Today Royal watchers will be looking forward to the annual Christmas walk, as the Royals leave the Sandringham estate and walk to St. Mary Magalene church for the 11am service.
Who will be there, and what will they be wearing? Will this be the first Christmas walk for Prince George and Prince Charlotte? Will Edo show up looking handsome - and what will they do with Andrew?
Here's an open post to discuss.
----------
The Cambridges released a black-and-white photo of their family this morning, a shot taken by Kate of her husband kissing their youngest son, Louis, while Charlotte and George look on.
Louis looks adorable and Charlotte looks fine, but George looks as if he'd rather be elsewhere. If Royal photoshopping has now become acceptable, how about 'shopping in a more flattering shot of the son and heir?
Who will be there, and what will they be wearing? Will this be the first Christmas walk for Prince George and Prince Charlotte? Will Edo show up looking handsome - and what will they do with Andrew?
Here's an open post to discuss.
----------
The Cambridges released a black-and-white photo of their family this morning, a shot taken by Kate of her husband kissing their youngest son, Louis, while Charlotte and George look on.
Louis looks adorable and Charlotte looks fine, but George looks as if he'd rather be elsewhere. If Royal photoshopping has now become acceptable, how about 'shopping in a more flattering shot of the son and heir?
Comments
we say Merry Christmas over here, I wonder how/why it came to be we don't say "happy" nor you "merry" down the rabbit hole I go
just teasing. Happy Merry Christmas everybody! :)
I too am looking forward to Christmas walk
@Nutty, thanks for the new post.
For the archives, « for more likes », they could have chosen a « better », more instagrammable picture but this is Instagram v. Reality and they are right to choose reality.
IMO, this a subtil message : we are able to take decent photo in colour but also in black and white, we don’t need to make up our photos and photoshop our kids and show things which aren’t real/sincere/true, we are a very normal family with kids who aren’t always all smiles.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7826107/Meghan-Markles-friend-Janina-Gavankar-releases-original-Christmas-photograph.html
`Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year' is a traditional English/British greeting and the one I prefer. I've had my share of rotten Christmases but have learnt that merriness can be achieved more easily than happiness - good food, a few (not too many!) drinks, cheerful company, cheerful music, warmth, ignore the grinches, No Contact with narcs, try to forget the unhappiness for a few hours. Next year might be better... as indeed it has been, and the after that and so on, thanks to finding real love rather than the narc version.
The Yahoo home page this morning has 7 headlines with You-Know-Who named (I can't bear to even used her initials on a High and Holy Day). Apparently, people can't understand why HM (I was once a UK Army wife- TQ is superfluous) hasn't any photos of Y-K-W on the table. How dim can one be?)
Merry Christmas to you all!
(I'm not a robot, nor am I a good proofreader!)
https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/prince-harry-and-family-spotted-vacationing-in-greater-victoria-1.24042042
Merry Christmas everyone from California. Looking forward to the Church Walk.
Interesting that Charles and Andrew were walking together. Maybe that is the message about Christmas and family (unity in spite of the difficulties that came).
Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Holidays to those who celebrate other festivities. May we all have a safe one.
Apparently Andrew went to the 9am service rather than the usual one.
Beatrice looks beautiful and Edo has such a huge smile on his face (wedding date is set for him to marry who I think is the love of his life, and the huge family Christmas has gone well).
There is a sadness about Her Maj (probably did not get enough sleep with worry over Phillip and thus wore a head scarf to hide the fact that she did not have time to fuss over her hair, or maybe there was an issue with the hat ... but DM seems to have mixed up photos from other years so am not sure what Her Maj was wearing today).
Continuing to love and spend time with a family member who has messed up badly is not condoning the behaviour. I question those who want to condemn anyone in the royal family who still walks or goes horse riding with Andrew (i.e. does not behave like self-centred, shallow Megsy). Plus, looking deeply into someone's eyes, stroking their arm and encouraging them to share their feelings and talk for hours on end (what I suspect Megsy did with Harry) can prod the wound and make it fester instead of leaving it to heal, or turn a scar back into a wound. Cutting a person off for self-preservation can lead to the destruction of that person (that too is Megsy behaviour). I think Andrew's family is handling his fall from grace well.
This is how to wear a coat with a belt, not the lopsided tied belt that makes the coat look like a bathrobe (very difficult to get the right look, which can look fabulous and smart, but Megsy never gets it right).
I agree. I'm not sure why some expect Andrew to be publicly shamed and rejected by his family. Do we want or expect the families of all people actually convicted of crimes to be treated that way by their families too? Or is it only Andrew? (who hasn't been convicted of a crime or even charged with one.)
That said, from what I have read Andrew did not "walk with the royal family." He attended an earlier service and walked with his brother Charles.
It's quite right that Andrew went to church and was seen to go - it's not there just for the (self)righteous but sinners, especially for sinners!
That said, it was a great joy to seem HM leading the rest of the family, herself in the royal scarlet and many of the rest seemingly co-ordinated in purples and mauves, even down to neckties and hatbands. This is despite HM once letting it be known that she did not concern herself with what other ladies wore - that was when Margaret Thatcher was anxious not wear the same colour as, or to clash with, HM so asked what she would be wearing.
Both the scarlet and purple are significant. There was a fuss a few years ago about the precise shade of red to be worn by cathedral choirs - scarlet only in Royal Foundations eg Westminster Abbey. Purple comes from the Roman Imperial family of course (a dangerous family at times - echoes in Clawedius & Meggalina!)
Remember the wedding carpets? Scarlet for W&K; Royal blue for Eugenie; lighter blue for Lady Gabrielle Windsor; and bare flagstones for the Other Wedding, despite Harry's position.
The Sun is updating story. Cute pics of Princess Charlotte with crowds and an inflatable pink flamingo gift.
.. and finally The Daily Mail has the story.
Hope everyone has a wonderful day!
That the Royals have made a public show of supporting Andrew pretty much confirms my thoughts that H&M will continue to be given financial resources to carry on with their eco-horse and pony show. (Equo?)
Other Nutties called it correctly and I wasn't quite sure, but the Cambridges indeed were going to bring out their children to distract from Andrew. It worked, as all the photos are focused on the children.
I'm not religious, but I do think part of the Royal Family is to support the Church of England and understand its most basic practices. This is part of the big show they do for the Christmas day services and their baptisms, etc. That Harry lets his dreadful wife dumb down Christmas on his official IG account (celebrating Christmas instead of Advent for the month of December, calling it the holiday festivities, and placing that Father Christmas hat on their monogram despite the formality of calling themselves by their full title)...the average person shouldn't need to know but the Royals are a different bunch. If they're going to live just like us, then they don't need to receive the funds from the Sovereign Grant, which could go to other purposes.
The fact that technically Archie is in the line of succession but probably will never see the inside of a CoE parish except for Christmases at Sandringham or learn church liturgy/values/history should automatically cut him out of the succession. Either you prepare for the thing that will hopefully never come or you acknowledge that you won't and just live as a private citizen. It doesn't mean you have to live some holy lifestyle, just the appearance is enough for me. One of the duties of any reigning English monarch is to be head of the church. I imagine that even when the Cambridges spend Christmas with the Middletons, they attend the Christmas day services.
2) I agree with those who believe that there is no need to shun an errant family member. Andrew has already been famously punished by the press, public and HM. Nothing to be gained by punishing him further.
Was glad to see the precious Cambridge children at the Christmas walk looking so cute and proper. Loved the red color on the Queen coat and hat, such a beautiful shade (not the mean kind of shade, lol), I believe Andrew does belong in the church as Jesus says he has come/died for sinners and he would routinely associate with them (much to the dismay of some good people).
I wish I had better pictures to look at the Christmas walk but the ones I viewed weren't really that good. If any poster has a link to better photos and the eventual video could you please post link...thank you!
As for George being shy, well he is more reserved like his Dad and that could very well be a good thing, He is a polite and well mannered little boy and I only wish I could live long enough to see the day he will be King (but at 67 yrs. old that is not likely).
As far as I can tell, Prince Andrew was not there for the walk, he was at an earlier service. Prince Charles walked with the
cambridge family which I thought was nice. Everyone looked nice, but all the colors were very muted except for the Queen, Anne, and Camilla. Kate looked a bit stressed but as a mom of 2 young children, I can understand she wanted to make sure things went smoothly.
Second, she mentioned the "eighth" great-grandchild. This is significant, because she believes Archie is Harry's son, whether born by MM or by the surrogate, he is accepted as royal bloodline. Good, because the kid should not pay for shortfalls of his parents, whatever they are.
All in all she is encouraging us to do good things in small steps. Amen to that.
>>This is significant, because she believes Archie is Harry's son, whether born by MM or by the surrogate, he is accepted as royal bloodline. Good, because the kid should not pay for shortfalls of his parents, whatever they are.<<
I wonder if this (if Archie is a surrogate birth) means that the law "born of the body" is not going to apply and the law will be disregarded willy nilly? Then that begs the question, would children born of an affair also be considered rightful heirs also? Personally, I am open to any and all 'proof' of surrogacy. But your suggestion that 'shortfalls' of one's parents can lead to some to some people claiming royal inclusion (as I have read that no less than PP has fathered a child from an affair).
I joked to my friends last week that Harry and Meghan were probably hiding out in this facility with me. Its the perfect place to disappear: empty hallways, very quiet, no one to disturb you.
Lo and behold, the Victoria newspaper has reported that H & M have been spotted in Saanich. (thanks for the link EFarrell). I was right!!!!
Full text of the Queen’s speech .......
(GSTQ was banished in the late 60's or early seventies). It was a simpler time and a time when Canada's connections to the UK were still strong.
The Queen looked good and her voice was strong; she is remarkable for her age. Her comment about "womankind" and comments about the environment showed that the Smirkles have no monopoly on royal wokeness.
The message this year was clearly one of slowly setting aside past differences; this might apply globally, but could also be a reference to her family.
Like everything else about the Smirkle, I don't know whether to believe the story or not. It states in the story that they have been jogging around the area yet no photos. Trudeau spends a lot of time vacationing on Vancouver Island and there are always I Phone type photos of Trudeau and his family being posted by the public. But maybe security clears the trails of the riffraff, the way they did at Wimbledon.
I loved the Christmas walk for the joy of watching kids (George and Charlotte) be kids!
From George - in long pants! - looking askance at the clipped pace of the walk-in, to Charlotte having a stand off with her mom about doing anything, to the "hug" given to a fellow Brit. She just didn't quite know what to think of the situation!
I loved that Charles and Andrew walked to the church together. It is fitting for the season of Peace. The Queen and Camilla arriving separately appeared normal given the chill. What a joy for the Queen that all her children and the majority of her grandchildren were present to celebrate the Christmas worship with her. Everyone appeared happy, cold, but happy.
And finally, I am glad the REAL Christmas card of the Harkles was posted by the photographer, eliminating any doubt on her photographic skills. She is the only person I felt sorry for in the whole fiasco.
Best returns of the day!
The family attends 2 services on christmas day with the first service at 9am. This first service is private and they don't bother to dress up for it. If you look at the set of pictures from this service, the queen is wearing a headscarf. If you google this service in previous years, you'll note the casual attire of everyone, Queen included. The men wear their winter coats, but they barely look groomed and properly presented.
The 9am service is completely private with no mefia or public invited to line the route. Unfortunately the church is a public space, paps capture the family walking to the church. The give away is how grainy the pictures look which means they are taken from afar by paps.
Paps captured Andrew walking with Charles into that 9am service.
The very public 11am service is the one with Charlotte and George. Media and public are invited to line the walking route, the family dresses UP to the nines and those pictures / video are shown around the world. This is the official walk to church.
On this occasion, it was naughty of the DM to post pictures of Andrew from the earlier 9am private service within the body of the article of the official, public 11am service.
It made people think that he walked in the official church service when he did not.
Oh, I finally sorted out the confusion abut the walk to church: Her Maj and Charles went to church twice on Christmas morning and Andrew attended the earlier service with them.
For reasons unknown, the press Association picked up a photoshopped version of the card and that is the version it circulated to all of media including the DM.
The original was sent to the Queens' commonwealth Trust, and the first publication to publish was people magazine.
It would be funny as hell if people magazine photoshopped the image because everyone knows they only publish what they are told to publish by the subject of their articles.
The DM took one look at the photo and knew it was photoshopped. As did anyone with eyes. Social media blew up with commentary about the absurd photoshop job and DM decided to get in on the act.
It took almost a day before PA sent out a notice to all of media members telling them to stop using the photoshopped image.
And it took Janina more than 24hrs to publish what she claims was the original photo complete with a dig at DM blaming them for the photoshop.
The need to kill the picture and accusations someone else doctored it just makes it look more suspicious. We all would have moved on without the sloppy fallout. But the chaos and need to control even what people think appears to be the MM calling card.
I personally don't care for the card, photoshopped or not. If anything I find the large baby coming at me very Pintresty and a little like a bizarre Macy's day parade float.
The Janine accusation appears to be that the DM altered the original photo themselves and then pretended it was altered by Sussex or their team so that they could drag them. In other words she appears to be claiming that it was sent out, gif or not, as the original unaltered image and the DM altered it and then dragged the Sussexes for an image they had themselves altered.
That's how the stans on her twitter timeline is interpreting her comments and i'm assuming the same.
She doesn't explain how rest of media got hold of OR started to use the altered image.
At best she's giving the DM lots of power and influence over the rest of the world's media and at worst she's slandering the DM.
@cookieshank: Yes. Christmas 2012 when the Cambridges had Christmas at Middleton manor. Kate was newly pregnant with George. The press was invited to take pictures which were duly published, but by mid-afternoon they were withdrawn via a kill note from the PA. The DM complained bitterly and publicly about it at the time and went as far as writing an op-ed about bad faith shown by the Cambridges and wasting everybody's time.
Unfortunately for the Cambridges, the pictures were up long enough to be copied by fans, bloggers, gossip media so they live on the internet and are easily googled.
In her narc mind, she expected fulsome praise especially for finally revealing Archie full frontal.
Also, this christmas card was announced as groundbreaking and amazeballs in the days before it was revealed. It was described as being a break from the norm of royal routine and something to be excited about.
Pretty sure this was the usual Sussex announcements of their amazeballs projects that they expect to dazzle the public only to be humiliated by the indifference and or mockery of the underwhelmed public.
This is why she's blaming the DM. It's never her fault, and she never reacts with any sense of humour about it.
It is late at night when received by an intoxicated QCT staffer who is there all alone. Staffer wants to help out H&M so he/she Photoshops it, making it into a gif, adding the twinkling stars on the Christmas tree and enhances Meghan a bit. Then posts it. This giffed up posting has 2200 deliriously positive comments at QCT twitter. Thus was a success for the super sugars at QCT.
The image appears very digitally manipulated, even in the original photo.
Is she mad they did their own workup?
Maybe mad like she was that they published parts of her father's letter?
In both cases she seems to be taking exception regarding how she is portrayed.
How many PR disasters can she have?
Bottom line it should be known as the Sussex 'Baby Sasquatch' photo, since Archie appears as a weird-headed Monster baby FYI, for non-Americans a Sasquatch,(AKA 'Bigfoot') is a large creature which roams the forests here in the US or so believers think.
How could the Harkles (*and their 'stans') think the card in any form be considered attractive, and maybe they just did it for their typical need for controversy and attention for all the wrong reasons. So typical Meghan. I feel sad for little Archie, as he might one day look back at the awful press and social media comments on his mother's strange pregnancy antics, christening photos and pitiful few photos of him in his first year of life.
In order of importance:
Kate looked fabulous, and yes, the fur was faux (whew), though if it had been real but vintage, I'd have forgiven that because I, too, have some of that kind of fur, and though I do not wear it, I consider it more than acceptable to use vintage fur.
Once again, William impresses. He seems to be a wonderful dad, and he and George are simpatico. Although George's life will be filled with luxury, it will also be filled with expectations most cannot imagine. Also, he does not get to choose his path. I imagine Wills and Chas will help him immensely on his preordained journey.
George and Charlotte are adorable, and I love the way W&K guide them. It does look like Charlotte may have been scolded a bit, but she pulled thru with her charm offensive. I still wish George had done this alone because it would have been more his moment. That said, I imagine that their parents know them best, and it may be that George is more comfortable doing things like this if his sister is along. My brother and I were about the same distance apart in age, and we may have fought to the near-death with each other, but we were a team in uncertain circumstances, and close to this day.
And OMG Camilla knocked it out of the park with the cut and color. HMTQ looked her usual perfect self, and that red was TDF, too. I also loved Anne's purple. Very regal all around.
Andrew's 9 am service was appropriately done and sent the right signal IMO. It's the BRF equivalent of "no, you can't sit with us", but it is still appropriate for Andrew to go to church. Prisoners are allowed to go to church. Heathens are allowed in church. Andrew can go to church, but he must go ahead of everyone else and leave by the back door.
_________________________________________
Now, to the two who were not missed in the least and were made wholly irrelevant by two children today:
"Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great grandchild into our family."
IMO: words were carefully chosen here. I know some are hailing this as the answer to the question of surrogacy, but I do not see it that way. In fact, she did not even say "birth" of her 8th great. HMTQ has simply let it be known that they welcome this child. Nothing more. A blink and it would be missed. And she said no name. (I wish Jesus hadn't followed so closely after, however; leave it to Rach to drop an "Archie is the next savior, so sayeth the Queen" PR story lol.)
Not only were the toxic duo not missed, but the event was much better without them. A 4-year-old little girl sticking out her tongue is cute to some (not me, so much, but I don't really care, given her age), but an almost 40 year-old thrice-married-and-up-and-down-the-greasy-pole woman, not so much. (I admit that it's not as much fun without Rach, however. The predicted finger cymbal performance would have provided fodder for decades, but alas...)
Today was a goodbye and good riddance to the sixth in line to the throne and to that woman he married. (Not that she'll go away, of course.)
And lastly, to that bloody photo:
there are side-by-side comparisons of the original photo, the one the DM used, the photoshopped one, and the kill photo. Even the original photo looks photoshopped. Also, it looks to me like that is the one the DM used. The DM did photoshop the original, but only to flatten it out and look at the layers of photoshopping. At least, that is what I understand about it, and what seems most likely. The original photo sent to the QCT is cringe-worthy, and inspired the first cries of "photoshopped" and nothing PH & Rach can do or say changes that. This won't stop them (her) from every possible truth contortion and machination.
But here's what I have to say to Rach, just in case she does read here:
The photoshopping-gate is not the issue. The issue is that so many believed that the photo might be photoshopped, and the DM directly calling it out is proof in the Christmas pudding of not only your irrelevancy but your global absurdity. None of this would have or could have happened if you had any integrity and were respected.
The reason most don't believe you and many expect the tawdry from you is because you have done the tawdry so many times and lied outrageously and been caught at it.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
-- that's a real thing, Rach, and no amount of money filtered through a "foundation" can buy back integrity. Money doesn't make you who you are; money reveals who you are. You have been revealed to be a liar, a grifter, a fraud, and an abysmal actress, and that is why we do not trust, respect, believe, or like you.
But, in the spirit of the season, good manners dictate that I say something nice, so here's the best I can do for you, Rach: I hope you enjoy your long vacation.
According to Yahoo News headlines, Hello has announced `The Queen shows gorgeous photo of baby Archie with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry during speech.'
Not really, hardly the climax. It was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it-4-second view of the old shot of HM examining what could be a `bundle of washing'(as a neighbour's child called me when mother first brought me home). So this would appear to validate that there was a real, living child within the wrappings after all, even if not visible to the rest of us?
Where will it go from here? The end of their 6-weeks will soon be in sight. Sadly, their court cases could bring them back into the news. Even if they won nominal, insultingly small damages, they are unlikely to take the hint and clear off for good. Might she go if she sees a better prospect than Harry?
Poor little Archie, what chance does he stand with `parents' like that? It's his welfare that must come first. Were he in an ordinary family, Social Services would have intervened long ago.
The headline of the DM article actually highlighted Meghan. Nope, Megsy, the Queen's speech was not about you at all, but her PR is relentless ...
I've just had a look at Yankee Wally on Tumblr where wendyrite places an Archie photo from the Tutu visit side by side with the latest manifestation.
Most comments focus on eyes and mouth but I look at the underlying bone structure first, before concentrating on features. This is probably from having done portrait drawing. I look at skull symmetry, shape, distance between the eyes and so on.
I’m wondering if these images are of the same child? The child in the Christmas photo has a sharp chin and his face lacks the symmetry of the African photo – the chin is to one side for example. Also, the sides of the skull in the later photo are more nearly parallel than those in the earlier picture.
Admittedly, I haven’t studied how the skull of an infant can change as the bones develop but this is a marked change over little more than 2 months. Is this the same child? What do you think?
Yankee Wally also features someone’s investigation of Harry’s Horror Santa video, digitally comparing his face from the video with an authentic image. The result was that the video `Harry’ was rated as only a 60% likeness. I was suspicious when I watched the video - what do you think?
DECEMBER 23, 2019 BLIND GOSSIP 95 COMMENTS
[Blind Gossip] While most of us are bustling about this holiday, buying gifts and visiting family, this TV actress has a very different plan!
She is taking quiet time over the holiday because she knows how hectic it is going to be first quarter next year.
Why is it going to be hectic?
Her plan was always to return from the holiday break pregnant. That’s why she is keeping such a low profile.
Wait a minute. What?
She is seeing several doctors over the break to make sure everything goes well.
Since most women usually don’t start seeing a doctor until they think they are pregnant, this could mean any of a number of things.
She knew she was pregnant before going on break, and the doctors are monitoring her health.
OR she was meeting with doctors because they are helping her get pregnant (e.g. using fertility drugs, IVF).
OR she and her rich, foreign-born hubby are going at it like rabbits over the holidays, trying to conceive the natural way!
Did she have some eggs or embryos already stashed away in preparation for this? We know that she wanted to get pregnant soon after her last baby was born, and this would certainly give her a head start.
Whatever the case, we will certainly see in the next few months if this pregnant pause was effective!
Brace yourself for the next overdue pregnancy and secretive delivery.
"Settled:...is a private opinion, and it has the same merit as any one of us. I for one, think he was born of a surrogate and probably not even genetically related to Meghan and possibly not of Harry either (although I'm inclined to think Harry is the father).
There is no doubt of the Queen’s meaning.
The part of the speech I was most struck by were the repeated references to the threme of small changes lead to the greatest impact. Her Majesty stayed with that narrative throughout and into her closing: "...small steps can make a world of difference" and then underscored it for the last time with "as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it's worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change."
In other words, no big changes for the coming year other than what we are now seeing. The Sussexes aren't going anywhere unless they choose to, but they will continue to be diminished commensurate with their place in the hierarchy; their honeymoon period with The Firm is definitively over, no further indulging their whims. The Cambridges will continue to be front and center (like their photograph placement on the table no doubt). Focus is specifically the line of succession now. Everyone else must get in line with the program as there will be no other option.
>>The inclusion of the photo showing the queen and PP meeting Archie with Meghan holding him, Harry there as well as Doria ends everything about Archie.<<
Many have said (even on this site) the picture was photoshopped. So much photoshop goes on with the Suxxess photos so any picture is suspect especially the alleged Archie Christening photo (I don't need to repeat what many posters wrote herein).
You only have to look at prior Nutty threads to see what many think about the 'unsettled' issue of Archie.
"Bottom line it should be known as the Sussex 'Baby Sasquatch' photo, since Archie appears as a weird-headed Monster baby FYI, for non-Americans a Sasquatch,(AKA 'Bigfoot') is a large creature which roams the forests here in the US or so believers think."
From Wildboar:
"The child in the Christmas photo has a sharp chin and his face lacks the symmetry of the African photo – the chin is to one side for example. Also, the sides of the skull in the later photo are more nearly parallel than those in the earlier picture."
My opinion:
100% agree on both of those comments.
To me it looks like South Africa Archie's features where shopped onto another baby's head and then the whole mess was plopped onto another baby's body. His face was too straight on, you can see a line around the entire head, and his head looks like a Macy's parade balloon. The whole thing looks fake.
If the Harkles actually were in a beautiful room in front of a colorful Christmas tree with an adorable baby and this is the best they could come up with for a royal card, then they're both truly nuts.
The brash way of the Sussex has proved chaotic and careless in wanting to bulldoze change. They almost look foolish if not like lunatics in their slapdash approach to spouting platitudes while being hypocrites..,and where has all the donations ($2 million from Disney) gone to fund charitable projects or programs? They frantically grabbed the money and have nothing to show for it but some slogans on bananas, and some stupid word salad speeches while looking stoned or drunk or both.
>>>Well, @cateyes unless you are with the fringe and hold out hope for some kind of treason charge, then you have two choices. 1) HM is perpetuating a fraud by allowing a surrogate baby with unknown DNA into the line of succession or 2) the queen is satisfied with the birth circumstances of Archie and there is nothing to see here.<<<
No there are more avenues of thought than what you presented. You only distilled it to your choices.1. I never, ever intimated much less said Archie wasn't a real baby.2. I never sais anything about treason and it has nothing to do with Archie being a surrogate baby or not (in my opinion). 3, Archie does not have a title and I have not seen any official line of succession which includes him. 4, Neither you nor me knows what the Queen thinks regarding Archie (other than her brief "welcome into the family" remark...but that is a remark and not necessarily indicative of her feelings/thoughts)..
>>His face was too straight on, you can see a line around the entire head, and his head looks like a Macy's parade balloon. The whole thing looks fake.<<
Oh, I think Ballon Baby Head description is so spot on. I laughed out loud at that and the poor child looks like a ballon likeness gone wrong Poor little thing that his parents had so hideously put his photo up for ridicule. They had such a wonderful opportunity to dress him up in a little Santa or elf suit, or put him (although he is a biggie) in a Christmas stocking, or drape cute little lights around him, the list goes on and on and the poor child is front and center in a lousy composition (the Monster Baby that ate Christmas ala King Kong-like).Too bad Meghan wasn't portrayed in an unflaterring light, as she and even Harry deserve it, not their poor kid.
“Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born at 05:26 on Monday 6th May. He is the first child of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and is seventh in line to the throne.
Archie weighed 7lb 3oz and The Duke of Sussex was present for the birth.”
https://www.royal.uk/succession
The line of Succession
SOVEREIGN
1. The Prince of Wales
2. The Duke of Cambridge
3. Prince George of Cambridge
4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
5. Prince Louis of Cambridge
6. The Duke of Sussex
7. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
HOWEVER, there are degrees of "welcoming", and the BRF has distanced themselves from Archie, and I believe there is a reason for that, too. Other than the first photo, the Christening photos, and that absurd polo match spectacle, there have been no photos of Archie with any members of the BRF. There is a reason for that. Beats me what it is.
Also, and no idea if this is true, just a comment I read, but the photo of Archie was copyrighted by Rach in the summer and could only be used with a fee, but because TQ used the photo, it is now fair game again? Anyone know if this is true?
Sometimes, when money and power are involved, "the truth" is more malleable. There are many historical and political examples of this. FTR, I don't throw down on either side, but I do question everything
For example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/02/king-richard-iii-dna-cousins-queen-ancestry
I've always thought this was interesting as well, esp since I share the mitochondrial DNA involved. I don't care really, but I was kind of ticked off that I didn't get a wedding invitation for W&K. Now that we're BFFs, I've forgiven the oversight, but still...
If by this @tatty said >>1) HM is perpetuating a fraud by allowing a surrogate baby with unknown DNA into the line of succession>>>
Then you think it would be a fraud if the Monarch put Archie in the line of succession if he was a surrogate?
Well, I have some plausible answers...the child is biologically Harry's but not Meghan's and born of a surrogate (hence known DNA) or the child was born of Meghan (but not Harry's DNA). Or a third possibility, the Queen knows the truth (child is born of a surrogate) and she secretly keeps the information a state secret so as to not embarrass the child and effectively it doesn't matter as there is no likelihood Archie will ascend the throne.
Literally no one:
MM: OMG the press is stalking me, let me tell you all about my relationship with Harry, my Dad will come to the wedding no he won't, OMG I'm pregnant, oops the server crashed, let me tell you about the chicken tacos and Michelle Obama, here's my magazine edit, here's my fashion line, gotta watch my friend, look at this jewelry, I'm going to LA for Thanksgiving, I need a break! Here's my Christmas card, wait someone photoshopped it!
Everyone: Meghan how's Archie?
MM: Respect my privacy!!! No one asked if I'm ok!!!
But I do respect by and large the Queen and Prince William and the Cambridge's..
There are also pictures of Diana presenting Hewitt a Polo trophy, while they were dating and 4 and 6 old Harry and William are with her.
@Mimi
What is poor Elizabeth going to say about the product of Dimwit Harry and his Skank wife,.,MM couldn't produce an heir because her female organs were so worn out with scar tissue due to repeated Pelvic Inflammatory disease outbreaks from sexually transmitted disease and Harry is impotent due to undescended balls (well maybe he has one according to some), In addition, Megs was a 'colorist' who couldn't take the chance of having her Afrocentric features be passed on (since she has spent her entire life denying them by doing as much cosmetic surgery and hair straightening, wigs she can afford) so she had to have a surrogate with Aryan features donate eggs to combine with sperm from an Irish looking lad.
I think the motives of both the Harkles are suspect just like with most of their behavior. I would not put anything past them. I believe the Christmas ecard typical half-ass Harkles and they have no creative juices whatsoever. I can hardly wait till their 6 wk layabout is over so there will be new stupid things to laugh at. They are on the world stage but for the wrong reasons...they are so pathetic! I only cringe if they end up announcing another fakenancy...oh it will be vomit-inducing...I don't know how the world will endure another sickening spectacle of her antics and have to see another Monster baby.(pieces of limbs, toes and hydrocephalic baby head on a Christmas card).
Personally, I am just shocked at the widespread unfaithfulness of so many members of the royal family (even allegations the Queen was unfaithful). What is wrong with these people?
Also Zara's husband was caught on camera snogging a woman in a bar while drunk in NZ after he and Zara were married.
I think adultery was encouraged in royal families to bring in some fresh DNA. There used to be so much inbreeding among European royals that the members of the family were not very vigorous, shall we say.
Even Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, who was supposedly besotted by his wife, the Tsarina Alexandra, had a mistress.
What is the definition of 'snoggin'?
Actually, statistically, a lot of people cheat. Monogamy is sometimes more successful in theory than in practice. And rich people cheat more. (I know -- I'm jaded.)
I hate to mention it, but I saw a relatively recent internet documentary that says the UK health care system is suffering from the tremendous costs associated with children being born of first cousin unions predominate among a certain fundamentalist religious group (I won't name so to not inflame anyone here).
First off, British law considers children born of surrogate as adopted. The genetic parents have to adopt them. And an adopted child may not inherit his father's title. This was settled a few years ago in a court case involving the Viscount and Viscountess of Weymouth who had a son by a surrogate.
If Archie was born "of the body" he would be in line to be the next Duke of Sussex. The only way he wouldn't inherit the title is if a)Harry renounced the title for himself (because you can't refuse a title for someone else, even if the someone else is your own child) OR b)Harrys title was removed ( which takes an Act of Parlement; the Queen can't remove it on her own).
However, if he was born of a surrogate he is not legally able to inherit the Duke of Sussex title. This may be the reason he is not being styled after Harry's subsidiary title of Earl of Dunbarton. Meghan wouldn't pass up the opportunity to have her son styled as an Earl.
That's the main reason I've suspected a surrogate was used. The Queen doesn't want to be accused of perpetuating an illegal fraud. That's my theory, anyway.
But would the law of succession to the throne operate in the same manner as the law of inheritance? I dont know. It's never been tested in this way before, and is highly ever to be test in regard to Archie.
Yes, I guess I did read that statistically a lot do cheat but sure hasn't happened on both sides of my family except for 1 person (his wife immediately left him after he had a single 1 night stand and came home and confessed). Again, I read the rich cheat more than poor folks (maybe they have more money and opportunity).
First off, British law considers children born of surrogate as adopted. The genetic parents have to adopt them. And an adopted child may not inherit his father's title. This was settled a few years ago in a court case involving the Viscount and Viscountess of Weymouth who had a son by a surrogate.
If Archie was born "of the body" he would be in line to be the next Duke of Sussex. The only way he wouldn't inherit the title is if a)Harry renounced the title for himself (because you can't refuse a title for someone else, even if the someone else is your own child) OR b)Harrys title was removed ( which takes an Act of Parlement; the Queen can't remove it on her own).
However, if he was born of a surrogate he is not legally able to inherit the Duke of Sussex title. This may be the reason he is not being styled after Harry's subsidiary title of Earl of Dunbarton. Meghan wouldn't pass up the opportunity to have her son styled as an Earl.
That's the main reason I've suspected a surrogate was used. The Queen doesn't want to be accused of perpetuating an illegal fraud. That's my theory, anyway.
But would the law of succession to the throne operate in the same manner as the law of inheritance? I dont know. It's never been tested in this way before, and is highly ever to be test in regard to Archie.
>>However, if he was born of a surrogate he is not legally able to inherit the Duke of Sussex title. This may be the reason he is not being styled after Harry's subsidiary title of Earl of Dunbarton. Meghan wouldn't pass up the opportunity to have her son styled as an Earl. That's the main reason I've suspected a surrogate was used. The Queen doesn't want to be accused of perpetuating an illegal fraud. That's my theory, anyway<<
U]I read this before and I agree with this also. Thanks!
>>But would the law of succession to the throne operate in the same manner as the law of inheritance? I dont know. It's never been tested in this way before, and is highly ever to be test in regard to Archie<<
If I wasn't so tired I would look it but the problem is we don't know what actually is the facts of Archie. I doubt things will be revealed regarding Archie because he benefits from being in the line of succession. People have theorized that Archie will become a Prince upon Charles granting this when he takes the throne. Who knows?
The Cambridge kiddos did splendid, it warmed my heart to no end to see Charlotte hug the woman in the wheelchair, it was so reminiscent of a young Diana, who would have been very proud.
George seems a shyer sort, and that’s ok, he has a lot of time to ease into the glad handing of the walkabout.
I
Interesting points about the technical what was said, what was not said (and what symbols were worn or visible in the speech photos).
My comment is that she may choose to handle things this way now (good for her and how she is handling her family especially if something was shady) but my money is keep your eyes on William. He may feel differently when that time comes and it may be differently than how he feels about the situation currently (when he doesn't have a lot of input to the response). I don't know. There is a part of me which thinks he could step into the enforcer role that PP used to handle.
@CatEyes, re cheating, your family is extremely lucky if that's the extent of the infidelity. I think most people are shocked when they find out about it, and most never do. And that is only physical infidelity, not the emotional affairs (which, in my experience, are even more dangerous, and would've been what TQ & Porchie had, if they had one at all). Anyway, I don't understand why people cheat - why not just leave? But they do cheat (the statistics I just looked up were between 20% and 72% because, funny enough, people lie about it, too, lol). Anyway, neither here nor there, and if HMTQ did, then I'd imagine it was the time and place and circumstances I can't understand.
@SuzanneWilson, interesting info! Where did you find the definition of "born from the body"? I am assuming that there is a legal definition?
You can find Charles, QEII, etc. here, as well.
I don’t believe H & M declined a title for Archie, it was never offered. Meg never misses a chance to splash the HRH/Duke/Duchess title, unlike the real Royals.
It was also cool to see her line back to the 1500s.
Also, just think of the attention magnets that twins would be for Meghan. She’d be like a pig rolling in it up to her ears. Twins also would triple the emotional grip she has on Harry while also increasIng the number of bargaining chips/ weapons she has from one to three in case of a divorce.
Anyway, you can see why queen mum pushed for a Spencer bride..
for fun I did Markle lol. she has kings too. Would we all if we go back far enough??
https://famouskin.com/famous-kin-menu.php?name=80923+meghan+markle
@Tatty, re Rach's chart: https://famouskin.com/ahnentafel.php?name=80923+meghan+markle
there's where you have to look. The link you found is deceiving. If you look back in her actual lineage, you'll see few names you recognize, and the ones you saw aren't direct. Rach's doesn't go back far or deep. Hers was done by experts, but if you click on the details, you'll find they're quite shallow. Lots missing last names, not old families.
And to answer the question, yes, if you go back far enough, almost everyone is related to Charlemagne, for example. Related. Direct lineage is something else. And by direct, I mean great grandmaman and great grandpapas. I mean, think about it, most people were not royalty, most of them were worker bees and farmers, and most people are just not direct lineage and that is where it gets tougher.
******************
@Mishi, ‘Camilla's husband had an affair with Princess Anne.’
They were both single at the time. Anne couldn’t marry him because he was Catholic.
@Aquitaine, thanks for clearing up that Andrew only attended the early morning service.
@Magathie Mistie and @Elle, I fully agree that Meg is using Archie to please Harry and deflect press. I do disagree though that one can't change their mind for never wanting kids. She seemed like a party animal and playgirl, but sometimes they do settle down. And if that letter making the demands about the nanny/yoga/etc to Trevor is true, I could see why she now agreed to have kids with Harry on the taxpayer's money. Some people do love kids but aren't completely self-sacrificing like most parents have to be without that kind of support. A little selfish, but I can't fault people for that (lying her way into the lap of luxury in order to have her kids receive the best of everything, however, that I can)
The commenters above have covered the Christmas walk very well, so I don't have much more to say. I was happy to see George in trousers. He's not a natural with crowds, but I'm sure he'll figure it out with time. Kids that age generally like to imitate Daddy and Mommy, and George clearly has a strong bond with William.
I thought Charles appearing with Andrew at the early-morning church service was a clever way to handle things.
Interesting if the Sussexes have been traced to a rehab center in Canada. I still believe they were told not to come home, as opposed to refusing the invitation themselves. Meg leaks info to the press, so no one can relax with her around.
Historically, marital fidelity wasn't much of an issue for English royal or aristocratic males. Marriage was dynastic, about property and power - not letting one's birthright fall into rival hands. A wife had to produce an heir and at least one spare to keep the line going; the lord could do as he wished sexually with whom he wished. Her ladyship might be fortunate enough to be allowed the same freedom once she had done her duty of procreation, keeping her position and her children.
The middle classes were more circumspect as resources were limited and women very aware of their dependency on their menfolk. Victoria & Albert set a middle-class example which their descendants haven't necessarily followed but reverted more to older ways.
The rigid middle-class morality I was brought up in isn't the answer but I don't know what is. This isn't the place for that discussion.
....... "The poor epileptic son of the monarch that was hidden from view and treated inhumanely, with his Prince brother saying he was glad the "animal" was dead (when the poor child died),"
While it's true the then Prince of Wales did say that when Prince John died, it is ***totally untrue*** that Prince John treated inhumanely! Edward Vlll was a nasty piece of work who was spoiled and selfish, and he had previously commented on the "embarrassment" of having a "simpleton" for a brother. Unlike every other member of the family, he never visited John.
It is also untrue that Prince John was kept from public eye. At the latter stages of his life when his fits were so severe that he could not socialise well, Queen Mary brought in local children from the royal estates to keep him company. He was very fond of gardening and this was his main pleasure. There are people living here in Norfolk whose grandparents remember this.
Prince John was seen regularly at Wood Farm where he lived and at other royal estates including Balmoral. He also had tutor to teach him (as far as he was able) and when he was younger and more stable he was seen at family events. It is a cruel myth that he was ill-treated, abandoned or treated inhumanely.
I am not even convinced that he is in Saanich at all. There are so many stories that circulate that it is difficult to know what is true and what is not.
Much oohing and ahhing of Charlotte hugging the lady in the wheel chair and note made of George being uncomfortable with crowds, but now the Daily Mail has a video of George actually hugging the woman first!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7827739/Adorable-video-shows-Prince-George
Perhaps the real question is not `who is 7th in line to the throne?' but is there an 8th? Or do we jump to, say, the 19th in line, via a number of joint, but unspecified, 7ths?
If I suspend my disbelief for a few minutes and accept there was a bonny wee lad who looked just like his daddy, who was baptised in July, can anyone explain how he shape-shifted into Baby Sasquatch in 5 months, via much enlarged Polo Match Baby in August, giant Private Jet Boy en route to France and Auntie Elton (see The Crowns of Britain blog) and a reasonable-looking lad chez Tutu? Do the Gruesome Twosome have cakes and potions marked `Eat Me' and `Drink Me'?
I used to have Occam's Razor drilled into me `Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem' (if my memory serves me aright)- `Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity'. In short, try the simplest hypothesis first.
Which of these is the simplest explanation?:
-One child capable of inflation/remarkably rapid growth, plus changing its skull & face (OK its mother achieves the latter by surgery but we can rule that out, I hope)
- Multiple children being used as `Archie' who may or may not be related to the Gruesome 2 some
- I'm missing something
MM claimed to have "magical boobs" so maybe the baby can do magic too. He surely did size and shape shift alot back when he was just a "bump." :)
I was referring to his parents hiding him away and the visits from his siblings were few and far between I read. What kind of parents raise one son to call his disabled sibling "an animal". Afterall it is probably the practice of inbreeding that may have caused the poor child medical problems. He had epilepsy and it is suspect autism (please don't jump on me posters who have this malady).
My second child would get chubby then get tall and slim kid then get chubby again etc.
So who knows?
Yes, I 100% agree that if a woman doesn’t want kids, then she shouldn’t have them. My brother and SIL never had kids and I always supported them in their choice.
Disclaimers:
*My replies are written in my name and are thus my opinion. I am neither superior nor inferior to anyone else posting their opinion.
*I scroll by comments I have an aversion to
*I enjoy the various points of view here and am glad it is not an echo chamber. I enjoy the challenge of thinking about other points of view
this article, at the time John lived, "most patients were either placed in epileptic colonies or locked away in mental institutions"
https://www.townandcountry.ph/people/heritage/contrary-to-belief-england-s-lost-prince-john-was-not-treated-like-an-animal-a1866-20170819-lfrm
I'm not sure John's treatment was more cruel than what was usually done back then. Of course we have a different view 100 years later just as we have a different view of how many people ought to have been treated like Rosemary Kennedy. Benefit of hindsight?
————————-
I agree Archie will likely get the HRH title when Charles is king, possibly when Archie is older, say 8/9/10.
I think if they are in Victoria, they recently arrived there.
I also thought the handled the Andrew thing cleverly for church.
I loved seeing George in pants. Charlotte is adorable. I feel like she will enjoy meeting the public like she did.
@elle thanks for letting me know about that link
So, another lie from the Harkles?
Article: https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/prince-harry-and-family-spotted-vacationing-in-greater-victoria-1.24042042
@Madge'
I was referring to his parents hiding him away and the visits from his siblings were few and far between I read. What kind of parents raise one son to call his disabled sibling "an animal". Afterall it is probably the practice of inbreeding that may have caused the poor child medical problems. He had epilepsy and it is suspect autism (please don't jump on me posters who have this malady).
December 26, 2019 at 6:01 AM"
The Prince of Wales was a grown man when Prince John died in 1919 and was known to be an obnoxious snob who was a constant disappointment to his parents. Don't forget that the parents who raised him also raised other children who were not unkind to Prince John.
Prince John was not hidden away as a young child. As he reached puberty the fits became very much worse and he was unable to stand the stress of moving around from palace to palace as the royal year progressed (much in the way the Queen's year progresses now). His siblings had left for school or adult life, so there was no one left to keep him company. It was at this point Queen Mary found him companions to keep him company.
@ lizzie said...
I think it's important to keep the timeframe in mind when thinking about Prince John. According the British Epileptic Association cited in
this article, at the time John lived, "most patients were either placed in epileptic colonies or locked away in mental institutions".
But Prince John was not placed in an institution. He lived at Wood Farm, he had his own dedicated staff, a tutor and friends who visited and played with him. This is documented for those who care to Google it.
Sorry to sound so indignant about this but I was born in North Norfolk from a family going back generations on both sides. The myths about what happened to Prince John and lies about how he was treated are really annoying.
Sorry to sound so indignant about this but I was born in North Norfolk from a **local** family going back generations on both sides.
Maybe I wasn't clear..keeping John at Wood Farm wasn't as cruel to me as the usual practice of the time.
Please.
In Rach's case, I think Archie was an investment bond, but I could be wrong.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/a-canadian-restaurant-says-it-turned-down-a-christmas-booking-from-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-because-their-security-is-too-much-hassle/ar-BBYmh7U?li=BBnbfcL
Blind Item #5
At a Christmas week dinner involving the alliterate royal, all guests and hired help were forced to sign a NDA. In addition, phones were confiscated and security was present. Finally, the hired help were body searched when arriving and leaving, not looking for weapons, but for notebooks, phones and other communication devices.
Blind Item #5
At a Christmas week dinner involving the alliterate royal, all guests and hired help were forced to sign a NDA. In addition, phones were confiscated and security was present. Finally, the hired help were body searched when arriving and leaving, not looking for weapons, but for notebooks, phones and other communication devices.<<<
So it's fine for Rachel to skulk around stealing authorized photographs, secretly recording people and leaking private family information in order to pad her own pockets, but lest anyone get an unauthorized snap of Her Wokeness, they are treated like they are exiting a Stasi prison, not a Christmas dinner with royals.
Check, check. "Do as I say and not as I do---I'll *tell* you want to do and have you cavity searched on the way out" should be the Narc's Credo.
************
Turning to less infuriating matters on this Boxing Day, I just finished the full video of the Queen's Speech. Very nicely done, bringing in references to D-Day and the Apollo 11 anniversaries this year. Perhaps HM's theme of 'small steps' would have still been used despite the Harkles' past disastrous year, owing to the moon landing anniversary, but as it stands, it manages to be both a dignified reference to a seminal event of the 20th century and also deliciously understated shade cast at the Harkles.
Meghan got her picture featured in this annual royal broadcast, along with a warm mention of her baby, albeit not by name . . but HM does not name any of her children or grandchildren or great-grands by name, not even her direct heirs, so I don't think that bit was a particular slight to Archie. HM's strenous non-attendance at his christening and making sure she was safely removed to another country, some 300 miles away--that, I would call a royal slight.
The close-up on the presentation photo which is included in the broadcast makes it look less like a Photoshopped effort than the version released at the time, though I still find the composition to be quite odd. While HM and BP may choose to ignore images released by 'SussexRoyal' without comment as to their authenticity or lack thereof, it does not seem at all likely that the Queen would have allowed that picture to fill the TV screens of the viewing nation and her dominions, during her Christmas speech, accompanied by her voiceover, were it not authentic. So, score one to Markle, because I have to accept that that picture of Archie with his great-grandparents and his maternal grandmother are legit.
The christening photo remains a matter of grave doubt for me, what with the time stamp controversy and other issues, like the Queen's absence and the weird body proportions/choice of attire/eye lines, etc. for the rest of the group. 'Archie' is a real child, albeit something very strange has been perpetrated with him in the alleged family Christmas snap. For such a whip-smart savior of the world which she is, Meg has a very poor eye for photographs . . which is probably why she foisted off this masterpiece on Janina. Just trying to make it appear like she's got such loyal and devoted friends that would perform such services for her.
Well done to Her Majesty. There is no outward sign of the toll this year has taken or the internal struggle to produce a speech this year with suitable regal dignity and optimism. May this lady grace our lives for years to come, even if she does opt to reduce the scale of her royal duties in favor of Charles. I hope she and Philip get quality time together this holiday season.
What is "Christmas week?"
Loved the inclusion of the 'Pudding Stirring' video featuring Granny and the Three Kings. That looked like a very stiff and heavy dough, and George was stirring it as though his life depended on it. Very nice for him to have been included in this feature, and he comported himself with the seriousness and determination of a future King.
While Charlotte never fails to entertain, and she looked completely adorable in her little green coat (Mummy favors that green, too), if I had been in charge of the decision, I would have had George walk solo this year with his parents, and added his sister next year, when she would be 5, but perhaps the Cambridges felt that the double charm offensive of their two eldest together would make up the numbers for the 2 Charmless Ones who were missing . . and perhaps George asked if his sister could also come.
Christmas very well handled with grace, poise and the perfect amount of regal show by all concerned this year. Charles walking with his brother to the earlier church service may have been all a PR ploy, but in this season of love and reconciliation, I would like to think that the legendary froidoir between ER's two older sons had been put aside, at least for the day. Charles knows firsthand what it is like to be the #1 Public Scapegoat in a messy family scandal, and how lonely that is. I'm glad they not only allowed him to attend church with them but were seen to be with him.
This relaxed and Scarf-free Christmas gathering at church is what things could be like every year without the Harkles. I'm sure everyone, royal and otherwise, is hoping for more like it. But I fully expect Murkle to come back from her 'family time' announcing that she is expecting Baby #2. Bea and Edo's wedding sounds to be a full six months or more away . . I don't think she will be able to wait that long to announce it--Bea's wedding date announcement will be coming in about three weeks. I look for an upstage announcement by Smeg then. January will no doubt bring interesting developments in this ongoing saga.
Is it possible that M&H are together in Victoria? Possibly. I rather doubt they've been spending the whole time together.
I find it curious that so much information has been leaked of their whereabouts in Canada. M & H claim they need privacy but we all know privacy is the last thing that M wants.
She's allegedly working with Sunshine Sachs 'raising tens of millions in the US and is to be one of the biggest philanthropic organisations in the planet.'
Hmmm, I wonder how that is going?
Harry's documentary with Oprah? I wonder how that is going?
Sara Lathem - where has she been? Is she still the head of communications?
What happened to the 'big announcement 'that the Cambridges' were supposed to be making according to Omid Scobie? What other tidbits will he or rather MM be leaking?
I think we are going to be in for a bumpy ride next year with these two.
I think everyone is sick and tired of Meghan’s only real talent, which is to blur and muddy everything to the point that no one has any confidence in what is true and what isn’t. Just imagine what that has done to Harry. Not that I am excusing him—but I cannot imagine feeling that was my sole/best support in the world. I would lose my footing completely and despair.
I'm afraid so, too. Those offshore earthquakes in Victoria at the exact time of the Harkles' alleged visit feel like the harbinger of bumpy things to come.
I have a few predictions:
--Meg will attempt to sabotage Beatrice's wedding announcement with her own announcement of Baby #2. Maybe this one might even be actually inside her body this time. Though I doubt it, rather. If Meg had any interest in getting fat and stretched out in the service of procreation herself, one supposes she would have wanted to do that last time around, or at least make a more dedicated effort at trying, instead of trotting out enormous fake bellies within less than half a year of her wedding. She was too, too thirsty to get her anchor baby ASAP, by any means necessary. Given her genetic absence of originality, I fully expect her to go the Amal Clooney route (again), only this time, it'll be twin girls. Or maybe one of each, so she can have two boys and a girl, like Catherine.
--More Sussex Foundation shenanigans
--The Daily Mail lawsuits will drag on. I think ultimately Meg will lose, but this lawsuit will take up most of the year and will be good fodder for getting her name in the press.
--More bad wigs and poorly applied makeup. More terrible outfits. The BRF seems to have come down hard on the merching empire, but Megs will defy the rules and try to get away with it anyway. Any designer who would would willingly pay Meghan money to appear in their designs (looking bad) or frankly, even return her phone calls at this point deserves whatever Markling effect they have coming to them. Wonder if Jessica Meyer is still taking Meg's calls?
--I think the Troublesome Twosome have been shut out from official engagements as they are too much of an embarrassment to the royal family in the disheveled, altered, rude way they turn up to events, when they bother to turn up. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if the Sussexes are in attendance at ceremonial events like Trooping the Color, or, heavens forfend, a funeral for Harry's grandfather. Let us not think on't! But if they are excised from any public appearances with the family as well as official patronages, that will be telling indeed. They would be firmly in Coventry in that case.
--Will we ever see any images of life at Frogmore Cottage? My money's on . . .Hell, no. Windsor is too good for them now. Charles should bundle them into a van and have them driven to the Welsh border and dumped off there. He gave them a farm . . let them go up there, sans Internet access and shut the F up, or let them drop off the face of the earth for all I care.
--I believe Master Archie is in the care of his birth mother. If the surrogacy adoption fell through, it was likely owing to demonstrable drug use by both parents and they were denied custody on those grounds. If they are in joint rehab together (doubtful to me) . . it may be to prevent such a thing happening with another baby.
We'll be in for another interesting year, and no mistake about that.
Perhaps Mayhem wants the guests to sign NDAs so that any atrocious behavior (or illegal behavior) won’t be leaked, but if the CDAN blind is accurate, then there’s at least a leak that they are requiring the NDAs. It really takes some balls to ask your guests to sign NDAs. Would they really have the stones to ask Oprah to sign one? Or George and Amal? Or the Trudeaus? I wouldn’t go to a dinner that included a requirement like that if Jesus himself was hosting it. These two really have their heads up their asses.
Ohhh Hikari this made me laugh, lol!
Nevertheless, I was concerned that Archie-chez-Tutu was being so obviously controlled even though he seemed subdued to start with. Was he just tired (the soles of his slippers were grubby, suggesting some standing activity) or was there more to it than that?
As for her future plans, I can't forget the smirk she gave H at their wedding when Archbishop Welby reached the bit about the procreation of children. My first thought was `Aye,aye- she's pregnant.'
There was something about that look,though, that made me rapidly revise my interpretation to something else more calculated,less loving, like `We know something that they don't know', an expression of what I believe is called `Duper's Delight'.
Yes, even if they are separately incarcerated, she'll try to spring another amazing Virgin Birth on us, perhaps a whole litter of progeny. Bumpity-Bumpity-Bumpity-Bump!
I agree with Hikari's post, that they'll be announcing baby 2 this year. I think they were truly in Canada, even without photos- makes sense that they were in Toronto to visit friends and family plus do a bit of IVF with the eggs stored there, and then off to a luxury rental in Saanich for the holidays with Doria. Someone mentioned that all staff have to sign NDAs, which makes sense why one of the restaurants refused to serve them. Reminds me of Ninaki Priddy's comment that Meghan changed when she got the Suits role, saying that she couldn't meet her anymore for dinner because she'd "be recognised", and that was when she had a two-bit support role as basically "hot girl" on a cable channel. Her ego is beyond belief.
I agree. She loves the camera and the chance to parade their happy family on a fabulous vacay would NEVER be passed up.
I think MM feels quite ragey at baseline, which is typical for a narcissist. There are too many stories, heck there is straight up video of her pushing past people (and not even checking to see if they are ok) for all of these anecdotes to be false. Perhaps she wants people to sign NDAs about dinner parties with her because she's tired of the bad press about her bad behavior.
The Christmas card was very LA, Instagrammy (I follow several people on Instagram who announce it's time to get excited, here's my 20% off code for a protein shake). I feel terrible saying this but I didn't think it was very cute, just odd looking.
Finally, I guess I just don't understand why she loves SoHo house so much? Was it always free for her? It looks expensive. With all of the money she seems to have spent on luxury travel and hotel stays, she could have bought a very nice home. I also wonder why she was so interested in meeting a British man.
Meagan Markle acting in TV show called The Castle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlbyhVd7sJM
Initially, I think Diana and Meghan would have loved each other, but Diana would have got tired of the word salad and the narc behaviour and would have been appalled at how negative the relationship is for Harry. Diana genuinely felt empathy and compassion; Meghan does not. I think Diana would have picked up on that and mother and son would have become estranged as the two brothers have (but perhaps Diana would have fought harder than William did to get Harry away from her).
By the way, I did some research on narcissism. Meghan cut out her family (consciously or not) because they would expose the truth about her and 'spoil' her act, which she did herself anyway! She did not want her father, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins showing photos and telling stories of her real past (perhaps nothing shady but not in line with the image she hustled so hard to create for herself). They did anyway, which is why she has declared war on British tabloids. I'll talk about her mother some other time, but I have seen some photographs and heard some stuff from Meghan's family that lead me to believe that not only is Doria useful because she is black and a woke yoga teacher, but she enables the narc behaviour. Meghan cut Harry off from his family and oldest friends so that she can control and manipulate him, which is very classic narc behaviour.
It is my assumption that Meg’s lodging and meals at various SoHo House properties around the world were and are comped by MA and her other Epstein connected owner pals. This is the entire reason she became an “IG influencer”...it’s all about getting high end perks for free in exchange for promotion on one’s blog. Given the crowd Meg ran with and the fact that her blog was so non influential none of us had heard of it or her pre Harry, I firmly think providing sexual favors and introducing other thirsty and amoral friends into the circle was part of her “in kind”. It is entirely through her Soho contacts and paid PR that she was ever anywhere near Harry’s circles in the first place. In gambling parlance Harry was the “whale” all these ppl wanted to help her land for access to the Royals. Ergo I don’t think she’s ever laid out a cent to stay at Soho House. In the wake of the Vogue disaster and her current doghouse standing within the Firm, this might change. Meg is tainted goods and an abysmal return on investment. She has failed utterly to live up to her own self promotion.
She’s got no family in Canada not does Harry but they are probably scrounging on the last of the goodwill of her friends. Of which the PM of Canada inexplicably still counts himself. Has he had a lobotomy? Not sure he’s fit for office.
And I still prefer the kids' table to the adult table :) and have, more than once, had adults remind me I'm at the adult table (which is a bloody shame, except for the wine part).
I think you are dead-on re Rach and the tummy rub. Ka-ching is right. And poor Archie. I really wanted to believe there wasn't an Archie -- not to spite her, but because I really hate to see kids born into less than ideal circumstances, and yes, I know there are no perfect circumstances, but just when there are gaping and obvious holes, I feel like children deserve so much better.
On a related BRF note -- when is the Cambridge news supposed to be shared? Anyone know?
"Notice Enty mentions just her, the alliterate one? Just her, all by her lonesome… Just like when she was seen around a fortnight ago leaving England for Canada on a private ✈️.
#AllByHerself #Tea"
Whatever the case, I do think is Harry is in dire need of mental help. He was virtually devolving in public appearances and looked to be heading on the verge of a breakdown. Hopefully The Firm would recognize maybe Harry isn't cut out to be a working member of the royal family regardless of his birth. He is not only Diana's son but her successor in the emotional drama dept and Diana was the closest we have seen in this modern day and age of irreparable damaging the monarchy. I have very little faith in Harry, but would not at all begrudge his inability to perform in his role. Steadfast character and mental acuity were never his strong suit.
That said, I thought Wills and Kate looked much more relaxed yesterday on the Christmas Walk vs. previous years when Megs & H were there being disruptive.
Re: The Walk
The Cambridge kids did a great job. Charlotte is a natural! I loved seeing Wills and George and Kate and Charlotte greeting well wishers side-by-side. There were lovely pictures!
Re: The Clothes
I thought The Queen was resplendent in her Christmas red. I loved the matching trim on her hat and coat.
Kate's coat was a beautiful fabric and color and I loved the green accessories. An unusual combination which was striking. Charlotte's coat was the most beautiful cut and color.
Good to see George in long pants.
Camilla looked beautiful in that color!
Happy Boxing Day!
Is there any hope that they've already split and PH is in rehab and Rach is lining up her HSN royal jewelry knock-off gig while she waits for Vanna's contract to run out?
I think Diana was likely an expert in sussing out social frauds like Meghan. Meghan would have been sent packing back to Toronto after one meeting with Diana, who was no fool the way Harry is.
The only reason she would be here is likely tied to the thought about Harry being in recovery. Most of us here don't care about Markle. I highly doubt folks in Vancouver and Victoria are going to be devout Monarchists either. Most of the British ex pats we have here (self included) either cannot stand Markle or they are anti-Monarchy. Very few are on the Markle train.
So the idea that she is getting "support" in Victoria and Vancouver is raising some eyebrows here. Although I can imagine folks not giving two craps about her being here. We tend to stick to ourselves up here and are very laid back. BC is definitely a place to disappear though; lots of beautiful forest. But knowing Markle, that's not her thing. If she was here, she would rather be in Whistler or Blackcomb or Vancouver. Victoria is far too small and touristy; she certainly can't stay at the Empress without drawing attention.
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/post/189877115684