The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been rather quiet over the past week, and no man could be happier about this than Boris Johnson.
In addition to having to supervise negotiations over the Sussexes' security costs abroad - surely if security were cut back and an incident occurred, Johnson's government would be blamed - Boris has to worry about Meghan's determination to "use her voice" when it comes to politics.
Having just put his signature on Brexit, Boris badly needs a trade deal with the Americans. And for that, he must remain friendly with Donald Trump.
Meghan doesn't like Donald Trump, and she will probably be saying so soon, possibly as soon as her first post-Megxit TV appearance.
That said, Meghan is gifted at causing chaos wherever she goes, and if she inserts herself into the political scene that would be no exception.
What would it mean for a member of the British Royal Family to be openly attacking the leader of one of the UK's longstanding allies? You don't have to like Donald Trump to think this is a bad idea. Would anyone have wanted to know, say, Prince Edward's opinion of Barack Obama?
The Royal Family is by definition apolitical, Prince Charles's repeated appearances with Greta Thunberg notwithstanding. Endorsing one candidate or another weakens support for the institution as a whole.
Not that Meghan cares.
First of all, a political campaign requires organization, and it requires a talented and hard-working staff. Meg has already shown herself to be completely incompetent if not dehumanizing when it comes to managing a team. (Something which has been a big negative for current candidate Amy Klobuchar.)
Secondly, a political campaign requires hundreds of in-person appearances and handshakes, precisely the job Meg ran away from in the Royal Family. You can't campaign for any office sitting home and posting Photoshopped images to Instagram.
Finally, as a real-life candidate has to be ready to deal with harsh media criticism and still rise to the occasion when the going gets tough. No one "asks if they're OK."
What I can see Meg doing is trying to ally herself with "the Squad", four left-wing women of color who are pushing the Democratic party to the left. Their most prominent face is Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who has endorsed Bernie Sanders for President.
Will Meg do the same? The vision of a woman who chose to marry into a reformed feudal institution and is currently living off the largess of its largest duchy endorsing a Socialist candidate is delicious in its irony.
Not that Meghan cares.
Today's Mail On Sunday leads with a long-winded article about Meghan's mother Doria Ragland which managed to answer almost none of the questions people are really asking about Doria, such as where she was during Meg's teenage years and what she does all day now.
(There's also nothing about her current partner, who is reportedly a woman. That's fine by me - the poor lady never asked to get involved in Meghan's mess.)
We do learn that Doria makes an excellent shrimp gumbo, a recipe she passed on to Meghan, that she has remained on friendly terms with Thomas Markle, and that the three of them spent Thanksgiving 2016 at a house rented by Prince Harry in Beverly Hills. "There were no servants, just the family," the article states.
That sounds like a clue of some sort, the sort of thing the MoS drops into the very bottom of an article for readers to follow up on. I'm not sure what it means. Anyway, why was Prince Harry renting a house in Beverly Hills?
Did Doria spend time in prison? Now's a good time to tell Oprah, perhaps link it to some kind of statement for corrections reform, and sob about how you as a teenager tried to cope with your Mom so far away.
Is Archie not really "from the body" as advertised? Let everyone know now, and tell Ellen DeGeneres about the pain of infertility, especially when living in the spotlight.
So broke during your acting years that you had to be a "ten cents a dance girl" for wealthy men? Say it now, while (some people) like you and will sympathize with your struggle. (The year that the movie "Hustlers" was considered for an Academy Award nomination might mean the time is right.)
Someone else like Steve Mnuchin, Trump's Treasury Secretary, who was reportedly one of her "ten cents a dance" clients.
If Meg starts going after Trump, will Trump encourage Mnuchin to retaliate? Mnuchin has an active Twitter account.
A subtle dig in a Tweet from Mnuchin like, "The Duchess of Sussex, whom I have known for more than a decade, was in Washington to protest today" might be highly unpleasant for US-UK bilateral relations.
Not that Meghan cares.
In addition to having to supervise negotiations over the Sussexes' security costs abroad - surely if security were cut back and an incident occurred, Johnson's government would be blamed - Boris has to worry about Meghan's determination to "use her voice" when it comes to politics.
Having just put his signature on Brexit, Boris badly needs a trade deal with the Americans. And for that, he must remain friendly with Donald Trump.
Meghan doesn't like Donald Trump, and she will probably be saying so soon, possibly as soon as her first post-Megxit TV appearance.
Overestimates her influence
Meghan, like most celebrities, probably overestimates her political influence. Even Taylor Swift, who has a large and devoted fanbase, struck out with her very first political endorsement in 2018 - she put her name behind a (male) Democrat running against a (female) Republican in her home state of Tennessee, and the woman won.That said, Meghan is gifted at causing chaos wherever she goes, and if she inserts herself into the political scene that would be no exception.
What would it mean for a member of the British Royal Family to be openly attacking the leader of one of the UK's longstanding allies? You don't have to like Donald Trump to think this is a bad idea. Would anyone have wanted to know, say, Prince Edward's opinion of Barack Obama?
The Royal Family is by definition apolitical, Prince Charles's repeated appearances with Greta Thunberg notwithstanding. Endorsing one candidate or another weakens support for the institution as a whole.
Not that Meghan cares.
Will Meg run for office?
There have been various media suggestions that Meg might run for office herself. I don't think she will or could.First of all, a political campaign requires organization, and it requires a talented and hard-working staff. Meg has already shown herself to be completely incompetent if not dehumanizing when it comes to managing a team. (Something which has been a big negative for current candidate Amy Klobuchar.)
Secondly, a political campaign requires hundreds of in-person appearances and handshakes, precisely the job Meg ran away from in the Royal Family. You can't campaign for any office sitting home and posting Photoshopped images to Instagram.
Finally, as a real-life candidate has to be ready to deal with harsh media criticism and still rise to the occasion when the going gets tough. No one "asks if they're OK."
What I can see Meg doing is trying to ally herself with "the Squad", four left-wing women of color who are pushing the Democratic party to the left. Their most prominent face is Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who has endorsed Bernie Sanders for President.
Will Meg do the same? The vision of a woman who chose to marry into a reformed feudal institution and is currently living off the largess of its largest duchy endorsing a Socialist candidate is delicious in its irony.
Not that Meghan cares.
The story on Doria
What does Meghan care about? She cares about her image, or what she thinks is her image, which is why she spends so much money on PR in the past and apparently continues to do so.Today's Mail On Sunday leads with a long-winded article about Meghan's mother Doria Ragland which managed to answer almost none of the questions people are really asking about Doria, such as where she was during Meg's teenage years and what she does all day now.
(There's also nothing about her current partner, who is reportedly a woman. That's fine by me - the poor lady never asked to get involved in Meghan's mess.)
We do learn that Doria makes an excellent shrimp gumbo, a recipe she passed on to Meghan, that she has remained on friendly terms with Thomas Markle, and that the three of them spent Thanksgiving 2016 at a house rented by Prince Harry in Beverly Hills. "There were no servants, just the family," the article states.
That sounds like a clue of some sort, the sort of thing the MoS drops into the very bottom of an article for readers to follow up on. I'm not sure what it means. Anyway, why was Prince Harry renting a house in Beverly Hills?
Post-Megxit Honeymoon Phase
If Meg were smart, she'd use this post-Megxit honeymoon phase with the US media, or at least some portions of it, to burn off the most embarrassing parts of her story and move forward.Did Doria spend time in prison? Now's a good time to tell Oprah, perhaps link it to some kind of statement for corrections reform, and sob about how you as a teenager tried to cope with your Mom so far away.
Is Archie not really "from the body" as advertised? Let everyone know now, and tell Ellen DeGeneres about the pain of infertility, especially when living in the spotlight.
So broke during your acting years that you had to be a "ten cents a dance girl" for wealthy men? Say it now, while (some people) like you and will sympathize with your struggle. (The year that the movie "Hustlers" was considered for an Academy Award nomination might mean the time is right.)
The Mnuchin factor
Otherwise, someone else will release the story, and you won't be in control of it.Someone else like Steve Mnuchin, Trump's Treasury Secretary, who was reportedly one of her "ten cents a dance" clients.
If Meg starts going after Trump, will Trump encourage Mnuchin to retaliate? Mnuchin has an active Twitter account.
A subtle dig in a Tweet from Mnuchin like, "The Duchess of Sussex, whom I have known for more than a decade, was in Washington to protest today" might be highly unpleasant for US-UK bilateral relations.
Not that Meghan cares.
Comments
Nutty, Is it OK to ask Ozmanda where to donate to the cause? I like to donate to local organizations or other local help, rather than through the Red Cross.
Here is the link to the one i just watched
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knBBo8LuUoU
on this one Spencer Matthews (Pippa's brother in law) & Vogue Williams are guesting and the first topic of discussion is M&H
My biggest problem is understanding some of the accents (various British) but what i got out out of was quite funny.
At what point did he challenge her or point out contradictions and she didn't like it?’
I watched it yesterday and thought the same thing, was I missing something I thought? I didn’t say anything, I just thought it was me thinking it. 🤔
***********
With regard to the programmes coming on American telly tomorrow night, I’m hopeful I can see them. I have an App which enables me to download and watch various different American programmes. Everything crossed. 😊
I can imagine that Meghan and Harry managed to pull off a surrogacy pregnancy for a while, but too many people would have to be complicit for the truth to not have emerged.
The Sussexes had distanced themselves from family and friends a few months before the stated birth, other than a couple of brief public appearances from Meghan. The BRF do not spend much time together as a family anyway, so they could have easily fooled the family.
We don't know who the medical staff were and Portland staff have never spoken up about the birth having taken place there or not. There is no evidence that Harry and Meghan were there at all. The palace announcement did not give the place of the birth nor the names of the medical personnel. That was odd and makes it seem that BP was complicit in whatever was going on, even if that was the narc insisting that she was better than the BRF and would thumb her nose at anything and everything, and she was allowed to.
The birth certificate is odd, being an incomplete typed version. However, surely an entire government department would not be in on a secret and not talk?
Was this a narc insisting on complete domination and control, even if actions and words are irrational and bizarre, or was this the cover up of a secret, or both?
I totally agree about Prince Philip (and your complete comment). 🤗
It is my understanding this is a blog about the narcissist Meghan Markle. Many of us come here because we support the monarchy and resent Markle's treatment of them.’
@BlueBelI I second this. No reason whatsoever to bring up stuff like this.
It's very funny though 😂😂
I love British snark!
She is probably frantically taking artsy photographs for a post to highlight her photography skills. Pity about Holocaust photographs now being colourised for more realism because Meghan loves the black and white aesthetic.
Maybe the Sussexes are just in a bad space and in isolation. That would be sad because if that is the case, whatever they do will do more damage to themselves and their families. Personally, I want this soap opera to have a happy ending for everyone.
Yes, nothing on their Ig for Holocaust remembrance day. Maybe it's because she can't spell Auschwitz or Birkenau 🙄
Tweeting about that kind of thing can get you in trouble where i come from...
Even a "neutral/Swiss" stance can get you in trouble.
So I'm not going to judge anyone about it.
The tag line was:
‘8 out of 10 cats preferred it’
Meaning Whiskers compared to any other cat food ! 😂😀😂
I also want to thank all the Southern ladies with your wonderful roux recipes and Southern cooking anecdotes. Although I am Dutch, I spent part of my youth in the USA, including four years in New Orleans. Your food comments were oddly comforting while I was ill and made me feel quite homesick, in a good way!
@MeliticusBee, "deflates the pan", lol! Thank you so much for that, that was really funny.
You can answer, yes, no or no comment ...
1. Was there a marriage that was annulled before her marriage to Trevor? (A good investigative journalist would do the research and address this rumour once and for all, including tracking down who started it.)
2. Was she living with Corey at any time, or did they have separate homes and just stayed over? (It seems like the latter because none of Meghan's photos on IG indicate any presence of Corey in her home whatsoever. In fact, did she post anything about Corey other than to like some of his posts?)
3. When did the relationship with Corey end? (From Corey's IG posts, there seems to have been an overlap between Corey and Harry.)
4. What happened to the other dog? Thomas was communicating with Meghan until just before the wedding so did she say anything about the other dog?
5. Had Meghan arranged to have a suit made for her father? What did she say about this? He sent her a message about shoes. Did she have those shoes delivered to him and by who?
6. Did Thomas ever have a plane ticket for the flight to the UK? Had any arrangements been made for him to get to the airport? Had any arrangements been made to pick him up at the other side?
7. What arrangements had been made for accommodation for him in the UK?
8. When was the last time that Thomas saw Meghan? (Her IG posts and remarks in speeches indicate a close relationship with her father, and they also show that she did a lot of travelling, so one would assume that she would have made the effort to see her father. Did she?)
On her blog, Meghan published a recipe with her take on a lighter Thanksgiving.
While the now-Duchess of Sussex explained replacing the traditional turkey with a chicken would make less of a carbohydrate-fuelled meal, she also promised eating it would make everyone feel like “the King or Queen of happy bellies and full hearts”.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1210376/meghan-markle-news-thanksgiving-pictures-prince-harry-archie-doria-ragland-royal-news
-----------
I also had to giggle at the chocolate-dipped almond butter bites being included under the "clean eating" lable further down the article. My (basic) understanding of "clean eating" is it consists of unprocessed foods and no refined sugar, so how on earth chocolate-dipped bites can be included in that I have no idea.
Given that it's so quiet right now, I have no problem with posters sharing the occasional recipe, wartime memories, fire updates, etc., as long as the main topic of conversation remains the Royal family.
I'd ask you to kindly avoid attacking each other, however. If one particular poster is not to your taste, skip over that poster's comments, but there's no need to put on a show about it.
I've deleted most of these personal insults. I have, however, kept @yankee's comment about her dislike for Charles, which I know offended some people, because it is about the Royal family as opposed to an individual poster, and because it became such a topic of conversation that the rest of the board would not have made sense if it had been deleted.
Sandie didn't go into the even more tender area of Meghan's possible motherhood before meeting Harry, or if she chose to terminate a pregnancy during the her marriage to Trevor without telling him, which seems to be the reason her longtime friend Ninaki Priddy ended their freindship. Whatever your opinion on abortion rights (and I know we are a mixed group on that issue), that would be a heartbreaking experience for a man who thought he was in a loving marriage and was about to become a father.
You'd need a pretty nasty journalist to go into that zone, however. I can't think of any current celebrity journalist who would. Howard Stern back in the day, maybe.
Obviously there are those who think the Harkles can make a few bucks for them. They might be right, we Americans waste our money on a lot of junk.
https://theslanted.com/2020/01/37391/abc-harry-and-meghan-primetime-special/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/fox-air-harry-meghan-special-tmz-1270441
Random thoughts: I actually think a lot of Charles' ideas are good. He obviously appreciates beautiful things, & wants to preserve them for people to enjoy. A NYTimes article recently wrote about his housing developments in Cornwall, emphasizing all the restrictions placed on residents. It's completely misleading, because many upscale housing developments here in the US place restrictions on owners that are as rigid, if not more rigid. No one is forcing people to buy such places, & it's all laid out before you plonk your money down.
I do think Charles should be very careful about how & what he advocates for, though. The monarchy is all about soft power.
I love all the posts on food, WWII, wartime rationing, etc., although Nutty might bring the kibosh down on them for being OT.
I thank all the veterans & family members of veterans, UK & American, for your service, & I'm an old formerly military bashing peacenik. Now, I think the military is one of the few institutions left which has at least some credibility. The constitutional restrictions on the military here in the US at least makes the military brass be very careful about both what it does & what it says in public. I wish more of our leaders would exercise that care.
I’ve said before that there’s something unexpected about Archie’s Birth Certificate as shown at
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48315300 (accessed 28/01/2020)
- it lacks the authenticating stamp in the bottom right- hand corner.
Hitherto, this stamp has been the touchstone of authenticity; as far as I’m aware, nobody here has come forward to say that it is now omitted from all Birth Certificates in England & Wales. If anybody can say yea or nay, please do so.
I’ve just come across a case where a young woman has fought a 6-year legal case to have a new Birth Certificate omitting the name of her presumed father, as she now knows she had been conceived by AID and felt that her original Certificate perpetuated an untruth.
The case was reported in the Daily Telegraph, with a photo of her with both her old and new Birth Certificates. The old one has the stamp, the new one does not.
I feel awkward about giving a link but a simple search should turn up the report quite easily.
What do you make of this?
I can't speak to the situation with the stamp, but I've long doubted that Archie's typed birth certificate is legitimate. Having no handwritten text on it gives it plausible deniability. You don't want anyone's handwriting or signature to be recognizable.
You'd need a pretty nasty journalist to go into that zone, however. I can't think of any current celebrity journalist who would. Howard Stern back in the day, maybe.
OMG (that stands for Oh My Gracious or Oh My Goodness), the person asking that would be hit so hard (especially if it was a male interviewer) by people wielding the racism or misogyny bat that his/her network would immediately be pressured into firing them and they would never work again. IMO, those are questions that should be asked and answered to clear the air if she is innocent of those things.
Wasn't it, though? I now understand what a systematic campaign of disinformation looks like. Beat the populace over the head with fake images and statements until they can't trust the evidence of their own eyes and ears. Gaslighting on a national (or in this case, international scale)
The question for me . . still . . is "How much did the Palace know and when did they know it?"
That whole 'birth' and subsequent was a circus non pareil. The Palace *had* to know by that point that there was something fishy beyond the new parents' pathological desire for 'privacy'. Rach has delusions of power, but there is no way in the world the *she* ordered the gilded sign placed out front of BP by two footmen, bald of signatories. I'm sure she would have been keen on a gun salute and a title for her bairn, but there was none. No members of the family, until the Queen's recent speech and statement have spoken about the baby, mingled with the baby or spoken his name.
Weird, weird and weirder.
There may have been a baby delivered at the Portland (some time prior to May 6) by someone via surrogate, who is now the child known as Archie . . but it wasn't by Rach. 37-year-old first time (whatever) moms who have gone 10 days overdue do not drop a kid in 3 hours and are back home before lunch. Are you kidding me?
Philip lives in Norfolk, but he was imported for a Very Important Photo Opportunity on May 8th and was just wandering the halls waiting to be 'bumped into' by the new Holy Family? That's a tiny detail, but it's one detail too far, Rach. She can never resist embroidering.
*sigh* I loved reading the recipes. MeliticusBee, I too read the recipe in that accent (grin) and it sounds very much like me trying to give a recipe over the phone with my husband chiming in in the background. Sadly, my middle reflects my overindulgence in carbs over the holiday season, and I'm back on keto with coffee with cream for breakfast and probably eggs for lunch as my hens are giving me 12 to 16 per day.
Ozmanda, that is terrifying, hope your house is okay but most of all, that you and yours are all safe. I look forward to your whiteboard putting together all of the connections of MM.
For those people condemning Prince Andrew for refusing to be interviewed by the FBI, I don't blame him. I would refuse as well. They have been up to too much nefarious conduct to be trusted.
You have to scroll down a ways, but it really is very instructive. Also included--a close-up shot of the HAMS pausing in front of HM just before or after said bobble. CB is wearing her zonked out Smug Face and Harry . . oh, Harry . . looks like he is about to cry. Not happy tears, either.
She is very easy to figure out by now, but I confess I still don't have a bead on him. How one person can go from mountaintop high to basement low and back again in the same 10 minutes . . ? He goes from abject misery to grinning and waving at the crowds in mere moments. Maybe there's a button in his arm that she presses when the juice is getting low.
That whole wedding was a Creepshow. It felt 'off' at the time, dissonant, and I clocked Harry's visible nerves, her preternatural (medicated) calm and the fact that NO ONE looked at them during the vows or barely the rest of the time, either. That was very odd. I chalked it up to the pew seating being so awkward as to make it uncomfortable to have to twist one's neck/body to the side to see what's going on up front. Nobody was happy at that wedding except for Jessica Mulroney's little boys. Studying the pictures and footage again in hindsight, it's really obvious that this was a Horrible Mistake Joke Travesty which never should have occurred.
"For those people condemning Prince Andrew for refusing to be interviewed by the FBI, I don't blame him. I would refuse as well. They have been up to too much nefarious conduct to be trusted."
I agree. As an American it makes me sad to feel that way but I do. Especially when there are obvious political aspects to an investigation and there certainly are re: Epstein.
I'm sure he's taking legal advice here. He is within his rights to refuse to be grilled by the FBI. Granting them an interview would be a courtesy on his part, but I'm not sure what jurisdiction they've got over foreign nationals who have not been indicted for any crime against Americans and/or on American soil.
Let's suppose one of the Trump kids, who are now in their 30s, took a spring break trip to London during their college years where illegal activities may have occurred while they were guests in a private home. 15 years later, they get a summons to be interrogated by MI:5. This would be a similar situation. It is hard to work up sympathy for the Trump kids, perhaps, but they are in a similar spot to Andrew--the disliked/shady progeny of a parent who is the head of state. If it engages your sympathies more, substitute the Obama girls for Donny, Jr., Eric and Ivanka.
I think many Americans would feel that an American citizen not under indictment for any crime would have right of refusal to be interrogated by a foreign law enforcement agency until such time as the situation changes.
I do know that the clerk who registered my child's birth in the UK many years ago was very polite & accommodating to me, & I was just some dumb American lady. She was very sweet, & carefully filled out several copies by hand. I can only imagine how she would treat someone from the RF or associated with it.
Anyway, I love a good fairy tale so I made a whole event out of watching the wedding. I was probably the only person in Holland doing so. Until something seemed very off halfway through the ceremony. As you mentioned, no one was actually watching the bride and groom! Doria was sitting all by herself and seemed upset, not happy. Charles would not even look at his son during the vows. HMTQ looked decidedly grumpy throughout the ceremony. And Zara laughed out loud during the long-winded American preacher's sermon.
But oddest of all were the bride and groom themselves. Harry did seem about to cry, but they weren't happy tears. He appeared upset and had the same look about him that my children had when they were little and I caught them telling a lie.
The person I wondered about most was Meghan. Try to imagine getting married in front of the whole world. The press commenting on your every move and expression, on your dress, your flowers, your make-up. Every bride would feel nervous in those circumstances. When Charles and Diana got married, both of them were nervous and messed up the names of their intended. Meghan, being quite a bit older than Diana was and also more used to speaking in public, would be a bit more at ease in this situation than Diana. But she would still have been extremely nervous.
But noooo, our Megs appeared totally confident and self-assured. She did not betray any nerves. How is that even possible?? Perhaps you have a point, Hikari, that she may have been on something at the time.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7938161/Thomas-Markle-says-son-law-Prince-Harry-insecure.html
I would say that he should stay out of the US - but likely has immunity so doesn't even have to do that. They are never, ever going to talk to him.
And
Epstein is dead. The criminal case is dead. Everything left is civil and likely will never be enforced. These girls will never get to tell their story and certainly won't get any money which is locked up tight - far offshore....and don't get me started on the fact that their are boy victims as well.
All that makes me wonder...why is this in the news cycle? I trust the timing and source of media coverage - not at all.
Once again on the roux....I believe that the roux was "caramel colored" before adding the paste. The roasting of the paste is likely the reason why everyone I know believed that Aunt Hilda's gumbo was best.
I must also re-emphasize - as Hilda did, and my mother-in-law echoed, the cast iron skillet was absolutely essential. MIL was capable of making the gumbo - but didn't because Hilda would...but she said - if you don't use cast iron...it won't work.
In the in-law family, they have always been poor with lots of kids and food is made in large quantities - each member has certain things they do...if anyone else does it - even exactly the same, everyone will complain if they know the source.
Well that is a pathetic take.
Almost like "feel sorry for Meghan" because her husband is a spineless infant
She "has to" act like an entitled brat because he won't man up.
I had been feeling like Thomas was getting the shaft....that he raised Meghan, gave her all the benefits he could because he was older and got a second chance to raise a kid and she is just an ungrateful schemer who ditched her dad and everyone else when she no longer needed them....but I am not sure that Meghan isn't coordinating this - a carrot offered by Meghan if you will.
(Rolls eyes repeatedly until they become stuck)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7936463/Virginia-Roberts-says-Prince-Andrew-not-law-attorney-statement-cooperation.html
On the PP issue - I think they encouraged him to stay out of the Harry meeting(s) because they didn't want the responsibility for trying to block a 98 year old man from choking his snotty ungrateful grandson. IMO.
Even for her - making direct accusations against a 98 year old man...is a losing game.
To me, she just looked like the cat that got the cream. She had achieved what she wanted: fame, platform and wealth. She had a smirk and smug face on. 😏
"I had been feeling like Thomas was getting the shaft....but I am not sure that Meghan isn't coordinating this - a carrot offered by Meghan if you will."
You could be right that M and Thomas are colluding.
But my take is that Thomas is still hoping to find a way to make M's open rejection of him, a rejection seen worldwide, is not his precious daughter's choice.
We have plenty of evidence to suggest he spoiled her rotten, that he openly favored her over his other two children, that he devoted his life to making her happy (pricy private schools from age 2 on, working on the sets of her high school plays...) Yet she doesn't give a crap even when he experiences serious heart issues. It can't be her fault!!! It just can't. Must be Harry's.
--That Rachel had gotten the ball rolling on a surrogacy during the engagement/right after the wedding, without Harry's knowledge. She took her opportunity some time when he was busy, away on a Royal tour, whatever, to plan a jaunt to Toronto where her eggs were stored, to make this happen. She may have already had an embryo(es) ready to go. Which would rule out Harry's involvement altogether. I'm still hazy about Haz's bio contribution but based on the very nominal reaction from his family and the alleged papa's own nearly complete non-interaction/bonding I'd wager he is not the father. The father may in fact be Markus Anderson, because that is just the kind of sneaky, underhanded yet cruel/gloating thing these two would get up to. If Rachel has foisted Markus Anderson's spawn and hers off as a royal baby belonging to Harry, one could understand the frosty reaction from all parties, no?
--It's now fairly obvious to all that Rachel intended her stay in the RF to be as brief as possible for maximum cash reward. The best way to insure this was 'getting pregnant' with anchor baby ASAP. If Harry was not on board with instant baby and neither he nor she were even capable/willing to reproduce, never mind that quickly . .hence, surrogate plan.
She announced being invisapregnant at Eugenie's wedding to f*ck with the Yorks over the matter of emerald tiaras and just as an extra little dig at the bride, as if Eugenie had not already had to make way for Megatron once in the matter of her wedding date. Eugenie got shoved aside once for Harry's precedence . . this was Meg just gloating and rubbing it in that she was capable of ruining a York Princess's wedding . . .twice . .and there was nothing they could do about it. Also, by this point, 5 months into the marriage, it was clear that she was not getting everything served up to her on a plate like she'd imagined and nobody gave a sh*t if she was OK to her standards. It has been suggested, and seems pretty obvious, that Madam was not showered with attendants to get her looking gorgeous as Kate, even though Charles spared no expense in giving her wardrobe money. She didn't get Kate's glam squad, and not having Kate's assets to work with in the first place looked like a disaster 90% of the time she stepped out in public.
I think her lack of effort in her appearance became a colossal dare to criticize her and then be painted as racist. Yes, taking Meg to task for violating dress codes and her refusal to wear hosiery is racist because Meg is such a unique blend of black and white, she COULD NOT FIND HER SHADE. Anywhere, in one of the fashion capitals of the world and one of the most ethnically diverse populations of women.
One marvels at the audacity even as one cringes at the visual results.
But it struck me that we have seen Megs nervous on two occasions: once during the Archie reveal at Windsor Castle and once at Canada House a few weeks ago ('Armpitgate'). Why was Meghan so nervous on these two occasions and not during a royal wedding televised across the globe?
https://www.instagram.com/p/B73AYUyn73J/?igshid=1mlww2609r1i3
Im all for it if she was. Lol
Bloggers do fantastic job finding videos.
"But my take is that Thomas is still hoping to find a way to make M's open rejection of him, a rejection seen worldwide, is not his precious daughter's choice.
It can't be her fault!!! It just can't. Must be Harry's."
You are likely right. She was the princess and he just can't get over it.
In an opposite situation - my husband has a 40 year old daughter (and 39 year old son) from a previous marriage - while "our" children are teens> I helped raise the daughter - even delaying my own children until I was nearly out of time and she has been awful. Just horrid and has had a pattern of escalating outrageous behavior, every step worse than the previous one.
Still he finds every excuse in the world to dismiss her behavior - and even gets angry at me for not doing the same.
He holds "our" teenage children - and even his son to a much higher standard.
I agree: No one should talk to the FBI without a lawyer, period. For me, it has nothing to do with their recent behavior. I still respect and appreciate the FBI. However, always having a lawyer present is what my friends recommend. The feds have enormous power. Does not matter if you are guilty or innocent. Fortunately, I’ve never been in that position.
---So Meg drops that bombshell on everyone in October 2018, not least of all her husband, who may have been informed earlier in the day. It certainly looks like there's something on his mind as he repeatedly tries to engage her while waiting for Eugenie to appear in the church. No doubt wanting to beg her to not do the rash thing she has promised to do at the reception. Madam laughs and rolls her eyes in response. Cue Oceania tour and massive rows over whether she is 'really pregnant'. Even as late as February in Morocco, Haz still seemed to be having very public doubts about his paternity. In a roomful of schoolkids, mind.
---Meanwhile, back in London, Meg refuses all royal doctors and starts to make noise about a homeopathic home birth/midwife/vegan nursery yada yada. Who ARE her doctors or her midwife? Nobody the F*ck knows. At this point I'm asking myself, can a royal mother-to-be actually REFUSE to give the Queen any information about her prenatal care and birth plans, seeing as she is, technically speaking, a vessel of the state? Evidently she can, if she is Meghan.
---As the saga drags on for at least a month longer than any human gestation ever recorded, Meg disappears from sight for about 9 weeks, or an entire school term. Radio silence about birth plans or labor progress, but the mum-to-be is reported as 'glowing'; 'really happy'; 'taking the air in the garden at Frogmore'--the gardens visible from the public road where nobody is ever seen, that garden? and other soft-serve soap. I decide the Palace is scrambling to deal with a crisis sitch . .ie., no baby and a woman who seems to be half elephant going by the length of her pregnancy. Did they make Meg fess up and help her concoct a story about going to the Portland? Who the heck knows. The sign board duly went out front and about 30 hours later there was a unique 'photo op' with the Holy Family and grandma/great-grands of the bairn. Who never twitched an eyelid once or appeared to be breathing.
Royal correspondents had apoplexy en masse. Nicholas Witchell was literally struck dumb by his inability to utter a single sentence that constituted truthful information, and displaying some rare journalistic integrity, refused to say anything and handed it back to the studio, to the surprise of the two anchors.
This is all so very instructive to me.
Unless Disney are deaf and blind they know very well who Markle is. They are fully aware of her Men's Health hamburger videos, topless pics and almost certainly her alleged pornographic video and more. Things like this travel far and wide in that world.
Her association with the royal family was her ticket to immunity. What is good for the Queen is good for us in Disney's eyes. This will probably change now.
Anyone remember a female RPO that accompanied PH and MM on the dreadful tour of Australia. Why do you think she left very suddenly in January 2019 and has never been identified. The RF may have suspected the 11 month pregnancy was a sham, after all the senior ladies all have had children, but no positive proof. They got it in spades after that tour. Hence the rush away from BP, etc
On Thomas Markle and the Piers interview. This is such a sad, sad man. Her ghosting of her father, who is so pathetic on so many levels, tells me that she is capable of anything. She is truly a sociopath. Faking a pregnancy and using various children as props to keep this fantasy going would be child’s play for this woman. The problem is, like all her machinations, that all her schemes have gigantic holes in the logic. Iffy responses on the dates regarding when she met Harry and when the baby was due (all mothers know when their children are due). The numerous lies about her career when there is footage contradicting her claims. I could go on. But the real core of concern here is that she is capable of anything. Marks my words, Archie does NOT exist and she will find a way to get rid of this faux child in some way that elicits enormous sympathy to counteract that shade against them that is growing day by day. She needs to do something drastic because, sadly, none of her schemes are actually coming to pass as she predicted. Once people want to see that child walking will be when she will “bump” him off. That ridiculous Christmas card has this hired child look like he’s crawling to the camera. So she doesn’t have much time left. I expect MI6 is monitoring her night and day, which is surely cramping her style. She would be an idiot to try to pull something like this off, or even not know that her various machinations have prompted the BRF to keep her under constant surveillance, but then again, she has real blind spots in terms of her own abilities. She is in a box of her own creating. What does she do about Archie? She can’t ghost him like she did her father, now can she?
Apart from Rachel being a hellion in terms of being a security client . .her IDGAK 'I walk where I like' attitude . . yours is an interesting point.
Guarding someone in close protection, it would be impossible not to see things that don't add up. Perhaps this RPO had occasion to touch Rachel's stomach, too, in the course of guarding her and knew that it wasn't a real pregnancy. It is not out of the realm of possibility that she, or perhaps Meg's PA Melissa Toubati, accidentally saw more than Madam wanted them to see while she was changing. Toubati also left directly after this tour and the stories that Madam had thrown hot tea/teapot at her started to circulate. Also the rumors that Toubati was handsomely paid off to agree not to press criminal assault charges.
Rach has a filthy temper . . what if the tea throwing was in response to being walked in on sans Moonbump or in the process of strapping it on? Or if the tea incident was entirely concocted as a ruse for Toubati being forced to leave because of what she knew about Moonbump?
Hapless the Eejit was banished to another bedroom altogether--very odd, no, for two soulmates who'd only gotten married 5 months prior and should still be in the honeymoon phase? Based on the rows overheard by staff, Harry was *not* happy about how this was going. If he doubted she was pregnant, he must have suspected padding, though I doubt he saw it in person at that stage. Somebody has, though, and was eliminated.
Whatever the Palace paid the likes of Edward Lane Fox, Melissa Toubati and the female RPO (name redacted to protect her identity, given her line of work) they have earned every penny of it and I don't grudge them.
>>>>Marks my words, Archie does NOT exist and she will find a way to get rid of this faux child in some way that elicits enormous sympathy to counteract that shade against them that is growing day by day.<<<
From the moment she debuted Moonbump and I could see where this was going, I wondered if this was her endgame. After all, it hasn't exactly gone smoothly so far, but if 'Archie' is now nearing or past the age when he morphs from placid (or completely limp) carrier infant to an active toddler, then Rach has passed the 'easy' part of her ruse. She just did not think this through, beyond the 'cute baby pics/merching/$$$' phase. If she wants/plans to ditch Harry to go off and be a Hollywood influencer well before 'Archie' starts preschool, how was she going to maintain the charade that she has a son who would be growing, running around, going to school, etc? This was never going to be a 20-year-con for Rach. The 'private citizen' angle is not garnering her the merching proceeds and attention she craves--hence the very ill-advised public jaunts to try and fool the public that she has a live, growing 100% normal baby. Disaster.
Actually, if the Death of Fauxchie is being planned as the ultimate Sympathy Coup of all time, I hope she tries to go through with it (providing of course that no actual children are harmed in the making of this stunt). It may be possible to invent a 'living' baby and get the PTB to rubber stamp his documents . . the office of birth registries don't demand the registrant to produce a live baby at the counter. But if Rachel announces to the world that her baby has *died*? Official notice *will* be taken. For a death certificate to be issued, there has to be a body, duly witnessed. The police would have to mount an investigation into a dead baby, a potentially criminal investigation in which parents are always the primary suspects.
Let her try it, I say. This may be the *only* thing--harm to Archie--that will shut her down for good. She would be revealed as a monster . . her fraud revealed to the world. Even the sugars might repudiate her then--unless they spin it that the racists bullies in the BRF drove her out of her mind.
" For a death certificate to be issued, there has to be a body, duly witnessed. The police would have to mount an investigation into a dead baby, a potentially criminal investigation in which parents are always the primary suspects."
If MM was still under "protection" of the BRF - I would disagree. They COULD and WOULD cover up. IMO
However
They have allowed her to escape...which likely means they will not help with influence so it would be exposed one way or another.
I am sure that most people won't believe that such things can be hidden by royals or any one else - but over the past few years, I have learned that much is not as it seems.
Those in power can and do horrid and astounding things for their own purpose. It is much worse than the average person can possibly imagine.
It's going to get really interesting...because that's outright fraud, false police reports of that nature come with prison sentences. In her case, maybe incarceration in a mental facility.
I remember Rachel went to Canada a few weeks after their wedding. It stuck in my mind because I found it odd that she would go to Canada alone when they were just on their honeymoon period. Do you think she had her eggs harvested at that time?
>>>If MM was still under "protection" of the BRF - I would disagree. They COULD and WOULD cover up. IMO
However
They have allowed her to escape...which likely means they will not help with influence so it would be exposed one way or another.
I am sure that most people won't believe that such things can be hidden by royals or any one else - but over the past few years, I have learned that much is not as it seems.
Those in power can and do horrid and astounding things for their own purpose. It is much worse than the average person can possibly imagine.<<<
You're not wrong . . there smells like a cover-up at the highest levels re. Archie/the origins of this wedding . . the Andrew situation . .before that, the extent of Edward VII's collusion with Hitler during the war and any way the BRF has benefited from association with nefarious types.
But what people are comfortable suspecting shadowy courtiers of vs. what they are comfortable suspecting the Queen of being complicit in are quite different. The Queen has gone on the record as acknowledging Archie and Her Majesty has not denied involvement in the appearance at least of welcoming this child through photos and documents relating to this child, however staged. If the photos and info we have about this baby are fraudulent, there is frankly no way in which the Queen cannot now be apprised of whatever levels of fraud have occurred, since she herself is prominently featured in it.
This is the sticking point re. Archie. Not just that a greedy, desperate and potentially mentally ill woman pretended to be pregnant and have a baby but that this ongoing fiction has been endorsed by the Royal family and the Queen. What does Liz know and when did she know it?
I agree this family is powerful enough to have been complicit to save its own necks and coerced staff, hospital staff, media organizations, etc., into perpetuating the fraud. A Royal baby is happy news and people were more willing to accept a happy fraud despite the evidence of their own eyes. Because even if Rachel was not herself pregnant, there's an adorable baby here, right? The Queen herself said! We've got photos!
The death of a baby, though, is NOT a happy fraud. Even the BRF might not be able to cover that up satisfactorily. Witness how they tried to downplay the death of Diana, a very real, public death, with a coroner's photos/inquest, et. al, and how that was received. The public *insisted* that TQ acknowledge their mourning properly, though she resisted as long as she was able. If Rach posted via Suxxit Instagram that RIP Archie died of SIDS, it's not like they'd go to the length of staging a public funeral with a plastic baby lying in state, would they? Rach couldn't resist publicizing such an event either . . being a glamorous royal widow would suit her down to the ground.
My point being . . if Archie were a real baby that died, a cover-up might ensue. But if she tries that on with Fauxchie, it would be the BRF's prime opportunity to be rid of her for good. She'd be arrested and possibly committed to an asylum.
Rach would prefer a 'kidnapping' to churn out the drama that much longer, but eventually a 'baby', live or dead, would have to be 'found'. Lord help us if that's her scenario.
>>>I remember Rachel went to Canada a few weeks after their wedding. It stuck in my mind because I found it odd that she would go to Canada alone when they were just on their honeymoon period. Do you think she had her eggs harvested at that time?<<<
Scuttlebutt has it that she had already undergone the egg harvesting while she was married to Trevor and had them on ice in Toronto. I understand that the procedure is very painful and invasive and requires a lot of hormone shots that blow one up, so it's very doubtful that she underwent that so soon after the wedding. I think she already had them. Maybe some embryos already, even. Wish I could get my hands on the DNA report. What if 'Archie' is actually Trevor's baby from an earlier 'donation'? Wouldn't that be a turn-up?!
I think there was some form of snafu with the surrogacy adoption at this point, resulting in Harry and Meg being denied adoptive custody. Maybe due to documented drug usage? Or verifiable mental instability from both that rendered them unfit parents? Don't know the intricacies of British surrogacy law and neither, it seems, did Rachel. In any case, if Archie was living with them, we would have seen more of him . .she wouldn't have been able to resist showing him off to compete with the cute Camb kids. We've seen a little guy, but not lately, and who knows where the heck he is? Far away from them, is my hope.
@Nutty, self taught cook here, trial and error, my cooking is always spicy, just here and there some bland stuff. Happy to share recipes but I have no idea where ingredients are found in other locations.
@ wizardwench, I don't buy into that theory of Archie not existing. So I won't go there. The secrecy of the birth and possible surrogacy , yes, that's where my suspicions are highest.
One thing that struck me as odd, besides all the other oddities, was that , whilst travelling on that plane to Canada , and supposedly being newly pregnant , passengers were asked not to interfere with Markle, also Markle enjoyed a glass of champagne. I just thought , that's weird for a newly pregnant woman to have alcohol. And weird considering how much scrutiny Markle was under. If someone can find that article please share it.
Lemontea
Archie is getting a bit old for SIDS; that usually occurs in the first six months or so before a baby has sufficiently developed muscles and respiratory system. But young children can die in other ways . . bathtub accidents, falls, dog attack.
This would be the vilest thing imaginable, to exploit people in this way--short of harming a real baby, of course. Which I also think her capable of, but I do not believe she's actually got a baby. At least, I pray she doesn't.
It starts at 13:30 approx...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afphxo3AEVk
I think a lot of these things are repeated rumors, now accepted as fact.
Regarding Rachel's trips back to North America at or about the time of her most recent wedding... both The Chicago Tribune and Vanity Fair commented about her being spotted in Chicago just weeks before the happy nuptials. (Articles regarding same can still be found online.) I thought it a bit odd as if she had any legal or immigration details to be seen to, that could have easily been handled by the U.S. Embassy
in London.
Here's an article @LemonTea
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7939069/PIERS-MORGAN-Andrew-stop-hiding-mothers-skirts.html
I guess that was kind of my point - they could have covered it up but they won't now.
MM being released, freed of duty actually allows the RF and in particular, HMQ to be "shocked" when the scandal comes out.
"we tried so hard to allow her privacy..."
"no wonder she didn't invite us over...."
"clearly Harry needs help to recover from this..."
"Harry will be well tended by his family...(in a locked facility for several months)"
Before the split...I was expecting a plane crash to wipe out the whole fam...MM, Harry and "baby" - no lie. IMO that was the only thing that would have been "believable", a tragedy of loss that includes their own.
I also believe they would have done that...but plans change.
Again though I am an American who wears a tin foil hat proudly these days.
"both The Chicago Tribune and Vanity Fair commented about her being spotted in Chicago just weeks before the happy nuptials."
There was also an announcement by KP sometime after the engagement but before the wedding that Meghan would be traveling solo abroad alot (privately) that spring. No explanation as to why as I recall.
It's interesting that we're not seeing anything of the Thomas Markle UK publicity blitz here in the US. Whatever you think of him, I have seen no evidence other than that he was an affectionate & indulgent father, that he's old & in poor health, & his daughter has treated him worse than any daughter of King Lear treated their father.
@Hikari, obviously, the coffee is working for you. I had several laugh out loud moments reading your posts.
>>>I don't buy into that theory of Archie not existing. So I won't go there. The secrecy of the birth and possible surrogacy , yes, that's where my suspicions are highest.<<<
Just to be clear, the issue isn't as black and white as "Archie' exists/No, he doesn't. I've been on Team Moonbump since December 2018, and Rach did nothing to dissuade me after that that I was wrong--quite the reverse.
I do believe that a baby was born. From someone. Even possibly with Rachel's DNA. The question is not "Does he exist?" but "*Where* is he, and with whom?" 'Fauxchie' is in reference to Rachel's (to me, anyhow) increasingly outlandish attempts to convince us that she and Harry are the normal, happy parents of a little boy who resides with them and who they are raising on a daily basis with the help of nannies. That is the 'faux' bit.
Once Archie was safely delivered (by someone) and presented to the world as the Queen's great-grandchild and duly acknowledged by her, as he has been, well, it should have been smooth sailing for the Harkles, right? With the awkward and questionable pregnancy out of the way, everybody would have been happy to give them the benefit of the doubt there if they'd gone on to be normal with this baby. Perhaps at some safe time in the future, say when Archie was 5 or so, it could be gently brought out in the open that he was a surrogate baby, but since his arrival was unprecedented in the RF, the subterfuge was employed. But that wouldn't matter so much if a healthy happy child was part of their family.
We have not seen a healthy, happy family situation but only an increasingly bizarre series of PR releases and dodgy photos that just serve to cast further doubt on the Harkles' version of events. Sure, Meg is all about turning a buck out of her kid . . but I believe that she would counter every single cute Camb kid photo we've got with a slew of photos of Archie, just to keep pace with Kate. She hasn't. Why not, is the reasonable question. It's not just about the 'merching.' I believe she has not because she CAN not, ie, she doesn't have access to the baby we know as Archie and hasn't since South Africa. The pic with Harry posing with Archie by a body of Canadian water could have been taken at any time, really. The absence of Meg in the 'family photo' is suggestive of photoshopping to me. Really what better way to quash rumors than to have made *that* the Christmas card, including Meg?
The simplest explanation applies here, I think: She expected to have a baby for her full-time PR blitz and merching. She doesn't, hence the pathetic papp walks and Photoshop exercises.
>>>scary thought...after reading what @Hikari wrote above about MM trying to eliminate "archie" to garner sympathy, why couldn't she eliminate both Harry and Archie and get the ultimate sympathy and all his money to herself? I know, it's so far out there, but if this woman truly is mentally unstable, I wouldn't put anything past her.
It's crossed my mind, too, believe me.
If Harry and/or the child known as Archie comes to harm, there WILL be an investigation into Rachel's part in it. As MBee said, she is no longer under the protection of the Royal Family, by her own will, and what they might have been able and willing to do for her post-split they will no longer do.
Harry is at greatest risk to himself these days, but who's to say if he gets drunk/high and 'falls down the stairs' in the Russian Shining House that he wasn't given a push?
I believe they are under surveillance in Canada and that's why we've not seen either of them. I'd favor two professional taps to Rachel's head and quick extract of Harry back to safety. But that would look really bad for the RF . it would have MI6 fingerprints all over it. No, they've got to wait til Rachel hangs herself with her own rope so definitively there is no resuscitation. Staging the 'death' of her baby, or making an attempt on Harry's life would do it--IF Hazza could be persuaded to narc on her. Would he? If she tried to kill him? If not, the dehumanization of Harry is complete.
The statements about the 'fragility' of the couple and the door being open are coded messages to Harry, I believe. His family is concerned that Harry is OK, but Rach would do them a huge favor if she'd just drop into the Atlantic. Short of that happening, she has to implode on her own, visibly so.
@Twinsmama, I deeply apologize for upsetting you with my "disturbing" thoughts. Please just scroll on by if you can.
So my disturbing thoughts for today are as follows. Lol.
My guess is that the FBI are posing and pretending about PA because there are so many higher ups who have a lot to lose in this game. And where is Ghislaine Maxwell? She seemingly had a much bigger role in this than even PA. If I were PA I would be concerned for my own safety. Possibly the FBI is using PA as a scapegoat. In other words, we aren't able to move forward with this investigation because PA is uncooperative.
Please, there are so many higher ups with ties to Epstein I don't really think TPTB would even want PA to grant them an interview.
Also, if I were the Queen I would definitely be concerned for his safety.
So, while I certainly don't condone any of this disgusting behavior, PA is only one of probably 1000's of elite hobnobbing with Epstein. It may be a case of look over there, not here.
Another thing I find puzzling is if Maxwell was the so called Madam to these girls and pimped them out, isn't she also guilty of a crime? And if so, why has she not been charged with anything? Has she immunity due to her vast knowledge of the whole sordid operation?
About Mr. Markle, wth is going on with him? Someone mentioned the possibility they, MM and he, were colluding to improve her image? Idk, maybe he is blackmailing her with the upcoming trial. It is really bizarre. One thing I don't believe is her supposedly being happy. MM is not happy unless she is front and center. And with all mobile phones around no one has snapped a pic? We have celebs where I live quite often so much so I literally bump into them at the grocery store. Bumped into Melissa Gilbert at Trader Joe's and while she did have a "minder" she smiled and said excuse me politely. Most people left her alone but I did notice a few people discreetly snapping pics while pretending they were looking at their grocery list. And I'm certain Ms. Gilbert was aware of this. So, where are all the pics of MM and Harry? Just a bit odd imo.
Since we're discussing pregnancies and babies, can anyone shed light on this pic from 2013?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=meghan+markle+2013&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ACYBGNQhLgvS_b95YRHAr2TTNCWauOtbRQ:1580236667335&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvtN6p-KbnAhUztHEKHcmkDagQ_AUoAXoECAwQAQ&biw=768&bih=928#imgrc=2h3TKkELhVnMZM
"PA is only one of probably 1000's of elite hobnobbing with Epstein. It may be a case of look over there, not here."
You are correct - at leas hundreds....the only difference is that Andrew was arrogant enough to allow himself to be recognized, seen and photographed over and over and over...not even trying to hide. He figured it didn't matter - plus loved the attention he got.
The recent attention is certainly a case of look here not there....I just can't say for certain where it is we are NOT supposed to be looking.
I have seen so much nastiness.
I know it is a distraction - but from which heinous thing? The answer is in who is behind the stories...who is encouraging the media attention. There are a lot of possibilities so hard to say.
Inside, outside, political, royals, ex-royals, business, foreign...?
Hmm. Looks to be about second trimester there . . 6 months? Too big for mere puffiness from egg harvesting. Rather late for a termination if she was showing that much. That is way more than an overindulgent Mexican dinner.
The time stamp on this photo is November 2013 . . 3.5 months *after* divorce from TE was finalized. Who is this man she's with? They look cozy on the red carpet. If she had been pregnant with TE's baby prior to the divorce and terminated it, she would not then be this big a few months later. What?! Was she playing with Moonbumps even then? What benefit to her to be a divorced/single again starlet who's pregant for real, never mind pretend?
Was it just to get people buzzing? She has been known to do that.
I'm confused. This woman has been pregnant for real or fake at least half a dozen times. I can't keep it all straight.
There are plenty of photos of there out there on the Net of this event, showing the same thing.
The term Armpitgate made me laugh! 😂😳😂 I agree, it wasn’t even a hot day, and even if the heating had been turned up a tad too high, that was heavy sweating! More like a work out sweat! Nerves could have been the cause, but still a lot of sweat for nerves. 🤔
Picture was taken at Nov 2013 Global Gift Gala but supposedly they were just pictured together...not actually together - his GF Pixie Lott was there. Supposedly they didn't even know each other.
Not all of the pictures from that night make her look "that pregnant"....and no sign of an actual date that doesn't belong to someone else.
She and T. Engelson split up same year in february due to "work" - supposedly divorce finalized in August 2013.
By RF and her team, twisted arms to get stuff taken down.
No matter who says it can't be done...it can.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/23/how-do-meghan-markle-and-oliver-cheshire-know-each-other-as-photos-from-2013-emerge-8065936/
Metro goes on `It’s no secret Meghan Markle and Prince Harry had a long history of exes between them.' but produces no evidence.
No evidence given though.
I got the impression from somewhere that MM thinks it's OK to have an abortion right up to the last minute.
@Hikari
Forgive me, copying and pasting on my gadget is a shambles. I hear your point about Markle no longer being directly under the protection of the BRF ...and that she can cover up and do as she pleases. With that point, I can see exactly what you are saying. Being miles away across the Atlantic Ocean (is it Atlantic ? ) she really can get away with a lot. Different laws , different culture, different president or prime minister.
I have read of men who have a wife and family in one place and then have a wife and family in another place , everyone unaware of each other except the common denominator. Until exposed , all live happily together. This makes good watching in Murder She Wrote series and the odd documentaries on fraud and deceit. But, and a huge BUT , how can a monumental fraud of this size ( no baby ) , (borrowed baby ) , ( changing baby ) , running out of options here, how can this go unnoticed! !!!!
@ portcitygirl
Agree it's completely bizarre that there is a trial coming up and all these self declaration interviews are happening. Are we missing something here? Surely barristers or lawyers advise their clients not to divulge pertinent information which can damage a court case. Especially Thomas Markle. Legal teams prepare themselves to counter argue , but can they risk a situation not knowing what is being on a daily basis. The war of words in this case does not seem right.
Lemon tea
Lemontea
Lemon tea
I'm sure she does . . the law is a bit stickier about that and there are strict laws about the last possible week to do it legally, though each state varies slightly and there are some (a minority) that allow termination up to full term.
I would not expect image-conscious, career-savvy hustling Rach to allow a pregnancy to get so far as to be showing a 6, 7 month belly at a high profile event where she was the host and lots of pictures being taken of her, if she's not in a relationship any more and being preggers would be a hindrance to her image. She would have taken care of things early and quietly before anybody knew. Plus that far on, it's major surgery and major pain/complications.
Our Rach does have a knack, almost as good as mine, for taking really unflattering pictures, but I've never known a very slender woman to look 7 months pregnant in a single picture and in no others taken that same evening. Rach is a shapeshifter.
In my opinion they will have one chance to bring charges against him, if they handle it wrong it is game over, so I am not surprised things are not moving fast in that aspect. Will it happen? I truly don't know - I hope so but I doubt it.
While I believe he will never face charges (I hope I am wrong), I still believe he will be travelling to the US to answer some difficult questions.
Maxwell is likely in hiding and singing to the authorities like a canary - I think her knowledge is way more valuable then either Epstein or PA. She was the "fixer" she knows connections and links, as well as names.
>>>But, and a huge BUT , how can a monumental fraud of this size ( no baby ) , (borrowed baby ) , ( changing baby ) , running out of options here, how can this go unnoticed! !!!!<<<
I know, I hear ya. I've been pulling out my hair over this very question for a year now.
Wearing a strap-on belly is one thing . . but producing a live (some dispute this) baby on international television, a step much further on . . . when she turned up with a live little guy in South Africa and *introduced him to Bishop Tutu* I about lost my sh*t because up to that point, we'd only had three, four dodgy photographs. Hard to argue with live video . .and this was the christening baby.
But--if he's her baby and everything is legit . . why don't we ever see him? Why is she wearing a strap-on doll in the woods? She could generate a lot of good will and more sympathy for herself if she'd display evidence that 1. She's Archie's mom and 2. She's a good mom. I have not seen sufficient evidence of either to convince me.
Here's a weird thing . . over on CharlDuch there's a post allegedly from Blind Gossip, posted today re. 'the alliterate actress/whatever she is now wants to drop the lawsuit but the publication wants to go ahead and see her humiliated in court.'
So I went immediately to Blind Gossip and could find no new items posted today, only yesterday's items. So this may be bogus, or the site is not up to date in my market . .? Anyway, go look at it. It did not allow cut and paste from Tumblr and went I tried to get it from BG it was not there. This was a couple hours ago though so it may be appearing soon.
I knew Rach was going to regret the DM suit . . now that she's got no palace backing for lawyers/$$$ and is no longer resident in Britain. Oops, Rachel.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/01/blind-item-5_28.html
Blind Item #5
The alliterate actress turned royal turned whatever it is she is now wants to drop her lawsuit, but the tabloid isn't letting her off the hook. They don't even care if they lose at this point. They want their days in court and the spectacle of the trial.
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 7:45 AM 45 COMMENTS
He was also photographed over and over which makes him look really bad by association. I don't think he is the brightest person. I have seen pics of top officials with Epstein and heard the names of others mentioned who are famous enough not to want their name mentioned in the same sentence as Epstein. This is all very interesting indeed and maybe it's nothing, but surely doesn't seem to be going away. I find it strange that Andrew is the only guy? being accused of impropriety in this bizarre scenario. I admittedly have not been pouring over the details of these events and am just relying on my memory. So for that I apologize.
And@Oz, sorry to have conveyed a negative portrayal of the FBI. I have no doubt many of them are good people. And there is such a thing as following orders. My guess is this will be bandied about here and there kind of like HRC's emails and that not much will come of it. Is that fair? I don't know because I have no real knowledge of anything but what I mentioned above.
Submitted: Information about ending a civil suit in British courts…
anonymoushouseplantfan
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part38
It sounds like she could end it but there are rules. If any party has given an undertaking to the court or if there’s an interim injunction in place, the court would have to give permission.
Also, if the defendant has given (even voluntarily) an interim payment to the claimant, the defendant would have to agree or the court would have to give permission.
And most interestingly, if she drops it, she’d most likely have to pay the defendants court costs up to the point where the case was discontinued. That happens automatically unless the court rules otherwise.
Interesting stuff.
A UK Consumers' Association report about Which Assassins? would probably rate your suggested choice for dirty work in the `Don't Buy' category, in view of our recent experience with them.
As the BBC might say when mentioning a brand name, `Other assassins are available', ones that don't leave fingerprints...
Every day the people who follow the HAMS are exposed to what can only be called balloons. The ones that do not pop immediately are denied by their tax-payer funded anti-royalist PR people as lies, but cannot be worth suing about, as the HAMS are/were behind the faux. Next are the deflating balloons, aka the HAMS are not interesting anymore. Any negative or nasty word said directly or implied, will have the Queen, and loose-mouther/mouser Charles going to their lawyers. Btw, has anybody ever thought the namer Schiller is a funny law firm name for HAMS? And when all the air is out of the Sussex, which the Queen, with her wicked humour, bestowed the name in honor of Stump, of Sussex, what will happen to the HAMS? There are only a few royals in the world today worth knowing about. These royals know that work, speaking zero about politics, and being modest in both physical and demeanor, keep people wanting more, but citizens are mostly content or resigned to the fact of royals. Harry talked about the magic, whilst committing actions that were covered up. He and his half sandwich, have nothing to give to their “fans,”. Celebrities are paid money because they are entertainers. HAMS have nothing, they are aging out of the celebrity world, and cannot sell their tat under the royal name given, and could be taken, from them.
Andrew is a big problem, but is innocent unless proven guilty. He is rarely seen. He is not for sale these days. Thus the HAMS, with no HRS, will be at the back of the royals who retain HRHs.
So, OK . .well, that post is live. Rach must be squirming on the hook now. I hope the Mail fries her and her weave to ash. Let all the epic landslide of dirt come forth and bury the ashes so thoroughly she can't pull a Dark Phoenix trick and rise again. She's so done. If she'd only minded her manners and played the RF game, she'd be 'OK' but, no. Rach loves to sail close to the wind. Hope she sails right off the edge of the earth.
Yes, I'm mixing my metaphors but I want this scourge gone. I'm so sick of her antics and what she's done to Harry.
What's the betting that the scrubbers removed the material from the internet but took care to keep copies in another form? Screen grabs? hard copy? etc etc. All locked away for safe keeping with the evidence to track those who put it there in the first place.
It might not be on the net but surely it'd be an insurance policy not to destroy it completely? It might be blackmail stuff but why deprive yourself of it when you know the blackmailers will still have copies & you only want to keep it from Joe Public?
Very apt.
Who is assuming the astronomical costs for all these lawyers (Harry has his own suit against the Sun) is anybody's guess. This was not part of the public statement released after the Sandringham (Beat Down) Summit. Would Charles really agree to give Megsy money for lawyers if/when she's going to get her buttpads handed to her in court?
Dropping the suit ought to be the plaintiff's prerogative at any point, since they initiated the action, and generally defendants are happy not to proceed, as long as their costs are paid. There's nothing in it for the defendant except honor to press on and that might be what the Mail is in it for. Meg has jerked them around for several years and they've danced to her tune and printed all her lies verbatim as she insisted were true. Now she's playing the wronged, righteous victim? They aren't having any.
This is apropos here:
WORD OF THE DAY:
https://www.dictionary.com/e/word-of-the-day/
CANTING: (ADJ)
affectedly or hypocritically pious or righteous: a canting social reformer.
**********
Coincidence? This word, now? I think not.
They are all coming for you, Rachel.
I still go to CDAN dutifully - but it has changed a bit over the last year or so...I guess with the disappearance and eventual death of Himmmm. Now with fewer alliterative royal blinds...it devolves to mostly rap, reality TV and internet celebrities - but I still go.
@Wild Boar...
The scrubbed items definitely still exist somewhere - One can only hope some of those will return.
I just don't understand what would have been so hard about getting dressed according to the rules, shaking hands according to the rules - and acting like a polite person. In exchange for a life of relative financial ease...more than relative. Everyone has to wear certain clothes - most of which are much less flattering and more uncomfortable than pantyhose. She had to storm the palace and prove she was a grifting American hussy.
"He and his half sandwich, have nothing to give to their “fans, "
He and his half sandwich, lol!
Thank you for the laugh!
The offensive Meghan Markle racism fable
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/28/the-offensive-meghan-markle-racism-fable/
I agree - besides the accusations of Virginia and photos taken with Epstein, there is no actual evidence as yet that PA was anything other then really stupid and arrogant. I have refrained from joining in this discussion all over the net because unless there are charges laid I wont feed into the hysteria.
Re: FBI - I appreciate your comments thankyou - I know exactly what I am talking about so I feel I can speak with some factual basis. Unfortunately what is "fair" isn't considered admissible to initiate a criminal investigation. Lets assume he is not royalty but a british national. In most countries you have to apply to the government of the home base for extradition or for the person to be questioned - complications also arise if the nation making the request has the death penalty for the crime they allegedly committed.
I know many countries within the commonwealth will not approve extradition on that basis - they could apply to Interpol to issue a red notice, however one of the misconceptions is this is a arrest warrant - strictly speaking it isn't. It is a notice that the authorities want to bring that person of interest to that country. Assuming the country is a bureau listed with Interpol, they will liaise with that country before deciding.
And then we layer on this whole debacle the fact he is a member of the royal family - a senior member at that, and as such will likely enjoy the cushy comfort of diplomatic immunity - this isn't an automatic stop gap as it is also possible to apply for that to be waived. It is a long process but countries can ascertain that there is a alleged crime so serious and heinous that it falls above the diplomatic status - I do believe this would fall within that realm, but as I said previously, they need to make sure that have their ducks in a row before going after him (as they won't get another shot).
What I would do? If I was one of those agents I would make some kind of deal with Andrew for immunity against prosecution in return for naming the members of the ring Epstein has created (assuming he was part of it). It is almost guaranteed there was/is one,the methodology of these child abuse rings is they are specifically built to the folloing criteria:
1) For this level, members will have high office positions
2) Each member has a certain speciality that is needed - for example one may be a photo magazine editor/photographer, may be involved in politics, one in government and/or one in IT specialisations (especially IT host companies or those familiar with encryption algorithms and IP masking)
3) The price of "admission" is usually a post to a forum hosted (likely on the dark web) that contains exploitation images or video - this shows they are saying what they are wsaying is true and is held by the organizer for blackmail later if needed.
4) The tor network this is hosted on will likely be run through obscure server farms that don't have to deal with in country tracking legislations - ideally eastern bloc countries are the favoured areas. The problem in a criminal investigation is it makes it more difficult to align these servers with persons of interest unless they are dumb enough to store things on their computers.
Ok I have rambled too much, my apologies - the coffee is kicking in :)
I don't believe that Andrew saw and knew nothing about Epstein's exploitation of teenage girls, many of whom were under the age of consent. Perhaps the FBI/law enforcement agencies are trying to build cases against Epstein's friends and associates? For what can they be prosecuted? They had knowledge of a crime and did not report it? They participated in the exploitation of teenage girls, many of whom were under the age of consent?
Other men were named by Virginia and others. Why are those men not being pursued?
If Andrew co-operates with the FBI/law enforcement agencies then he is giving them the opportunity to build a case against him. Besides, that interview showed that he would be a hopeless witness and any statement he makes would be filled with lies and half-truths and pathetic cover ups.
Thank you for the link. I'm so glad that US journalists are clearly and persuasively calling B.S. on the racism smears.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7940073/Prince-Andrew-tells-pals-talk-FBI.html
Great link. It's good to hear from someone talking sense for a change!
Ina child exploitation/pornography case this is even more complex as victims are underage, special precautions need to be taken, questioning is often a long process to take into account the emotional requirements and fact checking etc.
I can also surmise it is highly likely :
1) A case of the other members of this ring are being looked at, with the assistance of Maxwell
. To answer your questions the following can be levied against then - knowlesge of a crime being committed without acting (most countries have a version of the "bystander" act or as an accessory.
- If bank accounts and properties being put in their names and a proceeds of crime charge can be proven they can find themselves charged on that basis, with the addition of the relevant tax department go after them.
- Telecommunications and computers (including laptops, mobile devices and car GPS and any automatic device to pay road tolls on vehicles) may be seized for evidentiary and investigations/intelligence purposes. all this helps with identifying a nexus.
- There are others but my brain just had a spurt so I need another coffee:)
2) They are tracking not just the whereabouts and activities, but travel records, financial records and companies registered to identify if any of these can either be associated with the criminal and as such can be used as brief of evidence, identify payments and bank accounts for seizing of assets from the proceeds of crime act and other activitiesw - I would guess money laundering is going to be mentioned as these shell companies will be a great environment for that.
3) Any request by victims and/or families to sue the estate in a civil case will likely be advised to see if a prosecution is undertaken and people found guilty - this will make a civil case a lot easier, as in a civil case it isn't a requirement for the same proof as in a criminal case.
4) I would be very surprised if Epsteins estate isn't going to be the subject of a lot of suits - but I would be even more surprised if there is anything of value, he is a finance guy, there are likely offshore accounts and property deeds make out to others.
Hope that helps:)
Yankee, God love her . . I'm glad she has such a diverting hobby at her age but her channel is just an old lady scrolling through her collection of clips while we watch and reading aloud from them, incorrectly pronouncing some words. It's faster just to read it yourselves.
"The Windsors Were Blackmailed by their Daughter-in-Law" (American Thinker, 1-20-20)
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/the_windsors_blackmailed_by_their_daughterinlaw.html
***********
Excellent article. 'Bout sums up this tawdry situation in 5 pages.
Thanks for this.
All I can say is, if the ultra-ultra lib Washington Post has turned on Markle, it's over for her. Ain't nowhere else left to peddle the victim narrative she's selling.
*********
The offensive Meghan Markle racism fable
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/28/the-offensive-meghan-markle-racism-fable/
The day the WashPost turns on a half-black woke celebrity, hell will officially be open for skating. Still, Meg could do something that turns even her most ardent channels against her . .like pretend her baby died or was kidnapped for ransom or something blazingly stupid like that.
*** These terms are still debated within the psychological commununity as to whether it is a real syndrome.
It was me who posted that two articles (americanthinker.com and washingtontimes.com) at Nutty F's blog.
I am not a native English speaker and a little bit shy to reply or discuss.
I still can't believe Archie's existence. But, unfortunately, I can’t find any strong evidence confirming or refuting my doubts.
Regardless of what she was vague instagramming about, she is annoying as hell.
Seriously. She has what 400k followers? The times I've seen her posts she was either pushing her breasts together to maximize the revelation of her cleavage, or she showing off her ass in a thong bikini. She is such an example for empowering women. Puke.
So if I was PA, I would be concerned that the FBI is going to try to make a case that I've done something more, and potentially make a scapegoat out of me because they can't go after the person who actually did all of the horrendous things.
As @Ozmanda said, the men and women of the FBI are good people, but you do have to question the higher-ups and the decisions that they make in order to protect people who knows things. The biggest name is not Prince Andrew, but former President Bill Clinton. Who was a very good, and close friend of Epstein. Why is he not being talked about more than prince Andrew?
This very well could be a "look over here and not over there," because they are really going after Clinton...
"Prince Andrew tells pals he WILL talk to the FBI: Duke of York is 'bewildered' over claim by US official that he has snubbed Jeffrey Epstein inquiry."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7940073/Prince-Andrew-tells-pals-talk-FBI.html
OMG, he's even more socially clueless than I thought. (And I thought he was extremely socially clueless.)
Just wanted to put this out there, and am not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not, but...
Some people are saying they think the RF's recent slew of articles regarding the couple's "fragile" state is a pre-emptive strike because they suspect, being one step ahead of Her Markleness, that she is going to stage a fake pap incident (a la Jessie Smollet?) and have her 'Diana Moment', either by car accident or physical altercation. I suspect it's because the truth about her faking her pregnancy is coming out.
Not that there's anything wrong with using a surrogate, but committing fraud about someone in even remote succession to the throne, and him not being "of the body" is HUGE. It could never be played as if M were a victim because of any physical problems - there are way, way too many photos and videos of her joyously accepting attention in that inflating and deflating bump for her to ever flip the script on that one, imho.
There was a very odd tweet by her very own personal pap service, Splash, from their photo editor and a reply by another freelance photog reading (sorry for the bad paraphrasing), everything was lining up, or the plan was ready, things were coming together, adding the hashtag #grafting and a couple of others, to which the freelance photog replied 'Meghan?' for which he received ONE like, from the OP, Splash's photo desk editor.
By the RF saying repeatedly that they are concerned for their safety (LOL) and will welcome them back home where they will be protected, it takes the complete piss (pardon) out of any fake incident she might use as an excuse to HAVE to move to LA where a) they can more easily blend in (hahaha!) and b) are in a more familiar environment with well-tested methods to handle paps (?!), and c) have nowhere else to go, they need SuperDoria! Of course she's say something like she wasn't welcome in the UK, so the RF struck first.
You can find all the info on this on Yankee Wally's second most recent youtube video or on her tumblr account.
So be on the lookout for a fake pap incident to occur, on a day with some important RF engagement, event, or historical anniversary, would be my guess.
I'm actually Megxhausted by all this drama, and can't wait for the final act, it should be a doozy! Cheers to you all~
Here is the link for those wishing to follow it
https://esa.act.gov.au/advice-orroral-valley-fire-29-january-2020-130pm
@Nutty I wont spam the forum with off topic info on this I promise:)
I truly hope nothing happens to anyone and that "invisible" Archie is happy and healthy. It would be nice to think that but I just don't think anything seems to add up, especially in the case of Archie.
Also, I don't know if it is true but people have mentioned Thomas Markle being quoted as saying don't leave MM alone with children. If that quote is true that is a chilling thing to say about your own child.
Cheesecake
2 8 oz packages cream cheese softened
¾ C sugar
4 eggs
1 tsp vanilla
1 tsp lemon juice
Cookie crumbs and butter
1 C sour cream
2 TBSP sugar
½ tsp vanilla
Cream softened cream cheese and add in the eggs. Then the sugar, vanilla and lemon juice. Butter and dust the inside of a spring form pan. Pour in the mixture. Bake at 350 for 20 to 25 minutes. Cool for 10 minutes. Combine the last 3 ingredients and pour over the cheesecake. Bake 10 more minutes. Cool. Can be frozen.
I will sometimes dust the buttered pan with cocoa powder. Melt chocolate and drop lumps of it in the batter after it has been poured in the pan. I then twirl something in the batter to swirl the chocolate around.
I don't like graham crackers so I don't do that crust. I will sometimes use gingersnap cookies instead.
You can avoid most of the deep cracks in the top of the batter if you minimize the amount of times you open the oven door when it is backing (supposedly).
I was impressed each of the (real) royal brides made the effort of an unusually deep curtsy and each (aside from MM) seemed to have a genuine expression of love, appreciation and deep respect for the queen - each of these curtsies actually look like a small personal moment where they're saying "hey Gran, thank you SO MUCH and you're wonderful."
Not our sweet Meg though, nope - bugger the queen - but she didn't stop there oh no Nutties, I bet that bitch didn't even wear pantyhose.
The Lindbergh baby kidnapping has a truly sad ending. Lindbergh was a hero and incredibly famous all over the world. He was an early aviator who was 1st to fly from America to Paris non-stop. His plane from that flight is in the Smithsonian (national museum) in Washington, DC.
A man climbed on a ladder into the 20 month-old baby’s room and took him. The police didn’t have the excellent forensic tools they have now. Lots of false suspects. The baby was found dead when the men went to pay the ransom. Finally the kidnapper exchanged some of the ransom money and that is how he was caught. Hauptmann, I think, was his name. He was tried, convicted, and executed.
That is so funny and if true, that's the kind of petty that she would stoop down to.
As a recluse myself i can 1000% agree with what you're saying.
As in: I developed social anxiety from an unfortunate life event, went full-blown recluse in after 2017 (travelled a bit in 2018 and stayed indoors for the most of 2019).
If I had paps following me around as I buy my bucket of KFC and a 6-pack for something relatively positive (like a family member married someone famuz) I'd be annoyed enough.
But to be vilified and repeatedly tricked in the process would've driven me mad. Like Ophelia mad.
Meghan's family will never be the same again. Imagine all the people latching on them for the proximity. I get that some people enjoy that kind of attention, but that would infuriate me.
Then again, Thomas Markle worked in Hollywood so maybe he's used to it.
Seriously, what is it with such aversion to pantyhose? England is chilly, only in summer it's nice enough for bare legs. They're soft and comfy if one isn't too fat, and they're not made of nylon anymore, especially those more expensive. I lived in Italy and France and travelled all over Europe, and noticed that women always wear them in winter. Plus they can be sexy and make legs look better and firmer.
Wizardwench,
Well said. Andrew is not innocent in this story. He's extremely stupid, but not that stupid that he didn't know what his friend was doing. On the contrary, Epstein's offering of young girls was probably the thing that made his company more appealing.
She's done a lot of serious digging and despite being targeted in a very nasty way by sugars, minions or even MM herself, she's hit back and kept going.
She's one brave, determined cookie.
@Wizardwebch: Team FBI, and besides that, well said!
Oh well, as long as I'm at it, Team Pantyhose!
The Lindbergh baby kidnapping has a truly sad ending. Lindbergh was a hero and incredibly famous all over the world. He was an early aviator who was 1st to fly from America to Paris non-stop. His plane from that flight is in the Smithsonian (national museum) in Washington, DC.
A man climbed on a ladder into the 20 month-old baby’s room and took him. The police didn’t have the excellent forensic tools they have now. Lots of false suspects. The baby was found dead when the men went to pay the ransom. Finally the kidnapper exchanged some of the ransom money and that is how he was caught. Hauptmann, I think, was his name. He was tried, convicted, and executed.
Thanks, @brown-eyed, for bringing this up.
Actually, many people believe that Bruno Hauptmann was innocent, and that the baby's parents were actually involved in his kidnapping and death.
Here's one researcher from Rutgers University who suggests that Lindbergh himself may have been involved in getting rid of his son.
Lindbergh, like Harry, was very popular at his peak, but had ties to the "America First" isolationist campaign many people saw as Nazi sympathizers. (See a link from Smithsonian magazine about Lindbergh's beliefs.)
One book also suggested that the baby was killed by his aunt, Elizabeth Morrow and that his mother Anne Morrow Lindbergh helped cover up the death.
The abduction took place during an era when criminals, often gang members, routinely kidnapped family members of the rich and famous to supplement their incomes.
This doesn't happen much in Canada, the UK, or the US these days, but it's routine in Mexico.
If Meg were to consider duplicating this incident (with the caveat, of course, that no real-life children be involved or harmed!) a trip to Mexico would be the way to do it.
She could eliminate (the non-existent?) Archie and generate a great deal of publicity and sympathy for herself - until it's all found out, of course, Jussie Smollett style.
Thus I don't think the Children's Act applies to knocking shops on British soil, no matter how expensive. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I completely disagree with predictions of making untold millions. They only have one story to tell and it's one that brings discredit on themselves. Yes they could throw mud at someone like Prince Philip, but attacking someone who has shown loyalty his entire life would be a bad move and throw their own failings into relief.
Having only one story to tell has made me consider Priscilla Presley again. Googling throws up near identical print interview headlines going back as far as 1979. She has managed to tell basically the same story for more than 40 years. But talent is behind this. Elvis' talent. Someone who is still loved. I think this is the only way such a thin offering can continue to be bought (no disrespect intended to Priscilla, whose exquisite beauty was also a factor for years - something else Meghan doesn't have).
HAMS have no talent. They do not come across as nice and/or interesting people. They are unquestionably self-indulgent and the world is changing in a fascinating way at the moment. Really quickly. The support for Laurence Fox highlighted this. The popular anger with woke warriors. With hypocrisy. With social inequality.
As a number of us noted recently, young people in our families requested few or no Christmas presents. The world's resources no longer seem inexhaustible. HAMS have nothing to say about this. They are excessive consumers. Young people aren't outraged or indignant like older people. They are merely indifferent. Far more deadly to Meghan in the longer term.
Meghan has positioned herself with a way of being and spending which is dying before our eyes. When investors and media realise this, HAMS' options will close down.
I so understand this! 😀 Give me an island or a cottage in the middle of a wood or nowhere and I’m in my element, plus lots of cats (of course)! I love my own company too and prefer to blend in rather then stand out. Agree, few even my own family fail to understand the need for space and being alone. I recharge that way. 🙂 Meghan’s lust for the limelight, appeals to me like a hole in the head. 🤨
@Gabs, , ‘ install a vpn on your computer,’
I’m tried a few VPN’s so I could watch American programmes. To date, I’ve not found one that works. I gave up, and use an app (on my phone instead) and I download programmes from that, and watch on my laptop/telly screen.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-harry-meghan-markle-early-on-royal-life-wasnt-working-harvey-levin
Off topic...
I keep meaning to ask you - how do you get emoji's to use for this blog? :)
January 29, 2020 at 1:06 PM Delete
Please read the following hearing my voice dripping with sarcasm:
I do feel we need to stop and ask "But is MM OKAY?" because we do seem to forget to ask that question, don't we? Shame on us.
She is under tremendous pressure as she is hiding away with a husband who, however mistakenly, loves her, a doll who lets her sleep through the night, living in a multi-million dollar estate for free, with tens of millions in the bank...yes, Team Nutties, let us not forget to ask "Are you okay?"
***
Wish I could comment more around here, but I have the kind of job where I'm on my feet all day and by the time I'm at home in the evening the conversations have most often moved on.
Thank you, Nutty, for the blog and to all the posters for creating a welcoming, entertaining, and thoughtful on-line place to go.
Because I’m in my phone, and I select the ones I want from the keypad . 😁 Some blogs will recognise a ‘typed’ emoji e.g. :) and show it like this 🙂. I’ve not been that successful doing that way on Nutty’s.
That should have been:
Because I’m on my phone. 😁
I have to use a laptop as my fingers are too sore/clumsy for the small keypad on a phone.
Oh well, I'll keep trying to find a way!
Thanks, all the same. :-)
I don't think Andrew is innocent in all of this. I don't think ANYONE has ever said he's innocent. He's a sick and twisted individual. Is he on par with Epstein? No, I don't think so. Is he on par with other names who have been linked with Epstein? Again, no, I don't think so. There are a lot of sick people involved in this entire affair, many of whom have been named and many who have not. I think the FBI is investigating everything and everyone, and I believe that their little presser outing Andrew as "not being cooperative" may very well backfire on them. We'll see. Morality is not something one can attribute to Andrew, otherwise we would not all be discussing his proclivities with young women.
While this would be damaging to the RF, I very much doubt they are the only group that has a vested interest in keeping Maxwell quiet. There are some very rich and powerful people who were tied with Epstein. I imagine they do not want their names attached to this, and will do everything possible to ensure they never are.
Jessica Mulroney, Meghan Markle's alleged BFF, posted something on her instagram about posting pretty pictures are just pretty pictures and someone with a platform should do something with it. People say she was referring to Kate's photos for the Holocaust anniversary. Who knows.
Regardless of what she was vague instagramming about, she is annoying as hell.
You might be interested in this:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1234817/Meghan-Markle-news-Best-friend-sparks-fury-for-controversial-comment-in-Kate-post-row
Apparently her husband tried to defend her by claiming it was about flight 752, but nobody seems to believe that excuse funnily enough. The fact the post in question has been deleted says a lot to me; if it was as innocent as claimed then there'd be no reason to delete, surely?
o/
Another member of the introvert/social anxiety brigade here. My family nickname is "the hermit" lol
This seems like classic shadow projection to me.
Jessica's IG is full of photos of herself posing and she comes across as very shallow. She is unconscious of this so she points a finger of blame at someone else (for being shallow) ... in this case, Kate, who actually has great depth (perhaps a quality that Jessica unconsciously admires).
I see this in Meghan as well. Via unnamed friends she points a finger of blame at the BRF for being toxic. Meghan has a well-known history of being toxic in relationships, but she seems to be unaware of this and can justify and defend every ghosting and other abuse she has inflicted on friends, family and colleagues (it is always their fault).
But the explanation from her husband makes no sense at all.. the pictures of the crash of flight 752 were not "pretty" and the Canadian government is actively at work helping the families affected, giving $25,000 to each affected family and helping them to repatriate the bodies. As it is, some Canadians think that the $25,000 is too generous, as it is being given to anyone who was headed to Canada, even if they were not Canadian citizens.
for anyone who is interested - here is the tweet referenced for #grafting
https://twitter.com/CharliePurvey/status/1217159946145607688
Charles "Charlie" Purvey is the Videographer/Photographer/Picture Desk Manager at Splash News in the UK according to his linkedin page
His twitter account is "personal", has few followers and does not reference his job but you can see posts he has made which aren't all that Meg-friendly
‘Two Famous Men Are Dumb In Love’
There are so many curious things about this famous man’s relationship that it is hard to see the logic in what he is doing.
However, if you compare his relationship to that of another famous man, it actually begins to make more sense.
There is a lot of speculation that since the man in Couple 1 now knows it was his own girlfriend who betrayed him – and not some vast international conspiracy – that his breakup with her is imminent.
Not necessarily.
Not only that, someone who knows him well says that his relationship with his girlfriend is eerily similar to another famous couple that has been in the news a lot lately.
Their dynamic is almost identical to [Couple 2].
He is completely c*nt struck by her.
She has been setting him up from the beginning to distance him from his family and accept that she is IT. She has convinced him that she is the only one looking out for his best interests and everything she does is to help him. Everyone else is the enemy. She is the only one who could help him escape his former life and feel alive and help him craft his future and help him fulfill his potential and have a happy life.
You would think that a man who went to great schools and had a family that cared about him – and who is richer than most of us common folk will ever be – would be smart enough to see through this manipulation.
Nope!
She has always been a schemer and a climber, so it’s not like schools and family and money could have protected him. He is dumb in love. He believes her when she says that everything bad is someone else’s fault and it’s his job now to protect her and their relationship from all the haters.
This does sound similar to [Couple 2]. Any hope that he will come to his senses?
There is a serious legal situation that could potentially wake him up to what she’s done and help him finally realize that he got played. The problem is that he’s really invested in her at this point, so his actions might not be logical.
Couple 1 is dating. Couple 2 is married.
While the men in both couples are rich and famous, the man in Couple 1 is more well-known for his business.
The man in Couple 2 is more well-known for his family.’
https://blindgossip.com/two-famous-men-are-dumb-in-love/?unapproved=2496070&moderation-hash=1ddc4e4f26a4cec1791e16b8c7893a65#comment-2496070
Mulroney and MM are two peas in a pod; both are mediocre actresses who married way up. It's no wonder they're besties, they're the same person.
The Queen et al know how to play 4D chess like a pro, always three moves ahead, even when she's hit with a left hook out of the blue. Guess they've had enough experience with usurpers who go after one of their own, then get hit with the residual damage themselves. Celt News said on her latest video that M underestimated the cunning of Her Maj because The Queen can move in any direction, whereas M cannot hardly move at all. TQ has her privy council, lawyers, advisors, and even MI5/6/CIA to add their expertise, too. You and Ozmanda do need a white board!
It's pretty difficult to keep up with so many comments here, especially if you've been away for a while. I don't know if any of you have been getting sick too, if you have I feel so sorry for you - I had a nasty head cold that lasted nearly a month which made my head feel the size of Markle's gargantuan ego, migraines as a result. Plus I've been hitting press public boards like mad when I can - I'm banned now in so many places, I have to move around a lot. Then for not reason I can post again there, so I usually stick around until I'm banned again. lol
OT - Yankee Wally also hit on a very interesting find - that the face on the photo of A and H in Canada is 'allegedly' HER face. That when superimposing one of M's baby photos onto to Archie's face, the eyes, shadowing, size, placement, etc., are exactly the same as hers. Curiouser and curiouser.
The attempted or successful kidnapping angle for M's next move of staging an incident is a very compelling one; it's one she can control much more than a mob or car accident. We all know Princess Margaret had a close call with kidnappers - did she have 'international protected person' status or had she gone rogue that day? She seemed to have been quite the little loose cannon.
OT Again - I do think M will attempt to withdraw her lawsuit and use the excuse "to heal the family" and then immediately turn around and go back to ghosting, abusing, and whining about them again. It's how she rolls. She needs an out desperately, I think, from this lawsuit considering the DM says they have a million pound dossier on her ready to drop, and considering Thomas (I'm #TeamThomas all the way) has his own dossier to drop which will expose her lies to Harry and give him fraud as a grounds for divorce and custody) so either an incident where she cannot fly or appear in court to testify ("I'm a wounded creature who was just mobbed and I'm scared!"), or dropping the case entirely are the only ways to avoid testifying.
“But I have yet to see any evidence that he's a particularly moral person.”
No – he’s not and we know this so why the sudden outrage that he won’t do the ‘right’ thing?
“Also, to be blunt, who has a more vested interest in keeping Maxwell under wraps than the BRF? Exposing details of Andrew's extra-curricular activities would certainly be one reason.”
Andrew’s extra-curricular activities are pretty well-known…but other people’s activities are not. So again, why the sudden outrage about Andrew? Why not the “others” who have not yet been exposed because the media won’t cover them? Why are they focusing on Andrew?
Why are the Epstein victims not pursuing justice in – say, France or the UK?
This might be a different story if MI5 or 6 or whoever was interested in questioning Andrew…but they apparently aren’t.
I agree that the average FBI agent is a solid, upstanding official – but the agency as a whole has proven that they are not. The rules are not the same for PTB in the US. Powerful people are being protected here – and it isn’t Andrew. Ask yourself who and why?
poppycock said…
“Seriously, what is it with such aversion to pantyhose? England is chilly, only in summer it's nice enough for bare legs. They're soft and comfy if one isn't too fat, and they're not made of nylon anymore, especially those more expensive. I lived in Italy and France and travelled all over Europe, and noticed that women always wear them in winter. Plus they can be sexy and make legs look better and firmer.”
While I despise pantyhose, I don’t get her refusal to wear them. I believe it is mainly just to break protocol to prove she can.
I hate them because it is hot in the US and frankly, I AM too fat – but I do wear leggings in winter sometimes and would wear hose if it was the rules – in exchange for the benefits she HAD.
To carefully state a fact, certain older members of the RF could occasionally use pantyhose that are a bit more opaque.
Nutty Flavor said…
“ …a trip to Mexico would be the way to do it.”
Living near Mexico…I would tend to disagree. Kidnapping is routine in Mexico but the people involved rarely emerge unscathed.
You will never get reliable cooperation from the government or the cartels to support any kind of a story. Even whoever made the arrangements is at extreme risk. Just sayin’
Ava C said…
“Having only one story to tell has made me consider Priscilla Presley again. Googling throws up near identical print interview headlines going back as far as 1979. She has managed to tell basically the same story for more than 40 years. But talent is behind this. Elvis' talent. Someone who is still loved. I think this is the only way such a thin offering can continue to be bought (no disrespect intended to Priscilla, whose exquisite beauty was also a factor for years - something else Meghan doesn't have).”
I personally bought Priscilla’s book in the 80s – and her continued existence has indeed, only been because she was beautiful and had the King of Rock n Roll’s daughter. Meghan has neither of these things – not particularly beautiful and a kid who may or may not exist as the Son of a quickly diminishing spare.
Crass – but they blew their wad.
I think it is very likely that she is "speaking" for MM in the press since MM can't.
MM was very vocal about "getting to work right away" so it must infuriate her to see Kate doing these projects. And the papers are not holding back, I saw a headline yesterday about describing Kate as "a Royal who knows how to behave."
I think MM is in full-on rage mode now.
Yes, I reckon so! I wasn’t sure who, but now you’ve said it, I agree! 🙂
@Raspberry Ruffle,
I have to use a laptop as my fingers are too sore/clumsy for the small keypad on a phone.
Oh well, I'll keep trying to find a way!
Thanks, all the same. :-)
Heh, don't feel so all alone! I refuse to text because by the time I try to correct the danged errors or the autocorrect errors, it would have been much faster for me to pick up the phone and impart everything that needs to be said in a minute instead of me texting basic info, then texting answers to the follow up questions and the follow up follow up questions.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7922195/Oligarchs-lawyer-knows-Meghan-Harrys-Canadian-homes-SECRET-owner-revealed.html
Worry not. 😀Have you seen my posts?! 🥴 I have small hands and fingers, but my comments are full of errors of every kind, it’s why I tend write short comments, and even then my phone is autocorrecting/predicting most if not all of my text. I don’t have time to use my laptop etc., so this is a compromise. 🤗
You will never get reliable cooperation from the government or the cartels to support any kind of a story. Even whoever made the arrangements is at extreme risk. Just sayin’
I tend to regard the Mexican government and the cartels and the police and the army as being intertwined/interconnected. The non-corrupt ones tend to end up deaded in very bad ways. Wouldn't want to have anything to do with either. (I have lived in El Paso and on the drug smuggling routes in Arizona. There have been a lot of not publicized cases of kidnapping going on on US soil as well as cartel killings here that are deemed not sufficiently interesting to report or are deliberately suppressed for political purposes in the national media.)
I can see where Meghan, who is soooo much smarter than everybody else, might get a wild hair to, say, visit dear old dad to mend fences in Mexico and *poof* Archie disappears (or so she claims). I hope not because he would not survive long in a Mexican prison.