Just a note to check in. The Sussexes have been so inactive recently that they've given me very little material, which isn't an entirely bad thing.
I've always said that my hopes and dreams for the Sussexes were not some kind of macabre violent end, but for a quiet fading away, so it would be hypocritcal of me to complain when they take some long-overdue time out of the spotlight.
A few Sussex notes from the past week:
➯ It's not clear where the Sussexes are currently located, and nobody seems particularly concerned where they are. The Sunshine Sachs PR money tap appears to have been turned off for the moment, so there are fewer articles about Meghan and even fewer commenters defending her in the Daily Mail.
➯ Talk about the upcoming Sussex "move to the US" has vanished entirely after Prince Andrew's defenestration.
Apparently it has dawned on the Sussexes that they are very likely candidates for the slimming down of the monarchy which Prince Charles has reportedly been discussing with Prince Philip at Sandringham.
Instead, Meghan supporters like Lainey Gossip are pushing the concept that the British Royal Family needs the Sussexes more than the Sussexes need the BRF in order to keep in touch with younger British citizens. This sounds....improbable.
➯ DripDrop, the Twitter account which along with TorontoPaper offers maybe-you-believe-it, maybe-you-don't inside info on Meghan Markle, is reporting that Prince Philip wrote a letter to be delivered to Prince Harry, but the letter was intercepted by Meghan.
Philip does like to write letters, particularly when angry - he wrote many of them to Diana, and some were published after her death - so that part of the story rings true. What was in the letter? DripDrop doesn't seem to know.
➯ Whomever is doing Prince William's PR deserves a knighthood. Casually showing off of his ability to speak Swahili while greeting a teenage Afro-British prizewinner made William look much more in touch with the continent and its people than Harry with his elephant patting and random moaning.
(It's also a nice change to see Black British citizens presented as heroes and movers and shakers --
instead of the charity cases they are often depicted as in Sussex projects.)
William (and his PR team) is also making good use of his time with the East Anglia Air Ambulance by announcing yet another initiative to address the mental health of first responders - news that dropped on the same day as yet another terror attack in London. (I don't believe that the two were timed to coincide, however - Royalty just doesn't move that fast.)
Meanwhile, the Cambridge PR team made sure everyone knew how Duchess Kate spent two days working in a maternity ward and joined a community midwife visit as part of her background research for her early childhood initiative.
Folks, this is how good publicity is done. If only the Sussexes would watch and learn - wherever they are.
I've always said that my hopes and dreams for the Sussexes were not some kind of macabre violent end, but for a quiet fading away, so it would be hypocritcal of me to complain when they take some long-overdue time out of the spotlight.
A few Sussex notes from the past week:
➯ It's not clear where the Sussexes are currently located, and nobody seems particularly concerned where they are. The Sunshine Sachs PR money tap appears to have been turned off for the moment, so there are fewer articles about Meghan and even fewer commenters defending her in the Daily Mail.
➯ Talk about the upcoming Sussex "move to the US" has vanished entirely after Prince Andrew's defenestration.
Apparently it has dawned on the Sussexes that they are very likely candidates for the slimming down of the monarchy which Prince Charles has reportedly been discussing with Prince Philip at Sandringham.
Instead, Meghan supporters like Lainey Gossip are pushing the concept that the British Royal Family needs the Sussexes more than the Sussexes need the BRF in order to keep in touch with younger British citizens. This sounds....improbable.
➯ DripDrop, the Twitter account which along with TorontoPaper offers maybe-you-believe-it, maybe-you-don't inside info on Meghan Markle, is reporting that Prince Philip wrote a letter to be delivered to Prince Harry, but the letter was intercepted by Meghan.
Philip does like to write letters, particularly when angry - he wrote many of them to Diana, and some were published after her death - so that part of the story rings true. What was in the letter? DripDrop doesn't seem to know.
➯ Whomever is doing Prince William's PR deserves a knighthood. Casually showing off of his ability to speak Swahili while greeting a teenage Afro-British prizewinner made William look much more in touch with the continent and its people than Harry with his elephant patting and random moaning.
(It's also a nice change to see Black British citizens presented as heroes and movers and shakers --
instead of the charity cases they are often depicted as in Sussex projects.)
William (and his PR team) is also making good use of his time with the East Anglia Air Ambulance by announcing yet another initiative to address the mental health of first responders - news that dropped on the same day as yet another terror attack in London. (I don't believe that the two were timed to coincide, however - Royalty just doesn't move that fast.)
Meanwhile, the Cambridge PR team made sure everyone knew how Duchess Kate spent two days working in a maternity ward and joined a community midwife visit as part of her background research for her early childhood initiative.
Folks, this is how good publicity is done. If only the Sussexes would watch and learn - wherever they are.
Comments
Often because they want to be, even if they pretend otherwise.Plenty manage not to be. Also, they could have flown to a quieter airport and been driven to LA from there.
" That's why I have a hard time believing not ONE picture was taken"
I don't. Not in the slightest. We know they flew commercial to the south of France at New Year back in 2017 - not a single photo. We know Harry flew commercial to Amsterdam for his daft 'Travalyst' scheme last year - not a single photo on the plane. It can and does happen.
I should probably add that I agree that they're probably not in LA. However, I don't think the absence of photos is strange.
I don’t know that they are there, because I believe none of their contradictory PR. And honestly, I don’t care where the hell they are as long as they stay out of sight. I easily ignore their PR stories now; just don’t want my eyeballs burned by the sight of her smug, toxic face again. Fat chance, I’m sure.
"@Raspberry Ruffle
When Edward 8th abdicated, yes, it did go to the next in line, who was Gerorge VI.....they don’t go round all the brothers asking who might be suitable. If you’re next, you’re on. They don’t “consider” the others. It’s not a popularity contest, it’s the line of succession."
Your comment is right as far as the line of succession is concerned, BUT government papers from this era have been unsealed that show that the government and church leaders seriously discussed the suitability of the other brothers despite their place in the line of succession. They really wanted Prince George, Duke of Kent on the grounds that he already had a son( Male primogeniture who is the current duke of Kent rather than the next in line Bertie, Duke of York who had daughters. In the end constitution held and the crown was handed to the person next in line as required, but it's funny to think that if the male primogeniture enthusiasts had prevailed and circumvented the line of succession, we would now be looking at HM King Edward 9 + HM Queen Katherine, with Prince George, Prince of Wales, Princess Royal Princess Helen, Prince Nicholas, Duke of York and grandchildren: Princes Edward, Albert and Leopold as well as Princesses Marina, Amelia and untitled (because their father has no title) Columbus, Cassius, Eloise and Estella. Assuming they hadn't all converted to catholicism as the majority of the family chose to do thus taking themselvesvout of the line of succession.
I’ve followed him for 40 years and I would be surprised and disappointed if he is lying. I also remember when she made the original complaints. I thought the cases were not prosecuted because the prosecutors didn’t think they had evidence to make a case. So, why has it come up again? Between tabloids and social media, one is convicted by the mob before charges are even bought. If charged, how could an impartial jury be found? I think that is scary. I feel great compassion for all of the girls abused and trafficked by Epstein and his cronies. I also feel sorry that people who haven’t been charged with crimes are having their reputations destroyed. I’m sorry Epstein is dead; he needed to be tried in court so the evidence could be presented.
Excuse typos because I’m writing on my phone and can’t see the small print very well.
You are excused! I thought that PA's association with JE had an incredible amount to do with dodgy financial dealings, not so much sex. I do not know whether his financial dealings are/were illegal or just give the appearance of impropriety. I suppose it doesn't matter at this point; he's already been tried and convicted in the court of the press and social media.
Welcome to the Chinese cultural revolution.
Meghan who?
@Liver Bird, Meanwhile, back in Merry England.... last night 'boring' 'lazy' Kate hobnobbed with world leaders, wearing jewels loaned to her by the queen, and even managed a bit of mild flirtation with Meghan's 'friend' Justin Trudeau. Today she made an appearance at her new patronage, one which used to belong to the QEll herself.
Bet you anything the CB gals will start some rumor that she's got a thing going on with ole Trudeau...
I just braved CB a few minutes ago - dear lord that Notasugarhere person is OBSESSED with Kate! If she's as bland and boring as they say she is, why all the obsessive interest in her?
Not sure if they'll spread rumours about Kate and Trudeau - they seem to like him (he's so woke!) so would probably think him 'too good' for 'boring' Kate. I did see one of them saying that Kate of course was too dull to be able to converse beyond platitudes... not being aware that it's actually her JOB not to get involved in politics or anything controversial. And of course Meghan would have been able to share her supposed 'interviews' with him from 5 years ago... as though vapid word salads were appropriate in such a context.
Like I said before, even if the Harkles were in favour with the queen, I don't think they'd have been let anywhere near such an important event. Could you imagine them, giggling and hand-holding in a venue full of world leaders?
At this point, I would suggest her behavior and relentless PR has made her infamous. She's in trashy magazines now like Us Weekly when she wasn't before. The scandals and bad behavior have made people interested, not because she was a hit on Suits or known for her humanitarian work in the States.
Side note, read today on Twitter that MM had a pet cat named Archie. The source is a Splash news photo. ARCHIE. If this is true, her poor son.
I thought Kate looked lovely (she wears green very well) and the earrings were fab (and even more so because they are the Queen's, which shows favor). I imagine MM is seething looking at all the photos...would love to see what she posts on her IG today.
VRG (Virginia) has been represented by Boies’ law firm for pro bono (free) for the past 5 yrs. The firm has represented several woman for several years for free who were sexually trafficked . There is an Interesting article about it at law.com on July 19, 2019. (I can’t get the URL to paste into my comment. Just search for Boies on the site. ) Boies is suing Alan Dershowitz for defamation. I saw him interviewed recently and he is personally no longer representing Virginia because of his suit. I assume the firm still represents her. Boies is one of the most powerful lawyers in the US.
He also was Harvey Weinstein's lawyer.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/david-boiess-fall-from-grace/
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/12/02/boies-alliance-with-epstein-hacker-raises-swirl-of-ethics-questions/
We all wish Epstein & his enablers had been thrown in the pokey a long time ago, but the whole mess is incredibly murky. David Boies is a big American 'super lawyer' with deep ties to the Democratic Party. He represented Al Gore in the Florida vote debacle in 2000. He also represented Harvey Weinstein in some of his lawsuits against his alleged victims, & reportedly used the strong arm tactics big litigating firms are known for against Weinstein's accusers. He also represented Theranos, the healthcare firm shut down because it was a fraud. His reputation took a hit, & he was trying to redeem himself by representing Epstein accusers. He apparently was using the same strong arm tactics against the men who were being accused. The New York Times articles outlining some of what's gone on are linked to below. The Times even hints at 'extortion.'
I've been taking a break from the Harkles & Prince Andrew because the holidays are supposed to be fun! Hope everyone here manages to have some!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/business/dealbook/david-boies-jeffrey-epstein.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/business/david-boies-pottinger-jeffrey-epstein-videos.html
Dershowitz is a hardcore liberal Democrat, but an honest one. When he sees someone not being treated fairly, he's going to say something. He defended Clinton during his impeachment, and he's defending Trump because "in his legal opinion" Trump isn't being treated fairly.
"I remember reading that MM's people ultimately contacted the paps in NYC"
At the time, Meghan's mirror had a very public note on their blog saying they had been given a very detailed itinerary for MM's shower that included places, times, fashion, attendees etc for entire duration of her stay. They claimed that the entire event had been designed to ge as public as possible and that ALL media had received the same itinerary because it was an organised media and public event.
They said that they were uncomfortable about publishing some details because they crossed a line regarding privacy and security and that they'd made an editorial decision to publish only those events, places, people that were strictly public. They also said they wouldn't reveal the private events nor would they publish timings or anything that blurred any lines between public and private.
The note was framed in a way that showed their surprise at receiving such detailed instruction.
As a layperson, looking at the photos that were published in the mainstream, and the way the media were corralled into a press pen plus MM doing her best chased by paps impression despite the published shots being very tight to give impression of crowds and paps, it was quite clear it was orchestrated.
Compare with Katie Holmes and Suri in the days leading upto her divorce. Orchestrated or not, that situation looked more organic than MM's babyshower.
When all the vendors started posting details to social media it became a certainty that it was an organised media event.
The only thing that allows MM to plausibly deny that it was deliberately organised this way is due to the fact that the public, and Buckingham Palace, remain naive about Hollywood media plays. Plus MM is a member of the royal family which means there is no reason for her to do this sort of thing nor is it expected.
As long as there are people who believe, she'll continue to pull these stunts whilst denying that's what she's doing.
I have always wondered what was her reasoning behind doing that. Could she have had a fierce argument with Hairy/ the RF about something and that was her way of throwing a tantrum and saying.....”. Well fine then! I’ll teach you and your stinking family to reprimand me or dictate to me what can or can’t do. So just watch me” ! And off she went.
I can’t, for the life of me figure that one out but boy does it make my blood boil!!!!!!!
So agree with what you say. It was obscenely obnoxious in everyway. A lot of Brits don’t have baby showers (some do of course), they are an import from America, so that was very un-royal as well.
There was zero reason for her to go to America for it, she could have had a completely private one with no-one knowing. She didn’t even invite her Mum when she was back in her homeland. She was never an A-list actress/celebrity, this was her way of living that life, complete ensemble with the sunglasses on at night! SMH
Please no one say this women does not love attention, she wallows in it!
P.S. As she was walking toward the front of the stage, the idiot tripped a little bit on a step she didn’t see I think. I would have loved to have seen her fall flat on her face!!!!! 😈😈😈😈
The left can't tolerate dissent.
I'm not sure why he did/they are encourage(ing) her accusations against Prince Andrew. Slithery attorney knows that in the eyes of the court no crime was committed. I, too, believe that she is being guided against saying anything even slightly derogatory against the Clintons. Even though the case is supposedly being done pro bono, I firmly believe that some form of extremely expensive quid pro quo has taken place.
I also do not think that powers that be in the Democrat party want anybody reminded of slippery Bill and Hill while they're busily throwing mud at Trump during the race for the 2020 presidency. All they've managed so far is to focus everybody's attention on Hunter Biden, his extremely questionable finances, being the financial beneficiary of sweetheart influence-buying deals, his stripper baby mama, his messy divorce because of his affair with his dead brother's wife, and the drugs and other hookers in the meantime.
I love thinking about HMTQ watching that event and the scowl she was undoubtedly wearing.
.
"Meanwhile, back in Merry England.... last night 'boring' 'lazy' Kate hobnobbed with world leaders, wearing jewels loaned to her by the queen, and even managed a bit of mild flirtation with Meghan's 'friend' Justin Trudeau."
I did not interpret that photo as Kate flirting with Trudeau. Trudeau (who has studied acting, taught acting to highschool students and acted on a WW1 television special) was giving her his usual "I am listening intently" face, which he does regularly to men and women, sometimes followed by going in nose to nose with the other person, male and female. There are similar pictures of him giving the same look to Macron, Obama and various Canadian men and women.
However, I recall from Kate and William's 2016 visit to British Columbia that neither looked happy or relaxed until they were able to shake off Trudeau and his wife.
The Royal visitors were meant to have been accompanied by the Governor General, but instead Trudeau and his wife flew out to BC in order to insert themselves into the visit. They were noted to be giving people the "Royal wave" (as if people had come out to see the Trudeaus) and interrupting when William and especially Kate were trying to listen to young people speak. (sound like someone we know?)
Kate even ended up cancelling a play date between her kids and Trudeau's kids. I had presumed that she had cancelled in order to shake them off. There was also a video of Trudeau being rude to a photographer when he thought that he was off camera, with William and Kate looking very embarrassed.
Once the Trudeaus flew back to Ottawa, Kate and William seemed relaxed and smiley for the duration of the visit..
Here is a compilation of Trudeau "flirting" with other leaders:
https://vancouversun.com/news/national/embracing-the-job-a-photographic-compilation-of-justin-trudeaus-hugging-highlights-of-the-past-six-months
Here is a group photo of the Trudeaus and Cambridges on the day the former interrupted all the conversations of the latter:
https://admediaphoto.photoshelter.com/image/I0000QsvC3XxPhsk
@Trudy, good insights - I always wondered about Harry and fauxchie. When filmed with other kids, he is always happy, laughing, playful and comfortable - kids love him. HOWEVER the few times we see him with his alleged child, he is the complete opposite - he looks uncomfortable, awkward and not remotely interested in engaging with him.
I accept that gossiping (i.e. spreading false stories, usually nasty ones) and just being spiteful are unfortunate human traits (I myself have been tormented by bullies using these tactics). BUT, even if only half the stories of Meghan are mostly true, and if one looks at her behaviour carefully but objectively, she is demented ... crazy as you know what, and the most unsuitable person to marry into the royal family ever (although Fergie has really tried to obtain and keep that honour, and, no, she never outgrew the silly behaviour and her endless interviews are just annoying).
Fashion is a strange thing, and an example of how the media and Harry and many others have been duped by Meghan. I remember the bubble skirt. It was impractical and bizarre-looking, but it was the latest fashion item and women raced to buy them. So, what does calling Meghan a global fashion icon actually mean? It does NOT mean that her clothes are well fitted, suitable for the occasion, durable (i.e. not too trendy), practical, reasonably priced or that she looks good in them in any way (same for her hair, make-up and excess of jewellery). So, looking to Meghan as inspiration for what to wear and how to look means you will spend a lot of money and never look good, but it is fashionable because people make it so by saying it is so.
If Harry has been captured by a full-blown narc, she would have him so confused and desperately trying anything, giving her anything, to please her, plus she would believe that she knows everything and is always right, even if what she is saying and doing is crazy (I have personal knowledge of the craziness of a narc). The way they hold and interact with their son is not natural. There are plenty of photos of Harry being natural with children, and surely no matter what the circumstances were around the pregnancy and birth, he would love the child? Meghan has stopped him from interacting naturally with his son because she is all about domination and control.
That they have been quiet and unseen during their, another, break, is also about domination and control (hype up interest and control what, when and how). She has been posting on IG though and using old, really old photos, trying to maintain her status (or what she believes her status to be). It is not normal to use such old photos, so either there is big trouble in that marriage and she is trying to keep it hidden, or she is just being her usual crazy as you now what narc. If she wanted to stay in the BRF and get things right, she would look to what Kate and William (plus other senior BRF members) do and say and what a life of service means and then amend her behaviour accordingly. But, nope, not Meghan!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6482563/Meghan-stuns-starry-PHOTOBOOTH-session.html
p.s. Love your list of mysteries! 😂
The search for the family jewels
I think that over-the-top (and nauseating) “photo booth” pic is here:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/777011741938097389/
Btw, imho, Harry doesn’t Interact with Archie cuz Meghan needs Harry’s focus 100% on her. The fact that Archie looks like Harry makes her even more needy. Poor Archie.
I think Markle gets a big kick out of putting out all kinds of distracting false stories all the time as a way to get back at all of her "haters" because she can't just confront anyone she disagrees with anymore.
What a sad way to live one's life, when all she has to do is a few little things asked of her, like, you know, follow protocol and act like a mature adult in social settings.
You asked the other night how my hilarious negative comment was received ("one could see all the way to South Central LA" when Megs crossed her leg in that very short dress at the women's event)...when I posted it on Lipstick Alley. I was amazed, that a large number of posters there gave me a 'thumbs-up' vote or a laughing emoji, quite the opposite of what I expected. I think I hit a chord on the so-called unpopular opinion board.
I also think sparkles knows this and is using it to her advantage.
Ozmanda, Boy, do I feel stupid! It. ever occurred to me that what you said would be a reason.
Add Daisy Ridley to the MM fan club. 🤢
side comment: Mimi,
If you are into the Romanov family drama, Robert Massie (in addition to the N&A book, Peter the Great) did one of the saved photographs of the family friend of Alexandra. They would make duplicates and each made her own photo album. This is the one which made it out to safety in America.
Ozmanda - I'm sad that you have lost another friend through suicide. It's hard and painful. My thoughts in your direction.
As I recall, Meghan’s bad behavior to lower level government employees and staff members at their lodgings weren’t likely able to post how nasty Meghan was in private, probably due to NDA’s. But members of the public and others not covered by the NDAs posted on social media about Meghan’s foul language and general nastiness, such as how if an employee at their lodgings was someone Meghan considered to be physically attractive, Meghan was civil to them. But if the employee wasn’t her idea of beautiful or handsome, she was dismissive or rude to them. People will always talk. And apparently, if a recent post by Torontopaper1 is accurate, word of Meghan’s nastiness worked its way to the Prime Minister of NZ, who according to the post, told Charles about Meghan’s antics during Charles’s recent visit to NZ.
After all, if the everyday non-famous people didn’t talk, people like enty at CDAN would’t have much to report.
And seriously..., would "Dersh " log visits to sex island in his diary? I kind of doubt it.
Great comment on Dersh vs Boies.
Dershowitz considers himself a liberal, according to several interviews I’ve watched. His strong support of Israel is what makes people think he is conservative or a Republican. I think he always identified as a Democrat until US politics became so divisive. There is an orthodoxy for each party now and many Democrats don’t like him now. (Remember when being liberal could include either Republicans or Democrats?)
He is one of my favorite people to read and watch. He was a tenured full professor before the age of 30 at Harvard Law School. He has a wonderful brain. He has defended lots of unpopular people. I think he only does appellate cases now. He doesn’t try cases anymore.
Anyway, I should be talking about Meghan.
—@browneyed ( not sure I’m signed in now)
@Marie....the PM could have made the comment "Oh, Your Highness, it was a pleasure to meet your son last year, and that woman he brought with him" Would have gotten the point across without having to mention any specifics. haha.
I have lots of hypotheses about Archie but no real good ones.
But it does seem to me something happened in March about the time Meghan began her maternity leave that prompted extra secrecy. While we'd never been given an official due date (and it's completely normal not to be with royal pregnancies) since October we had been subjected to plenty of bump rubbing, double bump clutching, coat-flicking, and cringe-inducing statements (I'm feeling very pregnant today, there's a big baby in there, embryonic stirrings, and so on.) But in March/early April we started to get the ""leave us and our soon- to-be-born baby alone." We got changing statements about what/when the press/public would be told for a fairly long period of time. The statements from KP often seemed to carry angry undertones. Was something discovered on ultrasound? Was Archie born in March/April not May? Was there a surrogate who was threatening to change her mind? Or was it just that as the delivery date approached, Harry or Harry and Meghan became more privacy obsessed?
What if the reason we don't see hardly any photos of Archie is because the Surrogate forbids it? If baby is with surrogate, she would be packing a lot of power and more powerful than Megs. Plus, imagine this: The RF would be so disgusted and furious with Megs for using a surrogate and faking the pregnancy that they'd likely side with and support the surrogate.
If I was the surrogate, I'd sure as hell do all in my power to make sure Archie is never anywhere close to either Megs or Harry without being heavily supervised. Look at what Megs did to H&M merch Archie during that photo op with Tutu. One thing I can't unsee is when Megs was holding Arching at that visit and she was poking her fingernails into his chest/ribs and it looked like she was poking him very hard. Poor baby! What a user of everyone Megs is. They both come across as drug addicts and have mental issues as well.
And no doubt Megs would merch photos of the baby to the highest bidder. Brad and Angelina sold shots of their twins to Getty for $14 million. Imagine the price for a baby prince?
I can only begin to wonder if Archie is going to have the similar celebrity kid problem where they are rich, aimless, and told constantly they are important, when they in fact have no natural talents or ambitions yet feel the pressure of being famous like their parents. (Romeo Beckham, the daughter of Catherine Zeta Jones, etc).
Now, since it's been said that Megs will only address those she feels are good looking, and is nasty to those she deems less than, I wonder if she's rejected little Archie because of his lazy eye along with maybe she doesn't think he's cute enough to bother with. He's clearly not bonded with either parent. She's so stupid on so many levels when it comes to faking motherhood. A smart con artist would have made sure to bond with their "baby" along with all the little things a real mom or dad simply "know" or learn from other moms and dad along the way. That's what convinces me she used a surrogate, the little things. Things that stand out to me like when she said she had to leave an event early because it was 'time to feed' rather than 'feeding time'? was very odd. Feed is a term used to slop the hogs or feed the chickens. It's obvious to all that she wasn't breast feeding Archie, but she is too stupid to know that we moms would notice that she's lying. And how do we know? ha! It's a long list, but one is no nursing bra, no leaking, other little things too, like wearing white the day after or so of giving birth? Is she mad? No. She just didn't factor in that a real mom who had given birth would never wear a white dress for obvious reasons.
Real parents talk non stop about the cute little things their babies do, but it's a desert with the Harkles about Archie. Kate says little updates about Louis that are cute and genuine like yesterday when she told people that Louis is talking now and wants to follow her everywhere. Now that's a normal thing for babies to do and very natural for Kate to say such things. I doubt that Archie would follow Megs or Harry, but would surely follow his surrogate mommy/nanny everywhere. And another reason we are not seeing Archie at all: he's probably walking by now because he was born in March, not May.
As all of this unfolds, eventually truth will out even if it takes years. Look at the major collapse of Prince Andrew and his house of cards are still falling. Andrew's lies and deception pale in comparison to the mountains of lies about Archie that Megs has willingly and deliberately used to get what she wants.
She just did not act like a pregnant person, and she certainly did not act like a new mom concerned about bonding with her child. MM and I are close in age and I would never risk a pregnancy with an overseas flight for a baby shower I didn't need anyway. There are real risks for both her and the baby at an advanced age. The PHOTOS of her getting out of the car, holding her bag in front of her coat, convinced me. You can see from the side, and the way her jeans zip, those are not maternity jeans, I just do not think she was pregnant in that photo.
The photos aside, her actions after Archie's birth make no sense. Details around the event are as convoluted and full of contradictions, just like the lead up to the wedding, and details about her college tuition and her upbringing. So a first-time mother (even that has been disputed) who according to her own timeline would have been 42 weeks pregnant, an incredibly risky condition for both mom and baby, is discharged from the hospital on the same day as the birth. However, there just so happened to be an email glitch (?) for her PR and they experienced a blackout at the exact time on this most important day of days.
H&M are a profoundly unlucky pair, or they're hiding something.
The irony is if they adopted or used a surrogate, people would have been fine with this and it would have been an opportunity to be truly progressive and modernize the monarchy for which the pair sadly has so much disdain.
And seriously..., would "Dersh " log visits to sex island in his diary? I kind of doubt it.
I am questioning one woman that I think is a willing participant and at best an extortionist and is being used to cover for others. If she is publicly shown to be a liar, and I think that she will be (and actually has been in several instances), then it really does taint the others. She specifically does not implicate BC, HC, or crazed sex poodle Al Gore (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1291661/A-inconvenient-masseuse-How-saint-Al-Gore-sanctimonious-eco-crusader-lost-halo-wife.html) Maybe they conducted themselves in an exemplary manner and were just there for the money and connections. But Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
It is entirely possible that the mostly legal-age-of-consent girls were provided as very well-paid party favors to the extremely wealthy while they moved their funds around in various legal and extra-legal enterprises (for a hefty fee). Epstein's funding is murky. The younger girls may have been for his exclusive "use" and went to yachting when they became too old to interest him sexually. The women saying that EVERYTHING was recorded makes me think blackmail, although I suppose that could have been as a safety precaution for the girls to make sure that a client didn't get too freaky. It would also make the best blackmail material EVER if a client were recorded killing one of the girls. The girls saying that they were supposed to let him know the details about their client sounds very blackmailish, too.
The way the New Mexico ranch wasn't searched and the delay in searching the island is very strange. I don't like it. It offends me. Either crimes were committed or they weren't. That screams cover up and I want to know why. If public officials were involved (and he seemed to make sure everybody of power in most countries, industries, and universities were included), then I want to know about it. Maybe the details ar so completely awful that we would never trust anybody in power ever again if the details are provided. Sunlight is a great disinfectant. Put it all out in the light. We should know who and what we are dealing with.
TL/DR version: I'm interested in it because (a) it offends me that Epstein escaped justice in my state because (b) Hillary was running for president so it was quickly swept under the rug along with the victims and (c) Markel's alleged yachting past (she would have been @ the same age as VR in 2001).
I'm also wondering who else might have had access to the blackmail materials if they exist. Do you think they are currently in use?
Megsy traipsed over to Windsor Castle, walked the corridors to the venue, posed and answered questions for about five minutes and then walked to another room to pose with the grandparents (excluding her father). it's all about the optics (presenting him in a huge royal castle, getting the photos with the Queen), and no thought to practicalities or putting the comfort of mother and baby first. Megsy and Harry really are demented!
1. Remembering glory days because she has nothing new to offer (has been put on shutdown by the BRF, or even Harry)
2. Polishing up her CV for the exit
3. Trying to re-brand her image
4. Keeping herself in the public eye because she has had to cut back on the PR
I know I am going on about the IG posts but it is marked and she is almost manufacturing reasons for the posts.
When talking about her "Deal or No Deal" job, according to the Sun's report released yesterday, MM did not seem gracious or even thankful for the job.
From the article:
She told Esquire in 2013: “I would put that in the category of things I was doing while I was auditioning to try to make ends meet."
The article states she could earn as much as $23,000 weekly doing Deal or No Deal. Most of us would like to earn that kind of money in a week.
“Definitely working on Deal or No Deal was a learning experience, and it helped me to understand what I would rather be doing."
This is her pattern, so I don't know why it's any surprise. No gratitude for her father, who according to her posts on her own Tig blog provided a good education for her. No appreciation for the Deal job, which may have helped her land Suits. No thanks to the BRF or the people of the UK who fund her lavish lifestyle. Her fans are the delusional herd over at CB, and bitter like Anne Boleyn (tudor chick I think) on Twitter. Recently the writer of this account suggested people who dared to think H&M shouldn't be in the RF anymore deserved the "ruin" they would get. Is that a threat? Some of these fans are deranged and deeply hateful individuals.
Dersh calendar diary. What it proves, according to him, is that you cannot be on an Island or in NY and also be seeing and meeting people in Boston at the same time. He says he can prove VRG is lying with calendar conflicts. It’s all under seal at this time.
Do you know that JAMES PATTERSON, the author, was responsible for getting the original investigation started in Florida. He lived near Epstein and noticed very young girls going in and out of the house constantly and thought it was strange. So, he hired a private investigator and it began Epstein’s life started to unravel.
At the risk of balancing on the rabbit hole edge, I also wonder how Epstein was connected to high rollers in England ( not counting Prince Andrew).
—Brown-eyed
Meghan Markle's acupuncturist reveals he sent her a box of vegan broths and tonics to help her recover after giving birth to Archie
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7759707/Meghan-Markles-acupuncturist-sent-box-vegan-broths-help-recover-giving-birth.html
At the risk of balancing on the rabbit hole edge, I also wonder how Epstein was connected to high rollers in England ( not counting Prince Andrew).
Yep, I worry that I might be *thisclose* to thinking that our reptilian overlords are orchestrating things. Somebody might need to throw me a lifeline and pull me away from that rabbit hole (grin). (Don't worry, y'all, I don't have any overlords, reptilian or otherwise that I know of.)
I was not surprised by any of the Hollywood people being at the Epstein parties because of shared proclivities, but I was *very* surprised at Katie Couric being there AFTER his conviction. I shouldn't have been. She had to know about Matt Lauer (every workplace that I have been in people have always gossipped about workplace sex and who was a dirty perv to stay far away from). Then I start to wonder about what she and other anchors may have had to do to get to the top.
Do you know that JAMES PATTERSON, the author, was responsible for getting the original investigation started in Florida. He lived near Epstein and noticed very young girls going in and out of the house constantly and thought it was strange. So, he hired a private investigator and it began Epstein’s life started to unravel.
No, I did not. I vaguely thought that a parent of an underage girl was the person that initiated the investigation, or perhaps an informant trying to get a better deal from a DA. How sad that it was not a parent.
One wonders why the announcement was made in the first place that H&M would be taking a "6 week break" from royal duties. Increasingly, I don't believe it was their idea. I have not followed the RF closely but I don't recall this much press and hubbub even around George's birth. I am certain that weeks used to pass by in between stories and photos about the Cambridges. It would be plausible for H&M to go underground for 6 weeks and no one notice, if all of their other behavior wasn't so strange.
I think MM's flurry of self-promotion created a climate where the media would notice, particularly after they were told they would be sued, that H&M were in hiding. She oversaturated the press so much that they couldn't just fade away for 6 weeks without needing to explain. I still think this was decreed by HMQ after the disaster SA tour. So, in order to get ahead of the "Where in the world are H&M" they make a preemptive statement that they are taking 6 weeks off for family time. In reality I believe it was a "Enough of your shenanigans, no stunts and no appearances for 6 weeks. Get yourselves together and come back ready to represent the Crown in a dignified way."
If Sunshine Sachs is doing her PR they are doing a TERRIBLE job, or they need to stop letting her call the shots. How bad must it be if you hire a fancy PR firm to clean up your mess, and you STILL have to go on a 6 week "break" from your job?
Another thing that comes to mind is how the queen decided to not allow Megs to wear or borrow any royal jewelry. I don't think the queen has ever denied anyone access to loans, other than possibly Fergie? This kind of stands out that the queen has known Meg's number for a lot longer.
Earlier someone suggested Haz may be in rehab - I think there is some weight to this as it does seem he has gone quiet. There is certainly something rotten in the state of vegan-Denmark, I find it hard to believe sparkles would agree to 6 weeks of no publicity, freebies or attention. It appears they were given a right talking to by Her Maj and they are being banished for a period of time. We shall see though
At the time it seemed a very sweet and generous gift and it still does. But it also meant there was no need to lend her tiaras (because unlike Meghan Fergie did attend tiara affairs fairly early on--of course, she was the wife of TQ's son, not grandson.)
Also, it's easy to forget now but initially Kate and Will did few royal events requiring fancy jewels much less tiaras. He was in the RAF until after George was born in 2013. They lived in Wales and for much of that time, it was reported Kate was a "housewife" although they had staff including a housekeeper.
There was mention that Megs has worn a few of Diana's pieces that Harry inherited.
Apparently, after Megs tantrum that she was denied the tiara with emeralds, the queen decided not to let her wear any of the royal collection pieces. Plus, the queen is following hierarchy and Kate far outranks Megs.
I'll keep looking.
>>Firstly can we please not discuss Epstein, I see enough of this elsewhere and I come here to get away from that.<<
It seems that many here find it of interest as the discussion has been going on for some time with how it pertains to PA, the Queen's decision making and the possible involvement of Meghan. I for one don't have much to say regarding Eppstain directly but I don't begrudge others to feel free to say things. Just like discussing Archie, so much has been said here but still, it is discussed. I just tell myself I can take a time out reading other things on the Internet rather than tell people to effectively shut up It's Nutty blog and she seems to let the conversation roll unhampered.
@Ozmanda:
I completely agree with your comment about Hazza appearing very stiff and awkward with Archie, while appearing relaxed and happy around other children. I especially noticed this during SA trip--the way Hazza held Archie appeared like the poor baby was trying "rock climb" his chest. What supposedly proud new father holds his baby son like this? A "father" who has absolutely little, to no bond, with his "child." It has been more than apparent in the few photos of the three of them together that Sparkle Farkle and Hazza have no relationship with Archie, IMO. Archie never naturally reaches out for either one--something a baby would do in a normal developing parent-child relationship--nor is there any hint that he has any kind of real emotional attachment to them. Let's hope that whoever cares for Archie on a day-to-day basis is giving him the proper nurturing that all babies need.
@dc said: " Archie doesn’t have an attachment to either his purported parents. (note lack of seeking eye contact with MM & PH: note how he doesn’t snuggle into them - he does not seek rapprochement safety in their presence. MM & PH have to pull the child’s head towards them, to try and create a pic that resembles closeness.). I do not believe they are sugnificantly involved in raising him, and she for sure did not breatfeed him. He never once reached for her, rooting for food, or seeking comfort, in all the pics / vids. It’s just something that would have for sure been captured, within seconds."
@Sandie said: "The way they hold and interact with their son is not natural. There are plenty of photos of Harry being natural with children, and surely no matter what the circumstances were around the pregnancy and birth, he would love the child? Meghan has stopped him from interacting naturally with his son because she is all about domination and control."
Good observation re: Harry holding Archie. The poor baby was smushed against his lower torso. I have never seen anyone hold a baby like that. It looked like he was about to drop Archie as he was sliding down.
During the meeting with Tutu, MM gripped Archie and sat him forward in a most unnatural way. Other posters have pointed out that he appeared like he wanted to stand, which would be very unusual for a 4 month old (but possible I suppose). I thought it was very strange how she never sat back and let Archie just nestle in the crook of her arm. Babies love to sit that way. The way she pulled his arm and held his hand as they walked also looks very odd, until you realize it was probably so her face was not obstructed for pictures. When they sat on the couch, Archie pushed back with his arms spread when she held him as if to move towards someone else.
There was also video of her holding Archie high over her head and jostling him. This is a very strange way to play with a baby as their necks are not supported. But it's par for the course as she held him a strange way with a large blanket draped over him at the polo match. No shoes for Archie, no hat, no scenes of giving him a bottle or sitting him down to move around. That must have been a hot day and the sun was very bright. He would have been hot under a big blanket and would have needed sunscreen reapplied at least once.
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/meghan-markle/images/41321072/title/meghan-hollywood-portfolio-2003-photo
And I suggest we start taking bets on the Xmas card. The Cambridges will have some cozy, old-fahioned family pic. What's the bets it will be another basic black and white shot of the Sussexes? Whihc of Archie's limbs will we get to see this time?
Jen on B&W shot of Arch meeting Archie
Liver Bird with B&@ of Sussexes and a limb of Archie's. Hey, it's Christmas, there might be TWO limbs!
If they've been told to sit down and shut up, perhaps we will see Christmas pictures from the past.
Or maybe one of the SA photos with Archie in B &W.
I’ve always thought it was a enforced break, it came after the law suit and dire documentary, no one was happy with them, I’m waiting for the new year to see what happens with these two.
My money is on SirStinxAlot guess with this year’s Christmas photo!
The Royals as evidenced by Andrew and before him Wallis have no problem shutting down and putting to pasture those they deem threatening to their bread and butter