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
@Elle I agree with your point, too. I think both scenarios apply.
I re-read Harry Markle's post on the Inskip wedding. The pics are very interesting. She totally manipulated that situation to her own ends and railroaded Harry into marriage.
>>>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.<<<
I tend to agree. I think Harry is being 'Harry' and Megs just happens to exacerbates the situation. I don't hold much hope out much hope for things to get better until MM is out of the picture and he wants to value his family and live up to his duty or else decamp from the BRF and live as a private citizen.
Yes, 72-hr holds are easier to get but even those don't happen all that easily everywhere either unless there is severe impairment and evidence the person is likely to be an imminent danger to self or others. From *what the public can see* I don't think either can be said of Harry. Even if all the worst case hypotheses are true about his disheveled appearance, his mannerisms, his comments indicating possible depression, and the splotches on his pants were spilled alcohol, that's not the sort of imminent danger needed.
People do fall through the cracks. Sometimes families are frantic because help can't be forced on an adult family member. And there are bad outcomes without help.
It's really a balancing act though. The SCOTUS case in the 70s that caused new state laws to have to be written, O'Connor v. Donaldson, was brought by a man who had been involuntarily committed for **15 years.** He'd been visiting his elderly parents in Florida and started saying he thought a neighbor in Philadelphia was poisoning him. A sanity hearing was held and he was civilly committed with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. He refused treatment from the beginning but was kept locked up because his doctor kept signing off he needed "care" and that was the standard of the time. That's scary too.
I agree that Not everywhere it is the same in US and Harry does not even come close because after all the alleged problem is maybe drugs or alcohol (he does appear at public events and talks coherently and goes about his business) But I personally witnessed in my County a bogus charge got someone held for 72 hours in this backwater podunk county and they couldn't do anything to contest it because the person in question never went before the court before being picked up and held!.
STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY HOSPITALIZATION FOR EVALUATION (may be termed "hold" "pick-up," "detention," “provisional hospitalization,” “72-hour emergency admission” or other, depending on state).
TX TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 573.001(a)§ 573.011
A peace officer, without a warrant, may take a person into custody if the officer:
(1)has reason to believe and does believe that:
(A)the person is mentally ill; and
(B)because of that mental illness there is a substantial risk of serious harm to the person or to others unless the person is immediately restrained
[A] written application for the emergency detention of another person ...must state:
(1)that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the person evidences mental illness;
(2)that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the person evidences a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others;
(3)a specific description of the risk of harm;
(4)that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the risk of harm is imminent unless the person is immediately restrained;
(5)that the applicant's beliefs are derived from specific recent behavior, overt acts, attempts, or threats
(6)a detailed description of the specific behavior, acts, attempts, or threats;
and
(7)a detailed description of the applicant's relationship to the person whose detention is sought
https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/Emergency_Hospitalization_for_Evaluation.pdf
https://texaslawhelp.org/article/involuntary-commitment-texas
Of course, none of that is relevant to PH, but I do think it illustrates the uphill climb any family would face. Even if PH were to move to the US and the BRF would try to intervene here, it's just not that easy, and it is quite unlikely that this would ever be made public.
My guess with the BRF is that they know PH has an issue and they are powerless to intervene, unless they cut off funds, and that two is a damned-if-you-do scenario because it pushes him further from the family and into the arms of his dearly beloved. As we all know from our own lives, it's pretty much impossible to fix another person and change a dynamic for someone. Multiply that by how much and that's what the BRF is up against? There will always be someone there to enable PH (enter Russian oligarch in три, два, один).
Obvi that should say "that too", but now that I've fixed this, I think of my other typos, and I'll just stop here lol. @Nutty would have to start a new post if I were to fix all of my happy-fingers mistakes!
I agree with your statement above. They need to cut Rach off at the knees as @WizardWitch suggested and legally stop her from profiting from her association with the Royals. I wonder if she would cut and run if she was unable to merch and profit?
My guess with the BRF is that they know PH has an issue and they are powerless to intervene, unless they cut off funds, and that two is a damned-if-you-do scenario because it pushes him further from the family and into the arms of his dearly beloved. As we all know from our own lives, it's pretty much impossible to fix another person and change a dynamic for someone. Multiply that by how much and that's what the BRF is up against? There will always be someone there to enable PH (enter Russian oligarch in три, два, один).
What I think of is, if they cut off the funds, then that encourages MM to tell him that they are now "forced" to merch because how else are they going to get money rolling in. (why am I thinking of "Evita"?)
Someone mentioned something about SS might be having difficulty with MM. I've been thinking some there have been grinding their teeth for a while.
The talk of how is he/isn't he a victim. I can see all sides of this. Perhaps some days he is and other times, we are seeing the real him. Really sad to see anyone disintegrate in public.
>>>Of course, unless PH & Rach find themselves in TX, this is not relevant, but these are the standards:<<<
Well then let everyone who ever writes something Off Topic beware!! I cant even write something I know about and I get criticized. Geesh! I am so sorry I contribute anything here it is so awful lately that ones is chastized over nothing!
Having run for Justice of the Peace here in Texas and an experienced litigator (just won another suit Dec. 16th) I can tell things happen not always according to the law. When the law is not followed almost no one even begins to right a wrong as the system is loaded against someone. Heaven help the average person even to get justice if they dont have the money and the balls to fight. Next week I am considering filing a suit against a judge. Peace out!
@CatEyes, my qualification was for my own comment, in case @Nutty read it and wondered WTH I was talking about TX. It was not directed to you. Because I shared it as an aside, I applied it to the BRF b/c I respect Nutty's request and the blog.
I grew up with attorneys, judges, and law professors, so I've got a pretty good grasp based on experience and my own education re the law. I know there is no perfect, but I enjoy sharing the facts related to the law because not everyone knows how to find the statutes. If I offended anyone by sharing, that was certainly not my intent.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gallery/13-pictures-sum-up-decade-21182828
A photo-op with Tutu would be iconic, but to display the baby that had been hidden (and the secrecy had been hyped up to fever itch) would make it a photo of the decade (though I think she was hoping for best of the century!).
Why do William and Kate not take their kids to formal meetings with VIPs when on tour (they show their kids when arriving and leaving and for special events that have been arranged around the children)? Why did Meghan take Archie along for a formally arranged meeting with Tutu when they were supposed to be discussing charity work, and then have him revealed in the background while she was being interviewed solo?
In the case of PH & Rach, and in most troubled couples, their dysfunctions really mesh up.
"Hello, PH, Troubled Fool with too much money with fragile self-esteem and unfulfilled dreams of power, glory, fame and riches, let me introduce you to Rach, Narcissistic Viper from the Land of Broken Toys, who will never have enough money, power, glory, fame, and riches. You two can make yourselves right at home." And that's how their first emotional hook-up played out to today.
And @DesignDoctor, this was a rhetorical question, right lolol : I wonder if she would cut and run if she was unable to merch and profit?
It is odd. It is not as if Meghan has close family with long-held family traditions that she would rather be with, and Harry has only met one of her family, so there can't be a close bond as William has with Kate's family after years of dating and staying over.
I agree. If they - or even just Harry - had turned up for the BP luncheon it would have made a huge difference. As you say, other royals have skipped Sandringham and I think people might have bought the idea that they wanted to spend thier first Xmas with Archie in Meghan's home country with her mother..... but it turned out they weren't even in America and they couldn't even be bothered to compromise by at least showing their faces at one of the royal Xmas events. It's very hard to portray this as anything other than a massive snub to the royals and by extension to the British people who fund the Harkles' lavish lifestyle.
https://thecrownsofbritain.home.blog/
It is odd. It is not as if Meghan has close family with long-held family traditions that she would rather be with, and Harry has only met one of her family, so there can't be a close bond as William has with Kate's family after years of dating and staying over.
You’re right in that it’s not as if Meghan had a long-standing family Christmas gathering in the US. She’s dumped everyone who is no longer useful or doesn’t make the standard for being ‘Brand Meghan,’as she called it prior to snagging Harry, which has now morphed into ‘Brand Sussex Royal.’
I think keeping Harry totally away from all of his usual Christmas family activities is another step in Meghan’s isolation of Harry from his former life, which is textbook narc behavior.
Spending the holiday on the US west coast gets him acclimated to living several time zones away from the UK and leaving his family traditions behind to spend time with people who, for the most part are all ‘Meghan’s people,’ but they are just like her (selfish, shallow, and greedy) and are basically strangers to Harry. My guess is they were in LA for Sussex Royal plotting, then rolled up to BC for Christmas.
Meghan’s behavior indicates to me that she never intended to live in the UK and live the traditional life of a working royal. Visiting pet shelters, radio stations, and old people’s homes is beneath her grandiose vision of herself. I think she disdains the UK as ‘small potatoes’ and it and the citizens of the UK do not merit her attention. In her mind, she should be a presenter at the Oscars and not handing out a polo trophy.
She always wanted to be a Hollywood A-Lister, which would be impossible if she and Harry stayed in the UK and lived the standard working royal life there, working in tandem with William and Kate, whom I believe she fears because she knows they’ve had her sussed for a long time. Being unmasked is a narcissist’s greatest fear, which is why she is lashing out at the press and the public while playing victim to Harry.
In addition, I think she looks down her surgically-altered nose at W&K as small-time royals, even if they will one day be king and queen consort (if she hasn’t managed to destroy the monarchy by then).
Working with W&K means Meghan wouldn’t be calling the shots and she’d have to share the spotlight with the Cambridges as the wife of the spare.
Her narcissistic personality disorder requires an immense amount of fuel to sustain itself, which can’t be provided by staying in the UK. It would limit her ability to generate the endless and massive amount of money plus associating with other people of status and the worldwide press coverage centering mainly on her with Harry as her useful prop that is necessary to feed her narcissism.
Hence, the break with William and Kate and the creation of Sussex royal. Meghan plays the long game, sometimes very well, but her narcissism will be her biggest impediment.
The best thing that could happen is for HM and Charles to require them to live in London and take on Andrews charitable patronages, which would greatly hinder if not stop Meghan’s ability to promote Sussex Royal. She would chafe under that kind of control to the point of perhaps taking her anger out on Harry in private. That could prove to be a deal-breaker and her undoing.
Happy Days, Oh do I like how you think:
The best thing that could happen is for HM and Charles to require them to live in London and take on Andrews charitable patronages, which would greatly hinder if not stop Meghan’s ability to promote Sussex Royal. She would chafe under that kind of control to the point of perhaps taking her anger out on Harry in private. That could prove to be a deal-breaker and her undoing.
Please, people, don't verbally stone me for this idea.
I think there is a limited amount of control she can exert on them, because of the optics of the situation. And, Meghan has the race card, which no one else had.
I think that is the biggest issue here.
Honestly, I think that is their best strategy. End her ability to merch and profit from the Sussex"Royal" brand.
@DesignDoctor, it would put it all on Rach and "shine a light" on the true-love-and-star-trip scam she ran. And the BRF could pull the "Sussex" title at the same time b/c if she's not a British citizen, it's a courtesy title only and not hers to keep (from what I understand, at least, which is very little lol). And if they do it before she announces the surrogate's pregnancy, then they might be able to save another child from Archie's fate. Who knows. If she's not going to make bank off pimping Archie with Sussex Royal merch, she might even willingly give up custody.
I have read that until Rach is a British citizen, the title is only a courtesy and not hers to keep. And I would think that if Rach is on her way out, HMTQ might know a guy who knows a guy who can slow that citizenship process down.
"Meghan’s Duchess title has always been a moot point with me. No, she doesn’t yet hold a British citizenship so how can she be legally be using a title?! Rules are bent I suppose?! Perhaps there is no citizenship requirement to use a (royal or aristocratic) title, unlike an honour? !"
Meghan is a Duchess because she married a Duke. Her nationality is irrelevant. Wallis Simpson was also American and also held the title of Duchess (though not HRH) when she was married to the Duke of Windsor. The cases you mention - of people like Angelina Jolie being given an honorary title - are entirely different to that of someone who acquires a royal title through marriage. A woman is by default granted all of her royal husband's titles upon marriage (though not the reverse, such is the sexist mentality of the family feminist Meghan married into), regardless of citizenship.
>> Please, people, don't verbally stone me for this idea.
>> Well then let everyone who ever writes something Off Topic beware!! I cant even write something I know about and I get criticized. Geesh! I am so sorry I contribute anything here it is so awful lately that ones is chastized over nothing!
Nobody is verbally stoning you or chastising you. I don't know why it's necessary with these pseudo "apologies" and dramatic sighs since your ideas are generally well received and almost always included in the general discussion. I read your comments and tend to agree quite often, so your ideas are very much valued here. That is the one type of comment that actually makes this board a major downer, having to walk on eggshells for one person. Everyone else here is able to disagree without feeling personally offended or personally attacked. I don't understand why you should be exempt.
@Nutty I'm aware of your policy, yet quite honestly, only CatEyes seems to circle around it with the threat of passive-aggressive apologies or leaving the board. Passive aggressive behavior is just as bad and manipulative as mean comments, in my opinion. I'm suffering from a severely narc, passive aggressive MIL at the moment due to Christmas, so I'm particularly sensitive to reading this kind of behavior.
@Mischi
>> I think there is a limited amount of control she can exert on them, because of the optics of the situation. And, Meghan has the race card, which no one else had.
The race card is a problem. The Queen also has hopes for Smirkles to keep the Commonwealth nations happy because she is part-black.
.
According to Harry Markle, https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/was-tom-inskips-wedding-partially-responsible-for-this-mess/
MM and Harry dated each other but broke up before the wedding. She had been invited as his plus one and even though they were broken up, MM attended the wedding. According to the article MM's goal was to get photos of the two of them together as a couple so she could continue putting out and advancing the story that they were an item. At the time, I remember seeing a story with pics in the media of the "romantic Jamaican hideaway" where they ostensibly stayed together the weekend of the wedding. The Harry Markle article details how after the wedding MM pushed the idea of them as a couple in the media.
That scenario doesn't make sense to me. He could have just broken up with her. The optics would have been bad for a few weeks (some "Love Rat Harry" headlines probably), but he has had far worse press coverage for the past year now thanks to Meghan. And he had had his share of much worse press after the Las Vegas incident. It would have been smoothed over by the palace, just like it was before.
1. Meghan got a taste of the life she wanted: flew in on a private jet (free, from a 'friend'), wore a dress from a collection that was not yet being sold (probably merching), got so much attention from the press (most of it gushing but if you read between the lines there was quite a lot of shade ... she wore a special bracelet that was a gift from Trevor, the wedding was not far from where her and Trevor got married ...), stayed in the lap of luxury (doubt she paid for any of it) ...
2. There was a lot of intense, controlling, staking ownership PDA from Meghan at the wedding. She has always done that with every man she has been with, but the most Harry does is hold her hand (and get very drunk ,,, in vino veritas!). There are photos of her glaring or looking disdainfully at women (just old friends) who speak to Harry. She was leading him by the nose, but I think he went willingly and actually took pride in having such an 'amazing' girlfriend.
3. The relationship was at the intense love bombing stage. Harry had probably never experienced moves like that (and gosh he did not want that out in the public domain like what happened in Las Vegas) and the intensity and her projection of a persona that ticked all the boxes sealed the deal for her. All that PDA was like having his loving, tactile mother back again; all that intense attention bolstered him as a public persona; all the right talk from her persuaded him that she would make a perfect modern, woke, wow princess. (I disagree with the Harry Markle blog and think that Harry was captured by then, but the signs were all there of her true intentions and the miserable Harry who would emerge from the toxic relationship.)
4. So much was obvious at that wedding that Harry ignored (or did not care about) but William seems to have seen and thus questioned her true intentions. It is clear she had no intention of serving the monarchy in any way: there was no attempt to fit into his circle by listening and learning (she hates it when attention is not on her in a conversation or she is not allowed to dominate); there was no attempt to act with dignity and grace; there was no attempt to avoid scandal by avoiding references to her Trevor wedding and marriage; there was no attempt to refrain from grabbing freebies and spending for personal pleasure ...
>>>Nobody is verbally stoning you or chastising you.<<<
It was a tongue in cheek remark. I guess because I just had read the British satire I referenced in my comment above re: Crowns of Britain,
But you prove the point of the ugliness that Nutty doesn't want on the board.
The best thing that could happen is for HM and Charles to require them to live in London and take on Andrews charitable patronages, which would greatly hinder if not stop Meghan’s ability to promote Sussex Royal.
I truly don't believe the Queen would insult Andrew's former charities by inflicting the Sussexes on them. Neither would it stop Meghan pursuing her own empire building games.
She has no shame and lacks any kind of respect, which is something that has come as a shock to Brits. We've seen her attending formal occasions on behalf of the Crown looking as though she'd just got out of bed and very obviously not giving a FF.
Her LA saccharine insincerity is quite chilling to many Brits and she's evidently mystified as to why we haven't drunk her koolaid. Because we won't play ball with her she's rejecting Britain - we were only a stepping stone in her deluded world domination plan anyway; she believes that Sussex will be bigger than the BRF.
The Royals have an amazing amount of soft power which she completely ignores; the woman is exceptionally stupid. Without Prince Harry her shelf life will be very brief. I wonder if Americans know how much damage she is doing to their country's reputation? She truly is the definition of an ugly American and her behaviour is a stain on your country. She really is America's problem as much as ours. In fact possibly more so; she has insulted our Royal Family, more particularly the Queen and I can't see pro-Monarchist Brits forgiving and forgetting in a hurry.
Not trying to stone you @CatEyes, but I don't buy that idea at all.
First, the Queen isn't responsible for choices her 30-something adult son made some 30-40 years ago. No mother would be.
Second, it's actually unclear who first cheated in Charles and Diana's marriage. It was a bad match IMO and both Charles and Diana behaved badly. I will admit though I couldn't have lived with Diana's dramatics like throwing herself on Charles's car when he needed to leave for work or throwing herself down stairs when pregnant. And Charles wasn't the only one subjected to her emotional storms. Diana was 28 years old and a mother herself when she supposedly pushed her 60-year old stepmother ("Acid Raine") down a flight of stairs at Althorp.
Third, infidelity wasn't then and isn't now terribly uncommon at all levels of society. It happens in many families.
Fourth, if the Queen is to be held responsible for Harry's marriage and behavior as an adult because of what she did or didn't do before Harry was born and when Harry was a young child, is she also responsible for William's?
And last, what does Charles's behavior between the sheets have to do with the kinds of current improprieties on the part of Harry and Meghan talked about here? (After only a little over 20 months of marriage, no less.) To me, it's sort of like saying "Grandma didn't stop Dad from playing hooky as a boy so no wonder I'm now on my third marriage."
In general I think it's a stretch to blame a 35-year old man's 93-year old grandmother for his spoiled, arrogant, resentful, and hypocritical behavior. And we don't really know that Harry is faithful or if he is now, that it's completely out of choice. He surely didn't seem to treat previous girlfriends very well.
Of course, to some extent we all are a product of our upbringing. But if Harry's current behavior is solely due to his upbringing, and Charles' is due to his, then the Queen's must be due to hers. And her parents' to theirs. And their parents' to theirs. And so on. (Guess we'll eventually end up back at Eve so I guess everything really is her fault ;)
>>>@CatEyes wrote "...maybe the Queen brought the precedence of dishonorable behavior (by the Harkles) by indulging her son Charles being unfaithful (first b4 Diana) for so long. At least Harry is not being unfaithful. Please, people, don't verbally stone me for this idea."
Not trying to stone you @CatEyes, but I don't buy that idea at a<<<
It was a "straw dog argument'. I guessed I did get stoned!! (not drugs that is, as I don't imbibe). lol
Another poster pointed out that many others in the royal family were unfaithful (maybe even the Queen too) but I was focusing on how Indulged Charles was than anyone except now Harry. A coincidence that they are father and son and get so favored? I think not.
1. The card. As Hikari so ably described it, it looked like something Megs put together after a few too many. However, some of her fans may have found it 'relatable.' Harry Markle blog has a couple of good posts about the card. The baby might really be Archie, but he looks very different from adorable SA Archie. Another blog redid the card with a photo of SA Archie, & then posted it in a side-by-side with the QCT card. SA Archie seems to have more of a rosebud mouth, but the difference could be that Christmas Archie was biting his lip. What was really weird is that SA Archie's ears are lower on his head than Christmas Archie. You can put a straight edge over the tops of the ears in both photos & easily see that it hits his eyes in different places. Maybe that's something that changes in babies in early months, I wouldn't know. When my kids were babies I didn't measure their heads, & PhotoShop didn't exist. The sides of Christmas Archie's head seem to have been oddly flattened. They like almost like parallel lines, not the curved contours of an actual head. There were some comparisons to an old photo of baby Harry crawling, & I wonder if someone did a rather inept job of trying to PhotoShop Archie to make him look more like baby Harry. The 'original' photo put out by Meg's friend looked like a lame attempt to correct some of the odd things about the first version of the card, Harry's shirt overlapping the baby's head, although he supposedly was well behind him, Meg's blazing teeth, & her weirdly diseased looking right arm.
2. Sussex Royal.I have no idea whether or not any of the recent stories put out about the Harkles are true. It's impossible to tell. To me what's interesting is what's not happening. I might be wrong, but I believe that Megs hasn't been photographed in any expensive designer duds in several months, other than the harem dress at the Rome wedding, & that could have been a leftover from earlier days & I don't believe there were any photos of her showing all of the dress. She seems to have been allowed a couple of decent coats for Remembrance Day events, but there haven't been any sightings of her in Oscar de la Rentas at private events, for example. Has the royal money tap been turned off? Are designers finding that she doesn't move product? I have read that most of the incredibly expensive handmade couture stuff is bought by the wives of plutocrats from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East & Africa. I would imagine that some brands thought Megs' somewhat exotic origins & her royal cachet would increase interest, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I would like to see a Nutty post on the possible success of the Sussex Royal brand. Megs seems to be aiming for a mass down market consumer, but the Waltons have become billionaires doing just that. The plan must have been to combine Harry's fame, prestige & purported 'likeability' with Megs' streetsmarts & shrewd business sense. Oprah made herself a global brand in a different age, but she a least seemed likeable, especially in her early days. She also has been a pretty good judge of the public mood. Megs seems a bit tone deaf. The areas that Megs seems interested in profiting from, fashion, entertainment, beauty products, travel, are very competitive, & tastes can turn on a dime these days. A lot of legendary brands are struggling now, even the BRF?
Someone wondered the other day why we waste our time on the Harkles, but it's a fascinating story both on a human, ordinary level, we all have families, & on a social, cultural & historical level. Will the British Royal family survive? Are their problems just another example of the decline of the long dominance of Anglo-American influence in popular culture? Maybe. I might find more Netflix stuff I like if I spoke Spanish.
For example, the 44 US presidents up until now:
14 first born
23 middle born
7 last born
0 only children
So last-borns and onlies are under-represented. While first-borns may be high achievers, they also tend to be more risk averse while middles tend to be more diplomatic and able to cooperate with others.
Certainly childhood experiences affect who were are but at some point--like maybe by 35?--- it seems it's time to stop blaming others for our decisions and actions. Harry doesn't seem to have gotten to that point yet.
Yes, they left separate because they arrived separate: him on a commercial flight, her solo on a private jet (which she could not afford).
However, it makes sense that Harry was upset because his close friends and family were advising him to take his time before committing to a marriage. (He was in the love bombing stage, really playing on his unresolved grief for the loss of his mother, and was so in love that he thought everything about her was amazing and she would be the most wonderful princess ever!) Harry has shown petulant behaviour in public before, but the advice was sound. Mature people who truly do love each other would be OK with waiting and building a solid relationship, especially as Meghan had so much to learn about being British and about the BRF, before making that lifelong commitment. If Meghan had a successful career as an actress, she could have relocated to London and become a real asset to the theatre/movie/TV industry there.
There were so many red flags about the relationship and her shown at that wedding, including her controlling behaviour, her own petulance and how she would separate him for long-standing and close family who had good and true bonds with him ...!
We also tend to be overlooked (forgotten?) more, so we are used to flying under the radar and taking charge of our own lives. This independence is not a bad thing. We feel less pressure to conform and do well with older and younger groups. Middles also tend to make friends their families. Middles are focused on fairness over prestige (because we didn't have to be the crowing glory of the fam, and most likely preferred not to be the focus, but bloody hell, if things could just be fair once in awhile lol. And, of course, we are often the peacekeepers or liaisons in the family (I have an older and younger who do not speak to each other, so I'm the favorite sister :)
What is interesting about William and Harry is that they are extreme examples of first-born (and all of the expectations of perfection that go along with) and baby (no elaboration needed here lol). It might have been easier for PH if he had been born female because of societal expectations. Still, without a middle, their birth order traits seem to have magnified. (Great, blame the middle child again even when they aren't there!)
Regardless, he is 35 now. His parents got to screw him up in childhood, but he's had a solid 15 years or more to work on himself, and this is the result? I think he has a little more work to do. William certainly seems to have grown and changed, and of course, part of that is a strong relationship, but Kate couldn't make Wills grow and adjust unless he chose it.
https://news.sky.com/story/trolling-of-meghan-how-duchess-is-abused-over-race-and-pregnancy-11696606
But, to play the violin for poor innocent victimised Meghan is just annoying.
Kate and Camilla endured lots of abuse (years of it) that was vicious (being insulted by photographers, who were hounding them, and having vegetables thrown at them, never mind the awful name calling in the media and online). Kate and Camilla took years to get praise, respect or recognition from the media and public for the decent people they are (who, incidentally love their husbands and understand how best to support them).
Meghan does get vicious abuse from the inevitable crazies online, but there are a few things that are different:
1. She gets just as much if not more lavish hyperbolic praise (global style icon, major humanitarian, successful Hollywood actress, most intelligent and educated in the BRF, leader in everything so everyone is claimed to copying her and following in her footsteps), which is actually nonsense and praising her for very superficial, made-up stuff. (Fitting for someone who created a superficial ideal lifestyle online.)
2. She cannot tolerate even a whiff of criticism, i.e. has a very thin skin, and chooses to go to war against the media and those online because offending her/hurting her feelings is a crime.
3. Meghan fans fantasise about William and his family being killed in an accident, make up and spread a story about William having an affair (even on this forum there are those who believe what was a lie spread as gossip, all of it), and generally spew hate against Kate. The most hilarious is they have now chosen to photoshop images of her: changing her face, her make up, her hair, and then posting the doctored images as one of a future queen.
Be wary of stories that are not placed in context and come from an emotional rather than rational base because they are probably planted by Meghan's PR.
I would in no way, shape, or form characterize her as an American representative. She certainly doesn't share the mainstream's morals or, indeed, any beliefs in common with us. I suppose that she would be our version of Eurotrash (which I certainly do not think represents England or most of the other countries in Europe). She is a Los Angeleno opportunistic THOT. Most of us would not have her in our homes. She is completely free to be a whore if that is what she wants, and to social climb into whichever family will have her, and I don't think we can be blamed for her welcome to England.
Re. U.S. Presidents and birth order . .
If we take into account later-born sons who become the eldest after premature deaths of elder brothers (eg. John F. Kennedy, a second-born son) the stats for eldest sons becoming President would be higher. Also, while Barack Obama has many half- and step-siblings from his mother's two ex-husbands who later remarried, Barack was his mother's only child and was raised largely by his maternal grandparents. I don't believe that he ever actually lived with, or was raised together with any of his step/half sibs in a traditional family relationship, since they were variously raised in Africa or Indonesia. I consider him an only child therefore for the purposes of this statistic, since his upbringing was that of an 'only'. His relationship with any of the children of his father or stepfather seems non-existent.
How many people have to say a person is rude, mean, and they lie before it is believed? And we got the best, almost Shakespearean warning from her half-brother who accurately predicted she would tear the RF apart.
IMO, Rachel does reflect badly on the US because she is representing us, even if she is not representative of us. Her "woke" mirror image is just the other extreme of judgmental conservatism, a yin and yang, if you will. We have plenty of both sides of that in this country, and I'm afraid that is how the world sees us IMO, and again, I'll stop there and apply it to the BRF.
The BRF is supposed to represent traditions, history, a higher path, a monarch chosen by the divine, etc. For those who do not believe that the BRF should and/or does represent those values, Rach just makes their argument stronger. For those who do believe that the BRF should represent those values, Rach weakens those same values. She does her damage either way. And whether or not Rach is representative of most Americans (and I do not believe that she is), she is certainly representative of a lot of what the rest of the world sees on TV about Americans, and that is a sad thing.
Skippy I.'s wedding was in April 2017, months after Harry had supposedly ended it. Yet, here she is, turning up at the wedding of his best longtime mate (H. was not in the wedding party, which is maybe par for the course since Tom is not a royal, but Skippy was Haz's best friend from Eton days, as I understand it. It looks like Megs had already driven a wedge between the friends prior to H. telling his friend he planned to propose to her.) That feels like more MM spin to me, because based on Harry's body language and demeanor as captured in those wedding photos, it was *not* a successful weekend for the couple where they were all lovey-dovey and rekindled their romance. She looks like an evil succubus stalking him--the spectre at the feast. He didn't embrace her at their greeting, and for the rest of the shots we have, she's either scowling with murderous rage at Harry's friends, who are collectively completely ignoring her, or clutching/clawing at an obviously inebriated Haz and hissing in his ear. He does not look to be having a good time; he looks incredibly tense and it has been reported that he actually experienced a panic attack--which she turned to her advantage by 'solicitously' leading him away.
This is not a man who was happy to see a former girlfriend and reconsidered letting her go. Having already alienated his circle of friends, who must have been incredulous that she was there, she and Harry are sequestered at the furthest table away from everyone else. *No one* is pictured interacting with her at all, apart from the hapless waiter; a couple of female friends venture over to talk to Harry but her exclusion from the conversation is evident even to a casual onlooker of these pictures. Madam was Not Happy about that whatsoever.
She looks desperate, and projects vibes like a prickly cactus--Stay Away from Us.
It was just a month or so after this wedding, wasn't it, that Harry was in Toronto for the Invictus Games and was ambushed by MM, Marcus Anderson and Doria. Dragging her mother along was a nice touch if the gambit was that Harry had impregnated Megs in Jamaica and Doria was there to add fuel to the insistence that he 'make and honest woman' out of her daughter.
'Scuse me while I choke on my own tongue a little bit with the tragic hilarity of it all. Had they tied one on for auld lange syne? Based on his condition in those reception photos, Harry was not in any condition to have remembered what he did or did not do with her. She could have easily gaslighted him by insisting that they'd been intimate and he just didn't remember.
Anyway, after the Invictus Games, it seems to have been full-steam ahead to an engagement; Meg vacated her Toronto digs (being out of a job and out of a provided studio apartment, and she'd given Corey the old heave-ho already) and moved to London. Whatever machinations transpired to bring this about, I feel that Harry lacked full agency in it. He had ample time to reconsider, and didn't. Didn't want to? Or didn't feel that he could, for some reason? I wonder if we will ever know.
Looking back now, it's amazing that her half-brother and sister were deemed crazy and hateful at the time of the wedding, but now turns out they were dead-on about Rach's character. Go figure.
@Sandie
I haven't seen any "abuse" of MM over her race. Why do they keep perpetuating that lie?
Do any high profile Americans criticise her?
The Merriam Webster definition of an ugly American is an American in a foreign country whose behavior is offensive to the people of that country
She has behaved offensively in every country she has visited but I don't see her being called out for it.
Sure, fair points. Different birth order researchers use different criteria. The data I reported came from this source: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-presidents-birth-order-2018-7
That source did count Obama as a first-born. One could argue he should be an only but that would drop the firsts by 1 and move the onlies from 0 to 1. Not a huge change in the overall pattern looking at 44 data points. Middles would still be the largest class by far.
And I'd argue that for me, JFK should definitely be counted as a middle-born and not be moved to first-born. Yes, he had an older brother who died. But JFK was 27 years old by the time that happened. Any birth order effects on his essential personality traits would have happened long before age 27. But things did change for him when Joe died, just as they changed for Bobby when JFK died, and just as they changed for Teddy--the baby-- when Bobby died. Life paths and family expectations were altered because of those deaths, but essential traits? Probably not.
I suppose one could use the logic you used for Obama to argue MM should be considered an only child. She IS Doria's only child and according to MM, she hardly ever saw her older half-sibs. But many family photos don't really support that claim as true. And it certainly sounds like the Markle family, and especially Thomas, treated her as "the baby."
Regarding Anne's children & their lack of title, a woman's rank depends on that of her husband. I can't recall if Mark Phillips was offered, but declined, a title or not, But Peter & Zara were Mr & Miss respectively, even though their mother was a Princess of the Blood.
As for MM being so beautiful, I don't get it, especially with the glowing gnashers. There's a photo of her currently, on Hello I think, where she looks as if she's sucking a gobstopper (with the headline that `Kate begs her to cut out the drama', or words to that effect.
Well, if it's not a gobstopper, is she trying to shift something stuck under her top dental plate? I've spotted the action a couple times on film - once it even looked as if the entire top set of teeth parted company with her upper jaw.
Has anyone else noticed this or am I just being hypercritical? Miaow!
@Jen, I like your middle brother already lol.
No one says we have to be passive wimps. We tend to care less what others think, and I can see our independence interpreted as 'selfish' (it certainly was considered that by my family in my younger years). But in general, I do think that the middle child traits described in the articles and studies fit the middles. Here's one, but there are plenty.
It will be interesting to see how Charlotte's middle child status plays out because she is the only girl, too. Big age gaps, only one of the gender, etc., can tweak the outcome. And I certainly don't think birth order is the only variable, but I can see the patterns.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/field-guide-families/201210/the-secret-powers-middle-children
Well, Megsie does seem to have Presidential-sized ambitions for herself. Perish the thought. I'm sure in her own mind she is on track to become America's first female, Royal Duchess Instagram Star President. Sadly for her, the 'biracial, woke' parts of her self-narrative have already been taken. And we've already had a former actor as POTUS in Ronald Reagan. MM would have to settle for being the first yacht girl & game-show cheesecake to (almost, according to some) graduate from Northwestern University!
@Sandie
I've lived in the midwest, northeast and south (not going to the west, sorry). Midwesterners and southerners (with possible exception of metropolitan areas) are super friendly people who would give the shirt off their back...in the Northeast, they are friendly but guarded. I've met rude, ignorant and abrasive people all over, but that can be said about any locale. I just can't imagine going to another country and acting like a jack@$$. I was not raised that way, first and foremost, but also I wouldn't want people to see me as an "ugly American." lol
Off the top of my head (and this is one of the least offensive), what about DM’s headline that Harry’s girlfriend is “almost” “straight out of Compton” which is a movie about gangsta rap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Outta_Compton_(film)
I’m rushing to get out of here.
“EXCLUSIVE: Harry's girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang-scarred home of her mother revealed - so will he be dropping by for tea?
Prince Harry's new girl, Suits star Meghan Markle, is from Crenshaw, LA
Crenshaw has endured 47 crimes in the past week - including murder
Gangs, including the Bloods, count the neighborhood as their territory
Markle' social worker mom, Doria Ragland, lives in the run-down area
And the actress's aunt, Ava Burrow, is in nearby gang-afflicted Inglewood”
So will a Royal be dropping by the gang ridden area for f-ing tea????
I don't deny there probably have been racist comments made. But if you can only think of one specific incident--the Compton one---when you are in a rush, I'd argue there haven't been all that many.
Questions were raised about Kate's racial heritage too (Carole's maiden name is Goldsmith) along with many other criticisms (doors to manual, limpet sisters, Waity Katie, mattress, Middlebum, etc.) Kate has been accused of wearing wigs and extensions too. (Remember this? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2054129/Kate-Middleton-scar-Childhood-op-left-mark-Duchess-Cambridges-head.html)
Camilla was and still is subjected to some pretty mean-spirited comments about her innate physical features.
Now I know, it’s easy to imagine such a scenario because she is/was ‘unsuitable’ and it explains a lot as to why Meg had to attend alone. And she did a masterful job of reeling him back in...even if it was only for one night. But, as Hikari as described above, she, Markus and Doria converged upon Harry at the Invictus Games and I, too, believe the storyline he was fed was that a baby was on the way.
That article is always brought up by the 'Criticism of Meghan is racist' crowd.
However, and while I agree that it's nasty, it's over 3 years old, was written by Americans and published well before Meghan was a member of the royal family, or even engaged to Harry. So in and of itself it doesn't prove that Meghan was a victim of a consistent racist campaign. Unless of course you've got other examples to prove your case. Do you?
They can't keep up this nonsense indefinitely as the British public will soon be asking why they are funding people who aren't even pretending to be playing a part in public life. So a decision will have to be made soon. What does anyone think?
There was 7 months between the Inskip wedding and Invictum Games ambush and while neither of the pair comes across as very bright with their 10-month pregnancy, I think he would have noticed that she wasn't getting more visibly pregnant in between that time. So the ambush with Doria could have been a "you knocked up my daughter and then thanks to all of your addict drama and the stress of the paparazzi hounding her (ha!) just like they did your mother, my precious daughter suffered a miscarriage - you better support her through this difficult time and make an honest woman out of her, or else..."-moment.
*Disclaimer: I'm not convinced Doria is in on the whole thing, I've always gotten the impression she got roped into the drama that is her daughter's life and would rather be anywhere else than at gatherings of the BRF or stalked by the papz while she's at home/doing yoga.
Ugly Americans topic. I am in agreement that there are many of them overseas. If those tourists and what passes for typical American life (think everything from Married with Children, Silver Spoons [where the adults can't think their way out of a paperbag and need the kids to lead them], Simpsons before you ever get to the Kardashians), it is no wonder people think so badly of my country. You don't see families sitting and eating dinner, soccer practice or other things most families actually do but don't show up on tv (or if they do, it is made to be a joke).
We were taken overseas extensively as kids. We had to learn how to say: hello, good by, please and thank you if English was not the language of the country.
Wild Boar Battle-maid - I think (from the description) that she is alleged to have slip on her teeth veneers. Other bloggers have mentioned it (I never saw any video one way or the other). What doesn't make sense to me is if she's had some nips, tucks and so on, why would she cheap out and get slip on veneers and all their potential slips? If you are going have stuff done (to make you more perfect) why would someone say to themselves: I need this but I'm not worth the extra to have it done really right?
This article is from November of 2016; long before people knew a lot about her. Have anything more recent and not factual?
I'm not talking about Skippy's wedding.
But my point is that if the only evidence you can bring forward to support your case is a 3 year old article, then maybe your case isn't that great. Unless, as I say, you have other evidence?
You will have to forgive me as this is my last post for the next several hours, if not today.
Do you specifically want journalistic racism or comments from the internet, etc? Do you have a preference? I will try to present in the next week.
Ok, that’s the last one. Happy new year, everyone!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7835265/Who-hardest-working-royal-REALLY-is.html
Do any high profile Americans criticise her?
The Merriam Webster definition of an ugly American is an American in a foreign country whose behavior is offensive to the people of that country
She has behaved offensively in every country she has visited but I don't see her being called out for it.
Most Americans are completely unaware of her. I only started looking at her when SwampMan asked why Harry would marry a THOT and it piqued my interest.
Which Americans do you think should speak out against her? The governor of California? The mayor of Los Angeles? One of her senators or congress people? Various actors or actresses? None of those people represent America. There are a lot of us on here that do not like her. We don't represent America, nor pretend to. Like I said, most Americans wouldn't know who she was if she died in a plane crash tomorrow and made headlines.
Did they not include Sophie's engagements? I thought she also did solo engagements (wasn't MM upset that she got one about women recently?) and thus would've expected hers and Edward's to be displayed like W&K and H&M.
I'm asking because I don't visit the DM anymore since they've enforced their anti-adblock policy. Earlier this year it was temporary but the past couple of months it's been consistent whenever I did hazard a looksee and I can do without 50+ (!) pop-ups/adverts per page, thank you very much.
From the article....Mr O’Donovan uses the Court Circular — the official daily list of royal engagements — to compile a tally of every single duty undertaken by each member of the family, be it the Queen opening Parliament or the Duchess of Gloucester at an exhibition of basket-weaving.
"Do you specifically want journalistic racism or comments from the internet, etc? Do you have a preference? I will try to present in the next week."
Just looking for evidence that there has been a significant racist element to criticism of Meghan. I'm not claiming that there has been zero racism towards her, just as Kate suffered from classism (arguably much more significant in Britain than racism, but unfortunately there is a tendency to impose an American perspective on everything) and just as Fergie and Camilla were criticised due to their looks. I'm not interested in internet comments - though I am kind of interested that you apparantly have compiled a collection of same (why?) - just evidence of a racially motivated campaign against Meghan in the press. Looking forward to seeing what you can offer!
>>>*Disclaimer: I'm not convinced Doria is in on the whole thing, I've always gotten the impression she got roped into the drama that is her daughter's life and would rather be anywhere else than at gatherings of the BRF or stalked by the papz while she's at home/doing yoga.<<<
I tend to agree with you . . .Meg used her mom during this visit in May 2017 to get the duo captured on 'completely unscripted--koffkoff' papp walks, as she had done other times her mom visited. Being seen about town with her black mom, laughing and carrying their yoga mats supported the image Megsie was spinning of her love of family and her close relationship with her *black* parent. Doria was useful. Like Thomas was until Meg was done with him, Doria is just another tool to be used by her daughter in her relentless climb. Doria's name has been invoked as allegedly part of the 'family time' visit, but if you notice, we've seen zippity-doodah in the way of warm family snaps with Archie and his grandma. We've seen bumpkis of Doria since July . . or May, if one believes that the two official portraits of Archie where taken on the same day. The inclusion of the first photo in HM's Christmas speech would seem to lend legitimacy to the narrative that Meghan's mother met her first grandchild and was also presented to the Queen of England and the Duke of Edinburgh after Archie's published birth date in May. The image of Doria in the pink suit as part of the wonky little christening photo group remains unconfirmed in my mind--that exercise in Photoshop was, until it was trumped by the Sussex Christmas card, laughably not genuine.
Once Doria had been pictured with Meghan's anchor baby and the Queen, she'd served her purpose. If (as I believe) Meg does not have Archie, cuddly optics with him and his L.A. based grandma would be challenging to provide. I think Doria is on a strictly need-to-know basis--if she were fully read in to all of her daughter's schemes, she might be caught out by a journalist or say something in passing to a friend that would out Meg's ruse(s) for good. So--she very probably was just along for the ride that day in May in Toronto . . she was a guest in town and would go wherever Meg went. And Meg was certainly aware that the Invictus Games were in town--it was a year prior nearly to the day that she'd first been introduced to Harry, after all. If she told her mom that she was pregnant, Doria was hardly going to ask her to pee on a stick right then to prove it.
There's a shot captured of Doria looking at Harry during the wedding and licking her lips like a she-wolf looking at a chicken dinner . . but charitably, her lips were probably just dry through nerves. I doubt highly that Doria is aware of the full extent of Meg's dastardly plan to take over the world through Sussex Royal and I doubt equally that Meg plans to share any of her ill-gotten gains with Doria. I really doubt we will ever see any pictures of Doria with her grandson, or her son-in-law again. Or her daughter, come to that. Doria's usefulness has been exploited. Unless . . until . .another christening photo-op can be arranged. God help us all if that happens.
She has behaved offensively in every country she has visited but I don't see her being called out for it.
Agree with your statement except for the fact that a reporter in Morocco was overheard calling her "repugnant."
But you are correct--I don't think she has been called out for her rude behavior in the MSM--except perhaps that videos have been posted showing her pushing herself in front of Harry and refusing the offered dates on their arrival.
Well, if it's not a gobstopper, is she trying to shift something stuck under her top dental plate? I've spotted the action a couple times on film - once it even looked as if the entire top set of teeth parted company with her upper jaw.
Has anyone else noticed this or am I just being hypercritical? Miaow!
Not hypercritical. I have seen pics and video of the slipping veneers/teeth, too.
I agree. Three things aroused my suspicions: Once was when MM hauled Doria along for the visit to the cookbook kitchen - I’ve always thought that was just to establish MM’s bona fides as a WOC. The second time was when she didn’t show up at the baby shower at NYC. And lastly, there was one shot of her in the pew at the wedding, all alone, no one else in the shot, and she looked like she was very worried and possibly praying. I’ve often thought that she had an idea of what her grifter daughter was capable of, and was hoping and praying that it would come out all right.
I've visited various places in Canada, including an overnight layover in Vancouver and was immediately struck by the vibrant racial diversity in every city I've been, including Whitehorse, YT (pop. 20,000). So any claim by Meg that she wouldn't be welcome on account of having a biracial heritage is worse than bogus. One of the sugar comments captured from Twitter (via Charlatan Duchess) goes "How dare you use Meghan to promote your business" or some such, when the 'leak' was arranged/forced by nefarious means from the Sussex camp, NOT the restaurant tooting its own horn. All to garner Meg attention because things had been too quiet to suit her.
>>>Do you specifically want journalistic racism or comments from the internet, etc? Do you have a preference? I will try to present in the next week.<<<
I for one don't care to see alleged racist comments from the whole world wide web! That is ludricrous, as there are just as much racist comments against Kate, the Queen the BRF as a whole (from what I viewed on the site LipstickAlley).
I would be interested in examples from any journalist. So @tatty I await your examples.
As for calling the Daily Mail article :nasty: and racist I find it laughable. The article merely recounts the truth of so many urban enclaves that has gang activity (I know because I lived in the greater LA area and even in Dallas we have gang activity). It was a factual article detailing the location of where Doria lived and also Markle's aunt. There was nothing racist in tone either (unless one doesn;t like the phrase "staright outta Compton")
Re. the cookbook launch (the cookbook which Megs claimed credit for writing, when all she did was write a word-salad foreword in which she mentioned herself something like 26 times in three paragraphs. She may have contributed Corey's recipe for roast chicken in violation of his copyright; can't recall.)
I wonder if Doria had been Megs' white parent if she'd have been imported for the occasion all the same? This was one of, if not the, first public event Meghan was doing solo as DoS, and she'd just announced her pregnancy not long before. I was still giving her the benefit of the doubt then, and when I saw her mom there, I thought "How nice Doria could come."
Apart from the posed photos with Archie, we've not had any more candid mother-daughter time shots, though. And Meg lied about her contribution to the cookbook, so it seems not much of a stretch to think she lied about how close she and Doria actually are. In retrospect, Doria seems imported entirely for the woke WOC optics.
What I remember about that event *now* is that Harry was probably high as a kite given how silly he acted, and that the launch was held in a tent on KP grounds with Haz as Meg's RF babysitter-designate (high as a kite or no) . . because Meg was banned from actually entering the palace where there is a very nice kitchen, where she would have preferred to have it. I had thought the event was held in the Grenfell Towers area at a community center but evidently not. I call that a huge diss from the RF.
That the restaurant owners are getting death threats because of H&M is despicable, and the two should use their platform to implore their fans to stop doing so.
Jen, I still like your brother lol.
As for friendliness, just my experience, but I have spent extensive amount of time (living for extended visits (months) or permanently) in all of the west coast states (large cities and smaller towns), three mountain states (one large city, two smaller cities -- qualifying "cities" for those states), and two midwestern states (cities and with relatives in burbs and smaller towns). I was also raised in the south and Texas and have worked with offices in the SE and NE. I don't meet strangers, so I have been able to make friends and connections regardless of my location, even when it was only for a few-months'-long project.
IMO, Mountain states are super-friendly, much like Southerners, but not as genteel (helluvalot of fun, though, kind of a cross between Southern and Texan). Midwesterners are "nice", but not nearly as open and friendly. West Coast varies a great deal. Southern CA is friendly, but more superficial. Central and Northern CA are friendly, but PC. Oregon is midway between WA and CA in terms of friendliness. And PNW is pretty introverted. People are very nice, and it's laid back and lovely, and it's not rude like it can be on the EC, but it's certainly not warm and inviting. I have wonderful friends here, but it's just taken awhile. NE can be direct (I like that) and honest (blunt) and sometimes abrupt, but hey, you got a problem with that lol? I liked that I always knew where i stood. With the SE, friendliness, but not as upfront about things.
The biggest observation about this that I can share re Rach and her behavior is that she does represent America - a portion of it - in the same way that each American here represents values and experiences from different locations. To say that Rach isn't American is to deny a huge chunk of superficial and materialistic that does happen in the US. I just spent a week in a large city in Texas, and I'm here to tell you, it's as materialistic and superficial as LA in certain circles. BUT that said, that's not all there is to any of those places, and even lumping Los Angelinos into a pile of vacuousness isn't fair either. Rach just represents the worst of any of the places on the US map. She is disrespectful, dishonest, ill-mannered, ungrateful, materialistic, hypocritical, and proselytizes profusely, and unfortunately, that behavior can be found all over social media in the US and much of our culture. And I hate that she has been elevated and her behavior appears to represent the US when, in fact, it only represents an unattractive pile of the US.
Said from a Native Texan in the Great State of Texas!