Skip to main content

How to Lie with Statistics: Why "55% of Britons approve of Meghan"

Before I began journalism school, many years ago, I went to the campus bookstore with a list of required books to buy.

Some were classics of the journalistic format - one was John Hersey's searing "Hiroshima", an onsite interview with survivors of the first nuclear bombing of a civilian population, a book that still haunts me.

Another was Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics," which came to mind earlier today, when I read that a Tatler survey found "more than half the country believes the Duchess of Sussex has been good for the Royal Family."


The sample with built-in bias

Huff's book is 65 years old, but it's still a light and easy read (with cartoons!) and many of the methods it describes are still in use today.

For example, the sample with the built-in bias. Huff refers to a famous 1936 home telephone poll, which showed that US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt would definitely be defeated by his Republican challenger.

Unfortunately, at the time wealthy people were far more likely to have home telephones, and they were also more likely to be Republicans. When the actual election day came along, millions of people without telephones turned up and elected FDR to a second term.

People who like to answer questionnaires

Huff also points out that all questionnaire answers come, by definition, from people who are willing to answer questionnaires. 

What about people who aren't?  Or, these days, what about the people who don't take voice calls?  (A lot of people under 30, in my experience)

Or those who hang up when the nice question-and-answer lady calls - because they are annoyed, busy, ill, or don't feel safe sharing their opinions with a complete stranger?  

In particular, they may be less likely to answer if their opinions could be considered unacceptable by the nice question-and-answer lady - if, say, they are in favor of Donald Trump or Brexit.

Or if they don't think the new (slightly) Black duchess who has recently joined the Royal Family is all that great.

The Meghan poll

According to the poll, as quoted in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, 55 percent of adults think Meghan has been "good for the monarchy" while 45 percent disagree.

But only 54 percent of respondents were willing to answer the question. 

Would the 46 percent who did not respond also have called Meghan "good for the monarchy" at a 55-45 ratio? 

My guess is no. Perhaps these quiet folk subscribe to the dictim "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." 

Or they might have a very real fear of being called a racist if they express a dislike of Meghan.

Timing is everything

In addition, the poll of 2,016 adults was conducted on September 6 and 8, well after Meg and Harry had made fools of themselves by lecturing people on the environment then flying about in private jets, but long before they had made fools of themselves by overshadowing their expensive South Africa trip with a quixotic lawsuit against the media.

The effects of this week's weepy, sympathetic documentary about how no one asks about Meg or her problems was also not included.

But the press was sure to run the very latest images with the article, giving it an up-to-date feel. 

I wonder why it took Tatler and its partner, ComRes, nearly two months to pull the results together. 

It seems like something that could be done overnight with some basic statistical software.

Part of the PR campaign

My guess is that the release of the poll was timed strategically as part of yet another Meghan PR initiative, this one including groanworthy articles like Meghan means business: Why the Duchess of Sussex is dipping into her on-screen Suits style

Is the media being paid for these pieces, or is it running them in an effort to show it is not biased against the US-born Duchess, as Prince Harry charged in his (second) angry letter directed at the press?

If only we could know what the reporters and editors are really thinking.  

But they are precisely the kind of people who would be unlikely to answer a poll. 














Comments

Sarah said…
She should lay low for a while and late this year, early next, quietly release a story about her visiting sick children or something like that. Her core problem is she’s incapable of patience, laying low or doing anything that isn’t forcing her way to the limelight. She is her own worst enemy. Her constant need for attention is one of the reasons the public dislike her.
Subtler pr would work better too. The constant, fake, transparent positive pr stories are annoying.
Nelo said…
So Basically, only about 1000 people out of those spoken to were willing to talk. This is lazy journalism. You interview about 2000 people, and only about 1000 people were willing to answer your questions then u run with the headline that 54 percent approve of her. So for a period of two months, Tatler could only get about 1000 britons for their poll. Very pathetic. Meanwhile Richard Palmer has said Meghan has made the decision not to reveal the details of any thing she wears from henceforth so that we can stop bothering about how expensive they are.
Nelo said…
I'm sad that Charles has been unable to put the Sussexes in line until his documentary was overshadowed. It's so sad to see the Sussexes ride roughshod over the RF. It's so sad that despite the fact that she blatantly tried to manipulate the press and public opinion against her husbands family, there was nothing Charles could do other than to complain about being overshadowed. So far there has been no repercussion for their bad behavior.
The Cat's Meow said…
Great post @Nutty. Very clear and concise!
Girl with a Hat said…
Regarding statistics, I am reminded of two things:

1. that famous seen from Yes, Prime Minister

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

2. the saying " Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Girl with a Hat said…
sorry, that should be "scene", not "seen".
Liver Bird said…
More shenanigans with not confirming her outfits! What's that about? The royal press releases have always stated who designed the clothes being worn by members of the royal family at public events. So of course she's too special for that. It's part of their 'contract' with the British people - to be transparent about their spending. It also helps to promote the British fashion industy, or at least it does if the royal is wearing a British brand, which of course Meghan rarely does.

I'm guessing her fanz will say the focus should be on her 'work', not on her clothes, as though her 'work' had any substance. And I wonder if Meghan's Mirror will still somehow manage to get the designer ID?
Ava C said…
Great move to stop confirming her clothes. Tax-payers will especially love the censorship.

She's hitting us where it hurts. In our wallets. In what's a perpetual battle for many families to simply pay their bills, let alone save for the future.

We know she's terminally tone-deaf, but what about her PR? She must be doing this alone as no professional support of any worth would counsel much a move.

Also, it could hit her future 'charitable' income. Lack of transparency sends the worst possible message to possible donors.
Liver Bird said…
@Ava

My guess is that the Harkles are completely on their own. They only listen to Harvey Weinstein's PR firm who of course have no clue how to operate with a royal client. That's why I'll be gobsmacked if we see them at Sandringham this Xmas. I think at this stage, Meghan barely exists for the royals. Like the rest of us they're just waiting for the inevitable divorce when Harry comes crawling back to them. But I suspect they have given up all hope for her.

And of course, the whole refusing to reveal the designer of her ill-fitting rags is only going to encourage speculation and keep people talking. A bit like all the secrecy around Archie's birth and christening. You'd almost think they WANT people to talk about them all the time.....
Artemisia19 said…
@Nuttyflavor. I never knew that story about FDR’s election! I’ll buy that book. I worked as a researcher for a couple of years and they did survey-based research. I remember one time when the numbers did not support the report’s framework, I strongly told my boss that the numbers didn’t support the premise of the report. The tech database guy looked at me and slowly said “Ohhhh, I can fix that.” So ever since that job, I take these polls with a grain of salt.
Louise said…
Smarkle might not be identifying her clothes to the media, but she is still identifying them to Meghan's Mirror.

I guess that she wants purchases to run through her site.
SwampWoman said…
Long, long ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was getting my BA degree, I learned to lie fluently in statistics and how easy it is to manipulate polls. I trust NOTHING unless I've designed it, and I don't trust me, either. I want other sets of eyes to look over it to make sure that I haven't included any unconscious biases or whether questions can be interpreted to mean something entirely different than what I had in mind. (grin) Or, at least, I used to.

Now I just assume that the polls and statistics are being provided by the low-cost contractor and interpreted by people with no math skills whatsoever and are not to be relied upon. If it is important to me, I'll know what people really think.
SwampWoman said…
Louise said:

Smarkle might not be identifying her clothes to the media, but she is still identifying them to Meghan's Mirror.

I guess that she wants purchases to run through her site.


This is one of those things that I do not understand, so perhaps you wonderful ladies would be kind enough to explain it to me. Why in the world would somebody want to buy clothes through her site? I'm strictly a cost/benefit type of gal, so the cachet of enriching a low-level royal who was previously an 'actress' does not appeal to me. NOW, if I got a significant discount, that would be different.
Unknown said…
I agree with Louise, she’s wanting to run the purchase of ANYTHING she wears through Meghan’s Mirror. I just went over there and EVERYTHING she had on is for sale...except her Spanx and mop wig. One wonders how many disillusioned people want her ‘look’? After reading the zillion negative Daily Mail comments on the bogus Tatler poll I kind of doubt that there are that many. I wish I could get a look at her sales stats.

Regardless, color me disgusted.

Glowworm 🐛
The poll was conducted by Tatler magazine. I want to know who ComRes asked and how they asked...it wasn’t their readers, I subscribe (to the mag) and no questionnaire came my way! Lol
What I want to know is how much does this poll actually matter? It doesnt help change the opinion of the people who are skeptical about her ie., Us. And it certainly wouldn't change the minds of the powers that be, namely the BRF members and the RRs. This poll could very well be a PR piece, looks like it. Tatler would also want to sell copies of it's latest edition that has MM on it's cover.

Also, if this is Tatlers strategy to sell more copies then ha ha, take note Vogue.
JL said…
Brava. Polls and stats are such a huge problem, especially when it comes to US elections. It was a long time before news outlets stopped predicting winners before the voting booths even closed thus potentially affecting the election outcomes.
Now though it seems like journalists write big broad statements with no backup at all just because they have bought some PR-driven narrative. “I have a deadline and need to produce something so will just pick up ‘info’ from this PR press sheet. My favorite example as you all know is the myth of how Smirkles is a beacon of hope to women of African descent everywhere (Oprah approved! Gayle likes her!) Writers don’t even bother with a proper poll on that, let alone mess with it.
Royal Fan said…
Meghan Markle is making it too easy for the IRS and British suits to follow her financial crimes. I expect this is exactly how she will be taken down and it will be swift and sudden. The BRF will fully cooperate since Meghan decided to s**t all over them. It’s too good!! Remember Wills meetings. I mean really she thinks she’s “the smartest one in the room.” I’m laughing so hard over here!! 💩💩💩
Regarding the palace not releasing the details of clothes MM is wearing - isn't that also applicable to Kate's clothing as well. If I remember correctly, Kate's last engagement at the National History museum, the details weren't released either, the palace had released some statement about it, something about not wanting to take the focus away from the work (or maybe aan RR had speculated). The exact brand and model of Kate's clothes hadn't been identified till the next day or so because of that.

I do agree though that withholding that info comes in the way of transparency. So I guess it's a catch 22.
I never know what to believe when it comes to this type of thing. I usually figure it’s a bunch of BS, like everything else they tell us. But it is amazing to see what was considered a powerful institution, allow itself to be demeaned to this level, all because they’re (evidently) terrified of being called racist.
Royal Fan , I'm with you. I think HnMs ultimate undoing would be something boring like tax fraud or actual receipts for merching or paid gigs.

The mind games are too passive aggressive or bother sides to lead to something substantial. And eventually if someone is planning to get of them it will be through something concrete and admissible inlegal terms, something that the public can't dispute.
Liver Bird said…
@Alice

Ypu're right that KP recently declined to say what Kate was wearing, but that was not the norm. All of her clothes on the recent tour were IDed I believe.

But if Meghan has now decided none of her clothes are going to be IDed, I suspect there is, as always, shenanigans. Like others I wonder if it's some kind of merching deal, with Meghan's Mirror as the outlet of choice? If so, then that would be pretty much proof that a) Meghan's Mirror is basically a Harkle PR site and b) her clothes are not paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall but are given or lent for merching purposes. The latter, of course, would be totally inappropriate for a member of the royal family.

I also wonder if the reason we've been seeing her in 'repeats' and less expensive outfits is because she is now planning to "reposition" herself for merching purposes? After all, I doubt too many of her fans can afford custom Givenchy.
Trudy2 said…
Having a great conversation with my sister in law about the Meghan subject. She's a good thinker like the majority of us all are but even she thinks I may need a bit of a tin hat!! Does anyone have the link to the Charlaton Duchess post with the cream dress where the moonbump inexplicably changes shape in each photo, or the purple dress video where the pillow drops to her knees please?
@Liver Bird

The exact same thought did occur to me while reading the clothing comments today. Everyone can't afford Dior and Givenchy. And she has been wearing a lot of affordable rewears, nothing fancy schamzy. That infact would be the perfect merching a d bra dung deal wouldn't it. And if it's all available through Meghan's mirror, with discounts, then it's a win win.

That being said she needs to ditch those high heels. They make her the least relatable person ever. But then again, that can also be said about her wigs, her fake lashes, her fake tan, her too white teeth, her cackling laughter. She could merch Spanx though, too bad she doesn't want to own up to that.
Mimi said…
Those heels. I USED to wear stilettos back in the day but they are very hard to walk gracefully in. It requires talking smaller, mincing steps in order not to look like meghan when she is clomping around in them. They appear to be the norm for many royals but honestly, they are hard on the legs and back. They make it look effortless.
SwampWoman said…
I look at her and her sites and see "multiple streams of income" featuring passive income which is all the thing now. While she may not get much from any one scheme, er, excuse me, 'business', $50 a month here, $350 a month there, $1,000 a month from copyrighted photos, etc. will add up. If you get enough pails in the water, you are going to be able to dip quite a bit out of the pool.

I think all of this may depend on her keeping her name on the front page.

Ilona said…
@Trudy Here is a link: https://megawatch19.blogspot.com/2019/01/magical-moonbump-watch-meghans-ever.html

The top pictures show her more ... pregnant on 16/01 than on 30/01/ and the rest in a time period of 45 minutes.
Ava C said…
Last night I was just sitting, just thinking, about what I would do if I were the Queen or Prince Charles or Prince William, and it's so difficult when you think they will still vividly remember Harry as a bereaved child. It's all very well to say he's a man now. Man up etc. But they love him and they won't want to lose him.

They will need to provide him with a way back that preserves some vestiges of self-respect. He's not himself. It's as if he has a succubus (female version of incubus) attached to him, day and night, and they need to detach it from him without tearing him to pieces in the process. So so difficult. For any family, let alone one in the world's spotlight.

Wealth makes things harder here, not easier. How do you carry out tough love if he could die sooner than he runs out of money? Yes his wife is profligate, but if access to capital is limited in some way (and we know royal wealth can have its own rules), that offsets her profligacy. Their privileges - wealth and the royal management of wealth - turn against them.

It must feel like a race against time, especially now she has made fun of him in public. On film. How much is left of him to rescue? How much will there be six months from now? And all the time pressure is building on them from the other side. From the people. Reflected increasingly frequently through the media. To just tear the succubus off him. Careless of damage. Their love for him has already gone.

I know some of you will say so what? He deserves it! I feel that way too. I've never rated him. I've said that before. However, considering him not as a prince but as my brother, son or grandson, I realised how heartbreakingly difficult this is. I realised that if I was the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince William, I just wouldn't know what to do. I would just be hoping she moves on, leaving whatever is left to me.


Unknown said…
Exactly, Swamp Woman. Things like holding her left claw out in front of her showing that she was not wearing the eternity ring and had her wedding set on backwards causes buzz. Just a little thing that probably meant nothing but it causes people to speculate and “keep her name on the front page”. As others have noted, she's a hustler.

Glowworm
@SwampWoman said everything depends on her keeping her name on the front page.

To me it looks like she is getting her way. And bit just in the bad PR way that is happening now. We are seeing Harry, or her husband, as she refers to him publicly unravelling. We have Gus family calling him fragile, Charles obviously miffed about this whole kurfuffle. There are articles saying HE has been a mess for a long time and Mm is dealing with it behind scenes.

We also see him bringing her out with with him to most of his important engagements bow, she is always holding his hand, leading him, rubbing his back, all a show of being his constant support. At the same time she is perfectly capable of carrying it her own engagements by herself, TRex on the lose. What does this all convey? That Harry is a mess. He is depressed, he is the one who wants to give it all up while she is his strength, she is dealing with it all. That it's all his doing. That is a dangerous narrative to set, and she has been doing it steady over time.

In a few weeks time it is going to be much worse for Harry. And it's then that these silly polls and her speeches about kindness and empowerment and putting a brave face in will begin to shift the narrative in her favour. That I think is her ultimate goal. We haven't seen her actually saying anything damaging about the BRF, it's always been him. So maybe that's what she wants?

Sigfreya29 said…
So I am not sure how media got hold of this figure of 55%- which is completely wrong. If you look at the poll figures (available on the com res site),you can see the following-

1. Only 2016 people responded. Now this is a pretty small sample size the begin with

2.only 30% adults agreed with the statement that she has been good for the BRF

3. 25% adults disagreed with the above statement

4. 31% adults neither agreed, nor disagreed. In addition to that, 14% "didn't know"...which is pretty much the same as neither agreed, nor disagreed. This means that 45% of the people sampled don't have any opinion about her. They certainly cannot be counted in the 55% adults who are supposedly her fans (as per the media)

So to recount, we have only 30% adults stating that she has been good for the family. An almost equal number (25%) feel she has been bad for the family,while the rest (45%), just don't care!

Where has the figure of 55% come from? Have the media outlets just added the 30% (who like her) another 25% (who don't) ? Curiouser and curiouser.
@Liver Bird

Maybe she is designing her own clothes in an attempt to launch her own clothing line. Someone else is making patterns and sewing so that is why the vast majority of her clothes are ill fitting. Even when she was getting free couture, nothing fit i.e., samples.

The interest shown in each item she wears is developing her line of clothes.

Ugh.
Rainy Day said…
I think the last US presidential election, that Hillary was considered a shoe-in to win, demonstrated the fallacy of believing in polls. Going right into voting day, everyone thought she’d be the next President. I read a book that indicated the younger team members were all about the polls and data, and the older, experienced campaigners, including Bill, were worried that the polls didn’t reflect all the implications.
Sandie said…
Sigfreya29: 'So I am not sure how media got hold of this figure of 55%- which is completely wrong.'

They ignored the inconvenient data (i.e. those who had no opinion or did not answer the question. I scrolled through the comments on DM and not one person called them out on their misleading headline. MM is going to run with this as 55% approval.

I don't know how democracy works in your country. I suspect that Australia and Switzerland are the only democratic countries who have a high degree of honesty in their democracy (I was told that in Australia you have to vote, and in Switzerland the government is always made up of a coalition and referendums are common for bi decisions.)

In my country, 65.99% of eligible voters actually voted. The party that won the election, and thus formed a government and chose the president, got 62.15% of the vote huge majority, no one can touch us, entitled to rule forever!) Actually, only 41% of the voting population voted for the ruling party, and that is not a majority.

Manipulating stats happens all the time and has significant consequences, but there is no rational debate about this. It is now accepted as a fact that 55% of people in the UK believe that MM has changed the BRF in a positive way. Both parts of that statement are not true, but it has now, very quickly, been accepted as fact.

1. Use all channels in social media to challenge this poll and the results in a factual way.
2. Report the media for factually inaccurate headlines.
3. Every time MM appears in public, hold up banners exposing the lies.

Or, accept being outplayed by a brash, shameless, ambitious, and trashy grifter!
Nutty Flavor said…
@The Cat's Meow - thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

@Sigfreya, I think their angle was "55% of the people who had an opinion liked her."

So they took the 30% of the total - 648 people - and divided it by the number of people who had an active opinion (eliminating the don't knows and don't cares). That's around 1188 people.

Divide 648 people divided by 1188 people - 55% of all Britons love Meg!

(Or, 55% of all Britons with an active opinion who were willing to talk to us loved Meg on September 4-6 2019.)
Liver Bird said…
@AVerySunshinyDay

I'm sure she would absolutely love to develop her own line of clothing. However, that would be simply impossible so long as she remains a member of the royal family. That said, this is Meghan so who really knows?
Nutty Flavor said…
@Rainy Day, yes, I remember the last US election.

While I personally voted for Clinton, I remember that the general media take was you were a "deplorable" if you even considered voting for Trump - a racist, sexist loser clinging to your guns and religion!

Surprisingly, not many people wanted to tell the nice lady or gentleman from the poll-taking company that they were on the Trump train.

It's the same thing when they do self-reporting for TV ratings. The people who have to fill in the little diaries reporting what they watch always say they're watching a lot of documentaries and historical dramas. The people with actual meters fixed to their TV are proven to be watching sports and the Kardashians.
Ilona said…
Well, I think that they plucked that 55% out of thin air. Why couldn't it be 57% or 53%? They thought 55% is a good round number - not 50% - 50/50 would not be flattering. Anyway, they don't have to explain their Maths to anyone. Let people think what they like. Who's going to challenge them publicly?

As for PH, I think he is a very vulnerable young man and his wife has taken advantage of that. Another poster mentioned in length the other day that since they got married he has changed a lot. Before that his family protected him and found ways to channel his ineptitude towards the right fields.

If she is as manipulative and fame hungry as she has been painted here then she has been destroying him bit by bit. I don't think that she even needed to have a certain plan; she simply does what comes natural to her. As I mentioned before, I work with vulnerable people. Some are very intelligent but for one reason or the other they cannot easily escape their problems. While they are good at posturing when you ask them to complete a small task which will help them gain confidence and improve their situation they are terrified at the thought alone.

Personally I hope that he gets professional help and finds himself at the end but I don't care about MM. I detest people who take advantage of the emotionally weak - prince or pauper.

Nutty Flavor said…
Also re: Meghan no longer reporting what she is wearing.

If she were wearing bespoke Givenchy or Dior, she'd be very happy to tell people what she is wearing.

She's having to move down to mid-price brands like we ordinary people wear, and she thinks she's too good for those brands, so she'd rather go silent.

Personally, I've worn both high-end and low-end in my life, and quality doesn't always follow price or label.

For example, I have some Roland Mouret trousers in a lovely fabric, butthey don't have a particularly good shape or drape to them, so they rarely come out of the closet.

But last time I was in the US I found some fabulous knit dresses at JC Penney (of all places) that I get a lot of compliments on. You just never know.
Liver Bird said…
"Surprisingly, not many people wanted to tell the nice lady or gentleman from the poll-taking company that they were on the Trump train."

There's a similar phenonemon on this side of the Atlantic: "The Shy Tory". People don't want to tell pollsters they're going to vote for the nasty right-wing party... and yet they keep on winning elections.

"The people who have to fill in the little diaries reporting what they watch always say they're watching a lot of documentaries and historical dramas. The people with actual meters fixed to their TV are proven to be watching sports and the Kardashians."

Yup. Ditto with food. In surveys, people insist that they hardly ever snack or eat junk food and so simply can't understand why they keep gaining weight. However, when cameras are placed in their kitchens, it's shown that people tend to eat much more a- nd much more unhealthy food - than they'd like to think.
Ilona said…
@Nutty I respect your thinking re how they came to 55%. I have never been good at Maths, let alone Statistics!!
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
you should all look at the youtube video link I posted above to see how leading questions can influence one person to complete change their answer in a poll on the same question.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nelo said…
Does anyone know how many copies of Meghan's Vogue that Enninful sold?

@Alice Surrey James, KP deliberately didn't relase Kate's clothes details because she was wearing a French label and a day before then, DM published a report that Kate wears more British designs than Meghan. So Richard Palmer said it's probably why KP refused to release the details. DM can't praise Kate for wearing more British labels and the next day she is seen wearing a French label. So to avoid backlash, KP refused to release the details.

6
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
@Misty...I totally agree on your ‘take’. Thank you.

Glowworm
abbyh said…
Two terms of statistics long ago and far away. Numbers can be made to look like anything you want it be.

And this is where I would probably solidly distrust a follow up survey as I would highly suspect a question along the lines of a recent poll showed that M is found to be favorable to 55% of the population. Has this changed your opinion of her?

I recently read the parts of two books on HRC - specifically the parts about election night. Her Florida numbers looked ok, about what they were expecting but it was one area which had a lot of retirees from the Rust Belt which went unexpectedly Trump. People (other than the I follow this one area because they come from the Rust Belt and it tells me things) said that ok, a little soft but not a big deal. And it all went from there.
@Flore said…
I have to admit that I’ve developed a rather unhealthy obsession with this couple! But it’s a relief to know that others see through her as well!
I am not a British citizen but I studied English literature and history. I am amazed by the longevity of the British monarchy and came to the conclusion that the Windsors have one of the best and most efficient PR professionals. Dare I say propaganda even instead of PR? It baffles me that these two don’t listen to them! Although they’ve done wonders for Harry’s public image!
I don’t fully trust polls. The idiom “the devil lies in the details” applies perfectly to polls. Plus, spinning the results one way or another is quite easy and fairly common with polls. Unfortunately, I think you’re right : some people were maybe too afraid to be honest about MM for the wrong reason (being accused of racism)... Besides, 55% is not a great approval rate.

What attracts me the most is watching the actions of MM - a malignant narcissist. It’s truly fascinating. Due to a personal experience and extensive research and reading, I have no doubt that she is a malignant narcissist with maybe some borderline personality disorder. It’s like watching a thriller although you already know how it ends. I see a malignant narcissist in plain sight and all her actions go unpunished. I see her victim falling in her traps, one after another and no sign of him even realizing what’s going on. I know Harry is no prize and not very bright and I even think he is arrogant and petulant but still it’s disturbing to watch what’s happening to him. And I keep reading about them! She is a textbook malignant narcissist and still nothing and no one can stop her. It’s an abusive relationship and whatever we think of him he is her prey. He might have used or encouraged her to get back at his family for the way he believes they mistreated his mother. But she manipulated him into encouraging her actions. Frankly, it’s very annoying seeing him trotting behind her or waiting for her signal (or permission) to greet people! He is diminished and completely under her control. The most disturbing being the way she forced him back into his grief and anger about his mother’s death. The constant and unjustified comparisons to his dead mother feel so wrong, creepy even. What grownup woman wants her husband to see in her his dead mother??? I believe she played this game from the beginning forcing him to marry her at 36, the age Diana was when she died. She has been using from the beginning and will keep using him till she finds her next prey. She won’t leave him until he is of absolutely no use to her. She seems to be thriving all right ! And everything is going according to her plan.
Not that I am a fan of conspiracy theories but I still do wonder how this untalented zlist actress wormed her way into the BRF and managed to become a duchess! How much planing and conniving did it take??? She’s a hustler and a grifter but aiming for a British prince is a long stretch...
Maggie said…
Just never believe small sample surveys. They are conducted for a purpose and have a desired outcome. What was the purpose of the survey? Who paid for it? It doesn't take a genius to work out the purpose was to enhance MM's status and her PR paid for it and the articles have been paid PR and the stats manipulated accordingly.

None of these frothy pieces have an accredited RR byline. It's astonishing how cheaply articles can be commissioned. Richard Palmer in one Twitter exchange distanced himself from the online content from which separation I understood always to check the byline. Papers need to continually refresh their content and what's better than clickbait?

What has confirmed to me that MM is a stupid woman with a very narrow focus is that she hasn't maximised her soft PR opportunities. Appearing in Charles's documentary appearing demure and fascinated (whilst keeping her mouth shut for once) would have given her a lot of Brownie points. Ditto going to Balmoral, approved pics of her with a pram and dogs in Windsor Great Park - the easy wins are endless but I imagine simply didn't fit into her modern Princess image of herself, being seen to dance to the Windsor's tune.

Of course if she is building her narrative of the spurned and isolated black princess her behaviour makes sense; however broadening her experience of the Royal experience would be worth $$$ post divorce.

Whichever way you cut it she's completely f*cked up her brilliant opportunity. In short she's taken the Brits for fools and we don't like it.
lizzie said…
I don't know that Tatler is necessarily slanting the survey numbers for MM's sake or as a PR campaign for her although it's certainly possible. But isn't it just as likely the slant and the timing is to ramp up interest in their upcoming issue with MM on the cover? Doesn't Tatler have to chase circulation numbers like any other print mag?

Of course, putting her on the cover in the first place could have been done at her team's behest although using an old photo (indirectly drawing attention to how she's aged) and using "divide or conquer?" on the cover isn't heavy-handed a**-kissing on its face.

Speaking of "divide vs conquer" Tatler published an editorial about her using those same terms last spring. The sentiment resonates but kind of odd to use the same words.
https://www.tatler.com/article/meghan-markle-mania
Ava C said…
New and very interesting DM article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7617371/Buckingham-Palace-hits-anonymous-adviser-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle.html

A 'senior courtier' / 'senior Buckingham Palace aide' hitting back as the claims made for our single-handed modernisers ...

"The couple are already planning to take six weeks off from Royal duties for some ‘much-needed family time’ but The Mail on Sunday has learned it may be the precursor to a much longer absence from Britain.

"It is understood plans for the couple to spend up to six months abroad are being actively considered, with the United States the most likely destination.

"A British diplomatic source in the US said: ‘Everything is fluid at the moment from the Government’s point of view but I wouldn’t be surprised if [Harry and Meghan] end up here. The way it is going in Britain at the moment, there is nothing for them to lose in leaving.’"

If it was the US it would deprive H&M of the chance to make the story about their special suitability for Commonwealth duties.
Maggie said…
@Lizzie - my guess is that the whole Tatler project is MM's PR sponsored.
Ava C said…
A more critical presentation of the Tatler survey, surprisingly from the Express, who usually seem to either regurgitate briefings whole or just make misleading headlines out of events that happened years ago.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1196048/meghan-markle-royal-news-prince-harry-poll-british-culture-queen
Ava C said…
Allegations of 'online bullying' made against Samantha Markle. Article posted this evening 26 Oct. Extract below.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-markles-half-sister-samantha-20731961

"Meghan Markle’s half-sister Samantha was tonight at the ­centre of an extraordinary police probe into online bullying.

"The investigation was launched by detectives in the US, where Sam lives.

"It comes after she wrote a series of controversial messages about Meghan and her husband Prince Harry .

"Tonight an officer working on the case for Polk County Sheriff Department, Florida, told the Sunday Mirror: 'There have been multiple reports of allegations of cyber-bullying made.

"'Samantha Markle is aware of this allegation.'

"'She has not been arrested. This is an ongoing case and I cannot speculate on a timeline yet or make any other comment.'"
CookieShark said…
Did any of the other guests at the event from this past week also do the "Awards Show" entrance like MM? Just wondering.

I wish when she was being interviewed and she whined about what was being printed the interviewer had said "I thought you don't read any press on you, that is all just noise" (to use her words).

I agree with Misty's assessment that MM did NOT want Harry at the roundtable yesterday and resented it. She spoke of him "crashing the party" and insulted his past work in front of the roundtable, then laughed about it.

This is the same as publicly regifting the Invictus onesie. There are people who are just clueless, but she appears at times to have a truly malicious, mean-spirited streak.
Jenx said…
I find that intimidation with Samantha Markle truly unsettling. She must really have some goods. What kind of person would pull that kind of muscle on family just because they can with a mountain of money at their disposal. And she has no qualms whatsoever with followers bullying and threatening thd Cambridges. Sickening. Or picking on old ladies on YouTube.
If Samantha says something untrue then hit her for libel/slander but these tactics are disgustingly ruthless.
Jdubya said…
Probably M's people filing complaints on Samantha to try to intimidate her.
Ava C said…
@Jenx I so agree. What kind of person would pull that kind of muscle on family just because they can with a mountain of money at their disposal.

Thomas and Samantha Markle are not just 'ordinary' people with limited resources but also with health issues. Again, as with the cessation of information to MSM about her clothing costs, how will this play to the public? Why should third parties go to the trouble of making formal police complaints? 'Tone-deaf' is an increasingly inadequate term.
Ava C said…
More Samantha Markle online bullying probe coverage. Nothing in DM yet that I can find.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10220173/meghan-markles-half-sister-investigated-online-bullying/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10220173/meghan-markles-half-sister-investigated-online-bullying/

Extract from the Sun:

'Another source [as distinct from a 'purported source' from the Polk County police dept which in itself sounds vague] said: “The allegations relate to numerous internet platforms and include complaints from at least four countries, including the UK, Canada and Sweden.

'"It is a large and widespread investigation and is likely to be a long process.

'"The investigation is still at an early stage.”'

Interesting UK and Canada are mentioned.
SwampWoman said…
Mischi said...
@Neutral observer! I just read the very condescending comment of yours on the last thread. How arrogant of you to assume that I don't know the difference and can't judge how my male colleagues are being treated.I can assure you that the men who have bullied me would never, ever consider doing the same thing to a man because they would get punched out.

The mansplaining in one job was so bad that I started stuttering. Did my male colleagues mansplain their colleagues comments?

Did the colleague who told me that he would shoot me in the head and then rape me also say the same thing to his male colleagues?

I think you need to trust that I am a good judge of my own experience. How very sexist and misogynistic of you!


Mischi, I am not NeutralObserver, but I have probably been working in male-dominated environments since before you were born (I started in the 70s). Army, police, trucking, construction...very physical and very, very macho. If you don't think it was thousands of of times worse then, you better think again. You can call me sexist if you want. Words don't bother me.

I would advise you to take some self-defense classes. Krav maga is good. Why? Because bullies of both sexes (and I have had women bosses that were worse than the men) will go after anybody of any sex that they perceive to be weaker physically and mentally than they are. If you are weaker physically, exercise and strengthen to your full physical capacity. If you are weaker mentally (and I don't mean IQ, I mean your ability to do violence) then you need to toughen that up, too. Krav maga isn't interested in fighting fair. Krav maga is interested in eliminating the threat. Learn about pressure points to create pain as a tool in self defense, but do not rely on them because different people have different perceptions of pain. What may incapacitate one person may really aggravate another. It is to be used in conjunction with other self defense methods, not as a primary.

Learn how to use a knife and a club, and defenses against same. Learn how to break chokeholds.

If you do not already know how, shooting lessons.

Network and form alliances. Bullies like to pick on people without allies.

You would probably be surprised at how quickly the horsesh*t stops when they perceive you to be an equal.

Note: Anybody my age didn't have the luxury about complaining to HR. We had to handle our problems ourselves.

Fairy Crocodile said…
I have to agree with Nutty re loud label and huge price tag not being a guarantee of stylish and comfortable wear. My hugely expensive designer jeans were a costly mistake and my most comfortable ones come from Marks and Spenser. Live and learn.
Jenx said…
@AvaC. Are they trying to tie up and bury the authorities in piles of paper and irrelevant goose chases? Maybe she did learn something from Harvey on Suits after all!!
Ava C said…
Oops. Pasted same link twice. Here is the second Samantha Markle link:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/meghan-markles-sister-samantha-being-20733484

In this one the information from 'another source' shown above is still referred to as a 'police source'.

From what I could see regarding her response to that now infamous documentary, it was in line with general public opinion. Referred to as 'a series of controversial messages' in the article. Dark days.
SwampWoman said…
Snort. That isn't going to fly in Polk county.
Girl with a Hat said…
@Swamp Woman, put a sock in it? Did you have to involve the police? How many times? Lawyers? probably not because you seem to be worse than these bullies are!
Ava C said…
@Fairy Crocodile my best jeans by a country mile are Not Your Daughter's Jeans and they cost 5 times what I've ever paid before. Still think of it every time I wear them but they're so perfect. I'm a short hourglass and always had a gap at the back before when I sat down.

Speaking of height, I was watching 'Identity Thief' last night to cheer myself up and Melissa McCarthy was referred to as "Hobbit height". Looked her up and she's the same height as me! 5' 2". Watching her quite a bit at the moment. You need to see someone let rip and make you laugh out loud at the same time, with all of this going on.


Lurking said…
SS must have received an infusion of cash. The sugars are out in force on the Mirror articles.
NeutralObserver said…
Mischi, darling, calm down. You have completely misconstrued my comment. Go back & read it when you're calmer. You've obviously had workplace experiences that I've never had, & I said as much. I want you to be happy, but you're acting like my daughter did when she was a teen ager. We're dishing on Megs & Harry here, & we don't want Nutty's nice space to become something that isn't. That's all I'm saying on this matter.

Re: polls. Some very good pollsters were dead wrong in the US Election in 2016, & even experts like Nate Silver have written that polling gets harder & harder with the move away from landlines, & yes pollsters can ask questions in such a way that they get the results they want. An acquaintance of mine who worked for the Nielsen tv ratings co joked to me that Nielsen didn't want to measure people like me, who at the time watched a lot of PBS & cable news, Nielsen wanted people who would tell advertisers that the shows they were spending money on were reaching buyers of their products, & Nielsen was giving them that.

In 2016, supposedly Hillary was using all of the high tech methods of targeting & polling voters that Obama had used so successfully, but she still lost, incredibly. Like Nutty, I voted for Hillary, although anyone who's read my posts knows that I don't like her. I don't think you have to admire a politician to prefer their policies. Hillary would have won if she picked up less than 100,000 votes spread out between three states, Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania, but enough about US politics.

Polls sometimes have been uncannily accurate, even with a sample of only around 1,000, but it's a complicated art, & not all pollsters are equally good. I don't think the Tatler poll is any way scientific. As someone else has pointed out, they just want people to buy their magazine. The press wants Megs to be a money maker like Diana was, & she knows that. I am more & more perplexed at how Harry & Megs' marriage can work. He hates the limelight, she loves it & thrives in it. I'm getting a little tired of Megs & Harry myself, but then I read the WSJ & the NYTimes & come running back to this inane story. The Times is all pearl clutching over Trump & the WSJ is about PG&E power cuts, wildfires, substandard products on Amazon & riots in Hong Kong. Depressing. The Megs & Harry story has mystery & malice, love, hate, family. We all can relate to that.
Lurking said…
Can we talk about the Tattle cover?

Did anyone else look at it and think it was the least royal cover photo ever? That's the expression of a model, not a royal.
The Cat's Meow said…
@SwampWoman: I love your stories and no-nonsense attitude. (And your recipies). Seriously, you need to write a blog! You could name it "SwampWoman's Survival Guide."
Ava C said…
@Lurking yes I noticed the sugars are out on the Mirror. Don't usually look there, only at DM which are almost solidly negative apart from Julian Nutkins and the Fairy Sparkles brigade. No way can you have two UK tabloids with such a uniform difference. If anything, I'd expect the sparklies to be on the DM as I always think the Mirror should be more anti-monarchist as Labour-leaning. Maybe that's why! No better weapon against the monarchy at the moment than our Meghan.
Lurking said…
@The Cat's Meow...

We should do a MM themed cookbook, it can be a group project, so everyone can participate. Title: 101 Recipes for Bananas You Never Wanted or Will Ever Use
NeutralObserver said…
SwampWoman, hope you & SwampMan have a lovely dinner this evening. You should write a book about your life. It's an interesting one. You're so right, HR, if your company had that department, wasn't about sexism & bullying back in the day, it was about filling out forms relating to your FICA contributions & telling them how many deductions you were taking. LOL. This is it for me tonight. Have a lovely evening, ladies!
Sandie said…
For some light reading, here is a blogger trying to deconstruct Meghan's word salad:

https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/188613207436/submission-deconstructing-wordsalad#notes

Has anyone here set up a task force? I have. You have goals, assign tasks, set up a reporting structure, bring in the required resources, and so on, and then complete the project.

Meghan, with the support of her loyal sidekick, is going to rule the world, save the world, change the world with word salad!

Love the recipe book for 101 Recipes for Bananas You Never Wanted or Will Ever Use!
SwampWoman said…
Let me tell y'all about Polk County.

Polk County, Florida, is where an illegal alien pulled over at a traffic stop ran. When pursued, he shot and killed a K9, the K9 officer was shot six times with one of the bullets lodging in the spine, and illegal alien walked over to him and executed him with two shots to the head, stealing his weapon and ammo. Another officer was shot but was able to radio for help. Illegal alien shot at responding police, too, then hid. When law enforcement officers located executed officer's body, they were not happy. Next morning, when the murderer pointed a gun (later determined to belong to the deceased officer) at the police, he was shot 68 times with 110 shots being fired. The Polk County sheriff, when asked why deceased illegal alien had been shot 68 times, answered that they'd probably run out of ammunition.
Lurking said…
Reading the Mirror article regarding Samantha being reported for cyber bullying is entertaining. People need to get a grip on reality. They are calling for Samantha and Thomas to be arrested for essentially saying mean things and expressing opinions... neither of which are crimes.
Ava C said…
@Lurking about Tatler cover - didn't they just go with an old photo? I read in several places it was taken in 2015. Isn't that weird in itself? Surely you have a special shoot for covers unless it's a retrospective on Princess Di or something like that. It's an unflattering photo too. Again, why do that to your circulation unless it's to raise hopes of an effective hatchet job inside? Which the Tatler's not going to deliver is it? They still seem to be propping her up.
SwampWoman said…
Lurking said: Reading the Mirror article regarding Samantha being reported for cyber bullying is entertaining. People need to get a grip on reality. They are calling for Samantha and Thomas to be arrested for essentially saying mean things and expressing opinions... neither of which are crimes.

Well, SS certainly knows that expressing an opinion is perfectly legal here whether somebody likes it or not. Why are they trying to convince people in the UK? Are they trying to intimidate THEM?
SwampWoman said…
Lurking says: @The Cat's Meow...

We should do a MM themed cookbook, it can be a group project, so everyone can participate. Title: 101 Recipes for Bananas You Never Wanted or Will Ever Use


How to use bronzer on your roast chicken!
Lurking said…
@Ava...

I haven't heard that about the cover. It is odd that they would go with an old photo, however being that it's a gossip magazine, I'm not sure if a royal would want to do a photoshoot for the cover. Have other royals done so in the past? I wonder how well the issue is selling. If people don't buy it, she won't be on many covers in the future... we can hope.
Ava C said…
@SwampWoman thanks!

Gone midnight here so signing off. My last post took forever as I had an endless CAPTCHA loop despite great WiFi. I think Princess Meghan is driving me into an advanced state of paranoia. As I see what seems like the 100th set of traffic lights pop up, I imagine her cackling manically from a control room surrounded by frogs, stopping me from expressing 'controversial' views.

Wish me luck with this one ...
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meowwww said…
@FairyCrocodile I have a few expensive things. A very expensive pair of sunglasses that are broken because I sat on them 3 days in. Handbags that are gruddy. Jeans that I washed and dried because that’s what I do, and they shrunk and fell apart. Remember when it was a thing to put your jeans in the freezer instead of washing them? Yeah. Gross and no way n

I missed where they said maybe six months in the USA for H and M. Noooooooo.

And I agree with Scones. This fighting has to stop.
Meowwww said…
Oh and....the Samantha thing. I’ve mentioned before that twitter is an alternate universe. Sugars are all over, saying checkmate and racism etc etc.
Ava C said…
@Sconesandcream I agree that in-fighting's not good and to be avoided but - with all due respect to Nutty whose decision it is - I don't think it's possible at the moment to stick completely to topic as events are moving so fast. For example, this topic is stats but the Samantha Markle news is headline stuff, as is the apparent response from a senior courtier level at Buckingham Palace to the ongoing 'modernising' story. We can't expect Nutty to keep up with Meghan while she seems to be adopting a scattergun approach to her critics. But this is only my view of course, and any in-fighting does make me acutely uncomfortable.
Lurking said…
@Royal Fan

"I’m not sure who they were polling."

Telephone polls are notoriously unreliable. Nutty laid out some of the reasons. Many people won't answer the phone if they don't recognize the number. If they do answer the telephone, many are unwilling to answer survey questions. Of the ones who answer the questions, you have to hope they are being truthful and not giving you the responses they think you want.

Often times candidates will try to use polling to get more votes. There are a lot of people who think voting is a popularity contest and vote for who they think will win and not who they want as their representative. They will also use polling to suppress the vote. Many people will look at a poll and decide their preferred candidate has no hope of winning, so they stay home on election day, failing to vote.
Sconesandcream said…
@avac. I found the statistics info that Nutty provided very interesting and by topic I meant anything that relates to MM this of course includes legal action against Samantha and courtier comments etc.
cutmasterC said…
I don't see anything legally happening to Samantha regarding this cyber bullying issue. I think it's a scare tactic being employed by MM to scare Samantha into being quiet again. Since when is responding to another's statements and offering a truthful opinion "cyber bullying"? What a waste of law enforcement time and resources. There are real crimes these investigators could be working on.
SwampWoman said…
cutmasterC said...
I don't see anything legally happening to Samantha regarding this cyber bullying issue. I think it's a scare tactic being employed by MM to scare Samantha into being quiet again. Since when is responding to another's statements and offering a truthful opinion "cyber bullying"? What a waste of law enforcement time and resources. There are real crimes these investigators could be working on.


Actually, I believe that Samantha may have a case of her own for being bullied. Crybullies never think about that.
cutmasterC said…
@Swampwoman I agree. If anything, Samantha is likely the one being bullied by MM and her sugars. We know how nasty they are capable of being.
Royal Fan said…
Cluster B personalities are by nature pretty litigious so I’m not at all shocked to see her looking to have to the police pursue her family, ailing health or not. Remember she lacks empathy and completely lacks insight into her disease process. Other people’s suffering doesn’t enter into the equation unless it can be harnessed for her benefit. It’s also probably not even a serious slight we’re talking here. I doubt that Sam and Thomas have any major dirt they’re hiding. Sam has been forth right and does not strike me as the suffer-in-silence type. This is just typical of how a cluster B might react to a perceived slight. The slight might even be considered mild to the non-cluster B. Side note, another of my physician colleagues told me this week she believes Markle to likely have a cluster B personality disorder. Interesting fact, she is a WOC, a big BRF fan, and a big PH fan who really wanted to like Meghan. She just could not once the red flags came up. The engagement interview is where my colleague pegged her as a possible cluster B but really she needed to see more of her character play out. The family issues and handling of her prior divorce were big red flags too. Really obvious now that it’s a true personality disorder now because it’s clear that it’s maladaptive, enduring, and inflexible. To be clear, she has more than just one cluster B personality disorder.
lizzie said…
@Royal Fan, Not sure M has more than one PD but she certainly displays traits from more than one. But there's so much overlap in what used to be called Cluster B. Narcissistic, Borderline, and Histrionic overlap alot especially when talking about stereotypic "feminine" behaviors.
SwampWoman said…
Royal Fan, I do not believe that the police in that county would appreciate being used as a club to threaten a wheelchair-bound woman with MS, particularly if they find no crime has been committed. I could be wrong, but I think that they might be tracing the complaints.
KnitWit said…
Time for a round of contemptinis!

Let's not fight. Let's save the insults for you know who's next outfit.

Seems hypocritical for woke, progressive types to object to freedom 9f speach. MM isn't the only one.

Re the cookbook, hope MM disinfected the turkey baster.
punkinseed said…
Ok… now I have to look up what Cluster B is. Thanks for the insight.
I agree with the others who are weary and worn from the infighting on here. I just scroll on and avoid and ignore. If we don't simply ignore when someone gets ugly at us, then the blog becomes nothing but a torn up room. That's exactly what the trolls want to happen. They hold seminars on how to tear up a great blog like this one and sadly, it works most of the time by using divide and conquer.
Mischi, Swampy and Natural Observer, it's fine to disagree without discounting each other or using ad hominem attacks. So, please kiss and make up.
Mimi said…
She has personality disorders that have not even been classified yet. Umm. SwampWoman, got any rum left? No? did we drink that entire barrel already? What else have you got? 🤗

CatEyes said…
I don't know why we can't write our opinions and share facts in a friendly manner since we seem to be of a similar mind about MM & Harry. I think it diminishes one's credibility when insults or derision are thrown out. If we want respect then we should give it to others. I for one am an American and I think I have been able to contribute some good content but now feel stung by seeing my nationality used as a slur (can you imagine what that would happen on this site if the UK was used thus). Please let's get along and enjoy sharing because by and large I think this site/blog is the Best One concerning the subject. Thank you again Nutty and everyone here!
punkinseed said…
I have noticed that since Nutty had to change the format on the blog, it's a lot harder to keep our discussions in sequence and follow and respond directly to each other. Now we have to respond at the bottom of the page and a lot of times thoughts get lost along the way. Kind of like having my grandson talking to me right now as I'm trying to write this, pause, read a comment then proceed to the comment box.

@Knitwit, pour me one too please. It's been a long day.
CatEyes said…
I got a box of wine to share (while Meg/Harry has a 'box of Whine'). Guess now you can judge me pitifully but at least it's California wine.
cutmasterC said…
I've got a nice Malbec and a half bottle of Roscato, but sadly I'm off to bed.
SwampWoman said…
Excuse ME? I made no ad hominem attacks, I tried to help her. After her first attempted attack on me, I ignored her and will do so from now on. It was the same for the other person she attacked.

I tried cooking a pork loin in hard apple cider in the Instant Pot. It didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped. The taste was meh (at best) and the loin was dry. (Ain't gon' do that again.) Since I am new to Instant Potting, I may have overcooked it. I like to cook low and slow on dryish meats so I'll probably stick to the oven or the crock pot.

So, here I am, with 5 bottles of hard apple cider. Well. It was 5 bottles. Now it is 3 bottles. If I make it 2 bottles, I may not make it out to feed the dogs and cats.
Mimi said…
Hum....Cateyes, I’ll have a large glass of that wine if you don’t mind. cutmaster, hang on to the Roscato and Malbec as we need to bring the alcohol out every now and then when things get intense.
SwampWoman said…
KnitWit said... Re the cookbook, hope MM disinfected the turkey baster.

Now that is a truly horrifying thought!

Hey, KnitWit, I have been meaning to ask you whether you are allowed to take knitting needles on flights again? I have to think that having a knitting needle jabbed through one's eyeball or inserted between the ribs would ruin one's day. This makes me think that I should take up the hobby. (No, seriously, SwampMan is retiring soon and wants to get a traveling house on wheels to intimidate the unwary on the highway as we travel around. A portable hobby would be nice and I've always intended to try it. Which knitting method do you use/recommend for people that are less coordinated than most?)
Mimi said…
oh SwampWoman, 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I am a Brit and look forward to the comments from our American friends and it's good to know that you understand that our Royal family is important to us, despite its quirks and perceived idiosyncrasies.
CatEyes said…
@Swamp Woman If you weren't going to be in a traveling tiny home I would suggest embroidery (and the UK has a tremendous treasure in that the Royal Needlework Society, offers online classes with very nice projects reasonably priced). I happen to concentrate on Counted Cross Stitch on very fine linen (little hard on the eyes maybe),
Mimi said…
SwampWoman, I suggest you take up crocheting. You only need a “hook” and they come in a wide variety of colors, sizes, material (aluminum, plastic, wood). It is EASY and you can crochet socks for Mr. SwampMan in a day. My first ( and only) attempt at knitting resulted in a sweater for Mr. Mimi. The sleeves were down to his knees so he hasn’t worn it much. I told him....just cuff them for crying out loud! Anyway, crocheting is also therapeutic and it goes FAST! Let me know if you need anymore info.
SwampWoman said…
Thank you ladies for the crochet/needlework advice. If I need help, I will send up an SOS. While I would love to try the needlework, my eyes say no can do.

Now, back to the MM topic. I just read some of the comments on the MM articles in the DM, and they are BRUTAL. It looks like all y'all have been sharpening up those cutting comments.
SwampWoman said…
I did read one comment that suggested that Americans do not want her back and suggested that instead she be sent to Iceland or Greenland. If there is nobody from Iceland or Greenland to object, I agree with that destination. Well. I think I might prefer Antarctica, but the researchers there would probably say they were being bullied.
Sandie said…
What did Meghan want and why did it go so wrong? An eloquent post on this:

https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com/post/188617936276/what-do-you-honestly-think-meghan-wanted-out-of#notes

I wonder if the BRF did do any research on MM before going along with the wedding and pulling out all stops in welcoming her to the family and giving her special treatment and limitless perks? If they had, surely they would have seen that she was trouble? Surely they cold see that the fallout when the PR nonsense was exposed would be massive?

The cognitive dissonance alone is massive (what is said in interviews vs actual behaviour; PR vs truth about her past) and people seem to deal with it by choosing a side and being fanatic about that.

I think they both will attend Remembrance events (I think there are three) and then go off to the USA until Christmas at Sandringham (awkward!). Problems in the marriage started before Archie was born and his arrival exacerbated the problems. Watch for signs of this and the efforts made to cover this up. However, I think the misery will continue because she does not have her global status (e.g. can she keep the foundation and the name?) nor the money in the bank (heck, she does not even have property) to go it alone and she is too old to go back to the full-time hustling of the past.
KitKatKisses said…
Meghan Markle brings out the worst in everyone, including posters on Nutty's blog.
Sandie said…
Sorry, my comment about Meghan being too old to go back to full-time hustling was inappropriate ageism. I should have rather said that she has been too exposed, ghosted too many people and has become too controversial in her time in the BRF, so, as we have seen, all her energy goes into rescuing and building up her image.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
Really I try not to comment about about Meghan Markle's looks because she can't help how she looks (except for things like her odd habit of OTT bronzer application where her face colour doesn't match her neck/hands—which is more of a comment on her sh*t makeup skillz, but then again who am I to critique another person's skills when I suck at the same skills, I'm no beauty guru).

And colour meanings are relative, the Brits say her purple dress is a an "eff you" to the British royal family. I understand "The Color Purple" is a significant film in the African-American community. My mother OTOH dislikes purple because in Indonesia, the colour purple is associated with divorcées/widows (she regifts purple gifts). I personally think it's a spiritual colour associated with the 3rd Eye/Crown chakra. 💜

As for fake-looking wigs: I have an autoimmune disorder (so I'm always paranoid about my hair & keep a few wigs just in case the worst happens). What I've learned from YouTube is you can make them appear more realistic by applying dry shampoo to them.

But this has been on my mind for weeks now and since it's my off-Interwebz-hiatus day, I thought I'd come over here and get it off my chest:

Has anyone else noticed the uncanny resemblance between Meghan and Eddie Redmayne from a certain angle?

It's uncanny.

They even have the same freckles.

Every time I see her from that angle I have a bit of a "Twlight Zone" moment LOL.

And I don't mean that as an insult (Eddie was a very pretty lady in that Danish Girl film, or whatever the title was). I'm just saying. I'm surprised nobody has brought this up or noticed yet.

There, I said it.

I was afraid to say it. (NN in Gemini problems... Aaaaand the moon is currently in Libra.)

My question to the 46% of the respondents: Come on now, tell us what you REALLLLLLLY think. LMAO.

I too agree they must've been afraid of being labelled all sorts of things from "racist" to "sexist" to whatever else Millenials like to shift blame their lack of popularity on.

Personally, I wish her no harm. I think people are more afraid of just HER LAWLESSNESS in snatching random citizens' Instagram handles than they pose a threat to her. Legit *that* incident gave me anxiety! (IDK about you.)

I'm also surprised that in Nutty's last post about Meghan's inability to listen to her security team; of the 370 comments, Jussie Smollett was only mentioned once. (Granted I didn't read or even skim all of them, I used the search function.)

I thought Jussie' story was such a big deal for western society, I wrote a 999-word flash fiction about it. (FTR, it wasn't *entirely* based on him, it was also partly based on what I felt about Justin Trudeau in February 2019, but I thought it was a huge enough deal people would remember what he did in October of the same year.)

Also, the other day I was just watching Jonathan Pie's latest video. Apparently you're no longer allowed to tell "classist" jokes in England? (They make comedians sign an agreement not to do so at the door at the comedy clubs.) Does this mean we can't tell jokes about toffs anymore?

How incredibly sad?

Not everything is "posh-bashing", you know.

Not everything that is un-PC can falls in the "hateful" area of the Venn diagram of un-PC ribbing. It's like you can't even LOVE people properly anymore.

When I tells the Lulz about toffs, I promise it comes from a place of love. I even want to buy little toff hats for my cats... I mean, I love luvvies and toffs. I think they have nice accents (it's called the BBC accent or RP or something). I'd certainly marry one!

Of course, if you're going to marry a toff, it's best you test-drive him first to see what he's like in bed. (No point in marrying a man with an RP accent if he's just going to be quiet in bed.) So yeah that's my dating advice of the week. 🖤

Take care, everybody.
SwampWoman said…
I was listening to Pod Save the Queen: Inside Kate and William's Pakistan tour and the designer's view. It was very interesting, particularly the part about Katherine's photographic abilities.
Sigfreya29 said…
Looking forward to the time Harry will resent her. The veil will lift (eventually) and he will come to realise how he has been exploited. I presume he will start to hate her then, but just as Charles could not leave Diana without facing so much criticism, H will not be able to leave her without (possibly) seeking his popularity tank. Now it is all up to the BRF to spin a story that pins the blame on her
KitKatKisses said…
@Sigfreya29, most people blame Markle for the Harry we currently see and the Harry nobody likes. I don't think many people will blame him for leaving her, nor will he see his "popularity tank" for doing so (it is already at rock bottom).
KitKatKisses said…
To the PP with autoimmune conditions and worried about hair thinning/loss: I have 3 AI conditions. What works for me is eating a gluten free diet and using a natural biotin thickening shampoo and conditioner. I swear by the biotin shampoo and conditioner; it has made all the difference and if I stop using it, my hair falls out again. Hope this helps you. (Sorry to be OT, Nutty).
Nutty Flavor said…
Good morning!

Upon waking up on this lovely Sunday morning, I had to spend 20 minutes deleting nasty infighting comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Please - Do Not Do This. It makes other people uncomforable, and it makes me annoyed.
Nutty Flavor said…
Also, we've had numerous complaints about the "endless scroll" format of the blog, so this week I will try the "pop up window", which is what Enty uses and allows for some direct responses to posts, at least on mobile.

Also, for those dealiing with CAPTCHA, in most cases you can simply skip the "I'm not a robot" box. I've been skipping it on CDAN for years with no ill effects.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
@KitKatKisses:

Thank you so much for the hair tips. 💜💜💜💜💜 *Knocks wood*

Take care.
d.c. said…
Yikes, I went back to the end of the previous post’s comments, to read for myself what all this intra-group turmoil was about.

From the outside looking in (so I’m very open to being corrected), it appears that:

- Mischi noted feeling distressed with how she is treated at work (& a grad school class?)
- NeutralObserver & SwampWoman attempted to help by offering concrete advice.

- @Mischi feels frustrated & unheard, because her need for empathy wasn’t met.
- @SwampWoman & @NeutralObserver feel surprised (?) & possibly frustrated that their advice and attempt to concretely adress the situation weren’t appreciated.

This reminds me of the first fight I had with my college boyfriend.
I had gained the dreaded freshman fifteen, and felt very insecure about how I looked. So, in an attempt to receive reassurance, I said, “I feel fat.”
I wanted him to say “of course not,” “you’re perfect as you are,” or something romance-novelly.
What he said instead, in his attempt to be helpful, was “You could always work out.”
...
Suffice it to say, I was hurt and upset, bc my need for acceptance as i was wasn’t being met. And of course, I did not straight-forwardly ask for said reassurance, but had expected (?!) it anyway.
He, in turn, was surprised that his unasked-for advice was unappreciated and in fact upsetting. But, he wan’t wrong, per se. It just wasn’t the hoped-for response to the unspoken request.

We’ve been married 24 years, so he and I got it sorted in the end.

So, what I’m trying to say is, I think everyone meant well; unasked-for advice isn’t always appreciated or even wanted no matter the best of intentions; needs for acceptance and empathy were not met (nor were they directly asked for - thus some amount of mind-reading was required).

Can we agree to stop chiming in with how we’re offended by an off-shoot comment, so this particular situation can at least rest? Also, as many have said, I echo the request to avoid name-calling. Sarcasm towards one another, interpersonally, also can lead to hurt feelings - so lets avoid it, & join together in focusing our frustrations outwards at the intended agreed upon subject, the drama surrounding MM/Arch/PH/et.al.
Pantsface said…
Someone in the DM comments today, can't remember on what article so many lol, suggested people google Elaine Chilver July 2018, which being nosey I did - not sure what I'm looking at apart from the lawfully begotten bit, does anyone know if this is just standard procedure for future heirs for all royals?

Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.

Elaine Chilver
alice france said…
@FLORE: I really like your comment. You describe, to the very word, my thoughts.
Bre, it's National Mentors Day today. Who do you think MMs mentors are, if any? Have we ever heard her talk about anyone who inspired her, helped her out when she was a fledgling? And I don't mean endorsing HRC during the elections, I mean her mentors in acting, her writing and instagram model career. There must be someone who guided her, showed her the ropes, one doesn't just wake up one day and begin a career. Strange that she never talks of anyone in that light.
lizzie said…
@Alice..Know what you mean. She used to give Thomas some credit for her acting success on her blog (finding her light, etc.)
Fairy Crocodile said…
@SwampWoman I love your sense of humor. Chuckled more than once reading your comments. Don't know which swamp produces women like you but must be a great place.
Fairy Crocodile said…
@NuttyFlavor Cook Club. May I suggest a recipe I use with lean pork loin? Pork generally loves apples, garlic and ginger. So: peel and cut a couple of apples, throw them into food processor, add a clove of garlic and some peeled ginger (not much, it is strong). Get the puree out, add salt and a bit of olive oil. Cover your lean pork with it, wrap it in foil and roast/bake as usual (20 min per 500 g plus 20 min on top) at 190 C. Pork should be room temp before you start cooking. You can let it rest for a bit before you cook covered with apples, will get even better . Important not to overcook as it may get hard. Delicious hot, great cold for sandwiches and mashed apples produce superb sauce to go with it. Dead easy too.
NeutralObserver said…
Have to apologize to all Nutties for giving an unasked for, foolish old lady piece of advice to another poster, & triggering a storm. My kids just tune me out, & think I'm idiotic. My comment grew out of my growing exhaustion with the gender wars, & I'm one who has had long periods of thinking only a matriarchy will save us. I always told never talk about politics, money or sex in a social situation, but here I am blathering on about a subject that touches all three.

The response I got both mortified me, & made me feel awful for the responder. ( I don't think I've ever been called a POS, even by my brothers, who taught me how to survive merciless teasing, & I'm grateful). The response made me even reconsider my dislike for Megs. She worked for almost 20 years in an industry that mistreats & exploits women, & it's bound to have left its mark. I remember in a couple of interviews she said she'd never have to give up her seat for a more important man again, & that now that she was marrying Harry, she should tell the director who sent her out for ice cream or something would have to get her ice cream now. Perhaps some of her inexplicable behavior is due to residual rage over all those years of humiliation that Hollywood inflicts on people.

I think some of Megs' rabid supporters view her as taking on the patriarchy, & of course there are patriarchal elements in the British monarchy, although the Queen seems to have taken them in her stride quite well. Most of the men in the RF seem quite harmless, other than the unfortunate Andrew. I sort of see Megs as a con woman who's taking advantage of a family of elderly & naive people, but maybe I'm being too harsh. I don't know. Here in the US, we've seen so many idols & icons unmasked, I think it's one of the reasons people are drawn to Trump. He flaunts his more objectionable qualities without shame, so people at least know exactly what they're getting.

I'll try to post less often here. It's something I do to ward off dementia, like doing crossword puzzles, or playing Lumosity games.
I post comments here so I don't have annoy my friends with too long & wordy emails LOL!
NeutralObserver said…
Typos, yikes.!Sorry. The print in the edit box is too small for my aging eyes, & I hate looking for my reading glasses!
Fedde said…
To those wondering about the alleged 2015 (was it?) pic of Meghan on the cover of Tatler: I wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't allowed to do modelling/photo shoots by the BRF or face the consequences (cutting off money etc). By giving Tatler an old photo of hers she can pretend she hasn't aged at all and still adhere to the rules QEII set up. Perhaps it is only allowed with permission from QEII (or Charles) as some of the royals do grace covers now and then, but it's also possible it's a consequence of the Vogue editing/photos thing she allegedly denied, denied, denied when asked about by the BRF and did it anyway.
Unknown said…
*"Someone in the DM comments today, can't remember on what article so many lol, suggested people google Elaine Chilver July 2018, which being nosey I did - not sure what I'm looking at apart from the lawfully begotten bit, does anyone know if this is just standard procedure for future heirs for all royals?

Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.

Elaine Chilver."*

Oh goodness, that's almost as hard to read as one of Markles purple-prose word salads! However, am I right in reading it as saying that The Queen grant's Harry's 'lawfully begotten' male heirs the inheritability of the titles of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dunbarton, and Duke of Sussex? And given that we know that Archie is NOT going to have those titles when he is older, does that lend credibility to speculation that Archie is NOT lawfuly begotten in some way? Or am I misreading this?
@NeutralObserver

If as you say, her rage is due to the humiliations inflicted upon her by Hollywood, then that would make her a Marvel Villain! 🤨🤔

What would her Marvel/DC Villian name be - The Claw??
Pantsface said…
The fact the seal was dated 16 July 2018, prior to the pregnancy makes me wonder if it is just standard but it covers just male heirs and not female?
lizzie said…
@Unknown, Pretty sure it's still standard for dukedoms to follow the male line only. For example, while Princess Charlotte didn't lose her place in line for the throne when Prince Louis was born, I don't believe she's eligible to be the Duchess of Cambridge. George would get the dukedom first but if for some reason he didn't or when it was time for George to move to another title, if he didn't have a son, the Cambridge dukedom would go to Louis.
alice france said…
@Neutral observer: if you decide to publish fewer posts, know that I will regret it because I come to this blog to take a look at H and M other than my friendly or professional circle and French newspapers, because this couple is also a topic of conversation in my country. Certainly, probably less than in the United Kingdom and the United States. You are one of the speakers I like to read. I can easily read English but it's more difficult for me to write it, so I don't do many posts. On the other hand, I read this blog almost every day (and as I wrote in one of my comments, I have French and Italian friends who also watch this very nice blog from Nutty, but our English is not great at writing). Some comments are absolutely instructive and relevant to read. Sometimes the conversations do not concern H and M and take other paths (political, social, gastronomic today..................... it is original, I like it and especially I learn a lot of things. I look forward to reading from you again very soon.
Emily said…
Honestly this whole saga is just becoming tiresome. We now have Wendell Pierce who played her dad in Suits defending her. Article saturation on DM. Will it be Harry and Meghan silence during their 6 week, ehem, family time out? Think we all know the answer to that.
JLC said…
@alice france

lovely comment, and I whole heartedly agree.
SwampWoman said…
Neutral, IMO you have nothing to apologize for. You told her that women are not the only ones bullied in the workplace. The workplace is an equal opportunity bullier. I was concerned about her personal safety and told her the strategies that she can follow to be less fearful. I was puzzled because I have been in toxic work environments and haven't seen anything like she was reporting from all of her coworkers, reportedly male.

I will admit that I was extremely startled having read the way she characterized your "attack" when you just pointed out the obvious and the "attack" was all on her part. I thought perhaps she had misunderstood. Nope, she doubled down with her written attacks on both of us.

I wish her well, and hope that she gets help from somewhere.

I used to have a fairly popular blog but I abandoned it several years ago while I was caring for a close family member's severe health problems/open heart surgery and stroke rehab. After a series of family deaths and then the death of a dear friend, I just didn't have the heart to restart it (and most everybody prefers Facebook). If I do start it again (heh, I don't remember my password), you would be most welcome to come chime in. I call 'em as I see 'em, don't entertain whining but instead focus on results, and am most un-PC and very opinionated.




Royal Fan said…
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-tabloids-prince-harry-ashley-cole.amp

Apparently Meg begged for UK tabloid exposure. Sounds more like it!
Fairy Crocodile said…
@alice france. Your English is better than mine and mine is a second language too. Nutty is very accommodating and with her welcome I would certainly encourage you to post your thoughts, because this is what makes this blog so interesting. Many people with different backgrounds sharing their opinions!
Fairy Crocodile said…
@NeutralObserver. I can only speak for myself but I certainly enjoy reading your posts.
punkinseed said…
@swampwoman and natural observer, I'm sorry I didn't phrase my comment better. The comment I made about ad hominem wasn't aimed at you two.
Thank you Nutty for this blog and for trying to find a way to make our comment responses easier for continuity.
punkinseed said…
oops. meant to write neutral observer.
Tea Cup said…
May I chime in that I, too, enjoy everyone's posts here? Nutty's, @Emeraldcity, @Mischi, @SwampWoman, @NeutralObserver, @FairyCrocodile, both @Alice(s) (in Surrey and France), the list goes on... I hope that I get to hear more in future from every one of you lovely posters, named and not named and those yet to post for the first time. I have a feeling the Sussexes will provide ever more ridiculous gossip and machinations; and although I do get fatigue hearing about them from their incessant pr, I can just as easily tune them out and ignore them. I find the two of them quite toxic but they certainly bring the drama. Again I personally hope no one feels constrained not to contribute as I think this is what makes this blog so wonderfully rich. Thank you Nutty for this great outlet.
Was it someone on this post who said MM looks like Eddie Redmayne with a wig?! Because , oh my God yes! I'm watching Crimes of Grindlewald again and I see what you mean. I can't unsee it now.

PS: I hope I'm not confusing my MM gossip blogs but it's Sunday, so forgive me.

Also, about the Tatler cover itself, I feel this is a carefully planned PR move by her team. Tatler , a few months back, called her the social climber of the year. So to have her as the cover issue would be quite a coup for her team and goes a long way in rahibilitating her image and clap back at the social climber title. As for the picture, surely Tatler just has to aquire the photo from the agency that owns it, she wouldn't have much of a say in that right?
@NeutralObserver, please don’t stop posting, I enjoy reading your posts. I didn’t see anything wrong with what you wrote either. I always try and remember that the written word lacks nuance, but sometimes I fail spectacularly at remembering just that, and take things the wrong way. :o(

I’ve been posting for a while here, but there’s another poster with a very similar name, and I don’t want to be confused for the other person (nothing sinister I assure you)! So I’ve changed my name to one of my favourite sweets! Lol
KitKatKisses said…
@lizzie, re: Duke of Cambridge title vs. Duke of Sussex title. My understanding is that the two situations are not the same.
William will eventually become The Prince of Wales. His children will then be "Prince George of Wales" and so forth. If William is
not yet King when Prince George marries, then King Charles could make George a royal Duke upon marriage. When William
becomes king, George will become Prince of Wales. Louis will be Prince Louis of Wales when William becomes POW and can also receive a royal dukedom upon marriage; it does not have to be Cambridge.

It is different for Harry because his Duke of Sussex title is the highest title he will ever have. That's why these are inheritable titles. I believe that comment in the DM is tomdraw attention tot he fact that Archie is not a lawful son because Archie has no title. Another comment I read stated that the DM has proof and thatbis what the lawsuit is really about.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
@Flore said…
@Alice,Surrey James
I think you’re right about the PR team wanting to get her on the cover after the whole social climber of the year thing. As for the picture chosen, it might be her team or an editorial choice but either way I think it’s not an innocent one. It’s rather interesting that the photo was taken in 2015 I.e. before she even met Harry. Either she chose it as a way to show her independence from the BRF, or the editorial team wanted a picture to go along with the word “divisive” used to describe her. It’s all in the eyes: the luscious and daring way she’s looking at the camera. Either way, there’s nothing royal about MM in this picture.
lizzie said…
Thanks @KitKatKisses. You may well be correct about the Cambridge comparison. But I do believe I'm correct that heritable dukedoms (and some other titles) usually don't pass to females. The change to the line of succession from male primogeniture before George's birth did not change everything else. But if that's not correct, please let me know!
Nelo said…
Tom Sykes has an article out today on how the Cambridges and Sussexes will meet for the remembrance day. I usually love reading his take on issues. Please anyone who can get behind the paywall should please post
Royal Fan said…
So the comment on the DM was pointing out what has already been said that Archie is entitled to use the duke title but Meghan and Harry “chose to” not have him styled this way so he could have a “more normal life” if you can believe that of Meg. Perhaps Hazz put his foot down?? She certainly loves titles. Maybe the DM has some dirt on them suggesting it wasn’t a choice at all but then why is the little guy in the line of succession?? Perhaps to avoid a scandal and because they know he’ll never ascend to the throne?? Intriguing all around!!
@Royal Fan, ‘So the comment on the DM was pointing out what has already been said that Archie is entitled to use the duke title.’

Archie could only inherit the title upon Harry’s death, he can’t be a Duke (the same time as his Father), at most an Earl. Besides, Prince Charles has stated many times (it’s publicly well documented) he wants to slim down the monarchy, so he’s just as like to stay as he is (a Mr) or upon Charles ascent to throne he’ll make him a Prince.
@KitKatKisses and Royal Fan,

‘When William becomes king, George will become Prince of Wales. Louis will be Prince Louis of Wales when William becomes POW and can also receive a royal dukedom upon marriage; it does not have to be Cambridge.’

You are correct KitKat. The only thing I’d add, neither son is likely will become the Duke of Cambridge, only upon death will that title be freed up. So another unused Dukedom will be used when George marries (however, he will become the PoW if William is King when George marries). The second eldest son usually takes the tile of The Duke of York, yes, we have to assume the current one will be dead by the time Louis marries.

With the line of succession, The Queen only made changes to the line of succession before George was born, that was be it boy or girl, she or he would become King or Queen regardless of the gender of the firstborn.

Royal titles and Dukedoms etc aren’t inherited in the exact same way as the aristocracy. With the aristocracy the title and assets are never passed down the female line due to primogeniture.
Unknown said…
@Raspberry Ruffle:
Archie could only inherit the title upon Harry’s death, he can’t be a Duke (the same time as his Father), at most an Earl. Besides, Prince Charles has stated many times (it’s publicly well documented) he wants to slim down the monarchy, so he’s just as like to stay as he is (a Mr) or upon Charles ascent to throne he’ll make him a Prince.

Yes, doesn’t ‘Prince Archie’ have a nice ring to it? Lol

Glowworm
@Unknown, AKA Glowworm, ‘Yes, doesn’t ‘Prince Archie’ have a nice ring to it? Lol’.

Lol lol Almost normal, like as a used car salesmen moniker! ;o)
CatEyes said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
CatEyes said…
Sorry, I left out a sentence in my prior post to make sense regarding Harry's son...I meant to say the only way Archie could be a Prince, was to have named him so (other than when Charles becomes King and Archie's made to be a titled 'Prince;). I wonder if that will happen considering possible bad blood at the moment.
Mimi said…
Up until I came on this blog I was convinced baby Archie was their child. I thought maybe invitro fertilization was needed but so what, that was none of our business. That she had a lumpy post baby bump and the baby appeared comatose, well, that was just me and my evil mind. What changed things for me was the the christening pictures. I don’t know anything about photoshop, etc. but when I took a glance at the picture of all of them sitting around them, I automatically thought...”hum, this picture looks kind of weird”. People suspected it was photoshopped so when I looked at it more closely I could see that Kate’s face looked huge in comparison to the other women. When she showed up to Harry’s polo match....that did it for me....that bay is NOT of the body, not her body anyway! The SA pictures of them with the baby at Archbishop Tutu convinced me. That was NOT a 5 month old baby and he has not one drop of Meghan in him. They looked nervous when they were walking in. She held him awkwardly. The BABY DID NOT KNOW THEM. When will be seeing Archie again?
Mimi said…
Hey, what happened? Where did everybody go? Did I say something wrong?
Ava C said…
@ SwampWoman Actually, I believe that Samantha may have a case of her own for being bullied. Crybullies never think about that.

I really agree with you and the articles I've read suggest Samantha will come out fighting. Indeed going by readers' comments there's such a shift in opinion, in her favour, with people apologising for not having believed her earlier, that she could perhaps get crowd-funding for her legal bills!
abbyh said…

I'm here Mimi.

I don't know. Sometimes people have a lot more to say about a particular topic than other times.

While I'm here, I'm in the take up knitting camp. Easy, portable (yes to airports unless you wind up with some agent with a not sticking to the it is ok rules) and you have something useful when you are done.
CatEyes said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mimi said…
CatEyes, 😂. I thought I had said something wrong.
CatEyes said…
@Mimi I agree with your comment. At first, I thought how I couldn't possibly want to have 'tin hat' ideas about the pregnancy/birth of Archie but it was many. many many things that don't ring true, are too weird for words almost (especially since surely the BRF is such a staid institution). However, I think it all boils down to Markle and with her nothing, absolutely nothing is normal and I'm beginning to think Harry has no control over their situation (like someone here said it is like a form of Stockholm syndrome).
Mimi said…
I will drop the Archie subject for now as some people object to going off topic. I am in complete agreement with what you wrote but I didn’t write it because I didn’t want to make my comment too long. Those two are just......wow....they are just TOO MUCH!
CatEyes said…
Well back to the original point of this thread...that a very small poll showed that 55% agreed that Meghan was good for the Monarchy; well, I won't recount all the smart comments earlier regarding how to do a valid poll, how to accurately interpret the results etc...but I will say previous polls have shown she is one of the least liked royals. I guess it is possible she gas an unfavorable rating but is good for the monarchy but it doesn't seem too plausible to me. And really of what use is a poll when she and Harry are causing such consternation to the BRF, acting so distressed and unhappy and the public is bemoaning the diruption and most seem fed up (I for one am and I'm an American). I don't even see how Meghan's sugars see this as a good turn of events and she is acting as a loyal royal.
CatEyes said…
Guess I will have one more glass of wine and go to bed since its gotten quiet and I only hear crickets now. lol
Mimi said…
CarEyes, 🤗. G’night.
Mimi said…
sorry, CatEyes!
Scandi Sanskrit said…
Why do people think the Tatler cover was Harvey Weinstein's PR firm's doing?

I thought it was a sly/mean way of rubbing the award/title in her face (I can just picture the editorial staff giggling their way through this issue) and the "divide et impera" headline was a reference to her [allegedly] isolating Harry from his family? I think it looks terrible for her image.

But then again that's just my perception as a foreigner. I think it's a dig, not for her benefit. If I were her, I'd rather forget Tatler even exists. Maybe things are getting lost in translation for me?
Rainy Day said…
Thank you everyone, as always, for contributing to my education! A day where I learn something new is never a wasted day, and now I can impress others with my new-found knowledge - I had to look up POS! 😂 Seriously, folks, there’s enough annoyances in The World of M&H that we need this one place where we can relax and enjoy or sympathize with everyones stories.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
I realise this isn't the English department of some ivory tower university and we're not dissecting a piece of English literature (it's Tatler FFS).

BUT I really believe the choice of using a photo from 2015 is like their way of rejecting/refusing to acknowledge the post-2016 Meghan. It's like a snotty way of saying, "you're still pre-Duchess Meghan to us. We will not curtsey to you, fellow pleb."

I actually feel a bit bad for her now, just a little teensy-weensy bit (even if I probably laughed the hardest when I learned titles like that existed in England, I thought it was kind of like the Razzies LOL).

But what do I know about analysing the foreign media? Huh.

I'll go tssssslinking back into my tsssssocial media hiatussssss now. 🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍 (Pottermore says I'm a Slytherin. 💚)
d.c. said…
So, I can’t tell what to make of the complete lack of response to my earlier post (the long one, explaining how the whole group situation reminded me of my first fight in college, etc etc).

I hope I haven’t offended everyone. I definitely did not mean to imply anyone should stop or decrease their posting.
And I did not mean to judge or shame anyone.
I strongly recognize all parties were doing the best they could in that moment.

It was just a plea for civility and some calm order, because it felt like the group dynamics were sort of spiraling, and we needed a way out. So I was willing to be the fall-guy (fall-gal?). And maybe being frozen out is what the fall-gal should expect.

I wonder if maybe there were quite unpleasant responses to my post that Nutty removed? That would explain the seeming complete silence that met my post, In which case, I’d like to try shouting “Hi!” into the void, in hopes of feeling like I was heard.
Sandie said…
IMO, maybe at least half of the negative comments about MM are petty, nasty for the sake of being nasty, or gossip with little grounding in the truth. The frenzied media hype abut her has fed this.

However, if you strip all of that away, what is left is what she has shown herself to be ... a domineering, controlling hustler who is not a team player, with an entitled attitude and who sprouts a lot of word salad with a heavy dollop of untruths as dressing. She seems to have no interest in British culture or history, nor have respect for the monarchy other than how she can use it in her biggest hustle yet.

1. The PDA is not unique to M&H; William and Kate also display PDA occasionally. With the former, it is so over the top and persistent that it seems odd and increasingly M uses it to control and direct. With the latter, it seems natural and never interferes with professionalism.

2. The whole M pregnancy was weird, and the weirdest of all was what I call the coat flicking (the constant belly cupping was just annoying). What was that about?

3. The woke IG is just tacky and comes across as seeking popularity rather than a public servant keeping the public informed, and occasionally sharing something personal.

4. The overspending (very expensive clothes, dozens and dozens of rings and other bits of cheapish jewellery, jetting around and staying in very expensive hotels) started to come across as vulgar and greedy.

I can easily keep going until I get to ten or more ... I think she can manipulate and talk her way out of trouble and play the victim within the BRF for a while, but she keeps tripping over her own character. She seems careless as well, and those careless actions are causing great unhappiness to the man she professes to love. So, no matter how much PR she buys and how many friends step forward to defend her, she leaves a trail of messy stuff behind her and keeps talking her way into trouble.

She will not want to stay if they don't give her the castle, the tiaras (and other splendid jewellery) and the really high profile events (state dinners, BAFTA awards, global humanitarian awards ...), but she is not going to leave without her global brand and guaranteed big funding for the rest of her life. (BTW I think one of her problems is that she does not have a carefully thought-out plan but bounces from one idea to another).

Maybe one day someone will write a complete and accurate account of the MM episode, but I think the gossip and myths will persist (e.g. a lot of what people say about Wallis Simpson is very far from the truth but they state it as fact, and this happens even though a couple of thorough and accurate books have been written about her). Wallis did not change the course of the BRF (Elizabeth would simply have become queen much later if David had not abdicated). Neither will MM.
Mimi said…
Sandie, if what I have read about Wallis is correct.....she did not want Edward VIII to abdicate in order to marry her. She was willing to continue being his mistress. She was not a lesbian, she did not receive training on sexual techniques in a Chinese brothel.
Unknown said…
"IMO, maybe at least half of the negative comments about MM are petty, nasty for the sake of being nasty..."

There have been times when I've written a comment about Markle that I've read back and winced at how uncharacteristically venomous I sound. But I think theres a real sense of frustration and anger growing with this situation and the monarchies seeming inability to bring the Sussexes to heel. Markle isnt just some annoying celebrity that you can just ignore if they're not your cup on tea. She's a public servant. A PAID public servant. My tax money supports her whether I like it or not. It's difficult to explain to people outside of the UK why this is such a personal issue for so many Brits, but it really is. I'm a single mother of two. I work two jobs to get by, and what little spare time I have I spend studying for a degree part time. I haven't had a foreign holiday in twenty years. The idea that my taxes are supporting this vacuous parasite to live a life of opulence and luxury only so that she can turn around and spin things so that she is the victim, I am a bully and an oppressor, and by the way could working class people stop flying so much (because that is absolutely the implication of Harry's speech) makes me sick to my stomach. Some of our comments might verge into the petty or the nasty, but people are fed up. We've tried polite disagreement and nobody at the palace seems to be listening. And the PR just never lets up. Its article after article, day after day. Every time Markle farts she makes the news. People are DONE. They're so, so frustrated, and its beginning to sour public feeling towards the wider monarchy.
Ava C said…
It's a shame what's happened to the Tatler. I love the big old glamorous Tatlers and have a glorious one from 1960 with Princess Margaret on the front in a white ballgown. Couldn't be more different (although of course now we'd be asking about the cost and that's no bad thing). Imagine what Princess Margaret would have made of Meghan! Mind you, it would be one extravagant polarising figure criticising another extravagant polarising figure. Comment boards can still get very heated about PM.

At least PM was always immaculately dressed on duty though. Think how far the bar has falled with Meghan. We'd think she'd improved on duty if we could see she'd brushed her hair.
JLC said…
@ d.c

Saw your above comment, so went back to a read your original one. I think it was perfectly fine and well intentioned. This thread hasn't had as many comments as others, so I doubt Nutty had to delete some nasty replies or anything like that. I think people will have just read what you said, had a think, and then moved on without comment.

@raspberry ruffle

Is that you, JL?! If so, great change, and also one of all time fave chockie bars too.
bootsy said…
Just giving Mischi's post from near the start of this thread a bump because the video explaining how to manipulate polls is well worth watching. Misrepresenting numbers is one thing, manipulating language and tone in order to get the answer you want is yet another!

"Regarding statistics, I am reminded of two things:

1. that famous seen from Yes, Prime Minister

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

2. the saying " Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
This comment has been removed by the author.
Could be another rumour put out by SS to test the waters...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7621137/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-considering-creating-second-base-US.html
Bardsey said…
The Mail is elevating the CA relocation rumors to an article this morning. ‘A second base’ is what they’d have. So now they’ll be regularly jetting back and forth between CA and the UK to keep up appearances? And all those Frogmore renovations were for naught? The wastefulness, both economic and ecological, of these two should be a running story.

Also, the Katie Hind story should hopefully get more traction as time goes on. Thinking it over, it really confirmed the perceptions of her without being overtly mean: she was thirsty, hounding Hind like mad, seeking whatever foothold she could. Read between the lines, sugars: this was no love match. This was a calculating fame-obsessed woman. The only interests she has at heart are her own.
@JLC, ‘ Is that you, JL?! If so, great change, and also one of all time fave chockie bars too’.

No, I wasn’t JL, but agree another similar name to your own. ;o) I mostly only eat the bars, you don’t see the individual sweets so often.
JLC said…
@ Raspberry Ruffle

Ah right! I prefer the bars (too small to make you feel guilty, and a nice texture when refrigerated!)

Yes, I saw the DM piece too. I wondered if it was another article to pave the way for a move, so people aren't that surprised if/when it happens. As you say, they could be testing the waters. I haven't checked the comments yet...
Jen said…
@Bardsey Also, the Katie Hind story should hopefully get more traction as time goes on. Thinking it over, it really confirmed the perceptions of her without being overtly mean: she was thirsty, hounding Hind like mad, seeking whatever foothold she could. Read between the lines, sugars: this was no love match. This was a calculating fame-obsessed woman. The only interests she has at heart are her own.

From what Katie said, MM was on the prowl for a British guy. If only Katie hadn't directed her away from Ashley Cole, maybe she wouldn't have set her sites on PH when she did.
NeutralObserver said…
Thanks for the kind comments, & I have to apologize for making myself a focus of attention, but this blog has made me feel that I've expanded a my circle of intelligent, interesting buddies. H & M are sort of a specialized hobbyhorse, & some of my friends & loved ones think my interest is a tad eccentric, but to me it's fascinating because it says so much about our celebrity culture, which is now global & not just particular to our own countries.

Watching H & M is becoming like watching Brexit, but with less serious repercussions. Will Brexit ever happen? Will the RF ever come clean about Archie's origins? Will the BRF & H & M sever their ties, or will just Meghan leave, with or without Archie? It seems like those things will happen, but will they?

I think Meghan has blundered her attempt at global fame & adoration. If she had done the normal things, stood on the hospital steps, announced who her doctors were, shared a few authentic photos of her child, she & her little family probably would have really been so loved that they would almost eclipse the rest of the BRF. The only reason I can think of for not doing so, is that there is something a bit off about Archie's birth. There is no way the British tabs would have missed a royal convoy (even a pared down, discreet one) going to any of the logical hospitals, & I speak as a commoner who traveled by a long taxi ride from Kensington to St. John's Wood to give birth to one her children. ( The London cab drivers in those days were wonderful, they treated an expectant mother like gold, & drove slowly & carefully. Megs' RPOs & chauffeurs would have probably driven faster, but would have been much more conspicuous.) The British tabs know what they're doing, & they know how to get around in the London area.

As it is, Megs is producing something like a mashup of Ab Fab & Shameless. I haven't watched Shameless, but I loved Ab Fab, & even have all the DVDs in case the streaming services stop showing it. Jennifer Saunders is a genius, & did some very, very funny episodes on Hollywood surrogacies, & her character, Edie even tried to merch her daughter Saffy's adorable little mixed race baby in a Lacroix ad! ( I think it was Lacroix, & may have been another designer). I remember a NY Times article on Ab Fab marveled that some of its fans actually wanted to be like crazy Edie & Patsy, they thought that they were role models. Maybe Megs was one of them.

As an American, it's none of my business what the Brits do about either Brexit or the RF, but our countries are united by history, culture & language. Many of us, including me, have ancestral ties as well. To me, it's impossible not to wish Britain good & happy outcomes as it struggles with all of these things. We're having horrific issues in the US as well. The Megs & Harry show is a bit of amusing distraction, with a huge historical twist.

Thanks to Nutty & all of the posters here for providing so much fun & interest.
Sconesandcream said…
As other posters have mentioned the latest article in DM suggests that PH & MM might set up a second base in the US. I can see that if this happens, MM will rarely set a foot back on British soil whilst PH will be forced to use private jets to fly back and forth to see his family and complete Royal engagements. I wish them both luck dealing with the paparazzi in the US. What a complete schmoozle this marriage continues to be. Compare MM to Princess Mary of Denmark (formerly of Tasmania, Australia) who famously met her Prince in a pub during the Sydney Olympics. She moved from Australia to Denmark and has embraced her new country,royal role and family life with the utmost class and decorum. Instead of a Princess Mary, the British RF got a fame seeking starlet with a narcissist streak and delusions of grandeur who has zero respect nor interest in the RF and her Royal husband.
Miggy said…
@NeutralObserver

"I think Meghan has blundered her attempt at global fame & adoration. If she had done the normal things, stood on the hospital steps, announced who her doctors were, shared a few authentic photos of her child, she & her little family probably would have really been so loved that they would almost eclipse the rest of the BRF."

I very much doubt it. She blotted her copybook way before the mysterious birth of Archie with the obscene baby shower trip to NY, amongst other things...
Liver Bird said…
Regarding how Meghan is perceived by the general public, I think this discussion is interesting:

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3726876-I-feel-for-Megan-AIBU?pg=1

For those not familiar with it, Mumsnet is the biggest site for - mostly - women in Britain. The majority who post are mothers, but by no means all are. So I think it gives a reasonable snap-shot of public opinion among British women. As I've said before, I think sites like this one can be misleading because the vast majority of Brits don't really follow the royals like people on this site do, and only take an interest in big royal gossip or events. Anyway, even though the poster was hoping for a sob-fest, the replies are overwhelmingly negative. And even in papers like The Guardian, which previously was so impressed by the new 'woke' duchess and hewed to the line that anyone who criticised her was a racist, you're beginning to see a lot of bafflement at the Sussexes' self-pity.

So I think it's fair to say that the duo have lost 'middle England'. Nobody likes a whiny royal.
JLC said…
@ Liver Bird

Interesting. I agree with what you say too. They are clearly delusional to think that the documentary was going to put them in a more favourable light.

I saw a video today of her at One Young World. While she is standing and clapping you can see a folded piece of paper in her hand - people are guessing that it was a speech she had prepared, but then wasn't given the opportunity to do so. What a mighty relief if that was to be true!
abbyh said…

RE: test balloon on moving to LA or somewhere in the USA

many comments are running along the lines of: pay for your own security, no more tax money, keeping him further from his family support system, once she goes that he will need all kinds of private jets to get back + optic that when they do split> he's doing the leaving and welcome from the IRS> we're happy to see you.

Still wondering what is percolating with the 2018 tax return. I know what I do for prepping it for the accountant but man, with them, all the different sources of money, receipts, different tax laws ... all I can think of it this is something you need to stay up on daily. Otherwise you won't remember much detail later and it will feel like the tsunami of paperwork is ever getting bigger (because it is).

Scandi Sanskrit said…
@d.c.

Your comment (from the parts that I understand) wasn't offensive. I wouldn't worry too much about whether you get responses or not. There are so many, it's overwhelming and comments get overlooked. I think there's even one post on this blog that got over 700 comments.

I didn't respond to your comment about your first fight with your boyfriend in college because I've never had a real boyfriend before & probably if they ever fought with me, I'd break-up with them right away and never look back since I don't handle conflict well. (Plus, I read novels like "Fight Club" so I can't really relate to expecting a "romance-novely" response.) I have no experience in that department and had nothing to add.

Don't take stuff on here personally.

Things are just a bit off in the world right now. (In general.) So don't feel bad.
Unknown said…
The latest stories about the Sussexes having a 'second base' in California are clearly just Markle trying to strong arm the Palace by floating the idea in the press first, much like she did with trying to get Doria invited to Christmas at Sandringham, getting the apartment at KP etc. The Palace are acutely aware of how dark the public mood surround Markle's current expenditure is, and have clearly been putting pressure on her behind the scenes to tone down on the overt spending. There isnt a cat in Hell's chance that they'd let her be a part time royal commuting from the USA on the taxpayer's purse. Nope, nope, nope. The Palace might not have the best handle on the Narkle situation, but they're certainly not stupid. That would be an insult too far for the British public.
Humor Me said…
Time for a new thread Nutty - gasp - they are moving here - gasp!
Nelo said…
@unknown, Meghan's fans at celebitchy say it's a ploy by BP, CH and KP to chase the Sussexes out of UK and they even say the 'mordenising the monarchy' statement must have been planted by the Cambridges. Lol
JLC said…
The DM says "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are set to come face to face with Prince William and Kate Middleton at Remembrance Sunday for their first public meeting since the brothers' rift was revealed in ITV documentary," on November 10th...

Do people think they will all be there? I really can't call it.
abbyh said…

My really stupid question for the day:

can anyone tell me specifics of just how the monarchy has been or tried to be modernized by M or M&H?

I keep seeing the headlines saying it has happened or they tried to but I can't come up with anything concrete I can point to and say: Yeah, that's modernizing the monarchy?


thanks
JLC said…
@abbyh

Hugging us plebs?!
1 – 200 of 333 Newer Newest

Popular posts from this blog

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

As Time Passes and We Get Older

 I started thinking about how time passes when reading some of the articles about the birthday.  It was interesting to think about it from the different points of view.  Besides, it kind of fits as a follow up the last post (the whole saga of can the two brothers reunite). So there is the requisite article about how he will be getting all kinds of money willed to him from his great-grandmother.  There were stories about Princess Anne as trustee (and not allowing earliest access to it all).  Whether or not any or all of this is true (there was money for him and/or other kids) has been debated with claims she actually died owing money with the Queen paying the debts to avoid scandal.  Don't know but I seem to remember that royal estates are shrouded from the public so we may not (ever) know. However, strange things like assisting in a book after repeated denials have popped up in legal papers so nothing is ever really predicable.   We are also seein...

The Opening Act of New Adventures in Retail

 I keep thinking things will settle down to the lazy days of spring where the weather is gorgeous and there is a certain sense of peacefulness.  New flowers are coming out. increasing daylight so people can be outside/play and thinking gardening thoughts.  And life is quiet.  Calm. And then something happens like a comet shooting across the sky.  (Out of nowhere it arrives and then leaves almost as quickly.)   An update to a law suit.  Video of the website is released (but doesn't actually promote any specific product which can be purchased from the website).  A delay and then jam is given out (but to whom and possible more importantly - who did not make the list?).  Trophies almost fall (oops).  Information slips out like when the official date of beginning USA residency.  (now, isn't that interesting?) With them, it's always something in play or simmering just below the surface.  The diversity of the endeavors is really ...