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
Very entertaining summation of the mess the RF now finds itself in.
MEGHAN'S GONE AWOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCROaaQuk
Ashli is a Southern woman. Does she feel sorry for the Royal Family? No.
"Karma may be a slow heifer, but she'll catch up with you in the end, y'all."
*********
Perhaps a future topic for discussion can be . ."Meghan: Solo Destruction Artist, or Does She Have Shadowy Backers?'
At the beginning of all this, I dismissed the 'backers' theory as far too complex. A two-bit hustling grifter from Hollywood, who'd been hustling all her life and obsessed with Princess Diana polished a tale to snare a dimbulb Prince, son of dead Princess. Of *course* she had her eye on the money and global fame this marriage would get her. Face it, Harry is neither accomplished or good looking. He was only a prize because of his family.
True to my expectations, Meg grabbed all the couture, cheap-ass jewelry and shoes she could get her hands on. Reveled in getting her picture taken, constantly. Played the audacious role of 'expectant mother'. Thumbed her nose at the Royal codes of dress and behavior at every opportunity.
All of this was irritating, but essentially harmless . . two very immature people acting out their weirdly dysfunctional relationship in public.
Then came the Birth of Archie and events have snowballed. The Harkles go from one colossal PR landmine to another, blowing things up heedlessly (seemingly so). The insanely reckless actions since South Africa . . MM's brazen lawsuits against a powerful media conglomerate, followed by the manifesto, amid a PR machine that's still pumping out enough fawning articles about her, at least in the States to have created a cult of sycophants around Her Wokeness . . Even given that Meg has a narcissistic personality disorder and no scruples, the destruction she has wrought in under 2 years to a venerable institution that has endured for over 1000 years seems so far beyond the devious talents of a woman who was barely able to get an acting job in 15 years that wasn't on her knees.
Two years ago, she was laid off from her supporting gig on a basic cable show. Now she's ensconced in a multi-million dollar mansion owned by a shady Russian. Is 'oligarch' code for 'gangster'? I kind of believe it. Until recently all these celebs were falling all over themselves to offer Megsy and her Handbag vacation homes, free private jets and all sorts of things. Is it *just* because Harry was a royal? He's the 'Fredo' of the RF, so he was an easy 'in', but he's so far down in the power structure, the access he could provide was always going to be limited.
Has Meg really engineered all of this by herself, or has she had help? Staged pap walks with baby dolls seems to be about her level of gamesmanship, and yet she's got Russian billionaires and the Prime Minister of Canada falling all over themselves to give her things. Why? There has got to be a catch.
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.
Thanks Swampy! :) I have exactly the same problem, so whenever possible, (usually only with close friends and family) I tend to use the voice-clip facility on WhatsApp. It makes life so much easier for me.
@Raspberry Ruffle,
Worry not. ��Have you seen my posts?!
I have... and they usually look fine to me! (probably because whilst reading them, my mind is trying to figure out how to get those damn emoji's!!) LOL
future Queen I am getting a little tired of the PA saga.
Highly unlikely, he has his private island Necker which he spends most of his time on. 😀 I think he even sold his British home some years back.
@louise, I don't see Mulroney taking in to consideration her familial ties to Judaism. I do not believe she's an acting member of any synagogue, so she's a bit tone deaf. This was straight up trying to make Kate look bad and as usual, it backfired. They (MM and Jess) are two aging, unattractive, pathetic individuals who find pleasure in belittling the efforts of others, when they themselves do NOTHING. What has either Jess OR Meg done to make the world a better place?
Their whole persona seems to be caught up in being the "hot girl" yet they are no longer girls. If they had anything else they would have moved on beyond that phase. Those photographs that the DoC took memorializing the survivors and their family ties will live on forever. Perhaps in the future, those grandchildren will be pictured when they are grandmothers with their progeny along with the picture of their grandmother/grandfather.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/meghan-s-jewish-best-friend-goes-global-jessica-mulroney-1.464627
So who is Jessica Mulroney?
A 38-year-old fashion stylist and frequent chat-show guest, Ms Mulroney was born in Montreal to Stephen and Veronica Brownstein, clothing manufacturers whose success helped buy a pile in the exclusive enclave of Westmount.
Her extended family also controls one of Canada’s retail empires. Great-uncle Benjamin Brownstein founded Browns Shoes as a single Montreal shop in 1940. Browns now operates 60 stores nationwide; second cousin Michael Brownstein is its chief executive.
While Jessica worked for her father for a short time, she and sister Elizabeth launched a sleepwear and lingerie distribution company on their own, winning Canadian rights to brands La Perla and Cosabella, according to an adoring July 2017 Toronto Life magazine profile.
The Mulroneys and Brownsteins were neighbours in Westmount, and Ben and Jessica met as children. After a long courtship and short engagement, the pair had their own “royal” wedding in 2008; in a ceremony blessed by a rabbi and priest at Montreal’s neo-Gothic St Patrick’s Basilica, guests including Margaret Thatcher and George HW Bush watched the couple recite vows they wrote
__________________________________________
https://www.kveller.com/the-jewish-mom-at-the-heart-of-meghan-markle-and-prince-harrys-royal-wedding/
Jessica Mulroney, BFF to the newly minted Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle, didn’t quite steal the show at the royal wedding, as some news outlets are reporting. (I mean, how could anyone detract from Meghan Markle!?!?). But Jewish mom Mulroney played a major role in the big day.
Though Mulroney, 38, may now be most famous for her blue dress (some said it was her “Pippa moment”), the stylist is also the mom of three Jewish kids who played key roles in the royal wedding: daughter Ivy, 4, was a bridesmaid, and 7-year-old twins Brian and John held Markle’s veil as she climbed the church steps and walked down the aisle.
Jessica Mulroney
(That’s Mulroney, on the right, who sat right behind Markle during the ceremony. If you want to know more about who sat where, here’s a seating chart, courtesy of the Daily Mail.)
Mulroney, born Jessica Brownstein, is the daughter of Veronica and Stephen Brownstein. When she married Ben Mulroney (son of a former Canadian Prime Minister) in October 2008, a “Monsignor” (a Roman Catholic official) officiated alongside a rabbi. The Montreal Gazette reported that “the Catholic and Jewish elements of the ceremony fit together well.”
A “source” told Vanity Fair last month about Mulroney, “She’s the one helping Meghan to make all the key decisions. They are on the phone daily discussing every element of the wedding, from the dress to the flowers to the canapés and the photography. Meghan is very dependent on Jessica and Jessica has been totally indispensable. She’s helped Meghan and Harry with so much already.”
Meg appeared on the scene at the *precise* time that the Jeffrey Epstein scandal was kicking off. She has been linked to Ghislane Maxwell and the yachting world. Andrew himself may have availed himself of her offerings before Harry, as has Tom Inskip. So, at the very time Andrew is being outed as a pal of Epstein and probable client of 17-year-old girls procured for him by his friend, a virtually unknown actress who's been photographed with JE's girlfriend/madam is given permission to marry Andrew's dim nephew . . a shotgun style engagement/wedding that, despite the consent of the Queen, nobody but *nobody* supports?
Everyone in the Firm has avoided the Sussexes like toxic poison for the last two years, apart from the ceremonial events which force them to be in proximity for public consumption. The royal family present at the Harkle wedding all looked as though they were in attendance at a funeral. Yes, Markle is a difficult, cruel person who stirs the pot of contention and strife at every turn. But at the time of the wedding, nobody knew her well at all. Most of them had never even met her. Word of her diva antics over the wedding preparations and the earlier incident when she was caught trying to film/record private areas in KP would have gotten around. But such a collective reaction of dare I say, aversion to the bride goes beyond personality clashes or dressing-down over taking pictures inside a palace. Even if most of the Family disliked Harry's choice and thought he was making a mistake that would likely end in divorce, I'd suppose that most would put a supportive face on and hope for the best. But the groom himself was visibly shaken and upset, not the normal nerves or giddy tears of a man marrying his bride. The atmosphere was grim, for such an ostensibly joyous event. Everybody (not counting the imported celebrities who barely know the couple or not at all) looked as though they had been compelled there under duress--Even the Queen, who wore a face like thunder throughout. What would compel Her Majesty to consent to a decision she was so visibly displeased about? She could have said No to this church spectacle, even if she couldn't technically deny her 33-year-old grandson, #6, the woman of his choice. But *was* she really Harry's choice? Why does he wear a face at the altar like he's facing a firing squad at times, alternating with remarks like 'You look amazing'. I can't figure out what was going on in the subtext, but whatever it was wasn't good.
Something sinister was afoot that day . .that's the feeling I get now, watching footage and photos from the wedding. The fly knew it.
Has Meg really engineered all of this by herself, or has she had help? Staged pap walks with baby dolls seems to be about her level of gamesmanship, and yet she's got Russian billionaires and the Prime Minister of Canada falling all over themselves to give her things. Why? There has got to be a catch.
We do tend to look for a bigger conspiracy of more intelligent people using the less intelligent for their own purposes. (I will say that I am in that camp.) Could I be wrong, though? Could it just be a case of a group of millennials thinking they are waaaay smarter than what they are coming up with this plan to milk the media and royal family and charities while sniggering at their own cleverness? (Apologies to the capable, hard-working millennials that I know are out there.)
Thanks for the article.
"The lawyer has also made no comment about his anonymous client, failing to respond to questions DailyMail.com asked him about the property despite a new Canadian transparency law coming into force in May.
That will compel him to reveal the owner of the mansion in a public register in British Columbia - forcing Meghan and Harry's secret into the open.
Their secrecy has already raised questions over whether they are paying for their accommodation, and why they are so keen for the owner's name to be kept secret."
Exactly, why?
"David Foster, the Canadian music producer, told DailyMail.com that he is a friend of the owner and arranged the royal couple's stay.
But now the other person who knows their name is revealed as a a low-profile attorney whose clients have included Vladimir Putin's former right hand man, Igor Shuvalov, multi-millionaire former KGB spy, Alexander Lebedev, along with Evgeny, his media mogul son."
"Tulloch [the attorney] directs 10 oligarchs' charities, including Russian billionaire investor Alexander Mamut's Mamut Foundation, Russian internet giant Mail.ru co-founder Mikhail Vinchel's Vinchel Foundation, and his Mail.ru partner Milner's Milner Foundation."
There's more in the article. Something very dodgy is going on.
good you tube video there from Danja Zone. Very well produced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCROaaQuk
Meghan Has Gone AWOL Without A Word
63,108 views
•Jan 10, 2020
____________________
@Hikari says>
Two years ago, she was laid off from her supporting gig on a basic cable show. Now she's ensconced in a multi-million dollar mansion owned by a shady Russian. Is 'oligarch' code for 'gangster'? I kind of believe it.At the beginning of all this, I dismissed the 'backers' theory as far too complex. A two-bit hustling grifter from Hollywood, who'd been hustling all her life and obsessed with Princess Diana polished a tale to snare a dimbulb Prince, son of dead Princess. Of *course* she had her eye on the money and global fame this marriage would get her. Face it, Harry is neither accomplished or good looking. He was only a prize because of his family.
True to my expectations, Meg grabbed all the couture, cheap-ass jewelry and shoes she could get her hands on. Reveled in getting her picture taken, constantly. Played the audacious role of 'expectant mother'. Thumbed her nose at the Royal codes of dress and behavior at every opportunity.
I am only disputing that she was laid off from lame-ass "Suits". Megsy resigned and quit. This series had just one more season to go, was going to be terminated and she was going to stay with it for the income if nothing else. Then Hapless came along. Why would she be laid off Suits for the final season?
Megsy saw the chance of a lifetime to upgrade into the BRF. A future life of Royal leisure and security. Income security which she needed as she was aging out of her acting career. Hollywood is cruel this way, but is a fact of life due to fierce competition from younger up and comers always entering this game.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7939501/Misha-Nonoo-releases-maternity-line-help-pregnant-woman-wardrobe-stylish.html
That is a basic human dynamic. Any interaction/relationship, whether between a couple, a group of friends or a company of interrelated departments is rarely one of 'equals' each having the same level of power/control. Whether it's a small negotiation, like who deserves the last brownie on a plate to bigger ones like company policy, more assertive individuals tend to get their way while more conciliatory individuals give way to keep the peace. The smartest individuals aren't always the ones who get ahead, but it helps, particularly if one is willing to make it a priority to put oneself forward in addition to being smart. People who are shy, or who are not as quick-thinking as others tend to get trampled on. American culture in particular rewards the most extroverted, assertive individuals regardless of how sophisticated their intellects are. But intellectually sharper people can always take advantage of those less sharp or just more trusting, if they don't have any qualms about taking advantage of people for their own ends. We know this describes Meg in relation to Harry and every man she's ever used.
I believe Meg is perfectly capable of doing damage on her own, and she has. The documentary, the lawsuits, the press war with the Cambridges, the gossip mongering and passing the buck of blame . . all these are down to her and her stewpot of greed and aberrant thinking. Harry has contributed his own issues to this mess . . together these two are a Perfect Storm of dysfunction. But Meg seems to display a confidence and ability to slither out of catastrophes of her own making, not to mention a seemingly limitless resources for PR and bots that go far beyond what the Royal family would have provided. Where does she get these resources and what kind of protection (besides the ever-handy racism card) does she possess? A normal Narc, if there is such a thing, would have made Harry's personal relationships chaotic and stirred the pot for her own entertainment, and Meg has done these things. They gave her so much latitude, it's like she had to go further and further and further. "I pretended to be pregnant for 11 months and have a baby, carry a dolly around in public and they never questioned me?" "Okay, I need to take it up a notch--I will flaunt a baby on TV with a black leader and then after gobs of favorable coverage I will give a TV interview that disses the BRF and the entire nation and THEN I'm going to sue the Daily Mail for printing 'stories' I gave them myself!'
"Gee, I did all that and they *still* haven't deported me?? Okay, time for the Big Guns--cue website of terrorist demands, and accusing hubby's family of every -ism under the sun. Then take off and leave Harry in the sh*t while I kick back in the hot tub with complimentary champers and enjoy the view of Puget Sound from my indefinitely-comped mansion. Because I'm in Canada.
Or AM I? That dolt Justin Trudeau thinks so, but I'm not saying."
****
Now she's hiding out, nobody knows where, but I doubt she's in a gutter in a cardboard box, or that it's ever going to come to that. She's been really reckless, for somebody who schemed so long to snag a rich celebrity man. She landed a whale . . does she really throw it all away now because 'she's not thriving' by being expected to don hosiery and shake hands? Or does she walk away now, having destabilized things in the monarchy to Defcon 1, to watch things burn from a safe distance because there was always going to be a soft landing for her after Job Done?
She's gone and burned bridges with Oprah by claiming that it was Oprah that actively encouraged her and Harry to leave the Royal Family. Oprah has categorically denied ever saying that. So . . .the mental health documentary series with Harry is probably off.
A woman who brazenly makes enemies of Oprah and the Queen of England either has some powerful silent friends OR she really is the bat-sh*t craziest person on stilettos that I've ever encountered.
>>>I am only disputing that she was laid off from lame-ass "Suits". Megsy resigned and quit.<<
I confess I've never watched Suits, except for painful clips of Rachel 'acting' that I've encountered on Tumblr. I watched those for the research value.
It is my understanding that Meg's character, Rachel Zane, was slated to be written off the show in the next season. Her character had gotten married, though I can't say whether it was to the same guy she famously had vigorous carnal knowledge of up against a file cabinet. Meg had a good run on the show, considering her level of talent and the general unpopularity of her character. (This is anecdotal, as I've never seen the show but none of the commentators I have followed have anything good to say about Meg's acting abilities or the depth she brought to 'Rachel'. It was good enough to catch Harry's eye, allegedly, but I don't think he was in it for her acting nuances, myself.
Suits did indeed run for several more seasons. I think its most recent one, the 9th, is the end of the series. Meghan's character was never planned to be part of these seasons. So if MM 'resigned', it was a face-saving way to say 'My character was written off the show already because I was deemed too much trouble to continue working with for the value I brought.'
I'd question the veracity of anything Rachel says that makes her seem more empowered and in control of a situation. 'Resigned' does sound way better than 'let go because my character and people's tolerance of my diva antics had run their courses.'
@IEschew
Here we go, Nutties (I hope—haven’t read all the way through but wanted to share ASAP):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7922195/Oligarchs-lawyer-knows-Meghan-Harrys-Canadian-homes-SECRET-owner-revealed.html
________
This is prime material. The DM sleuths tracked down the London lawyer who knows who owns H&M's current BC house. The BC Mansion owner is his client. This lawyer is "lawyer to the oligarchs" Many good oligarch photos at DM.
From DM:
A British lawyer for dozens of oligarchs is holding the secret of who lent Prince Harry and Meghan Markle a Canadian mansion for their winter getaway, DailyMail.com can disclose.
Alastair Tulloch is known among the Russian elite as the go-to London attorney for billionaires and well-connected politicians, using complex corporate structures in secretive jurisdictions around the world.
And until now, the 64-year-old has managed to remain largely out of the public eye, despite having managed the companies of at least 27 Russian and Eastern European oligarchs and business tycoons as well as firms linked to Elton John and Kylie Minogue.
In today's 'cancel culture' it's easy to destroy someone's reputation in a short amount of time. What's interesting is will Megs get 'canceled' by her own dirt, or will she damage an old & revered institution while making herself wealthy?
@IEschew's link to story about the lawyer to Russian oligarchs.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7922195/Oligarchs-lawyer-knows-Meghan-Harrys-Canadian-homes-SECRET-owner-revealed.html
You just might be right. That Megsy was allowed to quit "Suits" before she was laid off. Perhaps for something as simple as a cost cutting measure. Perhaps, as you say, 'cause Megs was a major pain for the producers to deal with.
We do know that when she was sure she had successfully latched onto Hapless, she was outta there. Outta Suits.
A few short remarks: I cannot imagine Richard Branson being the owner of the Canadian mansion, if only because Richard has better taste in interior design.
And re Priscilla Presley: I don't think her situation or character compares to Megs at all. PaisleyGuy is a huge Elvis fan, so I've had to watch a LOT of Elvis documentaries over the years. This summer we visited Graceland, which was a dream come true for PaisleyGuy. Anyway, I have a lot of respect for Priscilla. She is a shrewd businesswoman and really saved Graceland from destruction/sale/Lisa Marie's bad money decisions. In everything she does, you can feel she still loves Elvis and only acts in accordance with what he would have wanted. And THAT is the difference with Megs, who only acts in her own best interests and never does anything out of love for Harry.
A woman who brazenly makes enemies of Oprah and the Queen of England either has some powerful silent friends OR she really is the bat-sh*t craziest person on stilettos that I've ever encountered.
_____________________________________
What are the chances she has some valuable dirt on one (or more) of the guys she yachted?
I'd say it was extremely likely but a 2-edged sword because, if she is annoying enough, she becomes a problem to be removed by people that are very good at problem solving. If she suddenly expires in an automobile accident or random mugging or is an innocent victim in a drive by, we'll have our answer. It wouldn't be immediately, I think, but after the inevitable divorce.
Ashli at Dania zone is certifiably crazy IMO and thinks the real harry died at age 4 and this is an imposter. She also thinks PP and Elizabeth and the royal family are lizards who eat children.
WHY would you keep recommending her since she found a new way of grifting by making new videos that say what you want to hear?
That is as surely a fake southern accent as I have ever heard. Why would you keep linking to her to get her income from this?
Do you believe the royal family are lizards who eat children?
For real? My image could use some burnishing; I wonder if she could spread those lizardoid child-eating rumors about me!
/People may even stop asking me to potty train their children.
Hmmm. Does anybody have any x-rays or MRIs of the royal family? Maybe that's why!
/I should probably tag this as humor for those that are quite literal.
I'd say it was extremely likely but a 2-edged sword because, if she is annoying enough, she becomes a problem to be removed by people that are very good at problem solving.
_______________________________________
SwampWoman, here I'm running into a problem I had with President George W. Bush. The news media either said A) He was an idiot or B) He was some kind of evil genius. Never knew who to believe.
Same with Markle. She has proven herself to be completely tone-deaf about the RF, but here are these currents coming out behind the scenes.
I don't want her to wind up in a tunnel in Paris (which Diana brought on herself, by dismissing the pro British security for Al-Fayed's goons) -- but I wonder what her fate will be.
I would also highlight the techies who are noted in the piece. This may be a stretch, but something about Alexis Ohanian’s tweet about charlatans has stuck with me. I kept wondering if he was not dropping little hints with his repeated disclaimers about only being able to speak from a tech context. Who knows, but it has stuck with me.
So here we have Russians, politics, tech, and famous entertainers all crossing paths in a London attorney’s office. We also have a reinvigorated push on the Epstein front and PA this week, plus a new Epstein lawsuit out of Minnesota. May be coincidence, but Meg is too stupid to have orchestrated this all by her lonesome.
The only missing link is Soho House. What are Burkle connections, if any, to the clients listed in the article? And where’s Markus? I wish there were a sketchpad in Blogger so I could draw Where’s Waldo but with Markus’ shifty mug.
Thanks for your response and the link. It’s fun to read about new theories. The Lindbergh case, “the crime of the century,” is like all the famous well-known people murders (the Kennedy brothers, Dr. Martin Luther King, etc.)—new theories and books frequently. From my reading, I do believe Hauptmann was guilty, but may have had helpers. The family was so harassed they became reclusive & spent a lot of time in Hana, Maui, Hawaii. James Mitchner said it’s the most beautiful beach in the world. It still is not very accessible—either helicopter there or drive on the scariest road I’ve ever been on. Anyway.
In some ways, MM is similar to the Lindbergh’s. So many rumors are flying around, many of which there is no way to verify.
“The American First Committee dissolved in December 1941 in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. After the Pearl Harbor attack, Lindbergh publicly supported the United States war effort. He went on to fly dozens of combat missions as a civilian contractor in the Pacific Theater of WWII.”—Google
Thanks again for providing this blog. I just love it.
The only missing link is Soho House. What are Burkle connections, if any, to the clients listed in the article? And where’s Markus? I wish there were a sketchpad in Blogger so I could draw Where’s Waldo but with Markus’ shifty mug.
And I'm still curious about the cause of death of Ron Burkle's son, Andrew.
Yes, it was the chance of a lifetime. Truly, apart from the machinations she herself employed (using carefully curated PR to turn her thin and dodgy resume into a glowing testimonial for a bright, articulate, compassionate biracial multilingual humanitarian who would be such an asset to the Royal Family!), an obsessively studied presentation to subliminally remind Harry constantly of his dead mother, and the love-bombing at which Narcs are so skilled . . Meg's rise to her present position depended on a lot of factors out of her direct control. She hustled hard and paid off a lot of people and told a lot of lies to get where she is, but she also had the Zeitgeist in her favor. She was only able to achieve a modest level of success and exposure in her acting career and she's been hustling for 20 years. But--the gods smiled on Rachel by bringing her to the attention of a not-terribly-bright but definitely available royal prince who was known to enjoy a good time. Harry's kind of good time was right up Rachel's street, and she had been laying the groundwork for several years to meet, if not Harry, someone like him, by cultivating contacts who knew people who knew Harry. So it was a combination of hustling, backdoor deals (Rach brings a whole new meaning to backdoor deal, I'm sure), well-chosen contacts and a big dollop of luck on her side.
Rachel always believed that she was meant for the high life, but she got lucky.
--Lucky that she ingratiated herself with a group of people who happened to have ties to the royal family through Andrew. This was years before she set her sights on Harry, but maybe, if she ran into Andrew at one of JE's 'parties' that set the wheels in motion to consider Harry a prospect. Bonus! . . instant blackmail dirt.
--Lucky that her target was so susceptible to her charms/con. They would have all been to no avail if Harry had been in a relationship already, or working in Africa like he said he always wanted to, or if he'd never seen 'Suits' or if he was not in the place in his life where he was longing to get married and have what his brother had. In short, he was ripe for the plucking. If Meg had showed up a year or two earlier, Haz might not have ever given her a second look. Serendipity. In sales, timing is everything. If the customer is not ready to commit to buying, or if he's made up his mind that he's *not* buying, chances of closing the sale are slim. Harry was ready to buy and he swallowed everything she was selling.
a) available, malleable Prince who is ready to settle down with somebody just like his Mum
b) Malleable Prince's dotty wannabe-woke Pa who carried residual guilt about the death of his boys' mum and also intrinsic laziness, meaning that Pa would be apt to give Son what he wanted. Bonus for the future King Charles III . .mad Woke points from the Millennials for his progressivism in so openly welcoming a half-black daughter-in-law. See? We are not all pale, stale colonial imperialists! I have a black daughter-in-law and I walked her down the aisle
c) the current Woke/Eco-Warrior culture which MM came of age in and is an embodiment of, at least the shallower, hypocritical aspects of it. She is not an original thinker . .she has embraced the trends-du-jour like many of her peers and seen through them a platform to promote herself as greater than sliced bread. Harry is in her peer group and he has a similar desire.
d) celebs with pop culture influence and deep pockets who were all too happy to be invited to a royal wedding and milk a royal connection in exchange for small favors like offers of work, free housing, private jets & glowing testimonials as to how great Rach is, suitable for posting on Instagram
Meg is, on one hand, unique in her particular brand of Narcissism, but on the other, she is a typical example of her milieu: the ultra-liberal Hollywood show business Millennial. Her 'brand' is not original in the least. It's very trendy . . she just lucked into a huge global platform for it on account of marrying who she did.
Had Meg been exactly the same person, with the same traits, but if the timing of her con had been off by even a year or two . . or if she'd been born a few years earlier--before 'Instagram Influencer' was a job title--or a few years later, and thus been too young to fixate on Princess Diana the way she did . . things would be very different now.
But look at how much we still dissect all the moving parts and 'accidents of fate' which contributed to the Titanic disaster. The Sussex Disaster will be studied for generations to come. Meg's Ship of Dreams has run aground, and she put it there . . . but why? Considering all the work, and luck, that went into this merger, she should have played it out for more than 18 months. There's a spanner in the works. Why did she cut and run now? Will we ever know?
I have not read the article about the BC home owners as yet, but have read your theories about dodgy backers and so forth.
Something has troubled me about these Russian connections. I ask is there a connection to what I am theorising.
Markle wanted the Vladimir tiara , it was refused by the Queen because of some hard for me to understand reasons about Russia. Now Markle has fled the UK and is staying in a property owned by Russian millionaires. The bot activities targeting Royal family journalists social media accounts , came from , I think , some unknown place in Russia.
What I am saying is, perhaps there is a connection to the tiara and her living in the Russian owned property. What is the history of that tiara? Is it possible these Russian millionaires wanted it returned to its rightful owner and country? But she failed to get the tiara. So she fled. Just my theory.
Lemon tea
Oh there’s a catch alright, but it’s frightening to think how deep it may run. Your summations about the steady disintegration of the last two years are spot on. Who could make this up?! But I agree and suspect, as others do, that it’s all falling apart on her now, and she’s increasingly alone on the hamster wheel.
Same with Markle. She has proven herself to be completely tone-deaf about the RF, but here are these currents coming out behind the scenes.
She seems to be very good at making implacable enemies in both low and high places.
She seems to be very good at making implacable enemies in both low and high places.
________________________________
Seems really reckless to me. Almost as if she were asking to be taken out. But also as if she felt she has some kind of trump card.
I don't understand how all the secrecy earns Harry and her any brownie points. It's almost as if they don't care. The whole world, well, most of it, is skeptical anymore, to say the least (except for us Americans, so gullible, *sigh*)
I would like to know the real story, but I guess we are only left to guess, for now.
Interesting point about the tiara.
But the tiara story never sounded right to me. Sure, I can imagine M asking for a tiara that wasn't offered, including the Vladimir. She likely would be that rude. But the reply that it wasn't suitable to wear because of Russian connections makes no sense. After all, TQ wears it.
The only way I can imagine that being said was if the staff person showing H&M the tiaras that were offered made that reason up off the top of her head rather than say "This is it. Choose one or get out."
I seriously doubt TQ was actually present at the tiara selection appt. I expect she had decided what was to be offered, but wasn't actually present. I also don't think Harry would have said "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets" to TQ, at least not back then. To staff? Sure. And staff would likely have conveyed that to TQ.
>>>Oh there’s a catch alright, but it’s frightening to think how deep it may run . . .
I know, and I'm properly scared . . what are *your* theories?
Gotta be Epstein-related, don't you think? I always thought it was so 'coincidental' that out of all the starlets Harry could have chosen to date, he stumbled into one with documented ties to Jeffrey Epstein. There are pictures of Meghan with JE and his GF. Meg is a known yacht girl. Adding up the pieces--she was most likely an Epstein party girl. She would have been in her 20s, so a bit old for Jeffrey, but plenty young enough for other old leches at these parties, like Harvey Weinstein (cf. CDAN blind about HW having had sex with the bride, MM). So she likely met Andrew (and whatever 'meeting' entails.) Maybe even met Harry then, too. Harry BFF-once-upon-a-time Tom Inskip seems to have made her acquaintance. Old Etonians travel in packs, don't they? Maybe all of Haz's old school chums sampled his bride. Must have been a nasty shock for Uncle Andy to meet his nephew's fiancee and realize he'd 'met' her before.
So funny, then, that right after Markle joins the Firm, the Epstein affair kicks off. Stories and photos start to leak about PA's activities with Epstein's chief accuser. Epstein dies mysteriously. Andy probably thought 'I'm saved!' . .but not so fast, Your Royal Highness. Stories ramped up. Dumbass interview of denials. Mummy fires him from the Firm and the FBI still wants to talk to him.
A lid had been kept on all this stuff for 15+ years, and the very summer Markle joins the family, it's blown sky-high? What *were* the chances? She's either an informant or has the greatest knack for being in just the right place at the most opportune time I've ever seen. Rach is cleverer than Harry (not hard) but she's not *that* clever. She's a chess piece. If she were a card, she'd be the Knave. Knave-ette? Maybe I will start calling her 'Harley Quinn' . . but that would mean she'd be just the moll of the real criminal mastermind--Harry is no Joker. Joke, yes, but he's not the engine derailing this train. Poor lamb is the caboose and he only thinks he's out front.
I would not be surprised if MM had made a survey of all the tiaras available to the RF and made a decision.
Why did she choose the Vladimir? The largest emeralds, or the fact that the Queen wears it?
After the details came out that she wanted lodging at Windsor (the Queen's weekend residence), I suspect she wanted the Vladimir because the Queen, thus inviting favorable comparisons to her and the Queen.
That supposition out of the way...
I await the Kraken.
P.S. I already know I am going to hell for mocking this situation.
@Swampwoman said....I'd say it was extremely likely but a 2-edged sword because, if she is annoying enough, she becomes a problem to be removed by people that are very good at problem solving. If she suddenly expires in an automobile accident or random mugging or is an innocent victim in a drive by, we'll have our answer. It wouldn't be immediately, I think, but after the inevitable divorce.
Honestly, this would work in the favor of the people she may have dirt on. Right now at least, if they take care of their problem, it would likely be laid at the feet of the RF.
So, I'm wondering . . .the Epstein stuff is out re. Andrew. He's blustering but everyone knows he had sex with underage girls and he liked it. Mummy has given him his punishment, and even if the FBI does succeed in interrogating him, a British prince will not serve time in an American prison for (alleged) indiscretions with teenage prostitutes from 15 years ago. If Megsy was sent to out Andrew . . well, that's out, so you would think, diffused.
Andrew's activities were unsavory, but what if the FBI wants to talk to him about something worse? Like . . murder? What went on at those parties that he may have been a witness to?
When I was thinking--What could possibly have been enough of a bombshell to compel this marriage? None of the usual things seemed enough. Breach of contract? Pregnancy? Harry's gay and Meg has proof? Harry consorted with prostitutes, underage or no? Involved with drug dealers . . maybe using his privileged position to run drugs? (too enterprising for Haz, I would have thought) Plus, how could Meg lob some of these grenades without having splashback on herself . . as participant in the same illegal activities?
What is the worst crime a human being can commit? It's not paying teenage girls thousands of dollars to have sex with sweaty old guys. Not doing drugs or even having a drug empire. Not having alternative sexuality or getting somebody pregnant outside of marriage.
Murder.
Multiple murders.
What if JE was making snuff films or teenage girls died as a result of sex play or torture at his 'parties', with the consent of the participants? If Harry or Andrew or both were implicated in murder, even accidentally . . there would be an incentive to give a grifting American her Princess Bride wedding, the title, the whole caboodle.
That's the worst thing I can think of. And Andrew may have been more active in the recruitment and that whole scene than he's admitted to.
Did Rachel flee the Royal family because she was afraid of getting killed? This just gets deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. Because frankly, the BRF's lax approach to managing her and the latitude they have given her, even now, suggests a lot more than being accused of being racist is at play here.
So how is David Foster tied to the lawyer in London?
As I understand the situation, the tiara was acquired legitimately after the Russian Revolution by the RF & it is considered OK for HM etc wear it because they are related to the Romanovs, albeit quite distantly by now.
For them to let MM wear it could be construed as a major insult to a very powerful world player (insert your own suggestion as to why that wearer would demean that headpiece by wearing it), apart, that is, from an anxiety that she might try to scarper with it.
With Charles and Di, I felt Charles was damned if he did anything to defend himself & damned if he didn't - let's hope it's something similar here, other possible scenarios are too ghastly by far.
I've been searching to find the photograph I remember . . a candid shot with MM, GM and another woman, not in a yacht setting, as everyone was fully dressed. They were sitting at a table, looked like having coffee/tea, possibly. Memory is famously unreliable, I admit, but my recollection of this shot is pretty specific. This would have been probably a year or more ago that I saw it, because 'Ghislane Maxwell' meant nothing to me at the time. I just thought she was another of the socialites Meg had cultivated, like Misha Nonoo, another uniquely named associate of hers.
I have a feeling that this photograph, along with any others compromising to Markle may have been scrubbed. If GM is hiding in fear of her life, perhaps some of the same powerful people have removed evidence of MM's tie to GM. All the rest is hearsay and deniable. So I'm sorry I can't offer you the pic I remember, but I feel sure I didn't invent it. I didn't get acrimonious toward Meghan until a year ago (Moonbump, December 2018 at the actors' home was the exact time she curdled for me) . . I saw the photo sometime earlier in the spring or summer. Some anti-Meg bloggers had already gotten underway . . it was possibly via Harry Markle--she's been anti-Meg from the engagement, so she was very early on that bandwagon. I will see if it's still embedded in one of her entries. It's not showing up in a regular Google Images search.
Rachel's potential activities in the Epstein empire are my conjecture. Just trying to come up with reasons why the RF is so afraid of her, seemingly.
Meanwhile, I thought this was interesting. As late as Summer 2019, Andy was still seeing GM. Some dummies never learn. Harry and his Uncle Andy swim in the same gene pool when it comes to brains.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/prince-andrew-begged-ghislaine-maxwell-to-clear-his-name-but-she-refused-report-claims/ar-BBYzUlg
"As I understand the situation, the tiara was acquired legitimately after the Russian Revolution by the RF & it is considered OK for HM etc wear it because they are related to the Romanovs, albeit quite distantly by now."
Thanks. I knew the tiara was acquired as legitimately as could be the case under the circumstances. But I've never heard that explanation re: the familial connection making it ok for TQ to wear. Of course, by the reasoning, neither Camilla nor Kate should ever wear it. Or George's wife. I guess Charlotte could, especially if she came to the throne.
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have posted an Instagram story announcing their new mental health charity collaboration
Prince Harry, 35, and Meghan Markle, 38, revealed a campaign with Canadian Telecommunications company Bell Canada"
This is just so untrue. This is not a "collaboration" or a "campaign with".... it's an Instagram post.. just as thousands of Canadians are posting about it today on IG, Twitter and Facebook, as they do every year.
I read that she deleted it. Her husband also came out in defense of her saying "that's not what she meant"...that she was talking about some other thing, fundraising for some cause she never mentioned and had no links to.
In any case, the IG shade got deleted.
I've read this before too but has anyone been able to confirm this is true?
I ask out of the professional curiosity driving all of us to see receipts... I'm not saying I don't believe it but I've never seen anything but rumor on this.
How can we know she didn't leave Suits by choice to pursue her royal relationship? After all, her coworkers all attended the wedding... (?)
Also, I posted the above before reading Hikari's followup on Markle quitting Suits.
She *was* on the show for multiple years so if she was really a trainwreck that would not have been sustainable unless she had some sort of leverage.
Also: A woman who brazenly makes enemies of Oprah and the Queen of England either has some powerful silent friends OR she really is the bat-sh*t craziest person on stilettos that I've ever encountered.
Yes, holy crap yes.
RE: Murder
Rumours abound that the temple on Epstein's island was used for human sacrifice. There are tunnels below the island that JE was filling in with cement prior to his arrest in order to hide evidence.
It's a whole thing...
She was a German princess baptized after her wedding as Maria Pavlovna. Tiara was hugely expensive and even in 1874 valued at then 49 000 rubles, which would cost many millions in today's money.
Following the collapse of Monarchy in Russia Maria had to flee the country but was forced to leave her jewelry; her priceless collection was recovered thanks to the British diplomat who, following her instructions, sneaked into her palace using the chaos and stolen the items. They were smuggled into Europe either using diplomatic post or even possibly using Royal Military Fleet.
After Maria's death her daughter Elena was forced to sell it to the Queen Mary of Teck, who then changed the design to emeralds. Emeralds and pearls are interchangeable. Mary bough it for just 28 000 pounds, way below it's real value.
The sale had been viewed by the Russian refugee society as unfair. I have read some books how the Russian relatives of the British kings were selling their priceless jewels to their British kin who were not above the hard bargaining using difficult circumstances of the remnants of the destroyed Russian monarchy.
So the origin of the tiara is possibly not as clean as the British royals want to demonstrate.
To answer your question - stupid or stupid-smart? - I would say I think he is a normal man of above-average intelligence who made a number of awkward gaffes the media capitalized on.
During his presidency he was heavily influenced by all sorts of people/issues we don't know about (Cheney, tycoons, etc).
So I think he is definitely more intelligent than Trump by easily double but not insanely smart (GWB is the rich kid of a dynasty family). By observation I would say Barack Obama possesses more raw intelligence than GWB but GWB is not a stupid man.
https://blindgossip.com/two-famous-men-are-dumb-in-love/#more-100027
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.
No, I don't think so. This would require a level of focus and strategy far beyond MM's capacity.
The emerald Vladamir tiara was unacceptable as a wedding tiara because, if you look at recent (50 years) royal weddings throughout Europe, the wedding tiara has historically been a relatively modest (read: starter) tiara. Even Kate's wedding tiara was quite modest. Eugenie's was the most substantial of them all and the Vladamir easily dwarfs Eugenie's.
It's simply too grand for the royal wedding of an American divorcee to the spare heir. Requesting to wear it would seriously be an insanely tonedeaf and ludicrous request. The idea of making such a request is difficult for me to believe unless she seriously is that insane (it's... starting to look that way?).
Anyone who casually decides to piss off the Queen of England & Oprah Winfrey but can't find a suitable shade of pantyhose should have their mental fitness questioned.
>>Markle wanted the Vladimir tiara , it was refused by the Queen because of some hard for me to understand reasons about Russia. Now Markle has fled the UK and is staying in a property owned by Russian millionaires. The bot activities targeting Royal family journalists social media accounts , came from , I think , some unknown place in Russia.
What I am saying is, perhaps there is a connection to the tiara and her living in the Russian owned property. What is the history of that tiara? Is it possible these Russian millionaires wanted it returned to its rightful owner and country? But she failed to get the tiara. So she fled. Just my theory.<<<
The 'Russian' connection aside, I don't think the tiara is the lynchpin here. Now, if a powerful Russian cohort hostile to the Royal family owns several prominent British newspapers . . .that could be the source of the mansion and possible backers to MM's destructive activities.
The Vladimir Tiara was obtained from the Windsors' Romanov cousins and has only been worn by Queens. Queen Mary, the Queen Mother and Elizabeth. It is the largest and most show-stopping piece in the collection, which is why Markle felt entitled to wear it. After all, she is Queen in her own mind. Her Maj said the reason was 'provenance', which was simpler than explaining that the wearer had to be a direct descendant of the Romanovs and also, a queen because that would have added ammo to Rachel's arsenal of racism and bullying.
At the time, I thought the Queen did not want to possibly inflame tensions then brewing in the U.S. over Russia's alleged involvement in election tampering by showcasing a Russian tiara so prominently at a Royal wedding, and perhaps giving the impression that she was favoring Russia over her ally.
In any case, HM put her foot down about who gets to dispense Royal tiaras. She gave the Markle the Queen Mary, her grandmother's signature piece, which was better anyway. But Meg was thwarted and she's still holding a grudge. She had decided that emeralds were going to be *hers*, you see. Eugenie got to wear emeralds at her wedding, and we see how Madam responded to *that* perceived slight.
You said"Hikari said: "Two years ago, she was laid off from her supporting gig on a basic cable show. "
I've read this before too but has anyone been able to confirm this is true?
I ask out of the professional curiosity driving all of us to see receipts... I'm not saying I don't believe it but I've never seen anything but rumor on this.
How can we know she didn't leave Suits by choice to pursue her royal relationship? After all, her coworkers all attended the wedding... (?)"
My understanding at the time of her departure from Suits was that her co-star (Patrick Adams?)who played her husband on the show was leaving the show. So "they" as a couple sailed off into the sunset by moving to another locale across the US.
What is not clear is if these two events were concurrent with the Royal Wedding, that is, Rachel and Patrick decided to leave at the same time or if Patrick Adams decided to leave the show first.
They may have left the firm, but she’s ready to rule the A-list
He gave his swan song as a working royal last week, poignantly stepping away from the only life he’s ever known and catching a one-way flight to Canada. But if Prince Harry thought he was leaving behind a world of high-profile events, VIP hobnobbing, and headline grabbing, he had another think coming.
According to insiders, Meghan Markle’s vision for “a more independent life” looks somewhat different: while he’s craving total peace and isolation, she’s got her sights set on Hollywood.
“Harry’s been wanting to get out of the royal bubble for years,” says an insider close to the Duke of Sussex, who last week told an audience at a charity do that he’d had “no other option” but to resign from royal duty.
“He’s never been comfortable in the spotlight – especially given the way his mother died. But it seems like Meghan’s only just getting started with her plans to build her own empire. Their friends are worried that they’re on completely different paths.”
CHECK OUT: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's relationship timeline
The initial terms of #Megxit were revealed last week in a statement from Buckingham Palace, which confirmed that Harry and Meghan were dropping their royal duties, including official military appointments and would no longer be receiving public funding nor using their HRH titles.
It added that they would be repaying the £2.4million in public money used to refurbish Frogmore Cottage. In a separate statement, the Queen said she hoped the agreement would enable them to “start building a happy and peaceful new life”.
But in no time, their future plans for a supposedly low-key existence came into question – especially after a video emerged from last summer, in which Harry was filmed telling Disney CEO Bob Iger that Meghan was “really interested” in doing voiceover work (while Meghan schmoozed with Beyoncé nearby).
NOW WATCH: Amber reveals secret about Bombshell Rebecca’s past! | Under The Duvet Ep 2
Shortly afterwards, Netflix head Ted Sarandos said he’d be keen to work with the renegade royals. Meanwhile, despite dropping their HRH titles, the couple’s glamorous website SussexRoyal.com remained alive and kicking (still branded with their emblem, a crown above an entwined H and M.)
According to our insider, it’s former-actress Meghan who’s driving their transition from British to Hollywood royalty, and she’s calling in the troops with their A-list connections – while Harry is bowing to authority.
“Meghan isn’t bothered about losing the Sussex Royal title,” our source reveals. “She doesn’t see it as a setback because her masterplan is building her own brand. She has her sights on becoming American royalty, but it’s not exactly the kind of life that Harry signed up for.
"Despite Canada being their main residence, she sees LA as a massive part of their long-term future – they need to look the part on every level, and that means updating their style and getting in shape too. It’s quite an adjustment for Harry.”
READ MORE celeb news
Is Posh pushing David away?
Jemma Lucy tells fan to 'shut up' as Instagram post branded 'vile' and 'disgusting'
Chloe Sims mocked by fans over back seat NTAs photos
It’s no secret that the couple, who share eight-month-old son Archie, take pride in their A-list friendships. Their wedding in 2017 read like a Who’s Who of Hollywood, with Serena Williams, George and Amal Clooney and Oprah Winfrey among their famous guests.
Meanwhile, while Meghan’s railed against the public scrutiny that came with being a royal, she also made full use of its opportunities – including guest-editing Vogue and hanging out with the Obamas.
Now that they’re no longer officially representing the Queen, they’re free to embrace all the opportunities that Hollywood has to offer. Whether Harry likes it or not, it seems like their new life is going to be very different, but no less peaceful.
I think royal jewels are watched all the time by the RPOs during the public appearances and brought in and taken away by specially designated personnel. Every second the item is out of the vault it is watched constantly. There is a reason why we paid £30 million for security during the wedding.
So unless Queen's stuff is in conspiracy with Markle there is zero chance for her to sail away with the pieces of historic royal bling.
The nasty little person in me would be very glad if Markle had been given a cheap replica but don't think it was the case.
I have ongoing eye problems too and use my phone. I have my text set in a larger font size on my phone settings, and I blow up the text size further by touching my phone too; it’s actually easier for me to read on my phone.
I agree about the long paragraphs without breaks though, I have problems too. I sadly tend to skim past those comments. 🙁
The Sussexes clash over Hollywood future
They may have left the firm, but she’s ready to rule the A-list
He gave his swan song as a working royal last week, poignantly stepping away from the only life he’s ever known and catching a one-way flight to Canada. But if Prince Harry thought he was leaving behind a world of high-profile events, VIP hobnobbing, and headline grabbing, he had another think coming.
According to insiders, Meghan Markle’s vision for “a more independent life” looks somewhat different: while he’s craving total peace and isolation, she’s got her sights set on Hollywood.
“Harry’s been wanting to get out of the royal bubble for years,” says an insider close to the Duke of Sussex, who last week told an audience at a charity do that he’d had “no other option” but to resign from royal duty.
“He’s never been comfortable in the spotlight – especially given the way his mother died. But it seems like Meghan’s only just getting started with her plans to build her own empire. Their friends are worried that they’re on completely different paths.”
CHECK OUT: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's relationship timeline
The initial terms of #Megxit were revealed last week in a statement from Buckingham Palace, which confirmed that Harry and Meghan were dropping their royal duties, including official military appointments and would no longer be receiving public funding nor using their HRH titles.
It added that they would be repaying the £2.4million in public money used to refurbish Frogmore Cottage. In a separate statement, the Queen said she hoped the agreement would enable them to “start building a happy and peaceful new life”.
But in no time, their future plans for a supposedly low-key existence came into question – especially after a video emerged from last summer, in which Harry was filmed telling Disney CEO Bob Iger that Meghan was “really interested” in doing voiceover work (while Meghan schmoozed with Beyoncé nearby).
NOW WATCH: Amber reveals secret about Bombshell Rebecca’s past! | Under The Duvet Ep 2
Shortly afterwards, Netflix head Ted Sarandos said he’d be keen to work with the renegade royals. Meanwhile, despite dropping their HRH titles, the couple’s glamorous website SussexRoyal.com remained alive and kicking (still branded with their emblem, a crown above an entwined H and M.)
According to our insider, it’s former-actress Meghan who’s driving their transition from British to Hollywood royalty, and she’s calling in the troops with their A-list connections – while Harry is bowing to authority.
“Meghan isn’t bothered about losing the Sussex Royal title,” our source reveals. “She doesn’t see it as a setback because her masterplan is building her own brand. She has her sights on becoming American royalty, but it’s not exactly the kind of life that Harry signed up for.
"Despite Canada being their main residence, she sees LA as a massive part of their long-term future – they need to look the part on every level, and that means updating their style and getting in shape too. It’s quite an adjustment for Harry.”
READ MORE celeb news
Is Posh pushing David away?
Jemma Lucy tells fan to 'shut up' as Instagram post branded 'vile' and 'disgusting'
Chloe Sims mocked by fans over back seat NTAs photos
It’s no secret that the couple, who share eight-month-old son Archie, take pride in their A-list friendships. Their wedding in 2017 read like a Who’s Who of Hollywood, with Serena Williams, George and Amal Clooney and Oprah Winfrey among their famous guests.
Meanwhile, while Meghan’s railed against the public scrutiny that came with being a royal, she also made full use of its opportunities – including guest-editing Vogue and hanging out with the Obamas.
Now that they’re no longer officially representing the Queen, they’re free to embrace all the opportunities that Hollywood has to offer. Whether Harry likes it or not, it seems like their new life is going to be very different, but no less peaceful.
Russians aside, I read all of Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s books, aka works of art. Her books are beautifuly written. I read much about the Lindbergh kidnapping (the word kidnapping was created from the baby stealers). Lindbergh was still Lucky Lindy, a hero, and there was a Keystone Cop quality towards the investigation, and the quick electric chair death of a German immigrant. Today there is much evidence pointing towRds an inside job, with the nurse being the murderer. And as to Charles Lindberg’s testifying, and speaking g out about his child, Lindbergh had any secrets. He had several German families, three and counting so far.
Another subject - HAMS plotted their rip from the royal family before they were married. I recorded the wedding, and OMG, it was too funny. Everything literally bombed, from the bright white dress, to the black uniforms, then the Episcopalian Bishop, whom had never met the HAMS, screeching about fire and love, and of course, American pop songs. I was on a small group tour in Scotland and Norway, and one of my fellow traveler was George Takai, the original Mr. Sulu from Star Trek. We watched the taped wedding together, and what he said about HAMS will make him more millions!
Russian resolution jewels? Queen Mary demanded that the the Russian Dowager Empress Marie, the sister of Queen Alexandra, the latter Queen Mary’s mother in law, give her all the jewels she brought from russia, in order to give her sanctuary. Meanwhile, Queen Mary and her husband George, decided at the last minute to allow the Bolsheviks to kill all Romanov family members they could find, denying even children to escape to England.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/658727110/meghan-markle-wedding-tiara-with?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=queen+mary+tiara&ref=sr_gallery-1-10&organic_search_click=1&frs=1
I have heard the idea of her stealing the tiara before, but how in the world would Rach be able to pull this off?
Agreed that she was known to be untrustworthy and classless, but I would think that a priceless tiara or other family jewels would be guarded carefully.
She paid mere pennies on the pound for them, from women who were selling their incredibly valuable family heirlooms to survive, and who were, what's more, relatives of her husband and likely herself, as well, somewhere along the line.
It was thought to be extremely tacky, especially given that the Tsar and his family were refused sanctuary in England, resulting in them being slaughtered.
I could be wrong, merely passing along what I have heard from people somewhat conversant with BRF lore.
Yes, refusing to help even the children escape bolsheviks and thus leaving them to be killed will forever stay as a cowardly and ugly stain on the British monarchy.
>>>How can we know she didn't leave Suits by choice to pursue her royal relationship? After all, her coworkers all attended the wedding... (?)"<<<
Being written out of a show isn't the same as 'being fired'. It happens all the time, to stars much bigger than Rachel. It's not surprising that Rach invited her co-stars to the wedding . .she'd only recently left, and besides she needed the illusion of having friends. If I left my job and got married a few months later, I'd invite the people I've been working with for years, even if I didn't expect them to all accept.
>>>My understanding at the time of her departure from Suits was that her co-star (Patrick Adams?)who played her husband on the show was leaving the show. So "they" as a couple sailed off into the sunset by moving to another locale across the US.<<<
Rachel was only a supporting character, so if her husband was leaving, then it made sense that 'Rachel' as played by Rachel would leave, too. She was not integral to the show as one of the star lawyers in her own right. So it seems like, either way, whether Rach was engaged to Harry or not, she was going to be out of a job the following season. Not fired . .released from her contract because her character's arc had come to an end.
>>>What is not clear is if these two events were concurrent with the Royal Wedding, that is, Rachel and Patrick decided to leave at the same time or if Patrick Adams decided to leave the show first.<<<
Since Patrick was one of the stars of the show, it doesn't seem that his career would be predicated on Meghan choosing to continue in her supporting role as his wife. If Rach chose to leave first and Patrick wanted to stay, then 'Rachel' could have easily obtained another job and 'left' the firm--her character had recently passed the bar, right-- or decided to get pregnant and stay home.
The last episode of Season 7 aired on April 25, 2018, but Meg's shooting was concluded sometime before November 2017, since there was a gap between the autumn half of the broadcast and the spring half. Since she (presciently, as it turns out) left her belongings in a storage unit in Toronto, there appears to have been very little time in between wrapping Suits and hastening to London to get engaged. She probably didn't want to linger too long at the site of her old life lest Hazza change his mind (again)
It seems that things worked out really well for Rachel in the timing, as it seems to so often do for her. If she had already given notice to the producers that she wouldn't be available any more after Season 7, it appears that Patrick Adams had the identical idea at the same time. Very serendipitous. But say that Rach had been permitted to be engaged to Harry and continue acting, or if she had *not* gotten engaged to Harry . .with Patrick Adams gone, it seems that there would have no longer been any need for her character on the show.
Meg was written out of the show a year prior because Patrick J. Adams, the actor who played her love interest in Suits wanted out. He stayed until reaching the 100 episode milestone that happened in the middle of Season 7.
Patrick J. Adams always seemed like a nice guy but I don’t think he could be considered a strong actor. He started mentioning wanting to work behind the cameras after a couple of years into Suits. I felt like he was unhappy for a good while. It didn’t help that there were persistent rumors of him not getting along with Meg from Season 1.
The timing for Meg being written out and getting hitched with Harry was just good timing. She probably told Harry that she was done with acting and was ready to be a full-time royal hence the speedy marriage. Meg saw the writing on the wall early into Suits and was always planning her next steps for when it wrapped up.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/suits-patrick-j-adams-exit-interview-why-is-patrick-j-adams-leaving-suits-1079602
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/jewelry-and-watches/a27633284/queen-elizabeth-vladimir-tiara-romanov-jewels/
>>>I think royal jewels are watched all the time by the RPOs during the public appearances and brought in and taken away by specially designated personnel. Every second the item is out of the vault it is watched constantly. There is a reason why we paid £30 million for security during the wedding. So unless Queen's stuff is in conspiracy with Markle there is zero chance for her to sail away with the pieces of historic royal bling. <<<
I thought the lions' share of the 30 million would have been for the massive police presence on the streets to guard the physical persons of the RF from the hordes of spectators, and I guess the jewels from the spectators, too. Having to guard the jewels from theft by the royal brides wearing them probably was not as much of a consideration until the Markle, though staff could always get up to sticky fingers.
I know that great care is taken with the Queen's collection. But I also am certain that if there is any way possible to pull a con, Meg would exploit it. Where Markle is concerned, I no longer take for granted that there is 'zero' chance of her getting away with something never before gotten away with in the history of the RF. Her very presence in it and the fact that we are all here talking about her is a testament to her resourcefulness and audacity. She is a dedicated con artist. I'm sure "Meghan's Mirror" featured a replica of the Queen Mary afterwards. Diana's butterfly earrings and aquamarine ring were on there. Our girl never misses a trick.
Before I knew of Meg's grifting tendencies, I *had* heard all about Tiara gate and Meghan's other incredibly rude behavior over the wedding food and the dress fitting for Charlotte. Based on that behavior alone, were I the Queen, I would have withheld any of my actual tiaras from her for behavior unbefitting a royal bride. A tiara is a gift, not an entitlement, and Meghan was anything but gracious.
If HM gave Meg her grandmother's favorite piece to wear, she was very gracious in the face of ingratitude and attitude. All part of the welcoming and inclusion which Meg now claims she never received . .and that is a good argument for the tiara being real.
That said, real tiara or no, Meghan was never permitted to be unescorted on/in any of the Royal properties after her attempt to take unauthorized pictures of KP and now there are reports that she planted recording devices as well. Untrustworthy enough to help herself to any objects within reach as well, I'd wager. This woman will do anything to make a buck.
It's a moot point now, but Megs was never going to get anywhere near a royal tiara again.
I might be in the minority, but I think the Vladimir tiara is pretty hideous. Way too ostentatious for me and it overwhelms a small woman like Her Majesty. It's a matter of taste, but even were I given the keys to the Crown Jewels, I'd never pick that one.
I much prefer the Greville worn by Eugenie, but big colorful rocks aren't really my taste. I love the delicate floral design one and that'd be my pick even if it's not the flashiest.
Just right click on your mouse and there's an option for emojis at the top of the drop-down screen.
Thanks Bluebell, but sadly I have fallen at the first hurdle.
I don't get a drop-down screen, (like the one you mentioned) when I right click my mouse. :(
You can via the browser settings (on a laptop etc,) I have mine set at 110% I think. 🥴
Suits was in it’s decline and it’s heavy hitter Gina Torres left a few seasons earlier. The USA network has been toxic for years for their shows after Monk ended as they have wanted to shift to more reality programming. USA was already clamping down on it’s “character-driven” shows like Suits so Meg would have never survived Patrick’s exit.
It was written on 18th January, so some of you may have already read it, but for those who haven't, here it is:>
'Monarchy and Liberalism is an Unhappy Marriage'
https://edwardjblack.com/
I think the original comment about her Suits job was that she had been "laid off"
which to me is the same as written out - as in, it wasn't really her idea to leave but she got a better gig so...oh well.
Royal fam here I come!
Tiara
I agree with Hunter about starter tiaras, queen connection and all. Makes sense.
My thought (before reading Hunter's take) was that HM already knew that Princess Eugenie was planning on wearing wearing the other one with the emeralds and did not want to tip off this as PE had already had enough drama about the wedding from the H&M group.
I used to read Skippy and one of the posts was that real diamonds do not tend to glint obvious colors (one of the ways to tell a fake) and then shown was a picture of M wearing the tiara with nice obvious colors showing up during the wedding. IDK, could be, could not be.
Love the Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming movie.
Q.Mary was a Royal in her own right (Pr. Mary of Tek, engaged to Edw VII eldest son, who died; Q.Victoria wasn't going waste a princess so Mary was passed on to George)
QE the Queen Mother, wife of Geo VI, was a Scottish aristo, daughter of Earl of Strathmore, (regardless of rumours as to who her mother was) ie not a descendant of Victoria as far as I know)
`Old Queen Mary', whom I saw on the balcony after the 1951 Trooping of the Colour, was a notorious kleptomaniac. I gather that whenever she came a-visiting hostesses were well advised to conceal treasured trinkets and antiques lest her eye light upon them and broad hints be dropped that their owner was expected to relinquish them into Royal hands. Am not sure if sometimes they just vanished.
With regard to George not giving his cousin & his family sanctuary, it should be seen against the fear of Communist revolution in Britain at the time. It was it thought it could be regarded as a provocative act. I read somewhere that the area in front of Buck House was re-ordered to give an open field of defensive fire should the worst happen and it be stormed.
Similar anxieties lay behind much of the political thinking for which the British upper classes of the Twenties and Thirties have subsequently been criticised. Fear of one extreme encouraged the other.
Well, it was just a thought, but I feel there is more to it.
@ lizzie , @ wild boar battle maid
You more or less said, the tiara was acquired legitamitaly (hope that's spelt right) after the Russian Revolution. Can you expand, please. How would it be acquired illegitimate?
@fairy crocodile
Apologies for my punctuation, " following the collapse of Monarchy in Russia. .....Maria....British diplomat. ...stole the items.....Smuggled into Europe.....using Royal Military Fleet. ....origin of tiara not as clean as the British royals want to demonstrate."
Now consider the above, ( however punctuated ).
I say Russian millionaires have very little left to do, except hedonism, with their money, than what is already being done. Why not dabble into what the British took away from Russia as a pastime?
Think about why,not sure who said this, WHY Would the Queen think the Vladimir Tiara would inflame tensions ?
@ian s girl
As said there were problems with various Russian jewels, what were the problems ?
All I am saying is , that there is the possibility that there is a link between the tiara and all that has happened so far.
Lemon tea
"you can make your text size larger somehow by going into settings and I think keyboard"
"You can via the browser settings (on a laptop etc,) I have mine set at 110% I think."
Thanks Raspberry and Drab - I've been doing the larger text for a while. I use the control and "+" key so I can adjust to whatever page or site I'm on. It doesn't help when there is a huge wall of text though.
YW. The comments were good too!
Gosh that's strange. What browser do you use? I use google. Silly question but did you try the right click while you were actually entered into the text box?
Do you get "cut copy paste" in your drop down screen?
You asked what I meant about the acquisition of the tiara--
When I said it was "acquired as legitimately as could be the case under the circumstances" I just meant it was purchased not "plundered" or directly stolen during the revolution or in the chaos after. I would consider outright theft an "illegitimate" acquisition.
Others commenting after that said the price paid was quite unfair to the seller. I don't doubt that but can't say I was fully aware of that before. But I suspect often when family jewelry is sold (outside of royal circles on a less grand scale) because the owner has no choice, the same unfairness often occurs. Doesn't make it right but does make it not uncommon.
I don't really see a connection to current events myself. Doesn't mean there isn't one. But I do think Meghan would have looked ridiculous in that tiara. It really would have had the look of a Burger King crown.
I also use Google and yes, I clicked whilst in the comments box.
I don't get cut or copy but I do get paste.
In her mind, getting to wear it would have been proving to everyone that she was the new game in town, that Harry is the favorite grandson and that the Queen thought she was the...ugh.
I can't even finish. It's just trashy.
That said...I think there are hidden things and a big game afoot - but I think the tiara issue was just Meghan being an entitled biatch...hoping to upstage someone. I don't think the tiara ties in to the game (which she isn't winning these days) and sincerely hope that whatever they let her wear...was fake.
As for it being an insult, the Royal women who have worn it have either been descendants of Queen Victoria, therefore cousins at some level of the last Romanov Tsar and his family, or respected wives of descendants of Victoria.
A tiara is the mark of a married woman; someone referred to a modest `entry-level' piece as suitable for a bride. The Vladimir Tiara is a magnificent, some would say over-the-top piece, originally belonged to a Russian Grand Duchess of the Imperial family, the complete opposite of `modest'.
To have permitted a previously-married American of lowly provenance, totally lacking in humility, known to be a social climber of questionable attitudes and dubious morals, in short an alleged slut, who had ditched a Catholic upbringing to embrace Judaism, which she then abandoned for Anglicanism, etc etc, to wear this tiara made for such a grand lady might easily provoke unwanted comment and criticism at an international level. It could easily be seen as an insult in places where diplomats have to tread carefully.
The tiara Meghan wore:
Eugenie wore The Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara. I thought that was the one MM wanted and the Queen wouldn’t let her wear because Eugenie already was going to wear it.
Camilla wears the Grenville tiara all the time. It is huge and looks beautiful on her. When TQ loans a tiara to someone, usually no one else can wear it. Too big to wear for a bride to wear, IMHO.
I really don't think that the Vladimir tiara has anything to do with the present hot mess. What a lot of posters seem to forget is that at the time of the HAMS wedding, there were a lot of tensions between the UK and Russia, especially regarding plutonium poisoning ( I forget his name - Litivenko?). In this case, it is no wonder that the Queen did not want to draw attention of this particular tiara as it had been smuggled out of Russia and no-one wanted the Russians to possibly turn around and demand its return.
By the way @YankieDoodle, Queen Mary did not "demand" the jewels be handed over to her, they were bought and paid for albeit not at the market price.
On another note, no-one in the UK, and even the Russian people, expected the Czar and his family to be murdered - sent into exile, yes but not killed. It was a tremendous shock all round and King George V never forgave himself.
I hope we can now put this to rest.
@Lizzie
Thank you for that reply. It explains some but not all. Your answer appears to be based on history that you know or read or experienced.
My theory is based on today and what has happened now.
If tiaras are unimportant , then I shall happily agree to let the matter rest.
But, if tiaras are important, then I say , there is a connection. The Russians have used a somewhat unlikely and unorthodox source to regain their historical validity.
We can agree to disagree.
Lemon tea
I can answer to who MM is with in this photo. He is a model and it was arranged for them to go to this function together by her agent ....so it wasn't a date but a way of "being seen" and "image building" for both of them.
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
Emerald Tiara -Question
I may have made a mistake about which tiara MM asked for. I re-read the posts above and people seem to think it was the Vladimir tiara. Wow. That would be so inappropriate for a bride. Wearing it would be like bathing in emeralds. It is one of my favorites and I love it when TQ wears it.
Tantrums & tiaras ��
I was always of the understanding Meghan wanted to wear the tiara Eugenie wore. 🥴
The Vladimir tiara can be worn with either drop emeralds or drop pearls. The only reason I know this is because it was recently featured in a piece in Hello magazine. It’s far too grand for a wedding, and normally worn by The Queen for important state occasions, again another reason why I don’t think it was the tiara Meghan wanted to wear.
I think by not allowing MM to wear this particular tiara, TQ was casting a teeny bit of shade - and teaching MM a lesson in who exactly was boss.
If M did want the one Eugenie wanted, why was she supposedly told there was a problem with it being Russian? It's my understanding that while the style of the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara is Russian, it didn't come from Russia. Was that story about a Russian connection being the reason for the turn down BS? If so, from whom?
For me all 3 - paste cut copy are there but paste is the only operative one. At the very top of the list (right above undo and redo) is the emojis choice. You can also try to open it with the windows key plus . period key.
Yes, Rach asked to wear a tiara in Fiji but her request was denied.
Two HAMS programs tonight on TV in the US
1. Fox at 7 CST
2. ABC at 9 CST
There are 3 on that list that don't work for me - Undo, Cut and Copy, (all the rest are in bold) and Undo is at the very top. (No emoji choice above it.)
I'm a bit of a technophobe, so have no idea what 'windows key plus' even is! I've never heard of it before.
I think I'll have to accept that I'm not going to get those cute 'smilies' any day soon but thank you so much for trying to help. :)
It beggars belief that even a narc like Markle could have thought she'd be allowed to wear the Vladimir.
And for the record, I do understand the political aspect of why the Tsar was not allowed in to England, and didn't mean any disrespect.
Markle wore a tiara that looked like the Queen Mary, but if it were a good replica, Markle and the public wouldn't have known the difference, and HM would have rested easier knowing that if this tiara 'disappeared', the family was only out some paste and cubic zirconia.
Not only the glint of the jewels (true, MM's crown glinted rainbow aka not diamonds) - if you look at old black and white pics of Queen Mary wearing the "same" tiara you can clearly see it has a small crest of diamonds missing from MM's version. Also the side pieces on QM's original genuine tiara are shorter. It seriously appears MM wore a fake tiara for her own wedding.
Thank you for posting the times for those shows, as I am in CST slot, so the first show comes on very soon, As I have been suffering from what I think is stomach gastritis for 4 days I hope the shows don't push me over the edge I, er, hmmm, you know 'lose my lunch'.
As for TV, BBC have new series re the Profumo affair at Cliveden. Cliveden is where Meg & Doria spent the night before the wedding, it’s the “home” of the Profumo scandal which eventually brought down the government....
Re the tiara, whilst Meg possibly did request the Vladimir tiara, it’s more probable she wanted the Greville. The Greville has the emerald which would have lifted her rather plain/drab dress. The fact it was already promised to Eugenie, she possibly picked it out years ago, would have spurred her demands. Harry was with her when she was choosing tiaras, she/he mentioned that in the Charles 70th doco along with her gushing over her “commonwealth” veil. I believe Harry did yell “ what Meg wants she gets” & the Queen said No.
"The Daily Mail actually mentioned that the problem was that Meghan wanted to wear a tiara that Diana had once worn, not the Vladimir....maybe the Spencer tiara?
The Spencers own the Spencer tiara. I would be quite surprised if it was lent to a non-Spencer bride but if it was, TQ would have no say in that. The Lover's Knot that Kate wears would have been out and M wouldn't have asked for that anyway...copying Kate? Hardly. I don't remember any other tiaras worn by Diana myself.
LavenderToast
The first couple of minutes is all about how she was hounded out of GB because she is a woc.
Piers has a different take.
sigh (what did I expect?)
Now discussing the brothers’ breakup.
Now piers is talking about Meghan0 uses and dumps people.
Commercial break, but it teased to racism again.
You cannot compare the LIndberghs with the Harkles. The main reason is, fortunately, no tragedies have befallen the Harkles, or any babies associated with them, and, hopefully, none will.
The next reason is that Charles Lindbergh is a genuine hero, however misguided his political views were. It is hard for us to imagine how risky it was for him to make that flight In that rickety little plane. (One of my mother's relatives helped design & build it, rickety though it was.) It was the equivalent of the moon landing at the time.
Lindbergh was of Swedish peasant stock, & may have had the aversion to financiers that farmers historically have had. Interestingly, his grandfather advocated for the rights of Jews in Sweden in the years before he emigrated to America. (According to Wikipedia). Charles Lindbergh flew 50 missions in the Pacific during WWII, & went on to many accomplishments. In any case he was both an admirable & deplorable man, as are so many of us. I won't go any further in trying to defend or explain him.
The Lindbergh kidnapping took place in a time when very few of the forensic tools that law enforcement now relies on existed, & the public demanded quick results for an American hero. Who knows what really happened?
Our shallow, polarized, SM driven, cancellation culture has robbed us of the ability to appreciate nuance or complexity.
I never met Anne Morrow Lindbergh, but the mothers of two of my oldest friends knew & admired her very much. I knew these women in completely different parts of the country, at different times. They were astute, worldly & had high moral standards, which formed a big part of why they admired her. She was a very sensitive & intelligent woman. As any Hawaiian can tell you, the Lindberghs are buried in beautiful Hana, Maui, one of the many places they lived in as they sought refuge from their turbulent lives.
There is nothing heroic or tragic about the Harkles. They're laughable & pathetic. The only tragic thing about them is that society has allowed them to achieve so much prominence on such little achievement.
Comparing the Lindberghs to the Harkles is like comparing the Vladimir Tiara to one of Megs' little pieces of cheap zodiac jewelry. (The tiara Megs wore was much better suited to her severely simple wedding dress.)
@Bluebell, I know I'm one of the biggest offenders in writing big paragraphs. I hope I did better for you this time. I have a hard time reading the comment & preview boxes, which is why I often don't bother checking for typos. I can barely see what I've written! LOL . I just keep typing away!
"If Meg was after the Spencer she would have been livid seeing it worn by Diana’s niece at her wedding June 2018. Meg attended said wedding wearing her infamous duvet cover dress. Did the Spencer’s throw shade also..."
Maybe. I know much was made of Charles Spencer not being in the pics of Archie's christening. I didn't think it was a big deal. It was early July and Althorp would have just opened for summer tours....But maybe he wasn't invited. (He would have been the one to decide about lending the tiara, I think.) While brides do wear things from mothers-in-law, given the Infantilization of Harry by Mother Meghan, how creepy to think she might have wanted to wear the Spencer tiara.
Re: Scrubbing things off the internet - I can say this is just not possible, there are always ways to retrieve older and deleted content - intelligence agencies and law enforcement has even more ways to do it, internet providers by law have servers that retain content which can be produced upon issue of a warrant or law suit.
And I have read way more then I really wanted to about tiaras.
"Wonder where the phrase "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets" originated. Does anyone know?"
************************************
Harry himself said that! When MeGain was whining over not being allowed to have Her Maj's Vladamir tiara for the wedding, Harry argued about it with the courtiers and it was reported in the tabs that he shouted this statement. The Queen had to get involved and the same articles at the time reported that her response was "Meghan cannot have whatever she wants. She gets what tiara she’s given by me’."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7826411/prince-harry-meghan-royals-kensington-palace-frogmore/
He thinks MM could go back into acting--they had a clip that shows just how bad an actor she is...Harry is an unknown so that could be big in,sports, etc Mark Cuban from Shark Tank--I don't care what they are selling it will be great--I'm in.
I can't imagine saying that WMWMG to Her Majesty!
Also, the show is saying that no matter where thy go in the world they will never escape the paps.
Yes, I see that already in the first few minutes most commentators are favorable to HAMS and that is probably how it will go.I find it distasteful and assuredly wrong to say Meghan suffered due to widespread systemic racism in the UK. With all the tons of writing I have seen on Meghan, not once did I see any racism notwithstanding even that one article with the phrase "almost straight outta Compton" (which I read in its entirety).
I just saw Mark Cuban and Ryan Secrest go wild about the huge millions the Dastardly Duo could rake in (I am a big skeptic on this). If they were worth "gold" in Cuban's eyes why hasn't he invested in them yet? Or as Secrest thinks they could be The Couple of the generation' likening them to the Kardashian family, why hasn't he signed on to them to make millions and millions? I guess time would tell, but since it was said they have been planning this a year then why didn't they already have an agreement in place.
Sure they make some money but I rather doubt it will be 500 million as some newspaper article cited.
Show just ended and I think it was a waste of time by and large.
I agree that it was a rehash of what we have discussed on this blog--however, it might have been enlightening for others who have not had the advantage of the Nutties' astute analysis!
Some interesting points:
It was mentioned several times that MEGXIT had been planned for at least a year.
Dr. Phil mentioned that Harry could not have divided loyalties--he had to side with either the Royal Family or Rachel.
Ryan Seacrest and Mark Cuban were all over themselves at how much money the Markles could make--I agree with you LT, if they thik that, why haven't their offers been forthcoming? Seacrest started Keeping Up with the Kardashians, apparently. (I did not know that.)
The clip of Harry asking the Disney CEO if Megs could do voiceovers. (cringeworthy!)
Piers and maybe another Brit journalist talked about Markle's habit of ghosting people and that it may all end in tears especially for Harry.
Points were made about there not being a way back to Britain for Harry and Rachel.
The Queen is devastated and heartbroken and begged Harry not to leave.
The rift between Wm and Harry was mentioned and contrasted with how they were always close before Rachel came along. They said the rift started because Wm told Harry to slow down in their courtship.
Ended up with we will all have to wait and see what happens. I did see one photo of Meg and Archie I had never seen in that awful green tent.
Rach's father says he will always love them and would take them back...
That's all I can remember.
Why make it about race WHEN IT WAS NOT?
Someone from the RF really needs to turn this idea around in the US before it goes too far. How about a documentary of their own with commentators who know the true story and who are not biased.
They also need to let the dirt out NOW.
One picture of Kate with her hand resting on her pregnant belly over a closed wool coat vs. Rach hugging her bump. See Kate and Rach do the same things but only Rach is criticized.
They did mention that the expensive baby shower might have been a little counter productive.
Nothing about how crazy the pregnancy, the announcement. baptism and general lack of photos or video proof of life.
I hope people can watch the next one. I have a conflict.
Yes, I agree. Many excuses for Megs not an astute analysis of the true situation like we have here! On the other hand the point that this exit was planned for a long time at least a year and maybe before was mentioned more than once. Which I think is very telling.
Also that the announcement seemed very abrupt but they had to make the announcement before The Sun outed their plans.
I am going to watch the next one and will report back.
Also found it strange that no one is commenting on the absence of normal family life pics.
The point was also made that H has always wanted to have a "normal" life and has chafed against the royal life boundaries. I think this is a case of the grass is always greener--one of the docs I watched talked about how the royal men never carry any cash. And this lack of cash caused a problem for Sarah because she could not even go to lunch with her girlfriends.
They actually said the following: "Meghan Markle has been torn apart in Great Britain and there is a case to be made it is because her mom is black."
Katie Nicholl and Victoria A are traitors to Britain.
Your summation was excellent and will help the Nutties here who can't get the televised show, Cuban gushing about them being 'gold' didn't sound believable (especially since he farmed it as if they would go on his tv show 'Shark Tank'). I almost wish HAMS would go on his show and pitch something to get some millions from good 'ole Markie baby. And why isn't Secrest setting the Sussex's up with a Kardashian-type program (thought I read somewhere today she needed a new agent)?
@BlueBell Woods
I find it repugnant that Achua lady mentioning the ancient slander that black women are somehow scorned due to sorcery, in essence. I don't think American blacks are going to be kind to Meghan by and large. They will see that she repeatedly underwent cosmetic surgery to appear more Caucasian and dated/married only white men, From having read a fair amount on LipStick Alley (with a large base of American black women) they are praising Meghan now but they will soon realize MM is only about herself and not a warrior for their concerns/causes.
One thing the show did bring out is that Harry supposedly has 40 million from inheritance plus shockingly MM has some millions too (which I doubt). So I am hoping that these rich people shouldn't let the Dumbarton couch surf for free; they should get their own home and quit taking money from the UK public for anything.
@LavenderToast Thank you for the compliment on the summary. I appreciate it. Agreed Wouldn't you just love to see the HAMS pitch on Shark Tank? LOL I was also surprised about the mention of the "millions" they have. I though PH could not touch the trust and only received interest payments.
Another point I forgot to mention was that Afua Hirsch mentioned that MM was being targeted because she is a WOC rather than on her character. Funny she did not mention the behaviors that MM has exhibited that shows she does not have integrity or character. (For example, taking unauthorized photos in KP)
Seacrest started Keeping Up with the Kardashians, apparently. (I did not know that.) Plus he still gets a 10% cut from them. They would be nowhere if he hadn't launched the TV show for this useless family. Mama there is the brains behind the operation and is worth 60 million. Or so the DM said.
Seacrest is shooting his mouth off here. Megsy will not pull off what the Kardashians did. Though she has fantasies that she can.
DesDoc- I see the discussion now about the year long plan - I had missed the first half during the live show and am watching my recorded version now.
Another false portrayal - they show the video of MM - "no one asks how I am/survive thrive" (which I can't stand) and then hold a discussion with Dr. Phil who opines that this was directed at the RF. He then says that MM decided if the RF didn't care about her, well then....
This is such a terrible false idea to send out to the US. First of all, we don't know if this is what trouble making MM meant. And secondly, there is a very large part of the story not being told here about how deeply toxic Markle was, and all the problems she caused with the family. They merely skirted around with some of the issues and scattered them through-out the hour where they made less of an impact.
DesDoc are you ready for round 2?
This second one so far is revealing more dirt.
I was thinking about how they mentioned that this plan had been a year in the making (citing a few examples*) and then how they were forced (forced like at gunpoint I tell you) into revealing that they were going to step back. What they didn't say was that they had a long list of demands to make their independent life easier, that the demands were rather shut down by the Queen although there was something about how it did sort of blindside the palace.
* things like people who had worked with her before, not the listing of what could be sold like clothing (which when asked was supposed to keep someone else from profiting from their name).
Is it just me or is that Scobie guy extremely creepy? He looks barely human. Like that one human ken doll (not Rodrigo but the other one). He gives me the shudders something fierce! Uncanny valley level vibes. And these are supposed to be our “betters”? Call me nuts but I don’t want to look like that and the way these people are mutilating themselves with this plastic surgery, I’m beginning to consider the theory that grey aliens are us from the future, a little more. They’re already starting to look like them! Yikes!
Hunter- David Icke doesn’t really think that royals are actually lizard people. They are controlled by their reptilian brains. I urge you to do some reading on the subject. It’s fascinating. And merely investigating something doesn’t mean you are obligated to believe it, unfortunately too many people these days think it does (not saying you do of course, just the general population). My biggest problem is that I will read EVERYTHING, and actively seek out things that are “bad” and scorned. Why would I take someone else’s word for it? You know?
It isn't just you! It is hideous! I do not mind aging, and I sure as hell am not going to age with giant duck lips and fillers that look like baby butt cheeks on my face.
It's not like British folk shouted negative black terms at her while she was on walk-abouts or refused to speak to her at affairs! I mean my goodness, she was welcomed with open arms!
This doc did speak about some of the issues with Fauxchie's birth.
Although there was some damage done when one of the commentators claimed that MM has kept Archie out of the public because she knew everyone would be talking about what color he is!
Ahhhh - we already saw what color he is at the presentation a couple of days after he was born.
This is all so ironic and ridiculous. She knew what she was getting in to AND she married him under false pretenses!
WHEN is someone going to reveal the real story here!
I really hope William starts making some moves to correct all of this.
Release the Kraken.
I mean it.
All that faux outrage about everything has just gone a step too far for me.
First of all, it's annoying enough when people try to get all self-righteous with their, "why are you fussing about Meghan Markle when there's a 'pedo' in the family/guy who associates with a human trafficker, etc." It's so easy, Andrew is such a low-hanging fruit.
Nobody is condoning what he did.
But by the level of OUTRAGE, you'd think half of the population were Andrew apologists.
But what some people just fail to understand is that some women are just super queasy about talking about Andrew. I've already explained why I feel that way a couple of threads back. Why can't some people RESPECT that maybe it's hard to talk about for some people & let us talk smack about people fighting over fake tiaras.
And I am by nature suspicious of people who voluntarily fixate on such things (because remember that creep Enty used to have on his podcast, even Enty was shocked).
Also, I think people lose their eff-ing minds over:
1. Thomas Markle saying Meghan has never had an issue with race & said England's more "liberal" on race issues. Note that there are loads of photos of Thomas/Meghan bonding, hugging each other in ways I never had with my own parents. (I was raised cold like that.) But you can tell that she was a daddy's girl. And even if he was the white parent, if she got bullied surely she'd come home crying to tell him.
2. When Markle defenders (especially the white saviours) learn that some people of colour dislike her for reasons they will never comprehend. Their egos are too big to admit their own ignorance, yet it's in their lingo to say they need to "educate" others.
And they graspingly double down.
It's absolutely maddening.
JUST YESTERDAY, I literally had to say something nice to a Markle defender because I felt SO BAD FOR THEM!!
Yesterday someone defended Meghan (implying that the press think it's worse to marry a PoC than associate with an Ephebophile). Unfortunately, that person used the un-PC term "black" and literally got told off for "spewing foul racist sh*t" (although they were defending Meghan for alleged Racism in the first place).
So basically people are grasping in trying to prove that it's all "racism", at the cost of calling an actual MARKLE DEFENDER "racist" (just for using a less PC word, "Black" perhaps to emphasis the fact that she's *only* half-white).
I felt terrible for them and commented, "don't worry I knew that's not how you meant it to sound".
Because what an awful thing to be accused of (spewing foul racist sh*t).
You know it's bad When I feel bad about someone being accused of racism FOR being pro-Markle.
The person meant well, he/she just didn't communicate their thoughts using the PC terms.
I'm just so grossed out by people right now...
Yeah we get it, you're pure and holy. Can we please move on?
Sorry, needed to get that off my chest. I have like 4 deadlines in a week. Really stressed out right now. 😂😂
Apparently "Doctor Who" (a show I never watched an episode of but all my friends think I'd be absolutely *obsessed* with once I see a couple of episodes) cast a PoC female as its lead doctor or whatever.
So a Twitter account I follow (male, PoC, has an American accent in vidoes he posts of himself) tweeted the following:
"OMG! I'm truly going to enjoy watching Britain lose its colonist mind over this!"
And I was just stunned by the presumptuousness of it all... why would you just assume modern-day English people still think like that?
I just found that to be so weird.
Imagine being just angry & assuming everyone's evil like that on a daily basis. How exhausting.
Imagine being labelled a certain way because of something your ancestors did centuries ago...
I think Meghan's "plight" appeals to people who are just live an all-around negative existance like that.
I'm not white, but I also don't get the point of living a life of anger (dare I say "hatred") toward white people... Because you know, that's, uhm, RACIST?
How exhausting!
Ahhhh - we already saw what color he is at the presentation a couple of days after he was born.
What? That's the dumbest damn thing I've ever heard. When I was in the feed store last week, a young, thin, lovely very dark-skinned black woman was ahead of me in line, as was a tall, dark-haired very handsome white dude with steel-gray eyes. When they left together I asked the lady behind the counter "Are they a couple?" "Yes, they're married!" she said. "OMG, do they have children? They'd HAVE to be drop dead gorgeous!" "They have two, and you have never seen such beautiful kids."
Hiding that child, if there is one, has nothing to do with his skin color. She's been white for years.
Who is to blame for the rift? Is it Rach or H to blame for he split?
They dropped a nuclear bomb on the Queen's lap. Enormous slap in the face for the Queen.
"Most potent royal couple in the world."
What is going on this family goes on in every family. In-fighting and in-laws not liking each other.
HAMS come across as spoiled and entitled.-- We only want the good parts. Wants the yacht in the south of France without doing the work.
Royal life is a gilded cage--not about them but about what they can do to serve the crown.
Harry and Megs got what they wanted in MEGXIT.
However, the Queen is ruthless in supporting the Crown.
Signs were there all along even in Australia tour. Harry was angry.
ITV special Megs speech--the strain really showed on the recent African tour.
Backlash of MEGXIT has been tremendous and Meg is being blamed.
Is Megs the villian or has she saved Harry by giving him the strength and support to leave?
Seems a thousand years ago since they got married. The public was in love with them. She was welcomed in--she had the Markle Sparkle.
Then the press changed--reports talked about employees leaving, HAMS not caring about duties, the expensive wedding, the money spent on clothes, theToad Cottage reno, all while the HAMS are preaching about doing their bit about saving the planet while flying around on private jets. Baby shower in NYC and expense was mentioned.
Archie secrecy about the birth--princess of hugs now says they need privacy. Show us the baby--not showing any normal family photos.
High level of scrutiny of her life.
Markle's family is a disaster.
Rach feels she was not given a chance.
H is terrified for Rach that something that would happen to her. Harry claims Press has chased HAMS and comments are only negative.
Kate was hounded, too. But Megs is Duchess Difficult.
Discrepancies of coverage in two of them--as noted in the clothing choices comments in the other documentary. The journalists are blaming the difference in the coverage between the two Duchesses on race.
Press only wants to see pic of Archie, because they wanted to see what color he was.
"Royal family is not Kombucha at your door at 4:00 am, it's stale white bread."
Megs is hippy, dippy., woke girl. Not usual princess material.
Spotlight on Queen and heir. And anyone that tries to take that spotlight is in trouble. Example, Diana.
Rach's being faulted for being ambitious and hard-working.
To succeed in the BRF have to keep their head down. Don't like people who rock the boat.
Panorama clip of Diana saying how difficult it was to be in the BRF.
BRF terrified that Rach will do a tell-all interview on US TV.
Saying that Rach is a shell of her former self now, compared to who she was before the wedding.
BRF has shown that they can be inclusive and accepting--but they have not succeeded in bending Rach to their mold, either.
H is a reluctant royal.
Abdication is a huge step but H does not want to be a royal. He is protecting Rach and Archie. "He has stepped up to be a real man."
Britain cares about Wm and H because they cared about Diana. Wm and H became very close.
H's Army life--he wanted to be a regular lad.
H was the third wheel with Wm and Kate.
Then Rach came along and told H take what you want.
Wm and H's relationship has deteriorated over the past two years due to Wm's comments about going slow with Rach.
Contrast between Diana's speech about stepping away from public life and H's final speech.
You would have thought that H would have learned from Diana's example that her break from the BRF did not protect her from the press. In fact, without BRF protection the press and paps became much worse for Diana.
"Wm will be a far lesser King without H." He needs H's support.
Were they walked away or pushed? Walked away.
Omid SCOBIE--They have experienced the breath of fresh air. Canada would be hurt if they were being used as halfway house.
They will make an extreme amount of money. Money will never dry up. They are famous in their own right by stepping away. The sky's the limit. Rach is now free to do what she wants.
Fergie and Peter Phillips commercials mentioned. If they can do it, why not HAMS?
MM can be Angelina Jolie--the nice version!
Talking about the cost of security. Of course they will be able to pay for their own security--because they will be making so. much. money.
Prediction that there will be more difficulties with paps. Every single moment of their life will be tracked. It will get worse. showed pics of HAMS in SA and in Canada House and the press camped outside.
The Queen and Harry:
The Brits will always welcome Harry back.
People care about the story b/c they care about the Queen.--Coping with PP, PA, Brexit all this year.
Alistair Bruce everyone, won. Why because they are in negotiation and don't get everything they want.
Royal rank has been put on hold.
They do not have the ethereal magic that royalty has now.
In a year we will find out that maybe not much has changed?
Harry loves his family and the Queen and his family. That love will stay. Program closed with pic of Harry and Her Majesty.
That's it :-)
IMO in many ways a more balanced view than the TMZ show on Fox. Interesting they ended talking about H and his love of his Grandmother and her love of him.
Just for context, I come from a country that has a hyperawareness of skin colour (colourism) and its association with class: http://www.jakarta100bars.com/2010/04/what-do-indonesian-girls-look-like.html?m=1
So the #FirstWorldProblems of a half-white woman who slated white in Hollywood (because she does pass as white, if she walked around a mall in Jakarta, people would peg her as "upper-class-looking") throwing the race card around really irritates me.
Maybe I'm cold.
But as wokies always remind others to "check their privilege", the fact is: priviledge recognises privilege. Just sometimes people turn a blind eye and let fellow priviledged people indulge in victimhood.
Like stop stealing energy/attention from people who have it way worse than you.
And IDK why I keep spelling "privileged" with a silent D. Sorry!! 😂😂
Hunter- David Icke doesn’t really think that royals are actually lizard people. They are controlled by their reptilian brains. I urge you to do some reading on the subject. It’s fascinating. And merely investigating something doesn’t mean you are obligated to believe it, unfortunately too many people these days think it does (not saying you do of course, just the general population). My biggest problem is that I will read EVERYTHING, and actively seek out things that are “bad” and scorned. Why would I take someone else’s word for it? You know?
I read David Icke's first big book in 1999. Called the Biggest Secret. I should look for it and read it again. Unfortunately I think it is in the back in some boxes I will have to sort though. It made a big impression on me. As far as his Reptilian claims. This just might be with some of the world leaders we have had in the 100 years. People like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and other mass murderers. His claims that the BRF are a reptilian blood line? I don't buy that. Some of the mega financiers and elites we have who meet at Davos? Some are reptilians. Saddam Hussein would qualify.
@BlueBell Woods totally agree. They are hiding the baby because they don't have him IMO. Who in their right mind does a Pap walk with a doll? With the strings showing where the arm is tied in place? That was just weird.
I believe Harry wants to protect his family and Megs wants the attention from the cameras!
"Like stop stealing energy/attention from people who have it way worse than you."
And instead do something to help them!!!!!
Wow, what a thorough accounting of EVERYTHING in the show. Even tho I watched it, reading over what you wrote brought clarity and balance, This show was definitely more believable (good and bad points), it was still hard to listen to some of the assertions. Thank you for your stellar effort!!!
This time I took notes during the show :-)
I thought one of the most interesting segments was the compare and contrast with alternating clips of Diana's Stepping back from public life speech and Harry's final speech, I found that journalism fascinating.
@Scandi Sanskrit--loved the "What does an Indonesian girl look like?" article. Thank you!