harry; note how they recoil from Smeg and refuse to cooperate during staged photo ops.
I wanted to believe Archie was real, but Harry's reaction to him (it?) during the polo match was non-existent. Meg had no real baby on her person that day. Whether Archie is real somewhere else, with all the gallivanting the two have done since he was 'born' . . I'm very sure they can't have custody. They can't keep a nanny, so who would be watching him?
Ditto @AbbyH
I am going to just skim posts and if I see the words IRS, money laundering, laundering, 9 million, etc., I'm going to look away and scroll fast b/c it does frustrate the hell out of me otherwise. I have a problem when things aren't logical -- lifelong issue -- and I know that interjecting things like facts and details doesn't help lol, but damned if I don't hit my head against a brick wall trying. But no more because otherwise, I will just go mad and I don't like myself when I get so frustrated. If I need to talk about it, I'll just bounce out and type on Tumblr where no one will see it :)
All that yachting takes a toll. And grifting is hard work, too. All those lies to keep track of.
Maybe if Smegs washed off the bronzer, went to a facialist, stopped snorting cocaine and freebasing the Tig, removed the matted wig of horsehair and embraced a more natural style, she'd look more youthful. She's making the classic mistake . . .a woman approaching 40 who is still convinced that she can pull off the styles and lingo of someone in her early 20s. Smeg is living in denial of an inescapable reality: She is old enough to be Kylie and Kendall Jenner's mom, when she's acting and dressing like she's one of their peers.
NeutralObserver - I agree the obvious mistakes made in this whole trainwreck is really amateurish - considering the resources they have available you would think they would not make the most stupid errors? This has me wondering if there is a intent for people to find out? Or maybe I am thinking too much about it all :)
It is clear to me that Sparkles is trying to cultivate herself as a "lifestyle/fashion" brand person - ala GOOP but without the style (As much as I dislike GOOP I cant deny she has a style with her fashions) Everything She is doing is showing that goal -
1) The vogue UK train wreck
2) the smart works debacle - highlighting her friend and the person she stayed with at NY
3) Pictures of her talking to Anna Wintour while at the tennis.
I know there are other things but it is early and I need a coffee:)
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/guests-warned-not-to-ask-the-queen-about-meghan-and-harry/news-story/965b3f5c762d93d8e3d066827cabf93d
p.s. apologies if this has already been mentioned on this thread today. 254 posts are a lot to scroll through.
So apparently Isabel May is the godmother - was introduced to Sparkles by....Markus Anderson and apparently is a PR s"Specialist" who used to work as the head of communications for Burberry and is currently employed as chief marketing director for David Beckham’s company, DB Ventures.
I could have called that Markus would have something to do with this, I am guessing she would need to start paying him back pretty soon.
Re the IRS, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I worked for them after I left construction. I know what a cluster**** it truly is. IMO, the best thing for this country would be to abolish it ASAP.
We cut the cord and have not regretted it. We do have some streaming stuff (Netflix, Phileo which has cable channels I like but none that I dislike - like $16/mo).
@Gabeshuman, I forget and try Safari, too, and nothing happens for me. nothing will post. Is that what happens for you? I'm not going to do a blog -- I just don't have the time, and I'm about to be slammed beyond busy again. But I'd love to chat on Tumblr and process things.
The first cleanses the palate
the second sets the flavor
The third gets me out the door..
The guys I work with tend to ask me how many I have had before they deal with me;)
"Meghan is a gift to the royal family – an outreach worker to make up for Catherine Cambridge’s decision to project nothing beyond a faint idea of shopping at Waitrose."
To many now, Kate's contented motherhood and her steady preparation to become Queen Catherine have unquestioned value, for her family and for us. We see three happy children and a family that is obviously united, and that is such a change from previous royal generations. I for one think that is a tremendous achievement. Yet people manage to stand this on its head and represent Kate as the empty, meaningless one and Meghan as the deep and meaningful one. And yet again the writer accepts unquestioningly Meghan's Proctor & Gamble story that did not stand up to investigation:
"She served at soup kitchens and persuaded Procter & Gamble to change a sexist advertisement for cleaning products. 'At the age of 11 I had created my small level of impact by standing up for equality' she wrote later. This is a typical Meghan sentence: pared down to nothing."
If that's pared down I'd hate to see flowery.
On her ethicity:
"She wasn’t, she wrote in Elle, 'black enough for the black roles and I wasn’t white enough for the white ones, leaving me somewhere in the middle as the ethnic chameleon who couldn’t book a job'."
This week I found a photo of Meghan's card she used as an actress. As many have pointed out, she is defined on there as 'Caucasian'.
When future historians study this period, they'll wonder how on earth Meghan (aided by complacent journalism) could get away with this. Research will need to include readers' comments to realise they didn't. It's like a recent DM reader's comment that they hoped the Queen reads the newspapers, to see how people feel about Meghan. I responded that she would need to read the online versions to see that for herself. I have an awful feeling she still receives her daily papers the old-fashioned way.
* https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/meghan-markle-duchess-sussex-princess
The thing is with any people in media (or who are/were dressed and had makeup & hair done every other day) is that they learn what looks good on them.
Usually a team of people (stylist, hairdresser, MUA) create several looks for them in which they look the best. They consider their body, skin, eyes, hair type + their personality or what they try to sell/represent. After that it's easy to stick to those formulas and recreate the same look. For example Duchess Catherine always has the same looks...1: the nature look with her boots, jeggings, sweater, etc. 2: the elegant evening look 3: the tea dress look, 4: the coat dresses, etc. She sticks to those & plays with different accessories and hair looks. This helps her being recognisable by the people as well...and that is the point! She is not a fashion icon who rocks different looks everyday, she is a public servant who has to be recognised by the public. On the other hand she still looks herself and not so made up as they considered her own personal style (before being royal).
MM however, were dressed for Suits for years...and she looked good as they considered her body type (which in her case is super important as she has a particular one with her skinny legs, no waist, short torso, no boobs, etc. not like Catherine who is tall, skinny and more proportioned therefore she looks good in a lot more outfits ). In her personal life and TIG days, she wanted an IT girl casual look...with always the same type of stuff. Which were okay for her to go to yoga class, etc.
But the game changed when she started 'dating' Harry...I believe after the engagement she had help...you could see there were colour coordinated, season appropriate, and fresh looks...but there was only a handful of them...After it escalated. I think her narcissistic self came out and said I can do everything and I wanna stay me! Ever since she always fails with her looks...as she wants to be Diana 2.0, Fashion Icon, Young Princess, Hot Girl, Humanitarian, New Mom, etc. It's too much and she doesn't realise she needs a permanent team who helps her.
That's the way I lean. Notice how the big kerfluffle over 'privacy' and making fun of Kate for showing off her newborns in front of the Lindo wing and all this 'we want time to bond as a family', etc., etc., was announced only *after* it was evident to everyone that Megs was significantly 'late' from her supposed due date. We were waiting for a birth announcement and this is what we got instead.
Had their intention to not take a photo call so soon after the birth been announced earlier on, say, a few months before the due date and not 'the week the baby was supposed to be born', there would have been time for the press and public to get adjusted to the idea and there wouldn't have been such a backlash. It was their prerogative to decide when they were comfortable taking photos with the new baby, but the way it was sprung on everyone last minute was sneaky and controlling.
But of course it had to be sneaky and controlling, just like the entire pregnancy and everything else Smegs touches because she simply did not know when her surrogate baby would arrive and how soon she would get him. Had she genuinely been pregnant with her own baby, I don't think she would have missed the opportunity to show up Catherine with a post-baby photo call that was bigger and splashier. She probably would have wanted to say a few word salads, too, because Catherine generally lets William speak at these things, and then just a very few words.
Her ploy was so transparent. She still hasn't been officially called on it, and instead gets to frame it with more of her faux-female empowerment mantras. Look at Meghan, standing up against the patriarchy by refusing to be exploited for pictures so soon after birth and trying to conform to unrealistic expectations for post-partum mums!
It is not an unrealistic expectation for a new mother who claims to have just delivered a baby to actually produce a baby . . but Smeg couldn't. Any chance to slam the Cambridges, however, she grabs with both claws.
And then after all that claptrap, the Sussexes paraded 'Archie' in a grand hall at Windsor 48 hours after his alleged birth. All their 'private bonding as a family' was a bit more than one day. What hypocrites these two are.
I am not buying the theory that Archie does not exist or is older than his true age for the very fact that William, despising MM as much as he does, would not show up at the christening and allow himself to be photographed in the official portrait if the baby was a scam. He despises Meghan of late (I.e. Scarfgate) and, as he is known for being petulant. He rushed George & Charlotte into a waiting car directly after Meghan & Harry's wedding so they would not be photographed with the two of them. He knew Meghan’s father was never invited to the wedding and didn’t want his family participating in that charade once their official duties at the service were over. It’s also why Kate did not approach Meghan & Archie at the polo match: William in no wants Markle in the same frame as his family as she knows how to manipulate the press into thinking they are all great friends when that is not the case.
Bottom line: William is the future king. No way would he participate in a lie and risk ruining his reputation, even if it’s for his little brother. He would have skipped it instead.
I have a financial / legal background that has also involved white-collar investigations and internal review in some of the more arcane areas of the financial world. Even with my peers, there are times when their general knowledge of a financial issue doesn't mesh with the reality of the underlying documents, and I have to "well, actually" them. OTOH, I know that I'm *not* the person to consult re GAAP lol and I will never, ever be doing consolidated corporate financials. Do I have the background and certification to do those? Yep. Do I stay on top of the area and have any expertise? Hell, to the no, and I'm keeping it that way. I try to stay in my lane and I bow to the expertise of others *when* they have that expertise.
>>>>William, despising MM as much as he does, would not show up at the christening and allow himself to be photographed in the official portrait if the baby was a scam.<<<
In this, you are absolutely correct. William has too much integrity to give his stamp of approval to a hoax of this magnitude by allowing himself and his wife to be photographed formally with 'Archie'.
This is why, I believe absolutely in my core that William did NOT allow himself to be photographed in any alleged christening portrait taking place supposedly at Windsor Castle on July 6, 2019. The little baby in the picture on that occasion is real, but I believe the so-called portrait sitting is entirely faked up. Consider that MM is not only willing, but adamant that she's going to monetize her child and essentially sell him for pictures to pad her own bank account . . while allegedly contributing to 'charity' at the same time. This woman is shameless and will manipulate anything to her advantage. Photoshopping--the means by which she can manipulate 'reality' itself is one of her favorite hobbies and feeds that inner beast which so delights in the acts of deceit which emanate so plentifully from her.
Since Archie's alleged birth in May, I contend that there has been *no* official acknowledgement of Meg's child at all. No gun salute. No title. No signatures on the framed birth announcement out front, which renders it null and void as far as being 'official' in any capacity. There is no handwritten date, which is customary. The entire thing could, and no doubt was, prepared in Word and set out with the conviction by Meghan, if nobody else, that it would 'pass' as looking 'official enough'. Except if one takes 2 minutes to compare it to other royal baby birth announcements, readily available online, it doesn't. Archie's distressingly bare birth announcement includes Doria by saying how delighted she is at the birth. Non-royal grandparents are never included on birth announcements emanating from Buckingham Palace, because this is the sovereign's announcement, not theirs. I confess that this item does trouble me more than any of the purported (doctored) images of Archie because it's hard to imagine any BP equerries traipsing out solemnly with the gilt frame and stand for this very special historical tradition except on Her Majesty's order, or someone very highly placed at the Palace. Meghan does not have the authority to order members of the Queen's staff to place fake birth announcements at the gates of the heart of the British state. That does flummox me.
See, I believe that Meg really and truly thinks that everyone in the world is an idiot, except for her, and she's actually getting away with her scams.
The 'official' photos released of Baby Archie with his great-great grandparents . . or with his grandparents, Charles and Camilla, or with Harry's aunts, or with the Cambridges are not copyrighted by Buckingham Palace as is customary, but by Meghan's own copyrighted media outlet, SussexRoyal, and created by Meghan's personally hired photographer, not anyone officially employed in that capacity by the Queen herself. Images taken by Buckingham Palace belong to Buckingham Palace,and Meg was not having any control over this little fiasco of hers granted to an outside party.
Ergo, no official portraits of Archie with members of the Royal family exist. All of the Royals' images were lifted from ones already existing, some blatantly so. William and Kate are wearing their Christmas clothes. Kate is known for re-wearing some of her favorite outfits, but it is unlikely she would rewear her Christmas outfit for a summer christening. Likewise, Chas and Camilla were wearing their identical clothes they had on at Louis's christening almost a year to the day earlier, down to the identical flower in Chas's buttonhole. Is this not instructive? I'm no Photoshopping expert, but when there's a roomful of adults posing for an official portrait and only Meghan and Harry are the ones actually making eye line with the camera, I get suspicious.
What allows MM to continue this charade is the deafening silence on the part of BP that it is in fact going on. They are all engaged in a public united display of 'We all know what's going on here, but we are going to carry on as if we know nothing and everything is normal." They must have their reasons for that, though it is decidedly infuriating from out here. You'd have thought one word from the Queen would have shut this down months ago, but I have to feel that whatever is happening behind the scenes at the various houses, it's monstrous and they are trying to contain it as best they can. A Markle infestation is unprecedented in the RF and there's no blueprint for dealing with this. This is a family accustomed to, and comforted by, relying on rigidly proscribed rules and codes of conduct. There is no rule book for this and they are floundering a bit. I think (I hope, fervently, at least) that their strategy is to hold their cards very close to their vest and acknowledge nothing until they can find a legal way to dismantle her completely. Until then, they have plausible deniability that they have in fact, let a crazy woman into their midst.
http://dorothycrabtree.blogspot.com/2019/09/archies-newest-christening-photo-whats.html
I wish I knew anything. Markle has us all questioning if down is up and the properties of time, space, the human body, everything.
There is a baby, but something happened and they don't have him now. They may have only had him for a couple of days, long enough to arrange various photo shoots, and that under supervision. Would you leave Murkle alone with your baby? I wouldn't. I wouldn't let her touch my dog. If there was any doubt that the baby wasn't going to be staying with them permanently, why were these photos allowed in the first place? Were they Murkle's way of forcing the surrogate's hand? "You have to let us keep him now since we've just flaunted him in front of the world as ours." Not so fast, sister.
Why would the Queen proudly display a photo of the baby at BP and yet deny the mite a 21 gun salute or a title? Either Archie's in or he's out. He got a press conference and has sold tons of magazines, so he's out there as a member of the Royal family . . except that he is persona non grata. Megs is as maternal as a cactus. Somebody has that baby, but it's not her, flying off to America as high as a kite. If Meg had a baby and was still driving her own car, she'd be the type to leave him in the back in the 98 degree LA heat while she was getting her hair weave redone.
Someday I think it will all come out . . Archie, Fraudmore, all of it. I just wonder if we will still be alive. The really damning stuff about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor didn't come out until this century.
----True that!
"There is a baby, but something happened and they don't have him now. They may have only had him for a couple of days, long enough to arrange various photo shoots, and that under supervision."
----Agree completely.
"Would you leave Murkle alone with your baby?":
----I was always very careful about who could care for my dogs. I wouldn't have let Markle near my house, much less my dog. Or cat. Or goldfish. Or chickadees. Or anything that could easily be converted to cash or liquid asset.
"You have to let us keep him now since we've just flaunted him in front of the world as ours."
----I suspect the buy-off was more complicated, but IGI.
"Why would the Queen proudly display a photo of the baby at BP and yet deny the mite a 21 gun salute or a title?"
----This is the big question. I believe that the BRF must have known about the surrogate birth. I believe that they had to "not know" what they knew to maintain plausible deniability. Other than that, beats me. The 21-gun salute and title sure make it seem like Fauxrchie isn't the favorite grandchild.
"If Meg had a baby and was still driving her own car, she'd be the type to leave him in the back in the 98 degree LA heat while she was getting her hair weave redone."
----True, but thankfully silicone is heat-safe to about 425 F.
Someday I think it will all come out . . Archie, Fraudmore, all of it. I just wonder if we will still be alive. The really damning stuff about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor didn't come out until this century.
----I think it will all come out much sooner on this one. The truth will serve as the garlic to ward off the Vampiress Markle. Besides, think of the magazine sales and click-bait profit potential for the media. By the time they finish with Markle, Pamela Anderson will look like a role model.
In doing what I do I know a fair but about the profiles of offending - everything from the IT component and methodologies to the psychological elements - it is something I continue to educate myself on and people will be pretty amazed by some of the nuance behaviors.
One of my biggest struggles was learning about the nitty gritty of forensic accounting - not my strong point but I needed to know the methods for a task. I admire anyone who does financial services work because it took a while for me to grasp, then when it came to blind trusts and those structures I never wanted to drink heavily more in my life :)
And yes, we would. And we'd have to take solemn blood oaths b/c IDK about you, but I can't talk about anything specific at all.
With financial crime it seems the biggest element is integrity. I was happy when that was added to the triangle to make it a diamond, because the triangle is too simple and the diamond adds the critical element.
I am constantly surprised by the lengths she goes to. Any normal person would just stay the heck off social media if that is one of the requirements for the great benefits she enjoys.