Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
Hey, if MM is helping her mother that's a good thing! If only she would help her father too....
@DesignDoctor - his name is Keir Simmons. Never says anything about anything.
They've p1ssed the British press off with the statement they made on their website.
I wouldn't say the gloves are fully off yet - but we're getting there! :)
Yes, we can chalk that up to karma, Fate, the Diety of your choice arranging things right that time. Harry has probably castigated himself every day since Meg arrived for his generosity in swapping out his mother's jewelry with William. If Meg had gotten Diana's ring, she'd have been late on the merching front . . . it's not like we haven't had about 10,000 renditions of that iconic sapphire in varying degrees of tackiness, all available online to anyone with a credit card and a Princess Di fantasy. I'll admit here in open forum that I have one myself, purchased after William and Catherine's wedding--that other, classier nuptial affair at Westminster Abbey. I have always loved sapphires and my glass version is going to be the only one I can afford.
It's usually customary for the eldest son to get the heirloom ring for his future bride, but it's rather telling that *William himself*, when offered the choice, selected his mother's watch instead, leaving the ring as the leftover for Harry. That tells me that at the age of 15, he had no emotional attachment to that ring, which he probably saw it as the painful reminder of his father's broken promises to his mother and the profound unhappiness she had in her marriage. By then, he would have been old enough to have read the story that the ring was not even chosen and given with love to Diana by Charles at the beginning as a symbol of their shared life to come--Charles had his equerry call Garrards to bring a tray of rings over to Clarence House and went off somewhere leaving Diana to pick out her own engagement ring with zero input or interest in the proceedings. Di admitted later that she only chose that particular one because it was the biggest and flashiest one there.
After the birth of her children, when things were headed on a downward slope to s(p)itsville, she only wore that ring for official portraits. So to me, that ring was, while eye-catching, a sad symbol of a failed marriage which the bride and the world had had such great hopes for. I could understand Wills not wanting it, initially. His mother's watch probably felt more personal to him if it was something she wore every day. But when Kate came along, he had a change of heart about the ring. Kate has redeemed it and wears it with pride every day. It suits her better than it ever did Diana, if I'm honest. It goes wonderfully with her dark hair.
Can you imagine that ring on Meg's finger? And later to be auctioned off for an astronomical price? You know she'd only have been seeing the dollar signs.
BlueBell Woods said...
@Nutty
I haven't finished reading all the comments from today yet, but wanted to hopefully catch you before you retire for the evening.
Can you speak to us on the issue of releasing all the negative info we know the press and the RF have on MM? In the past you have discussed super injunctions and how there are no longer any investigative journalists.
How do you think her secrets will be handled now in light of the Harkle's recent demands? Despite all the negative articles that have appeared over the last couple of days I'm surprised there haven't been more. Most of the leaks have been fairly minor with some dancing around the idea she plotted this before marrying him, and some discussion of the monetizing. Where is the baby scam, the yacht story, the sex tape, the overlapping relationship w/ Corey, details on marrying him under false pretenses, her psychiatric illness, how she treats people poorly, etc. The tabs have been sending reporters out but I'm surprised they haven't been able to dig up much more.
We have all agreed that the tabs / the RF need to release this info - and judging by the 'threats' from Tom Badby, they would be better off doing so first before Markle leaks whatever she thinks she has.
Any thoughts from your journalist's standpoint would be appreciated. TIA
January 12, 2020 at 10:44
“Intellectual property lawyer 'trademarks Sussex Royal brand in America to teach Harry and Meghan a lesson about having a proper plan'”
They’d have to license the name from this guy and pay him a royalty. How ironic the royals would get stuck paying a royalty.
This just shows how as I read last week a quite from a palace staffer who said Meghan and Harry’s plans are often half-baked, but Meghan kicks anyone who questions her ideas or plans or has suggestions or points out flaws to the curb.
Meghan thinks she’s smarter than everybody, but her overinflated senses of arrogance, elitism, entitlement, and grandiosity will be her downfall.
>>>Hey, if MM is helping her mother that's a good thing! If only she would help her father too....
I think any and everyone should be very wary of any 'help from Meghan. There's always going to be strings, followed by the inevitable Markling. Her mom is probably particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Unlike a lot of Meg's celeb 'friends', she doesn't have a lot of assets of her own, and there's the matter of her criminal record and other goings on during Meg's childhood. Meg wouldn't want to trumpet those too loudly for public consumption but holding them over Doria's head to force compliance in something shady with her merching proceeds would be in her wheelhouse.
I don't think Meghan is capable of love and that she uses and discards her mother like she did for her other parent and all her other relatives and friends. Doria can't be entirely cast aside though because she is the only person who can legitimize Meg's claim to Black heritage. That has been Meg's #1 asset above all--it's why she's been impervious to criticism from so many influential individuals and media outlets, and how any criticism of her can be blunted as 'racist'. Even after Meg (inevitably) divorces Harry, she's still gonna need her mom, more than ever, as she tackles merching to the American market.
Those African-American women who are Meg's most strident sugars really need to wake up and smell what their quasi black Princess is shoveling.
Of course. But it sort of depends on the source of the money if it came from M. Merching? Or worse? And maybe I sound unkind, but if I were Charles handing over "millions" outside of the Duchy funds because H&M couldn't pay their bills otherwise, I'm not sure I'd be happy to learn I was also supporting Doria.
I'm not saying Charles *wouldn't be* willing to support Doria (and Thomas), just that he might have wanted to know that he was. I know I would if I were him. But maybe he did know if that's what happened.
Harry choosing Disney cartoon over Royal Marines was reported by Harry Markle several months ago and caused a lot of disgust. Interesting media chose to put it on front pages just now.
@ Lizzie
Doria...if she suddenly came to posses millions of dollars in property and bank accounts I am sure Tax and Revenue will be rubbing its hands in anticipation. They read media and social accounts.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7885569/Late-night-TV-hosts-aim-Harry-Meghan.html
I think Doria lives at that house. I also think Meghan paid for her social work degree in order to make her roots seem more "respectable" than a mere travel agent with only a high-school diploma. Not surprisingly, Doria does not work as a counselor anymore, maybe because she didn't really like it and it was Meghan's idea afterall. Or maybe because her clients kept pestering her about Meghan. She's in her 60s, so that's retirement age.
Just because Meghan is so ambitious and materialistic/flashy wealth person, doesn't mean that her mom or her father are. I think both Doria and Thomas get unfair scrutiny.
I think Meg's primary interest in Doria is as a needed American base and repository for the merching proceeds, I suspect that's how Meg evaded the RF smackdown on her merching activities for so long. If she'd set up by prior arrangement with her merching partners that they would funnel those proceeds into accounts set up in Doria's name, then that money is: Out of the country (the UK, that is), and do not have any ties to any Crown accounts or personal accounts for her and Harry in Britain. It wouldn't take a forensic accountancy degree to figure out that when a retired lady in her 60s who teaches yoga on a volunteer basis at a community center and receives a small Social Security pension suddenly starts pulling in $10,000, $20,000 in a month, something fishy is up. But Meg is not *directly* seen to be involved. After all, she's a famous public figure--if her outfits are photographed and intrepid fans track down the exact styles and prices of clothing and accessories she's wearing and posts all the info about where to buy them and how much for . . what control does she have over that? (please read this last through my Snarkolator).
Doria may in fact be the repository for all the Meghan's Mirror proceeds and whatever other deals Megsie had with sponsors. Something happened with Jennifer Meyer--either Megs got cocky and accepted some payments into her own account OR some accountant on Charles's staff got curious as to why the Duchess was always posing so awkwardly in her photos, almost like she was . . .*modelling what she was wearing*.
This is all conjecture on my part, but I think fairly reasonable. If Meghan's mother is suddenly living large, with a new house and vastly diversifed/inflated portfolio, it isn't hard to make the jump that her daughter winning the marriage lottery has something to do with it.
I'm not in the Doria fan club; she may look sweet and docile, but this woman is one-half the couple that spawned Meghan. She is the parental unit who spent time in prison for financial crimes, living her budding Lolita shakedown artist with her doting patsy of a father. Meg has learned her games at the school of Doria and Tom, whether or not they meant to teach her those things. Didn't Meg herself say that her mom told her to only make friends with people who could do things for her?
So conclusion, they will crush the couple being very slow in solving things... this will make Meghan blood boil and even make mistakes. They already know how impatient the couple is, when they make the announcement before communicating the family.
Oh, my, I must have missed that question yesterday. I was making a pretense of being productive which amounts to looking thoughtful and saying things like "I'll get right on that but I'm researching another design first!" to the hubby while quickly trying to catch up on this thread. (This was much easier to pull off before he retired.) He is not convinced that instead of an all new design for a mermaid corbel, putting boobs on a dolphin would be sufficient.
I fell asleep sitting upright at my desk while trying to catch up again last night. Tonight, I'll be in a comfy chair (grin).
Goodness, the news is coming out in little driblets that are probably very significant, like PC saying that he doesn't have 'unlimited resources'. Personally, I'm PO'd for the Cambridges because PC reportedly spent so very much more on them than he did the future kings.
So sorry to catch an online news blurb that you are still under the ice and snow this morning with dangerous driving conditions.
I think very much that Doria and Thomas created Meghan, but in the usual way that parents create spoiled children. Divorced parents are particularly good at this. I also think Doria is pretty self-centered and probably contributed very much to this attitude of me-first. But being self-centered isn't a crime, nor is it a mark of evil. I'm not in the Doria fanclub, and it's rather shoddy argument to dismiss anyone's arguments against Doria being a secret financial store for Meghan as simply such.
It has been rumoured she has a vast portfolio or lives in a large new house. But I haven't seen any evidence for it, so would be curious to see bank account receipts or real estate titles saying that she lives anywhere but the house that her parents had (or new since Meghan became rich). As well as the prison records.
Speculating is one thing, discussing possible scenarios. But sometimes these rumours get spread and taken as truth or assumptions because it fits our narrative of someone, rather than have they been proven.
Regardless, what was being discussed here was whether Doria has a *new* house. She had been living in the house she inherited in 2011 after her father tripped on a dog leash and died. It's value was supposed to be around $750K. I'm sure you are correct it had appreciated quite alot since her father bought it. I have no idea how much cash money he left when he died in 2011 but I would doubt all that much since his specialty in "antiques" was selling secondhand designer shoes from a flea market stall. But maybe there's a more lucrative market for those than I realize. And I agree maybe Doria just didn't want to work full-time or maybe she didn't really like social work all that much. But a year or two after retiring from full-time work isn't usually when people trade up houses (assuming she has.)
The above is from the Royal Foibles website. Early last year the author wrote about how jealous Harry was of William. The blog has been forgiving of Meghan until recent events.
The author states this break is a hallow victory for Meghan, as Harry is more mentally ill than the Palace has let on.
If M started some SoHo knockoff in a single jewel box home, I don't see it succeeding all that well.
economics 101 on multiple levels
you have to have a good house in a great location enough of the right people will want to come to. If you sink too much money into the purchase/fix up/furnishings then you can wind up either:
> charging too much to cover your costs and people will not want to pay that or they will only stay 1 night to say they were there but went cheaper for the rest of the visit
> not charging enough because you have to have the place filled (costs mount filled or not)
> not having multiple places means that you can't spread the cost of the maids, handymen, etc over multiple rooms (the way they can in a hotel)
> difficulties with the being in the hospitality mindset
Taxes - oh, investing in real estate is a business and there are always tax implications to any decision (USA/Canada) If being a US citizen in the UK was a spaghetti tangle, this would continue to knot things up.
Layer on top of that the whole she doesn't do well with details or take advise from anyone.
Sequel to the War of the Wales
very descriptive and I think you are right that she will go for a book deal as it has been so successful for HRC/MO and so on. However, I know that ghost writer(s) will be used so they will try to get it more readable. Two things: this will not go down well with MM and the writer(s) will not think they were paid enough for what they were able to work on or will allow their name to associated with it.
Years ago I read Nancy Reagan's autobiography. Most was an I, not memorable until I got to the part where she wrote about having her little gun in her purse. That section, if you have memory of how she spoke, you can clearly hear her voice speaking this part. She was going to have that in there and no one but no one was going to alter it one letter. The power of immovable force steamrolling the ghost writer.
the best part about the latenight commentary is how Trevor Noah managed to once again make race the primary focus....said that Meghan didn't go because she knows what happens when "white people" invite black people to the country...
Nice and classy.
Prison sentences are a matter of public record. If Doria did indeed spend time in prison, it would be astonishing if this had not come to light in the media at least 2 years ago. You are stating Doria's 'prison time' as a fact, so I'm assuming you have very good evidence to back this up?
Her inheriting the house from her father: how did he die? Was she sole beneficiary?
All conjecture, all hearsay, mere allegations, but the cops stopped asking these question in 2017 apparently, according to another blogger.
how, then would you prefer her new found wealth to be presented...She suddenly has a better life with no means of support? It's a big mystery?
In my mundane life - in nowhereville...if I quit my job, but got a better car, a better house...people I know would ask each other to spill the gossip.
I'd be interested, not in DM or Telegraph, but off at sources like random tweets,journos who are friends of RRs, blind gossips, commentators,friends speaking out, former colleagues, inside sources posting on blogs and forums such as this one or LSA. And I'm definitely keeping my eyes and ears peeled to anything related to Dan/The Sun. He has been on to this for months now and has been surprisingly correct Everytime since the Sussexes-KP split was announced.
The Sussexes are also oddly quiet, probably regrouping and revising strategy. Coming up with more bullshit spins on anything that hurt Meghan's feelings this past 6 months. Expecting an insta post by this weekend.
Investigation dropped about time of royal engagement. All supposition of course
I suspect the other Markles might be on her payroll too. They are relatively quiet.
DM claimed that a palace aid filmed one of Meg’s meltdown episodes after Meg threatened a tell all interview. Maybe that’s the reason that William and Harry issued the joint statement.
Love the line "Most courtiers are now rumored to be speaking of MM in the past tense, as if she has already divorced Harry"
Delicious. I am almost beginning to feel sorry for the stupidity of the over-grown man-child.
The latest from Dan Wootton.
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1217117292120748035
"Sequel to the war of the Waleses" There is a great saying: "History manifests itself twice. First as tragedy then as farce"
We are watching the farce.
hallow victory should be hallow victory.
I quickly perused Lainey's website and she is stating the Sussexes have forced the Queen to talk about money which is the last thing she want to do. What a strange thing to claim as a win.
What's interesting about Royal Foibles is to see the change in opinion on Meghan. That shock announcement has so far not worked to her and Harry's advantage.
https://talkradio.co.uk/radioplayer/live/talkradio.html
When one takes more than a cursory glance at Britain’s current fourth in line to the throne, however, one discovers that all is definitely not what it appears. According to various sources reputedly close to Harry and at least one of his ex girlfriends, some of whose commentary has recently appeared in The Daily Mail as well as The Daily Telegraph, both publications being well known for their all but out in the open back channels to the Court of St. James, let alone the Royals themselves, Harry’s grappling with an increasingly growing sense of loneliness owing to several factors: his failure to find a suitable wife to settle down with, an equally gnawing feeling of professional futility, frustration and dejection owing to him having been forced to resign his military career and his desperate desire to resume it, and his jealousy directed toward an older brother whose married, happy with his wife, the proud father of a growing family, who’s also being allowed to pursue his piloting career despite being the heir presumptive to the throne. Additionally, and above all else, Harry’s bedeviled by a growing fear that, like his great aunt, Princess Margaret, before him, he’s destined to be left on the shelf by the eligible marital partners of his generation while his friends, family, and ex girlfriends all get happily married off and start families. Despite the seemingly democratic nature of Harry’s personal life and attitudes, the author suspects that HRH is a more conventional member of his socioeconomic strata than he appears, and doubts seriously that he relishes the prospect of becoming so desperate for a spouse that he settles for a photographer, or any other kind of marginally acceptable servant, as his long departed great aunt once did.
History repeats itself?
Let's wait for the details of the final agreement (although some aspects might not be made public and just lead to speculation) and see how much of that they get.
Harry is being bolstered by Meghan at the moment because he is still useful to her, so he is not thinking seriously about how darn difficult this new life is going to be. The 'empathy' she is soothing him with (interspersed with riling him up about 'be your own man' stuff) is 100% fake. Prince Phillip is frail, but no sympathy for him, his wife, his children or his grandchildren. No sympathy for anyone in the family, who actually love Harry. No sympathy for their staff who are going to lose their jobs (some of whom gave up lucrative opportunities elsewhere). No sympathy for the British people who have been subjected to seeing a beloved prince hustle for a job for his wife in public. No sympathy for the organisations and charities Harry was devoted to (Invictus Games had no idea what was going on - a decent person would have sat down and phoned every charity, organisation, patronage and spoken to them personally.)
Is it stupidity, seeing narcissistic traits as positive things, blind loyalty to some kind of celebrity figure?
Wait for the details of the settlement and then consider if the monarch is weak and has buckled and given them everything they want (given into blackmail, because they literally publicly threatened the monarch, and then put out a few teasers to show that they mean business).
First things first: let us now tackle the increasingly vexing subject of Harry’s romantic life. It’s now an open fact that in the great dating sweepstakes His Royal Highness is a two time loser, having been rejected by the two women he openly acknowledges as the great loves of his life. In an article published in the August 4 issue of The Daily Mail entitled Loneliness of Prince Harry: Dumped by BOTH of his great loves, jealous of William’s happy family – and about to turn 30, and curiously not attributed to a specific journalist, the details of Harry’s private torment are laid out a little too intricately to be merely armchair speculation and nothing more. Aside from his red hair and personable approach to strangers during public engagements, both attributes he clearly inherited from his mother, His Royal Highness has long been rumored to have also inherited from the late Diana, Princess of Wales a love of media attention, an inability to distinguish between the words “public” and “private”, and a need to seek validation from the press, as well as harboring a desire to control his own media image, by leaking to select papers stories concerning his private life. Far from standing in his way, the Prince of Wales’ press office seems willing to indulge Harry’s burgeoning relationship with the press, perhaps if only to mollify a prince long rumored to be emotionally unstable.
Interesting that Harry loves media attention and validation but must control it.
The problem is - could anybody trust her? That's the sort of work that requires a great deal of trust, and Meg is hardly trustworthy. She'd probably give the thumb drive to your greatest rival, or whomever offered her a bigger paycheck.
Hi Nutty. No doubt Meghan might copy the data, keep one copy for her own blackmail files and then also sell the information to one's greatest rival. I do not doubt that for an instant. But, there is always a work around. Let's say Meghan might be the go between to launder information--why is she needed? If she has diplomatic immunity, the diplomatic bags in her possession aren't to be searched. Each party involved might provide an escort for Meghan (like a private security guy) that travels with her from point A to point B ensuring that the information remains sealed in the bag until Meghan arrives at the determined drop point to make sure it is passed off correctly. (Doubt if this scenario will ever happen and it sounds far, far fetched-- b/c I don't think she has the cajones to pull something like that off--but if she is desperate for money, who knows?)
Another reason that Meghan might not want to live in US until Trump is out of office is b/c of the "Emoluments Clause" Article 1 Section 9, Clause 8 of US Constitution: Also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any person holding a government office from accepting any present, emolument, office, or title from any "King, Prince, or foreign State," without congressional consent. This clause is meant to prevent external influence and corruption of American officers by foreign States.
If she wants a shot at a political career, she can't do so with the HRH Duchess of Sussex title (literally it would take an Act of Congress to make her the exception to the rule). So, maybe by the time she decides to pursue a political career (which I think she really wants to do) her marriage with Harry will have ended in divorce.
I think that HMTQ and the BRF might think this "Sussexes in the wilderness" might be a learning experience for Harry. He can step back from BRF, live his life with his family w/o the formality, traditions, responsibilities, and duty that comes with being a member of the Firm-- realize that being Harry Sussex isn't so much fun b/c he no longer has his BRF safety net to catch him when he stumbles or protect him from the media, he gets sick of calling HMTQ to ask for guidance only to have her answer, "New phone, who dis?" and hang up. So, Meghan has moved on to a new life b/c she ditched him after Charles cut them off in Jan 2021, after 6-8 months of being alone, he finally gets out of his system what it is like to be a regular joe and asks to come back to the BRF fold. He might gain the public's favor by stepping up and helping William behind the scenes. It will be a slow process but he will return to his family and possible become a working member of the BRF.
The royal family don’t cover all things up. Sarah Ferguson’s Father was caught coming out of a massage parlour, and that was all over the British press. I’m sure any dodgy past of Doria’s would have been reported by now.
As Liver Bird has already stated, a prison sentence is a checkable fact.
Sequel as farce. I can see that (and a lot of sequels out of Hollywood sometimes really are that). Thanks Fairy Crocodile.
KitKatKisses - I really liked how you described how things are likely to shake out for him. Very poignantly phrased. I am reminded of a quote from Frederick Buechner
Anger - Of all the seven deadly sins, anger is possibly the most fun. To lick your wounds, to smack your lips over grievances long past, to roll over your tongue the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, to savor to the last toothsome morsel both the pain you are given and the pain you are giving back - in many ways it is a feast fit for a king. The chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.
Re trustworthiness.
I just saw a video on Skippy's blog where a woman who used to work with MM during her briefcase days expresses her delight hearing about MM's wedding to Harry. She openly says "She already has a kid from someone else..."
Imagine if this is true. Not a problem in itself it becomes a huge problem if she lied about it.
Nutty
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-us-tax-havens-delaware
When I saw Delaware, I thought of the obvious reason - great place to set up shop and makes it easy for launderers. In fact, it's a red flag on investment accounts for example (not on everything, however, because it's commonly used.)
My first thought re Meghan when I read she wants diplomatic privileges (no search) was laundering for herself. Not others, but to get her own non-taxable, don't-bother-with-the-foundation funds in thru a back channel.
But I also wondered if possibly this is what MI6 has on her from back in her pre-H and possibly yachting days? I said a long time ago that the biggest law I could see her breaking back in the day was not drugs (because, come on, half the world would be in jail then) but money laundering for high-rollers on the yachts. Lots of ways to do it, and I could see her having done that.
How it must please her that now she may have to launder her own. Normally, I would not jump to that conclusion, but she seems bereft of any and all moral center. The only ideals she holds are the ones that roll off her tongue as she tells virtue-signaling lies.
On another note entirely, I've not seen the late-night jokes, but she & H must hate being the laughing stocks that they are. I am so curious about why Mr. & Ms. Serena have dumped her. In Hollywood-ish circles, in my observation, that public mockery usually doesn't happen if there's something to still be gained and it's not absolutely deserved.
The thing is, building a brand with that name is probably going to blow up in their faces (fake royals, and people are really having fun with the Sussex).
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. That is their brand, but they still have a lot of work to do in building any brand, including a huge amount of publicity (so much for privacy).
“The War of the Poses”
The mask has slipped, and we see the raw power of monarchy. The kings and queens of England haven’t retained a throne for a thousand years by being soft. God’s anointed monarchs have kept their hollow crowns by force and cunning, or they’ve lost them to superior force and cunning.
Last week, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their secession from the monarchy, and that they intended to cash out with their titles, baubles, hereditary perquisites and sponsorship deals intact. Elizabeth II had other ideas. On Friday, the paparazzi at the gate snapped her driving the royal Range Rover with furrowed brow and full warpaint. The queen is 93 years old and has been in the media game all her life. She knows just how much leg to show. The message was, ‘I’m at the wheel now.’
As soon as Harry and Meghan dropped their bombshell, William and Kate rushed to brief their lickspittle media confidants. Harry and Meghan retaliated: both their households are as leaky as a Wellington boot that’s been chewed up by the corgis. But for Harry and Meghan, it’s less Wars of the Roses than Wars of the Poses: they want to look like victims cruelly cast out, not celebs on the make.
Her Maj gave the feuding grandchildren 72 hours to sort it out. On Monday morning, the princes made nice for the cameras, denying there had ever been a rift, that William had given up on holding Harry’s hand or snubbed Meghan, or that Kate had been, as Meghan’s people claim, ‘jealous’ of her. Then Her Britannic Majesty dropped the mike — and the hammer.
The queen says that she accepts Harry and Meghan’s wish to retire from the public royal work that they’d barely started, and decrees that there shall now be a transition period. Megxit turns out to be a lot like Brexit, which starts at the end of January. The moment of liberation is in fact an entry into an interminable and bitter ‘transition period’. This one will go on until the old lady sings — or until her minions have worked out how to completely sever the royal finances from those of Harry and Meghan.
The royals call themselves ‘The Firm’. Like any business, they want to minimize their taxes — allegedly through a number of secret overseas trusts. And while Harry and Meghan have trademarked a woke Pottery Barn called Sussex Royal, the royals have been protecting their brand since 1066. They’ve survived bankruptcies moral and financial. They’ve survived wars and liberal democracy too.
They survived Edward VIII marrying Wallis Simpson and courting Hitler. They’ve even survived the queen’s youngest son Edward getting the family to take part in television game shows, and her second son Andrew allegedly receiving daily massages as a guest of Jeffrey Epstein. They’ve survived Charles and Diana’s public divorce and Diana’s car-crash break for freedom. They’ve even survived photos of Sarah, Duchess of York having her toes sucked by her financial adviser — the sort of thing that people got their heads chopped off for in the good old days.
Through all of this, the queen has protected the brand and played the long game to secure the throne for Prince Charles. She’s cut out Edward, the Fredo Corleone of the family. She’s cut out hothead Andrew, the Sonny Corleone of the family. That leaves Michael, also known as Prince Charles, the one who thought he was meant for something better and then realized that this was his destiny.
Like Michael Corleone, Charles is now trying to go legit. He’s got his own War of the Poses to fight: the one to convince the British public, or at least the media, that the monarchy is worth its wages. He’s slimming down the royal family to the line of descent and forcing all the spare heirs to earn their own living, or at least to soak it off someone other than him. Even if the circumstances aren’t ideal, it suits Charles to cut out Harry and Meghan, and it suits the queen too.
It’s good to be the queen, but it must be miserable to see your family fall apart.
William stood in for the queen at an investiture ceremony, using sign language to communicate with one of the recipients, a TV sign language interpreter.
While somewhere in Vancouver (?) a 'duchess' sits and plots.
How do you think her secrets will be handled now in light of the Harkle's recent demands? Despite all the negative articles that have appeared over the last couple of days I'm surprised there haven't been more. Most of the leaks have been fairly minor with some dancing around the idea she plotted this before marrying him, and some discussion of the monetizing. Where is the baby scam, the yacht story, the sex tape, the overlapping relationship w/ Corey, details on marrying him under false pretenses, her psychiatric illness, how she treats people poorly, etc. The tabs have been sending reporters out but I'm surprised they haven't been able to dig up much more.
We have all agreed that the tabs / the RF need to release this info - and judging by the 'threats' from Tom Badby, they would be better off doing so first before Markle leaks whatever she thinks she has.
Any thoughts from your journalist's standpoint would be appreciated.
Thanks for the reminder, @BlueBell Woods!
First of all, I agree with @Alice that these are likely sources for leaks:
sources like random tweets,journos who are friends of RRs, blind gossips, commentators,friends speaking out, former colleagues, inside sources posting on blogs and forums such as this one or LSA. And I'm definitely keeping my eyes and ears peeled to anything related to Dan/The Sun. He has been on to this for months now and has been surprisingly correct Everytime since the Sussexes-KP split was announced.
But I also think the foreign press is one to watch - the Germans (Bild?) and the French in particular, maybe the Italians, with the Australians as a long shot.
The BRF wants plausible deniability and will profess to be horrified by these awful rumors and the invasion of privacy, even though the material may have been supplied by the BRF through an intermediary.
The UK press will gleefully cover both the leak and the BRF's pretend shock, while generating as many clicks (and paper copies) as possible. But the UK press still needs access to the Royals, so they won't be first on anything that might isn't secretly approved by the family or isn't be timed to serve the family interests.
I think they know the dirt, probably much more than we know. There are arguments to publish - so many clicks! plus they hate the Sussexes for their shabby treatment of the press and dumb lawsuits - and arguments not to publish, namely the worry about upsetting the delicate balance with the Royal family and with the public.
Nobody wants to make Meg look like the victim and create public sympathy for her.
Also, these unpublished stories serve as a counterweight to whatever Meg might want to release on the BRF, and Meg may have been told so directly. "If we see anything in public about Royal Family Member X's eating disorder, then we'll release the story about you yachting. Release that piece about Royal Family Member Z's private dinner with Tommy Robinson, and we release the videotape of you shouting racial insults at Melissa Toubati."
Keeping Meg quiet is going to be a challenge for the BRF, so perhaps they have been very explicit about what they have and are ready to release.
Did that answer your question?
And yes, on the dangerous road conditions. i am still in my jammies trying to decide if I should even bother to go in. The main roads are fine, but the new job location is right on the water and it's an ice slick, one big sheet. Add to that, I'd have to go up and down two steep hills and... well, needless to say, it's a mess, but at least we're expecting a new storm tonight with 3-5 inches.
New Nuttiers, apologies for exchanging key information with Swampie.
I really wonder how H feels the morning after. His entire life is now in Rach's hands. That should put the fear of God in him. Add to that this kind of stuff, "This means Meghan Markle can go back to Suits and Harry can sell them at Men's Wearhouse,", and I could see some buyer's remorse setting in. Caveat emptor, Harry, caveat emptor: Rach was never free, she was turning it for money, and you were just the simp who kept on paying after a night or two is my guess. Maybe if you hurry you can still slip back into the BRF under the wire.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/13/how-prince-harry-turned-into-lena-dunham/
Not a one has learned a damn thing; and would that the Cambridges wise up and detach from the keystone tomfoolery that is pretty much Charles' inefficacy.
William must not be penalised. In fact , it'd be a good idea for C to make a retrospective upward adjustment to what he planned to leave W, if he has not already done so.
I just can't help but wonder...if Harry thought being under the royal thumb was so tiresome...how is it gonna be when all the money is coming in through her - merching and appearances?
@MeliticusBee: If they stay together long enough for Mayhem to actually begin her world takeover, I think he’ll passively sit by and continue to do what she tells him to do. I doubt he can put together a cogent thought these days, let alone be able to realize that he’s nothing more than a badge she wears to gain access to elite circles that she couldn't access pre-Harry when, as a very mediocre actress, she just wasn’t anyone of great importance in Hollywood or anywhere else. Even now, she’s only important because of who she married. Que feminist wokeness sayings.
My guess is that Meghan will keep meticulous records of the money she brings in. She will regard every penny of it as hers. Narcissists don’t share anything. In a divorce, she will claim anything brought in after the split is completed as hers. She will also suck up any attention or accolades for herself with a small portion of the credit going to Harry. After all,have to throw a dog a bone every now and then, especially if you think it will keep it from peeing on the rug.
Harry never was the future of the Monarchy - his "coup" to make it so has failed miserably. We plebs await the fallout - titles, merch-ing and the inevitable divorce.
Elle said: "...Caveat emptor, Harry, caveat emptor: Rach was never free, she was turning it for money, and you were just the simp who kept on paying after a night or two is my guess. Maybe if you hurry you can still slip back into the BRF under the wire."
Spouses sucked in by Narcs like Rach read this and say things like: "But you don't see the good side of her; you don't know her/him like I do..." I could always come up with a naive excuse like that for my Narc. until I wised up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6724981/Serena-Williams-Amal-Clooney-host-baby-shower-Meghan-Markle-75K-penthouse.html#comments
Wrote this on Feb.20, 2019 to a friend with whom I trade anxious emails about politics. Apologies to Brits for my overtly American biases. I agree with just about every comment here.
Do any of us really believe she'll keep H around long enough to find out how Harry will feel about being under the thumb of the claw? Either her merching Suss-Ex Royals is a spectacular venture (unlikely, but if it is, then H serves no purpose) or it is a disastrous venture (much more likely, and then H is a hindrance because what's a woke feminist without a new rich man to support her ticky-tacky derriere). Either way, why keep H once this deal is done? She got what she came for.
I'm sure that every provision is being made to consider the unlikely and unfortunate (actually, it's neither) possibility of a divorce, so Rach isn't going to be able to cash in on divorce action. I see no purpose that H really serves in future, so why should she keep him?
Also, I wonder about this from Richard Palmer's twitter: @phildampier writes of Harry: “If, God forbid, his marriage doesn't work out, I'm not sure the British public will welcome him back with open arms.” I think that this is one more reason that the BRF must be able to slay Rach with the dark stuff they have on her and bring H back with his money intact. They can resell him, but it's going to take some long-game prep. I believe they'll be preparing for this.
I know Nutty thinks Enty (CDAN) isn't the most reliable source concerning the BRF but there is a new blind gossip:
"This offspring of a royal pedophile continues to be cheated on by her soon to be husband. There is even buzz he got an ex pregnant during one of their many visits together".
Yesterday, @Nutty said there may be trouble in paradise between Edo & Bea: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7877219/TALK-TOWN-Princess-Beatrice-beau-Edo-forget-glamorous-ex-Dara-Huang.html
If true, so sad for Bea...
Thank you for the reminder that we all need that speculation is not proof.
I do not at present have the criminal records of Doria Loroyce Ragland in front of me. I am a librarian and accustomed to doing research, but of the several databases I tried, including the California Department of State records, all require a registration fee for access of final reports and also more personal information than I am willing to provide for the purposes of 'showing my receipts' on an online chat form that I use mainly as a hobbyist and not as a source of legal papers. Were I going to take Doria to court or write a biography about her, I'd be willing to spend money and wait for days/weeks to get official arrest records from the County of Los Angeles. For the purposes of our discussion here, I will admit to repeating information about Doria's past activities which have fallen outside of the law and which have had a direct impact on the raising and development of her daughter.
The California Department of State records shows (3) criminal convictions against Doria Ragland. I cannot see the details of the charges or their disposition in terms of time served, where, probation, etc.
It has been verified that Doria filed for bankruptcy and was absent for several of Meghan's formative years, leaving her only child in the care of her ex-husband who had not lived with Doria since Meg was 2. It seemed to be a personally fraught time for Doria, even if she wasn't in Folsom.
County jail is not prison, and I don't have proof that Doria was incarcerated in either one, but to parse the difference seems a bit Clintonian to me. Jail, prison . . both are undesirable places to be. Doria was an absentee mom for a number of years, and a reasonable question is, why? She was not pursuing higher education at a university at that time.
We all make mistakes, and bankruptcy does not automatically equate to low moral character--it just displays that one is not a good manager of money or else has had a catastrophic personal crisis that has wiped out one's assets. There appears to be some clarity lacking in how Doria came by her late father's assets, including his home, but I do not have any further 'proofs'.
It's difficult to prove a negative, but perhaps if you are eager to exonerate Doria, you can find proof as well as I can that she did community service or has no criminal convictions.
It's just a gut feeling I have . . Gut feeling being inadmissable in a court of law, to which I will admit right now . . that it is true that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Doria's daughter's marriage means that it's going to be tough to ever be completely at rest about items about either one of their pasts that would rather not see the light of day. I don't know that Doria is involved in Meg's shady enterprises, but as the only member of her family still in contact with Meg, she is in a position to be used, even if that's not what she wants or intends. Maybe she hasn't been, so far . .but Meg is poised to be spending more time in L.A. very soon, looks like. Doria had been prepare herself. I think her papp-free existence is about to come to an end.
Thank you. You did some good research and three criminal convictions against Doria sound like something that will eventually be investigated by the media.
They held out due to that precarious balance between them and royals; it may not work now. It only takes one journalist willing to pay the fee for the records.
I bet they are drug charges
I see not much news is happening, so I’ve been productive this morning and getting a lot of stuff done around the house, sort of a pre spring cleaning.
Maybe Thursday/Friday will bring more news.
I’m doubly impressed and admire and smile at William signing his congratulations this morning. These are the things that make a difference in our world. Small gestures are important too.
Nutty, if the Sussex hunger down after this week, what shall we do? I have come to really enjoy this community here.
I suppose eventually there will be cringeworthy things to discuss again. I sort of expect there will be a period of a lack of news on these two.
@frenchie Liv Uugh that makes me sick for Bea if it’s true. IF it’s true, she needs to figure out why she chooses poor partners. Or maybe she will consider the age old open marriage thing as long as no one embarrasses the other
So you stated as a fact something you have no proof to be true at all?
"Were I going to take Doria to court or write a biography about her, I'd be willing to spend money and wait for days/weeks to get official arrest records from the County of Los Angeles."
What if you were a journalist looking to write an expose on the mother in law of a very famous British prince? Wouldn't you then be prepared to part with the presumably nominal sum to gain access to these papers, seeing as such a story - if true - could make you a substantial amount of cash?
The idea that randsom people on the internet 'know' that Doria did prison time for 'financial crimes', but that journalists couldn't be bothered to spend a few $ to find proof of it and get themselves a juicy news story, is frankly absurd. Also, none of the women who served time with her, none of the prison staff or any of the - presumably many - other people who would have known about this scandal have seen fit to cash in by telling all to the press?
"The California Department of State records shows (3) criminal convictions against Doria Ragland. I cannot see the details of the charges or their disposition in terms of time served, where, probation, etc."
Right. So you have no clue who the Doria Ragland in question was - there may be more than one person of that name - nor have you any evidence that she "spent time in prison for financial crimes."
"It's difficult to prove a negative, but perhaps if you are eager to exonerate Doria, you can find proof as well as I can that she did community service or has no criminal convictions."
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I don't care about Doria. I have no wish to 'exonerate' her. I'm not the one making claims about her and stating them as fact.
If we're going to criticise the Meghanistas for accusing people of racism without any evidence, or for spinning all sorts of stories about Kate and William similarly without evidence, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold ourselves to the same standards. Claiming that someone did prison time is a very serious accusation, and one which should be backed up by firm evidence, which should be easy to come by.
I wised up about Narcs by reading HG Tudor's website quite afew years ago. He probably saved my life.
@pumkinseed: HG Tudor’s narcsite has probably helped a lot of people break free of the steel leg trap-grip of narcissists. It’s very well-written and he digs into the behaviors of narcissists in an easy to read style that’s not clogged with too much medical jargon.
Have you read any of his A Very Royal Narcissist posts and the comments that follow each post? He goes point-by-point laying out Meghan's behaviors and the motivations behind each.
As of now, there are a total of 8 parts, but I expect more as Megxit plays out. The initial post was shortly before the wedding, with sporadic posts since then. However, more than half of the posts have been published since last fall with three posts during the past two weeks. The RF needs to read it.
And jail is quite different than prison, unless you're sent to prison for white-collar crimes.
Also, to say someone is eager to exonerate her, the flip side of it is that some people are eager to convict her. People have said it was certain she has committed financial crimes. When I say, I'd like some proof, it was then said that some people are in the Doria fanclub. Being in a fanclub and spinning every action to be positive or a misunderstanding is real problem - look at the mental gymnastics Meghan fans go through. But there's also the anti-fanclub, where guilt by association convicts before evidence and everything is negatively interpreted.
So far, there has been not much evidence but a lot of grandstanding. In the UK, one is innocent until proven guilty.I think, however, you could send your research as a tip to DailyMail. They definitely have the resources to investigate, and if you're right, the truth will out.
Following your example I also did a quick search and found a confirmation that there are "multiple" criminal offenses as well as at least one traffic violation associated with Doria Ragland, 63 in CA USA.
I also found information that her landlords tried to evict her at least twice. Doesn't mean much, because as you say she filed bankruptcy.
Like I said above, I'm not eager to 'exonerate' her. I don't give a toss about her one way or the other. I just don't think you should state as a fact that someone has served time in prison with zero evidence to back you up.
Normally, the burden of proof lies on the person who makes a claim, not on the person who asks for said proof.
@HappyDays, I have read his site and another good one to visit that has greatly helped me and would help Harry and the other royals understand MM's behavior is Dr. Les Carter's youtube channel. He has a huge following and is wonderful.
@Portcitygirl: Thanks for the info about Dr. Les Cartetd youtube channel. I’ll watch it this evening.
I looked up CA crimes of moral turpitude (the ones I've read about Doria included fraud and check fraud - and IF -- these are big ifs, speculative to a spectacular degree ifs -- and Doria was convicted for those crimes, it looks like she could still be sent to county jail instead of state prison, regardless of whether it was a misdemeanor or felony, based on what I found online. This is different from WA. IF Doria were in jail or prison, the fastest and cheapest way to find the records would be to search the county superior courts because that would be the likely jurisdiction.
I love your analysis of Liz's 'dropping the mike and the hammer' and 'knowing how much leg to show'.
As a huge fan of the Godfather movies, I also enjoy your analogy between the Corleone family and the House of Windsor. The Queen is Godmother, absolutely. Does this make Prince Philip OR The Duke of Glouchester her 'Tom Hagen'? PP has been her right hand man in all ways for 71+ years, so I pick him. Though . . any hotheadedness of 'Sonny' is inherited from Dad, I think. PP is a legendary 'Shoot from the hip first and apologize for the bleeding later'. Perhaps the Duke of G. is 'Clemenza'. Lord Geidt was a recent player but he's too young to be part of the 'Old Guard'.
You said:
"She’s cut out Edward, the Fredo Corleone of the family. She’s cut out hothead Andrew, the Sonny Corleone of the family. That leaves Michael, also known as Prince Charles, the one who thought he was meant for something better and then realized that this was his destiny.
Like Michael Corleone, Charles is now trying to go legit. He’s got his own War of the Poses to fight: the one to convince the British public, or at least the media, that the monarchy is worth its wages."
I have become a fan of the Earl of Wessex in recent years after dismissing him as a limp biscuit who was too soft to even finish his basic training for the Royal Marines, and then played around with theatre types so long that everyone but everyone questioned whether Sophie wasn't just a beard with a Diana haircut. After being together for 20 years without a hint of scandal on his part (Soph did have the imbroglio about using her Royal status to secure accounts for her travel agency--what a very mild sin that now seems in the wake of Hurricane Woko) . . I have changed my opinion of him. The Wessexes seem so at ease with one another in joint interviews and appearances . . their history together is apparent in their unpretentious rapport together. There's no nerviness, no showboating, no sense of a fake relationship covering over lies. They actually seem quite suburban and down to earth.
The Fredo analogy doesn't really hold for Edward, I feel. Fredo's tragedy was that he was the heir apparent to the Don title as the eldest, and would have had it, too, had he not been an imbecile. Ed is far from an imbecile. The imbecile gene has skipped his generation and landed on Harry, I'd say. He's totally a Fredo, led astray by unscrupulous people taking advantage of his mental deficiencies to shyster his family . . the same unscrupulous people assuring him that he's really a big shot, special and has been ill treated by his Familia. D@mn it's so spot on.
It really could be argued that owing to his birth order combined with his demonstrable temperamental unsuitability to be the Godfather of Britain that Charles is the Fredo, if we must choose one. Charles, the Woodstock Generation, might have railed against the confines of his role and the distant treatment of his Greatest Gen parental units . . but I think there's never been a day when he didn't realize what his destiny had to be--to wear the Crown. He might not really *want* it on some level, but since the age of 14, he has accepted his destiny.
Which is not to say that I believe Diana was wrong when she said her husband was not suited for the top job. Diana was very astute about people. I don't think she said that *just* to be vindictive, but that was probably the most hurtful thing she could have come up with to insult her ex-husband. Interestingly, I have never found a single instance of Diana disparaging Charles as a lover and she called him a good father. I think her compliments were as genuine as her insults.
I think of Charles as 'Farmer Chas' . . like his ancestor George III, he is happiest close to the land and I think has great earthy passions under a reserved public demeanor. He'd live out his life happily as gentleman farmer of the Duchy of Cornwall, but after 71 years in wait for the top job, he knows everybody's expecting him to fail and he's got something to prove. If he didn't ascend after such long and dutiful service to his mother, it would be beyond crushing.
Charles is not as dumb as Fredo (He reads Laurens van der Post!) . . but I don't suppose I'm alone in lamenting that Anne can't be Queen. She's the best of both of her parents combined, and the natural, if not the Constitutional successor to the current Godmother. Let us hope that King Fredo has enough brains to install Anne as his Tom Hagen.
Though I mostly praise Edward these days, that game show idea of his was a giant fail.
But the others agreed to participate; he didn't force them. As the youngest Earl nobody, he couldn't make them. They all failed along with him and they chose it.
Apologies if this has been stated, but I believe that the Queen's statement means that Harry and Meghan are no longer Duke/Duchess/HRH but just "Harry and Meghan Sussex." Yup, I think they're gonna change their last name to Sussex (I suspect that keeping Sussex was one of their non-negotiables). I think they're officially out as "Members of the Royal Family" but will always be "normal" family members who are welcome (much like Prince Phillip in his retirement.) One of the posters here commented about Princess Patricia (one of Queen Victoria's granddaughters) who married a commoner and relinquished her Princess and HRH titles.
Given the precedent, I think they'll treat Harry and Meghan the same. From Wikipedia about Princess Patricia: "Despite her relinquishment of her royal title, Lady Patricia remained a member of the British Royal Family, remained in the line of succession, and attended all major royal events, including weddings, funerals, and the coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Elizabeth II in 1937 and 1953 respectively. She rode in the carriage processions with other members of the Royal Family at the funerals of George V in 1936[13] and of King George VI.[14] At the coronations, she proceeded in state from Buckingham Palace with other members of the Royal Family and took part in the procession of princes and princesses of the blood royal, attended by a train-bearer and an officer to carry her coronet. She also attended royal garden parties and participated in state visits, her attendance being recorded in the Court Circular together with other members of the Royal Family."
I can see the Queen and eventually Charles and William allowing Harry to make appearances at events like Trooping the Color, weddings, coronations, and funerals, but that's it. Especially since they will live overseas, I think it would be very easy for H&M to be "unavailable" for any other events. (I honestly hope they're divorced by the time any coronations come about, but I don't see Meghan being welcomed at any event except for a very remote balcony appearance for ToC.)
Another observation from the Queen's statement - no mention of Archie whatsoever. They want to build their own family, but she only talks about "the Sussexes" splitting their time.
I don't think the Sussex noise will die down, it is just on pause.
H&M are figuring out their response and next steps. Lainey is saying this a win for them as they got out on their timeline. However she criticized the Queen's statement as being rushed and unprofessional.
In the next few days and weeks more info will be forthcoming.
It appears the Sussexes need the media attention like most people need air. They just want to control the narrative.
ROBERT HARDMAN: How Princess Diana proved you can't serve the Queen and trade on the royal name.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7884079/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Princess-Diana-proved-serve-Queen-trade-royal-name.html
The California Department of State records shows (3) criminal convictions against Doria Ragland....
Bankruptcy goes to federal court, and it is not a crime, so we do know that the state records are not for the bankruptcy.
County jail is not prison and agreed, both are undesirable places to be
Both are incarceration, and there is a lot of variation between the two based on location/location/location and who ends up where. Suffice to say, best to avoid both, and if Doria was convicted of a crime and had to go to either, without a doubt that would impact a child. In addition, crimes of moral turpitude (like fraud) are treated differently in the courts as well, in relation to prior bad acts, testimony about same, etc. because they are indicative of a dishonest character.
It's just a gut feeling I have . . Gut feeling being inadmissable in a court of law
Gut feeling is inadmissable in court, darn it all, lol, and those pesky prima facie elements get in the way as well, BUT intuition is a powerful tool for leading in the right direction, researching the background, having insight into case law and possible avenues of research, and that little inkling has paid off repeatedly for me. I think Ozmanda would agree, right Oz?
Now I am curious. Which counties would be the most likely for Doria? LA?
Given the precedent, I think they'll treat Harry and Meghan the same."
I don't really think it is a precedent. Patricia wasn't demanding taxpayer funded security and Duchy money - even while living abroad - nor was she (presumably!) looking to profit from any royal titles. Her position sounds kind of similar to what the likes of Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall have - no HRH, no titles, no royal duties, but still participate in the 'family' events.
I think the Harkles situation is pretty much unprecedented. And I think the real sticking point will be their security. On the one hand, why on earth should British taxpayers pay for the security of 2 people who've made the free choice to move abroad and not contribute to the country? Especially with all the cutbacks to the police force being discussed on the news? On the other, what if anything were to happen to either of them or - god forbid - Archie? We'd never hear the end of stories about how the queen let Diana's baby be attacked or some such nonsense.
My guess is Charles will end up paying for it out of his own 'private' funds, like Andrew does for his daughters. But there will still be so many issues to resolve. I can't see them losing their titles as that would require an act of parliament, but they cannot be allowed to use a royal office for personal gain, as that is against elementary principles of government. We shall see. Oh, and welcome to the discussion!
Does anyone have access to this article ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/01/14/court-documents-detail-meghan-markles-deteriorating-relationship/
It was reported in the news this week that the Queen can revoke the titles. Whether the Queen has to initiate it first, and then it’s passed to Parliament, I have no idea. We can only see what happens.
To the best of my knowledge, the queen can revoke the HRH with the stroke of a pen, but removal of a royal peerage requires an act of parliament. Either way I would consider it highly unlikely as the only royal peers to have had their titles revoked under this act were dukes who collaborated with the Germans in WW1. Whatever we here might thnkk of the Harkles, they're not quite at that level of treachery!
Re Doria,
"So you stated as a fact something you have no proof to be true at all?"
Yes, I suppose I did. I indulged in posting a speculation as a fact, but I am hardly alone in doing that here. If America runs on Dunkin, speculation is what keeps Internet blogs about Meghan going. Nutty has a very high quality product and group of commentators, but we are often reduced to speculation since there is so very little verifiable information about Meghan and her family. Why do you suppose that is? Doria's arrest records are a whole lot easier to find that any photographs of Meghan graduating from Northwestern or a genuine recollection of her from any of her sorority sisters, for example.
None of her exes are talking either, which I find very interesting. However she's done it, Meg has used a powerful scrubber on aspects of her past which do not fit her Perfect Princess narrative and it's quite possible the same has gone for her mom. She threw Tom under the bus without regard, but she'd used him up already. Doria will remain useful forever because of her complexion, in terms of bolstering the Sussex brand.
I don't know about you, but I come here to relax and enjoy debate, which are not contradictory to me. This is a private hobby board, not a mainstream publication. Is it reasonable to expect that every comment here be vetted according to journalistic standards of libel/legal standards of proof?
I think not. While much of what we say here can often be unkind, about various celebrity figures and each other, we are basically having an online open house. Do you require all of your friends to produce papers of proof whenever they make a comment in conversation? It's good to have a diversity of opinions and fine to disagree when you do. But your disagreement is now feeling like an attack. I won't resort to calling it bullying because I'm not a snowflake, but it's coming off a bit more hostile than perhaps you intend.
I'm all for exonerating Doria, and heck, Meg, too. The 'Innocent til Proven Guilty' thing works in their favor, and those of their supporters as well, because while proof of guilty can be demanded, innocence is automatically assumed.
Were I seated on a jury I would do my very best to abide by that fundamental principle of jurisprudence. But I would have to recuse myself from any trial where Meg was the defendant because I am biased against her. I readily admit it. I'd be willing to be open minded about her mother; what I have repeated about Doria is in the atmosphere, kind of like the smoke from all those Australian wildfires.
If she had as many invitations from the Royal family as Meg attributes to her, she'd be quite the fixture at several of the Royal palaces. But I don't blame Doria if some or all of those stories are proven false, as most of them have been.
ALL the H&M Solved Blind Items have been removed from blindgossip.com
They had at least 3 or 4 or 5 yesterday, they are gone.
Woah.
Breaking news : Meghan Markle spotted for first time since Megxit boarding seaplane in Canada.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10739697/meghan-markle-prince-harry-vancouver/
Markle has been papped boarding a seaplane in Canada! Now the question is, did she arrange for the pictures to be taken or did the tabs find her on their own?
I think it's possible Doria's just another victim of her daughter's narcissism, I haven't read anything convincing about Doria and I mostly consider her to be a private woman who minds her own business until I see otherwise. Bankruptcy and having a devilspawn daughter are not QUITE convincing marks of a deviant.
>>>Now I am curious. Which counties would be the most likely for Doria? LA?
Yes, I put in Los Angeles. Her father's property is there and that's what she inherited. I presume her roots have always been in L.A.
Misdemeanors do not carry jail sentences; usually fines and restitution/community service. If she spent any time in the pokey, it was for a felony charge. Grand theft is a felony. There was talk of irregularities with her father's estate. Elder abuse, coercion, etc. in how she wound up in his home as his beneficiary. **only speculation on my part/do not have chapter and verse**
Given the family's enthusiasm for cannabis, there may be some drug charges on her sheet as well, though a brief custodial sentence in County for some weed dealing or whatever wouldn't seem to have been the long absence that kept Meghan in her father's sole custody for 5 years.
Meghan claimed at various times to 'barely know' her half brother and sister. They are a lot older than her, but there are so many family holiday photos, and if she lived her her dad's place all through high school, it's really really weird that she barely got to know her dad's other children, innit? Tom's two eldest seemed to be pretty close to him until he moved to Mexico.
Just random thoughts . . I hope I won't need proofs of exactly how many times Sammy and Tom, Jr. had dinner over at their dad's while Megs lived there. :)
Speculation about people's motives, their relationships, what they might do next, sure? Passing off very serious accusations - against people barely involved in the matters being discussed - as fact? Not so much. Particularly when what you're accusing them of is a matter of public record.
" Is it reasonable to expect that every comment here be vetted according to journalistic standards of libel/legal standards of proof?"
If you're going to make a very serious factual claim - and one which is a matter of public record - then yes, I think it is.
"Do you require all of your friends to produce papers of proof whenever they make a comment in conversation?"
If my friend said "I think Jane from accounts is a snooty cow" then no. If my friend said 'Jane from accounts did prison time for financial crimes'' then yes.
"It's good to have a diversity of opinions and fine to disagree when you do. But your disagreement is now feeling like an attack."
I'm not 'disagreeing'. I'm asking you for evidence of a very serious claim which you chose to make, one which you stated as fact and one which can be verified with the relevant public records. You're trying to turn this back on me, first by saying I'm trying to 'exonerate' Doria, and now by saying I'm 'attacking' you. I don't believe that asking for evidence to support what is once again, an extremely serious claim which can be verified by public records, is an 'attack'. It's a normal part of discussion, or at least it is for me.
Like I've said, if you don't feel it's reasonable to provide evidence when you make a claim, then you can't really complain when folks on Celebitchy or similar sites accuse people like us of 'racism' or the like. I just don't believe you should casually accuse people - especially someone who is a private citizen and keeps herself to herself - of having spent time in prison without proof of what you are saying. That goes beyond speculation and gossip and borders on slander.
They had at least 3 or 4 or 5 yesterday, they are gone.’
They’ve just moved them to the ‘Solved Blinds Items’ section. I’ve just checked. ;o)
"I don't know the US legal system, but what counts under a criminal conviction?
A criminal conviction happens when you're found guilty of violating a criminal statute.
In the US, criminal statutes are laws codified by the state and federal legislatures (as opposed to common law which is law that establishes precedence, and the US system uses common law), but those are the basic laws, and the courts of highest jurisdiction clarify and define the terms and application thru an appellate review process. How those laws are interpreted varies a lot state to state and federal by circuit. But regardless, the simple answer is that only criminal code violations result in criminal trial. Civil law generally results in monetary shuffling (esp for the attorneys :), and punitive penalties can apply, but only under certain conditions. No jail/prison. HOWEVER, that said, the same situation can sometimes be tried in criminal and civil, but they would be different causes of action. So, for ex, OJ - State v. OJ was the criminal case for murder; Goldman v. Simpson, wrongful death suit, civil case, different elements, and a different burden of proof.
The answers in standalone, straight up cases:
Speeding tickets? No, civil infraction.
Unpaid parking tickets? No. (although long enough and a big enough pile, court can issue bench warrant and bring you in to belly up, but like I said, standalone, straight up, no)
Fraud? Yes and depending on what type and details apply, this can be one of the worst because of the way it impacts future legal issues
Attempted manslaughter? Attempted murder, I think is what you mean, and YES; manslaughter, Yes.
Child abuse? Yes.
Drug laws vary by state and amount, whether enough to distribute, firearm, etc.
Possession of marijuana? Depends on state.
Possession of meth? Yes.
And jail is quite different than prison, unless you're sent to prison for white-collar crimes.
Jail and prison - one is not necessarily better than the other. One of the county jails here is so bad that, depending on the case and the client, the client will sometimes choose to plead up to Class C felony from Gross Misdemeanor to avoid county (a difference of one day, sometimes, but a bigger difference on the criminal record going forward). Both are incarceration.
The white-collar crime that can land a person in federal prison is shown to be cushier, but that is not always the case either. If you're a money-launderer who was working for terrorists and you end up in a Supermax, you're going to be sad, for ex.
In Doria's case, I am curious. We know her birthdate, so a records search can turn up more details, but as I said above, knowing the county would be good.
Yes, she can revoke the HRH style and she has done so in the past with both Diana and Sarah. But that wasn’t what the press was stating, it was the titles they were referring to. I’m not going to argue with the press. I’m happy to wait and see what actually happens.
Misdemeanors do not carry jail sentences
Bad news ;) -- yes, they can and do, it depends on the misdeameanor. Gross misdemeanor is sometimes the plea deal down from a Class C Felony, for ex, and you're still going to jail/prison (here, gross misdemeanor gets you jail v. prison)
"In California a misdemeanor is defined as a crime for which the maximum sentence is no more than one year in county jail. A misdemeanor is more serious than an infraction but less serious than a California felony.
California misdemeanors fall into two basic categories:
“Standard” California misdemeanors, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000;1and
“Gross” or “aggravated” misdemeanors,” punishable by up to 364 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 or more.2
There are also certain crimes known as California “wobbler” offenses. These are crimes which the prosecutor can choose to charge as a misdemeanor or a felony (or, in some cases, a misdemeanor or an infraction)."
It's different in WA, always have to check the state, but this is a gross misunderstanding of the law and why people say "oh, it was only a misdemeanor" to which the important questions are "what was it for and how did they plead it?"
Let's not curdle the atmosphere any more. You are attacking me for making a comment that has been oft repeated in here. I have admitted that I was repeating gossip, but I am hardly alone in doing that here.
I've already explained as well that I did do some research on my own time to see if I could easily answer your demand for proofs. Due to money, extensive application forms and the time element, I am declining to do so to douse the bee in your bonnet, but that avenue is always open to you if you need to prove that my gossip is entirely unfounded.
In turn I do not feel it's reasonable to demand evidence for claims made in here when we are in actuality just virtual friends bandying around theories in conversation. This does not count as 'publication' for the purposes of slander/libel laws. This is entertainment/satire/wonderings . . hell, call it imaginative fiction if you like.
Please consider my comment about Doria having gone to prison retracted. She was absent out of her daughter's life for many years, and does have some convictions in the State of California. Prison is a possibility but not a certainty. 'Prison' is a big bad word but someone who was convicted but eluded a custodial sentence is merely luckier than someone who got sent to prison, not necessarily more innocent.
I'm considering this conversation about Doria closed. As to what the posters on Celebitchy say about 'us'--I assume you mean the commentators here--I couldn't care less, really. I've never visited that site and never will.
Now that the proverbial merde has splattered on the wall somewhat for the Sussex duo, I wonder what will become of our community. If Meg is out of the Royal family, and she and Harry will be temporarily notorious celebs until they fall into ignominious obscurity or an early grave, the uniting purpose in watching the Sussex story unfold, whichever side one was on is beginning to unravel. The rather anticlimactic meeting just past had some positive language but I think signalled the beginning of the end for Harry and Meghan as a couple, and as pop culture figures that anybody is going to be interested in. If these are the end days for our board, I'd hope to go out on a friendly note. Instead, in recent weeks, a gladiator atmosphere has emerged which isn't too fun. Everyone's nerves are frayed by this saga, but I hope we can avoid taking chunks out of each other.
You have a very high standard of proof for dinner party conversation. I will be sure to keep that in mind.
Meghan claimed at various times to 'barely know' her half brother and sister. They are a lot older than her, but there are so many family holiday photos, and if she lived her her dad's place all through high school, it's really really weird that she barely got to know her dad's other children, innit? Tom's two eldest seemed to be pretty close to him until he moved to Mexico.
Just random thoughts . . I hope I won't need proofs of exactly how many times Sammy and Tom, Jr. had dinner over at their dad's while Megs lived there. :)
LOLOLOL I think Rach is walking/talking proof of BFL
And may be he is used to taking several horses to a match (because you change them like every 8 minutes; they may get easily injured, exhausted, etc.). Then you also need to renew your "troop" quite often, since polo horses tend to die young (heart and other problems). Besides, you need your team of ostheopaths, veterinary, horse dentist, etc. Plus cover for expenses like flights when taking your group of horses to play a match somewhere else. Let's add all those expenses to the taxes, security and other Harry might have to cover now "independently"!
BTW, I've always found weird, if not alarming, that Meghan took such a little baby to a polo match. Didn't see it pointed out, but it's dusty for the tiny nostrils (dust flows), noisy for the little ears (such loud stampedes and crowds you sometimes don't hear the game bell). Best wait until they are one year old, and have them in a pram or Baby Björn to protect them.
Notable excerpt....
"I am a freelance photographer based in Windsor, Berkshire and I have over thirty years experience working for local and national newspapers and working with leading PR companies and major brands.
So based in Berkshire but snapping pics in Canada. The local and national newspapers part doesn't apply here. That leaves leading PR companies and major brands. He was called.
https://doug-seeburg.pixelrights.com/about
She may or may not have called him but apparently many photogs and reporters have flown to British Columbia.
Telegraph Royal Family
Court documents detail Meghan Markle's deteriorating relationship with her father Thomas Markle,
Robert Mendick, chief reporter
14 JANUARY 2020 • 8:00PM
The Duchess of Sussex just wanted to protect her privacy.
Last autumn she declared she was suing a British newspaper over the publication of excerpts of a letter she had sent her father Thomas Markle, accusing him of breaking her heart “into a million pieces”. The bombshell announcement was made on the penultimate day of an (up to then anyway) successful Royal tour of southern Africa.
The Duchess must have hoped the threat of legal action would have brought a halt to what she perceived as the Mail on Sunday’s campaign against her.
But on Tuesday night, any chance of putting a lid on the rift with her father - and further adverse newspaper reports - appeared to have been blown sky high.
The defence document lodged yesterday in the High Court in London exposes in full their deteriorating relationship while accusing the Duchess of allegedly being - in part at least - an architect of her own breach of privacy. It suggests that when she wrote the letter to her father, she was aware it would likely end up in the public domain.
The letter’s existence only came to light six months after it was written when a US magazine, briefed by friends of the Duchess, made mention of it.
The 44-page defence submitted by Associated Newspapers, the owners of the Mail on Sunday, contains details of text messages and phone calls between the Duke and Duchess and Mr Markle both in the run-up to and in the aftermath of their wedding on May 19th 2018.
After days of largely excoriating criticism of the Duke and Duchess for wanting to quit as ‘senior’ Royals, the Mail on Sunday’s legal defence is probably the last thing they needed. The newspaper is refusing to back down and has seemingly signed up Mr Markle as its star witness. The court case, whenever it should take place, is likely to be the trial of the century with the Duchess pitted against her father in the witness box. It won’t be pretty and the loser will be facing a legal bill running into the millions.
The defence document is quick to point out that the Royal family are public figures supported “largely by public funds”. The security bill for their wedding, held in Windsor castle, says the legal defence by way of example, cost the taxpayer £30million. The Duchess, 38, enjoys the lifestyle of someone with ‘extreme wealth or elite connections’ flying to Ibiza, again by example, on a private jet, it claims.
At the heart of the case is the letter - given the capitalised significance The Letter in the court documents - sent by the Duchess to her father in August 2018, after the wedding he had missed.
Mr Markle, 75, insists he was too sick to travel after suffering a heart problem. But prior to the wedding, he had been caught out - ironically perhaps by the Mail on Sunday itself - arranging with a photographer staged photographs showing him preparing for the wedding. These were then sold to newspapers around the world and Mr Markle received his fee.
In the week before the wedding father and daughter had been on good terms, according to the defence document. On May 10, Mr Markle sent his daughter a text about “looking forward to trying on my [wedding] shoes” and ending it “Have a good night. I love you dad.”
But a day or two later they had an awkward phone conversation in which Mr Markle admitted to staging the photographs and that an article was about to appear.
On May 14, the defence document alleges, he wrote to the Duchess stating “that he loved her and that he would not be attending the wedding and that he was going to make a public apology to the Claimant and Prince Harry.”
He received a “text response from Prince Harry saying that he (Mr Markle) did not need to apologise and that he should call.”
<
But on the same day Mr Markle insists he “began to feel very ill with shortness of breath
and chest pains” and went into hospital
This is @Nutty's blog, her rules apply. I check in when I'm not sure how she'd like to proceed, but I don't tell her how to run her blog. If Nutty decides we're too much trouble, she could potentially shut our fun crew down, so maybe the trick is to remember that no one Nuttier finds every comment compelling and worthy (I sure as hell scroll past many and I hope some others are scrolling past mine, too).
For the newer members, it can probably be annoying because a lot of us, like @GabesHuman, have been here since the early days, and so we have connection and ongoing jokes / convos. But like Grace Kelly said to Lady Di "Cheer up, it will only get worse" lol.
>>>@Hikari: I haven't had the chance to catch up on your most recent posts yet but just wanted to let you know that Samantha and Tom Jr. lived with Thomas, Doria and Meghan for a while - not sure how long. I think it was supposedly part of the reason Doria left Thomas - having to deal with his teenage children. All 5 of them lived together in one house.
Thank you. I had read similar. If their little sister claims then to 'barely know' them, which do we file that under . . 1. Slander (reported speech about Tom, Jr.: "I don't know who that is." 2. Libel (MM in letter to dad: "Your other daughter, who I barely know . ." or 3. Persistent retrograde amnesia?
Her PR machine/lawyers have been very good at erasing Meg's past and replacing it with shinier bits to burnish her resume, but Meg was really in a sticky wicket with the family photos. She couldn't obliterate them all; some may be in Mexico. Plus, she wanted to promote the idea that she was a nurturing, domestic person to whom family was important, even if she'd 'never had' a family before, according to Harry. Those inconvenient photos will hang around forever to challenge her version of events. Meghan, why did complete strangers invite you into their home so many times, and what prevented you from forming any memories of being there? Curious minds want to know.
in California where he wad diagnosed with “suspected congestive heart failure”.
On May 16, according to the defence documents, Mr Markle “underwent an emergency heart procedure” and “on the same day he texted the Claimant to let her know that he had undergone surgery and would not be able to attend the wedding because his doctors would not allow him to fly, and said he was sorry for not being there”.
The defence alleges he later received a text response signed ‘Love M and H’, “but which read as if it was from Prince Harry... admonishing Mr Markle for talking to the press and telling him to stop and accusing Mr Markle of causing hurt to his daughter.”
The defence goes on: “The text did not ask how the surgical procedure had gone or how Mr Mrkle was or send him good wishes.”
Mr Markle, the Mail on Sunday alleges, was “deeply hurt and responded with a curt message: ‘I’ve done nothing to hurt you Meghan or anyone else.”
Mr Markle received no further messages from his daughter, according to the legal document, until being sent the letter in August 2018, some months after the wedding.
Excerpts from the letter were published in the Mail on Sunday on 10 February 2019, six months after it was sent, under the headline: “Revealed: The letter showing the true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with a father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces’.”
The letter’s existence had been first made public four days earlier in an article published in People, a US magazine, which claimed that five of the Duchess’s closest friends wanted to set “the record straight”.
A “longtime friend” had told People magazine that even up to the night before the wedding the Duchess was trying to contact her father, sending him a message “Please pick up. I love you, and I’m scared.”
One headline in People magazine online stated: “The Truth About Meghan Markle’s dad - and the Letter She Wrote Him After the Wedding.”
In its legal submission, Associated Newspapers alleges that the People magazine account had “depicted Mr Markle as having acted unreasonably and unlovingly, having cold-shouldered his daughter and being solely to blame for the estrangement”.
The newspaper adds: “This was a one-sided and or/misleading and false narrative.”
The defence submission adds: “The Claimant’s privacy rights do not extend to silencing her father.”
Excerpts from the letter were published in the Mail on Sunday on 10 February 2019
In its legal defence submitted to the High Court, the Mail on Sunday argues that the “letter was written and sent by the Claimant [Duchess of Sussex] with a view to it being read by third parties and/ or disclosed to the public, alternatively knowing that the same was very likely”.
The defence submission states: “The Letter does not appear to contain the Claimant’s deepest and most private thoughts but to be an admonishment by the Claimant of her father for failing to behave as she would have wished.
“Amongst other things, she accused him of breaking her heart, manufacturing pain, being paranoid, being ridiculed, fabricating stories, ofattac cking Prince Harry, and continually lying.”
The newspaper alleges that the Duchess had taken “great care over its presentation” adding: “The Letter appears to have been immaculately copied out by the Claimant in her own elaborate handwriting from a previous draft. There are no crossings-out or amendments as there usually are with a spontaneous draft. It is to be inferred also from the care the Claimant took over the presentation of the letter that she anticipated it being disclosed to and read by third parties.”
The defence claim goes on: “It [the Letter] rehearses the Claimant’s version of the history of her relationship with her father and her family in a way that strongly suggests the Claimant wanted or expected third parties to read it
The legal documents adds: “Except for receipt of the letter, Mr Markle has not heard from his daughter since he wrote to tell her he was too ill to attend her wedding, nor has he ever been introduced to or met Prince Harry or their son, his grandson.”
Associated Newspapers says that the Duchess had not “complained to People magazine... about the publication of any of the information in the People interview, either on the grounds that it contains private information published without her consent or that it is inaccurate.”
The newspaper insists the letter sent to Mr Markle was his property and “he was entitled to give it to whomever he chose”. It also argues that Mr Markle had the right to publish his “account of events” in the wake of the People magazine article.
The publishers also claim that Kensington Palace has “refused to comment on whether the sources for the People interview had given the interview or co-operated at the request of the Claimant, or with her consent, express or tacit.” It adds: “The Claimant herself has not at any time denied this fact.”
Associated Newspaper goes further in its defence document, alleging that on another occasion in April 2018, the Duchess enlisted a ‘close friend of hers, Jessica Mulroney, to intervene” after another friend Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne, a former commercial adviser, had given an interview to the Mail on Sunday. After the interview - but before it was published - the newspaper approached Jason Knauf, the Duke of Sussex’s then communications secretary, notifying him of the interview’s contents.
Associated newspapers, in its legal defence, then alleges that on the same day the Duchess contacted Ms Mulroney “to try to ensure that a more favourable article was published”. Ms Mulroney, the newspaper alleges, wrote to Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne requesting she withdraw or change the statements she had given.
Here is one:
“Scott Fee, director of local independent TV station CHET News based in the British Columbia capital Victoria, a half-hour drive away, spoke of 'media from all around the world setting up shop here'.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877061/Meghan-Markle-sneaked-Vancouver-island-mansion-134-budget-flight.html
I gave links to 2 videos some time ago. One had the sequence of the woman who'd employed MM as a caddy, saying `Good for her!' in view of the child she alleged MM had very early on. The dialogue is given in subtitles, with the critical phrase high-lighted. I did suggest the interviewee may have been thinking of someone else. (I've also found a reference to an abortion - look that one up under `friend gives real reason for divorce from Trevor' or similar)
The other video discussed the case of the death of Doria's father, together with an authentic-looking form from the appropriate Police Department regarding an aborted investigation. Of course,, I can't vouch for it's authenticity.
This is my second reminder about these videos - they were still on You Tube the last time I looked.
I have also found the suggestion (no supporting evidence) that the departures early on were to do with dealing offences. I have found these reference, that's all I'm saying. Make up your minds when you've at least had a look at the videos.
"This offspring of a royal pedophile continues to be cheated on by her soon to be husband. There is even buzz he got an ex pregnant during one of their many visits together".
This is a perfect example of how the Royals work when they leak information.
Looks like everyone in the British press has known for a long time that Edo and his ex were still knocking boots. The courtiers could see that a wedding date announcement was coming up sometime in January, so they gave Richard Kay at the DM the green light for a euphemistic story about how Dara was still "cutting his hair and buying his clothes" and that Bea had "returned from working in New York" and found they were "closer than she would like."
Richard Kay wasn't given the OK to write the pregnancy rumor, but he or someone else at the DM passed it on to Enty for a blind, knowing it would circulate among people like us. (Either that or Enty simply made up the rumor based on context - after all, I made a similar wild guess earlier today in my conversation with @LiverBird).
Anyway, looks like the wedding is off, and it was important for the RF to explain the real reason before the announcement of "different schedules" or some such nonsense.
Poor Bea.
https://themanatee.net/duke-duchess-of-sussex-moving-to-sussex-new-brunswick/?fbclid=IwAR2sY76ljPq4NJ-OWa3guB3V4OeV-FUVxAq8EOBJioZWaSbyz4uIaB3eF4E
I thought Edo was a man-ho, and so, no surprise for me. Must have been nice for him, having a free babysitter while he went out to get bounced behind Door #2 or #3 or...
The physical letter belongs to the addressee/recipient.
The copyright in the words belongs to the writer/author.
That is, just like owning a book. It's very straightforward compared with say, a piece of sheet music which can have a remarkable number of copyright owners with claims to a single page. (More than one lyricist/ composer/arranger. Plus the publisher... ) That's why there's such a fuss when headteachers are caught photocopying a single hymn/songbook for a whole school!)
‘Oprah Winfrey denies planning a 'tell-all' interview with Harry and Meghan amid fears the Sussexes could 'sound off' about racism and sexism on US TV.’
I have no idea what Doria was up to during the 1980s and 1990s, and I don't really think it's my business. If she was convicted of marijuana offenses, those actions might not even be criminal today.
Now, if Doria is involved in Meghan's current scams, I'm all ears.
One thing I am pretty sure will happen is that Megs will be handling the finances from here on in with very little input or oversight by Harry. No way is she giving up control of the cash. And Harry has probably never balanced a checkbook in his life. If Harry was smart, he would have done type of attorney involved, but he won't risk pissing her off.
So it'll be "one for Harry, one for me, one more for me, oh hell, ten more for me" when divvying up the greenbacks.
And when the divorce happens, her pile will be neatly hidden and Harry's set of books will be used when calculating the joint assets, etc.
And a nice large portion of of Charles' generosity will ride into the sunset with Meghan.
One more burden Harry will have to carry on his shoulders when all this shakes out.
By the way...did anyone notice the "supermodel" description of herself on her CV? I nearly spewed my beverage with that one. Naomi Campbell better watch out! Meghan is coming for her and she is bringing those "mile long" skinny asS legs with her!
Truthfinder can give you pretty detailed information on Doria Loyce Ragland born on 2 September 1956. That's MM's mom, no doubt. It costs 27 dollars to get a full report.
I didn't go as far as paying but in the preliminary report learned she has multiple criminal records as well as bankruptcy to her name.
May be something petty like yelling at police officers or causing trouble during eviction attempt that resulted in fines.
Sussex Royal kneepads, no more bruised knees in the service of royalty
@Hikari
I loved that passage too - although it wasn't my own. That particular text was copied from the Spectator US.
Meowwww, Youallkmowme999 is posting some interesting stuff and so is Lilac. They’ve picqued my interest because they agree with me in that there is no Archie.
I love the bit about "The Letter appears to have been immaculately copied out by the Claimant in her own elaborate handwriting from a previous draft. There are no crossings-out or amendments as there usually are with a spontaneous draft. It is to be inferred also from the care the Claimant took over the presentation of the letter that she anticipated it being disclosed to and read by third parties.”
That stupid faux-calligraphy. Give me a break.
Re: Philip abandoning Harry yesterday.
Philip needs to get out there so this isn't known as his final public sighting!
I didn't know that Philip stepped up after Diana's death like that @Ava.
Seems to me that Harry will feel cut deeply by his grandfather leaving, but too much self-medicating is blurring him, and keeping him self-involved. Have you had a close narc relationship? He needs to get out on his own, but The Meghan's CLAW is in his psyche as well.
I think Harry will return to the fold.
Agree but if what I know about narcissists cries for correction "what is left of Harry will return to the fold"
He has a couple more circles of hell to descend
I'm just glad Philip's final sighting won't be that trip home from the hospital at Christmas, unshaven and disheveled. Philip is such a proud man, and was so handsome in his youth.
I was surprised to learn during the most recent group of articles on the Sussexes that Philip had attended Harry's wedding with several newly-cracked ribs.
He might have made it to Beatrice's wedding if she were, in fact, getting married in June.
"It's just a gut feeling I have . . Gut feeling being inadmissable in a court of law
Gut feeling is inadmissable in court, darn it all, lol, and those pesky prima facie elements get in the way as well, BUT intuition is a powerful tool for leading in the right direction, researching the background, having insight into case law and possible avenues of research, and that little inkling has paid off repeatedly for me. I think Ozmanda would agree, right Oz?"
____________________________________________
@Elle – oh absolutely! Actually as part of intelligence training we get extensive critical thinking training but there is an intuition element. It is incredibly difficult to scientific measure “Intuition” as there is no way to quantify it.
But essentially our brains scan things on different levels, obviously what we can make sense of consciously but also on a unconscious level – things pass so quickly that it is processed on a micro level and since we are not able to perceive it, it comes across as “intuition” or “gut feeling” – your brain is telling you something is up but you can’t quite figure out what it is.
A really stupid analogy is when you vacuum a floor – you will suck up the obvious dirt etc, but there are also microdust, fibres etc that you don’t see.
It is still in the cleaner and at the end of the clean-up you see things are way cleaner but for more reasons then what you straight away notice. (Yeah stupid analogy but it is early morning and I am pre coffee The trick is not everyone is equipped to handle what comes through – many want to put a label on it and attribute it to hippy dippy spooky stuff where in fact it is just the brain working really hard. In investigations you are trained to balance both – my area is in the ambiguous and what others don’t necessarily see – sometimes the most valuable information is what you are not seeing and the “small things”:
When watching a movie or a video clip, don’t watch the main action but take really good notice of the background. And rather than taking in the whole puzzle, take the issue apart into fragments and individually examine each part, then put it all together. This also helps mitigate bias – which we all have.
Hope that makes sense – it is morning and I am pre-third coffee :)
Meowwww, Youallkmowme999 is posting some interesting stuff and so is Lilac. They’ve picqued my interest because they agree with me in that there is no Archie.
H.G. Tudor is up to part 10 with A Very Royal Narcissist (In a big fan too).
This week has certainly inspired him!
Thanks for copying the Telegraph article about Meg's invasion of privacy lawsuit, @KC.
You are welcome, Nutty!
Advice columnist Ann Landers usdd to say she could always tell tbe fake letters she would get because tbey were too neatly written, with no crossing out, no changes in the handwriting or additions in the margins where in the real letters the writer was emotional and putting their real feelings on the page, instead of laying out an argument.
I did check Truthfinder. I did not finish it all the way to the end, owing to the fee and the requirement to provide personal contact information on the form. I wonder if there is a charge for going to the clerk of courts in L.A. and requesting those records. I have never done that before.
I am happy for Doria's past to remain her own, but given her daughter's profile now, it seems like Doria's privacy may be at an end. I thought Charles was very courtly to her at the wedding, regardless of his private thoughts about his new daughter-in-law and her relations, and Charles walked Meghan down the aisle with no hint of inner turmoil.
*******
I wonder if Chas now has regrets over forcing Lord Geidt out as the Queen's private secretary, in collusion with Andrew. There was a personality conflict there, perhaps because Lord G. reminded Chas too much of his father. Charles is an equivocator and Lord G. and PP, decidedly take the bull by the horns guys. Despising Lord G. is probably the only thing Chas and Andy have ever been in accord about. Lord G. probably lacked the deference to be a Yes man all the time . . but the onus is on HM for allowing her most trusted adviser after PP, her Tom Hagen in the absence of the Duke of Edinburgh be pushed out by her fractious boys. That should not have been allowed to occur.
If Lord G. were still around, perhaps the Meg and Harry situation would not have escalated to the point it has. He may have persuaded Ma'am to see that whole situation more clearly and take a harder line. Expecting Charles to buck the precedent of a 71-year lifetime and 'Deal firmly with the Harry situation was a lot of wishful thinking on her part. Plenty of time for regrets in hindsight.
Charles' extremely high color and puffiness concerns me. I know he loves working in the garden, but he's not getting sunburned in January. Every time I see him, he looks like a boiled lobster. He did not have the puffy hands as a young man. He used to be quite slender and fit. That was 30 odd years ago, but still . . is he hale enough for a 10 or 20 year reign after his mother? I don't think he looks well, and the current situation can't be helping.
@Nutty, thank you for giving us some more explanation.
I have another theory (a bit far-fetched) : after P.A scandal, Edo may have felt stuck in his relationship with Bea.
He had no more interest in this wedding (no more prestige, bad for his business).
He may have wanted to escape from that misalliance.
He "needed" to make some unforgivable mistake which would be a no-go for Bea.
Anyway, if it's true, he doesn't deserve Bea. I feel for her.
Meghan is one too. I think somewhere she does see suffering and wants to help, but her approach and style is so superficial and greedy that any goodwill keeps backfiring on her. She's a criminal: she gets off on sneakiness (The Working Actress blog), subterfuge (Archie), and schemes (so many schemes!!!)
You've all been chatting about Doria and her criminal past. I think Meghan learned to be transactional from her.
I looked up CA crimes of moral turpitude (the ones I've read about Doria included fraud and check fraud - and IF -- these are big ifs, speculative to a spectacular degree ifs -- and Doria was convicted for those crimes, it looks like she could still be sent to county jail instead of state prison, regardless of whether it was a misdemeanor or felony, based on what I found online. This is different from WA. IF Doria were in jail or prison, the fastest and cheapest way to find the records would be to search the county superior courts because that would be the likely jurisdiction.
If I were the speculating sort (wait, I am!), I would have guessed that if she had convictions, it would be for writing bad checks, passing stolen checks, maybe theft from an employer or shoplifting just based on the bankruptcy. If she had an addiction problem, that could also explain the financial problems.
It doesn't really concern us here in the USA what Doria's past has been and seems cruel to target her when she has apparently done her time. OTOH, it would very much involve the RF. They have to know, so maybe it wasn't considered significant.
Didn't Meghan call Trump "Syphillis"? Didn't Trump call her "Nasty Meghan"? Hilarious!
Spotted in Canada with the Canadian navy guarding her??
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7887419/Meghan-Markle-breaks-cover-time-leaving-UK.html
I'm with you on Doria having an air of suspicion about her. I have read quite a bit of negative information about her including some proven as fact, much testified to by others and a lot reasonably speculated on.
When Markle first starting dating Harry there were stories all over the internet about the RF/British Government scrubbing her background clean. Some people who knew Meghan wrote about getting visits and blogs spoke of articles/information/social media disappearing.
Theories and speculation about Doria have nothing to do with her being black but rather justified suspicions about her character and odd history regarding Markles upbringing.
I really enjoy your posts Hikari - please keep up all the well thought-out and wonderfully written theories.
This is what I would do, by allowing hem to use the sussexroyal you are seen to give them a win, however by also not stopping/or allowing all the negative stories to come out those who would normally pay for any association will run a mile due to this whole drama being attributed to them and as such the name "sussexroyal" doesn't have the same lustre they would think?
I could be off base but I like to think tactics:)
I have a soft spot in my heart for him, too. Even if he is a bastard sometimes, lol.
Regarding Doris’s whereabouts while Meg was a child/teenager: A few months ago, someone posted (I believe on this blog) that Doria had lived with a cult for a time. The poster wrote that this had been the explanation on the set of Suits. Supposedly, she was not incarcerated— just not available to be present in her daughter’s life.
Sadly, mothers, and fathers, become unavailable to their children for diverse reasons. Perhaps Doria started a new relationship after she left Thomas and, as a result, she had no room in her life for Meg. I know this seems unthinkable to most normal people/parents but it happens with more frequency than a lot of people would guess.
Perhaps Meg had a model of self-absorption growing up...
I did read somewhere that she was supposedly involved or accused in forging her dad's will and got his house, but I've never seen anything to back that up.
A Narc's Daugher, No! LOL. haa haaa! Imagine the backlash if Trump, who isn't probably required to ask Trump, cuz that would be State Dept? not sure, said, "No!" I think even if he said Yes there would be huge backlash from us Yankees, cuz you know, Rev. War and all.
"But Canadian Navy spokeswoman Lt. Chelsea Dubeau said the mooring so close to Meghan's temporary home was 'coincidence,' and the Brandon, she said, was in the middle of sea trials."
@Nutty, I think everyone answered your question about the fly thing. I remembered being surprised because the Brits are much less afflicted with bugs like flies & mosquitoes with their cooler weather than we are here in the states.
Apologies to anyone whose comments I didn't respond to. Haven't had time to read or post. So much good stuff. I can't keep track of it all.
Someone has probably already mentioned it, & sorry if I'm repeating old news, but the Sun has pap pics of Megs getting on a seaplane somewhere, Canada I guess. Her legs look much thinner, maybe she's losing the baby weight, & she's carrying one of those old Everlane totes she likes so much. As someone on another blog said, we're back to 2016. Or maybe it's an old photo.
There are predictions of Megs going to Met Gala & Oscars, Harry exploiting Invictus Games to merch, (which is why they're putting out stories about people in the military supporting him.) https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com/
If she's getting thin & glammed up, maybe she can do some high fashion luxury brand stuff. I was thinking more along the lines of a Rachel Ray cooking show with childcare stuff thrown in, but we know Megs isn't very interested in domestic stuff, so maybe not.
True but i think PC was very aware that William would have greater wealth than Harry just being the heir to the heir to the throne and wanted to even things up a bit. Diana left more money on her will to Harry than to William, I believe, because she knew this.PC was also aware that his own sibs didnt have as much money as he did. Part of the Yorks' problem was that Fergie wanted to spend like the Waleses, on a Royal Navy officer's pay. The Queen gave the Yorks their home, while Charles bought Highgate himself.
(...)
First, what was the Queen supposed to do? Immediately strip them of titles and everything else and banish them? Punish them and be vindictive?
(...)
January 14, 2020 at 10:04 AM
Yes! And remember, H&M don't want to be (senior) royals anymore, so how could it be a punishment to remove everything that comes with that role?
(and yes, I understand that the BRF fears public backlash and that's why they're probably playing nice, but I'm pretty sure the majority of Brits would have supported a quick stripping and kicking once they became aware of the financial demands the duo made)
So, you're right about scrubbing and expungement online. In fact, you can do some of it yourself, just by writing and telling them to take your stuff off. BUT criminal records' expungement is dictated by statute, and there are very specific rules about that. And everything like that is public record, unless it's juvie, and even then, not always.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10740346/meghan-smear-campaign-dad-claims/
Prince Philip -
I have a lot of respect for the guy.
When Diana had died and they were sorting out what and how to do the funeral, her brother was being quite pushy about the kids and ordering the family to do this or that. Philip picked up the phone and blasted him sorta sideways that listen, the kids have just lost their mother. William has run off to the hills and we have everyone out looking for him. That is our concern right now.
During the walk behind the coffin, he was the one who was talking softly with them and telling them the history of this or that while they were walking by it.
Charles wore the blue suit instead of black as Diana had always liked him in it.
And one could say that Prince Philip also lost his mother at 9 when she was committed to a sanitorium with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (which back then was up there with other diseases not mentioned in polite society or public).
"The Duchess opted to recycle her wardrobe, wearing a $399 Barbour coat, first worn by her in March 2017 and paired it with a $195 Cuyana bag she wore to Wimbledon in June 2019."
I'm not buying anything the media says anymore because they are spinning way too hard to control the narrative.
Yes. People don't know. They think all criminal records can be expunged but it depends on the crime, like a Class C felony for assault 2 in WA can't be expunged. Had to look up which ones for a magistrate I worked for. Always loved it when he was going out the door to court. We'd all pull our forelock or bow and say, "Yes your Magistrate!" Or funnier... clients would call when he was at court (traffic) and we'd say, "He's magistrationing today." He'd laugh and yell at us for that one cuz it sounds so much like something else.
Re. my gut feeling
>>>our brains scan things on different levels, obviously what we can make sense of consciously but also on a unconscious level – things pass so quickly that it is processed on a micro level and since we are not able to perceive it, it comes across as “intuition” or “gut feeling” – your brain is telling you something is up but you can’t quite figure out what it is.<<
I don't know about you, but I liked Meghan, for all that I was just hearing about her, at very first sight, during the engagement photo call. I did think it was a tiny bit odd that Meg and Harry were greeting the assembled press corps for this historic announcement--the engagement of Diana's beloved boy to a biracial American divorcee who'd been in show business--in the rather sad, weedy patio at Frogmore, in November, on a not particularly nice day. I chalked it up to this couple wanting this casual venue to show how unpretentious they were . . Ditto the bride-to-be's very summery looking attire--white raincoat, bare legs and strappy nude colored sandals. I figured, hey, she's from California, and only has a lightweight wardrobe, since she's only been in England, what, a month?
As I would learn later with Rachel, flash first impressions look good enough on the surface. Heck, a (very) quick glance at the Christmas GIF looks okay, too. It's when anybody pauses for a closer look or a few more questions that things start to fall apart.
But anything having to do with Diana or Diana's sons if anything received *more*or at least coverage Stateside than in Britain. A lot of Americans of Meg's age might not be able to pick out the York girls or the Wessexes or, pre-Epstein, Andrew . . but Diana's family has practically never been out of coverage here since Lady Di was photographed with the sun shining through her skirt in 1980. Diana remains loved and so pictures of happier times with her and her boys, and what the now-grown boys are currently doing are a constant feature in American magazines. And for such an Instagram influencer of herself to not have done a cursory Internet search for "Harry" prior to 'being set up on a blind date' doesn't pass the smell test. Harry was prominently featured in William's wedding as one of the key players down front, sans the beard, which may have thrown her off (ha). I suppose she wold have said she didn't realize who William was either, or William's father or seen a single photo of the Royal family, ever.
The best spin I could put on that then was "She doesn't want to come across as picking Harry just because he's a Prince."
Oh, my, I could laugh now .. if only it were amusing.
Much has changed since P.A scandal & the announcement... Another scandal can't be tolerated.
It seems better to cancel or postpone a wedding than to see pic' of Edo and his mistress in the headlines.
Besides, as Rachel can't be trusted it also seems be better to talk to the press before it's too late!
Going to try to go silent & just read everyone's comments. It's hard for me, one of my teachers once said that I was the only person he'd ever seen who could carry on two conversations at once. LOL.
If you go to Truthfinder.com and enter Doria's particulars (Name, state) it guides though through several pages of indicating if you are looking for criminal records, social media records, etc, it will generate potential relatives--all for the purposes of narrowing it down to the correct person. Doria's names are all very distinctive, so she was the only result that came up.
When it got down to the part about asking me to submit my personal information, with the next step being the fee for the complete report, I closed the window. The screen before that showed (3) criminal records for her in California.
Now, these could be traffic citations for all I know, but that's the site I used. It is encrypted for security and has testimonials (take them with a grain of salt) . . I think it looked pretty legitimate. I also searched for the California Bureau of Records.
So, are you snowed in?
@Hikari, intuition pinging and logical brain trying to make sense, and yes, if only it were funny now, but someday, it will be again. Fast forward a few years and think about Rach demonstrating the "pulse" button on the Suss-EX Royal 5-speed, we'll be loling again.
I like the respect of walking behind as well. I think he did it for Diana but also for the kids, to have someone there (their father was there I know) who could help they get through this by explaining the very local to this spot history (ie something to mentally focus on while they are trying to endure the painful very long walk).
Yes, I'm 100% sure she paid for that photo op.
She is all smiles. She looks at the camera and then they'll release a statement blaming the British or the Canadian press for harassing her in Canada. That could be the next explanations for their relocation to LA.
@Hikari - remembering young Prince Edward - I once spent an afternoon in a quiet part of the Cambridge University Library, just me, Prince Edward and his RPO. Not to speak to, it was deathly silence. We were both born 1964, both doing history degrees but I was at university in Wales, visiting my home in Cambridge. He was very good looking and studied conscientiously but I felt so sorry for his RPO, just sitting there and following him if he disappeared to get a book then come back. It was the oddest experience to see it, with no one else around.
The British aristocracy do it too.
Haven't read the story because I know the DM will run it later and the DM is more entertaining. Just saw a brief notice about it on another blog.
‘RICHARD KAY: The courtroom showdown that the Royals will be dreading… it threatens to be as bombshell as Meghan and Prince Harry's resignation announcement’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7887575/The-royals-dread-courtroom-showdown-threatens-bombshell-says-RICHARD-KAY.html
What ages was She when they lived with her? If it was from infant to 5 years old, then yes she would barely know them....
tatty said...
@liver Bird, yes, thank you for your post above. These are not things internet sleuthers are going to break as a story when the media with all their resources haven’t even hinted at. We should stay above these things, most especially when these are very serious allegations.
*******************
Tatty,
Please stop the antagonistic sugar-type defending of Markle.
Who said the siblings moved out when Doria did? Thomas is their father - no matter when they moved out they were still in and out of his home as evidenced by numerous family photos which include Markle TOGETHER with her siblings.
I find it tiresome to have to answer to you and to have to read other people answer to you as well.
Your comment scolding Hikari was uncalled for, and you apparently have no idea how thorough internet scrubbing can be.
You asked us to let you know when you are being annoying - I am letting you know.
"This offspring of a royal pedophile continues to be cheated on by her soon to be husband. There is even buzz he got an ex pregnant during one of their many visits together".
This is a perfect example of how the Royals work when they leak information.
Looks like everyone in the British press has known for a long time that Edo and his ex were still knocking boots. The courtiers could see that a wedding date announcement was coming up sometime in January, so they gave Richard Kay at the DM the green light for a euphemistic story about how Dara was still "cutting his hair and buying his clothes" and that Bea had "returned from working in New York" and found they were "closer than she would like."
Richard Kay wasn't given the OK to write the pregnancy rumor, but he or someone else at the DM passed it on to Enty for a blind, knowing it would circulate among people like us. (Either that or Enty simply made up the rumor based on context - after all, I made a similar wild guess earlier today in my conversation with @LiverBird).
Anyway, looks like the wedding is off, and it was important for the RF to explain the real reason before the announcement of "different schedules" or some such nonsense.<<<
*********
WOW!!!
This is more of a bombshell than Meg bolting for Canada.
I'd be relieved to drop discussion of Doria's potential offenses in favor of this juicy new steak.
Well. For once we can't blame Meghan for this. Edo hasn't been Markled if he Huang'd himself right out of an engagement. And just weeks after walking with the family at Christmas, too.
Okay, well . . the first instinct might be to bash Edo, but if he's actually interested in reconciling with Wolfie's mom, I'd say that's a good thing. If the flame's still going, Dara and he should give it another go and just recognize that Edo will probably be Mr. Mom while his wife travels for work. I am all for family reunification if the parties are sincere and committed to the best interests of their child.
Bea caught him on the rebound and it was exciting for a short term romance, but there were a lot of moving pieces in that relationship that sounded complicated. Good to find this out now before it goes any further. I rather wondered why the couple, who got engaged in August didn't announce a wedding date sooner, instead announcing that they had the Queen's approval to announce a date.
Poor Bea. Are there still such things as royal matchmakers? She hasn't had good luck in choosing her own boyfriends.
I know her heart must be broken but if Wolfie is getting his mom back in his life, I have to go with 'It's for the best.'
...I have to go with 'It's for the best.'
And, much much better before the wedding.
There must be evidence in records held by banks, university, phone companies, his hospital etc. for all of this, and surely the outcome will favour one on balance, rather than 50/50. If so, the other side must be crazy to take the risk. The Mail on Sunday lawyers must be confident.
I wonder if the Sussex's needed to rush events happening now to get (even more) financial security before this case got going? Although, knowing Meghan, even if all the evidence was against her, she'd still expect to win.