While Duchess Meghan clearly has an interest in getting back into show business - Prince Harry was even heard promoting her voiceover talents to Disney chairman Bob Iger - show business seems to have much less interest in Meghan.
Although various blind items have suggested that she is setting up meetings to discuss projects with various production houses, only one US-based project has been definitively announced: Prince Harry's documentary series about "mental health" in co-operation with Oprah Winfrey for the new Apple+ network.
(While Harry is the co-creator co-executive producer, it seems inevitable that Meg will play a role in the production and make one if not several appearances.)
What does Prince Harry have to teach us about mental health?
Willam explains how his patronages the London Air Ambulance and Child Bereavement UK will be working together in two areas: one, teaching the Air Ambulance staff how to talk sensitively to family members of an child killed or severely injured in an incident, and secondly to help the Air Ambulance members themselves deal with the extreme stress of a job where they encounter devastating tragedies.
In the video, he speaks about his own struggles coping with bereavements when working for the Air Ambulance. "Having worked at the scene of traumatic incidents involving children, it was impossible for me not to take on board the enormous sadness and make the connection between the distressing events I had witnessed and my own family."
This sounds like a useful project that will help the people of Britain, exactly the sort of thing that a Royal patron of a charity should be doing.
So, what's Harry up to?
He also has an obvious angle in his association with military charities. Sadly, current and former service members have an extremely high rate of suicide, perhaps because of PTSD, perhaps because of their access to weapons. This would be a useful topic of a documentary.
So would addiction. Harry has already been to rehab once as a teenager on Prince Charles' orders, supposedly because Harry was using marijuana. His longtime cocaine use appears to be an open secret, and he also reportedly drinks heavily.
There may be more substances in play, and Harry's rumpled appearance, particularly his stained clothes and weaving gait at a recent event at Royal Albert Hall, do not suggest a man who is completely sober.
A frank look at addiction - and how it can affect the very fortunate as well as the less fortunate - would be compelling television, but Buckingham Palace may not be quite ready for that.
(Yes, folks, "thrive and survive" made an appearance way back in April 2019.)
In that statement, Harry was quoted as saying the documentary would be "positive, enlightening, and inclusive", which sounds like something Meg would write, but whatever.
Harry was also quoted as saying, "I truly believe that good mental health - mental fitness - is the key to powerful leadership, productive communities, and a purpose-driven self."
This sounds like the sort of word salad that marred the Fab Four's Mental Health PSA released in October, an advert that was so general about the topic that it wasn't very useful to anyone.
The documentary series will also show "human spirit fighting back from the darkest places," which I dearly hope will not be another exercise in pity tourism similar to what the Sussexes carried out in South Africa.
Meghan continues to insert herself into the tragic case of Uyinene Mrwetyana, a young woman murdered in Cape Town, sending a video this week to help launch a foundation in Uyinene's name.
Many are "BAME"- the British term for citizens who are Black, Asian, or Middle Eastern - exactly the sort of community Meghan says she cares about.
Wouldn't a project to address knife crime in the UK and its mental health implications - both for the survivors and for the relatives of the dead - be a more appropriate use of Meg's time and focus?
There's an old American cowboy expression that goes, "You have to dance with the girl that brung you." (Wikipedia defines it as "be considerate and loyal to the one who has been supportive, attentive, or helpful to you.")
Based on what we know about the Oprah Winfrey documentary, I cannot see how it will benefit the people of the United Kingdom who are paying Prince Harry's and Duchess Meghan's bills.
Perhaps it is time for them to be on their own, without public support, so they can pursue the causes they care about unhampered by the British populace they don't.
----------
Housekeeping note: This post is about the Sussexes. I will keep the Prince Andrew thread open for a few days so we can continue our discussions of Andrew, Beatrice, Edo, and that branch of the Royal Family there.
Although various blind items have suggested that she is setting up meetings to discuss projects with various production houses, only one US-based project has been definitively announced: Prince Harry's documentary series about "mental health" in co-operation with Oprah Winfrey for the new Apple+ network.
(While Harry is the co-creator co-executive producer, it seems inevitable that Meg will play a role in the production and make one if not several appearances.)
What does Prince Harry have to teach us about mental health?
William's mental health video
The most convincing hosts and spokespeople speak from experience: Prince William's one-and-a-half minute PSA about mental health, released this week, is a good example.Willam explains how his patronages the London Air Ambulance and Child Bereavement UK will be working together in two areas: one, teaching the Air Ambulance staff how to talk sensitively to family members of an child killed or severely injured in an incident, and secondly to help the Air Ambulance members themselves deal with the extreme stress of a job where they encounter devastating tragedies.
In the video, he speaks about his own struggles coping with bereavements when working for the Air Ambulance. "Having worked at the scene of traumatic incidents involving children, it was impossible for me not to take on board the enormous sadness and make the connection between the distressing events I had witnessed and my own family."
This sounds like a useful project that will help the people of Britain, exactly the sort of thing that a Royal patron of a charity should be doing.
So, what's Harry up to?
Harry's mental health struggles
Harry has been open about struggling with his own mental health, particularly with grieving and guilt over the death of his mother Diana 22 years ago.He also has an obvious angle in his association with military charities. Sadly, current and former service members have an extremely high rate of suicide, perhaps because of PTSD, perhaps because of their access to weapons. This would be a useful topic of a documentary.
So would addiction. Harry has already been to rehab once as a teenager on Prince Charles' orders, supposedly because Harry was using marijuana. His longtime cocaine use appears to be an open secret, and he also reportedly drinks heavily.
There may be more substances in play, and Harry's rumpled appearance, particularly his stained clothes and weaving gait at a recent event at Royal Albert Hall, do not suggest a man who is completely sober.
A frank look at addiction - and how it can affect the very fortunate as well as the less fortunate - would be compelling television, but Buckingham Palace may not be quite ready for that.
"Tools to thrive, rather than simply survive"
According to the publicity when the series was announced in April, it will "focus on both mental illness and mental wellness, inspiring viewers to have an honest conversation about the challenges each of us faces, and how to equip ourselves with the tools to thrive, rather than to simply survive."(Yes, folks, "thrive and survive" made an appearance way back in April 2019.)
In that statement, Harry was quoted as saying the documentary would be "positive, enlightening, and inclusive", which sounds like something Meg would write, but whatever.
Harry was also quoted as saying, "I truly believe that good mental health - mental fitness - is the key to powerful leadership, productive communities, and a purpose-driven self."
This sounds like the sort of word salad that marred the Fab Four's Mental Health PSA released in October, an advert that was so general about the topic that it wasn't very useful to anyone.
The documentary series will also show "human spirit fighting back from the darkest places," which I dearly hope will not be another exercise in pity tourism similar to what the Sussexes carried out in South Africa.
Meghan continues to insert herself into the tragic case of Uyinene Mrwetyana, a young woman murdered in Cape Town, sending a video this week to help launch a foundation in Uyinene's name.
Back to Britain
Uyinene's case is tragic, but so are the cases of the 23 young people who have been stabbed to death so far in 2019 in the Royal's home country, the United Kingdom.Many are "BAME"- the British term for citizens who are Black, Asian, or Middle Eastern - exactly the sort of community Meghan says she cares about.
Wouldn't a project to address knife crime in the UK and its mental health implications - both for the survivors and for the relatives of the dead - be a more appropriate use of Meg's time and focus?
There's an old American cowboy expression that goes, "You have to dance with the girl that brung you." (Wikipedia defines it as "be considerate and loyal to the one who has been supportive, attentive, or helpful to you.")
Based on what we know about the Oprah Winfrey documentary, I cannot see how it will benefit the people of the United Kingdom who are paying Prince Harry's and Duchess Meghan's bills.
Perhaps it is time for them to be on their own, without public support, so they can pursue the causes they care about unhampered by the British populace they don't.
----------
Housekeeping note: This post is about the Sussexes. I will keep the Prince Andrew thread open for a few days so we can continue our discussions of Andrew, Beatrice, Edo, and that branch of the Royal Family there.
Comments
"We have read she looks out the window at Frogmore and watches lawn bowling....."
The funny thing about this is that there are a load of trees in the way, she would not be able to see bowls being played from FrogCot.
I did not understand the poor fit either. But it seemed to me, the material was simply too heavy/thick for the design so I'm not sure it could fit right.
I know it was designed by the award-winning artistic director of Givenchy who has likely forgotten more about fabrics than I'll ever know. And I'm just a person who had a wonderful Home Ec teacher a long long time ago who taught me how to sew. I haven't sewed major pieces of clothing in a long time (certainly never sewed a wedding gown) but I did used to sew and once made an evening gown.
The fabric seemed too stiff and heavy to skim the body even with the Givenchy trademark vertical seaming. And I found the horizontal wrinkles that formed across the torso to be unattractive. Finally, the sleeves had a clunky "strait-jacket" feel to me.
I think I understand what it was supposed to look like...It didn't make me think of Grace Kelly's wedding dress although Kate's dress did. And Grace Kelly's wedding dress reminded me of the Queen's wedding dress. Meghan's though was sort of a not-quite-successful Aubrey Hepburn meets J.Lo in the Wedding Planner. And while I've liked some of J.Lo's movies, wearing a dress that looks like a costume she wore isn't necessarily a good thing.
I would have liked the veil on someone else. But given the setting it was a little too reminiscent of Maria in the Sound of Music. And an innocent ex-nun/novice Meghan isn't.
I also agree about those awful black uniforms. Looked so itchy and hot. Prince George looked like a sad little Lord Fauntleroy heading for a sentimental deathbed. No one seemed happy. I really felt for Kate as she had only recently given birth to Louis. A lot to cope with, getting two young children and a very unhappy husband through that day.
New DM story - online survey of 8M women finds MM's oversized shoes for her engagement announcement the No. 5 top fashion fail of the decade. (We were all just talking about those shoes.) Whereas Kate is No. 2 "fashion icon for the twentyteens" because of her wedding dress. Nice antidote to that power dressing survey.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7722691/Gemma-Collins-named-making-biggest-fashion-faux-pas-DECADE-far.html
Odd actually that both Royal wives have body shapes that are difficult to dress.
However, the truth is that the Queen wore a Commonwealth flower embroidered dress to her Coronation.
I'm still amazed at the difference in her figure between Suits days and as a royal (even before the baby). Photoshopping is one thing, but she looked fine on the red carpet too. She must just have to be very very thin to look at all elegant. The only way to keep reasonably in proportion. I wonder how the Suits costume department would style her now? I'm sure they could still work a more minor miracle. I'd love to see them do it. They should have a series of their own! If she hadn't treated everyone so badly I'm sure they'd have been happy to advise her now.
Of course Kate had a long time when her dresses didn't fit properly either, as the waist never sat right, but now her tailoring is a dream. And at least she was always perfectly groomed. From day one.
Also, it was bias cut, which does no favours for her body type.
With the benefit of hindsight we can only imagine what a horrendous time she had trying to make an unsuitable design and fabric look as good as it did.
Last night, there was turmoil and indecision among the royal advisers as they sensed that the public mood of sadness was changing to one of dismay. Yesterday, the Queen and Prince Philip were involved in tense talks with Charles and their advisers.
Had it it been up to Charles, a flag would have been flying at halfmast over Buckingham Palace today but to his mother the issue is not one for negotiation.
As if underlining her position, the Royal Standard was flying high over Balmoral yesterday. However, a measure of the Royal Family's anxiety could be seen last night when Charles's Press Secretary Sandy Henney made an unprecedented appearance on television to excuse the Queen's absence from the capital.
She said: "At a time when you remember a member of the family, I think you want to be at home with the family and that's where the Royal Family are at the moment, in Balmoral."
She added: "I hope with what we said after the accident and what we are saying now that it will help explain to the public that they too are sharing their grief." Miss Henney added: "Can I just say that all the Royal Family, and in particular the Prince of Wales, Prince Harry and Prince William, have been taking strength from this overwhelming public support."
It was the first statement since the announcement on Sunday which read: "The Queen and Prince of Wales are deeply shocked and distressed by this terrible news." Downing Street yesterday defended the Royal Family. A spokesman said: "They are organising a massive event while coping with their own sense of loss and comforting the boys."
But at Westminster MPs were openly critical, particularly over the issue of the flag. Labour MP Frank Cook said: "People want to demonstrate their feeling of immense loss and if the Palace is so insensitive to that popular reaction, then I can only say that that is probably why the Royal Family is in the state it is vis-a-vis its public relations."
The Queen faced a growing clamour last night to break with protocol and allow a flag to fly at half mast over Buckingham Palace.
It came at the end of a day of mounting concern that the Royal Family was not adequately responding to the national mood of grief over Diana's death.
MPs of all parties led the criticism at Westminster, insisting that it was the "perfect opportunity" to break with precedent and warning that the absence of any flag at all on the Palace, let alone one at half-mast, was in danger of being seen as a snub.
Dismayed crowds yesterday around the Palace, probably the only public building in Britain without the symbolic tribute, echoed the view.
And on American television news, the issue was coupled with astonishment that the Queen, Prince Charles and other senior royals were still at Balmoral, hundreds of miles away from the focus of mourning, while tens of thousands of people were flooding into the capital. By last night, 750,000 had queued for 11 hours and more to sign the books of condolence.
There was surprise that the Queen was not due to arrive in London until Saturday morning when the royal train pulls into Euston and she is driven straight to Westminster Abbey for the service.
On top of this, no senior royals have made any personal statements about the tremendous loss to the nation or the extent of Diana's contribution to its life.
Constitutional historian Dr David Starkey warned: "The Royal Family are at a crossroads. They are facing a huge wave of public resentment."
And, Diana's step-grandmother Dame Barbara Cartland condemned the lack of feeling from what she called "this family of Germans".
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478368/Diana-Let-flag-fly-half-mast.html
Quoting ''highly placed'' palace sources, Mr. Snow said the two men had argued, with Sir Robert supporting the Queen's desire for a private funeral and Prince Charles insisting on a state funeral. The Princess was given a state funeral.
According to Mr. Snow, Prince Charles told Sir Robert to ''impale himself on his own flagstaff.''
The reference to the flagstaff relates to the Queen's initial resistance to having the flag fly over Buckingham Palace while she was at her Scottish estate of Balmoral. Tradition dictates that no flag fly over the palace when the Queen is not in residence, and at the time of Diana's death the Queen was in Scotland.
Eventually, the palace yielded to public pressure and raised a flag to half-mast in honor of the Princess, even though the Queen was away.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/16/world/queen-issues-feisty-denial-of-disputes-over-funeral.html
It's not the disigners fault, and the fabric can only be blamed so much. Kate, Sophie often wear heavier fabrics with their coat dresses. The problem is that MM doesn't know how to dress for her body type, she doesn't aknowledge her body type she follows fashion trends blindly. Stripes, layers, middle parting her hair, flimsy jewellery, over accessorising, heels with everything, white cotton shirts, too.much black, navy, poop brown/green, fake lashes every single day, weird contouring. I.could go on and on....
MMs biggest weakness is her obsession with her looks and it's led to her downfall. If you think about it a lot of her puff pieces are about her looks, fashion, jewellery or food (apart from her stellar personality). That to me is very telling. Especially lately all I see is articles about her hair, moles, rings, mink lashes and Archie's food habits. She is an ex-anorexic who is shitti g bricks hay she isn't skinny anymore and the pregnancy did a number on her looks. And she can't handle that.
It looked much like a dress worn by HMTQ years earlier, white fur shrug included.
I also agree Messy Meg spends a lot of money to look most times cheap and inappropriate, the crowning look her red portrait dress in Aus with the tag attached, LOL
We knew something was up when that took place, her dresser must have really hated her, and all were in agreement and didn’t speak up.
Wonder if that is when the tea pot was thrown and the PS quit her job, right after the tour with the Palace singing her praises.
I could not face being buffeted by an emo storm every time I walked inside the house and I don't have a sensitive nature like PC. No wonder he sought refuge elsewhere.
Although she wasn’t wearing some merching horror story that we’ve been subjected to again and again, the lousy fit does give some credence to the rumors that the wedding was an “on” “off” affair and then was suddenly on. I used to be a pastry chef, and I could have whipped up that wedding cake in about three hours it was so devoid of decoration. Kate and William’s cake? Would have taken me at least a week given the fondant, etc.
There is a :”Stella Dallas” quality to Ms. Markle (wow, does that date me), where she’s smart but lacks any sort of intrinsic sense of style, I’ve called her a style vampire in the past, and as all these jpegs are beginning to emerge where in some cases she literally buys the same outfit as some style icon she admires is wearing (the ones comparing her and Ivanka are a hoot), you being to realize there is no “there” there. She has no innate style, but thumbs through endless magazines and scrolls the Internet so she can imitate a style. But the concept behind the style eludes her, so she just looks like a copycat. Many of these copycatted outfits don’t suit her figure, but, again, she can’t see that. It looks great on Ivanka, it will look great on me! That’s as far as she can get conceptually. This is why I’m sure she can’t fathom why a forty-foot long veil with a dress that has no embellishment is a concept fail. Or why wearing white to her third wedding is tacky. She doesn’t get it. Underneath it all she IS tacky, and I’m sure reads the criticism of her appearance and cannot see where she went wrong, although appearing in muddy shoes and torn hose seems to me to be a no-brainer!
@Fairy Crocodile
I have sympathy for how Diana felt, when the man she loved and married really belonged to another from day one. I can see how overwrought she was and she was carrying Charles' sone and he was still un faithful. It wasn't like she could walk out and get a divorce attorney. She had to stay in that relationship and 'carry on'.
Maybe Harry does have some genetic predilection for mental issues (and not just from Diana's side) but he isn't young, pregnant and expected to be on a world stage like his mother was. To go one further, he is spoilt and had the best of everything growing up, with emotional support from the time of his parent's acrimonious years (not known if Diana had family support during her parent's divorce, likely not). I believe she did quite well under the circumstances. Maybe she had good reason for broken friendships (as what did friends do to let Charles boink Camilla under her nose). Diana for all her warts was a better asset to the BRF than Harry I dare say. He bites the hand that feeds him and seems to be provoking people/media questioning the future of the monarchy (Diana just questioned Charles suitability to be King, and he wasn't making good decisions IMO).
I agree that Harry seems to have inherited her mental problems and, per the reports of people that had to drag him through his testing, her IQ as well. The RF was probably trying to keep a discreet eye on him but that disastrous marriage probably exacerbated his problems.
I have to say that while I was shocked at the news of Diana's death, I wasn't surprised. She'd been careening out of control for some time looking for somebody to assuage her emotional neediness. She didn't have the ability or the insight to realize that another person is not going to be able to miraculously make her all better. Only she could do that.
Also, it was too white, like a detergent ad.
It's all very well Charles flying to Paris to bring back Diana's body, insisting the flag fly at half mast to appease the masses and that she be honoured with a State funeral but I ask myself how much of that was due to his own guilt?
Had he not demanded of the Queen, (who was quite happy to let her keep it) that HRH status be removed, she might well have still been here enjoying her grandchildren.
Charles went back to Camilla after the emotional toll of living in a relationship that hadn't worked got too much. Diana did the same. She had an affair with Barry Mannakee very early on in her marriage, to the extent that he had to be removed as the royal protection officer.
James Hewitt, James Gilby, Oliver Hoare, Will Carling and others followed. Charles was sticking to his Camilla all the time.
I think like everything in life, Diana's story has two sides. One is told by her via Panorama, Morton's book and pocket journalists she manipulated. The other side is Charles's story of unhappy childhood, distant mother and father, assassination of Lord Mountbatten he was close to, heavy weight of high expectations, and marriage to the woman emotionally unsuitable to sharing his passions in life and supporting him.
As I said I totally understand your point. Diana had many outstanding qualities. It is unfair to blame Charles exclusively for the collapse of his marriage though. The more I read the more I learn.
have sympathy for how Diana felt, when the man she loved and married really belonged to another from day one. I can see how overwrought she was and she was carrying Charles' sone and he was still un faithful. It wasn't like she could walk out and get a divorce attorney. She had to stay in that relationship and 'carry on'.
Yes, that's her story. His story is that he was faithful until it was obvious that the marriage was irretrievably broken. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Diana was the first to have an affair.
I've been standing by and providing emotional support via telephone to a person with a dying family member, have had about six cups of coffee, and am bouncing off the walls like a squirrel at a meth house. I must go outside and work off the energy or I swear to God I'm tearing the carpet out right this instant (something that I want to do, but I should probably wait until the new floor covering is agreed upon and acquired first).
SwampMan just called and is taking me out to dinner as an apology for how he snarled at me this morning. (SwampMan stomps from the bedroom each morning with all the happy demeanor of a grizzly bear that has neither eaten or pooped for the past several months.) It was happy squirrel on meth meets constipated grizzly bear in the kitchen at dawn. Instead of walking out with him to the truck juggling his briefcase, phone, lunch, Yeti cups, and various other things that he'd left behind in his morning stomp, I told him that he could walk his grumpy butt out alone which did not improve his disposition AT ALL for some reason (grin). By the time he called back, I had completely forgotten all about it but he was all smitten with remorse and eager to make amends.
I do not believe that Diana was the kind of person that would ever forget about a man being grumpy first thing in the morning. On the other hand, maybe that is where some of her fabulous jewelry came from (grin). She got jewelry, I get another 5 lbs. heavier.
I thought Camilla's outfit for her initial wedding ceremony to Charles at the town hall or wherever was lovely. I agree it would have been easier for Meghan to look right if she had gone for that option, not the big white wedding. I had a friend in the '90s, marrying a widower, who went down the Great Gatsby route with wide-legged cream trousers (Katharine Hepburn style), simply tailored cream top and a cream picture-hat. She looked spectacular and so happy.
@Ava C. Indeed. For me the eye opener was the account by Charles's former private secretary who confirmed Diana had a habit of listening at doors and opening Charles's private letters. According to him her behavior was almost as if she had to completely "possess him but only in order to reject him". I would find it difficult myself if I lived with such person.
Oddly enough, my first thought upon reading that was "I can see MM doing that to Harry".
Nope, she dragged them into the middle of it, poor children.
> I'll never forget reading how Diana would throw herself across Charles' car as it was waiting to take him to take him for the day's events, and cry 'If you love me you won't go!'<
Yes, that sounds needy but maybe she wouldn't have been if he wasn't so cold with her. Maybe he should have invited her along like his son Harry seems to do with Meghan (whether she is invited or not she gate-crashes his events or Skypes in). Harry seems more devoted to Megs than Charles ever seemed to be with Diana.
I must confess I was a lot older than Diana, newly married, pregnant in a small tourist beach town (new resident) with loved ones hundreds of miles away, and was tearful when my husband left work to be away from me 12 hrs a day.7 days a week (he was employed building a nuclear plant). I longed for his company as the isolation was profound. Diana suffered from loneliness poor dear. Maybe she got the impression Charles was avoiding her and she had suspicions (albeit not correctly at that time) about Camilla's place in his heart/life.
Diana seemed to need that the object of her affection reciprocated and I don't see anything wrong with that, unfortunately, she wasted herself on undeserving/unsuitable men. Maybe Harry is wasting himself on an undeserving woman also.
Mr. Mimi wakes up at the crack of dawn, just ever so good humored and happy but when I finally rouse from my slumber I am a beast. Everyone knows to tip toe around me until I have had my coffee and taken my meds and everything has kicked in. Only then am I suitable for any kind of conversation. Mr. Mimi and the grand kids KNOW that the last bit of milk in the carton has to be enough for my morning coffee the next day. Mr. Mimi has been known to go out late at night when he has accidentally drank the last drop of milk in the carton, to buy a new carton as there is no living with me until I have sat on my throne and started at a blank t.v. screen sipping my coffee and waiting for my meds to kick in...about an hour. (he thinks he is being cute when I wake up in the morning and walk into the kitchen and he looks at me with mock horror and says...” IT’S ALIVE” !!!!!!!!
>Nope, she dragged them into the middle of it, poor children.<
From what I have observed the average American does not shield their children from marital problems (certainly not justifying it). There is the arguments, the unfaithfulness, the sposal abuse, etc... However, William seems like a well adjusted caring adult due in part to Diana, maybe more so than his father's influence..
When he "went to work" often Charles would have been doing alot of work on the Princes Trust and the Duchy, attending serious meetings, and so on. Diana would have been bored out of her mind at those kinds of events and could not have gotten enough attention from Charles in those settings to fill her bottomless pit of emotional neediness.
I'm not as unsympathetic as I may sound, but before Diana married Charles she was living in London so living at KP and even at Highgrove didn't take her hundreds of miles from from familiar surroundings.
I do think the way Harry treats M may be in part because he erroneously took away from his parents' failed marriage it is the man's job to make the woman happy and an unhappy woman is always the man's fault.
I have a fascinating old book by Joan Crawford called My Way of Life, which is basically a training manual for the extreme 1950s housewife (odd for such a career woman). Dress in a becoming housecoat and have the cocktails ready the minute he walks through the door, chilled to exactly the right temperature of course. She recommended attending your husband's business meetings so you could be a useful conversationalist at home. And she did too. In her pearls, furs and big hats. I'd have loved to have been there. It's a great read, if any Nutties happen to stumble across it.
As for poor little Archie, I'm just not feeling it. It's been like a poorly structured mystery story; storytelling requires the reader to be invested and suspend their disbelief. Well, the Harkles failed to engage this reader and I can't believe in the truth of the Archie proposition.
They had a launching pad of enormous goodwill which they foolishly squandered. Had they played their cards right they would now be outshining the Cambridges and America would be fascinated. As it is, for me they've overreached and tried to sell a house of cards.
H&M are still being mentioned in the same breath with him in the press today, meaning people are now expecting the BRF to engage with the problem. No more ostriching. Hopefully recent polls will mean the BRF's much vaunted ruthless survival instinct begins to work on them too.
Charles meets with Philip over Andrew. Will meets with the queen over Andrew. I like how this article calls them the most senior royals' who are meeting to decide Andrew's fate.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-seek-advice-philip-20967531.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
Uncle’s shocking attack on ‘prima donna’ Meghan: Ex-diplomat, 80, who helped launch Duchess’s career subjects her to highly personal broadside writes SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7728861/Ex-diplomat-helped-launch-Meghans-career-subjects-broadside-writes-SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE.html
>>Mike wasn’t invited to Meghan’s second wedding when she married Prince Harry, saying later he was left deeply hurt.
‘I’ve probably done more for her than most,’ he said. ‘I personally talked to the ambassador in Argentina for her. I helped her out and I didn’t ask for anything in return.’ <<<
>> Diana would have been bored out of her mind at those kinds of events and could not have gotten enough attention from Charles in those settings to fill her bottomless pit of emotional neediness.<
Maybe it was Diana's "bottomless pit of emotional neediness" that made her so attuned to others' needs, the disenfranchised. the wounded, the hurt, those for who had no voice...certainly I have not seen the same of Charles and Camilla on the same level. People responded to her warmth and sincerity. I dare say it was perhaps this that made Harry concerned about other's plight and his attempts to bring positive change although t seems lacking at times. Meghan may have capitalized on Diana's example and she co-opted it for her own purpose with Harry. :
>>I do think the way Harry treats M may be in part because he erroneously took away from his parents' failed marriage it is the man's job to make the woman happy and an unhappy woman is always the man's fault.<<
Thankfully Harry didn't view women as a 'tampon' for his own happiness as did his father. I find it admirable for a man to want to make his wife happy in a marriage by a sundry of things depending on the circumstances. Some women want a man who will be a good provider, kind, emotionally available, etc...I am well adjusted and I would have been unhappy in what was reported in the marriage between Charles and Diana, especially went it came to unfaithfulness (well before the sex resumed with Camilla). I don't get the sense that Harry is the kind of man to cheat on his girlfriend.wife (but please Nutties write if you gave read otherwise with respect to Chelsey or Cressida)
Harry by many accounts seems captivated and besotted with Meghan whether it is a healthy relationship or not. In fact, it could very well be that he was so damaged by what happened to his Mother during the marriage that will make him attempt to make a go of it with Meghan (who I think could be a challenging marital partner.
Therein lies the problem, it doesn’t work like that, they can’t outshine The Cambridge’s, they can’t outshine any other senior royal, let alone future King’s etc. They tried to do that, and it’s failed miserably. Their purpose is to shine a light on the Monarch and the royal family as a ‘whole’, not themselves.
I agree with Ava C, there’s no going back for Meghan and Harry now, the royal family can’t afford any more costly mistakes, and the Sussex’s are a serious liability, and the press won’t let it go either.
https://www.purewow.com/news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-leave-of-absence
not sure if it’s newsworthy or reliable, but Rebecca English apparently said,
“ The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have taken a leave of absence from royal duties.”
I agree with her uncle. She invited to her wedding A+ list celebrities she barely knew but couldn't manage to find a seat for her uncle.
She is so disrespectful and ungrateful.
I think some people may not sleep tonight! Tomorrow, we can expect a couple of headlines in tabloids & People magazine prepared by SS. IMO, she is ready to take a break from her 6 weeks off to show off to the world how she is a kind person.
Iam waiting for a word salad about gratitude + a very secrete visit to ??? (homeless or victims of sexual assault) on Thursday.
No smiles or gleaming eyes among any of the senior royals, who would likely know they would be on camera and could have mustered even the slightest smile or feigned a bit of interest as Harry made what will likely go down as the biggest mistake in Harry’s life and the biggest mistake by HM, who allowed the quickie wedding instead of telling Harry he needed to date Meghan for another year or two before considering marriage.
Had they been forced to wait, it is likely that the relationship would have collapsed under it’s own weak foundation of half-truths, misrepresentations by Meghan, and a cooling of lust by Harry.
Certainly Diana's emotional problems are easily understood in the context of her early family life. Her father's frantic desire for a male child (that could have affected her sisters too but Diana was closest in age to the "golden" boy so she may have felt more displaced) coupled with the bad parental split with her mother's mother taking her father's side would have been hard to endure.
Some research suggests that children of alcoholics may develop the positive quality of "resilience" because of their early childhood experiences but that doesn't mean it's good those experiences happened. And if Diana's experiences were necessary for her to have empathy, I don't see that as a good thing either.
I do think Charles has his share of faults. But the tampon story from the illegally recorded conversation with Camilla is too often mentioned in an inaccurate way although I have never heard it said he views women "as a 'tampon' for his own happiness." (I'm not even sure what that means. A tampon for happiness??? Does that mean women "soak up" his happiness?) Regardless, what Charles really said was with his bad luck he'd come back as a tampon.
Charles has also been heavily criticized for what he said when Harry was born. ("It's a boy and he's a ginger!") But Diana later admitted she had led Charles to believe she was carrying a girl even though she knew that wasn't true.
I don't know if Harry is "besotted" these days. Of course I think both partners in a relationship ought to want to make the other happy. But in the final analysis, assuming we aren't talking about abuse, we are responsible for our own happiness. It can't be gifted to us.
I do think things we've seen and read suggest H feels responsible for M's happiness in ways that may not ultimately be healthy. "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets," his two attacks on the press (the dating one and the recent one), "I hope she loves me," his distance from Will, his disheveled appearances on several occasions...And M seems happy to put it on him "My friends said not to marry him"....I guess we'll see.
I have read Harry was not faithful in previous relationships. That may or may not be true. I think it's clear Meghan wasn't faithful to Corey.
This may be a screenshot of the tweet :
https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com/image/189301879781
Since you didn't understand Charles and tampon woman happiness with Camilla here is him and Camilla's high brow conversation:
":Charles: I fill up your tank!
Camilla: Yes, you do
Charles: Then you can cope.
Camilla: Then I'm all right
Charles: What about me? The trouble is I need you several times a week.
Camilla: Mmmm, so do I. I need you all the week. All the time.
Charles: Oh. God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be
much easier!
Camilla: (laughing) "what are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?
Both laugh
Camilla: Oh, You're your'e going to come back as a pair of knickers.
Charles: Or, God forbid a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)
Camilla: You are a complete idiot (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.
Charles: My luck to be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on forever
swirling round on the top, never going down.
Camilla: (Laughing) Oh, Darling!
Charles: Until the next one comes through.:
Yes. maybe it is hard to understand how he expresses happiness. As a beautiful woman I've had many. many men claim to have fallen in love with me, and I feel so special that their words of endearment were romantic and lovely not talk of feminine products and toilets. lol lol lol lol ROTFLOL!!!!!!
I find it sad that Diana was shamed for her emotionally fragile state at the hands of her husband and Camilla. The world was a better place because of what she did, hardly what I see accomplished by many royals except the Queen. Others here have reported the polls which show Camilla and even Charles are not favored by the public even now, decades after Princess Diana died.
As many have observed that Harry has received popularity by being Diana's son but unfortunately it is alleged that a decline is due to another woman, Meghan. We have a saying in America, that 'a good woman can make a man'. Please don't pile on feminist displeasure because it is a simply a saying and I believe gives credence to the power of a woman's influence
She was a sad girl, who made lot’s of people happy
Her gentleness and vulnerability were her greatest strengths
No one else comes close, except HMTQ
You might not have wanted to have the silly conversation with a lover that Charles and Camilla had and I might not either, but so what? After all, the words your lovers say that you find "endearing" and "romantic" others might find creepy or insincere. Couples have their different ways of speaking to each other *in private.* So to each her/his own. Surely we aren't judging people by the content of their private conversations now are we? (For the record I didn't think Diana's "Squidgy" conversations should have been recorded and published. Nor should she have been judged for the content and terminology in those tapes.)
Based on documented evidence, her history, her publicly observable behavior, her writings, and her interviews, it seems obvious to me Diana had emotional problems before she met Charles, while she was married to Charles, and after she and Charles divorced. I am sure Charles's psychological makeup didn't help their marriage *at all* but the fact is they were wholly unsuited to each other.
I'm not claiming Charles's emotional makeup is or was healthy. But it is pretty unrealistic to imply Diana's deep-seated insecurities and emotional neediness developed only after she married and were of Charles's (and Camilla's) making.
To say Diana had emotional problems tied to her childhood isn't "shaming her" and isn't diminishing the good she did; rather it's seeing her as a real person with vulnerabilities and psychological injuries rather than as a plaster saint. Admitting she had problems stemming from childhood also highlights the lasting effects childhood experiences can have.
We can talk until we are all blue in the face about removing the "stigma" of mental/emotional illness but if we continue to think it's "shameful" to have an illness and it is an "attack" to be said to be suffering from one, we haven't made much progress.
I'm sorry you don't understand. I am beginning to believe that I could keep on explaining and you still wouldn't *understand*.
Sure Charles has a right to say yucky things if that is his language of love. Not mine *smile* lol lol
The use of the word "Tampon wrong", no,,,,see sentence above. lol lol lol
>>>Based on documented evidence, her history, her publicly observable behavior, her writings, and her interviews, it seems obvious to me Diana had emotional problems before she met Charles<<<
Haven't read of any before she Married Charles.
>>>while she was married to Charles, and after she and Charles divorced. I am sure Charles's psychological makeup didn't help their marriage *at all* but the fact is they were wholly unsuited to each other<<<
Never said they weren't;t and it wasn't my contention.
>>I'm not claiming Charles's emotional makeup is or was healthy. But it is pretty unrealistic to imply Diana's deep-seated insecurities and emotional neediness developed only after she married and were of Charles's (and Camilla's) making.<<
You say I am unrealistic in my opinion and I say you are....so?!! Rhetorical question by the way.
>>>To say Diana had emotional problems tied to her childhood isn't "shaming her" and isn't diminishing the good she did; rather it's seeing her as a real person with vulnerabilities and psychological injuries rather than as a plaster saint. Admitting she had problems stemming from childhood also highlights the lasting effects childhood experiences can have.<<<
I never said she had emotional problems in her childhood. I strictly mentioned during the time Charles and Camilla were involved after marriage. I even used their conversation to that effect. BTW Charles can sue me for repeating it. lol lol
>>>We can talk until we are all blue in the face about removing the "stigma" of mental/emotional illness but if we continue to think it's "shameful" to have an illness and it is an "attack" to be said to be suffering from one, we haven't made much progress.<<<
That is what Charles and Camilla did... talked shamefully about Diana, God rest her soul! People need to take responsibility for the pain they cause others by their actions (ie. Charles and Camilla shameless adultery) and definitely what Charles did and Camilla did harmed Diana greatly. That is so obvious and there is nothing I can say that would lift the veil off your eyes. I thank the Lord I never had a single man be unfaithful to me. I could only imagine the pain it would cause. Don't bother saying Diana had lovers because it was AFTER Charles violated his marriage vows and her giving him two sons (and heirs to the Throne)! Any way one looks at it, Diana was damaged by Charles's affair.
Now people are saying Meghan is damaging Harry!!
The front part of the vehicle probably isn't called the hood in the UK. Hood may even be an offensive term somewhere in the world. Oh, well, suck it up, buttercup.
It is human nature to confuse a beautiful exterior with a beautiful soul, for lack of a better word. (Not sorry for the offense, atheists.) Attractive people earn more in the marketplace. They get lighter jail sentences for wrongdoing. Unattractive people are treated far more harshly as though the exterior mirrors the interior. (But you never hear much about the prejudice toward the less attractive.) In some cases the public at large are correct; the treatment that a less attractive child receives may warp him/her and the greasing of the skids for an attractive child may give him/her a positive, sunny outlook (or turn them into an entitled menace).
Charles was certainly not as physically attractive as either parent and was judged to be a bad guy by the public in his divorce because his wife was beautiful (and therefore must not have been at fault). Somehow he has spent his life doing good things and staying faithful to the woman that was pilloried in the press for being unattractive. I think he's been very undervalued.
I think it means that Prince Philip is quite ill.
Diana in search of herself. Portrait of the troubled Princess by Sally Bedell - Smith
Shadows of the Princess by Patrick Jephson.
Diana - the closely guarded secret by Ken Warfe
And a superb sky documentary of 2006 Who Killed Diana. Once I watched it I firmly put all conspiracy theories to rest.
Philip is 98 and in poor health. Charles reportedly went directly from the airport after his return from New Zealand to Sandringham to see Philip and, no doubt, to discuss the potential "slimming down" of the Royal Family.
And perhaps to say goodbye.
Charles did not have to marry her, he did so because he needed heirs and she was from a good family and had no reputation. He didn’t stop seeing Camilla, (only for a short while after he was married), Diana found out Charles was still Camilla just before her marriage. It damaged her further, let’s face it...who would be happy?! There was no way to call the wedding off and history was made. Diana was used by Charles so he could have heirs, they were not suited to each other; a giddy teenager and a serous older 30 something year old with vastly different outlooks and interests. It had no future for these reasons too.
Diana was warped by the damage inflicted by the affair and the lies. Even if she wasn’t damaged by her parents marriage breakup, no one could have coped with the immense pressure she was under, from her family, his family and the public. Yes, she used the press for her gain towards the end of her life. I like to think had she married someone else, she might have had a far happier life, and probably still be alive today.
Overall, there’s too much history and info. to go into here. This subject is way off topic Nutties.
However, I believe The Queen and Prince have both earned the right to retire, but I don’t think either was or is down to ill health.
Her unrelenting care and help for those most needy, dying children, for one.
Before Diana, no one would touch an AIDS patient, she changed all that by being photographed holding an AIDS patient by their hand, and spent countless hours nursing her friend who died from AIDS.
I could source all of the above statements, but won’t bother, just quit kicking at a dead woman’s legacy, ok
Happy Holidays to all.
Some true, some not, I am sure.
Sally Bedell Smith’s hit piece, a shrink who never even met Diana? Again, her book sales counted on her negativity views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iJOUCmCBFI
It's worth a listen. (from 18:42 is particularly interesting)
Not one person has disputed the good that Diana did in her life. We all KNOW of the good that she did, but not many people are aware of the negative aspects of her life/personality. I can tell you that I wasn't aware of a lot of this, so it's opened my eyes quite a bit.
None of us were there when Diana was a pregnant young newlywed whom Charles always treated with a mixture of disdain and outright jealousy, for all the negative old stories about Diana, I could counter with equally negative stories of how Charles was cruel to his young wife.
They were definitely not suited to each other, and Charles being the older and seemingly more mature of the pair is mostly responsible for marrying a naive teenager who was head over heels in love with a man who never loved her, he stated so on television interviews from their engagement interview on, watch it and you will see Diana’s heart break when Charles states “Whatever in love, means”
I won’t be quiet about the facts of this, because I was there and saw and read all of it.
Charles used Diana for the Windsor Dynasty, he didn’t love her, he loved Camilla.
She was jealous of Camilla and how Charles loved her more than he did Diana.
I do agree with you . Diana had two son’s, William has accepted it better (in public at least) but I think Harry wants to apportion all the blame onto the press, that was a tiny factor into her untimely death. She dispensed with her RPO, she got into a car not driven by any RPO (and instead driven by a man who had been drinking) and she wasn’t wearing a seat belt (which was often). It appears Harry hasn’t accepted this. Also, if his parents were still married, then Diana would have been with them all. Charles ongoing affair made it impossible for Diana to stay married. So many factors into the demise of Princess Diana.
Harry sought help over his Mother’s death back in 2014 (?), but all of a sudden he’s not coping with it? I think Meghan has purposely stroked and stirred up Harry over his Mother’s death.
She was a Royal who didn’t have to do anything she did, no Royal ever became as closely involved in people’s lives and troubles as she did.
She could have stayed in her Palace easily
"She dispensed with her RPO."
I believe that privilege was taken from her when Charles demanded she lost her 'HRH' status.
"I am not trying to argue, just get tired of people dragging Diana."
Ditto. Well said.
Having sad this, Harry is not the only child to see parents fight and divorce, neither he is the only one to lose his mother young, unfortunately. I do hope he gets a grip and get on with life. His own son may be damaged by ghosts of Harry's past. I certainly hope he doesn't have a drug problem, that would be a disaster for Archie.
I believe that privilege was taken from her when Charles demanded she lost her 'HRH' status’.
Yes, they took the style HRH away (a nasty and needless thing to do to a future King’s Mother). However, it was Diana’s decision to dispense of her RPO (against advice), she didn’t trust them and thought it hindered her freedom etc.
To the extent that the police actually begged her to reconsider. They could clearly see the danger.
Will Meghan Markle and Prince Harry welcome their second child in LA to 'combat duchess' loneliness'? OK! magazine speculates
* Prince Harry, 35, and Meghan Markle, 38, could welcome second child in LA
* Giving birth so far from her friends and family reportedly left her feeling 'lonely'
* The couple could announce a sibling for Archie, six months, as early as February
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7730771/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-welcome-second-child-LA-combat-loneliness.html
Comments are spot on. For someone who's alienated her entire family and ghosted "friends," claiming to be lonely is too precious. I don't think Smeg will ever be satisfied until her life resembles the perfectly idyllic curated instagram image... huge extended royal happy family sitting around the table at Christmas, all perfectly groomed, beautifully set table, perfect meal being served, children are cherubic, Smeg at the place of honor at the table. Anything less and she's not thriving.
Thanks, I stand corrected.
Even the Queen wanted her to retain her 'HRH' status. That fact alone tells me all I need to know about Charles!
"pointing out people's faults is not "dragging" but reality."
Does Charles have any faults that Harry may have inherited?
And talking about their get out of jail cards ,Meghan just did a hashtag-throwback-thursday-on-a-wednesday.
They have another post on their Ig. It's about their 2 year engagement anniversary. Yes, that's right, they are asking us to celebrate their enagagement anniversary. The second one at that. A little strange as it's coming on the heels of Meghan's engagement dress and particularly her shos have been name as one of this decades biggest fashion blunders. She has some gall, that woman. It's so apparent that she just sits there in her cottage going through old pictures of herself, obsessing about the time she used to be thin and keeps posting throwback pictures. They are so out.
" I think many here have pointed out Charles' faults...and he has many."
I must have missed them.
>>>We seriously don't need to know that these two are having sex endlessly just so they can get back at the BRf in the most passive agryway ever.
OMG! Thank you for the laugh.
I think it's beyond passive aggressive at this point. Smeg purposely antagonizes every member of the royal family. She goes out of her way to buck protocol and tradition, breaking every rule. She's the sulky child that when they don't get their own way, they purposely misbehave to make everyone else miserable.
Do people celebrate their engagement?
regarding Charles forcing Diana to drop HRH. Let me give you a quote by the Queen's own press secretary, Charles Anson: "The decision to drop the title is Princess's and Princess's alone. It is wrong that the Queen or the Prince asked her. I am saying categorically this is not true. The Palace does not say something specific on a point like this unless we are absolutely sure of the facts".
The Times noted pointedly that the Queen was irritated that the "Princess camp" had been providing "carefully selected insights" about the whole HRH kerfuffle.
"Also, as I said above...much of the "negative" we have learned about Diana's personality is seen in her youngest son...which also leads me to believe they hold some truth."
I'm genuinely interested and not trying to pick a fight but can you elaborate on which other negative traits he inherited from her apart from the the much discussed MH issues that many believe she suffered from?
Mm is bow giving me very much the sad, ranty, unhappy wallflower vibes. Whatever happened to her strong, independent, feminist self? She just seems to be constantly wallowing in the past. And why post it on Instagram. By these standard Scobie and his journalistic marvel upon reporting about Archie being weaned off breast milk seems sane and above reproach.
So you believe that everything the Palace says is the gospel truth?
She dropped a hundred of her charities and kept only six, in attempt to "have some space" in her life. Michael Adler, the chairman of the National AIDS Tust, said: "When she reduced from one hundred to six organisations, on the whole she didn't do much even for the six. She did less and less for us. We couldn't get her to do something...She was interested in other things, which is fair enough. That's life. But if you are a patron, you have responsibilities.."
Harry is persuite of his "independence" may let his charities down the same way. And that would be incredibly sad.
The intimacy of marriage and the effects of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood triggered emotional instability for Diana, and the differences (age, friends, intellectual interests, romantic vs pragmatic view of marriage ...) between them drove them apart (plus Charles was hopeless at dealing with emotional problems because that was not how he was bought up, which is probably why mental health is so important to his sons). It seems clear that Charles only returned to Camilla as a lover after Harry was born and the problems in the marriage got out of hand and drove Charles and Diana apart. Diana then too had lovers of her own (it seems that before Charles was unfaithful, her dalliances were restricted to flirtations). Both behave badly to each other, as often happens in intimate relationships, which is very human.
The intimacy of marriage and parenthood seem to have triggered emotional and mental health problems for Harry. Megsy probably uses this to control and manipulate him rather than get him help. Perhaps she is just inadequate in dealing with his problems (Megsy has her many failings and weaknesses), just as Charles was with Diana. Mismatched couples!
Charles and Camilla have always been very good friends; William and Kate were god friends before they became romantically involved. Charles and Diana were never friends before they were married, neither were Megsy and Harry. For some, the whirlwind marriage works, but not for Harry and his father.
Thank you for clarifying.
I file it all under "look at me! LOOOOOOK AT ME! ME! OVER HERE! LOOOOOOOK!"
She's so desperate for attention. I'm sure she will come up with something to take the focus off the Queen's Christmas speech. We can consider it our very special Royal Christmas present.
You're as entitled to your views, as I am to mine.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B5X7Wmtl8lX/?utm_source=ig_embed
She really is trying too hard on the PR (has to keep herself in the limelight at all times, even when she is on a supposed 6-week forced private holiday ... oh, but that's a holiday from royal duties, not from self-promotion), and many have become sceptical about the double-hand way she dominates Harry. It's not romantic Megsy; it's creepy!
Good point about other royals having far more reason to lodge complaints than Meghan. Never forget Kate being on tour when those topless photos came out. I think it was the day she visited a tea garden and one of the loveliest photos of her was taken, sipping tea with pearls in her hair. She looked serene and elegant. I did admire that.
There was a mention in one of the broadsheets yesterday that the Sussex's action against the DM had implications for freedom of speech, particularly because the details of their claim are so minor. I really can't see this turning out well for them. Courts would be wary about going far down that road. If they ARE successful, I think they would be awarded minimal damages.
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/post/189332818969/and-the-interview-bbc-your-royal-highness
Her word salad is amazing!
Another one who has some advice to share with Meghan.
https://www.etonline.com/the-crown-star-helena-bonham-carter-has-some-advice-for-meghan-markle-137150
Also, it’s very much silly Public School sort of language and humour that Charles would have been bought up in, and around. Camilla would have understood it. Agree, what goes on and is said between consenting adults is private, just too bad they were both married to other people at time.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/27/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-lawsuit-bad-for-free-speech/
I am sure that is why it was released to begin with. While they are both consenting adults, he was saying those things to a woman who was not his wife. While some people may not bat an eyelash about that today, back when it happened there were many who found it appalling.
I was one of them too! They married when I was in my early teens, so I grew up with it all in the British press.
Over the years and since, I’ve seen and read so much about the royals and what went on in that marriage. To romanticise about that marriage is wrong.
I know people will say 'Well Charles started it' but it's more complicated than that. I've been bothered for years by the manipulative way Diana engaged Charles' attention in the first place, by using Mountbatten's funeral. She recounted how she did it when she was older. She also gave the impression she loved the hardy outdoor life at Balmoral - which was an important indicator to the BRF - when really she loathed it. She may have been young, but she knew what she was doing, and I've always seen Charles as someone who was trapped. He may have been older, but anyone could be caught out by someone like that. I've seen it happen. It was a horrendous marriage, and I don't blame either of them for looking elsewhere. It's not right, but it's understandable.
Oh dear, we're going way off topic. :-/
Appreciate the Helena Bonham Carter article. It's nice to see someone who has some advice for Meg rather than the rest of us.
The Prince William story is cute as well.
Wherever Megs is now, I envision her with a double dirty martini in one hand, and a cigarette (in a holder) in the other shrieking at her team to get her some press "right this freaking minute or heads will roll!"" AND Harry, you get your mitts off that baby! There will be no roughhousing with the retirement plan" "And get me invited to that NATO Gala! I want to wear a tiara, dammit! If I don't get out of this house soon, I am going to run amok! Stupid nannies, babies, husbands, and mothers..... I could be in Ibiza right now"
Those 6 weeks off : IMO, she is pregnant or she’s trying hard (IFV).
Another drama is coming soon... If you were fed up with all the secrecy surrounding the 1st pregnancy, grab some popcorn & wait for the next season !
Episode 1 : is she pregnant : teaser …
Episode 2 : she is pregnant
Episode 3 : she is under pressure, she needs to have a rest in the US
Episode 4 : is it a girl or a boy …?
Episode 5 : her 1st pregnancy was a nightmare in the UK
Episode 6 : the Sussexes decide the US is a safer/better place to have their 2nd child
Episode 7 : the green baby shower n°2
Episode 8 : Archie is so happy to become a big brother
Episode 9 : let’s talk about security details, posh private birthing suites at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical, $1 million to decorate nurserie, Chanel linens, and Burberry diaper bags …
Final Episode : please, stay tuned or watch GMA, TheEllenShow, Gayle King….
2020 is going to be annus horribilis for all of us.
She might even *be* Markle.
To sum up : she's the KINDest person in the world, she is a loving and beloved daughter/wife/mother. What a joke!
Those two may publish a family photo tomorrow if there are all together...
So agree, just seeing Diana walking down the aisle and knowing what was ahead.
This is waaay off topic.
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby defends the 'remarkable' Duchess of Sussex from 'undeserved abuse' and suggests she is a victim of racism as he praises her as a 'person of profound humanity'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7732141/Archbishop-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-defends-remarkable-Meghan-Markle.html
Yes, but only after she knew there was no hope for her and Charles (I most certainly don’t condone having affairs with married men either, and Diana did just that). Charles started the marriage with his ongoing affair with Camilla, no way can that be acceptable or right with any new bride or bride to be.
We have to behave now, or Nutty will be after us for going way off topic and then some more. :o/
Trudy, from what I hear I think Charles's man-servant might squeeze more than just his toothpaste.
I think it was Charles who said that if they issue denials for every falsehood, or object to every warped reporting of facts, the media will assume everything they do not object to is true, and they would spend all their time responding to what the tabloid press and other media outlets put out about them. I think most of them are too busy to do that (other than Megsy who is all about optics!)
The interesting thing is that Megsy has got herself in just such a bind in suing media outlets and extending that case to beyond just violating copyright by printing part of the letter. She really seems to have got herself tied up in knots with this lawsuit, and I suspect that Harry is such a mess that he is enthusiastically going along with it and encouraging it.
When I first heard that she was suing the MOS for printing part of that letter to her father, the first thing I thought was that she would try to reconcile with her father and portray him as manipulated by the MOS. This is ruthless manipulation on her part (she obviously does not care for her father and is using the only member of her family she acknowledges), but her father may fall for it just to be able to see her and his grandson.
If you remember, when the marriage of Charles and Diana fell apart, they both gave TV interviews and gave the go-ahead for friends to speak to the media. It was a disaster for both of them and fed endless tabloid stories about them and their marriage and the breakdown of it. (By he way, infidelity has always been around. DNA analysis has shown an alarming number of people were fathered by someone other than the man their mother was married to, and they never knew! Even today, it depends on where you live as to if it is a shocking scandal or not. Personally, I live in a country where, like France, an affair would never end nor hamper in any way the career of a politician. Last year, a sex tape made on a phone by a cabinet minister was leaked It was graphic and cringe-worthy! He said it was for his wife. The recipient, one of his string of girlfriends, said it was for her. How he was mocked, but it did not end his career as a successful politician; being associated with major corruption did that. And, that a man is untrustworthy if he has an affair is not necessarily true as people can compartmentalise. Two male politicians had affairs and ended up happily married to their mistresses years later, and still have successful political careers, and are honest and decent and make major contributions to the country.)
Amen! The Archbishop is indeed a jackass!
The comments have "been moderated" (read: censored) on that article. Odd. What are they scared of in encouraging a little free and open debate?
I hate to say this, but I am convinced of some nefarious rationale behind Welby's sycophancy. Why would he be such a bleating fangirl of Sparkys?
Sheer intelectual laziness.
But note, also, that the interviewer was leading Wembly by asking specifically whether he thought that Smarkle's critics were racist.
Why didn't she ask him whether he thought that the criticism was due to her behaviour?
She should be completely free to defraud Harry, the Queen and the UK public. She shouldn't be held accountable for her actions especially if it brings any distress to Harry, certainly the depression which worsened it appears post marriage. Meghan should say anything she wants regardless of how unseemingly it sounds. She should be free to ignore protocol and be deceitful (if the allegation is true about surrogacy).
Maybe learned al lot from his father about such matters. Thank you @Jen for pointing out how Charles was so honest and honorable, I hope Meghan benefits from Harry being like his father! lol lol
I won't engage in debating as it my opinion based on what the facts suggest.
Thanks for the info. What baffles me is that it would make sense for Welby to suck up to Kate. She is the future, and he seems ambitious.
Meghan is a virtual nobody and currently being ostracized by anyone in a position to help him. To be so vocal defending her (in such an offensive manner) indicates a different motive.
Perhaps Harry can relate. Maybe the Archbishop is also twuntstruck.
Context:
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is an... archbishop?
It's his *job* to be kind and say nice things. Just like it's a monarch's job to lift their subject's morales during times of war.
My grandparents served *everyone* in the village & helped all the neighbours during the Indonesian communist purge in the '60s. No doubt my grandmother didn't like everyone (because she's b*tchy as hell, just like me LOL).
Christian religious figures usually don't get to be sassy like us New Age type with our tarot/astrology memes (although: same purpose).
And, besides, religious people logic: religious people always try to see the best in people no matter what (to the point of sometimes being in-denial). Try watching a true crime documentary where a religious person (a priest, nun) is a witness & featured in that documentary as a talking head: they'll usually still be kind about things... Even if the subject did the unimaginable. It's not sucking-up, it's just how these people are wired.
Even my sad-ass New Age soul sometimes accepts being treated badly because I think it's "past-life karma" somehow... I feel guilty about world events that I had nothing to do with/caused. I feel like I'm forced to *feel* and endure the guilt because in a past-life I wouldn't have given a sh*t and I'm paying for it in this life-time.
And I think it's unfortunate that it wasn't a GOOD American (like my fellow #ThirdCultureKid @BarackObama) who married into the royal family. Why did it have to be an Ugly American who tries to impose American “values” to her host country? But then I'm always partial to my fellow TCKs & an archbishop doesn't care about anyone's nationality, does he? He's not *supposed* to.
I'm not saying his words shouldn't be taken seriously like the Netflix actors (as a foreigner, I thought the promotional lines designed to appeal to Anglophiles/Americans was patronising/insulting AF, actually—because I happen to actually *understand* the logic behind the requirement that royals be politically-neutral regardless of gender).
FTR, here's my Anglophile intelligence level: I usually don't understand half of what Jonathan Pie says, but for the most part I can intuitively sense when I'm being patronised as a foreigner.
(Dear Netflix: I would rather be the ACTUAL idiot who misconstrues your culture than be talked down to AS IF I were an idiot. So just talk to me like I'm British and let me figure out on my own, please.)
I believe the archbishop believes what he believes and he's just doing his job and what he believes is right (even if misguided). Just context.
FWIW, I disagree with everything he says: I think Deadpool has more inner-beauty than Meghan Markle.
(Good on her for being "ambitious", I guess, but she's not of the mindset of serving anyone but herself & cosplaying/single-white-female-ing your MIL is creepy AF.)
But yes I 100% agree with everyone who says the archbishop probably thinks she's a Mary Magdalene of sorts LMAOOOOOOOOOOO.
Yes, it's also unfortunate that he threw the R-word around, but give him a break? He's an archbishop, what did you expect him to say?
Come on, give the guy a break. 💜
The fact that they're known for being Harvey Weinstein's #MeToo damage control PR firm now just tells you how incompetent (and arrogant) they truly are.
Can't even keep their own names clean.
Amusing to watch them try tho.
HashagSarcasmalert
He sounds like a man who's just been told an extreme sob story to me.
I feel kind of bad for him.
He has nothing to gain from this but people's wrath. It's bad enough to be in a position to justify people being in power/privilege "because God sez so" in 2019.
I can't wait! I'm tired of people weaponising the R-word.
When Homo sapiens eventually homogenise, hopefully people will judge each other based on their character only.
Also, the Archbishop is still just trying to be completely non-judgemental.
*momentarily apologetic*
We don't do "The Crown" here.....
That book you mentioned on Camilla and Charles by Caroline Graham, provided a good insight into their relationship , but I couldn't help feeling that it was biased in Camilla's favour. Nevertheless it explained situations I was not aware of.
As for Welby and his comment about humanitarian Markle , I think the DM article on William and Mother Theresa studying Geography, completely wiped out that humanitarian claim of Markle. The article claimed that not very bright people end up studying Geography. The article was quite funny.
I hope you’re being sarcastic.
"Also, the Archbishop is still just trying to be completely non-judgemental."
I'm not sure accusing people of being racists without evidence is being "nice" or "non-judgmental."
In addition, JW frequently inserts himself into politics. While the UK system does not have a church/state separation like the US (obviously!!!) I'm not sure putting his thumb on the scale is being non-judgmental.
Here are some examples. Please note I've presented them not to take a position of these other issues but just to show the kinds of things he's said.
"In September [2018], addressing the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in Manchester, he criticised firms such as Amazon for paying “almost nothing” in taxes...." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/02/archbishop-of-canterbury-i-am-not-too-political-justin-welby
He also isn't putting his church's money where his mouth is.
"Justin Welby also described zero-hours contracts as “the reincarnation of an ancient evil”, but it later emerged that at least two CofE cathedrals are advertising for zero-hours jobs."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/church-england-amazon-investment-hypocrisy-archbishop-of-canterbury-justin-welby-a8537226.html
He's criticized BJ and his approach to Brexit while laying blame at his feet for many societal ills.
"The Archbishop of Canterbury faced a backlash yesterday after he suggested Boris Johnson and other MPs were pouring 'petrol' on divisions in the country with their rhetoric over Brexit."
"He said his criticisms were not confined to Mr Johnson and his Government, but made it clear he considered the prime minister partly to blame for the fact society had become "quite broken."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7617993/Archbishop-Canterbury-accuses-Boris-Johnson-pouring-petrol-countrys-Brexit-divisions.html
In speaking about points-based immigration, he said "Jesus Christ was of course not white, middle class and British - he certainly wouldn't have got a visa - unless we're particularly short of carpenters."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/archbishop-canterbury-justin-welby-says-20910023
And back to Meghan, last month he spoke out in favor of the 6-week family time break she and Harry were supposedly taking, saying they were "entitled" to take leave.
The UK is very different from the US as those who founded the US were determined not to have a state religion like England had. But you'd think the Archbishop would have more important things to worry about than whether Meghan has sufficient time off from her "demanding" job.
And then obviously, after the outpour of disappointment on social media they will oblige the world with a sneak peak into a staged over the top picture with Archie drooling by Sunday.
I honestly didn't know what his reputation was like in England, so thank you for keeping me informed.
(Still think he was fed a sob story, tho.)
Okay, you have a point about accusing people of being the R-word as "being judgmental".
I actually agree.
The strange/funny/absurd thing about "woke culture is, you can create a "HUMAN CENTIPEDE OF WOKENESS" and there would be no end to it!
So if someone says, "you're RACIST for disliking Meghan Markle!."
Then the person could say, "well you're JUDGEMENTAL for assuming that I dislike her because of her race! The definition of racism is judging somebody based on the colour of their skin & I'm purely judging her character!"
Then a third person would say, "thanks for masplaining racism to me jackass!"
And then another person could say, "how dare you! I get turned on by older men mansplaining things to me in an RP accent & YOU ARE BIGOT who's KINK-SHAMING me!"
And so on...
So it just never ends in woke culture. The truth is, everything everybody says can be twisted into a wrongdoing/framed into something politically-incorrect.
I swear you could just troll a virtue-signaller by accusing them of some wrongdoing for telling you off.
I'm rambling.
But anyway thanks Lizzie. Honestly didn't know what the archbishop's deal is in England.
Queen advertises for new travel chief to make sure Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and other royals use 'efficient, cost effective' flights after row over private jets:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7734413/Queen-advertises-new-travel-chief-make-royals-use-efficient-cost-effective-flights.html
"The Director of Royal Travel vacancy - with an £85,000-a-year salary - comes in the wake of the storm over the Duke and Duchess if Sussex using private jets."
I must say I was a bit disappointed with it for several reasons. First of all, I think both Olivia Colman and Helena Bonham-Carter were miscast in their roles as HMTQ and Princess Margaret. Which is a shame as I love Olivia Colman in other roles. Helena BC was just an over-the-top version of her nutty self and Olivia Colman was (apart from her not really getting under HMTQ’s skin) far too tall for the part. In fact, she towered over several male actors she shared scenes with, which I found very distracting. However, the young actor who plays Charles was absolutely brilliant, I thought.
Also, there was no continuation of the storylines from episode to episode. Every episode was a separate story and can be watched independently from the others. For instance, in the episode re Princess Margaret and her younger lover Roddy Llewellyn, it appeared to be a short-lived fling. When I looked it up afterwards, the relationship lasted 8 years, but had been crammed into one episode. That said, there were some moving episodes, such as the Welsh mining disaster.
I also felt less money had been spent on series 3 than the previous two series. There were hardly any mass scenes or outside scenes and there were virtually no elaborate gowns or large events, which was one of the reasons I loved series 1 and 2. Most scenes were filmed in the rather gloomy sitting rooms in Buckingham Palace.
Any other Nutties who have finished series 3?
HBC is wasted. She does not suit Margaret's character at all, but she us a fine actor. And she is in but scenes here and there. But more than that I do not like the potrayal of princess Margaret. She has been portrayed as listless, unhappy, needy and seems like every walked all over her so she deliberately rebels. Anthony Jones was just as vile a person but the character is a complete 180 in the series.
Anne is shown to be sulky, grumpy and forever scowling. There is not one horse scene. And when does her marriage happen?? Phillip is shown to be having a perpetual.mid life crisis, ffs. And the queen is shown to be such a cow!
There are no nuances to the characters, no story arc, no in-depth feel good long-live-the-queen sentiments are evoked.
Although I get it. The people are still very much alive so they probably can't show any incidences from real life.
And they could have made much more of the Anne character. Her wedding and the kidnapping attempt were not even mentioned. Also, the Windsor children are almost totally absent. I suppose in reality they were quite absent from their parents lives as well.
Perhaps given the crazy with violence world we currently live in, they didn't want to give people ideas more than they can come up with on their own.
I suspect the kids didn't have a lot of together time with their parents and/or it wasn't the kind of thing of worth talking about. Now teaching the kids how to use guns/shooting and isn't this fun ... bet that did happen at Balmoral but might not be mentioned for the violence, anti gun lobby and the militant vegetarians.
(as for the ArchBishop, I still would like to know how that baptism worked out in his schedule)
Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow American Nutties! Looks like none of MM’s grand Thanksgiving plans came to fruition as her IG post seemed rather bland and lifeless. I wonder if a leash is being tightened somewhere. One can only hope.
You don't say!
"efficient, cost-effective FLIGHTS"
I believe there's a German word for what I'm feeling right now
Yes, I was being sarcastic. But I do believe the royals could try do better when it comes to being greedy for monetary opportunities, personal behavior (like Harry and Wills past drunken behavior while young adults, adultry) amd sexual indiscertions (associating with sexual perverts like Charles and Andrew have).
@Fairy Crocodile
I have posted frequently but of late, several have piled on me and made it personal, insulting or challenging me to a protracted interchange that set off others to veer off course from the subject with no relevance to the thread. I was just announcing I don't want to be dogged and it was just my opinion, not a provocation to those few to start in on me (after all Nutty wants us to keep it civil and not argue, her words not mine).
Yes, I agree history had worse example but I did not name those as I figured readers would jump on me (as some have done lately) as hating the monarchy as a whole (which actually I have a lot of respect for most of them). I thought using the Queen's current family made it a reasonable because it is all under her reign (although now we see she neither has real power to keep her family in line nor does she care to of late IMO).
I’ve seen some online speculation that it’s MM’s sly way of indicating they’re in Canada with the Mulroney family.
@Fairy Crocodile
>>> As for the churchman rushing to defend MM it serves as another good illustration why Church attendance in UK is plummeting<<<
IMO people (Christians) should go to Church not because of the Clergy but because of their relationship to their Lord. I believe one of the main reasons for the decline in Church attendance is because people don't feel the need rather than one "churchman" has turned them against it I think it is wonderful if one is fortunate to have an inspiring sermon to listen to at your service, but if not, one can still say prayers to the Almighty. I for one finds it disheartening to see the decline in church attendance, much like the decline in morality (cause and effect perhaps?). I think the decline (among Christians) is in no small way attributable to personal laziness.
The clergy should admonish people if he sees malicious gossip. uncharitable attitudes, outright sins, especially racism.
I find Welby's remark regarding racism with respect to Meghan a bit over-the-top as I believe the majority of those who dislike or have negative opinions of Meghan has nothing to do with the color of her skin. Not having read the entire content of the quote I can only conjecture that maybe he is asking people to examine their conscience for 'subtle racism;.
I had a look at that leaf. It is not the stylized leaf that we usually use to indicate Canada. I think that it is a leaf to indicate fall.
Ah, thank you. Perhaps MM could add foonotes to her posts for her British audience !
I enjoyed OC and HBC much more than I expected I would, as I took it for what it was— a loosely based historical fiction.
Does anyone know when season 4 is released? We want more more more.
Watch Smirkle's butt inflate, then deflate.
And the Aberfan episode was so moving. Okay, I may have choked up a bit. A lot.
But totally agree with the other comments. And I too, am turned off by Olivia Coleman's comments. Which should serve as warning to every celebrity who uses his or her fame to indulge in political commentary (as they all seem to do). They certainly have the right, but they are turning off at least half of the people who pay to see them.
And from the US...happy Thanksgiving! I sincerely hope each of you have many many things to be grateful for.
As a final note, neither myself nor any of my friends actually had any idea that she was mixed-race until H announced it to the media a couple of years ago, and no-one had ever heard of her as an actress either. Her level of delusion is astronomical, and I am absolutely disgusted at the willingness with which she plays the race card, and this latest reinforcement via Welby disgusts me entirely - it undermines so much that has been long fought for in the pursuit of equality. I am appalled at this shitshow, and it's long overdue the pair of them were removed permanently.