Open Post: Cambridge tour to Pakistan, Archie's lack of attachment, and the Sussex Foundation's new hire
Here's a fresh post to discuss the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's ongoing tour of Pakistan, various theories about Archie's lack of attachment to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the Sussex Foundation's latest hire - Kirsty Young, a former radio presenter who is married to Nick Jones, the founder of Soho House.
Please be kind to each other! As some of you have noted, I'm not a professional moderator; I'm a writer operating this nonprofit blog purely for fun. A lot of the time I would like to have spent writing I've spent deleting comments in which people are sniping at each other. That's not fun at all.
There are only two rules at this blog: you must be willing to seriously discuss this case, and you may not use vicious language about the Sussexes or about each other.
Also, you are more than welcome to discuss possible surrogate situations regarding Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
Thank you!
Please be kind to each other! As some of you have noted, I'm not a professional moderator; I'm a writer operating this nonprofit blog purely for fun. A lot of the time I would like to have spent writing I've spent deleting comments in which people are sniping at each other. That's not fun at all.
There are only two rules at this blog: you must be willing to seriously discuss this case, and you may not use vicious language about the Sussexes or about each other.
Also, you are more than welcome to discuss possible surrogate situations regarding Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
Thank you!
Comments
I think I saw one of your comments over at the DM, by the way.
until this point and most of all,we had fun! It took just 2 or 3 people to ruin that ambience. I started to think they may have been planted to do this as Nutty's blog is getting very popular within a very short period of time (and rightly so).
There are aspects of interest:
1) His cadence and speech patterns at the beginning was obviously written by someone else - not unusual really but
2) when he bent over to me he looked like he had a episode, if you take special notice of his eyeline when he rose he was clearly trying to focus on something, and holding the podium for support - after that the cadence and flow different quite a bit.
I don't know if it mental stress or tiredness or even withdrawal but something is definitely happening.
The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. I really enjoyed your posts.
I want to open a conversation on Skippy and why she is so hellbent on believing Harry is somehow still working undercover for the BRF by participating in these shenanigans.
I used to believe Skippy because I wasn't seeing a lot of channels but commentary on this site seems most insightful and informative. What do you all think about Harry's alliances? Seems to me many of you believe he is fully smitten and under the dark spell of Miss Markle.
I truly don't know what to think but I believe the pregnancy was a pillow baby for sure. I also think the child they used in SA did not seem to know them and I don't even like or have babies and I noticed that. I am female, but hardly maternal. Still - I noticed.
Thoughts on Harry?
Clearly it is audible in one recording and not the other.
I've noticed that for the past couple of weeks, one of our favorite commenters, Elle is gone and now we are stuck with those who stir the merde and stink the most, namely Nasty Tatty and her attacks on Mischi. It's impossible to be nice to a person who comes into a room, stinks it up, asks, "What's that smell?" then tries to make everyone else blame Mische. I disagree with Mische sometimes, but I don't attack her or anyone else.
That's what trolls do. They swoop in, stink up the place, make everyone as miserable as possible then move on to live under another bridge.
We've got your back Mische. Don't feed the nasty trolls.
00:16 - Make way for the black rod (male voice)
0:31 Make way for the black rod (female voice)
Is there another occurrence that I have missed? (likely possibility :)
If you scroll down the photos, you can see that Smirkle was wearing her butt pads today.
I hope I have not come off as being mean or nasty? I don't mean to be but happy to be corrected - I really love this blog and the intelligence conversations :)
It could very well be genuine, but the fact that it happened Today when we're all expecting them.to do something to unsptage the Cambridges is telling. It's also fitting the recent pattern that's slowly emerging post SA... It also seems like lately it's more Harry who is agressive out there making statements, scowling, suing reporters, being rude to reported, envoking Diana, featuring in a video with Ed Sheeran etc etc etc while his wife passive agressivly just stands behind him, wearing some secret message sending outfit, hair flowing grinning like Cheshire cat not matter what's happening around her. The ever perfect puppet master. Deflecting all criticism towards Harry, waiting for his fall from grace.
@Mischi, please don't let the mean girls get you down, I always enjoy what you say:)
Their documtary is out this weekend and I'm pretty sure they will do everything they can, directly or indirectly, to build on the narrative that they are poor hapless Innocents being chased into the Paris tunnel by the paparazzi. So mm will be extra sweet, extra kind, extra helpless, extra maternal, extra normal, extra extra to drive home the victim narrative.
You guys, mental health is their new gig. They will completely try and take over that campaign to make it seem like they are the only ones in the whole wide world to be concerned about mental health. Esp men's mental health. Hence Harry's public displays of emotion. The cherry on the cake will be Meghan's second pregnancy announcement, which this time around, will come very late. She will be visibly pregnant by the time but they will keep mum for "privacy" reasons.
>mental health is their new gig. They will completely try and take over that campaign to make it seem like they are the only ones in the whole wide world to be concerned about mental health. Esp men's mental health. Hence Harry's public displays of emotion.
Interesting take. Smeg would undoubtedly manipulate people, but would Harry? How on board would he be with such a plan? In the back of my mind, quote attributed to Harry, "no one knows the real me."
I used to believe Skippy because I wasn't seeing a lot of channels but commentary on this site seems most insightful and informative. What do you all think about Harry's alliances? Seems to me many of you believe he is fully smitten and under the dark spell of Miss Markle.
I truly don't know what to think but I believe the pregnancy was a pillow baby for sure. I also think the child they used in SA did not seem to know them and I don't even like or have babies and I noticed that. I am female, but hardly maternal. Still - I noticed.
Thoughts on Harry?" [/I]
I have been reading Skippy for well over a year, and have contributed a fair amount. Her heart is in the right place! Honestly, I just think it would shake her belief in and loyalty to the royal family to believe that Harry would betray his monarch, his family, and his country for a skanky nobody from California. I can see why a staunch monarchist would not want to believe that.
That devotion is costing her readers now, IMO. The illogical twists and leaps that are made to keep "proving" that Harry is not aligned with Rachel from L.A., but is really some kind of secret agent/actor/white knight going along with the charade in order to save the British Royal Family...well, it defies logic and common sense. Occam's Razor, you know?
My belief is that Harry has severe psychological / emotional / mental issues, most likely stemming from his traumatic childhood. We also know that Harry is dyslexic, and dyslexia almost always presents with another issue like anxiety, depression, ADHD, etc. (My own son is dyslexic). Harry, unlike William, did not get the help he needed. William had the Middletons and Kate, and while many slam
Kate for "waiting around for 10 years", I think William needed 100% devotion and wanted to be sure of himself as well. (I also don't believe the rumors about William and Rose, but I digress).
Back to Harry. There was a reason neither Chelsea nor Cressida would marry him. Along comes
Rachel from LA and she sold him a pack of lies. She absolutely pretended to be who he wanted. Everyone could see through her but him. Much has already been written about her love bombing, the lies, the hypocrisy, etc. so I won't go over all that again. Maybe she is holding something over him or the family (blackmail), IDK.
I do think that Harry is "in on it" and I think this because of the "pregancy." It was absolutely fake. No one's bump changes shapes and sizes like that. The uterus becomes hard like a watermelon; it does not sway, jiggle, fold, collapse, or
inflate and deflate. Harry has to know that the baby did not come from Meghan's body. But he is perpetuating that lie. And I agree that is not their baby. Zero connection between that baby and Harry or Meghan.
The misguided letters about the press and supposed racism against his wife are even more ludicrous.
We are witnessing one of the most spectacular public downfalls in human history and it isn't over yet.
KitKatKisses, I believe that you want to have the <> around your html tag, not brackets.
I'm extremely cynical about H&M, but I do understand his mini-breakdown.
I have the same thing happen when I think about the horrors that so many families with sick children go through, then think about how f*cking lucky I have been with my healthy children.
So I get that, I get Harry here.
To add the snark that I love this blog for...
if Meghan (actually was pregnant and had any say) sensed any disability in the baby, she most likely would have aborted the babe.
If someone says something that offends you, just ignore them.
This is the worst thing you can do to a troll/bully/piece of sh*t.
Every comment you make replying to them only feeds them.
Ignore them, and they're yelling into a vacuum.
I have been on the surrogate bus for quite a while. But i tend to go back & forth. The pics of her pregnancy make me think surogacy. My suspicion was surrogate out of Canada, who possibly didn't know who the biological parents were. RF found out and tracked her down and outed her. I also thought maybe all the stress involved caused the surrogate to have complications - wasn't there a rumor that MM went in to labor just before their trip to Morocco. Maybe the surrogate and she was put on bed rest? I wonder - was there a special team lined up to birth the surrogate & MM go in to labor at the same time and the birth certificate would have MM's name as birth mother but complications caused a trip to hospital and that plan went up in smoke?
and now i'm back to wondering if she is actually pregnant this time around and that was Harry's "hint". Maybe the "special" on the 20th will have the announcement?
She is rewearing what is essentiallyone her oldest dresses, the first one she ever officially wore in her role as a member of the BRF. So on paper, she is being frugal and above criticism about her spending. Now she can say that public is out to get her because any all criticism of her is 1). Racism 2). Bullying because we critise her looks and weight, waist, hair, makeup (these are superficial things and she knows that). She also mostly keeps her mouth shut and let's Harry do the talking. And when she talks she mentions her baby, so again that should be above and beyond critisism (under normal circumstances). Her behaviour her choices are very telling. Both of them are playing it very smart, they are playing the long game.
Most of the protocol she breaks are unwritten rules that the BRF has not addressed officially ever. you have to do a deep dive into the psychology behind these decisions, these words. On camera they are always smiling, they show up for for enagagements. So can you fault her and point out something illegal here? Probably not. These are mind games and the both of them are good at it.
For example, let's say Harry does have some emotional/mental issues and he is having a hard time. These things could and should be handled privately, immediately and seriously. Private not because they are royals but because we all know with issues like that you need to retreat and move away from stressful scenarios to be able to tackle such an issue. But they are almost daring us to.pint out that someone wrong with Harry, that what he is doing is a red flag and something must be wrong.
They want to be jack of all trades and stupidly use Wikipedia to appear in the know. They don't know their own brand because their aim is to most famous and that could be for sake of fame itself. It may or may not be clinical narcissism, but it's definitely egotistical megalomania. And it's vulger.
"Or, perhaps he was giggling with nervous hysteria thinking about big act he & his wife have been putting on."
I think this is it, it was duper's delight in the extreme.
'There are aspects of interest:
1) His cadence and speech patterns at the beginning was obviously written by someone else - not unusual really but
2) when he bent over to me he looked like he had a episode, if you take special notice of his eyeline when he rose he was clearly trying to focus on something, and holding the podium for support - after that the cadence and flow different quite a bit.
I don't know if it mental stress or tiredness or even withdrawal but something is definitely happening.'
Thanks for getting the comments back on track!
I found the video disturbing. He was reading like he was going through the motions but with no interest in the words. He didn't write that speech and it seemed to be the first time he had seen it. Or has he always been a bad speaker, got worse? Then he seemed to look across at Meghan, smile (maybe even suppress laughter as if they were sharing a joke), he bent down and then looked disoriented and upset when he stood up again (and held on to the podium for balance so yes it was like an episode). It was very odd!
JLC
The first universal Principle of Influence is Reciprocity.
Simply put, people are obliged to give back to others the form of a behaviour, gift, or service that they have received first.
If a friend invites you to their party, there’s an obligation for you to invite them to a future party you are hosting. If a colleague does you a favour, then you owe that colleague a favour. And in the context of a social obligation people are more likely to say yes to those who they owe.
One of the best demonstrations of the Principle of Reciprocity comes from a series of studies conducted in restaurants. So the last time you visited a restaurant, there’s a good chance that the waiter or waitress will have given you a gift. Probably about the same time that they bring your bill. A liqueur, perhaps, or a fortune cookie, or perhaps a simple mint.
Using the Principle of Reciprocity is to be the first to give and to ensure that what you give is personalized and unexpected
2) The second universal Principle of Persuasion is Scarcity.
Simply put, people want more of those things they can have less of.
So when it comes to effectively persuading others using the Scarcity Principle, the science is clear. It’s not enough simply to tell people about the benefits they’ll gain if they choose your products and services. You’ll also need to point out what is unique about your proposition and what they stand to lose if they fail to consider your proposal.
3) Our third Principle of Influence is the Principle of Authority.
This is the idea that people follow the lead of credible, knowledgeable experts.
Physiotherapists, for example, are able to persuade more of their patients to comply with recommended exercise programs if they display their medical diplomas on the walls of their consulting rooms. People are more likely to give change for a parking meter to a complete stranger if that requester wears a uniform rather than casual clothes.
What the science is telling us is that it’s important to signal to others what makes you a credible, knowledgeable authority before you make your influence attempt. Of course this can present problems; you can hardly go around telling potential customers how brilliant you are, but you can certainly arrange for someone to do it for you. And surprisingly, the science tells us that it doesn’t seem to matter if the person who introduces you is not only connected to you but also likely to prosper from the introduction themselves.
3) The next principle is Consistency.
People like to be consistent with the things they have previously said or done. Consistency is activated by looking for, and asking for, small initial commitments that can be made. In one famous set of studies, researchers found rather unsurprisingly that very few people would be willing to erect an unsightly wooden board on their front lawn to support a Drive Safely campaign in their neighborhood.
So when seeking to influence using the consistency principle, the detective of influence looks for voluntary, active, and public commitments and ideally gets those commitments in writing.
And part 2/2
The fifth principle is the Principle of Liking.
People prefer to say yes to those that they like.
But what causes one person to like another? Persuasion science tells us that there are three important factors. We like people who are similar to us, we like people who pay us compliments, and we like people who cooperate with us towards mutual goals.
As more and more of the interactions that we are having take place online, it might be worth asking whether these factors can be employed effectively in, let’s say, online negotiations.
The final principle is Consensus.
Especially when they are uncertain, people will look to the actions and behaviours of others to determine their own.
You may have noticed that hotels often place a small card in bathrooms that attempt to persuade guests to reuse their towels and linens. Most do this by drawing a guest’s attention to the benefits that reuse can have on environmental protection. It turns out that this is a pretty effective strategy, leading to around 35% compliance. But could there be an even more effective way?
Well, it turns out that about 75% of people who check into a hotel for four nights or longer will reuse their towels at some point during their stay. So what would happen if we took a lesson from the Principle of Consensus and simply included that information on the cards and said that 75% of our guests reuse their towels at some time during their stay, so please do so as well. It turns out that when we do this, towel reuse rises by 26%.
Now imagine the next time you stay in a hotel you saw one of these signs. You picked it up and you read the following message: “75% percent of people who have stayed in this room have reused their towel.” What would you think? Well here’s what you might think: “I hope they’re not the same towels.” And like most people, you’d probably think that this sign will have no influence on your behavior whatsoever.
But it turns out that changing just a few words on a sign to honestly point out what comparable previous guests have done was the single most effective message, leading to a 33% increase in reuse. The science is telling us that rather than relying on our own ability to persuade others, we can point to what many others are already doing, especially many similar others.
Speaking of Harry, I agree with those upthread who said this may be his new tactic: building up a picture of himself weighhed down by the hardships of life as a massively privileged royal who occassionally gets press not 100% to his liking. However, if that's his tactic - and I do wonder if he's clever enough to come up with it - it will fail massively. Britain is going through a time of political turmoil and nobody really gives a toss about one of the most privileged men on earth whining about his lot, particularly when there's more of a hint of hypocrisy going on.
It might work for the American Instagram audience they are courting though, and I guess that's all that matters to them.
As a couple of posters noted, I haven't written full blog posts recently. I am on a big work deadline at the moment, but hope to write more over the weekend.
I would prefer not to ban any posters, but it may unfortunately become necessary.
Sunshine Sachs seems very eager to spend Meg's money, even here. I'm not going away, boys and girls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA2SJoOgRSQ&feature=youtu.be
We can agree to disagree without claiming that people are paid trolls working for MM's PR firm can't we? Sheesh.
Same here.
I've listened to the tape(s) a few times now.
Having first been told that the woman shouted "Get rid of Markle", that is indeed what I heard.
Then, when it was pointed out that it was actually "Make way for Black Rod" - I heard that too.
It reminds me of something I once read about people who witness a crime. You can have 5/6 people witness the very same incident and yet they will all, (in most cases) have seen or heard something totally different from each other.
People will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.
For clarity - Sussex is not a town. It is a county in South East England, comprising of West Sussex and East Sussex.
I have lost interest in Skippy as well. I have no idea what's going on with Haz but it isn't good. In the video he chokes on words, he snorts, he's flustered. To me it seems like he is having a hard time spitting out the lies. He is on the edge.
Frankly, I am growing tired of the whole thing. Looks like we are in for a reprise. She'll keep doing the same things expecting different results.
I won't be able to catch the mockumentary but look forward to reviews here on the Nutty channel.
The latest development with Sussex Inc. ... all roads lead to Soho and the new director is particularly brazen, IMO. Is MM being strong armed by bigger and harder folks with a bigger and harder agenda?
My tin hat comes out because I have so much trouble understanding how a two-bit classless mediocrite has come to dominate the world stage.
Why would anyone seek to jettison all that in order to become yet another substance-free 'celebrity', battling it out with all the other desperados on Twitter and Instagram? I genuinely do not get it.
I watched the video of the Queen's speech this week, I am not sure if the woman is shouting "Get rid of Markle" or "Get rid of Bercow" [John Bercow being the unpopular speaker of the House of Commons].
I don't think the Queen will abdicate, however I think she may make Charles Regent if her health declines. I personally don't think Charles looks particularly healthy though - who knows, his mother may outlive him.
As for LaMarkle though - I thought, when I watched the wedding, that she came across as incredibly fake. And when she turned to Harry at the end of their carriage ride and clearly said "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck..." well, I didn't that was particularly boding well for her future as a Royal. I'm afraid time hasn't exactly proved me wrong, either. In fact, she appears to be getting worse.
I don't understand why she appeared to put on very little weight during her pregnancy, yet seemed to pile on the pounds immediately after. Very odd.
People will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.’
I was going to comment something very similar, but you beat me to it. Wholly agree.
Maybe it's a false alarm. If she is pregnant it would have to have been pretty fast work for it to show already given Archie was born in May. Also, she was wearing a dress that's way too small for her so easy to give the impression of a 'bump'. It's the hand on the belly and the nonsense from Harry that makes me think we might be in for another round of nonsense. And yes I know I can look away but still......
They can be the Dupe and Duchess of East Sussex, us in the western part don't want 'em :D
I know many posters here are in doubt of a surrogate - which is totally fine. But for those (myself included) who thought it likely the one interesting thing about her being genuinely pregnant would be whether she manages to strut about in high heels, never rub her back or look uncomfortable, execute perfect squats in said heels etc.
I have family living in the Eastern part. They don't want them either. :)
Is she or isn't she?
I don't know but what I do know is that IVF usually takes more than one try. The odds are not in your favor at that age without assistance and even with assistance are not a guarantee.
Duper's delight? Hadn't thought of that. Tantalizing thought leading up to the big reveal this week end.
What I will find interesting for anyone who is able to take one for the team and watch it, will and if so, how much will we see of any nanny? Who does the baby's eyes track? How active is this baby? Who is shown in the background that we don't know - yet? What can you tell me about their voices when speaking to people (tone, volume, delivery kind of thing)?
Sometimes we can learn much more than intended to reveal = especially if it is taped and rewatched without volume. Micro-signals become much more obvious as we are not distracted by the talking.
Daily Mail must be reading comments because they are now running an article -
'Can YOU tell the wig from natural hair' :)
I don't know what's going on with Meghan but her size, shape, and apparent weight surely do seem to fluctuate wildly. It surely looks like more than pregnancy weight from Archie (assuming there wasn't a surrogate) and while it wouldn't surprise me if they announce she's now pregnant, the size fluctuations look like much more than those seen with early pregnancy. In fact, the only times I recall seeing such fluctuations it was due to surgical enhancements/reductions, padding, or was drug-induced.
I don't think she is pregnant because the bump is actually varying in size and was much bigger at one point in South Africa.
I do think she will try to make us believe she is, however, and she'll double down on the belly clutching because that's what she does - she will never quit anything she knows people object to. And, to head off the objections to that statement, I will preempt them by saying I think she quit with the overspending on clothes because she was forced to, not because she wanted to.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/12/prince-harry-video-pakistani
"In the film, the 24-year-old prince calls an officer from the Pakistani army, who was on the course with him, "our little Paki friend", and when he sees another officer cadet wearing a camouflage veil, exclaims: "Fuck me, you look like a raghead.""
And for good measure, Harry doesn't forget to mock gays as well:
"Later, again holding the camera, he asks another member of the squad to talk through the exercise they have just done. He asks for "your ups and downs in the exercise. Highs and lows ... good points, bad points." Off camera, he adds: "How do you feel? Gay? Queer on the side?""
She asked "but is he kind?" Who knows, but he sure is STUPID.
I read somewhere today (possibly Charlatan Duchess) that he asked footballer Peter Crouch, "how on earth did you bag Abby Clancy?", (his wife). Peter was struck dumb at that comment and Harry walked off. What a prat.
To add some positivity, check out these beautiful and colourful photos of the Cambridge Royal Tour.
I love the local dress in this western region of Pakistan and note that the women are not wearing headscarfs. I will be doing more reading in order to find out why they are not required in this region.
This is why the whole 'prince of wokeness' thing cracks me up. Sure, a person shouldn't be defined by stupid things they did/said in their youth, and people do grow and mature. But Harry still seems to be the same arrogant, self-centred little twerp he's always been, even if palace PR did an excellent job of hiding that for a few years (I even bought it myself!) I bet the 'wokeness' is as shallow and superficial as it is with most of these 'celebrities' and behind the scenes he still comes out with stuff that would appal his right-on Instagram fanz.
Anyway before it is taken down here is a link to a couple of interesting gifs where Harry appears to be telling children at the Wellness event to hug MeMe.
https://hunnymae.tumblr.com/post/188383188015
I did not see Harry break down, I thought he was laughing and had to stop himself. Interesting how things get spun.....
@QueenWhitby - yes, I saw him smile and laugh too. He wasn't overcome with emotion to me.
The more I see and hear about this 'relationship' the more I am simultaneously fascinated and appalled by it. Something very very odd is going on with these two. It's not 'love' or even infatuation. It's a toxic, controlling 'relationship' played out on the world stage, and I can't look away. I'd feel sorry for Harry if he weren't such a spoiled obnoxious brat.
I don't want to cut and paste, but it is post 48977 on page 1633 (https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-1633).
A full-blown narc follows the basic pattern of idealize, devalue and discard. However, a narc can happily stay with a partner who fulfils all extrinsic needs (status, wealth, power, excitement, attractiveness).
I anxiously await links from various world wide news outlets reporting this discovery by Yankee Wally. 😛
This is a man who is cracking under the weight of all the lies he is forced to tell on a daily basis. What Harry must know and we can only surmise, based on all the ostentatious belly-cupping in her engagement interview dress that was closely fitted 15 or 20 pounds ago: She's gearing up to do it again. We called that back in May when she was 'postpartum' with Archie, did we not? I knew in my waters that she would be announcing another pregnancy before Christmas. I think we've had a little preview of what's gonna be revealed in their fauxumentary airing next week--a sibling for Archie!!
What was with the draped coat like a torador's cape and why did that thing not fall to the ground? All we needed was some ratty fur and about 20 thick gold chains and she could have been modeling her Snoop Dogg Halloween look. So not a good look for a "Royal".
I close with a bit of levity from TCD, where one of the commentators made a droll observation about Rachel's 'au courant' merched-AF handbag. Somebody on the other page here expressed admiration for that purse. With apologies to that person, I must agree with this assessment, and appreciate the laugh it gave me this morning at my dreary job:
"Also, is it me or is she carrying a block of cow dung with a newspaper handle? I am thoroughly confused."
All the laughing emojis for these bons mots!
"Narrating the 20-second trailer, presenter Tom Bradby said: "The story of their time in Africa was one of passion for their work, pride and happiness but also a world of pressure and pain behind the brave faces.""
Poor little Royals.. so much pressure..
They really are shameless.
They are so massively out of touch it is simply shocking.
@Liver Bird agree on Markles. I also think he already had a pretty good foundation of resentment toward William, a lack of purpose, and an intrinsic need to rebel. What she has managed to do with him and how he enables her is a sight to behold.
Re the Wellness video (the irony!) I now think he is not breaking down with emotion. I think he started to crack up over the lies and empty words he’d been instructed to say. So much for my hope that he gets treatment and deprogramming.
@Louise spot on about the Cambridges and the contrast. Here is the perfect example.
There is a lovely moment where Prince William is handed a small album of photos from Princeas Diana’s trip to the Himalayan region where the DOCs were visiting. His emotion is very very subtle, but there. And Kate, so attuned to him, knows it and feels for him, but the only sign is the blink of an eye. Really lovely. So professional.
https://itsme727.tumblr.com/post/188382963666/catherinemiddletons-the-duke-and-duchess-of
Not just oozing royalty but don't need to put together a "posh" documentary about how wonderful they are.
I read the post you were talking about and it really gets to the heart of the matter doesn't it. I personally don't care about MM's fashion sense or whether she might cling too much to Harry in public. And that post most certainly hits the proverbial nail on the head.
I highly recommend that people read it. I think it describes the emotional processes and the reasons why events are happening better than I have seen anywhere else. And no I didn't write it under a pseudonym:)
El Naro, i don't think there is a special reason for the Pakistan visit. The Dutch King and Queen are visiting India at this moment. I think it's just something that Royals do to improve diplomatic and business relations.
October 16, 2019 at 6:48 AM
The special reason would, in fact, be to strengthen diplomatic and business relations. They're often planned around special occasions, important events (e.g. in this case the rise of India as an Asian superpower) and/or anniversaries. That sums up about 80% of the role for royals in a constitutional monarchy.
The Dutch king and queen's mini tour is all about Dutch-Indian collaboration and includes loads of visits to areas and events where the Dutch are collaborating or helping the Indians with something as well as business/technology events for Indian startups and successful businesses and their current and future investments in the Netherlands.
It's a shame H&M tour to Africa wasn't similar in nature, but that was to be expected with that duo. Hope it's different for W&K in Pakistan. Haven't had the chance to read much in between work & the DM reinstating their adblock blocker and can't be bothered to look up a different tabloid.
In THIS version: It CAN be heard. https://twitter.com/YankeeWally/status/1184157891412070400 @ the 31 second mark.
Let's make sure we're on the same page before attacking others. Good grief.
As for Harry's breakdown @ the mic - it seemed to me to be a snort laugh, not a cry, and seemed very choreographed for the lady to come immediately to him with the 'there, there' soothing. Odd.
And I'm with everyone else - if MM is doing the running of the pillow for another 10 or 11 months, I'm going be ill.
They're also gritting their teeth at the Cambridge's all-round success in Pakistan. While grudgingly acknowledging it, they're also going on with predictable nonsense about how 'dull' they are compared to you know who. What those fools don't get is that even if the Cambridges are dull - and I don't think they are - 'dull' isn't a bad thing for royals. You could say HM is quite 'dull' in the sense that she's reserved and never speaks out. That's because members of the royal family aren't supposed to be celebrities but representatives of the crown. Those fools will never understand that.
And the funniest thing of all is that there are a few posters who are Pakistani or of Pakistani origin and without exception they are all saying that the Cambridges' tour is being very well received in Pakistan and their nods to local culture very much appreciated. And that's all that counts, really. Royal tours aren't about Instagram likes.
Watched it several times with sound this time.
It started well. He strode out, greeted everybody and, using a favorite Meg-word which he has now adopted, called them all 'amazing' people. He told his bride on the wedding day that she 'looked amazing'. Trumpie is fond of the word 'amazing', too. It's symptomatic of a very limited vocabulary, and like most exclamatory adjectives gets tired quickly when overused.
Haz talked about visiting the charity for the last decade, and up til this point, he's making eye contact with the audience and sounding more or less like himself. Then when he gets to the part about 'becoming a father', that's when he loses it. The nervous laughter/snort and head-hanging seems like an attempt to pull himself together. Maybe I have not quite reached the nadir of cynicism because it didn't seem to me like it was rehearsed. Laughter and tears are close together sometimes and it seemed like he was laughing at himself for being taken by surprise by the tears, perhaps. When he gets applause at the tearing up, he makes some really interesting grimaces.
I wouldn't fault him for getting emotional over being a dad if I didn't have such profound doubts about the whole legitimacy of his actually being a dad . . or the fact that he's completely missed the point of his presence on that stage--to celebrate the 'amazing' parents dealing with profoundly sick children, and not an Oprah-style encounter with his own emotions.
He then rushes through the rest of his speech with head down, not looking at the audience. Still in the grips of powerful emotion? Or too ashamed to look grieving parents in the eye because he knows himself to be a fraud? That part will have to be the guessing game.
I see it differently. There is a time and place for strong emotions, but in typical Sussex fashion he made the speech about him, when he was clearly there to promote the event, not himself.
MM did the same thing at the fashion awards with her standing in the spotlight, clutching her pregnant belly. Now, if you criticize this, you will be called "gross" for suggesting what a woman should do with her hands.
But it is not professional to attend an event as a guest and hijack it. This is what H&M do. Perhaps if they experience it they will see how unpleasant it is. If I broke down emotionally at work in front of others, I would not be praised. H&M are supposed to be coached and polished to be more put together than this. What about just being "kind" (their favorite word) and allowing other people to have some attention?
I think I'd have an easier time with it if I'd seen him actually being emotional with his son. Yes, I know we only have tiny glimpses into their lives and that he could well be very nurturing to him in private, but he does seem very capable of controlling his love for his child on other occasions.
Plus, I agree completely that he was hijacking the event, which was all about ordinary parents and their very ill children. To the best of our knowledge, Archie, thank god is a happy and healthy baby. Instead of being grateful for that, he has to make it all about HIM. It's just wrong. Something deeply off there.
"MM did the same thing at the fashion awards with her standing in the spotlight, clutching her pregnant belly. Now, if you criticize this, you will be called "gross" for suggesting what a woman should do with her hands."
I think seeing those pictures of her clutching her belly with BOTH hands, grinning maniacally at the audience - you just know she practiced that pose for ages - was when I really understood she wasn't quite normal. She looked slightly demented in those photos. She was there simply as a presenter, at an event to honour other women. But she just had to make it all about her and her 'bump', as though she were the first woman in history to be pregnant. It's obscene.
Someone had a very long post about this here. I think it was one of resident business/legal or money raising gurus
Her 'regal' look missed it by a Sussex-county length.
She does however give a decent approximation of being a p*mp in the 'hood. All she needs is the white Panama hat, a gold tooth and a blinged out Cadillac.
What is CB?
>>>I think seeing those pictures of her clutching her belly with BOTH hands, grinning maniacally at the audience - you just know she practiced that pose for ages - was when I really understood she wasn't quite normal. She looked slightly demented in those photos. She was there simply as a presenter, at an event to honour other women. But she just had to make it all about her and her 'bump', as though she were the first woman in history to be pregnant. It's obscene.<<<
That was the tipping point for me, too. At that point I don't think I was doubting her pregnancy as legit, but her posturing and hijacking the event entirely away from the honoree turned my stomach. This was her 'Julia-Roberts-as-the-Madonna' look.
I got further incensed when I read that Meg's 'surprise appearance' was a surprise also to the event organizers, who had tapped another celebrity to present the award and all were ambushed when Megs took the stage and the chosen presenter got shoved aside to make way for the Duchess and her 'impromptu' appearance.
I was unable to find the information again, with the name of the pre-empted celebrity, so maybe someone else will have more luck. I will keep looking.
1185074 Sussex Royal The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
Where it operates:
Throughout England and Wales
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Botswana
Other names:
Sussex Royal (working name)
Incorporated 1 July 2019
Standard registration
Registered 28 August 2019
The Charity’s objects are to advance any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the laws of England and Wales
Classification: general charitable purposes
Who: other charities or voluntary bodies
The general public/mankind
How: makes grants to organizations
Acts as an umbrella or resource body
https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/meghan-markle-fashion-awards-2018
This is from Vogue, a Meg-sugar outlet, mais, oui.
It describes the 'audible gasps' that echoed through the venue when MM strode out onto the stage (I bet . . . 'stunned gasps' do not always mean what you think they mean, Duch) and goes on to say that sharing the stage with her was 'fellow actress Rosamund Pike'.
Meg-as-Actress is retired, and to my knowledge she never worked with Academy Award nominee and former Bond girl Rosamund Pike . . who was to be the presenter of that award to Claire Waight Keller until Meg breezed in. Vogue declines to phrase it like that, but there was no other reason for Rosamund Pike to be on the stage unless she expected to present an award.
Oh, it gets more interesting . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnOVIirUmTw
At 5:50, British designer of the Year . . Rosamund Pike is announced and comes out *carrying the award* and takes the mike to announce that she "has the privilege of announcing a very special guest, the Duchess of Sussex" . . and then is obligated to stand there like Meg's PA and hand her the award to hand to CWK.
We can read between the lines, can't we?
1) submit paperwork to the state with your company as a corporation, incorporated or Limited. I gather they did this step since iirc they are an LLC.
2) inform the state you plan to file for tax exempt status
3) apply for IRS tax exemption (the 501 c 3 nonprofit status)
4) apply for state exemption
It is very possible the US registration is a work in progress as it stands to reason they may have to get their ducks in a row
Before they complete the US non profit status. I have not done a deep dive on this though
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a28427062/meghan-markle-prince-harry-sussex-royal-foundation/
the company numbers are completely different from the ones you gave, and the registration is for a private company in the UK.
>>>I got further incensed when I read that Meg's 'surprise appearance' was a surprise also to the event organizers, who had tapped another celebrity to present the award and all were ambushed when Megs took the stage and the chosen presenter got shoved aside to make way for the Duchess and her 'impromptu' appearance.<<<
I think this was when my opinion of her changed as well. I was excited for the Royal wedding, watched it on TV with my Prosecco and TimTams and read all the blogs about her fashion. I thought she was a good match for Harry and seemed fun and glam.
I am not sure about this, but I believe I read somewhere that the booted celeb in question at the fashion awards was Rosamund Pike. Could be wrong but that's what comes to mind. Finally, MM seems to relish in these "surprise" and "secret" appearances like the Vogue shoot. The reality is that surprise appearances are often rude in the professional setting, especially for event planners who need details coordinated down to the minute. A surprise appearance would not be welcome at my work either, it would be inappropriate.
Does anyone have details about the Michelle Obama book meeting? Did she also make a surprise appearance there?
Very proud to see the Cambridges' tour - the protocol, the authenticity, the pureness. Kate isn't searching for cameras and stays focused on who she is speaking with etc. As I said on another post, it's refreshing - and it shouldn't BE refreshing to see Royals behaving like Royals lol!
Yeah I suspect many of us were happy when the engagement was announced, despite the fact that we're considered 'haters' and worse. I had bought into the 'hunanitarian Harry' line which was skilfully peddled by palace PR and was happy that he had found someone. I didn't even mind her obvious thirst for the cameras - after all, she was going to be the centre of attention whether she liked it or not, so best if she's comfortable with it. I did think that the cultural clash between the posh Brit and the California girl would win out in the end and that the marriage wouldn't last. But I had no inkling of the utter train wreck it so quickly turned out to be.
"The reality is that surprise appearances are often rude in the professional setting, especially for event planners who need details coordinated down to the minute. A surprise appearance would not be welcome at my work either, it would be inappropriate."
Particularly when the 'surprise guest' is a royal and comes with all the attendant security. What an unwanted headache for the organisers.
The only trademark filed by this company is The Tig (ON-LINE JOURNALS, NAMELY, BLOGS FEATURING INFORMATION, INTERVIEWS, NEWS AND COMMENTARY ON FOOD, COOKING, RECIPES, TRAVEL, FASHION, LIFESTYLE, THE ARTS, CULTURE AND DESIGN; PROVIDING A WEBSITE FEATURING ARTICLES, BLOGS, PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOS, AND MESSAGES, IN THE FIELDS OF FOOD, COOKING, RECIPES, TRAVEL, FASHION, LIFESTYLE, THE ARTS, CULTURE AND DESIGN)
On 20 of November 2017 all mention of Markle is disappearing but in 2019 the company is alive and well and even files reports. Andrew Mayer is currently listed as CEO and CFO.
Now, Sussex Royal Foundation is completely different and registered in UK. I was unable to find any subsidiaries or branches of the Sussex Royal Foundation anywhere in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong. It is registered in London as the Private Limited Company. Both Harry and Meg are listed as Directors. The amount they guarantee is £1 each (LOL). The Company is established as CHARITY and its objective is CHARITABLE WORKS.
The Sussex Foundation appears to be completely legit. Not sure about Frim Fram, it is a bit more murky, but they made sure Markle is not directly associated with any business.
>>>Hikari, Your view of her pimp look is hilarious. For Halloween I am going to do her “Mad woman at the mosque” thing. I have the dress, hair, bronzer and scarf. Just need the butt pads!!!!!!<<<
I think we've got our couples' costume all sorted . . I will go as 'Meg-as-the-Doggfather' and you will go as 'Meg-as-Mary-Magdalene-in-the-downest-market-road-company-version-of-Jesus Christ Superstar.
I bet we win first prize! :p
Sussex isn’t only H&M.
A 93 year old, who may or may not be ailing, does not want to deal with that. Can't people have some consideration? Know any elderly people? They really have no interest in coping beyond what must be done and living another day. Even the 70-year-olds (Charles)I know have no effs to give anymore. I'd like to add that the person actually sounded to me like it was Yankee Wally (crazy I know).
Anyway, I'm rather incensed about it. Why celebrate such a rude, low-class thing to do while excoriating the Harkles and celebrating the always correct Cambridges?
That said, I am looking at Charles with chagrin because it is his job to deal with what he created: his douche-dolt son.
https://delcf.academicworks.com/opportunities/346
Looks like Mischi is incorrect about Delaware
yes, the Sussex in Delaware is not Sussex Royal. My bad.
And there were many many reports of the Sussex Royal registered in Arizona. Why can we no longer find any record of it?
@Clarissa,
Until MM blew onto the scene, I would have thought the suggestion that Haz might be gay is ludicrous. We've got color pictures of him kissing a woman in Vegas in nothing but his Royal birthday suit (hands cupped modestly over the Windsor family jewels). He dated Chelsy on and off for eight years, and Cressy, the aristocratic model/actress/English rose could have anybody she wanted without resorting to a lavender arrangement. Then there are the tales of a girl in every figurative port for Haz, including one of Meg's yachting colleagues, another stunning girl.
Unless the image of Hazza the Legendary Ladies' Man is just so much PR whitewash, like his Hazza the Soldier-Hero was.
But those rumors just keep dogging him, don't they? Maybe he is bisexual and has experimented with men/had relationships with men concurrently with all the girl action, and this dual life came to the attention of Meg's SoHo House backers? It would be a powerful incentive for blackmail. Kind of puts another spin on William's recent remarks that he would be absolutely accepting of a gay child of his. One would suppose that whatever Wills' personal feelings on the matter as a private individual, if George, in particular was gay and declined to produce any children for the Crown that would be a bit sticky from a professional standpoint. Of course, with Charlotte and Louis, the Cambridge dynasty will be well-looked after.
It was never going to be a matter of life and death for the House of Windsor if Harry failed to produce children of his body . . and I think we have reached a point sociologically that the people would accept an openly gay royal. As long as his grandparents live, Haz would not feel free to be open about his alternative sexuality if it in fact exists.
Despite the frantic, incessant displays of PDA between the Harkles, often grotesquely inappropriate, such as snogging on official tour in a highly conservative area . . if this is a strictly contract arrangement with no physical intimacy involved, it would lend credence to the other swirling rumors that not only do Haz and Meg not share a room while on tour but that they have never in fact shared a room.
One of the endearing traits that precipitated Haz's early release from his Army service was, in addition to insubordination & referring to a fellow soldier as a 'Paki' and 'a fkkn towelhead', slurs toward another individual to the effect of 'You look queer, mate; are you gay on the side?"
Harry would not be the first closeted gay man to use homophobic slurs as camouflage.
My feeling is that Haz is not gay, personally. But if he were, his inexplicable ongoing ties to Meg and the hold she has over him would make more sense to me. Because accepting her as a mesmerizing seductress of mankind who keeps him in thrall to her extraordinary boudoir skills and beauty just isn't borne out by reality. I understand blackmail better than an unconditional attraction to Meg, but that's me. Maybe it would be a lot different if I had a penis and could get on Haz's wavelength. It's a mystery to me.
https://ecorp.azcc.gov/EntitySearch/Index
https://twitter.com/goo_gunner/status/1184520579950501894
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-871
Here's a link to someone on LA claiming about the corporation.
Also, I don't think your two or three searches clear anything up, and in mind, the question is still up in the air.
Fun factoid: Wallis Simpson was the same age, 36, as Meghan, when she took up with her Prince. Geriatic mothers are quickly becoming the norm with so many women postponing having children until their 30s or later, but in that era, a woman with 40 in view would have been deemed far too old to be having children. Then, like the Sussexes, there were rumors about their mutual fertility being an issue. Evidently Edward suffered from impotence with every woman he'd ever been with except the Simpson.
Could it be the same with Hazza? I doubt we will ever know the truth, at least, not until both the Sussexes are dead, by which time it will be a moot point for most of us here.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/duke-of-windsor-had-a-love-child-with-a-parisian-seamstress--and/
he looks very much like him.
I also found out recently that Princess Anne's first husband had an illegitimate child from an affair he had while still married to her.
I know Ejactly the one you mean. Well, that's a common malady.
Edward must have loved her to give up his Crown and his good name for her . . but the thought crosses my mind that perhaps his condition was an effect of getting too excited when with other women and he picked her owing to her profound unattractiveness helping him to curb himself to the finish line?
I understand that the Duchess of Windsor was widely acknowledged to have professional boudoir skills which render the Markle's salad tossing and burger flipping positively amateur.
Begging Nutty's indulgence if I may, I feel a naughty couplet coming on. From 'The Crown', S1:1.
As he gets dressed for his eldest daughter's wedding in 1947, King George VI is entertained by his equerry, Capt. Peter Townsend.
There was a young lady named Sally
Who enjoyed the occasionally dally;
She sat on the lap
Of a well-endowed chap;
And cried, "Sir!"
"You're right up my alley!"
*****
King George's riposte is too filthy to post here, I'm afraid.
I've gone and ruined the couplet with premature trigger finger!
Ok, in getting to 400 and while waiting for the Crown season 2, I am catching up on my RF documentaries. I’ve seen a lot of references to them lately (in response to the Africa one I suppose). First up was Charles at 70 which was boring in spots but gave me a new appreciation for him. I think he will make a congenial King. Next up was The Queen at 90 which I thoroughly enjoyed.
(I am worried about her lately).
Next up is likely The Duke at 90 but I read it was pretty terrible because he admitted he didn’t want to be there doing it. Ha!
And I read somewhere that she spent some time in a brothel in China.
The King's mother, Queen Mary, was even told that Simpson might have held some sort of sexual control over Edward, as she had released him from an undefined sexual dysfunction through practices learnt in a Chinese brothel.[22] This view was partially shared by Alan Don, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote that he suspected the King "is sexually abnormal which may account for the hold Mrs S. has over him".[23] Even Edward VIII's official biographer, Philip Ziegler, noted that: "There must have been some sort of sadomasochistic relationship ... [Edward] relished the contempt and bullying she bestowed on him."[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis
I urge you to read this article, it's very interesting. Apparently, Simpson was already cheating on her husband-to-be.
Edward and Wallis: I just finished Scotty's book Full Service and he talks about them. (chapter 14)
According to Scotty (who just passed), Edward wad bisexual and Wallis was as well. In the book, Wallis tended toward women unless it was a threesome and Edward was fond of Scotty and others.
The hardest part for me in reading it was that Scotty was talking about how it was the perfect love story, a meeting of the two where both needs were met, she was lovely and hurt she didn't HRH status. He really pushed that they were nice but he wasn't aware or he omitted that they were very pro Hitler and didn't have a problem with the bombing of London. I ground my teeth over that.
Tatty - who is YW suing? I believe it is someone who tried to invoke that YW was breaking rules of youtube and should therefore be banned. And, Tatty, I have family members who are autistic. It is not easy and I was impressed that you can write that.
I miss the fun parts of this blog...like when you and Elle were on here regularly. Elle has left and you aren’t a regular anymore. Instead we have some real creepy people here that we are not allowed to complain about.
I still consider myself pretty regular. I go in *bursts*, like.
I have not had luck posting on my phone and some days I am not able to post on my PC.
I have Harkle Fatigue Syndrome, so I don't always have something to contribute. I spend the time I would have spent posting in praying for Master Archie. I need a sign that he is not actually in the Suxxits' custody and is loved by his real mother, as opposed to being merched by his bio-donors.
I think I need to focus all my commentary on the Cambridges, who are much more edifying to us all.
So, shall we talk about how Wills wore that green tunic like a boss? :)
This is old news to Brits. As far as I’m aware, the ex mistress and daughter have been acknowledged by Mark Philips and numerous photos shown in the British press of them both over the years. What I’m not sure about if Mark is still with her.
With regards to illegitimate children,
I’m sure there has been loads over the centuries and possibly there are a few illegitimate children/adults around now. None have any right to the line of succession though, because only ‘issues’ (another word for children, who were conceived within a legal marriage) count and matter.
I have a hard time imagining how or why Harry is being forced to lie. There have been lots of theories, such as that he is gay, a drug user, has a child, is a love child--and I can't imagine in 2019 that any of those would be insurmountable as far as his public image. What he is doing NOW will be insurmountable. The only thing I can think of that would be truly blackmail worthy is if Rachel has evidence that the RF took out Diana.
And yes, Skippy is sadly "losing readers in droves." I admire her loyalty, but at some point if you don't call a spade a spade, you lose all credibility.
Archie seems to be constantly in fantasized by Meghan and Harry with the way they hold or restrain him. Rather than letting him simply him get down, play, reach, be a baby, etc. She was probably protecting her lace front from his pulling but of course why have him there with Archbishop Tutu at all beyond the fame whoring of suddenly exploiting the very privacy they claim they want to protect? Babies have no place at business meetings with world leaders. Not Tutu, nor anywhere else. But they *needed* the photos fir their Ivstagram account avd to punish the United Kingdom citizens who dared to be angry.
They represent only themselves, not their country nor the BRF. If only they hadn’t outright given them everything up front. Made them “earn” the right to foreign tours, royal wedding, tiara etc. postponed the wedding, let a Eugenie have her day as planned, made the Haz duo perform and confirm to standards and protocol.
On the topic of the Queen being out of breath after sitting down, I’m not surprised as her Robe of State is 18ft long and weighs15lbs. I Know she has 4 pages to help but it must still be hard work.
William and Catherine both look stunning.
And with regard to Meagain “You can buy fashion but you can’t buy style” .
H&M don’t live together and she lives for free in a SoHo house? Why? Harry is clearly besotted by her.
Oh, and thank you to all who responded to my earlier inquiry & Mischi for the info @ the current Dutch tour. I realize the function of the tour is to promote and strengthen business ties. I was just wondering what those specific ties were that would require the presence of both William and Kate in Pakistan at this time?
Because the million bucks she has spent on haute couture tells me "no." Threat she treats him in public tells me "no." The way she disrespects his family tells me "no."
Need more examples? I've got about 50.
Their comments really just aren't worth anyones time.