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
You could be right that MM left her dog Bogart with Corey. But she adopted the dog in LA because "Ellen told her to." I'm not sure she was even dating Corey then. https://www.besthealthmag.ca/best-you/wellness/how-ellen-degeneres-convinced-meghan-markle-to-adopt-a-dog-and-more-from-our-may-cover-star/
The beagle (Guy) she adopted as a companion for Bogart through a shelter in Kentucky and he was driven to Canada.
CookieShark - My goodness. I knew she spent a lot but the real numbers hadn't registered. That is $1392.49 a day. I don't spend $1400 annually. And, as you mentioned, she isn't thriving.
Hikari - is there some room on the ledge? You make an interesting case for a boy and girl.
I think she would have been happy with a girl (better merching options and a longer range of it), sex of the child no longer mattered to the succession but ... but a baby girl would be a greater long term threat if you think of life as filled with a limited amount of positive publicity, photos, good things to go around (even within the BRF). If you think like that, even your own child would be competition.
In addition to what I was saying about Archie’s body and face position screaming professional photographer to me, the background does too. I always assumed the photo was taken on a boat or ferry. The antenna/tower is almost unnoticeable and the photographer clearly wanted to avoid man-made objects in the shot like the rail or dock they would be standing on or near. Someone looking at that pic would see themes of: Father, Son, Man, and Mother Nature.
My guess is the inclusion of the North Saanich antenna/tower (if it truly is it) was shoehorned in per H&M’s team against the photographer’s wishes to tip off their location.
re: multiple Archie babies
LOL, Hikari :) I am in agreement with you about all the iterations of Archie looking so disparate. I was struck that way with all the photos and especially these last two photos. LOL, I can never forget Archie’s footsies in an un-human position.
I just can’t go there with you. LOL, maybe I don’t have the courage. Some of us here are considered out-there because we believe in surrogacy and that the presented birth certificate is dubious. In those scenarios, we are dealing with professionals whose lives depend on keeping such a lapse a total secret. Bureaucracies have systems of plausible deniability baked right in.
Many babies standing-in for Archie requires lots of moving parts and too many lay-men. I just can’t fathom them achieving that without plenty of loose lips or being caught red-handed. Such a scenario is way too chaotic to exist in my head.
I do admire you Hikari for getting on the ledge. You have more courage than I have. That’s the fun and beauty of gossip: speculation and lots and lots of IMAGINATION. All the greatest inventions of life happened that way. I think some people forget that or don’t understand it.
My point with this, besides avoiding confusion, is that it's one more reason why I can't imagine Rach wanting to be in Canada. If she complained about GB, this is about the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is-p_e3nKow
Ashlee does an overlay of Meghan's baby picture onto the latest photo of Archie, and they're identical. Ashlee is also skeptical about the baby.
Cary Grant never forgot where he came from, who helped him, and what he wanted in life. One of his wives, Doris Duke, said Cary was the only ex-husband who asked for nothing at divorce. She said he was a true gentleman, and called himself a nothing but a boy named Archibald.
I bring up Cary Grant as an example of what to is to be in a world that was non-forgiving, anti-Semitic; where the poor starved to death, and were never educated or given medical care. MM and ‘arry make me sick, in which every thing they do is a lie, fake or rude. They could not even call their son Archibald, but Archie. Archie, to Americans, is the bigot on t.v. What a slap in the face to the British to have not an Archibald Leach, but a who knows what Archie, a baby played for his oarents jokes.
I also think that the "overlay" is not shown very well so it is hard to see what she is getting at specifically. I would assume that any baby coming from MM's ova would have her traits such as the unusual eyes. That previous comment of mine was removed as it said that I couldn't find the video.
Who knows if this is the "real" Harry. I don't particularly care, but if they can photoshop a baby, they can photoshop a picture of Harry. NOW, FIRMLY squishing that tin hat on so it doesn't fall off, what if the 8th grandchild HM was referring to is not of Harry or Meghan's issue. There have been rumors that Andrew has had an illegitimate child that he refuses to acknowledge, and what if Harry has an illegitimate child he refuses to acknowledge. Again these are persistent rumors, but given the sexual history of both men (both with a passion for hookers), it makes a whole lot of sense given that HM didn't mention any names.
I realize this is bordering on true crazy cakes, but this woman is capable of anything. Again, I have NEVER believed that she had a baby, but was willing to go along with a surrogacy pregnancy. But now I don't think there is a real child. They are renting kids. These children never seem to focus on either Harry or Meghan. EVER. When you have a kid, they are constantly looking at you to make sure you are there. Even infants do this. This outlandish theory also makes sense about the moribund child they offered for the video near the stables, the absence of any official birth announcement, no doctors involved, the mystery about where in the hell did she have this child? In the stables? The constantly changing (or not changing at ALL!) faces of all these babies, and finally that doll at the rugby match. That child did not move for 45 minutes. She didn't feed it. She didn't put a hat on it. She just waltzed around clutching that thing in a blanket. It stayed in the same position in that blanket the entire time she was there. So yeah, my tin hat is ON!
https://twitter.com/julesverne12345/status/1212581879645380609/video/1
One other thing, no way do I believe the ‘selfie stick’ scenario was organic. Total PR set-up. Why wasn’t Archie along and mentioned?
🐛
P.S. can someone please do a ‘wellness check’ on our Hikari?
That baby looks exactly like a Markle and prince Harry.
Do a google image search of people with mountains in the background. You'll notice that the people are smaller than the mountains even in photos, although not as small as they actually are in real life because the photo distorts the height scale with the person in the foreground and the mountain in the background.
Now look again at Harry and child. They are BIGGER than the mountains. They are taller than the mountains. That is not how they would appear in real life. In rea life, they are still smaller than the mountains. The only way I can imagine that they would look taller is if they are on top of something taller than the mountains in the background, like on another mountain top. And if they were on another mountain top, it is highly unlikely that there would be a large body of water right there, unless it is a crater lake. I don't think Vancouver has any crater lakes. I hope this makes sense.
The whole proportion of Harry to the mountains in the background is unrealistic. This thing is as fake as MM's hair.
"fake as MM's hair"
oh my gawd, dying, dying dying.
and you bet markle reads here. in fact, id be willing to bet that some of you have actually interacted with her on here at some point. its been rumored that she has youtube, instagram and twitter accounts secretly to defend herself. haha, i can so see her sitting at night on her laptop, typing away to the "haters" as her wig dries next to her.
I've been catching up on holiday postings, so much to read.
I enjoy reading everyone's thoughts and especially ones that think outside of the proverbial box. There are more than enough places that tell the "official" version and most of us here know there is something seriously Off about this whole Sussex Saga.I look forward to reading even more as the PR blitz is starting up again.
The UK did away with routine quarantine for dogs years ago, 2011, I believe.
The rules are pretty simple for dogs coming from most "first world" countries. Vaccination for rabies, microchip, tapeworm check, pet passport/vet certificate.
https://www.gov.uk/take-pet-abroad
A third explanation is the BRF is now piloting the out-of-control Harkel plane to a gentle landing for the world to witness. MM is in the US, an agreement has been made, it's all about the optics and saving the BRF and Harry.
Once upon a time, there was a Jewish boy, born a “Cockney” in London named Archibald Leach
No, he was born in Horfield in Bristol, absolutely not a Cockney and there was some debate about his Jewish heritage.
I bring up Cary Grant as an example of what to is to be in a world that was non-forgiving, anti-Semitic; where the poor starved to death, and were never educated or given medical care
Where do you get your evidence that England was anti-semitic? Or that people starved to death, weren't educated or given medical care? None of this is true of early 20th century Britain. What do you mean by non-forgiving?
Totally O/T but I really couldn't let such a mischaracterisation of my country pass unchallenged.
I have aspects of both parents in my face but dad's relatives saw only his likeness there while mum's kin thought I was the dead spit of her.
In May, a cousin on my mother's side died convinced she didn't belong to our family, thinking she'd been brought home from the maternity ward by the wrong mother, an inexplicable belief we thought. A couple of years ago, however, I saw a photo of her as a toddler and thought she looked mixed race but assumed the look was somehow from her father's side, couldn't possibly be from us, none of us seemed African.
In October, I was looking at a photo of my mother and her sisters from 1912 and wondered if perhaps my aunt, my cousin's mother, wasn't quite as obviously European as her sisters, more a case of facial bone structure. Or was I imagining it?
The very next day, a friend who's spent time in the US South took one look at the photo, pointed to my aunt, aged about 5, and asked `Who's this? Is she Creole? Are they French?'
My mouth dropped open. `No, but you're right on both counts! They're ordinary Londoners but with Huguenot ancestry and I've just realised we must have a black ancestor in the 18th century.'
Our grandfather's family goes back centuries in London but nobody now knows what he looked like - he died in 1912 and all photos were destroyed, so as far as I'm concerned, this aspect of our ancestry has been hiding in plain sight since 1907, when my aunt was born.
I'd love to know more about it. I've found Reynold's `Study of a Black Man' online - the sitter shares the same facial structure as my aunt and I'd be proud to have him among my forebears - it is possible as he would have been in the right place at the right time.
For example, the date when compulsory education became law and the provision of education before that; the history of public health before the NHS eg charitable & municipal hospitals; the role of the Church in both education and health; The role of the Jews following their re-admission under Cromwell during the Commonwealth (1649-1660); Kindertransport.
If you're concerned about the Irish famines, this isn't the place for it.
Maggie: Well done.
Thank you for refuting this gross calumny about the UK. As a nation, the British are not anti-Semitic any more than we are a racist. That is yet another reason why Corbyn and Markle are so vile - they have done us a great disservice by projecting a distorted image internationally and encouraging the minority of people with such nasty views .
They do not represent the nation as a whole, just as I hope the ignorant loudmouth from the US behind me on the National Express coach didn't represent his nation...
FWIW, I probably have some Jewish ancestry as well, on my father's side this time, from Sephardim who came from the Low Countries in the 17th and the 18th centuries.
Good question. I'm not at all sure the story about the selfie help when dogs were spotted is true. But if it is true and the dogs were theirs, one thing it says to me is that they've spent their "break" flying around in private jets as I seriously doubt they flew either dog cargo. (And even an adult male beagle likely would not fit in the size kennel required for commercial cabin travel. Animals are supposed to be able to stand in their carriers and the max height is 8.5 inches.) I think we've all thought they flew private anyway since they've managed to go unspotted for so long.
Taking the dogs could mean they weren't planning to come back. And if they are, definitely their idea of a 6 week break must not have meant 6 calendar weeks...
You said it best regarding cancer. Many things can predispose you (genetics and environmental) but in the end an unknown reason triggers it. I hope those who have some familial links are not dissuaded from being alert (recently Medicare paid for genetic screening of cancer for me) about it. My brother is a survivor of 4th stage leukemia (at age 70) and he knows it was a blessing (ironically both getting it, he turned his life around and getting over it).
Hope this helps -I've just found Val McDermid's guide to female & male skulls for forensic anthropology training in SA - see http://dnaproject.co.za/blog/tag/forensic-anthropology
The key? Look at the jaw - is it pointed(F) or more rounded(M)? Is the corner near the ear an `open' angle(G) or more of a right-angle(M)?
McDermid (Dundee Univ) may be familiar to British TV viewers for her work in reconstructing faces from ancient skulls.
`Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see...
Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever'
(www.azlyrics.com)
Earlier, one press report about Saanich Strawberry Fields claims it had had extensive fencing erected and was swarming with British RPOs & their vehicles (at whose expense?)
Goodness knows what the truth is. I don't even with eyes wide open.
As for who the most recent Archie resembles ("H", MM or the previous Archie) I have no idea. We have twin babies in the family and we don't know (yet) if they're identical or not. One was bigger than the other (as is often the case in twin pregnancies) during pregnancy and at birth and the little one only caught up at about 4 months old qua physique but there remains a slight difference in head size. Could indicate that they're not identical and just have different head shapes but it's also possible the youngest one's head hasn't caught up yet or it has but the older one's head is starting to lose some chubbiness hence the difference. Anyway, they look quite alike in certain angles but overall we can tell them apart; but if they're both wearing hats, no one can tell them apart. And more than once I've said they look so much alike when you look at them from a certain angle. Other times I'm convinced they're fraternal twins. The biggest one also looks exactly like their older sibling as a baby (from pics, anyway) but I rarely see a resemblance to relatives, except the eyes of one. And sometimes they'll do something and I'm immediately reminded of a relative who has the same look etc. Oh and look at Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen; they were so identical-looking as children (not so much anymore these days after all the eating disorders, drug addictions, chimney smoking and plastic surgery) that they could play the same character on TV, but they're actually fraternal twins. And their sister, Elizabeth, could have been their triplet looks-wise if only she'd been shorter and had a smaller head.
So, I can't say if it's the angles (plus photoshopping) or if the Archies are indeed different babies.
I am, however, convinced his birthday wasn't in May if one of the Archies is the actual Archie because of MM practically tossing Archie up in the air (okay, not really, but she might as well have) in SA without supporting his head/neck. There's no way a barely 4-month old would be okay after doing that. And no one around was like "Nooooo" so clearly they all thought he was older and suffered no ill effects from that move.
>>>I am, however, convinced his birthday wasn't in May if one of the Archies is the actual Archie because of MM practically tossing Archie up in the air (okay, not really, but she might as well have) in SA without supporting his head/neck. There's no way a barely 4-month old would be okay after doing that. And no one around was like "Nooooo" so clearly they all thought he was older and suffered no ill effects from that move.<<<
It seems most posters (disparate beliefs in many issues with these two) have all said Archie appears much older than if he was born in May. And it was cringe-worthy to see her actions with him as you noted. Yikes! Is she the stupidest mom on the planet or what! I feel so sorry for the baby in so many ways. They (Harry is complicit) in making the poor child the butt of jokes, the suspicion of many, and the dire predictions of a good many folks.
A cracking bit of sarcasm about The Sussex’s by Jan Moir in the DM..
‘In May the royal couple open the Shine A Light Snowflake Centre in London for victims of generational fragility and issues related to trigger-word trauma.
These include conditions such as ‘hurt feelings,’ and chronic sulking.
‘I am here with you as a mother, as a wife, as a woman, as a woman of colour, as your sister, as an inspiration, as a duchess and as a royal personage, so please don’t even think about taking a selfie,’ says Meghan, wearing a Misha Nonoo ballgown accessorised by a bright red Prince Harry, glowering furiously at her side.
The couple then take the rest of the year off to rest and recuperate.’
@Wild Boar Battle-maid
I echo your words in response to YankeeDoodle. There were so many misconceptions in that post it was hard to know where to start in reply, but both your replies covered it well.
@YankeeDoodle. Please have a little more care with some basic research before so grossly maligning one of America's oldest allies.
I'm in Ohio, USA . . it's morning here. I'm only one cup into my coffee quota.
Thanks to everyone who volunteered to join me on my ledge. Although I had drunk a couple of beers prior to posting last night, I want to assure everybody that all my marbles are intact, or at least no more scattered than usual. I do have many wonderments about Meghan and Harry's Ever-Changing Tot. It's going to be a lot harder from now on to disguise any differences/switch-outs of this child as he continues to grow. Therefore, we will probably get fewer and fewer shots of Archie as time goes on, not more--and we've hardly been deluged with images so far.
I am not convinced that (either) Archie is a girl, or necessarily from two surrogates . . the girl theory was floated by someone else and I ran with it for a while. Just trying to come up with possible explanations for why these images of Archie vary wildly from sighting to sighting. It's mind-boggling the level of subterfuge which would be necessary to even pass off one baby as their own & living with them, if they do not have custody . . never mind *two* children, used interchangeably at the same time. It's one thing for Meg to stage a secret photo shoot with two different babies, but it's quite another to travel to a foreign country with a large entourage & present a baby to Bishop Tutu and the world media who was *not* the child presented to the Queen. I can't explain any of it. If Meg is so disliked and so horrible to work for (too many staff horror stories to discount them all), and furthermore, if her financial support and autonomy have been largely curtailed by the Crown . . how is she managing a ruse of such magnitude?
I don't know. But when it comes to Meghan's plots, I have decided that just because reasonable people like us can't explain how she's pulling something off, it would be a mistake to accept therefore that things are exactly as she'd like us to believe they are. (ie, 'We are just a normal young(ish) couple in love, living our lives with our 7-month old son Archie whom we love very much--look, here's a snap from our lovely vacation, taken right after our hike with our two dogs. The dogs are not in the photo because they were tired out after the hike and they were napping back at our luxury retreat." She's up to something, even if we can't be certain exactly what, or how.
>>>Perhaps the Sussex combo are going to extend their Canadian vacation until Haps gets Megs pregnant. Then, when they return they will be somewhat immune to criticism and Charles' discipline with her being pregnant and vulnerable.<<<
I'm sorry, I have lost who I got this from for the attribution. I think the selection of Canada for their 'getaway' (Now in its 7th week) is suggestive. That's where Meg's fertility clinic is located, with her cache of frozen eggs. She could very well be trying to get inseminated herself and have a genuine pregnancy the second time around. Or, past performance being the best indicator of future behavior, she could be gearing up for another surrogate(s), and plans to stick around in the country until a viable pregnancy is confirmed . . whoever is carrying it. Beatrice's wedding announcement is due on January 20th, and I am convinced that Meg plans to sabotage that . . past performance being the best indicator of future behavior. She will not be able to stand the prospect of a York princess owning the day for a happy announcement all to herself.
McDermid (Dundee Univ) may be familiar to British TV viewers for her work in reconstructing faces from ancient skulls.
I can't speak for everyone in the UK, but I think she might be a more familiar name for most people for her (excellent) books than her scientific work. Until I read your post, I wouldn't have automatically associated her name with anything other than being an author and actually Googled to make sure it was the person I thought it was lol
This is the first time I've tried posting (been reading since about Aug/Sept I think), and I've really enjoyed reading all of the ideas and observations people have made. I don't always personally agree with everything I've read, but I must admit whether I agree or disagree with certain points it's all fascinating and all adds into the jigsaw of trying to figure things out. I'm still on the fence regarding a lot of the stuff out there, but I do try to keep an open mind and look at all angles. I guess I'm one of those people who wants to believe that things are straightforward and the official narrative is the correct one, but I just can't seem to make myself fully believe it no matter how I try; it's like one of those clever optical illusions where you're sat staring at it trying to figure out how it was done but just can't quite put your finger on it. I can fully sympathise with the posters who have previously mentioned it's causing them to question their own judgement/opinions because that's where I always end up.
That was also why the Christmas card seemed so photoshopped. In order to get the shot of Archie in front of the camera like that, wouldn't the photographer have to be laying on the ground? And then what happens to H&M in the background?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7846385/David-Foster-arranged-Harry-Meghans-stay-mystery-millionaires-Canadian-mansion.html
I've always believed that it has been the 'same' Archie from the christening onwards.
I don't believe she carried him though...!
That Archie to me looks not very like the "Canada" Archie.
Precisely! :)
https://twitter.com/AllisonBiasella/status/1212738105993814016
https://twitter.com/ubermouth6/status/1212980474798206976
So glad your brother is doing so well.
https://twitter.com/gofakeyourselfm/status/1212587742783328256
I at first thought the colour of his hat was somehow reflecting on to Archie's leg but couldn't work out exactly how but now that you mention a scarf - of course!
When I asked `Who's paying?' I was thinking of their security. My understanding is that it comes out of the Metropolitan Police budget (please correct me if I'm wrong) and I can think of far better ways of spending the money than on looking after them.
I know that all hell would break loose should any misfortune befall them (the Brits in general would be blamed and the RF in particular regardless) but Harry at least should know better. Perhaps that woman of his has an excuse - she can't help behaving as she does. Someone described the pair of them as cockroaches and one has been called `leech'; I'm mentally going through my old parasitology notes to find exactly which disgusting species of obligate parasite best fits her. I'll let you know when I've decided. My narc ex was the human equivalent of a tapeworm - he got his hooks in then did nothing except have sex with himself.
https://ve.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_q3jf5uGE7E1xfdp3x.mp4
There are plenty more examples. Imagine living with a person like that!
I see what you mean Miggy. Are you a geologist or geomorphologist?
It's not just the skyline of the mountains that has to match. It's that a large feature rising from left to right that has to match. My geology's somewhat rusty - is it a fault plant? a thrust plane? It suggest some sort of earth structure on a large scale. It's in the background of the Archie photo and the Turkey one but I couldn't see it in the genuine BC photos
That had been worrying me - but thought it might be something to do with the light. It wouldn't have occurred to MM to check that. Bingo!
Other examples I have noticed more recently are from the Women's Day panel where she is dismissive with the moderator, and at the assisted living home for the actors (name is escaping me right now). They present her with a plaque at the end, and she looks at it for a moment and says (I'm paraphrasing) something like, "OK, should we get my coat?" No manners, no class.
Are we to expect some sort of pathos from them soon calling us to do our bit and be kind? Or are they gone too far into their own universe to care?
I think UK has to do something to help Australia.
Perhaps the Sussex combo are going to extend their Canadian vacation until Haps gets Megs pregnant. Then, when they return they will be somewhat immune to criticism and Charles' discipline with her being pregnant and vulnerable.
@xxxxx: I chuckled at your last sentence about the Harkles being immune to criticism if they return and Meghan is preggers again and vulnerable. She’s very much as some people have described Meghan — a cockroach. As with the cockroach, scheming social climbers and narcissists like Meghan have been around humanity for a long time. Both prefer to work in the shadows and dark and they scatter when light shines upon them to reveal their true ugliness. Once they invade and take hold, it can be difficult to get rid of them because they become immune to bug sprays and other methods to banish these infectious pests. The most sure way is to stomp on them with your shoe. I hope HM, Charles, and William have shoes with firm soles.
When they want to be charming they can be--love-bombing--but their true selves are very self-centered and cruel. They put you on a pedestal and take great pleasure in knocking you down. Mostly in private. Mainly charming in public so everyone thinks they are "nice" and "kind." So, in general, others do not see the problem. The fact they are working in the dark and gaslighting their victim makes living with them hell. Nothing is as it seems with narcs.
This is not a new article, but it is quite revealing, given that so many over at CB have a coronary whenever posters point out that MM likes nice things and has been known to merch.
From the “birds-of-a-feather” department:
My knowledge of Katherine McPhee consisted of her being a contestant on American Idol some years ago and in a high school play with Meghan before becoming somewhat famous and then marrying David Foster (eeew!).
Her assisting Meghan with obtaining the recent stay at the estate in BC piqued my interest and made me wonder if these two are cut from the same cloth. Katherine seems to want to be one of Meg’s BFFs, but even though they knew each other in high school, apparently she didn’t make the cut to get a royal wedding invite. But now that she’s married to a Hollywood geezer with a lot of clout, and Meghan wants a place at the Hollywood fame trough, perhaps they can use each other.
It turns out that yes, they appear to have very similar personalities in that they both had tremendous cravings for fame, had achieved moderate success with K being more famous than Meghan, but still not exactly A-list. Both latched on to men who could give them both a permanent spot at the fame trough. Oh yes, and when they both started to acquire a bit of fame, they promptly dropped their longtime non-famous friends.
Check out this NY Post article from December 30, 2017
https://nypost.com/2017/12/30/how-katharine-mcphee-is-showing-her-secret-dark-side/
And, the two humanitarians should be speaking out and doing something to support the Australian people in their time of extreme hardship.
But then it turned out maybe she wasn't even in the UK when she was supposed to have visited and fed Archie (or if she was, the schedule was really tight to have visited Windsor before flying out.)
Exactly. Ellen's comments came only a short time before SA and clearly there were no noticeable "tufts" of hair of any color when he was displayed with Tutu. As you say he was basically bald.
Re MM's friend. her horrible sex tape is out there and I noticed that when I Googled her name with the term porno and went to images, there is a head shot of her probably taken from it. Why is a royal associating with someone like this? What secrets does MM have? I figure that is why she is suing the Sun and Mail on Sunday. They have something on her. Just speculation on my part, but Occam's Razor and all that.
Can you see actually a slope/ inclined plane/geological fault/ thrust plane, or whatever it is, that runs up at an approx 30 degree angle from left to right on the hillside below the skyline in the Harry photo and in the Turkish photo that Miggi refers to? I can't see it in photo of the genuine Canadian view. Is it really there in the actual landscape? Or is the background in the Harry photo of somewhere else superficially like your view? It may only appear in certain lights, of course.
It's what makes me think the photo is not what it purports to be. Is it a photoshopped job, figures onto another background? Are they in Turkey? In a photostudio? Nothing is as it seems. We cannot take anything at face value.
The only time I think MM may have told the truth was when she boasted `I am such a liar!' when discussing faking membership of her acting union. Even that's not certain - there's the awkward philosophical question - if a liar says `I am a liar' are they telling the truth?
The song? Sounds like abject submission to a narc to me.
It’s the same child. I think the lack of photos have something to do with that in-turned eye. Maybe he was born with it much worse and had surgery and wears a training patch? Happened to my nephew.
I think they used a surrogate. She remained perfectly skinny everywhere while pregnant. I remember one video clip when they were...somewhere. It was a side shot of her, and you see her belly move with “kicks”. Normal, right...except the self satisfied smirk on her face and the way she dramatically looked down was like “that will show them”. Fake.
I think Harry is/was in the rehab in Canada and Meghan stayed nearby. I think he is still clinging to the marriage...rehab removes all your layers and you are raw, perfect for a Narc love bombing. And she won’t let him go.
the gossip magazine gala in France reports that Meghan and Harry are back in the UK and on a short leash.
Mischi: This is good news. I hope it’s a VERY short leash.
I wonder if the photo of HM, PC, PW, and PG was held and released now to partly serve as a welcome back to the UK reminder to the Harkles just who matters in The Firm.
I hope Meghan's grandiose plans for herself using the vehicle of the Sussex Royal grifting foundation are dashed by being told by HM that now that Andrew is out of the patronage picture, they must step up and be good team members by taking over a large number of Andrew’s former patronages. That would just grind Meghan’s gears to no end to be stuck in the UK taking up her valuable time working on causes that she cares nothing about and meeting the non-A list people she disdains.
the gossip magazine gala in France reports that Meghan and Harry are back in the UK and on a short leash.
I read the article. You’re right. Sounds like they’ve been told to stay in line, act like proper royals and no whining in public.
This type of hard line will not sit well with Meghan’s narcissism. If this information is accurate, her need for absolute control will clash terribly with any new rules. She’s too used to usually getting her own way in life, and within the environment of her relationship with Harry, she is used to running everything. If HM or Charles are stepping in, it would likely be very threatening for her to no longer be catered to. Perhaps the RF has been clued in to her personality disorder, her clever manipulations will no longer work.
Gee, who will be around to ask Meghan if she’s OK and to help Harry get out of bed in the morning? I suspect Harry’s apparent depression is from the possible emotional abuse that narcissists inflict on their victims in private. If the RF is cracking down on them, I wouldn’t be surprised if Meghan takes her anger and frustration out on Harry. Narcissists are angry people in the first place, so being under the thumb of The Firm would’t sit well with a woman who prefers to keep others under HER thumb.
"It's Them Or Me!" It's pretty clear by now how much she hates the royal family for whatever multiple real or imagined things they've done to her, cuz you know, she's a victim all day every day. When ever she feels one of the royals have done something mean to her, real or imagined she'll tell Harry something like, "It's them or me and you have to choose." That's why Harry ducked out of royal event like that memorial for the military and went to the Disney thing because you know, that's her kind of event and all things must go her way. She insists that he choose what she wants to do or where to be and if he doesn't then she accuses him of being disloyal to her and threatens to take the baby and leave him and tell the world what a doper, drunk abusive monster he is.
As far as Harry goes, yes, his self esteem is shot. Narcs, no matter how big or small they think something is, will never take the blame after deliberately doing or saying something wrong, even when busted red handed. No matter what happens, everything is always going to be Harry's fault and she will make sure he knows it all of the time. In order to cope, he uses and probably gives in to her demands just to shut her up.
If he's been going to or in rehab she should be very afraid, because rehab does rebuild a person's self esteem and builds them back up again with real love and honesty. She can't let that happen! He'll learn that he hooked up with this lunatic whilst in the midst of his ongoing drug/drinking toxic fog; and as he gets sober, he'll begin to honestly feel things. Feelings like, now that he is sober, he figures out that he doesn't love her at all and make moves towards freedom. Let the healing begin!
"Can you see actually a slope/ inclined plane/geological fault/ thrust plane, or whatever it is, that runs up at an approx 30 degree angle from left to right on the hillside below the skyline in the Harry photo and in the Turkish photo that Miggi refers to?"
All the links I posted showed the Canadian hillside/skyline. (I've not had time to find the Turkish photo so I didn't refer to it.)
It really bugged me that Harry as a man never insisted on meeting her father in person. Only weaklings exclusively communicate by text and phone and never meet/honour their fiancée's father; No. Respect. (or she had already lied Harry into hatred). It also became very clear that she didn't want Thomas walking her down the aisle- he didn't fit her glossy narrative.
I don't think TM is psychologically sophisticated so he reacted just like most people react to the behaviour of a narcissist- confusion, woundedness and damage. He remains confused and wounded not understanding why oh why she has dumped him for some transgression which, let's face it, is a minor one. He doesn't understand that his presence doesn't jive with her victimhood ('the family I never had') and the grand optics she demands.
I see TM as desperately trying to reach out to her given the opportunity no matter how low. Not the best choice but not evil. I attribute assertions of "owing" him to bitterness and helplessness and major hurt; I don't think he knows what else to do. It's also rather childish but if anyone has been done wrong/dirt it's Thomas Markle. She impugned her father's character, smeared his reputation, and trashed his love to the entire f'ing world- it can't get more damaging and humiliating than that.
It's Doria who has come out of this smelling like a rose. Doria, the mother she didn't live with during her formative years. Makes me go hmmm? Doria who keeps her mouth shut, is never questioned about why she didn't have custody. But she makes a good AA prop.
I do fault TM for providing the perfect environment for a blooming disordered narcissist- he spoiled her rotten. I mean ROTTEN. And then there was Hollywood.... But in the final analysis he gave her everything out of love and she discarded him, like a snotty used tissue .