Earlier this year, in response to a blind item on Crazy Days and Nights, I predicted that Duchess Meghan would be out of the Royal Family by the end of the year. This prediction was received with a great deal of mockery - you're delusional! you're a racist!, etc.
Now it is December 31. Was I correct? It's hard to tell.
"Family in the US" would presumably be Meg's mother in California, since she has cut off everyone else.
But there's no evidence that Doria ever spent time with the Sussexes during the period, or that the Sussexes were in California at all.
Locals supposedly saw Harry hiking nearby; a local restaurant claimed to have denied the Sussexes a reservation because their security team would have been too disruptive. In fact, one account suggested that the compound had been putting up additional security fencing as early as December 19, roughly two weeks ago.
Here's the thing: do Meg and Harry really need that much security, particularly since nobody supposedly knew where they were?
When Boris Johnson and his latest squeeze can fly economy class on their Christmas holidays, and wealthy megacelebrities like Paul McCartney can stand in line with his wife to buy tickets to a movie (something a friend of mine experienced; Paul turned down offers to let him skip ahead), how much security do the sixth and perhaps the seventh in line to the throne really need?
One of the best security tactics is surprise; if no one knows Duchess Kate is going to be in a particular Waitrose at a particular time, she can pop in with a single bodyguard and do her shopping, as long as she doesn't dilly-dally.
It's hard to believe that Meg and Harry in an unexpected location would need extensive security planning, although they might think they do. As Enty often says, the more insecure and status-obsessed the celebrity, the bigger the entourage.
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced they were ever in Canada. The evidence is all second-hand, and there have been no smartphone photos from ordinary polite Canadians (or boorish tourists.)
Now it is December 31. Was I correct? It's hard to tell.
The visit to California
Meghan is clearly not in the UK at writing, although it is difficult to puzzle out where she is and who she is with. Originally, the "six week break", now in its seventh week and counting, was supposed to give Meg and Harry a chance to relax and reconnect with family in the US."Family in the US" would presumably be Meg's mother in California, since she has cut off everyone else.
But there's no evidence that Doria ever spent time with the Sussexes during the period, or that the Sussexes were in California at all.
The Canada stay
Several items have been leaked suggesting that the Sussexes are staying at a private compound near Vancouver, Canada.Locals supposedly saw Harry hiking nearby; a local restaurant claimed to have denied the Sussexes a reservation because their security team would have been too disruptive. In fact, one account suggested that the compound had been putting up additional security fencing as early as December 19, roughly two weeks ago.
Here's the thing: do Meg and Harry really need that much security, particularly since nobody supposedly knew where they were?
When Boris Johnson and his latest squeeze can fly economy class on their Christmas holidays, and wealthy megacelebrities like Paul McCartney can stand in line with his wife to buy tickets to a movie (something a friend of mine experienced; Paul turned down offers to let him skip ahead), how much security do the sixth and perhaps the seventh in line to the throne really need?
One of the best security tactics is surprise; if no one knows Duchess Kate is going to be in a particular Waitrose at a particular time, she can pop in with a single bodyguard and do her shopping, as long as she doesn't dilly-dally.
It's hard to believe that Meg and Harry in an unexpected location would need extensive security planning, although they might think they do. As Enty often says, the more insecure and status-obsessed the celebrity, the bigger the entourage.
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced they were ever in Canada. The evidence is all second-hand, and there have been no smartphone photos from ordinary polite Canadians (or boorish tourists.)
Unconfirmed rumors
Ann, a regular poster on CDAN, suggested the other day that Harry was in a combined rehab/mental health facility in the UK. Meg was in North America by herself, she said.
To quote Ann: I'm hearing the Harkle divorce is in process. Markle got herself thrown out of the BRF in record time. Harry's in inpatient treatment in England. The BRF have custody of Archie. The DNA test didn't lie. Unfortunately Markle did and her settlement is going to be considerably much less since Archie isn't Harry's biological son. The whole sad tale should be over sometime in the second quarter of 2020.
(The inpatient treatment was) originally for treating his depression but they discovered he had developed some addiction issues trying to medicate his depression. I'm glad he's getting some help.
This is the very definition of an unconfirmed rumor, but it fits the British Royal Family's proven pattern of never leaving one of its own behind on the battlefield. (See: Prince Andrew.)
It would also explain the ludicrous photoshopped Christmas card, and the lack of other Sussex material during November and December.
And the timing - the second quarter of 2020 - would allow the BRF to say that the marriage lasted for two full years, making the extravagant Sussex wedding look slightly less silly.
It may just be a guess, but it's an interesting guess.
And the timing - the second quarter of 2020 - would allow the BRF to say that the marriage lasted for two full years, making the extravagant Sussex wedding look slightly less silly.
It may just be a guess, but it's an interesting guess.
No respect from the press
Finally, the lack of respect the British press is showing for the Harkles is notable. An article in the Telegraph, often nicknamed "The Palacegraph" because it is used as an outlet for the Royal family and its courtiers, said earlier this week
While for a time it seemed that the idea of Harry and Meghan joining forces with William and Kate as the “fab four” was one of the most positive royal PR stories of the last ten years, we start the new decade with the two couples running two separate courts, the Cambridges’ conventionally Royal, the Sussexes’ increasingly like a Hollywood entourage.
The way they have conducted themselves since their marriage, and the birth of their son earlier this year, has caused considerable consternation among courtiers. The decision to absent themselves from some family gatherings and the secrecy that surrounded their son’s christening, have gone down badly among sticklers for protocol.
The Sussexes have attracted public criticism given they receive money from the Sovereign Grant and are, as such, effectively public servants. Some courtiers fully expect the Duchess to want to go to live in California, not least because she apparently complains about the weather and other aspects of life in Britain; and it is assumed that if she went, her husband and child would go with her.
Emphasis mine. Anyway, that doesn't sound like a Royal Family that is looking to make nice or include the Duchess in its activities in the future, or one that is encouraging the press to show her respect.
Meghan's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday is still in progress - suggesting that she won't get the generous settlement she was hoping for - and its sister publication the Daily Mail is being hard on Meghan as well.
It openly suggested that the Sussex Christmas card was a fake, and then mocked her branding exercise, in which Sussex Royal applied for copyright on "more than 100 items, from teaching materials and emotional support groups to clothing and even newspapers."
The DM didn't seem too worried about the possible competition from Meg.
At any rate, the UK newspapers that play a game of be-nice-so-you-can-get-access with the Royal Family now seem to understand that they are no longer required to be nice to Meghan.
We will punish your family
In an earlier blog post, I mentioned that a harsh story in the New York Post about the high administrative costs of the Royals' charities ("Why Americans are wasting their money donating to British Royal charities") was probably retaliation for Prince Harry's lawsuit against its sister paper The Sun.
Murdoch and his team were saying: get Harry to drop the lawsuit, or we will go after the rest of the Royal Family.
The Mail seems to be playing the same game. It ran an extremely unflattering story about the Queen this week, suggesting that she encouraged the UK government not to close an immigration loophole since it might affect her access to horse groomers.
Today there was another unflattering story about how the Queen wants to build a massive storehouse for her art collection in Windsor, but that the local council was opposed because of the risk of flooding.
Both stories made the monarch look arrogant and self-serving, and both could have easily been sent to the circular file in a time when relations between the Royals and the media were more friendly.
The Mail would like to see the lawsuit targeting its organization dropped as well.
Is Meghan finished in the Royal Family?
To return to the initial question: is Meghan finished in the Royal Family?
The indications are strong that she has not only burned off any goodwill she may have had with the British public, but that the chaos she has created is (along with the Andrew scandal) damaging the popularity of the entire Royal Family.
I think her days are numbered. I wonder if she will ever return to Britain at all.
Comments
When it comes to clothes I think it is a different arrangement. I know two things about it: Royal can't accept free stuff and they donate their old clothes to undisclosed charities.
I have never seen a link to an online shop where you can buy a copy of the Queen's or Anne's or Camilla's or Kate's outfit next to their public engagement picture, so looks like there is a provision to stop commerce on their image.
I think that is why so many people raised eyebrows about "Meghan's Mirror" style online copies of her and Archie's stuff with links next to her pics.
Megs can be totally innocent, of course, but if she is getting some money out of it it would be very unroyal behavior. I would think the Queen would have stepped in to stop it.
Puleeze, my mom was in her early 20s and ma dad was a year older when they had me, and I figured out how to respond to blog posts and people's comments just recently. May be because I am thick regardless of my parents age!
You are totally fine. Love.
I have wondered if the heavier Markle appearance had to do with fertility issues because estrogen is stored in fat tissues. I have read that overly thin women go into earlier menopause although I am not sure that is technically correct. More a case of very low body fat causes the cessation of the monthly cycle as a survival mechanism. She has probably been underweight for a *very* long time, plus she may have contracted some STDs along the way which wouldn't have helped.
The comments were moderated when you commented and still are, less than 600 comments. If they weren’t, there’d be thousands. Unsure why and still. Perhaps PR influence?
I think Archie looks like Meghan and her Father in that photo, with Harry’s close together eyes. Archie is a better looking baby then Harry was.
For those asking, it was Swampwoman who mentioned Archie’s different coloured trouser legs. I personally think it’s a trick of the light. One leg is in more shade than the other. Lovely photo of both Archie and Harry.
1) Archie is a strange name for their child, if the stories are true that MM had a cat named Archie. His press conference debut was bizarre. As a newborn he was sound asleep, the entire time. We did not even see him blink or wiggle.
2) A source close to the Sussex duo said the palace did not know how to "harness" their potential. That the duo either needed or were told to take a 6 week break demonstrates that the Firm does fine without their special brand of chaos.
3) At the International Women's Day panel MM denied reading online such as Twitter. She admitted she reads the Economist, but spoke rudely and dismissively to the moderator. If this is true, why bother to sue the Mail?
4) There are several clips of her available online showing her elbowing people or pushing past them (including Harry)! Most of us, if we physically bump into another person, at least stop to see if they are OK.
I keep going round and round on the pregnancy issue. However, between the changing bump size, the square bump, the folding bump, the jello bump, the swinging bump, I just can’t say she was pregnant. The uterus just doesn’t behave that way…it’s a firm, protective organ.
As for Harry, being trapped by a narc strips a soul of its foundation. Like others, I believe he has unresolved mental health issues that are compounded by substance abuse. Little Archie is his lifeline right now. I just don’t think he has the ability or the incentive to escape someone like Meghan…it requires too much self-reflection, honesty, strength, focus and resolve. Harry is nowhere near ready. I suspect that he is only in the beginning of his narc experience.
On a positive note, the Earthshot initiative sounds promising with its focus on solutions. While Prince Charles gets much (deserved) credit for his environmental efforts, his father Prince Philip has long promoted environmental and conservation programs. What Prince William is doing is important, and continues a rich family tradition.
Thank goodness for the Cambridges.
You're right in that Megs doesn't listen. I don't know what kind of experiences you've had with personality disorders like hers. From my experiences, I can tell you that Meg's cannot listen to anyone. She's incapable of that. It's a crushing shame really, and very hard to understand let alone accept. But that's the way it is for people who insist their way is the only way and the world is wrong and they are right.
What I find puzzling is that the Harkles are funded by the British people. Why are they allowed to operate with so much secrecy? Do other Royals behave this way or just these two?
What I find puzzling is that the Harkles are funded by the British people. Why are they allowed to operate with so much secrecy? Do other Royals behave this way or just these two?
The Harkles are alone in their disrespect for the hand that feeds. The Brits are not happy funding these two workshy apologies for Royals.
I thought the 'Duchy' was trademarked and the income goes back to charitable uses. I'm don't believe what people accuse of Meg "merching" is the same whatsoever. I have even saw a skin care company online tgat had Meghan's face, etc promoting the product as one she used (it was a blatant look of Meghan being used for commerical purposes).
Queen, Charles and other senior royals have private revenues from their estates as well. Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster are very juicy sources of revenues.
Queen pays a "voluntary" amount which is equal to the current income tax rate I believe.
I am not sure how UK pays for security arrangements and official travels of the royals, it seems to come from a different account altogether.
That is not the same as selling souveniers. Selling actual merchandise is not "merching".
Hope that helps.
It is an area that directly affects Londoners as the Met budget is finite so every penny spent on the royals is a penny less on keeping the people of London safe from crime.
Five very obvious merching incidents come to mind:
--at Eugenie's wedding, when she wore three or four tacky gold rings on one hand, and posed unnaturally with her hands by her face
--at Prince Louis' christening, when she carried olive toned leather gloves in July
--at the wedding in the oversized Oscar de la Renta bathrobe dress
--at the old folks home, wearing the too small summer dress in December (remember how she opened her coat right away?)
--In Ireland, when she carried the oversized and empty looking briefcase style handbag
I don't know if these qualify as merching but 1. That hideous and obscenely priced Caftan dress in Morrocco 2. Those outrageously expensive earrings (approx. $25,000) she wore I think to that wedding in Italy?
I just can't see that Charles would have paid such large amounts of money when he (and Harry) is supposedly a skinflint..
Don't suppose anyone has any RPF recs about the BRF with 'H' (and possibly MM, but preferably as notp) as an MC? A redemption arc could be interesting.
So, about that 'hitting the ground running' thing...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1222869/meghan-markle-royal-engagements-kate-middleton-maternity-hardest-working-royal-2019
Rach may have only done 28 royal engagements in 2019, but her embarrassing behavior to engagement ratio was quite the ROI for the taxpayers lol. @KitKat's list of five events above -- each are burned into my brain from the inappropriate breach-and-cringe factors.
It will be interesting to see how many (if any?) Rach does in 2020.
Also, this: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1222799/meghan-markle-news-prince-harry-new-years-eve-party-tycoons-monaco-royal-family-spt
Does that look like a little warm up for 2020, foreshadowing of bigger reveals to come? Does to me, because I can't see any reason why 2017 NYE plans would matter otherwise...
I did an advanced search earlier on Twitter, just to see how much C&C and W&K and RoyalFamily accounts are RTing H&Rach, and the answer is, not very much at all. I really think Canada was chosen for them, and they've been given adult time-outs or, quite possibly, cut loose entirely. Can you imagine Rach flitting all over LA embarrassing the BRF on every pap walk? I think they were locked down tight, hence the tight "security", which, if true, would make @Nutty's 2019 prediction pretty close to reality.
Every time there's a piece about them hiking it just strikes such a false note. Their PR is trying to sell an image of a young, healthy couple tramping the hills, revelling in the great outdoors and the spectacular scenery. I'm just not buying it, their natural habitat is the city after dark. PR obviously thinks if we're told often enough they're enjoying wholesome pursuits we'll fall for it, but we weren't born yesterday.
"I think they have their place in the RF and while they do things differently, I do think if they listen, he could pull off this folksy, down to earth, hands-on Diana type of approach with her in the background supporting him. If she tried hard, she could do that but I think she most likely doesn’t believe she needs to change her approach."<<<
Harry has had his whole life to listen, 35 years worth of listening. Period. No excuse for his current behavior. He is deliberately going against what he has been told, instructed, ordered, advised, etc...
Harry may at one point seemed like he could be a little like Diana but it has not been very apparent in a long time. It seems the more time marches on, the less he is like Diana.
Meghan not only won't be in the background we have seen her rude, crude elbowing Harry and others out of the way. She acts like an 11-year-old boy pushing a schoolmate in the cafeteria line to get the last desert. How piggish she is.
Meghan support Harry? What a joke, she has been almost overwhelmingly bad for him and even their brand Sussex. Being 'Markled' is not just a sarcastic term it is a truth of the negative effect she has on things, events and people. Some describe her as Wallis 2.0 but that would be an insult to Wallis.
Markle is the worst thing that happened to Harry (after the death of his Mummy) and I dare say the worst he is likely to encounter in the foreseeable future. He would definitely be better off (and by extension the BRF and the UK) without Meagain.
@tatty Thank you for explaining your POV.
A couple thoughts:
- Friends could not conceive even after multiple rounds of IVF. Their doctors determined there was an issue with the wife’s eggs. So, the couple used an egg donor with the husband’s sperm. They used an agency that allowed them to look at photos of the donors. (Apparently, not every agency allows this.) The wife then carried and successfully delivered fraternal twins. The twins are in their early teens now and the little girl looks so much like the wife. It’s very possible for a child conceived via IVF to look like a parent even if they don’t carry that parent’s DNA.
So, Archie could be Harry’s biological child or not. However, the Queen’s naming him as her eighth great-grandchild leads me to believe he is Harry’s bio child. This most recent photo of Harry and Archie at the waterfront is beautiful. Perhaps Meghan was not present when it was taken. Narcs demand that all attention from their mate be on them and not their children. Perhaps, without Meghan present, Harry could relax and simply enjoy his child.
- The Duke of Cambridge is known to plant fake stories to see who around him is discreet — and who is not. Ann at CDAN seemed to have quite specific inside knowledge. Perhaps she was fed partly true and partly incorrect information. “A divorce is pending but Archie is not Harry’s child.” That would make it easy to track who leaked so that the leak could be stopped.
- I watched the Harkle’s year-end video a few times and it seemed to me that Harry’s clips were longer than Meghan’s and really highlighted his high points and old smiling personality. Meghan’s clips seemed shorter and stopped abruptly — before she received any accolades. She walked into SmartWorks and the shot ended. She walked into the forum and the clip cut out. The end of the video lingered over the image of Harry and Archie before finishing with the shot of Harry and Meghan shaking hands with the crowd. But, in that last shot, Meghan was bent over and partly obscured. I believe the RF produced that video and it is telling. Meghan will be cut back and curtailed.
If this happens and she is sidelined and restricted more and more, she will get sick of that treatment and leave for what she believes to be greener, more glorious pastures.
Many posters here have commented on how Meghan because of her 'Narc' Personality Disorder has taken Harry hostage of her emotional abuse and control. I don't like to comment on that per se because it is using a Mental Health label but I see how it sure seems like it to me based on her behavior.
I think the BRF hands are somewhat tied, except to tighten the purse strings and reduce the couple's ability to have public engagements where they can. Even then, Harry being patron of a number of endeavors (along with a few for Meg) are going to be in all practicality free to live their life kind of unfettered. The commercialization of the Sussex name I would think the Queen would be able to do something but with her history of overlooking things (like PA) will she? Charles may be reluctant to crack down because to criticize Harry is to perhaps find fault with how Harry has been brought up and mentored as an adult. Then there is the optics of criticizing Meghan a mixed-race married-in. Political correctness, ugh. (sometimes it doesn;t work well).
KitKatKisses,
To your list of instances of MM's merching outfits, I would add her visit to London's National Theater when she wore a peach Brandon Maxwell outfit. It was January, and that outfit was obviously a spring or summer outfit. Really nice outfit, but inappropriate for the time of year and no coat.
The peach outfit, jewelry at tennis, luggage...keep them coming.
'- The Duke of Cambridge is known to plant fake stories to see who around him is discreet — and who is not. Ann at CDAN seemed to have quite specific inside knowledge. Perhaps she was fed partly true and partly incorrect information. “A divorce is pending but Archie is not Harry’s child.” That would make it easy to track who leaked so that the leak could be stopped.'
I think PW probably got this trick from the courtiers, and that's the first thing I thought when I read Nutty's repost of Ann's post, that it was a purposeful false clue. I don't doubt Archie is PH's biological child despite their probable use of a surrogate. I don't think MM would ever be so sloppy about her meal ticket.
I'm going to use my intuition (ESP) lol, and say I believe it.
Californians now have a civil cause of action against anyone who distributes a fake sex video or photo with their likeness.
California will bar surveillance by drones and other electronic equipment in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
>>>California will bar surveillance by drones and other electronic equipment in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.<<<
That is going to be a sticky wicket,,, like whether a drone flying in the air over a backyard,. would that be considered private with a fence around it? I was in a 3rd-floor condo when a police helicopter flew by at almost eye-level and I swear I could almost see the whites of the eyes of someone inside the copter. They could maybe see me clealry at my dining room table eating.
>>>As a matter of fact Ann has been correct and Nutty would not have quoted her if she did not have some cred!<<<
That's what I think. I also get tired of a certain someone denigrating other popular blogs or twitter accounts just because they vehemently disagree. Even if another blog/source is wrong part of the time they can still be right part of the time! After all, if we are intellectually honest, most, if not all of us would say we are only speculating about these things and may be wrong part of the time.
I for one like to read this blog (and others) despite the 'success' rate of the blog administrator's predictions or theories..
I think that the element of the law may be well settled. I know in my rural area a person less than 1/2 mile from me flies over my property whit what looks like a gocart with wings, lol and for sure that person can see down at me and my acreage. He must only be about 100-200 ft in the air. The airspace is unrestricted but I guess this law would make such a person unable to take pictures (but in Texas real estate sites sometime show property photos from above).
Like WA, (No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded), the California Constitution expressly provides for a right to privacy. For example, in WA, because of Art 1, Sec 7, DUI road blocks are unconstitutional. I looked up CA's and it states that "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.
The drone issues will be interpreted applying existing case law re that expectation of privacy, and any new legislation (though I expect most of the interpretation will be left to the courts, as it is in WA). I guess that's my way of saying that the interpretation won't be completely out of left field. Still, it will be interesting, and I think of benefit to almost everyone, and if H&Rach go to CA (something I do not expect will happen), they'll love this law.
Right to privacy sounds good on paper but just like a lot of other rights, it may take courts to rule on the ins and outs (fine deatils), like has happened on right to life and liberty and even more vague, the right to the pursuit of happiness (ie. which if you are a pervert you can't engage in what makes you happy under certain circumstances).
>>>"... H&Rach go to CA (something I do not expect will happen), they'll love this law."
I bet they won't love the CA Supreme Court allowing the homeless to camp out/live on public sidewalks, etc.. Calif, especially LA, has become a stinking cesspool of human excrement (the actual poop) and disease. My brother took a train trip from the Southern border of California all the way up to northern California and it is filth all the way he said. I'm glad I had the good sense to sell my house in 1997 and leave, never to go back.
I think the honeymoon period for the Sussex marriage is likely over. The love-bombing of Harry by his narcissistic wife is finished and the devaluation stage is underway for Harry. I think something is amiss with her alleged pregnancy and birth, but with so many possible twists, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what happened. Too many possible scenarios.
My guess is that Harry is either infertile or has fertility problems due to the undescended testicle that had to be surgically retrieved when he was young, but that Mayhem was hell-bent on having a baby as quick ad possible to lock Harry into the marriage for at least a little longer, to set her biological claws into the RF forever, and to use a child as a means to insure at least some sort of financial settlement in the event of a divorce.
Meghan herself could also have fertility issues, and combined with Harry’s possible issues, especially if he was infertile, I can easily see the arrogance of her narcissism taking over and Meghan taking matters into her own hands and getting herself fertilized via IVF of one of her eggs and using a sperm donor after picking someone similar to Harry out from a donor catalogue and then presenting the pregnancy to Harry as “Wow, aren’t we lucky to have conceived so fast!” without telling him she used a donor or convincing him that due to her superior intelligence, that using a donor would be no problem and she could make the ruse work because she had it all planned out.
If she was already pregnant, the horse was already well out of the barn, leaving Harry not with many options when a baby was on the way.
In my eyes, Meghan is not much different than the hordes of women who sleep with professional athletes, famous musicians, and other successful men with the sole goal of getting pregnant to insure an income. The only difference is that Meghan had to wait until she was married to him because an out-of-wedlock pregnancy wouldn’t sit well with HM, and possibly prevent a marriage. Prince Albert of Monaco has a baby momma, and he didn’t marry her.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7842507/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-mark-New-Year-hitting-10MILLION-Instagram-followers.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
As for homelessness, I'm not going to go there. It's nothing H&Rach will need to deal with.
>>> It's nothing H&Rach will need to deal with.<<<
If H&M want to step on the public sidewalk in LA they may step in human excrement and may be exposed to disease (just like in a third world country). I saw the ugly photos of sidewalk after sidewalk covered by tents of homeless camping out and up to the front door of stores. Hordes of homeless milling around the streets. Bubonic plague has broken out in LA ( a few police personnel have gotten it) and it is feared that cholera might eventually break out. Yikes!!!
"With city residents dealing with poop on the streets (there’s an app for that now, called “SnapCrap”) and used needles from the some 10,000 people who sleep on the sidewalks, elected officials finally decided to act. The trash, used needles, and human waste littering California’s cities have led to increased numbers of rats and—along with them—fleas and deadly diseases. There were 13 reported cases of typhus in California in 2008, spiking to 167 in 2018, while hepatitis A, tuberculosis, and staph has been spreading aggressively in San Francisco and other California cities."
"During an interview on Periscope, Dr. Drew, said,that just after Los Angeles had to deal with with a typhus outbreak, the city should brace for an imminent outbreak of the bubonic plague — the same disease that killed 60 percent of the European human population in the late Middle Ages.
It is so nasty I doubt Megs will be volunteering at the Union Rescue Mission next Thanksgiving.
>>>So, in order to know what is a reasonable expectation, we would not look to our personal opinions, but what to the CA Supreme Court has already signed off on. <<
Ha! Ha! On a personal note, some of us can have pretty accurate legal opinions...just last Monday I matched my knowledge with a Judge and I insisted I was right and she said no (I was appealing a favorable verdict because I wanted a better monetary award). I went home only to have a sheepish call later, the judge's clerk called to say I was right. So personal (educated) opinion is sometimes right and respected by the court (even if it takes the judge to realize it before a judicial error is made. But as you probably know, case law is still law before a state Supreme Court weighs in on a matter (as they don't typically have to get involved on the vast majority of legal issues.)
PH appears to love his child, and it's a first time for me seeing either one holding the child with so much love.
Hopefully PH is not with Markle the Grifter in Canada, but healing without her.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/01/blind-items-revealed-32.html
Difficult to tell until we see them together in public a few times, but in the last few months before they went on a long holiday (some folks get all the luck!), she was mixing love bombing with devaluing (the latter becoming more overt but still in a sly, manipulative, covert way). Harry is now reduced to respectfully standing way back (hands clasped together, head down) while she greets people first in the most annoyingly arrogant and condescending way (she does not even pretend to negotiate who goes first and has dropped the shy girl pose, although no doubt we will see it again.) However, she spent 7 seasons on Suits where she used all the love bombing moves as an actress, was so in love with Trevor for 7 years as girlfriend followed by 2 years as wife, so she can stick to something for years and does not abandon it (abruptly and decisively) until she has secured something better. Plus, I think she was genuinely in love with Harry ... well, as much as a narc can be. This was the man who could give her all the fame, wealth, status she ever wanted and he was a prince who would give her a title and tiaras and she would conquer the UK and the whole world. It was heady stuff for her.
By chance the first shop we came to that morning was the Buck House Gift Shop (or Grockle Trap, as such places are called where I live) and we went in out of curiosity - lo and behold! There were the mules, with my name on, so to speak! Actually, they say `Buckingham Palace', with a rather florid 17th Century-style lion, unicorn & St Edward's crown in `gold' silky embroidery on white towelling.
I would never have bought, except for saying that I'd get the first pair I saw, but they make me smile every time I put them on my peasant feet and worth every penny of the inflated price...
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS-rPNDYTOFlwa1YJHHeSKkaVX14lnd_dBGtT4w05KgkLYATP9s
William seems to still be close to his father but I wonder about Harry's relationship with his father and brother now (and black and white photography is not cutting edge or trendy Megsy, but I suppose it is important for the brand you are trying to establish).
Is this period of sweetness and light just a case of Hoovering? Sucking us back into believing that all is well and we've been imagining it all? I don't trust them an inch.
The to-do over Archie's birth put me in mind of the end of James II's reign in 1688 - how we scoffed in history lessons when we were told that people thought a live baby had been smuggled into his queen's bedchamber in a warming pan. How ridiculous! How gullible were people then! To think that there wasn't a real royal baby!
Doesn't seem so daft now, does it?
I even wonder what other aspects of history are likely to repeat themselves?
From what we've said before, it looks as if Diana must bear at least some of the blame for the way Harry thinks, in the way she tried to compensate for his envy of William. We also reckon that MM has worked on this with Harry.
Now I fear that they will make sure that this envy, hatred, sense of injustice, call it what you will, is carried on into the future with Archie, by dripping poison into his ear as he grows, making sure he bears a grudge against his Cambridge cousins. Goodness knows where this could lead but, as a loyal subject of HM and her heirs, I am alarmed at the possible consequences, especially when the Harkles are aiming at a younger generation.
Yankee Wally's Twitter account in the last few days has featured a mock-up portrait of MM as Queen, together with a verse of the National Anthem, hardly sung since 1745 when Charles Edward Stuart was still marching south and George II feared for his throne, but amended to suit MM. Wally sees it as blasphemous; I felt sick.
It just needs a critical mass of gullible idiots and we are in deep trouble. It was bad enough when Diana died but this would be far worse - back to a world of usurpers and treason, with the R-factor as well.
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!
On second thoughts, it didn't need to be amended but in the Harkles' case, it looks like psychological projection, typical narc behaviour.
The `portrait' can be found by searching for `Queen Meghan Portrait' - available from Popsugar apparently.
Glad I could be of help...case law and those who understand (personal educated opinions) it, can use it while state Supreme Court opinions rarely weighs in/interjects on issues.
I also think that Harry's envy of William is poisoning his psyche. He should have been taught that they would be working for the same goal, i.e. representing the nation, but would both have different roles. His role would be supporting William, and he could have a richer private life away from the media, whereas William's would be more exposed and he would have to deal with that burden.
Yankee Wally also mentions how Oprah's magazine, O, rebukes the Queen for not having a photo of Harry and Meghan on Her desk during Her Christmas Message. And is indignant that an American magazine would think it any of their business to second guess Her Majesty! I totally concur. Who do they think they are?
I'm sad for him that he lost his connection with his brother and Kate. If she really loved Harry she'd encourage a relationship with his family, not isolate him from them.
1. Hyperbole about her (achievements, capabilities, popularity ...)
2. Putting others in the royal family down
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1222987/meghan-markle-news-latest-instagram-update-royal-sussex-royal-family-prince-harry-duchess
Nope, no meltdown but gotta get ahead of the Cambridges so if it doesn't happen just lie and say it did.
https://www.ibtimes.com/kate-middleton-prince-william-reportedly-threatened-meghan-markles-intelligence-2895112
Admittedly, this is from Megsy stans, but really?!
https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markle-doesnt-queen-elizabeths-jewelry-collection-duchess-not-banned-borrowing-2895248
Best of all ... Megsy does not get to dip into the royal jewellery vault because the pieces are not what she likes. Really, Megsy? Throwing shade at the Queen's jewellery now?
Since MM has very little intelligence, I doubt W&K are the least bit threatened. The woman has done nothing to show me that she has any more intelligence than a 5th grader, so her stans are clearly showing their level of intel as well. Poor saps.
During the Australian, New Zealand and region tour last year it was reported that Markle wanted to wear a tiara for Figi state dinner but Harry was told by Prince Charles it was not appropriate for her to do so. That (apparently) prompted her wearing those hugely expensive (and very ugly) earrings which were borrowed from Butani, a Hong Kong diamond broker.
I think Markle would crawl over hot coals to get her grubby little paws in the royal jewellery collection, but it won't happen unless it's an incredibly special occasion.
Nutty says in this post that she predicted earlier last year (I remembered it is 2020 now!) that Meghan would be out of the BRF by the end of the year. Whether that was from rational analysis or intuition, Nutty was not wrong at all. Meghan ended the year on another continent, without attending any BRF festive events at all, after a storm of bad press, on an extended holiday, because she is simply living and not thriving, that really is already longer than 6 weeks (geez Louise, try actually working a 50-hour week on a job with performance reviews and deadlines and see how you cope!). Spot on Nutty because Meghan was out of the BRF by the end of the year (despite mentions from senior royals, but the Queen mentioned her father in her speech so a mention can be misinterpreted, I hope).
Megsy's PR indicates that she will be back and she is still clinging to the belief that she can be biggest, best, most of everything.
But maybe she will surprise us (get hit on the head or something) and come back with a humble and grateful attitude and devote her time (really Megsy ... 50-hour weeks, and that does not count work done at home or commuting) to learning about the BRF, about British history, culture and art, food, customs, achievements ... and visit every nook and cranny of that island kingdom so that she gets to know the people and the places (and take Archie in a backpack and let him grow up truly British).
Indeed. While nobody is as big a Narc as Meghan, Oprah has enough of those same tendencies. Being Queen of her own media empire has definitely gone to her head. I used to enjoy her talk show. In 2000, she started 'O' Magazine and I saw what Oprah was really about--relentless self-promotion and glorification of herself and a super-materialistic lifestyle (ALL 'Her Favorite Things'--for those that can afford them) in the guise of promoting a feminist woke agenda. Some of Oprah's favorite things are out of reach for women with good jobs, never mind the millions of economically and emotionally struggling viewers who tune in to her show and look at her as such a role model.) Oprah obviously had/has princess fantasies, too. So she bought herself her own magazine where she gets to be Editor in Chief AND cover model every single month. I think there's only been a handful of times in the last nearly 20 years that she's invited anyone else to share the cover with her.
So, yeah . .Oprah is a fellow meglomaniac along with her new bestie the Duchess of Sussex. She didn't have any compunctions against turning down an invitation to a royal wedding from a bride who a few months prior had been an unemployed supporting bit player on basic cable . .someone O. had never met and wouldn't have deigned to chuck a rock at, never mind have on her show as a guest until she got engaged to a famous member of the Royal Family. Then Oprah made the most ostentatious spectacle possible dressed like a barge disguised as a flamingo.
Oprah and Meg deserve each other. Maybe Meg will be made an executive at OWN/fashion director of 'O' when she gets the boot from the BRF . .? Ha.
Those two both make me so ill.
Oprah comment: actually it is not as bad as I thought. A nice explanation which does make sense (only those close to the throne) but does go on to say to talk about how we may still see photos of M&H during the speech (did anyone see photos of them during the actual speech?)
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a30319851/prince-harry-meghan-markle-queen-elizabeth-christmas-speech-photo/
As for the Royal jewelry, yeah, I'm with you that she would crawl over hot coals if they were an option. The big deal for her (up until this point) was what she wore at her wedding and the Diana stuff (casual at best and not her really nice stuff) before you get into the Fuji earrings, one or two other expensive earrings and then slide into her rings (wedding,etc) sagas.
The RF may be tight with a pound but they are also tight with the baubles. Kate wasn't just given carte blanche when she married so if MM was thinking of them as just opening up the vault for her immediately, there was no precedent. Maybe Harry thought otherwise, he was clueless about royal women's jewelry protocols or didn't know how to tell her (hence PC needed to be the one to say tiaras are not worn on trips like this).
Meghan definitely falls into this category. These people are trying to prove to the world and to themselves that they have "made it", that they're worthy/good enough to the people who rejected them earlier in their lives.
It's kind of sad, more so to the people they leave in their wake. In the case of these two, the entire world is their stage for their psychodrama.
I'm thinking she's not allowed anywhere near the royal collection because of her innate untrustworthiness . . I believe the Queen has a legitimate fear that MM would do a bait-and-switch and flog the real jewels, or that replicas of tiaras she had worn would be sold on Meghan's Mirror. Megsie outed herself as a thief even before the engagement, trying to break into Harry's car at polo and taking the unauthorized photos at KP. It's a short jump to imagining that heirloom pieces that are out for display--picture frames, figurines, tschokes, etc. might go missing if Meg was allowed around them. So they don't let her around them.
Harry, Harry . . your choice of wife has done the near-impossible . . Meghan makes Wallis Simpson look not quite so shady. Wallis wanted an 'in' with the royal family, too, but I doubt she would have stolen the royal ashtrays to make a buck. Also, the BRF allowed her burial at Windsor, among other royals, and just a stone's throw from the resting place of Queen Victoria. Something tells me that Megsie is not going to be accorded that honor, no matter how long she's married to Harry. I'm sure she'd prefer a plot at Forest Lawn in L.A. among all the other celebrities.
It was Skippy, I believe, who recently posted a compilation of all the times in her marriage Catherine has worn royal tiaras. Including the one for her wedding, it was something like 11 or 12 times only, in more than 8 years of marriage that she has worn a tiara. Not many at all . . once or twice a year at most, even though it seems to us that she's always wearing them. She has worn the Cambridge Lovers' Knot 8 times, and 2 others once or twice.
Kate was married for 5 years before being invited to a state dinner, and she's only been to a few of those since. So if Meg didn't have a constant burr up her butt about being excluded due to 'racism', she'd see that not even the future Queen consort gets to festoon herself in tiaras for big dinners whenever she feels like it. These are rewards, not entitlements. Meg obviously feels like her #2 status is at least equivalent to Princess Margaret, who was fond of her tiaras . . but Margaret was a blood royal and daughter of a King. The wife of the queen's grandson who's only #6 isn't the same at all, but Meg won't accept this.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7844135/Harry-Meghan-promote-web-page-celebrating-acts-kindness-good-news-globally.html?ico=amp-comments-viewall#article-7844135
Just spotted the shady title to the image and sure enough it's our old friend photoshop, though professionally done.
The ripples on the water are so in focus that Harry would need to be standing in the water for the image to be genuine. If you enlarge the image Harry and Archie have a blurred outline - not messy, and perfectly acceptable if the image wasn't intended to deceive.
I'd lay good money that's a studio shot against a white background. All the original EXIF data has been scrubbed - they've learnt that lesson at least!
And now what is she doing? She's throwing shade at the queen over a photo, or lack thereof. Now last time I checked, I didn't think the queen had to consult Oprah to decide what photos she wants to display in her home! Can you just imagine what the queen's photo displays would look like if she did?
I'm sick of Oprah and her histrionics. She's not a good person.
Some spot on analysis of Oprah and her similarity to Meghan in the comments here, especially from @Hikari:
'So, yeah . .Oprah is a fellow meglomaniac along with her new bestie the Duchess of Sussex. She didn't have any compunctions against turning down an invitation to a royal wedding from a bride who a few months prior had been an unemployed supporting bit player on basic cable . .someone O. had never met and wouldn't have deigned to chuck a rock at, never mind have on her show as a guest until she got engaged to a famous member of the Royal Family. Then Oprah made the most ostentatious spectacle possible dressed like a barge disguised as a flamingo.'
It may be the trending culture of today to be famous and flaunt how much money you spend and have an entitled opinion about everything and be an influencer and get gushing praise that makes no sense and count support by number of followers (buy if necessary), but for the BRF it too easily becomes tacky.
Just a snippet: Someone in my country analysed twitter accounts for politicians and found that up to half of followers for all accounts are probably bots. One politician responded by finding a company who could clean out her account, what she labelled expensive but necessary.
If she's ever to be Queen (over my dead body) she'd need a nickname. I'd already settled on Meggalina to go with Clawedius, had she married into the Roman Imperial family, given her previous alleged occupation; then as a Dickens character, she could be Megwitch and her Great Expectations.
For a regnal nickname it'd have to be Bloody Megsy, especially as Bloody Mary (Mary I) was believed to be pregnant but after 9 months and more had passed it became clear that she wasn't - not a moonbump but a fatal tumour. M's nowhere near smart enough to rival Isabella, the She-Wolf of France, wife of Edward II, a king who met a most unfortunate end (and I use that word advisedly ...)
As for Oprah...! How very dare she! Just like when I was on a National Express coach to London that picked up passengers at Heathrow, including a know-all-nothing American who trumpeted that the Victorian Italianate Tower of Kew Bridge Waterworks (waterandsteam.org) was `the Mosque' and then went on & on about the sins of `British Petroleum'(no, it's long been BP & multinational). How to cause maximum international offence in minimal time.
>>>I'd lay good money that's a studio shot against a white background. All the original EXIF data has been scrubbed - they've learnt that lesson at least!<<<
I was immediately suspicious that we couldn't see Harry's feet, yeah. Or that more than this one carefully-posed photo was shared. If they were a normal couple, you'd expect to see 2-3 pictures at least from their 'extended family holiday'. Considering that they have supposedly been showing young Archie the glories of the Canadian landscape for a month and a half. He's a bit young for snowboarding or going on the ski lift just yet, though.
The appearance of this photo just seemed too neatly coincidental with the same day as William's big launch. Everywhere, I'm reading "The Sussexes release an unseen photo of Archie!!" Except that *everything* is 'unseen' until people see it, and then it's not 'unseen' anymore . .??!
I had really thought that one conspiracy theory re. Archie was plenty (that he was conceived via surrogate and potentially not in the full-time custody of Harry and Meghan.) But now, I dunno, my mind is chewing over these images we've seen . . and I honestly feel like there are least two (2) babies playing the role of Archie.
This little guy in Harry's arms is the same little face we saw at the presentation--his little cupid lips are pretty distinctive. We also saw him in Meghan's arms being carried off the plane in SA. I want to say this is also the christening baby. The baby in South Africa looks different than this child, though . . am I crazy? The baby pictured in the recent Christmas tragedy has got the inward-turning eyes that we saw in SA--but the child in this most recent photo does not appear to have the same shaped eyes, or the strabismus problem, though granted he is so far away it's impossible to tell.
Play along with me here for just a moment--if we discount the SA and Christmas baby for a minute, when we see *this* child, apart from the christening, his head is always covered by a hat. He was swaddled like a burrito when we saw him in May. A pom hat is appropriate for an outdoor picture taken in Canada at the end of December--but the tot also sported a wintry looking single-pom hat getting off the plane in South Africa . .in the middle of September--neither seasonally nor situationally appropriate, despite Meg's determination to copy Diana's every photographic move. (Di was exiting a plane carrying Harry, in Scotland, for the Christmas visit. C'est le difference!)
If his head's been kept covered to disguise his lack of 'red tufts of hair' . . why? SA Archie didn't have red tufts and Gargantuan Christmas Baby certainly didn't. If anything his hair is getting blonder and more sparse since the christening, when it appeared like he was definitely going to be a ginger.
The little guy in the this current photo is completely adorable, but looks nothing like Christmas baby, Giant polo baby (a doll, that one, my guess) or to be frank, SA Archie, which is the longest exposure (with live movement) that we have seen out of this child.
I gauge the child in Harry's arms to be 11 or 12 months old, not seven. But an age discrepancy is really the least of the oddities here.
The water is very still, a Force 2 at most,and the water is surprisingly blue. What's the weather been like recently, has it been quite so balmy?
The other thing is the composition. The heads break the skyline beautifully - it's how I would have positioned the portrait against the background.
I'm not at all critical about the image being photoshopped, simply the deception involved.
You mean I've been checking the wrong race box all along? (I did not know that the use of celery seed was a racial marker. I've always used it in my potato salad, too.)
I read in one online magazine article (must try to find it again) that the pic was actually taken over Thanksgiving which would make it even more interesting re "Archie's" size. The link was at Lipstick Alley; however, I haven't done any fact checking re the source since it was a drive-by reading, as it were.
As I said, no crime in photoshopping.
It was unseasonably warm here for the past few days. That does happen (we usually get a period of it right around mid-February, too). Now we have rain and mudslide warnings, and the forecast is back to normal, 40s/30s. Unfortunately, a few warmer days do not a season make. Sigh. I wish a few nice warm days meant Spring was early, but alas, it takes much longer than a few days to turn things around. Otherwise, we'd all be out working in our gardens, but ground takes longer to heat up and is pretty mushy in parts anyway, so here we are, still stuck in winter, which I hate. I'm always ready for winter to end on December 26, and these next long months are the worst. Seriously, it's when I lose patience with the region.
I just hope Archie gets some mittens (can't she merch those, too?) and is staying warm and away from that petty, narcissistic woman lol. I can't imagine why they'd choose PNW at this time of year unless there were no other choices.
For anyone who wants to share in the region's misery, this is from Accuweather along with the winter storm warnings:
Rain, at times heavy, is expected. A strong Pacific storm is on the way for this afternoon and Friday for the BC coast. The storm will approach the coast today. Precipitation will spread onto the south coast by noon. The rain may be briefly mixed with wet snow this afternoon. It will then intensify this evening and persist through Friday. During that period, we expect 60 to 90 mm of rain to fall over Howe Sound and Metro Vancouver - central and North Shore. It will eventually diminish in intensity Friday night but light rain or showers will continue into Saturday. ### Heavy downpours can cause flash floods and water pooling on roads. Localized flooding in low-lying areas is possible. Please continue to monitor alerts and forecasts issued by Environment Canada. To report severe weather, send an email to BCstorm@canada.ca or tweet reports using #BCStorm.
So, why would they come to this area knowing in winter if they had warm choices? It makes no sense. Seriously, check this for precipitation in BC:
https://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/charts/precipitation-monthly.html
That didn't just dry up in a few nice days. I think the BRF gave them their choices: Canada, Wales, Scotland, Canada, and they chose Canada lol.
And this...
The CDAN blind that shed doubt on William's lineage was revealed. Yes, it turns out Diana was cheating with King Juan Carlos of Spain. This will come as a huge surprise to the BRF because I'm sure there was never a DNA test done on William & PH when they were babies, and of course, Diana was 19 and married only a few months, but already bouncing the King of Spain. Right. That's my way of saying that I'm not sure I believe this blind.
Also, if anyone wants to read more about swimming in the Pacific Ocean, here's a decent link:
https://www.beachconnection.net/news/swim110413_517.php
I love the OR beaches (much better than the WA ones IMO, though WA has the islands and much better sailing) but it is bloody freezing. I've had two surfer friends almost killed off the OR beaches (one shark, one bashed against rocks and swept into a remote cove).
It wasn't that cold out. I grew up in that region and when it snowed, which isn't very often or very much, I'd find the mates to my gloves just before the snow would melt just to give you an idea of how often we needed to wear gloves. Heck, most of the time we couldn't find mates so we used socks on our hands to make our snowman.
I think Harry and Archie are standing on the bow of a ferry or more possibly on a boat cuz a ferry would have a guardrail.
Now check out the nose. In the newest color photo, the nose is wider and turned up (his grandpa's nose) and his eyes look very, very similar to MMs. Now look at the SA Archie.
Here is a link of side by side photos in a gushing article: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1222748/Baby-Archie-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-new-year-2020-Royal-news
The SA baby's nose comes down to a point and his eyes are closer together and slightly more rounded. The Christmas card baby has a very similar mouth, but eyes are further apart and nose looks different as well.
These are just my opinions, mother of four, not an expert but lots of experience with baby boys.
There was a discussion earlier about DNA, nuture/nature, and they both play a factor in who you are, but you cannot escape your DNA when it comes to body and health. Cancer, heart disease, etc. (too many to name) are all in your DNA. (It is on very rare occasion people with cancer/heart disease, etc. do not have a history of it in their family) My SIL is adopted and she started having "heart-flutters" after her morning run. Not having any info on her bio parents medical history made being diagnosed somewhat harder.
They both had affairs but I believe Diana had a respect for the institution of the monarchy and she would not have put her children in a position to be deemed illegitimate, neither of them.
It is ridiculous to say that Juan Carlos is the father of William. Diana had not even met him at the time she became pregnant. As for Harry, Diana only met James Hewitt for the first time when Harry was a few years' old (old enough to start to be taught riding, which was how the connection with Hewitt was made).
We can almost all escape our DNA. It is called EPIGENETICS. Certain areas of DNA can be blocked so they aren't used. For example, most children can drink milk, but after a certain time, some of them grow to be adults who are lactose intolerant which is most of the population of the Earth. This is because the area of the DNA that causes the chemicals to digest lactose in the milk get blocked off and the chemicals are no longer present in the cell.
The same thing happened when they tried to clone a cat. The clone looks nothing like the original because environmental factors in the womb blocked some of the DNA of the original cat and in this case, it happened to do with the colour of the cat's fur.
So, when you eat food that is reported to block cancer, or heart disease, or any other "genetic" disorder, you are blocking the cancer DNA from being expressed, usually with the help of methyl groups. There are tons of other factors as well, including randomness of biological processes. So, you're not doomed to die of what your parents died of, if you take good care of yourself.
https://drsophiayin.com/blog/entry/cloning-cats-rainbow-and-cc-prove-that-cloning-wont-resurrect-your-pet/
There were tons of rich, old men after Diana including Donald Trump, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Juan Carlos, and others I've forgotten.
I guess Meghan is banking on this phenomenon of bedding ex-royalty to get to the next step on the social yachting ladder.
Diana was so naive, that George Michael said that he wasn't sure if he should explain to her why he wasn't flirting back with her.
Now that I question the existence of more than one Archie,I can’t turn it off. We saw two christening photos: the color one in Meg’s lap in the group shot and the B&W shot of just the three of them. In my opinion, the baby in the group photo and the baby with Tutu are the same child. This boy has darker coloring and the wonky eye. The baby that is in the current picture has blonder hair and a differently shaped head ... and his mouth also is different. Hard to tell eye color; This child is always shot from far away, or from the side, and in the christening photo his eyes were closed. Christmas Archie seems yet another child altogether, but if his head has been distorted with camera trickery, anything goes. Christmas Archie resembles tutu Archie of the two of them. The child in this recent photo is definitely a cutie...So why did they appear more coy with him? I see Markle features in both I guess, specifically Toms nose. Tutu Archie with his dark and slightly wonky eyes looks more like Meg, and also like her dad. Canada Archie looks little like Meg and more like Harry at a similar age.
So I am thoroughly confused. Could it be possible that there were two surrogate babies, both from her store and eggs, but separate donors? Where they playing baby roulette and trying to get one that looked “most like” Harry? His rapport with Canada baby seems much more natural. There was no warmth from him to SA baby. Canada baby get a wide warm paternal smile. Inconsistent isn’t really the word.
Harry has looked at lots of babies/children like that. His expression proves nothing. It could be his best friend's baby. It could be Harry's head photoshopped onto someone else's body. The possibilities are endless.
And that's the whole point, really, that these two have been so deceitful, so manipulative, so secretive, that now nothing they do or say can be accepted at face value.
Archie seems to be a ginger (and there is ginger in the Markle family). He has Meghan's eyes. The rest will emerge as he grows.
Did they use IVF? Did they use a surrogate? Did they use donated ova or sperm? Since we will probably never know, let's assume that they did not (although there were rumours even before the wedding that Meghan and Harry were using all sorts of methods to increase fertility, even though Harry said they were going to wait to start a family).
There was so much odd about the pregnancy (too odd for me to make sense of) and birth (never mind the odd way they held the baby) that it in itself birthed all sorts of stories. Yes, the pregnancy seemed to last 10 months (the dates just do not add up unless she was barely pregnant when she announced and started parading a baby bump). Yes, Archie was very small for a supposedly overdue baby (his birth weight and wonky eye seem to suggest that he was premature but he was taken home straight away so probably not). She left the hospital very quickly, which was odd for a first birth. Yes, the birth certificate (typed and without a signature) was odd. Yes, all the breathless stories of Archie's accomplishments do not seem to match his age (but babies can be different). But all this may just be the result of two crazy, not completely honest, craving the limelight and fame but obsessive about secrecy people!
Totally agree with you!
Hairy bears zero resemblance to his brother but Of the two of them, I see more of the Mountbatten side. He’s the one of Diana’s children that is called the cuckoo, but his resemblance to Charles and Philip is more pronounced than in William, so that would seem to put paid that idea. Aren’t genetics interesting?
I beg to disagree as a Biologist, that many cancers are genetic, my brother being one, a Leukemia victim (and Breast cancer is notoriously genetic, along with kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer). I think what happens with environmental factors is that it sets off a predisposition to cancer.
Nature is quite cruel sometimes and Harry probably endured whispers behind his back despite the tests due to his unfortunate resemblance to Hewitt. It may possibly be the source of his insecurities and anger.
This made me reflect that our mistakes and wrongdoings often have tragic effect on many people in most unforeseen ways.
Some types of cancer run in certain families, but most cancers are not clearly linked to the genes we inherit from our parents. Learn about the complex links between genes and cancer, as well as genetic testing and how it is used.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes.html
Read my comment above from the cancer society, which summarizes the conclusion of many cancer studies, that most cancers are not genetic in nature. Some cancers, for example, some types of breast cancers are highly hereditary, but most cases of breast cancer are attributed to factors such as obesity, environmental toxins, estrogen dominance, etc. etc. etc.
Which means that by improving your risk factors, you can highly reduce your chances of getting cancer.
I don't know why we have to go into such detail about this subject, but maybe it will help someone somewhere improve their lives.
Do any of have reason to believe that Markle reads here?
Hi Unknown, I think it’s almost a given she reads this blog and others SM, including Harry Markle, Skippy, CDAN, Torontopaper1 and possibly HG Tudor’s A Very Royal Narcissist, parts 1 through 4, plus the comments in the DM, The Sun and other news sources.
Because she has been known to keep secret personal accounts on SM, I wouldn’t be surprised if she posts on this blog and other SM where the RF is discussed.
People with narcissistic personality disorder pretend they don’t care what other people think of them, but in reality, a large portion of their life’s activities are centered on creating a fictitious positive narrative of their life that attempts to portray their life as being perfect, when in reality, it’s often far from it.
Her probable thislittlepetal Twitter account states it in the description at the top of the account. Her tweets attempt to portray herself as an erudite, high-minded intellectual upscale earth mother leading a semi-bucolic life with her ‘Bub,’ hubby, and housekeeper. She lists her description as: Blissful mom, Happy home, Loving wife, Organic food, Animal lover, Perfect life
But as a narcissist, at her core she is incredibly angry, empty, and a materialistic status-seeker who derives her self worth by the things she owns, which for a narc includes people like Harry and Archie, because narcs like Meghan view ALL people as objects/props to be used.
We’ve already seen what she does to people who outlive their usefulness. Just ask her dad, Trevor, Cory or any number of others she’s dumped like litter on the side of the road.
I AM NOT arguing, sorry, (can't get me to argue here with all the tattatle tells) but the Cancer statement does not say thet aren't Not linked...not clearly linked. Just like saying your kid's personality is not clearly linked to genetics...doesn't mean it's not!.
Christmas card Archie is his own entity, but the eyes are similar to Tutu baby, down to the strabismus. It's like they (Meg or Janina or whoever) took Archie's eyes and plopped them onto another baby's face. It's so distorted, who knows what's going on.
We have a paucity of photos of Archie, but in certain shots he looks like a completely different baby than in other shots. The smile that Haz gives the baby in this current shot is reminiscent to how we are used to seeing him interact with other children, true . . but whether it's out of genuine affection or a good fakery, his demeanor in South Africa was completely different. Distant . .he even visibly flinched at one point in the sit down with Tutu when the baby touched him. Otherwise he was completely ignoring the kid or else holding him stiffly and squashed up against his chest. Given that we had so much (relatively) live video of the baby on that tour, why wouldn't Harry have made more of an effort to be seen engaging with the baby? The optics of that whole thing got badly bungled, and since that's mostly what they care about--optics--perception rather than what's real--I'd have expected more visibly connected behavior from Haz to the baby, such as we get in the current photo.
Harry was in a really, really bad place in South Africa. I'm thinking .. maybe withdrawal? He was not with it most of the time, and that might account for the extraordinary awkwardness around Archie. But apart from the demeanor of H., to my eyes, these look like two different babies.
Regarding the possible photoshopped pic of H and A. It probably was, but kudos to them for actually hiring a professional. Now the need a stylist and speech writer and they can maybe improve their image some. Sloppy is as sloppy does.
KitKatKisses & punkinseed:
I'm tuned to daylength rather than temperature so Solstice = midwinter, I know our Met Office reckons the winter quarter starts on Ist December, Spring on 1st March. I've no idea how temperature compares. Where I live is about 1 deg further north than North Saanich so our day's slightly shorter - I know the old saying was `days become longer, cold becomes stronger'.
Ignoring clocks and thermometers, it's seems cold enough for Dad to have his hat pulled down over his lugs almost to his eyebrows, to keep his balding bonce snug, but whereas he can choose whether or not to cover his fingers, the babe has no control over this and little fingers lose heat very quickly (large surface area in relation to volume),if they are outdoors, that is.
Or has she slipped up and missed a merching opportunity? Just saying.
Harry was heard to publicly question if the baby was his, however jokingly, so I assume there might have been some sort of test done.
She might not be the sharpest tool in the box as her behavior suggests but surely she is not brain dead.
Having said this I was wondering what would HM do if actually she got a report that Archie is not Harry's son? Would she allow her pic with him taken? Would she welcome him in her speech? Oh possibly the dishonor is so great it is easier for her to pretend than to risk a nuclear scandal?
We will see how other members treat the boy for future clues I guess.
KitKatKisses - Oh man. Missed that if it is a boat, they would need life jackets. Nice catch.
KayeC Why wasn't Diana told? Well probably based on how the family fared when her mother left - adultery, they probably weren't talking about it other than you must never do something like this because look what happens! My guess was that it was rather a forbidden topic. And that may or may not have been a common topic at boarding school (as in this is what happens in my family, do your parents have affairs?.
Wild Boar Battle-maid - perhaps a slip up on the merching although there was an article in the DM about how the very cute coat sold out and questioning if this will be just like the tyke's mother who "sparks sell-out trends".
Does she read here? good question. I don't know. Part of me thinks that we might be a tad bit boring and don't take well to someone coming in and stirring things up. Boring is not generally her style but I do think we could easily be watched by some people from SS to get a read on how some are commenting on various events.
I like that that we aren't doing a whole lot of calling her nasty names/trash type of talk (what I call Piling on from football where jumping on top of people for the sake of applying weight and pressure just to do this which is a nono) - I think of it more as a bunch of adults discussing slightly sensitive but keeping it at the within bounds/let's not ramp up emotions/start tossing the china talk.
Both improbable and extraordinarily reckless--for a normal woman. But Meghan is a Narc of the highest order, so improbable and reckless is how she rolls. Her entire climb to where she is now is improbable, to say the least. I can well imagine that someone like her, desperate to keep the fame-n-money gravy train rolling would resort to extreme measures--like, for example, arranging one or more secret surrogacies with paternal donors other than Harry. She was in such a thirsty, thirsty rush for her anchor baby it would take very little to convince me that she'd already gotten the ball rolling so to speak before the wedding. The pictures we have been shown of Archie, whether one child or two, are significantly older than 7.5 months. This kid looks ready to start walking any day now.
Meg does not seem to be bothered by potential consequences for her actions; this springs from the Narc's belief that she's smarter than other people and able to talk her way out of any jam, even if it's just to whine about racism and unfairness again. I believe her personality disorders do render her, not brain dead, but unwilling to forgo immediate gratification for the longer-range picture. If she and Harry had their baby via a surrogate, that is not the issue I have with them; it's the relentless deceit and plate spinning that wears me out. I think we've got too many indicators to count, from the Harkles' own secretive behavior to the non-interaction of other members of the family with Archie that the arrival of this child and nothing surrounding his life today is strenuously abnormal. Mentioning him in a speech doesn't change that. Generous gesture of reconciliation, or coded message to the Harkles, or both?
If Archie is not Harry's by DNA but he has been legally adopted, then he is the Queen's great grandchild by adoption. She doesn't have a heart of stone, plus at her age, I think she's past fighting over things which are incidental to the preservation of her line. Whether naturally conceived, made in a petri dish or adopted, in dynastic terms, Archie is incidental.
I hope that Archie will have a good life, whoever is caring for him. As to whether we will get many, or any, opportunities to see him interacting with any members of his extended family is anybody's guess. We haven't so far. William is not inclined to play Megs' games with monetizing images of his children, so I do not expect any 'Archie playing with Cambridge cousins' photos to be forthcoming.
She was afforded all kinds of excuses in print in the press: "She has money from 'Suits'", "She needs to build a wardrobe," "She's the newest royal, etc."
$508,258 is LOTS of money, no matter where it comes from.
1) The press has actually been quite generous with her, despite her criticism
2) $508,258 on CLOTHING and she is not thriving people.
Then environmental correlation doesn't prove causation either. Regardless there are many cancers with a genetic link; breast (ie. Angilina Jolie removed her breasts bc of it), testicular, melanoma, ovarian, colon, etc...
We saw him with Carole Middleton in lots and lots of pictures. And a few years ago when there was a "photo tour" of Charles's house we saw a framed picture of Charles holding infant George while Will looked on. Frankly up until that point, we'd never seen Charles with George other than the christening pics...some people claimed (unfairly I thought) that Charles was no good with kids--- though we saw him interact playfully with Camilla's grandkids on more than one occasion (and even Diana had said he was a good father.)
But as has been pointed out before, we've never seen Harry interact with George or any of the other Cambridge kids. More recently we've seen the Cambridge kids with Anne's grandkids and interacting with Zara, Mike, and Autumn. But we've not even seen a ton of that given George is 6 1/2.
I think something is off with Archie's birth and age but I'm.not sure we'll know it from public family interactions (although the polo day WAS strange.)
The cause of most cancers is considered to be environmental, including inner environment - hormones, obesity, blood sugar levels, etc. Argue with the cancer society, they're the ones who said it. You can argue here all you want, but it won't change what's written on their site which has been the results of hundreds, if not thousands of studies.
DNA may give you an increased risk of getting cancer. Not exercising, eating well, or other lifestyle choices may also give you a higher risk of getting cancer. Neither is strictly causal (except in very rare cases). I understand what you are both saying: genes and environment both predispose some people to have cancer. But it is very much more complicated than that. If it weren’t, we’d have had a “cure” years ago. The big change since the “War on Cancer” began under President Nixon is that people are living longer after diagnosis and the treatment is often faster and isn’t always as painful as it used to be. (Radiation may be weeks rather than almost a year like it used to be and treatment is more targeted.)
As a cancer survivor, I hear two classes of ridiculous comments. 1. People who survive are “brave” and “ fighters.” Does it mean that someone who died was not a fighter or brave? 2. The other is about lifestyle choices, eating, etc. Please think of survivors as the “lucky” ones rather than the “ deserving” ones.
People with healthy and unhealthy habits get cancer; you can respect all people with cancer by not making thoughtless comments, even well-meaning ones, to them or to your friends. Ask how you can help them. That is what they need.
Off my soapbox now. Thanks for reading.
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/is-this-actually-happening-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-help-victoria-couple-struggling-with-selfie-stick-1.4750879
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle helped take pictures of a couple struggling with a selfie stick while out on a hike in Vancouver.
"Struggling with a selfie stick". LOL!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7846689/Harry-Meghan-helped-pictures-couple-hike-Vancouver-Abigail-Spencer.html
All we need do now is speculate where the hell they really are!
Archie (oy that name) may or may not be 100% Harry and Meghan’s biologically, but I cannot understand how anyone could believe she carried that pregnancy. Way too much proof otherwise.
Sure, a news producer who can't work a camera. (Rolls eyes).
MM always gets the details wrong.
Fair observation about George, though since his birth the extended family has come to include a lot more kids. Firstborns spend a lot more time interacting with adults by necessity. We do have a lot of pics featuring baby George with the adults including on his first overseas tour. All taken in color, full daylight, no digital tricks. For the first several years of his life and Charlotte’s, the Cambridges spent nearly all their time in Norfolk, So arranging play dates with the Tindalls or the Phillipses would have been inconvenient. Now they are in KP but there aren’t any other children there that I know of. Edo’s little boy is close in age to Louis but he’s not Royal and there is his mom to consider and whether she or his dad would want him in the public eye. By the time Eugenie and Jack have a child, George and Charlotte will be in big school. Life is cosseted and can be lonely for a Royal kid. I’m sure there must be family get together s out of the public eye but Most likely not on a level with normal families. Each family has their own household And are a bit scattered all over, plus rules of precedence Would dictate how much and who with the direct heir’s children can mingle. We did see George and Charlotte having a fine time this summer with Their Tindall cousins and I suppose as baby Arthur gets older he will see more of his cousins too. Not officially since Auntie Pippa is not a royal.
There was some bad blood between William and Harry even before Meg entered the picture of reports that William curtailed visits with Uncle Harry due to Harry showing up inebriated around the kids too many times. It’s easy to blame Meg totally for the rift between the brothers but there were already danger signs before she entered the picture.6
I also wonder whether some of our familial cancer clusters may ultimately turn out to be viral in nature.
I don't suppose that IVF has been around long enough (or used in great enough numbers) to compare and contrast cancer deaths that are associated with the birth mother as opposed to the genetic mother.
Yes, I know that I'm wandering waaaaay off topic, but it did pique a curiosity in me that may be answered by some of the medical folk here.
I don’t pretend to be very knowledgeable on the subject of Cancer and I mean no offense. The Nature vs. Nurture argument is indeed complicated. For one thing, there is some overlap between Genetics and Environment. People’s diet, lifestyle choices, and the physical location they live in is strongly determined by those they share their DNA with as in their parents, grandparents, and so on.
I don't begrudge any of them buying clothes to wear for all appearances, etc., but my gosh, I very much doubt Diana or Kate would have spend as much as Megs has simply because they both understand why it's so important for royals to look sharp, but understated. Megs choices are usually over the top and inappropriate.
The child of a friend of Harry's. A Turkish friend. Lila bebek Gizem Hatipoglu. I did think the Canada baby looked more like a girl.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lila+bebek+gizem+hatipoğlu&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq9s-3o-bmAhUEW60KHb_eAb4Q_AUoAXoECA0QAQ&biw=768&bih=1024&dpr=2#imgrc=6kB0YZDy0UTelM
The claim Meg took the pic sounds like her addressing all the murmurs of her tacky Photoshop skills and her insatiable thirst to be in front of the camera. Kate is the literal antithesis because she has studied Art, is a decent photographer, and demonstrates a proclivity to NOT wanting to be in front of the camera. Talk about foil characters in the BRF saga.
Meg being with A&H? Well, I don’t know. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect her to be with them. Such a development would be a dramatic twist in the Harkle saga. I am a sucker for non-dangerous drama not my own.
Let me go off topic to give you my opinion of Lainey from seeing her a few times on E! and her talk show, because it's so bizarre:
She's got an oily faced, weird hair appearance. The oily face is a side effect of too much botox. You see Angelina Jolie look like that a lot, for example. She wears the most hideous dresses and thinks she is "bold" in her fashion choices and constantly nags Kate Middleton to dress as hideously as she does. Lainey's face is weird because it has no human emotion on it, and she has those winged lines on her eyes with really dark lipstick. She thinks she looks fashionable and attractive.
Lainey's hair is also pulled so tight off her face that you wonder if she's in pain. Her hairstyles vary in the back. One day, she had her hair in a pony tail but puffed out to make it look like a peacock tail behind her, with another tie at the bottom. I spent the entire time looking at this really weird hairdo, wondering who the hell would go out of the house looking like that.
The other women on this show are styled in a trendy fashion but no one looks even remotely weird, except for Lainey.
She looks like she's put on a lot of weight since the picture for her web site LaineyGossip.com was taken. She wears huge dresses and tops with skirts with really big, bold patterns. She's not very tall, so she looks completely overwhelmed by her strange clothes. I am 6 feet tall and even I wouldn't wear those things. She is as odd as Meghan.
This is my first time posting, though I have been reading this fascinating blog for ages.
I just wanted to say that, on the big BC ferries that operate between the mainland (Vancouver, etc.) and Vancouver Island, passengers do not wear life jackets. You are free to roam around on deck, though.
That’s the entirety of my contributions for now, hahaa!
Thanks to Nutty and all of you knowledgeable and interesting people. :)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7846689/Harry-Meghan-helped-pictures-couple-hike-Vancouver-Abigail-Spencer.html#comments
Yeah, or not.
1. A producer for CTV News (so nothing suspicious there)
2. Two dogs, one black and one like the one whose legs were broken (so, no, she didn't kill Guy, but Guy can fly and yet, the dog she abandoned in CA was too old?)
3. Rachel, so nice, "volunteering" to help
4. Hello, SS
5. "Is this actually happening?" (because a z-list former "actress" was taking the photo?)
6. One true thing: yes, people do hike in this weather. If we didn't just blow off everything but torrential downpours, we'd be stuck inside all the time (days are much shorter, too, so gotta do it). Even when it's raining daily, there are breaks with drizzle and/or it stops completely, and we all have outdoor gear (lots of Goretex fabric, Helly Hansen, North Face, etc. and rain/mudboots) I own at least six fall/winter raincoats from dressy to professional... just sad lol)
So, ICYMI, here are the details of what Rach & H & SS are up to:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle helped take pictures of a couple struggling with a selfie stick while out on a hike in Vancouver.
The royals approached Iliya Pavlovic and Asymina Kantorowicz on New Year's Day in Vancouver Island's Horth Hill Regional Park.
Kantorowicz, a producer for CTV News, said she did not recognize the pair at first, instead noting that Duchess's Suits co-star Abigail Spencer - who the couple are spending the holidays with - 'looked familiar'.
But after the realization of who she was speaking to Kantorowicz says she 'froze up'.
She added: 'I actually couldn’t believe who it was. Then I looked over to the side and that’s when I realized Prince Harry was standing there.
'I kept looking back and forth like, 'Is this actually happening?"
I'm filing this in the same place as I filed "Pub Visit".
I am still leaning towards Ravenview as a possibility, however. I do not think this location was the first choice. I think it was either the necessary or forced choice.
I actually admire Carey for keeping quiet (all he said was that people could look at the timeline and work it out themselves, or something like that) and moving on happily with his life.
Feel free to talk me down off the ledge, but based on the scant evidence we have, the Harkles see more willing to show one baby off at close range, uncovered, then the other one, but based on demeanor alone which can lie admittedly, Harry seems much more personable with this baby then the other one. The child in this current photo is the same one we saw percentage I believe; Tutu baby was not the one presented to the Queen. Is that why he was debuted in South Africa, or the color christening photo which the queen was not in attendance for? Food for thought.
Y