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
https://twitter.com/julesverne12345/status/1210929873415524352/photo/1
Archieharrison.com was registered in February 2018, before the wedding. They must have already put in an order for the baby.
Ah, okay. Well, it'll be interesting to see how it unfolds because I'm positive a divorce will follow. Eventually. Unless MM decides to off 'H' if he broaches the subject so she can remain a royal as a widow.
Hasn't MM in all her known previous relationships/marriages moved on to someone else while still with the 'ex'?
If things around H&M (and standard BRF events) are quiet again, perhaps 'how would Harry move on after divorcing MM' could be a nice speculation post. We've had one about how they as a couple can turn the tide but I think we can all agree that moment has passed and to some (most?) it's even questionable whether Harry could regain his popularity after a divorce now that we've seen his true colors.
@tweeymma
Oh! Now I'm wondering whether MM also registered a website for a girl beforehand. Otherwise this could be considered (circumstantial) evidence of at the very least IVF with gender selection, if not surrogacy.
I don't think there will be a divorce as soon as many here seem to think. But I do think there will eventually be one.
And yes, you are correct it does appear M doesn't let go of one relationship before the next one is somewhat in place.
I thought the royals did this as a "protection" of the brand. Kate did this in 2013.
So - is it protection of the Name "Sussex royal" or is it a step towards merchandising?
So - is it protection of the Name "Sussex royal" or is it a step towards merchandising?'
I think William, Kate and Harry did this for the Royal Foundation not to protect, control or monetise the brand but to forestall exploitation, e.g. someone could make T-shirts with the Royal Foundation name and people buying the T-shirts would think they are supporting the Royal Foundation but they are actually buying from someone who is exploiting the name for private gain.
What Meghan wants to do with the trademarking is anyone's guess!
Does anyone know why the list of items in each category is so short for the Royal Foundation but so long for the SussexRoyal Foundation?
Some of the nasty looks she has (surreptitiously) shot at Kate caught on camera have been frightening!
Sad that those poor restauranteurs are feeling the wrath of Smirkle's crazed fans.
IIRC, the discussion about QEII's Christmas schedule and separating the children from the adults (for more than just meal time) first started when George was born... The public (at least those commenting online) thought was odd and very old fashioned, almost as in children should be seen not heard. George, Charlotte and and their other cousins don't seem to have suffered much during the past few Christmases with the Windsors, though...
Good point, I did not know this, and agreed, Fedde -- they've not suffered and their manners seem impeccable (an issue I have with some of the children I know). And I'll add, I do not see why it is "old-fashioned" to think that children and adults have different interests and not all activities and events are age-appropriate. So, I think it's absurd that this would be interpreted by some as children seen/not heard. I think it's more about children in appropriate situations, and those are not always the same as for adults.
@Fedde,
I don't think there will be a divorce as soon as many here seem to think. But I do think there will eventually be one.
And yes, you are correct it does appear M doesn't let go of one relationship before the next one is somewhat in place.
Doesn't seem to be much more in upward mobility she could strive for unless it would be for waaaay more money. Lauren Sanchez, one of the ultimate upward mobility climbers, better keep a close eye on Jeff Bezos (cheaters gonna cheat).
I can just see Rach flouncing about in that "mansion" thinking she's all that lol. I personally think it's a little too-too (what rich people thing a rich person's house should look like) and dark. Lovely setting, but otherwise, meh-ish to gauche IMO. Still, I'm surprised it took her this long to leak the specific location, unless of course, it's a ruse and she is somewhere else entirely.
“Journalists” trick people all the time...it’s how back in the day they found our Chevy Chase was in rehab. They called his wife and impersonated a friend and she thought she was just talking and turns out, she was tricked into giving all the details away to the press.
I have seen this only once, on Twitter (although I'm working today and don't have time to go down a rabbit hole) but on reading the comments, I have to say that a few have pointed out that this isn't really connected to MM at all in the provided "paperwork."
Then I went to archieharrison.com and GoDaddy says the domain is available.
So (shrug emoji)?
I find it odd. I live near a resort area where VIPs cycle in and out regularly. The VIPs, if they need privacy and lots of security, come in before or after regular business hours.
@tweety I don’t know anything about registering websites, but is it possible someone registered a website on that date and then changed the name after he was born?
"Princesses by marriage are the recognized wives of the Sovereign's sons and male-line grandsons.[1] Generally, these women are entitled to the style "Royal Highness" by virtue of marriage, and retain the style if widowed. However, Queen Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent dated 21 August 1996 stating that any woman divorced from a Prince of the United Kingdom would no longer be entitled to the style "Royal Highness". This has so far applied to Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah, Duchess of York."
So if Meghan became divorced she would not be able to use 'HRH' and be styled, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. If Harry remarries, his wife would be HRH Duchess of Sussex.
If someone knows otherwise, please correct me.
@tweety I don’t know anything about registering websites, but is it possible someone registered a website on that date and then changed the name after he was born?
Oooh, tatty, you are *very* devious. I like that.
/I am chagrined, chagrined I say, that I never even considered it.
Let me guess, this property is going up for sale early 2020?? Every property Meghan has rented has gone up for sale. The one she rented in Toronto and MM and Trevor's rented home in California.The home H&M rented briefly in the Carribean too. This was an advertisement to " sell the property" gimmick.
December 28, 2019 at 9:23 AM
Exactly! H&M probably already left the property and now the owner thinks he/she can sell it for a higher price since there was extra exposure and some sad people will think it's worth more if other rich/famous people valued it as a Christmas getaway.
What I thought but wife#2 would be HRH *The* Duchess of Sussex.
Of course, I guess new Letters could be issued.
@tweety I don’t know anything about registering websites, but is it possible someone registered a website on that date and then changed the name after he was born?
December 28, 2019 at 9:33 AM
The creation date is Feb 12, 2018. The update date is Feb 13, 2019.
I agree, about *The* but figured some sharp eyed poster (like you...lol) would correct that, I just didn't want to double post..thanks for the correction!
Re the removal of titles for the Harkles, only an Act of Parliament can remove their titles. However, there is a little-known way by which this can be forced to be discussed in the aforesaid Parliament.
There is a special site online that anyone can access where a petition can be launched and, once a certain number of signatures have been collected (not sure how many, maybe 50,000 or 100,000) then the subject of the petition must be brought up in Parliament.
I believe that, if such a petition were made, and the requisite number of signatures were collected, then the mere fact that it existed would send the senior Royals into a complete tail spin. I can imagine the Queen and Prince Charles if this happened. I don't suppose such a petition would gain much importance within the establishment but it may, if started, force the BRF to actually do something concrete regarding PH and MM.
Just a thought.
I went to godaddy.com and that domain was bought some time ago.
And, no, it is not possible to change the domain name. A slight change in a domain name, for example to archieharrison.ca instead of .com or even archyharrison.com is a totally different domain name. Interestingly, I went to whois to try to find the domain owner and it wasn't in the records.
Another point related to the information above - it always amazes me how some people here will try to twist anything around in order to protect Meghan or defend her or find someway of taking the blame away from her. If these people used all of that creativity in writing fiction instead of defending a con artist, they could win the Nobel Prize for Literature, their inventiveness being limitless.
One thing I learned by reading the Letters patent info is that a "Duke" is second most impostant title, just below the Monarch. When in reality, there are more "Dukes: (and by extension 'Duchesses") than Princes or Princesses. Yet it seems many think Prince or Princess is a higher title.
December 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM
There's a difference between "regular" Dukes and royal Dukes. William and Harry both became royal Dukes upon marriage because QEII bestowed the titles (and lands?) on them and their wives.
But it is winter, so Meghan will not be able to swim and lie on the beach, which she loves to do (as well as posing for the camera)! I can imagine Harry going hiking, but running and hiking have never been featured activities of Meghan. A tropical private island would be more like her holiday place, with lots of restaurants and wine and perfect places for selfies, and friends coming to stay to enjoy parties on the beach (of course, in between plotting and planning how to become the most powerful, influential and famous person in the world!).
She's probably planted the story just to get attention.
If I had to give Meghan a job it would be in sales ... blind them with switch-on charm, lots of quick word salad and lunches at wonderful venues (plus the flourish of a handwritten card and carefully chosen gift basket). She would win the 'sales person of the year award' every year! (I was head of an editorial and production department and I adored the sales people but gosh they made my life difficult .. 'drop quality and just give us more product quicker' was always their approach and 'your standards are too high' they complained after I had halved the length of the production cycle while trying to maintain standards.) The BRF seniors are wrong in thinking that a good sales person (so woke and articulate and fashionable and educated and smart ... ha!) is what they need to promote and foster longevity of the monarchy. What they need is standards and grace and dignity and traditions and non-partisan support and promotion of all that is British (and to tackle real problems in a slow, steady lasting change kind of way ... the small steps Her Maj spoke about). Meghan can do none of those things.
Nope, I doubt they are where the DM said they are, unless it was the only freebie they could get.
"Another point related to the information above - it always amazes me how some people here will try to twist anything around in order to protect Meghan or defend her or find someway of taking the blame away from her. If these people used all of that creativity in writing fiction instead of defending a con artist, they could win the Nobel Prize for Literature, their inventiveness being limitless.'
...Thank you for saying this Mischi. I totally agree and find it puzzling why this type of activity would be found here on this specific blog where people who feel MM is untrustworthy at the very least are posting. Perhaps it is the result of paid MM supporters.
Mischi - what are your thoughts on the supposed reveal of the Harkle's location?
Yes I know that. What I said was true, I never said Harry was a duke at birth.
That is also strange about your whois attempt. Could someone have made a facsimile of the whois results and posted that to Twitter? It looked very real.
By the way, I WANT this to be true, as proof of her scheming! So these contrasting results are bolstering that hope for me.
@Fedde
Yes I know that. What I said was true, I never said Harry was a duke at birth.
December 28, 2019 at 10:41 AM
I never said it wasn't? You sounded surprised about the (royal) duke being ranked higher than a prince and mentioned that there are more dukes than princes, which is why I thought I'd explain the difference.
When I mentioned the Sussex’s being retired off, I simply meant no longer be working royals or receive any kind of financial assistance from the public etc. I know royal born princes never lose their titles. I highly doubt the Queen would ever revoke Andrew’s dukedom, which he like his nephew’s received upon marriage from the Monarch. ;o)
@LiverBird, ‘I don't think Fergie has ever held the title of 'Lady Sarah'.’
So true! Lol Sarah never had a title till marriage.
I will not engage anymore on this with you as you impute something I did not say/infer ("surprise"). I have seen your tone/rebuttal with others and I don't want it to happen to me. In particular, I said "Yet it seems many think Prince or Princess is a higher title", note I said others, not me (no 'surprise'). I'm just trying to help by supply info. Period. End of.
I concur. I’ve said it before, the British public can’t cherry pick which royals we want or don’t. It’s either a monarchy or a republic.
@LiverBird and @RaspberryRuffle, you're unfortunately quite right. I also tend to think they're trademarking their names, but my main problem is that they have to go about rubbing the "royal" in everyone's faces. As @Elle said, Meg is truly nouveau riche with her gauche McMansion (despite her pleas for using less resources to save the environment) and flaunting her "royal" this and "HRH" that everywhere.
@SirStinxAlot, You're absolutely right, whether the Harkles stayed in the Saanich house or not, the DM spread looks like a Zillow posting.
@Sandie, Yes, you're spot on. Megs has always made me think 'Assistant Account Executive' of some sort. That would seem to be her natural level of competency. She could sell time shares somewhere, maybe somewhere sunny & with beaches near SwampWoman!
Cheers & Happy Holidays everyone!
"For example, Prince Edward is not a duke, but he certainly must be ranked "higher" somehow than a regular duke (non-royal)."
Prince Edward was granted the lesser title of Earl upon marriage as he is expected to become Duke of Edinburgh once Philip passes on.
Generally speaking, not directed to anyone in particular:
Per the idea of twisting what MM does etc: tell me, what has happened to her because of her grifting? Ask yourself if it is POSSIBLE that people here wish bad things and make up their own creative fiction, suitable for a literature prize because they don’t like her? Possibly? Yes. Possible.
You can call me a sugar, a troll, or a paid MM employee. The point of the matter is you have not been proven right. Nor have I. She is who Harry chose as a wife and it doesn’t matter if you like her or not or wish her to be some kind of criminal mastermind.
She is still standing and you are still here using your time talking about her. If I left and went elsewhere, you wouldn’t have me to temper the ideas, but that wouldn’t make MM go away, get busted for something, get removed from the royal family, or be divorced from Harry.
And I sure wish I was getting paid from someone to be here. Nutty, can you arrange that? Lol
Again, what has happened to her because of her whatever it is she has done that you don’t like? Tell me.
Perhaps the Sussex's are considering moving back to Canada after all. They may have been " testing" the home to see if they want to buy it. Who knows. Uber rich are often odd.
archieharrison.com is taken
@Trudy, I don't believe that Markle is staying in the estate listed. I think this is a merching attempt on her part. I do believe Torontopaper1 on twitter who said that Rachel was not allowed to enter Canada. I think Justin Trudeau may have intervened, but if she were rebuffed on her first attempt, I don't think she was headed for a $14 million mansion which she rented.
Also, it is very trollish to come here and defend obvious missteps by Meghan by trying to gaslight the rest of us, like saying that the name of the domain was incorrect or changed. A domain name doesn't have variations in it. When you make a typo when entering a web address in your web browser, it doesn't forgive your error. It gives you the domain name you typed in, typos and all. The fact that I have to explain something so obvious is a surefire sign of gaslighting. And you know which type of person gaslights other people, don't you? It starts with a "n" and ends with a "arcissist". And it's her narcissism that makes normal non-narcissistic people dislike Meghan.
The endless stories with corrections to corrections are typical gaslighting by Markle, by the way. She makes us doubt our own reality.
@sirstinx Zillow and realtor are both wrong for my house. Both show one bedroom and one bathroom less than I have and the guesstimate is completely wrong because I have a custom house in an exclusive area and the nearest comps are less than in terms of area, so the guess if off by 75k (my guess about their guess)
Just as a regular person, I think people take exception with MM because there are several clips of her pushing others out of the way (and she does not even check to see if the person is OK). I also don't appreciate H&M's "Travalyst" as it is a preachy way of telling us ordinary folk how to vacation. Yes I choose cheap flights and cheap hotels because I earn a certain amount per hour. This is what I can afford. Also I work, I can't travel whenever I feel like it and follow the Travalyst global "push" for greatness. Are we supposed to believe their latest trip to the McMansion in Canada was ecofriendly?
IIRC Sarah Ferguson’s father Maj. Ronald Ferguson. was HM’s Master of Horse. Horses are near and dear to ER’s heart, but I was surprised that the stable man’s daughter was deemed posh enough to be the wife of the Queen’s heir spare and favorite.
I don't think that house is her style. She doesn't seem to appreciate traditional esthetics and likes the more modern minimalistic style. I honestly think she goes to Buckingham Palace and thinks that she would have a garage sale with all that stuff and put in nice copper fixtures.
Interesting.....
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/post/189918235544
I think the royals know the Harkles are unpopular and that they are damaging the family's reputation. If we are correct that the 'family time' was forced upon the Harkles, they may also be taking action against them. As in: lie low, keep out of the news and then in the new year decide if you want to be a part of this family or not, and if you do it will be on our terms. If not, then we'd be sorry to see you go but maybe it's best for you to make your own way in life.
There has been a definite theme of 'it's all about the heirs' in royal communications of late, and while I still think the Harkles could have a role to play if (big if!) they're prepared to do it respectfully, they aren't actually needed. I suspect that will have been made clear to the Harkles so it's up to them how they respond.
It reminds me of the Turm und Taxis who are German royalty, trying to sell some land in some country where they owned several hundred thousand acres. They had to explain it to some government commission. They said that it wasn't in their habit to sell land but they had done it in the 14th century at the request of the Pope at that time.
That's not something she can wrap her little head around, that she now belongs to such a family. She was set for life and her descendants as well, for a few generations, but she blew it by merching some trinkets from Jessica Meyer and a coat from Stella McCartney.
I think Andrew's generation of royals was the one where we saw a major change in attitudes towards marriage. When his Aunt Margaret married Anthony Armstrong Jones it was the first time in 400 years that a senior royal married a 'commonor' (though of course by most standards he was very posh) and considered quite daring. Since then however, all of the royals have married non-aristocrats, with the obvious exception of Charles' first marriage to Lady Diana Spencer. The future Queen Catherine comes from a family which, though wealthy and upwardly mobile, wasn't considered posh at all. Quite a change in just a few generations.
In a time when royalty were expected to marry fellow royalty, it was unusual that Albert had a great deal of freedom in choosing a prospective wife. An infatuation with the already-married Australian socialite Lady Loughborough came to an end in April 1920 when the King, with the promise of the dukedom of York, persuaded Albert to stop seeing her.[33][34] That year, he met for the first time since childhood Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the youngest daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. He became determined to marry her.[35] She rejected his proposal twice, in 1921 and 1922, reportedly because she was reluctant to make the sacrifices necessary to become a member of the royal family.[36] In the words of her mother Cecilia Bowes-Lyon, Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne, Albert would be "made or marred" by his choice of wife. After a protracted courtship, Elizabeth agreed to marry him.[37]
They were married on 26 April 1923 in Westminster Abbey. Albert's marriage to someone not of royal birth was considered a modernising gesture.[38] The newly formed British Broadcasting Company wished to record and broadcast the event on radio, but the Abbey Chapter vetoed the idea (although the Dean, Herbert Edward Ryle, was in favour)
@Sandie, Yes, you're spot on. Megs has always made me think 'Assistant Account Executive' of some sort. That would seem to be her natural level of competency. She could sell time shares somewhere, maybe somewhere sunny & with beaches near SwampWoman!
Oh, snap. Perhaps she would like to go boating and feed the alligators. That would be dangerous and illegal, of course, but it doesn't seem that laws apply to her. And just think of the selfie opportunities!
Meg going to a non-cosmopolitan area for the holidays seemed very un-Meg but now it sounds like business as usual. 2019 was rough on the real-estate market and selling mansions has been really tough for some time now. It’s possible the seller has wanted to unload the property for a while and Meg insinuated herself into the situation making sure they knew what a privilege it would be to host the trio. I wouldn’t have considered it a smart deal but maybe the owner knows buyers will find the Sussex cachet worthwhile.
As the daughter of an Earl from one of the most venerable Scottish families, who enjoyed an aristocratic upbringing in a castle, Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon doesn’t sound at all “common” to me. Perhaps being Scots and not of a royal bloodline passed for “common”!in her day. From everything I have read, she was considered a very desirable bride for Bertie and a real catch for the second born son with some disadvantages...his speech impediment and possible learning difficulties. Had Edward not abdicated I get a sense that expectations for the Duke I’d York would not have been high and he would have lived something of a dilettante existence like Harry is now. His wife was the perfect helpmeet for him in the role he would have thrust upon him. The marriage may have been arranged, but it grew into a true love match and partnership, which was a happy serendipity. The Yorks were blissfully happy with their daughters until their idyllic life ended in 1936.
David belittled her as “the Scottish cook” so I suppose she was considered a commoner in Royal circles, but with such a pedigree it’s hard to understand how, other than to attribute it to snobbery rampant in the aristocracy. I’ve heard Queen Mum could be a snob with the best of them. I wonder what she would have made of William choosing a Wisteria Sister with coal minerals in the family tree and a father “in trade” hawking party tat. I love Kate so how fortunate that William was allowed to marry for love.
.
https://homesoftherich.net/2012/09/mille-fleurs-an-18-million-waterfront-estate-in-canada/
Photos in the DM article are from this listing.
It was Queen Victoria and King Christian IX of Denmark that had married so many of their children and grandchildren into royal households that the may have wanted "new blood," as they had started to develop "weak chins." (Just a saying, not being serious, lol)
Where did I say she was? She was an Earl's daughter. As I said, Anthony Armstrong Jones was the first non-aristocrat to marry a senior royal in 400 years.
"Although I understand your points on a petition, I can't help but feel it could be a useful instrument to serve in driving the Harkles out. Wouldn't a petition of this sort go to parliament rather than the Queen herself?"
It might 'go to parliament' but it would have almost no impact. Internet petitions get signed by thousands of people all the time, and never achieve anything.
And really, the British public aren't that exercised about the Harkles. Most don't follow their antics in anything like the detail that is seen here. Andrew was a different story. He had been one of the most unpopular royals for a long time, and that ridiculous interview was just hte last straw. His disgrace was on an entirely different level.
Perhaps not due to the age/generational differences? I don't know about Charles' time but when William was in his twenties, most of the European princesses were of a higher station (heirs to the throne) or still young children. Besides, I've always gotten the impression the BRF* aren't that close to their European counterparts; many of the heirs (some of whom are now monarchs) would often "hang out" together but Charles was never around and William wouldn't have been of the same station (and probably a couple of years to a decade younger, too). Tabloids would occasionally imply it's because Charles was jealous that they were younger and were more likely to ascend their throne soon-ish compared to his situation, but I don't know if that's true. I've always found it interesting though that many of the European royals are godparents to each others children, except for the BRF.
QEII has always had pretty good friendships with her fellow monarchs but that might be because they shared more hard times (WWII) together? That's just speculation, though.
*I've heard Edward and Sophie are the exception and have been spotted vacationing with some of the European royals throughout the years, probably because they're often sent to European royal events unless the event requires someone of Charles' station.
I wasn’t disputing with you, just thinking out loud and marveling at the snobbery of a system that would regard a scion of One of the oldest families in Scotland, with titles lands and a castle as Somehow to “common” to be worthy of a second son of a King. I just replied to you because you made the original post. No offense intended.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1221480/meghan-markle-next-appearance-prince-harry-kate-middleton-prince-william-cambridge-rift/amp?__twitter_impression=true
The Queen, Charles, William, Kate do not have anything listed.
(I'm not here to defend royalty, either--can't stand the concept and the reality is even worse.)
One for the Sussex’s.... :o/
We warned you that this was coming!
Think back to a few months ago when we talked about the baby.
Our married couple was oddly reluctant to let the public see the baby, citing concerns over safety and a desire to bond privately.
We told you that wasn’t true. Plenty of their family members have managed to keep their children safe and secure over many generations while meeting their obligations as public figures.
We told you that the couple was actually trying to keep sightings of the baby rare while they figured out how to monetize the situation… without the rest of the family finding out.
They bungled that scenario.
However, it’s now full steam ahead with The Big Plan!
What is The Big Plan?
To brand and monetize everything.
You are now seeing that plan being put into motion. And if you question what they are doing, you will be met with anger, misdirection, and insistence that their motives are pure.
We hid the baby because… Privacy! Motherhood!
We take private planes and stay in posh private digs because… Environment! Wellness!
We isolate ourselves from 99% of our family and surround ourselves with celebrities because… Family! Safety!
We are engaging our own outside lawyers and PR team because… Protection! Charity!
How dare you question our motives!
See how that works?
Our couple is good. Those who question their motives or their nonsensical excuses or their bizarre hypocrisy are bad.
By the way, if you like The Clinton Foundation, you are going to love our couple’s charity organization. Why? Because The Clinton Foundation is our couple’s model.
Actually, they think they can be much bigger than The Clinton Foundation.
They just have to keep you pesky commoners at bay while they spin up the machine.
Then it’s cha ching… cha ching… cha ching!
All in the name of charity, of course.
Yes, you may roll your eyes.
https://blindgossip.com/the-big-plan/
Fits the bill for the wedding, the baby press conference, this whole summer, the SA tour, needing a 6 week break from a luxurious lifestyle, the Christmas card....
Also can anyone explain what Travalyst is?
Travalyst won’t encourage people to travel less, but it will help tourists make environmentally friendly decisions, such as providing tips for offsetting carbon emissions and supporting local communities at tourist destinations. The goal is to give the consumer more eco-conscious travel options when booking trips and educate them on the impact tourism can have on the environment. In the months ahead, Travalyst will launch new industry collaborations and initiatives focusing on different areas of tourism sustainability, including preventing wildlife damage and ways to tackle the growing problem of "over-tourism"—which is literally seeing some of the world’s most beautiful places being loved to death.
How hypocritical of them!!!!
I'll be surprised if they're actually staying there, and I'd be even more surprised if they'd want to buy it. PH might like it b/c of the weather (similar to home), but "warmer" than Toronto does not mean "warm". Even though the temps are in the 30s/40s up here right now, it's bloody cold out there. The damp really sinks in, and living in lots of grey requires a big adjustment. It's not an apples/oranges comparison. I've lived in several different cities, a couple where it snowed regularly, and a warmer, humid one. I deal with the weather here because I find this to be the most civilized of areas, and I like how laid-back it is.
Housing prices out here are insane, so while $14M isn't pocket change, it's not all that, and the decorating is a little behind and pretentious. I do like the conservatory, but I'd have it all redone, and even then, I wouldn't because I find the size of it to be silly (but that's just me, and most Americans don't feel that way). This is pretty common McMansion material out here, as @Marie pointed out. This is not old PNW money, although "old" here is nouveau to East Coast and South, so it's all relative.
As for snobbishness about old money and family, it is not limited to the BRF, and there is a lot of overlap between Diana's family and Chas' (from William the Conqueror to James I, then the split). Also, Diana's came via some illegitimacy, whereas Chas' family claims direct descendants. And old English families appear on both charts (for ex, the Dudleys, the Cavendishes, the Talbots, the Staffords, the Greys, etc.) Diana had more English blood, but even then, the Spencer family was established in the 15th century and weren't granted their coat of arms until early 1500s (which, to some old families, is "nouveau"). There are much older families. So I probably wouldn't dismiss either fam as nouveau riche, but to say that Diana was more royal than Chas etc. may not be fair, either, although I guess Diana liked to say it. Of course, William and PH got both sides, so Wills is definitely King IMO.
More of that "I flew a private jet, but I am planting 1000 trees" garbage.
I sometimes feel that same way about cold, dry, sunny v. chilly, damp, dreary. I love BC and PNW, but OMG, sometimes with the weather. Oy!
Of course, a new mansion with an imported 17th century fireplace because, you know, organic and tasteful (or ticky-tacky Las Vegas style, you decide). And a Russian oligarch. And a fleet of SUVs.
I believe her LA contacts and potential projects are crumbling beneath her feet, because that's where I think she is.
Oprah has problems of her own, and is being seen as a Harvey Weinstein enabler, so I think that she will avoid any more troublesome people for the time being.
Jennifer Meyer and her humiliation by Buckingham Palace about the merching of jewellery caused a lot of bridges to be burned as well.
I think that by showing up to the Lion King premiere looking like a person with mental health issues isn't going to get her many Disney projects either.
Hollywood is about connections and networking as well as looks and mystique. Meghan has lost them all.
She is done like the Christmas turkey.
Royal Victorian Order
If you checked the domains of me or my clients, you would find no direct contact information. All of mine are also registered through godaddy.
I have no explanation or brilliant idea about why this Archie domain was registered before the birth. Weird.
@wizardwench True enough: The "woke" duchess is nothing more than a figment of her own imagination.
Of course,"Woke" was just Diana-charitable-works cosplay, a shiny heart-tug to lure PH, then she let him be her knight in shining armor, saving her from the mean racists and awful BIL & SIL. Pretty obvious.
If the clueless prince had taken a moment to think about it, he'd have realized that a woman whose blog, the Tig, was focused only on food, drink, travel, and ticky-tacky-wanna-be conspicuous behavior and possessions and who had websites reserved with names like "babes who lunch" and "nutmeg" was not who she was quite momentarily pretending to be. Her sugars would notice this, too. And her "celebrity" "friends" would have been able to steer clear of the mess that she is. But no, because despite every last bloody obvious clue in the form of past history and actions v. words, they've all chosen a "duchess" who is the equivalent of an overpriced knock-off bottom-shelf happy hour cocktail ('sex on the beach' comes to mind).
This is all just absurd, and the Russian oligarch is just a plot twist in a bad screenplay, but my guess is that if the DM and Sun are printing it, it's quite likely true enough, esp with that lawsuit looming. I'd love to know how they found out about the oligarch, however. They could have followed the holding company trail, but it would be far more fun if a reliable source dropped the info.
I just checked Whois and also godaddy again. Archieharrison.com is not available for purchase. The account has been paid to 2020. You can purchase “archieharrison” with other endings, such as archieharrison.store or archieharrison.uk.
What we have here is a person who was attractive enough to marry a man who got her a small, recurring sex-pot, PARA*legal role in a tv series about lawyers. Once he served his purpose he was jettisoned, like many men before him. What I will give her is the drive to create the Tig website...that’s all. This tv series paid her enough to enable her to hire PR firms who employed people with ideas to promote her into a higher demographic where she met more people she could manipulate. Once she landed the dimwit she continued to bring on more PR firms who have created the infrastructure for SussexRoyal Foundation. She has done nothing, created nothing beyond a website. All she has done sleep herself to a place to be able is hire people with far-reaching and horrendous ideas that they are rapidly putting into place.
The world has always had people like her...she’s not the first and unfortunately won’t be the last. Someone asked what has she done wrong...I ask what has she done right?!?!
*The sexpot wasn’t even cast as an attorney...
@Unknown, one thing: nothing wrong with being a paralegal or an executive secretary, just saying. I'm not either, but I've known plenty of sleazy attorneys lol, many of whom rely on their terribly competent paralegals and assistants. So, I don't like to diss an entire profession, even when it's done re Rach.
I think it was the open letter from Kate and the photos of her when she spent those two days shadowing midwives. They needed to release the letter and photos before new year as 2020 is some special year honouring midwives and Friday was the best day between Christmas and New Year to do so.
Omid is a rabid Meghan fan so he is used to creating breathless hype over nothing. He is also back peddling like crazy now and denying that breathless tweet about a big announcement! I think he has been cut off access to Meghan and is now hanging around other royals to try and establish himself as an expert royal reporter/commentator (well, that did not go well, did it?).
"So, what happened to the "big announcement" by the Cambridges that Smirkle's friend and fake Royal reporter Omid Scobie told us to expect this week?"
With Kate's work on 'Early Years' and her recent undertaking of work experience at Kingston Hospital, followed by her open letter to midwives - could her Majesty be passing on to Kate the Patronage for the RCN? ( Royal College of Nursing )
Simply a thought... ( not that I trust a word that Scobie utters.)
Possibly, but given that the mayor of Victoria publically welcomed them to the region, I'm not sure. Also, they managed perfectly well to keep their location secret for 4 or 5 weeks, and the 'family time' must be almost over by now, so why would they need to create a big subterfuge at this stage in proceedings?
If this is true, this is a scheme of long incubation. That's what stands out to me.
"One of our personal domain brokers will contact the current owner to see if he or she is willing to sell the domain name you want. We'll do all we can to get the name at the lowest possible price for you. The Domain Buy Service fees do not include the cost of the domain name."
My mother in law's maternal grandmother was a MacMorran. They owned a huge, vast estate in what is now Greater Victoria. They had a mansion and farms with crops, sheep, woodlands, servants, stables, grooms, etc. up until the "Hungry 30's" caused them to gradually lose their estate. However, the descendants married into other well of families and managed to retain their wealth and standing as they owned a candy factory in Victoria and another later owned the biggest car dealership there. Another was the city treasurer of Victoria for many years. Needless to say, when I'd visit the island, I got to see and do tourist things but with much more interesting detail guided by relatives.
Being around my mother in law a lot, she and her siblings taught me how to behave in high class social settings. The Do's and Don'ts, and as a Yankee, who although was brought up to use ladylike ways, you can imagine how often I'd still manage to step in it before being corrected. Afternoon Tea at the Empress for example, would have caused her and me a lot of embarrassment without some kind of rehearsal beforehand. I imagine the cringing, OMG moments the Canadian hosts and servants must be feeling as manner-less, crass Megs visits them, as she uses every foul word or phrase, shows no positive regard for anyone, high or low, and basically puts every foot wrong. Ugh!
My in laws were loyal supporters of the monarchy, staunch Church of England (episcopal), so I know they would be very upset to see this noisy, histrionic harridan interloper come anywhere near their island and they'd all be saying so in a very polite, but cuttingly choice words and they would not spare their disdain for Harry either.
I continue to be astonished at how tone-deaf she is. The real Ms. Markle was her persona as broadcasted on The Tig. Living the high life in expensive, exclusive resorts, surrounded by luxury and sipping on Roederer Cristal Brut champagne at nearly $800/bottle. The "woke" duchess is nothing more than a figment of her own imagination.
@wizardwench: In some ways, I too am astonished at Mayhem’s tone deafness and disregard of the public optics concerning her behavior. Bit on the other hand, I’m not surprised one bit.
Harry was targeted and stalked by a woman who likely has profound case of narcissistic personality disorder. She checks off all the behavioral boxes for NPD. Mayhem landed herself in the midst of the world’s most perfect storm of resources to feed and grow her NPD and she’s running wild with it.
Nobody in the RF seems to be aware that they are dealing with a narc and that Harry is a psychological captive of Meghan much in the way that people who end up in cults are psychological captives.
Narcs, like cults, seek out emotionally vulnerable and empathetic people. Once such a person is identified, they recruit them into the cult by love bombing the target to make them feel like they’ve finally found their emotional home.
Cults and narcs work quickly to physically and psychologically isolate the target from family and friends while they make them believe its “us against the world” to make the target, who has now been totally sucked into the cult or the narcissistic relationship, 100 % dependent on the narc or the cult, leaving them to believe they have few options to leave.
The quick sex trip to Africa, the advantage of hiding herself in a long-distance courtship and push to a fast wedding and immediate fatherhood have served to benefit Meghan far more than Harry. She presented herself as an orphaned sexpot with strong humanitarian overtones to cast herself as the stand-in Diana2.0 as she pushed the emotional mother-that-Harry-couldn’t-protect-and-save button.
As with cults, the personality of the isolated victim is is broken down and reassembled to suit the narc’s purposes via devaluation, which has likely already happening to Harry. It is evidenced by his disheveled appearance, often grumpy demeanor, and comments about being overwhelmed and having a hard time getting out of bed some days as Meghan pushes him aside at public appearances with his tacit acquiescence.
Narcs, like cults, attempt to present a sunshiney facade to the public, but in private, emotional abuse is rampant while the victims’ bank accounts are plundered and the narc’s self-serving agenda moves forward at a dizzying pace.
I was sorry to see Lord Geidt leave because I believe he could have served as a positive outside force to help HM and PC realize they have a merciless predator in their midst who has literally infiltrated their family and institution. They need the assistance of psychiatrists and others who specialize in narcissistic relationships, and yes, cults and deprogramming cult members, which starts with an intervention.
Sussex Royal is the perfect machine and vehicle to serve as cover for Meghan to hide behind as she portrays herself as a caring humanitarian, but she’s only in it for herself, with Harry as her handy prop to put the royal stamp of credibility on this venture. She will use to Sussex Royal to sell real or imagined access and association to movers and shakers or wannabes around the world who just want to be able to namedrop, or much worse, those who want access and favors for less-than-savory purposes in exchange for free travel, luxury lodging, networking, and lucrative deals.
If the RF does nothing, Meghan will continue to run rampant and grow like a cancer. And it’s obvious by her recent trademark and copyright activities of her Sussex Royal foundation, she’s kicking it into high gear.
Yes, it’s HER foundation. This break from William and Kate likely wasn’t Harry’s idea. He probably would have been content to keep things as they were working with W & K. Sussex Royal is just the replacement for The Tig on a far more massive scale.
The foundation is her vehicle to ruthlessly use Harry, the title she gained via marriage, Archie and the next child she’ll produce in 2020 or early 2021, and the royal family itself as tools, props, and pawns for her own enrichment, aggrandizement, and the advancement of her elitist political agenda on the world stage.
Narcs are always destructive and toxic. I believe Meghan, armed with her enabler and ‘rescue me, Harry’ victimhood, plus her race card, could very well prove to be far more destructive to the RF than Andrew could ever be.
The only difference between Harry and Meghan and a cult is that this is a cult with just two members. All extremely narcissistic relationships are that way.
The woman is taking all the heat for the leak when we know very well that she leaked their whereabouts herself.
Great post! Excellent synopsis of an ugly relationship. What will stop her?
I worry about how much damage she is going to do to a family and nation that have been nothing but kind to her.
I'm sure she sees kindness as weakness. Sure puts that "is he kind?" fakery into perspective doesn't it?
Too true
Magatha Mistie, maybe that award is the equivalent of a medal for valor in the face of the enemy, or even a purple heart for wounds received in battle. I imagine that any normal person would want to beat her with the nearest available club after having to deal with her in an underling capacity.
BTW: Emotional road pizza is like the poor little animals who are hit on the highway. After being repeatedly run over by hundreds of vehicles, they are flattened into what is known here in the US as ‘road pizza.’ Meghan will run over Harry until he is an ‘emotional road pizza.’
@HappyDays Fascinating, accurate synopsis of a relationship with a narc and how they work. If we can see it, surely someone close to the Royal Family can, too. The question continues to be what will they do about it? What actions will they take to save Harry?
I don't know about England but here, it is almost impossible to get help for mentally ill family members. They have to want and request it.
One only needs to look at the photos from Inskip's wedding to see MM's rage at baseline. First, there is a picture of MM kissing Harry and his arms are hanging at his sides. Allegedly he had broken up with her before the wedding, but she came anyway. That tells you something about how determined she was. When my ex invited me to Chipotle after breaking up with me, I was like no way, I am not going to be "pretend friends" with you.
In other pictures from the wedding, MM appears annoyed and even angered when other people are talking to Harry. The most damning picture to me is the one where she is grasping him with both arms like a coach, hissing something at him while he looks clearly tired, drunk, or both. I'm sure William saw those photos and was concerned for his brother. I would be very worried if it were my friend, son, or brother who was so ensnared with someone so selfish.
At best, her behavior was rude and she should have allowed him to focus on his friend's wedding. At worst her behavior was diabolical. We saw shades of this later at Prince Charles' Investiture, where she attempted to walk with the rest of the RF. PC looked shocked to see the both of them standing at the door. I am sure they were not supposed to be waiting at the door, but already seated in the other room. Harry would have known that, but perhaps he allowed MM to convince him to try and walk with the RF.
This is where her pathology is really on display. I am very easily embarrassed, so I know people tend to be more assertive than me. However, I think most people would follow directions and not try to gatecrash an important event like PH&MM seem to have done.
I totally agree with everything you said. And I am swinging between a feeling of heartbreak...watching this slow motion train wreck and rage that somebody hasn't stopped her. Isnt Lord Geidt still around in a consulting capacity?
I am in sympathy with those who want a petition...any action would be good.
An e-petition is an online petition to the House of Commons or the Government started by a member of the public on the e-petitions website.
E-petitions receive a Government response if they have 10,000 signatures or more. The Petitions Committee considers e-petitions for a debate if they have 100,000 signatures or more. E-petitions stay open for six months, or until the end of the Parliament (whichever comes first), after which they are closed.
Constituents who have a question about how their e-petition has been handled can email Petitions Committee staff directly at petitionscommittee@parliament.uk.
Due to recent general election a new Petitions has to be set up.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, The question continues to be what will they (BRF) do about it? What actions (if any) will they take to save Harry?
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I hope that the ppl who love Harry, e.g., PC and William, would intervene and put him in rehab. PC put him in rehab once before, correct?
Harry's only hope is to get professional help or to be dumped by Sparkles. I do not think she will divorce him, however, unless she has caught a bigger, richer man in her claws. her motto is "Onward and Upward" like any good social climber and grifter.
@tatty In the video the sidelining of MM and Harry is so obvious. That must be hurtful for Harry, don't you think? William, Kate, and Harry used to look so happy together at events.
The reason Harry was not included was because he is not a future Prince of Wales. Nothing to do with Meghan.
The video clearly shows that Harry and Megs were directed to the next room while only the Monarch and two future Kings (and their spouses) were allowed to view the articles of the Investiture at the same time. Harry not being the future Monarch was sidelined (which probably really grated on Megs as she seemed to be the interloper first). IMO
Does someone have to make a showing that the person "is a danger to himself or others"? And if so, are the courts (or other agencies) have a high bar to scale to prove such>
Here in my small county in Texas it is not that hard to get someone committed to a Psychiatric facility.
He would have to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, which would require a court to prove that he posed a risk to his own safety, or that of others. Highly unlikely he's anywhere near that point.
So I assume the Mental Health Act you are referring to is the UK law. Yes, I agree he is nowhere near that level and no doubt Meghan would fight his commitment. Then there is always the fact he could actually be a sane willing participant in all of this. I am actually inclined to think this is the case (and that he may not even be affected by drugs or alcohol, despite his sloppy appearance on occasions).
Texas must be unusual as it's not easy other places in the US to force adults into institutional care unless they are severely mentally ill AND they pose an *imminent* threat to self or others. As I recall, things began to change with the Supreme Court case O'Connor v. Donaldson in the 70s dealing with civil rights and involuntary commitment. (Remember some of the mass shootings; families had tried to get help for adult children and it wasn't possible to force help.) Plus, with the deinstitutionalization movement from the 70s and the move towards community-based treatment in the 80s/90s, there is a shortage of psychiatric beds (general psyc beds) There are private "rehab" clinics but even those are limited some places because it's not easy to get insurance to pay for inpatient substance abuse treatment these days. (And to be fair, unless medical detox is needed, there's no body of published evidence showing across-the-board costly inpatient treatment is superior to intensive [daily] outpatient treatment.) Of course, cost wouldn't be an obstacle for the RF but I'd be surprised if Harry can be legally forced to undergo treatment. "Pocketbook forced" maybe but even then if motivation is lacking...
There is no evidence that she did that with Trevor, but she was looking round before she posted the rings to Trevor.
As for Corey, there is an intriguing trail of evidence on the Internet that she dumped him for Harry.
HappyDays: I have also picked up that Doria is an enabler in Meghan's grifting.
I was curious about the laws regarding involuntary commitment.
The requirements vary from state to state, and each state has statutes governing the standards. There is a score card at the end of the survey. Although the survey is from 2014, the individual state requirements are more recent (Texas, for example, is 2017, and the statutes referenced are correct). If you click on the states, you can see what your state standards are for involuntary commitment.
https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/2014-state-survey-abridged.pdf
https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/browse-by-state/
and this is the link for the NHS, so unlikely the BRF would pursue this, but interesting to consider IMO:
https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/nhs-services/mental-health-services/mental-health-act/
It is not for treatment, it is or stability.
@elle you are right. The actual true Baker Act is in Florida. Other states have basically the same law just different names
These are generally states' rights issues, but there is nothing that says that the state law cannot be adopted federally. (Maria's Law, Washington State, is a good example.) I did not find that, however, in the case of the Baker Act, but I could certainly have missed it. I just searched the state statutes to verify states.
Wasn't PH underage when Chas sent him to a day of counseling?
A narc with no personal talent (for acting singing, writing, painting, sculpting, creating anything authentic and original) is always going to be stressed to maintain the heights that she attained. (If Harry is turned on by little girl/smart girl sexpot, then she can easily be replaced as she gets older and so she has to isolate and control him.)
Narcs do not know what drives them (the inner inadequate self) and do not have the ability to change and so they are trapped in their own pathology.
I feel sorry for her, and Harry, but think it is best for the BRF to cut them loose, soon and quickly. Always send them invitations for private family gatherings but cut them off from all the freebies and the platform that comes with being royal.
Where was his emphatic side when he dressed up as a NAZI or when he referred to fellow a soldier as his "little Paki friend" and called another a "raghead"? That was Harry uncensored.
Harry himself has stated in the past that the public doesn't know the real him. MM may be his biggest enabler where ELF/the BRF were the ones "holding him back", but I truly believe this is the real Harry. Well, with a bit of addict mixed in but that too is part of who he is and was prior to meeting MM. He has simply found someone who encourages him to be himself and probably tells him they are entitled to be/act this way and everyone else simply has to accept it because they're royals, and he's Diana's son, and William gets all the good press because he'll be king one day.
When crazy people are REALLY in a crisis mode, the police are called. If Great Uncle Jack with dementia is screaming about his 85-year-old wife in a wheelchair cheating on him with the next door neighbor while brandishing a knife, or a young man hearing voices in his head for the first time charges the police after beating his mother, they probably aren't going to survive long enough to be Baker acted. Heck, the police shot and killed an ancient woman in a wheelchair that was chasing her family members around with a knife. They didn't want her killed, they just wanted her disarmed.
>>>Texas must be unusual as it's not easy other places in the US to force adults into institutional care unless they are severely mentally ill AND they pose an *imminent* threat to self or others.<<,
Sorry I did not respond sooner but went to the store and Wow a lot of comments now when it was slow earlier.
First off, I was only referring to a 72 hour psychiatric hold which can be granted with virtually no evidence just somone's opinion of another voiced in the Justice of the Peace court (the lowest court in Texas). However, if the person committed wants to contest it after the 72 hour period is up, then they have a chance to say something in a full hearing in the district court (next level up). At that hearing, the prosecuting party might be the assistant DA. and the party in question will be afforded an attorney to fight it. I have witnessed several of these and just like anything justice hinges on the judge, the competency of the aggrieved party's attorney and the diligence/fairness of the *prosecuting* attorney. In fact the aggrieved party can represent themself if they want and can.
>>>In short, in the US, you have the right to be crazy as long as you don’t harm yourself or others.<<
Actually, you can be held for observation even if you have Not harmed someone...held if you "pose a danger to yourself or others".