"This is only hearsay, but in London a Brit socialite who knew her way around money, Europe, royalty told me - and my companion, so I wasn't alone in hearing this - that Meghan was known in the old days. 'She was around the famous playgrounds Europeans visit...and known to be shopping for a rich husband.'"
That's a quote from Cindy Adams in yesterday's New York Post. Cindy is old - so old that she interviewed the original Duchess of Windsor.
"Who was also American," writes Cindy. "She was not happy afterward. She was tough. I interviewed her. She was constantly looking to negotiate some sort of financial betterment."
So, when does the dirt start coming out? How about now.
A regular commenter asked for my input on how and when some of the nasty info on Meg might come out.
In addition to items on the popular blind gossip sites (CDAN, Blind Gossip), tweets from royal reporters and other British journalists, and insider postings on blogs like this one and LSA, the foreign press is one to watch.
Yesterday I thought of the Germans (Bild?) and the French in particular, with the Australians as a long shot, but Cindy didn't occur to me.
She's a good choice because she's got an established reputation (as one should when one is 89 years old) and nothing to lose. She doesn't need or want access to Wills and Kate.
And her employer, Rupert Murdoch, is currently being sued by Prince Harry for phone hacking.
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. They have financial targets to meet.
A good example of how the BRF works with the British media is the story released to Richard Kay on Sunday January 12, when the world was focused on the Sussexes, about Princess Beatrice and her fiancé Edo.
That's a quote from Cindy Adams in yesterday's New York Post. Cindy is old - so old that she interviewed the original Duchess of Windsor.
"Who was also American," writes Cindy. "She was not happy afterward. She was tough. I interviewed her. She was constantly looking to negotiate some sort of financial betterment."
So, when does the dirt start coming out? How about now.
Who will drop the information?
We've had more than 1200 comments since the Sussex summit on Monday, so please allow me to repeat part of my answer to a question hidden somewhere within that forest of text.A regular commenter asked for my input on how and when some of the nasty info on Meg might come out.
In addition to items on the popular blind gossip sites (CDAN, Blind Gossip), tweets from royal reporters and other British journalists, and insider postings on blogs like this one and LSA, the foreign press is one to watch.
Yesterday I thought of the Germans (Bild?) and the French in particular, with the Australians as a long shot, but Cindy didn't occur to me.
She's a good choice because she's got an established reputation (as one should when one is 89 years old) and nothing to lose. She doesn't need or want access to Wills and Kate.
And her employer, Rupert Murdoch, is currently being sued by Prince Harry for phone hacking.
Don't make Meg the victim
Reporters, particularly UK reporters, know the dirt, probably much more than we know. But there's a delicate balance - nobody wants to make Meg look like the victim and create public sympathy for her.
And 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.
Besides, unpublished stories can 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 Y's private dinner with Tommy Robinson, and we release the videotape of you shouting racial insults at Melissa Toubati."
We are shocked, shocked!
If stories about Meg do come out, the BRF will profess to be horrified by this awful 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. They have financial targets to meet.
A good example of how the BRF works with the British media is the story released to Richard Kay on Sunday January 12, when the world was focused on the Sussexes, about Princess Beatrice and her fiancé Edo.
"The new year hasn't brought a change of luck for Princess Beatrice and her wedding plans," Kay reported. "New woes are brewing for Bea, 31, and Edo Mapelli Mozzi - and this time it's all to do with the presence of his ex, Dara Huang."
Two days later, Enty ran a blind item: "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".
The story behind the story
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.
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.
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.
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.
And Richard Kay has been given the kind of exclusive tidbit that rewards Royal reporters for holding back other, as-yet-unapproved information.
Let's see what's next.
Comments
It will be interesting to see what happens over the course of the coming weeks. Her reputation right now isn't great, and I can't imagine what she could do to make that better. I'm enjoying the show though, and I don't usually care for reality tv dramas.
Oh, we're so sad they're leaving, we'd like them to stay, but we respect their independence.
Not so good for Meg's upcoming they're-all-racist-and-sexist claims.
Charles has also made it clear he had paid for every damn thing they ever wanted, from the wedding to their house to Meg's fashions, so good luck claiming he's a hateful racist too.
That leaves Will and Kate.
Headline: Meghan Markle left National Theatre bosses fuming after 'carrying on as normal' and giving no hint her patronage could be under threat during visit... just hours before royal bombshell
Quote from article: A spokesman for the National Theatre said: 'The Duchess of Sussex attended a private meeting with Rufus Norris (artistic director) and Lisa Burger (executive director) where they had very positive discussions about the NT's upcoming activity and engagement opportunities for the Duchess to engage with the work over the coming year.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7889687/Meghan-Markle-leaves-National-Theatre-bosses-angry-carrying-normal-announcement.html
I was suprised that Meg was out pap-walking yesterday. As Anonymous House Plant pointed out, she's right in the middle of negotiations with the RF. Maybe it's a good idea not to try to overshadow the Cambridge events? At least until your payout is in place?
It will also be the time that Mm will overplay her hand. Out of jealousy, her own impatience and to seem legitimate she will overdo her charitable endeavours and make shady merchy deals, do constant pap.walks and start publicly humiliating Harry just to seem like a bigger celebrity. That's when the details of her shady past will start leaking.
First, they will let her trip over herself with her hubris. Second, people who once knew her, worked with her, journalists who talked to her once long time back etc those are the people who will start the negative testimonials. Then the evidence based articles will follow.
I commented in the last post about the pictures of Meg in Canada: her arms are so much lighter than her face, as she has used what appears to be two packs of bronzer. Is she still angling for the, "they were mean and racist to me" backdrop. Who knows, but her popularity in the DM comments has taken a real drop.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/not-a-halfway-house-canada-turns-on-meghan-and-harry/news-story/47418f3ce85807a79bccb1d425d03a07
You mentioned that foreign press could publish dirty stories about Meghan & Harry.
Indeed, some French gossip magazines are ruthless.
Photos of Francois Hollande, former French president were published in French gossip magazines.
Charlene Wittstock tried to flee home to South Africa three times before her marriage to Prince Albert: it was also massively reported!
Yet, I have the feeling the French press doesn’t have that kind of connexions/means to publish the Sussex’ dirty laundry.
In fact, the French press likes H&M and is quite kind with them. There is nothing new in the articles I read (feud between the 2 brothers, the rural rival…). Other rumours I have seen (Harry cheated on Meghan) are not reliable (not documented).
I wonder why the French press likes H&M and treats them well. Maybe that sells better in France?
I would think the French audience would be driven crazy by Meghan's terrible fashion sense.
But perhaps she'll end up as one of those celebrities who is obscure in most places but big in a certain market, the way David Hasselhoff has always been huge in Germany, and rock bands used to say that they were "big in Japan."
Pretty certain that JM and MA are two of the biggest reasons MM is now in Canada and they have definitely plotted with her about this messy exit strategy. JM is particularly vulnerable right now because she is doing a show soon and has been very active on social media with her self promotion, usually putting video of her kids, esp her daughter every other day. She would be an easy target for the yaploids. Also, her styling is awful!
Reposting this article for more Canadian perspective.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-meghan-and-harry-front-page-news-its-dazzling-how-dopey-we-are
I am hoping she will fade into obscurity here in Canada.
I shall be turning to this group for commiseration if she is indeed here.
Yep I saw Kevin on GMB too and he said it just the once, but I thought, wow, there’s more to come. I immediately thought @nutty that it might be about Archie, under 18 so can’t discuss, plus also her relationships with her mouthpieces.
You are right about not making Meghan a victim and letting her garner any sympathy. So, they have to steer clear of her childhood, otherwise she can be seen of a victim of her bad parents, racism, sexism, pick anything that made her who she is. Also, same thing since her time in U.K. That leaves the in between years, time after university up to finishing in Suits. Yachting, maybe she’d be seen as a victim yet again of her childhood, forced to make money any way she could. It would appear plenty of models are alluded to be part of that group.
It’s really hard to work out what could be used that wouldn’t be spun. Financial misdeeds would be my guess, like clearing out money from the Foundation that they joined with Will and Kate, but even that includes Harry. So, that leaves Meghans Mirror. I think my brain is now breaking thinking about this.
In just one week the language used when describing her has already gotten harsher than before. Words like "scheming", "manipulative", and "cruel" are now in the headlines.
I have also noticed stories are starting to mention Archie more, and questions like "where is he really?", "how can she abandon him constantly?". For those of us who are in camp surrogate this hopefully means the press will eventually tear MM a new one.
I haven’t actually seen nor read about any of Meghan’s apparent past (I am interested in what Nutties have read though), so I can’t comment on it. However, the wolves of the press are circling and I think once we know more about The Sussex’s exit from being working Royals, the stories will start to emerge, and not before time either.
If Megs has the kind of star power on her own to move product, someone, somewhere would have seen it & exploited it. It just was never there, no matter how hard she's tried to create the illusion of it. She looks pretty good in her mid-price young working woman about town stuff, but she cannot rock the couture. There's a reason the fashion biz likes those 6-ft glamazons. I know, the wokies want the beauty biz to be more 'inclusive,' but I'd like to see the sales numbers that justify it. Beauty & fashion are always going to be about aspiration, not realism. I've read that the Kardashian empire is largely based on 8-year olds clicking on stuff on the phones their parents give them. Is that Meg's audience? Maybe, little girls love the idea of princesses, but they have the attention spans of gnats.
Megs also doesn't seem to have an interest or what it takes in becoming a force in the very rich & privileged circles she married into. Can you imagine the women in Wills' & Harry's circle falling all over themselves to buy stuff she recommends? Maybe she can get some young working women to buy a few black cashmere turtlenecks with her label on them, but that's a pretty saturated market already.
I'd be fascinated to know whether Barbour has seen an uptick in sales after Megs has been seen their parkas. Who is her market? Rich young yummy-mummies? Young professional women? Can't be Generation Z, she doesn't seem to have a knack for the kind of edge needed to attract them.
Another thing, Martha seems to have been able to build an empire by paying attention to details, & taking advice from professionals who also were good at their jobs. How on earth will sloppy Megs be able to relinquish control enough build hers?
Personally I don't feel the big stories will come out until the D word is first mentioned.
I'd recently been thinking about Meghan's infuriating, endless pregnancy because of model Ashley Graham's pregnancy. (I used to admire her but fear she is going too far, given the healthcare timebomb the NHS is facing with obesity.) She also goes in for constant belly cupping and luxurious baby preparations, babymoon etc., but it's never bothered me in the slightest. Throughout her pregnancy I've constantly clocked similarities with Meghan, but with zero irritation despite the glitziness I dislike.
It's not just that Ashley earns her own money. Meghan still isn't earning her own money and I don't see that she ever will to a serious degree, but another pregnancy won't bother me for the reasons the first did. It's that she's out. OUT. Even when her branding inevitably proves a (temporary) nightmare, some tremendously cathartic transformation has happened. She can call all the paps she wants. Every day. She no longer matters.
It feels like that passage in the novel Gone With the Wind (dodgy these days but bear with me). When Scarlett finally manages to get through the military lines, back to Tara. Her mother is dead but she's home. 'The torturing stays no longer pinched her waist and she could breathe deeply and quietly to the bottom of her lungs and her abdomen [...] how good it was to lie here in softness [...] She sighed and relaxed." That's me, about Meghan. Today anyway.
That's just funny, & if true, probably no more kids, maybe.
Your posts are always joy to read. Thank you for setting a balanced tone for the whole blog.
I used to work with British media as a press officer and my immediate reaction to Meg's lawsuit was "They will eat her alive". She had some sort of umbrella while in the royal family, but her own stupidity made sure it is gone. The media will do everything to destroy what is left of her reputation and she will not be left alone, regardless of where she is.
You are right press sits on a big pile of stuff but can't release all at once to avoid turning her into a victim or open themselves to litigation for libel.
Media quickly identified two biggest issues that outrage the public most: money grabbing and her father. It is very telling that big headlines of recent don't say anything new, we all known her feud and greed, but multiple captions keep hammering this down.
I expect the pattern will remain. Remind the people how much she is getting and how ungrateful she is. There will be occasional "defense" but it will only serve to enrage people more.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/sake-monarchy-prince-harry-needs-know-can-always-come-home-britain/
It is brutal. There are people who have seen through the shennanigans of the Sussexes, and despite having that embarrassing video of Harry at the Disney event taken down, people saw it and are not afraid to write about it.
First, what I would like to see from the press is an exposure of the lies: a video, or a piece of writing that she published, that shows clearly what she said and then the proof that it is a lie.
Second, I would like to see an in-depth article that shows the timeline and evidence that this breakaway was long in the planning 9plenty of time for discussion and negotiation), and all the actions the Sussexes (Meghan, because I think Harry did desperately try to speak to his grandmother and father) chose to be duplicitous, and then all the reasons (decency, practicalities ..) they could have waited, and then all the reasons why anxiety and panic attacks could have been dealt with in a reasonable manner (get treatment, don't do or say anything major while in this state).
Overall, stories about yachting would be seen as an unfair attack. The true story about that commercial (and her various versions of it) should be made public. Stories from those she has treated shabbily abound and there is no sense in repeating them as she will be seen as a victim. Stories such as her writing on the Tig that she got a standing ovation at the UN should be aired as there is video proof that it did not happen the way she said it did (and how did she get the gig anyway?).
I'm in my 50s and I did my protesting against nuclear weapons, Mrs Thatcher etc. Before that it was Vietnam, flower power. But this change is different and permanent. I don't see my teenaged niece's generation as going through a phase in their concern for the environment. They detect hypocrisy and have no truck with it. My niece asked for no presents this Christmas, she dislikes over-consumption so much. She walks everywhere or uses public transport. She does voluntary work every week. She's still fun to be with and not sanctimonious and never talks of what she does though. Think what she makes of Meghan's Atlantic-hopping, private jets, £90K beige caftan and repeated bragging about her thin-as-paper social activism.
You can. Below the comment box there is the option for notification for follow-up comments. Click that (after you’ve entered your comment) and all the following comments appear in your designated email address inbox.
“ Not sure about the provenance of the house. The link below goes to a site that likely isn't entirely reliable re: info and spelling!! (Especially of names) But it does contain the following about the house:
Another correction. Doria's father didn't leave that home to her directly. The home belonged to her father's sister Lillian Ragland Evans died 2004 and her husband William Demont Evans died 1986. Doria's father Alvin A Ragland signed an affidavit death of joint tenancy for his aunt as Alvina was the conservator of Lillie. When Lillie died Alvin took the house. When Alvin died is when Dora got the house. Someone by the name of Alvin J Ragdale had to sign over half of the house.
Someone who can research real estate transactions could make sense sense of it I'm sure.
http://marycumminsrealestatemarycummins.blogspot.com/2017/11/who-is-meghan-markle-soon-to-be-wife-of.html?m=1”
If someone was so inclined, a free property report can be obtained by signing up to www.propertyshark.com. No payment info is required and one report is free. Just search under the property address. I would do it but I have used my free search.
The search will give current and past ownership information.
Articles so far demonstrated her lies pretty convincingly. There is no headline "Meg lied about her tuition" but several articles quoted her father disproving her statement she paid herself.
Other lies like knowing nothing about the royals are exposed via her pictures with magazines, her poses in front of BP.
It is all there in the open already. "He who has ears let him hear".
Good morning/day one and all
Death by a thousand cuts? Absolutely but there will be a few amputations in this time period as well. Fingers, toes but probably not limbs just yet (save that for the big D).
I like the idea that a lot of the really good stuff withheld will start to come out when HM passses and the big D is in play. I do think we will see some "coming attractions" previews (like the movies) while we wait. Popcorn anyone? or something stronger?
FWIW, I think we will see some positive PR about W&K to come out to counter possible future claims that they were the baddies driving everyone else in the claims of racism, general unwantedness or something since we have seen the phrasing from HM's post and PC that he has given her an unlimited charge card (meaning she has been boxed).
This is so not about race. Our current Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, has an attractive blonde wife who likes to do a bit of SM merching. I believe she's even British. They went on a trip on a gov't jet, at our taxpayer's expense. She posted photos of them leaving the jet with tags to every designer label she was wearing. Did not go over well, even in the entrepreneurial, vulgar USA. They were pretty much trashed. Have not seen much about her since.
Cellphone evidence is pretty standard in my country. The only time that did not work out was in a trial where one of the defendants three phones was an Apple. He said he forgot the password. Apple said they could not unlock the phone. (Defendant was found guilty anyway.)
I think the fact she is (a little bit) Black has been much more of a help than a hinderance, since she attempts to use it as a shield against criticism.
longer have to rely on tv and print media for our news. Most people knew about the Royal Marines v Disney thing when it happened and were confused and frustrated that it wasn't made public or acknowledged in any way. Same for her merching.
If the press don't publish what people can see happening in front of their eyes then we begin to look like a Communist State who insist that grain production is at an all time high whilst citizens die of hunger. It's ludicrous quite frankly. The media and the RF need to revisit their 'gentlemans agreement'.
https://www.instagram.com/scammingduchess/
@Disgusted, I said British, not English. Do the Scots not think of themselves as British? I know that's a pretty touchy subject in Britain.
@Nutty, yes cries of racism are a scam that just keeps on giving, not to say it doesn't still exist in some form or another, but it will never be addressed constructively if only one side is allowed to speak, & there's no honesty about it.
Have to leave this fun place & go clean out my fridge! LOL
Meghan will see this as a nasty staling tactic by the BRF (watch the media for 'friends' speaking about this), and Harry is letting himself be led by the nose by her.
The family probably would like to keep the two apart for as long as possible and as often as possible in the hope that Harry comes to his senses. But it also shows that Meghan has complete contempt for the monarchy and how it works.
Actually weren't there some stories about the family being toxic?
Hope she doesn't read here, don't want to give her any ideas, she's got plenty of her own. If I were her, I'd hire an immigration lawyer to skirt the tax issue by living on a yacht.
Maybe we need a something new, something big to be exposed. The follow that up with articles: 'We should have known when she lied about this ...'
I'm putting on my other hat now ... the thing is, Meghan could be a huge success...
Narcissists do very well in the entertainment business (and best if they stick to entertaining and stop all the woke speeches and protesting about politics and current issues). Diva behaviour is tolerated to some extent. Unfortunately, Meghan is not very talented (that's why she bombed in Hollywood after almost a decade of trying, not because she is bi-racial).
Many celebrities overcome scandals, so that is not a biggie. (Didn't Martha Stewart go to jail for insider trading?)
But no, Megsy set her eyes on a prince and then took on his entire family and their history and traditions of thousands of years. The hubris is not only astounding but stupid.
I also think that Meghan would like to stay away from Harry and infact might even feel liberated whilst away from him. It must not be easy when your evil bind-villian plans depend on a weak husband's fragile ego and unpredictable mental health.
Now, I in no way am finding excuses for Meghan's behavior. But I am saying that Harry, as he seems on the surface, is not what he is behind closed doors of their bedroom. The toxic family bit could just as easily have come from Harry. He does blame them for this state of affairs. He has been forcing her on them from day as a way of gloating, like he needs their validation, their acknowledgement that he finally made a smart choice. This lame-ass plan they hatched is so flimsy, so transparent that it has to have come, in part at least, from Hairloss's pea brain.
Somebody in the last blog said he at times looks.like a rat and his Chinese sign is the Rat. Well that's true. He's like Peter pettigrew. A jealous, insecure, weak Peter pettigrew sold out his friends to Voldemort. Then spent the next 11 years pretend to be a quite lovable pet in disguise hiding amongst the people he had betrayed.
I don't recall mention of Lilian Ragland Evans but at times it was hard to keep hold of the difference between Alvin A. - & Alvin J.-. I think Alvin J. may have been the name that was given for Doria's brother, but was he Ragdale or Ragland?
Also, you say Ragdale/?Ragland `had' to sign over half, not simply that he did. Is that significant? Was there an element of compulsion?
Nothing is straightforward with this family. MM herself tells such whoppers that she should be called Matilda. I've got to the stage that if she said the sun rose in the East, I'd have go outside and check it for myself.
My new @DailyMail column is about the sensational Thomas Markle papers that put a new gloss on Meghan, Queen of Hearts & King Harry of Mental Health.
Posting soon.
Generally agree but I believe NW is private so no in-state/out of state tuition. Tuition and fees alone are about $56K per year now without room and board. A part-time job? Doing what?
How about that Cindy! On the Martha and Gwyneth points: Both of them have their own style, so add that to the reasons their efforts worked. Meghan has no originality, no style of her own. She chases people who do and copies them—always several beats behind original ideas— and she appears to sometimes have bad taste in those people. As an aside, I feel so sorry for the BM/JM children.
@Camper
On those years: I have always wondered why it’s been silence from the embassy in Argentina. Why did she leave her plum position, which she supposedly won via her uncle (see above—it’s never original with Meg)? Where did she go? I would understand officials’ not being able to speak because of diplomacy with the UK, but is that restriction now/soon broken? But what about former staff who worked with her? I have read gossip that this was her latest post pre yachting, but I would like to see attribution/verification.
I also want to repeat from a post I made on Monday that Serena, after winning last week, donated the purse to Australian relief efforts. A great move even if it was strategic. Alexis is a very smart guy who I think is modest relative to his peers, and I bet he would like to be dissociated, stat. I agree with everyone that his tweet was Meg related and I find his repeated “tech” statements interesting, coupled with his nondenial. We’ll see if he issues one, but look for any tech connections.
Is she shopping for real estate in Vancouver? Or in Whistler, 80 minutes up the Sea to Sky highway? As Doria in the DM mentioned. This weekend is a US holiday, and very difficult/expensive to get a hotel room in Whistler, and Vancouver for that matter.
Is this implying someone (Kate?) truly has an eating disorder?
The press had so many juicy things to go after - all from that one event:
1. Harry ditching the service people in favor of the Lion King Premier
2. Meghan boo-hooing about how "they" don't make it easy and
3. Harry pitching to Bob Iger
It looks like, at the time, going after Meghan was the best of the 3. Now the gloves are off though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7890139/Harry-Meghan-left-Windsor-Lego-mural-couple-removed.html
The pigeons ruined them...:-)
Hello Nutty and Nutties,
I live in a German-speaking country, I follow more or less the news & I detected almost nothing new about MM in relation to the British Press so far.
Several weeks ago I read in a German newspaper or magazine (I forgot where exactly), that Thomas Markle Sr. has moved into a better house than he had before.
Society magazine "BUNTE" stated as a fact that the Canadian villa was owned by Juri Milner, but it was demented in the DM.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7890609/PIERS-MORGAN-Thomas-Markles-anguished-texts-Meghan-Harry-heartless-pair.html
Q2) Are Scots British?
Answer to Q1; It depends which Scot you ask! An extreme Scots Nat might even snarl at the very idea. Another might say `Yes, but...', a third `a Scot of British nationality' and so on...
Answer to Q 2: Legally yes,regardless of personal preference, for the immediate future at least. Ditto Cornish and Welsh folk.
My husband was born in Edinburgh, of Border & Lowland parentage going back centuries; I have annoyed his brother by pointing out that the family name may have acquired a Scots flavour but it originated in S England, probably London - BIL fancies himself as a Highlander, for all that Lowlanders used to call Highlanders teuchters.
One National Census form asked `which nation do you identify with?'. My husband, bless him, said `England!' (Me? Something of almost everything apart from Welsh ie I'm English)
Btw, never, ever, make assumptions as to whether someone from Northern Ireland considers themselves British or not. Listen carefully for clues. It could prove more difficult for you than it was for me when I asked for the wrong kind of cola in Arizona, that was only mildly embarrassing.
I believe that Thomas Markle will be there - why? he has nothing to gain from Meghan. He will tell if she tries to buy his silence with access to Archie. He said he was disappointed that she chose to leave the RF. I hope the MoS has him bundled up tighter that Frank Pentangeli.
The kraken is hungry.
I will refresh my bottle of Coca Cola.
I must be getting mind swamp as I don’t even make those connections, when that one makes so much sense, even if it is just an example, but wow, wouldn’t that fit with Kate. I know some people thinks she’s way to thin. In her defence my bestie is same height and looked the same weight wise and had 3 kids. Believe me she ate loads too! She’s my age now (50’s) and is still just as slender.
No, I didn't mean to imply that Kate had an eating disorder - several people in the family could fit in that category, including Harry himself, or Beatrice, who dropped a lot of weight ahead of her engagement announcement.
What I meant to imply (and I may have done it poorly) is that during her time "getting to know" the Royal Family, they have let some secrets slip, such as George's destructiveness at age 4, a reference that later turned up in a Canadian publication.
Every family has secrets, and Meg seems determined to leak whatever would be most embarrassing to them. Heaven forbid one of them ever made an unfortunate reference to someone's sexuality or ethnic background.
Personally, I do not like the idea of private life being forced into the public sphere, unless a crime has been committed. Not sure if you were following the UK election campaign, but a neighbor to Boris Johnson's girlfriend's apartment got out his phone and recorded the two of them having a spat, which he gave to the Guardian (I believe), and the Guardian published it.
I really didn't like that. And I don't like private speech being made public, either. If I speak to my family at a family dinner, I don't want to see that on the front page of the Daily Mail the next day. It's inappropriate.
Public statements - "ie, I worked to pay my way through university" are different.
She just can't help herself can she? She's trying to sell the story of being 'hounded' out of Britain because of the 'harassment' of the paps yet here she is grinning at the cameras like the cat which got the cream.
As for the women's centre, this just goes to show how free-range royals are a no-no. Now, I'm sure this women's centre is a very unobjectionable and worthy cause, but still it has not gone through all the vetting which charities associated with the royals normally do. And who knows where she'll land next? The royals simply have to cut her off. They cannot be associated with what is in effect a 'rival' court on another continent. I suspect we'll hear something after Harry's engagement tomorrow at the rugby world cup draw. Hopefully it will be something of substance.
Meanwhile, in unglamourous Bradford, the Cambridges are quietly and respectfully getting on with the 'bread and butter' work of royalty, you know, the type of shaking hands and accepting flowers from the plebs thing which the Harkles think they are too good for.
And regarding her branding. Sigh. Again, she doesn’t get it. Her idea of branding herself as some woke warrior will be constantly undercut by her own greed. Every time she makes some speech, some media site will trot out for 90,000 dress. Every time she exports us to take public transit, media will flood their front pages with articles about how she loves to fly on private jets. Her greed and vanity undermine her constantly. And although she was panting for fame and never met a camera she didn’t adore, the problem with that is, unfortunately for her, it works BOTH ways. And that camera that she hunts for every time she leaves the house? It shows her is all her glory, so to speak. But, as we’ve seen, her greed always undermines her. She is a flaming hypocrite and the camera catches that.
Also, frankly, she is far too old for the future she is envisioning. The younger generation (I have two children in the age demographic she’s trying to nab) are fickle. Popularity is a flash in the pan because something more enticing and cooler will come along in a month or two. The Kardashians had these four girls, so they could market themselves along a nice age trajectory. Ms. Markle is pushing forty. She can try exploit “Archie,” but I have a feeling that this is the hill that the BRF will die on—whether he exists or not. I would imagine that most of the public believes he exists. I do not, but for those that do?. She screwed herself over, again and again because of her greed.
My husband asked, from across the room, `Is that a Work of Art or a Work of Fart?'
He was much closer to the truth than he ever imagined !
And compared these to other pictures?
Whether it's the bad makeup or terrible hair...she looks like a different person. And I wondered if she was wearing her hair long and in a flowy center part like that to hide the severe makeup lines she must have.
Oh! I've never heard of that. State schools get support from the state's taxpayers so in-state tuition is lower for residents. The private schools I'm familiar with don't have different rates so I didn't know any did. Wonder why they do?
Anyway, looking at NW's website, it looks like they don't. Costs are high for everyone equally. I don't know how she did it. Plus, she also joined a sorority and that tends to cost too.
Personally I think Thomas paid and maybe M got *some* scholarship help, maybe even one that required "work-study" work. Thomas paying fits with him paying for her to attend the exclusive Hollywood Little Red Schoolhouse starting at age 2. (Tuition there today is $19K-$22K per year depending on level.) And her high school-Immaculate Heart High School-- isn't cheap either.(Tuition today about $17.5K per year) Of course it would have been less when she attended but not dirt cheap.
Certainly M didn't work "part-time" to pay for those educational experiences. And I don't think there's any evidence Doria was earning enough (wherever she was) to pay. After all, she was not a college graduate then and had been working as a temp make up artist when she met Thomas. I can't imagine that's all that lucrative.
I've been wondering many times why I'm emotionally and intelectually invested in this story at all, and I realised that it's fairly simple: Meghan is not a genuine, decent or interesting person and as far as we have seen, her intentions are malevolent and led by greed. I don't want to see such sort of person thrive. It's that innate sense of justice that sounded the alarm with each development in her rise to power. Or innate cynism. Anyway, I feel relief. Also, I'm certain that her success will be fleeting, if it happens at all.
As for big leaks and complete exposure, could be they'll never happen, because - as someone already said above - it would reflect badly on Harry and Archie and the Royals will always try to protect their own. Though surrogacy would hurt neither that much but would forever destroy her. So I'm rooting for that. Most people have already guessed that her past was unsavoury at best. Fake bump is the stuff of tin hatters and if proven, would turn her into a social leper because she rubbed it and pushed it into our faces for many, many long months. She would be ridiculed forever and any lucrative deal would be scrubbed.
Fake bump is the stuff of tin hatters and if proven, would turn her into a social leper because she rubbed it and pushed it into our faces for many, many long months. She would be ridiculed forever and any lucrative deal would be scrubbed.
That's why I wonder if it might be true! What else could make Oprah, the Obamas, Gayle King, and Serena Williams run away so quickly? Just 'being mean to her dad' wouldn't be enough. They must know something we don't, or have something confirmed that we can only guess at.
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
@FairyCrocodile
Media quickly identified two biggest issues that outrage the public most: money grabbing and her father.
You make a good point, that the issues that seem to "sell" to the public when it comes to tearing down Meghan seem to be her greediness/misuse of public money and her shabby treatment of her father. (I would imagine the latter is particularly potent in Commonwealth nations where parents are revered.)
The accusation that "Meghan was pay-for-play" doesn't seem to create the same outrage, perhaps because it raises questions about Harry's own sexual history - what's good for the goose is good for the gander - and perhaps because so many celebrities now admit to a sex work past. Cardi B, for example, is open about having been a prostitute.
No, but being very publically mean to the queen of England herself, and realising that any 'friendship' with Meghan means waving goodbye to any chance of any association with the royal family, now or in the future, might very well be enough.
What was interesting is there were PR leaks that certain people cuddled Archie, but really not a lot more than that. It’s been so weirdly quiet. I appreciate that we didn’t hear a lot about William and Kate’s children, but then they are not social media led.
The other thing is her fan base. My 16 year old boy and my niece, also 16, only think about one person, Greta and climate change. Also neither wanted lots of Xmas presents because it’s all landfill. This is youngsters thinking, which is a good thing in my opinion, consumerism is in a perilous place with the young,
I’ve been wondering this! I thought maybe they were lying low and waiting, but they are the type of people who’d want to be seen supporting and striking whilst the iron is hot, especially Gayle and Oprah. Something must be afoot.
As Oprah happily socialised with Weinstein and still yachts with Geffen, maybe a fake bump wouldn't drive her away. I believe that big names are stepping back because the BRF outweighs Meghan and stepping on their toes would be unwise. Funny that 'whip-smart' Meghan never truly grasped the meaning and reach of soft power. Also, they may finally realise that everything she touches turns to excrement.
Agree that could be the reason or even part of the reason. Meghan and Harry just aren’t very interesting individuals in their own right. It’s still seems odd that they’ve all kept quiet.
I am convinced that the pictures are genuine...From a papp walk she staged circa 2014. This woman apparently never delete a photograph.
Not only is she wearing an identical outfit from those days… Not just recycling a coat, but also the leggings boots sweater and bag, but even more damning, because hey it’s entirely possible To have fled the UK with all your Canadian winter clothes from six seasons ago… The thing is Meg looks at least five years younger and 20 pounds thinner then we saw her just last Wednesday at Canada house. It is entirely possible that she visited this charity back in 2014 since it was started by her BFF Jessica, who she had met around that time. Although the charity identifies her as the Duchess of Sussex dropping by for tea… Another of megs famous “drop ins” there is no evidence that this photo was in fact taken just yesterday. Meg looks much younger skinnier and more attractive. Also local weather reports for Vancouver Island indicate heavy snowfall at the time she allegedly deplaned. No evidence of snow in the picture and her alleged escort is wearing a sweatshirt only. Details Meg, you always stumble on the details. And yes there was merching. So to be clear, in the guise of making a philanthropic visit To a charity for needy women She’s merching...From several-year-old pictures. All in a desperate bid to get in the papers. She is never going to stop until she is dead.
BTW, regarding that Disney clip where Harry is talking to Bob Iger about voiceovers for Meghan? Last night Inside Edition and Entertainment tonight reported it again so it's out there. It's not doing them any favours and I admit it's really cringy.
So my 2 cents on the whole debacle so far and I'm sure lots of people have already commented on it so sorry for posting it again. The Queen went into that meeting/summit as a grandmother and left the Head of State. She was disappointed and hurt but she was going to let them have her way. More to come I'm sure. I love The Queen, she knows how to say just the right things and the right tone and you think ok that's it then, she's capitulated but something else is around the corner - many corners. LOL
Canadians in general are ok with paying their security bill if it was a royal tour and it's only for a week or so but if they're going to live there part of the year - hell no we won't pick up that tab. Like most of the comments I'm reading on various news outlets the stance is if you're going to be just Harry and Meghan, well and good but as adults go pay your bills, that's what grown ups do.
OK I've said my 2 cents - back to work. Have a great day everybody :)
Cardi B was a prostitute???! Oh the shock, the dismay! I had thought she was a Girl Scout leader and a deacon in her church all this time.
That revelation is right up there with Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken coming out. Somethings you just now on sight. I would argue that Cardi B is still a prostitute, because she is certainly not a singer.
A tip to Nuttiers who get frustrated with scrolling and reading comments that are too long, etc. This is OT, but might help with some of the frustration/complaints, and it's very easy
I discovered that if I click on the Nuttier name said... (for example Blogger Anonymous said...), the comment will collapse, leaving only the header. You can expand by tapping again. I tested it on my iPhone as well, so I know it works there (I can't speak to all phone models and brands, obv). This should help with some of the frustration and allow for a preemptive strike against Nuttiers who you know will only irritate the merde out of you :) Leaving the comment open and scrolling is risky because some words will still pop out, but closing immediately and before seeing any text means avoiding the offending comment altogether. It is also a handy way to find your way to what you've read and what you haven't. I close as I go now, too.
None of them are on Twitter or Facebook? Or have friends/family on Twitter that might say, "That's a photo of Mary Lou! She died in 2018." ?
If it were just Meg by a plane with one other person, she might be able to get away with it. But once there are civilians in the photo, it seems like she'd be bound to be found out.
TorontoPaper said they were old pics too.
Darling, what you gonna do? So desperate to been seen you use old pics! No money! No helpers left! And the press bringing all the dirt of your past! But don't worry! Yachting season is coming!
https://twitter.com/torontopaper1/status/1217305489454903296
"The court documents revealed today are very damning for 'Angel of Mercy Meghan' fans."
Intriguing!
Article is old but I suspect we will hear this again.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7895342/meghan-markles-megulator-superfans-threatened-to-kill-me-hacked-my-computer-and-stole-money-from-my-bank-account-now-im-buying-a-gun-to-defend-myself/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7890301/Prince-Harrys-ex-Cressida-Bonas-says-respects-Meghan-Markle.html
Prince Harry 'Cut Off' Close Friends During Meghan Markle's Pregnancy: 'There's a Lot of Resentment'
"Most no longer even have his cell number," a well-connected source tells PEOPLE
One of the tactics of a person with narcissistic personality disorder is to isolate their target from, family, friends, and their life before the narcissist. This allows the narc to make the target 100% emotionally and psychologically dependent on the narc. This behavior helps the narc gain 100% control of their target, which is their main goal.
If you read the Stockholm Boy post from yesterday’s Blind Gossip, it provides more evidence of how isolating Harry has causes him to defend Meghan. He has no other support system now, which is why the RF is trying to give him an eventual escape route to take.
Dated Harry just long enough to get her name out there to promote her acting and modelling career - after all there's no shortage of pretty posh gels trying to break into acting - got herself some roles and a contract with Burberry... and then split up with Hapless, got back with the rich, handsome aristocrat (also called Harry) she'd been dating at uni and now they're engaged and set to marry this year. Cressida has got money, connections, a career and a handsome husband.... why the hell would she put up with all the restricitons of royalty and marriage to a petulant man-child?
Well played, Cressida. Very, very well played.
"Harry and Meghan want to ‘carve out a progressive new role for this institution’. But there is no progressive new role for monarchy, other than renouncing titles and hereditary privileges, returning the palaces and parks to the people to whom they once belonged, and then rejoining us, the great unwashed, as Mr & Mrs Harry Windsor, the friendly and unassuming mixed-race couple down the street, him good with his hands, her always happy to join in with a singalong round the piano, and little Archie playing in the front yard. None of which is going to happen.
What they mean is ‘We want to use our status to lecture you ignorant plebs on institutional racism, environmental paranoia and other pet causes of the righteous rich — and because we think we can use our status as a soapbox, we’re going to retain as much of it as we can, titles and freebies and security details and exotic foreign holidays on Elton John’s private jet.’
https://spectator.us/harry-meghan-doomed/?fbclid=IwAR3NGtuFiYaIloO2MGJsqjX15pOwsHKRTWDEAerleJWaXdRlhQU7Mh9nFX8#
My thoughts are from my original list, with some additions now that we've gone on a bit:
6. ...The BRF was never going to cut them off at the knees to bleed out in daylight. Nope, the attack was always going to be silent, undertaken mostly by others, and there will be no BRF fingerprints at the crime scene.
7. Hell will be unleashed, too. In the form of the truth from the British press. I expect this will be the lovely stuff. Unfortunately, I do now believe Archie is involved, and I think the hints are coming, starting now.
To the above, I will add that the traits and feelings will become more negative incrementally, so, for example,
National Theatre bosses fuming after Meghan Markle was 'carrying on as normal' and giving no hint her patronage could be under threat during visit... just hours before royal bombshell
Will morph into something like
National Theatre bosses fuming after Rach, the fake and two-faced liar, slutstrutted in for a meeting pretending everything was normal when the truth is she was about to show her true colors as a backstabbing cash-grabbing skank intent on destroying Harry's family the way she destroyed her own and everything else she touches
Okay, maybe the last one is a bit strong still, but I used it to make a point. Escalation will happen incrementally. 1,000 cuts, but some of them really deep and over major organs.
I predict that soon, this will be the good old days' Sweet Piers in motion:
Yesterday, as the firestorm over her and Harry’s decision to quit as full-time Royals continued to rage, she was seen flying by seaplane (ever mindful, as a celebrity eco-warrier, of her carbon footprint!) to visit a women’s shelter in one of Canada’s poorest neighborhoods.
He is slipping those velvet gloves off two and three fingers at a time. Go Piers, go! And others will follow suit as discreetly signaled to go ahead.
Archie. The Archie/Fauxrchie stories are just dribbling out, but I expect these to become more pointed now.
@Nutty and @Neutral Observer agree re this: ...I think the fact she is (a little bit) Black has been much more of a help than a hinderance, since she attempts to use it as a shield against criticism.
IMO, this is the most damaging, insulting, racist thing of all, using her blackness as a manipulative tool.
Also, @Raspberry Ruffle, @Nutty, ‘What else could make Oprah, the Obamas, Gayle King, and Serena Williams run away so quickly? Just 'being mean to her dad' wouldn't be enough. They must know something we don't, or have something confirmed that we can only guess at.’
Right. And if all they wanted to do was stay on the good side of the BRF, they'd just remain silent. I think that back-channel contact has given a discreet word. Distance is needed and silence won't be sufficient when the truth breaks.
@JenX, Thank You!. Regardless of whether or not one comes from simple means, looking for a man because of his money is revolting to me and having a man pick up the tab for my life is offensive to me. Me. I know it works for some women and men, and to each their own. As you said, it is neither feminism nor empowerment, and riding on the coattails of a wealthy/high profile spouse . It also does not mean the money is free. If the man is a TFK, there are string attached to that, too. I find the whole concept of nailing a man for money and “securing the bag” to be whorish (not of the sexual variety, although that is definitely in the tit-for-tat mix of it).
And the morning snark:
I think Wills & Kate look lovely, fun and charming, but I expect that the sugars will be attacking them for not snogging it up Ron-&-LavLav style on the loveseat during the visit lol.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7889425/Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-continue-royal-duties-Bradford-visit.html
Actually weren't there some stories about the family being toxic?
One of the problems is that all families have problems (in all levels over time) but I doubt it is defined in any DSM book (what ever level is out).
A lot of people call their situation (family, ex BF/GF/cousin/BFF) toxic like some people sprinkle salt on food.
For example: Personally, I think that if you are selling your kid for sex, that's toxic. Cutting off your family because your SIL took the name you wanted for your baby - no, not even close. But the level of vitriol over it would lead one to believe that the SIL is toxic and should be in the lowest levels of hell as we speak.
In the movie Instructions Not Included, one of the themes is that the father was trying to teach his kid how to face challenges but as a kid, he clearly felt terror. Only as an adult was he able to see it from a different view.
So, being a parent can sometimes mean saying no to your kid because you know long range, this is not a good idea (candy instead of solid food, cartoons instead of homework and the list goes on).
So is the BRF toxic? I think there are some problems that don't pop up in other families but the mores of how to raise your kids, in that time periods was the way it was back then. People were doing the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. There are probably all kinds of things they would love a re-do over (song lyrics to look up: If your life was video tape Steve Goodman).
This all said, I will say that being a member of the BRF, like that of Kennedy, Bush and fill in the blank, would be a tough place to grow up as a kid.
Seriously? That doesn't look like leaving to me. Unless he's not, only she is. I think it's time to
Spin that Wheel, Vanna! D-I-V-O-R-C-E? Now or later?
(Vanna's contract ends 2021, Rach, just FYI)
I was at the Beeline Cafe on the Beeline Highway in Payson, about 10 yrs ago, and asked for a `coke', using the term as a generic, as I would in the UK.
The woman stared daggers at me but I had no idea what I'd done.
Then, with menace worthy of an old Western film, she slowly said
` We . . . don't . . . serve . . . Coke . . . here.'
Me, in a tiny voice: ` Er, can you offer me anything similar to drink, please?'
She: `We ...only ...serve ... Pepsi ...here.'
Me: `That'll be fine, yes, yes, fine, please'
(Thinks, what code have I deeply offended? Have I asked a republican for something Democrats drink, or vice versa? After all, the brand colour is red, not red and blue... Should I apologise, I'm only a Limey? We'd been breakfasting & dining at the place for several days, and getting on well, but I almost expected her pull a gun on me.)
Can someone explain please? Or was it simply as basic as making the mistake, back in the day, of asking a surly UK jobsworth if they had Walls ice cream in his clearly-marked Lyons fridge? Or did the silly woman think I was after the old Colombian Marching Powder when my friends were ordering other fizzy drinks or coffee?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7890941/Meghan-Markles-half-sister-Samantha-says-father-ready-court.html
Pepsi/Coke - I used to live near the Pepsi headquarters and some people would get really bent out of shape if they found a competitor's brand in your refrigerator. A boss told me how crazy it was to watch.
Probably they got a deal to only sell Pepsi and they can't blast a local sideways for asking for a coke. You, not being from around those parts, got the built up wrath they got for stopping selling coke from the locals who still wish it was coke.
And to keep this post on track, I wouldn’t accept any of it from Meg. Even after everything, I’m scratching my head over @Hikari’s theory on those seaplane photos. Can we get some metadata? That is some serious derangement if she can’t just sit on her hands for a few days post summit.
Who thinks Harry will board a plane tomorrow?
Perhaps poor dim Harry got explained that his only major claim to respect is Invictus. He now wants to keep it and royals will let him - for now.
This will probably be salivated upon by Megsy's fan base as the proof that nothing's really changed apart from Harry is setting his own agenda out of the royal fold.
I am not sure it can work like that. Do you think he can claim this as his personal fun? It was created to rehabilitate him, true, but created as a royal patronage.
@Nutty, you are right. She would never get away with posting old pictures where others were involved but so far she seems to have gotten away with some pretty brazen and arrogant things. I'm not sure whether it's significant but she is wearing different boots getting on the plane than she is in the group shot.
The tweet:
Darling, what you gonna do? So desperate to been seen you use old pics! No money! No helpers left! And the press bringing all the dirt of your past! But don't worry! Yachting season is coming!
@chrisshipitv
So Prince Harry is hanging around a bit longer in the UK before he rejoins Meghan and Archie 🇨🇦
We are told he has some meetings in the UK next week so will remain in the country for a few more days *after* tomorrow’s Buckingham Palace event
Coke vs Pepsi: you walked smack into a regional difference.
In the (deep) South (i.e., southeastern US), "coke" is any cola drink not necessarily Coke the brand.
In the west (probably including Arizona), generic carbonated beverage is "pop"; in the northeast (New York/ New Jersey), generic carbonated beverage is "soda" (both originate from soda pop). So, in these places "Coke" is the name brand.
Altho I currently live in the midwest US, I'm not sure on the correct vernacular (might depend on how close people are to the east, west and south).
I knew Markle didn't love him when I watched their speeches at the wedding reception. Harry was teary-eyed, gushing over her, praising her and practically thanking her for agreeing to marry him. Meghan was dry-eyed, un emotional and only mentioned Harry once at the end in an off hand way. Didn't compliment him at all.
Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
So Prince Harry is hanging around a bit longer in the UK before he rejoins Meghan and Archie ����
We are told he has some meetings in the UK next week so will remain in the country for a few more days *after* tomorrow’s Buckingham Palace event
Are they weaning him off? Ha! He is such an idiot, but I still do feel a tiny tiny bit sorry for him. With Meg, he might be compelled to OD or otherwise harm himself.
But again, what about Archie? Doesn't either of them want to spend time with that boy? Those theories that he's been borrowed from time to time don't seem so far fetched now.
I can't imagine how she would fool people into photoshopping an old photo of her in front of the seaplane or a group of other people. It is fully possible and much more believable she's wearing the same parka from 2015. It's completely plausible that she randomly dropped by this group of women at the shelter for a vanity pic this morning. Why are people questioning this and what value do you get if this were true? That she's absolutely insane?
The Torontopapers really looks unnecessary. It's threatening and I know this is an unpopular opinion, but that kind of menacing tone is getting a bit old and somewhat inappropriate in my opinion.
Also, I've said this before, but metadata can be wrong for all kinds of reasons (factory reset, updates scheduling). Some platforms strip EXIF for privacy reasons. Looking at metadata isn't so clever nor accurate all the time. Friends wedding photos have laughably wrong metadata and slightly wrong metadata. I have one device where today's date is set to tomorrow, and I can't be bothered to fix it because for me, the importance is more that a total order is maintained than whatever.
Photographs aren't the same as seeing someone...lighting changes EVERYTHING. Sometimes, there's not a conspiracy to fool the public.
So it was originally reported that Harry was leaving right after the Rugby event tomorrow but now he's sticking around until next week. In a perfect world, he'd be filing for divorce but I doubt it. Still think it's good that he's getting some separation from her.
Perfect timing for a divorce. Everybody would understand.
My biggest concern about her visit to the woman's shelter is shelters are for somebody whose life and health may be under threat. Abused wives, girlfriends hiding from controlling men - such like. Pictures give a pretty good idea where the shelter is and how its front door looks like. Her pic with shelter workers also opens them up to potential danger from the nuts.
It is a very ill thought publicity. I hope I am wrong.
@poppycock Poor Archie. Neither of them seem to have much use for the kid except as a prop.
I don't get it. Such a cute happy child. I wouldn't let him out of my sight. He needs his parents the most right now.
So many curious things....
Although, is the royal reporter right about this? Maybe it’s a throw off for press trying to follow Harry back?
Interesting, indeed
Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
So Prince Harry is hanging around a bit longer in the UK before he rejoins Meghan and Archie 🇨🇦
We are told he has some meetings in the UK next week so will remain in the country for a few more days *after* tomorrow’s Buckingham Palace event
@octobergirl: I’m hoping the time spent in the UK has cracked the steel case cocoon Meghan has fabricated around Harry to isolate him from his family, friends, and almost every facet of his previous life except for being a royal, which Meghan covets and now needs in order to exist. I hope the warnings he reportedly received about the tax and financial issues and potential costs have helped pull him out of the coma he’s been in under since meeting Mayhem. But I also hope the RF has had an intervention with him, possibly with expert assistance from a specialist in this field.
No matter what’s happened to extend his visit, it must be trying Mayhem’s patience to the nth degree. When he is nearly half way around the earth, she loses a certain amount of the control she has when he’s in her immediate orbit.
Perhaps it is a reason why she did the photo-op outing to the shelter yesterday. She has used the “I’m-just-like-your-mommy-but-you-can-bang-me-too” manipulation on him since they met, and wanted to remind him via press coverage. Phone calls are not nearly as effective manipulation as being in the physical presence of a narc who is your controller.
This has just been published. Well, well, well.
So, she only met with workers then? Why reporting she visited "the women's shelter" if she visited only the administration? If you are right it almost makes it even worse. Also, note how staged her pictures there are. "Say cheese!"
He's there trying to sort out matters which concern her directly, and she's off in Vancouver grinning for the paps and making 'surprise' photo ops - sorry 'visits' - at women's shelters? The whole 'Oh we only thought we were going to be back for a few days and didn't want to subject Archie to trans-Atlantic flights' thing also falls apart if Harry is going to be in GB for 2 weeks or so.
This is the woman who hangs onto him like a teenager in public and supposedly wouldn't sit apart from him at dinner parties. And now she's not there to support him because she's too busy setting up photo ops on the other side of the world?
There is--or was--stuff like that out there about Melania Trump.
When I was in Europe, I said "cola lite" all the time and it didn't seem to matter, as long as I got a Diet drink.
In the south my father's grandfather worked for Coca-Cola. To this day if he orders a Coke, if offered a Pepsi he will say "No thank you."
I currently live near a Pepsi factory, and Pepsi has a lucrative contract with many institutions in town. Except for Chik-Fil-A!
http://dewc.ca
They have a women’s center 302 Columbia
A drop in shelter
An emergency shelter 412 east Cordova
All addresses are publicized, though the way it works here is you go to the address and then you are driven to the actual undisclosed house
I can’t say how it works there.
I have to run errands so I didn’t map these addresses etc
“Now they are going to ban all newspapers except The Daily Telegraph.
“But they should beware, the Telegraph is a serious newspaper – just ask the MPs who fiddled their expenses.
“And if it finds the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be held accountable for something, the paper will inevitably do its duty and inform its readers.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1228794/camilla-parker-bowles-meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-family-struggles-spt
Where did you watch the speeches at the wedding reception?
Thank you so much! You are helping the cause. ;)
I hope the warnings he reportedly received about the tax and financial issues and potential costs have helped pull him out of the coma he’s been in under since meeting Mayhem. But I also hope the RF has had an intervention with him, possibly with expert assistance from a specialist in this field.
For Harry's intervention bring in an exorcist.
I'm sure she is. But even so, why absent yourself from negotiations which will determine your whole future? Leaving a dimwit to speak on your behalf? I guess the only answer is that it's been made clear to her that she is persona non grata at the palace.
In the Daily Mail comments section everybody was commenting that the speech was all about her.
HappyDays said...
I hope the warnings he reportedly received about the tax and financial issues and potential costs have helped pull him out of the coma he’s been in under since meeting Mayhem. But I also hope the RF has had an intervention with him, possibly with expert assistance from a specialist in this field.
For Harry's intervention bring in an exorcist.
@xxxxx: Bwaaaaaah! Very funny!
2. BRF members have sued the press before. Diane won a case, but it was a hollow victory for her (and she was advised against it). William and Kate sued the press in France and won their case, so some people may say why the double standards? William and Kate were on holiday on a private estate with more than a reasonable expectation of privacy, plus they were not doing anything questionable or scandalous or duplicitous or controversial or even hypocritical. Sunbathing topless is common practice in Europe and has been for decades. Meghan, on the other hand, is on very shaky ground. She has not always been honest. She has played the press by using friends to release information for her (how did 5 friends know exactly what was in that letter and know anything about her father if it did not come from Meghan, and why was she not suing that publication?). She has been duplicitous, manipulative and hypocritical in her dealings with her father and other family members. Even if she does win the case, she is going to come out of it with a lot of dirt uncovered (and there is no use crying about bullies and so on, because it will be much too late for that).
Here you go:
To be honest, I don’t even know where to start with what has happened in the past seven days.
I had only just sent last week’s newsletter suggesting that there was some truth to the Sun story claiming that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were off to Canada, when bang! that ‘personal message’ landed in my inbox at 6.30pm.
A week on and the “hurt” and “disappointed” Queen has reluctantly bid farewell to Harry and Meghan, having admitted that she would have "preferred them to have remained full-time members of the royal family" following Monday’s Sandringham summit.
The question is, would we prefer it, after everything that has happened? While the polls suggest the majority of Britons support Harry and Meghan’s quest for ‘financial independence’, the general consensus is that they have treated the 93-year-old monarch shoddily in the process.
There has also been a backlash against them continuing to receive public funding, hence the reason why the sovereign pointed out that the couple will be parting with their grant.
As ‘Megxit’ has dominated the newspapers and conversations around the water coolers, not only of Britain but also the world, we are still no closer to knowing what the Sussexes’ new unprecedented ‘half in half out’ role will look like - or even if they are actually going to be able to have all their cake and eat it.
And herein lies the dilemma. With Harry seemingly beginning to ‘regret’ how the Queen felt blindsided, and after a crunch meeting that did not actually include his American wife, are cracks already beginning to appear in the Sussexes’ North American dream?
While the feuding Royal Family undoubtedly has to get its own house in order, it would be foolish to assume that this split from the Firm will automatically result in improved circumstances for Harry and Meghan.
Yes the couple will have the potential to earn multi-millions in the States - but at what cost?
If they think the largely redundant royal paparazzi are a problem in Windsor, then I fear they should prepare themselves for an absolute onslaught Stateside, where everyone and anyone will want a piece of the Sussex Royal brand.
While Meghan appears to be up for this new-found freelancing global superstardom outside of the Firm, is Harry - a man who has constantly sought to evade the press with the help of the palace PR machine - really be ready for the cut-throat world of LA, where they are rumoured to be eyeing a move post Canada?
How ironic that the couple’s quest to take on the Mail on Sunday and Associated Newspapers over breach of privacy, among other things, now looks as if it will have the adverse effect of prompting Thomas Markle to spill all of their most intimate secrets in open court.
There is a similarly paradoxical twist in a prince who has spent his life cultivating a tight-knit inner-circle suddenly falling into the hands of spinners, lawyers and business managers arguably more concerned with their 10 per cent cut than an allegiance to Queen and country.
If the couple think they are going to avoid negative publicity by only briefing journalists who will provide positive coverage then I’m afraid they may prove mistaken.
Because it isn’t just the regulated, mainstream media that wants a full picture to be painted of high-profile people in positions of immense privilege but also the public - not least when those people are claiming to be innocent victims of their circumstances.
The public understands that there will always be two sides to every story. The whole reason why this particular tale has proved so gripping is precisely because everyone can relate to what is at its heart, a domestic drama that anyone with a family can identify with.
In order to remain relevant, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex must remain relatable - and it remains to be seen whether they will be able to do that while cashing in on their royal status on the red carpet.
Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph
Only a short week isn’t sufficient to help Harry who has stopped contacting family & friends for a while and who is under the influence of a narc.
2. She made a visit to a women’s shelter: I agree with @Marie
They won't give up all the popular & funny charities.
3. She may have decided to make the announcement about Invictus games to overshadow Kate & William.
See what happens:
- yesterday afternoon: William returns to work
- yesterday night: Rachel needs some positive media coverage: women shelter
- this morning: bad news / negative headlines: heartless Meghan & Harry, no more old friends / National theatre boss …
- this afternoon: royal fan got a hug / workshop on how to be nice to your grandmother / William telling comment about "challenge"
- tonight: Rachel needs some (positive) media coverage: Invictus games and Harry delays flying back / dinner at Tom Inskip's house
---) It's the same vicious circle.
4. She is a coward : she fled. It's possible she thought the backlash would be a little bit smaller (more support from A+ friends, more empathy) and Harry would be back earlier. Anyway, now she can't come back, she has to wait...
Tatty asked us what we are going to do now they are off. It's going to get worse. Stay tuned!
Am I the only one thinking Megsy's shelter visit failed to outshine Wills and Kate's visit to Yorkshire? They had absolutely raving reception with even Muslim population showing up with British flags eager to shake hands with the royals.
I find this significant. She was only away for a couple days but her pulling power is already diminishing. She will have to do more and more outrageous things to stay in the focus. Her lawsuit will keep her on front pages for a while. But her royal aura is already gone.
WILLS and Kate are visiting a workshop on how to be nice to your grandmother today - after Prince Harry told the Queen he was quitting as a royal.
<...with the duchess stunning in a dress by Zara...> -- Classic! A different kind of Sayonara Zara party.
I've dropped off clothing donations for the DTES Women's Shelter. It's a large building, in the front. I work for film companies and they'll take food and clothing (production will get a tax donation receipt). So it looks like a legit visit. The government of BC wants people to pass criminal record BG checks, for workers and volunteers to places like this, so residents, and drop ins wouldn't likely be photographed. There's often a line up of women outside the building.
I work on shoots in the DTES, and it is a grim, sad place. It's the end of the road for those who end up there. It's ground zero for the opiod crisis, and between 1-4 people a day die from OD's in Vancouver. The police, fire and Medic stations are down there, and it is non stop for them. The area will look very familiar, as lots of tv shows and films are shot there. And if you work on a shoot there, you know just how brutal addiction and poverty looks.
15 years.
@frencie is likely right. This might take a while.
"The alliterate royal could have flown with other paying passengers and spent about $1K. She didn't want that though, and wanted her own helicopter and on standby for a return flight so spent $10K. Really living independently."
Really? She is hopeless!
I wondered the same, because I didn’t think royal wedding receptions were filmed.
Meghan, on the other hand, is on very shaky ground. She has not always been honest. She has played the press by using friends to release information for her (how did 5 friends know exactly what was in that letter and know anything about her father if it did not come from Meghan, and why was she not suing that publication?). She has been duplicitous, manipulative and hypocritical in her dealings with her father and other family members. Even if she does win the case, she is going to come out of it with a lot of dirt uncovered (and there is no use crying about bullies and so on, because it will be much too late for that).
@Sandie: In regard to the People magazine article with the five friends who were quoted, People ran a large photo of the letter on the first page of their article.
The copy of that letter had to come from somewhere, and it was before Thomas gave a copy of the letter to the MoS. So it had to come from one of the five friends who had Meghan’s approval to speak People and her approval for one of them to give People a copy of it to use a photograph of it in the article. Or approval for People to use it directly from Meghan herself.
And you’re exactly right Sandie, she didn’t sue People or any of her five friends, so why is she suing the MoS?
The People article likely came about after Meghan sent the letter in August 2018 to Thomas, thinking thst he’d run right to the media with it.
This was a manipulative set-up to lash out at her father to make him look bad that went wrong.
Her plan to backfired when he sat on it and did nothing. After several months without any response from him, which would provide her with the narcissistic fuel generated by her “I’m a victim of my daddy” narrative, she made sure it found its way into nothing less than People magazine, which I believe made it their cover story.
I think Meghan has far more to lose in this case than she has to win. But that won’t stop her. The narcissism is driving her to control the press and, in a way, to control and punish Thomas for angering her when he didn’t respond by running to the press as soon as it landed in his hands.
with the duchess stunning in a dress by Zara...> -- Classic! A different kind of Sayonara Zara party.
That's what I was referring to earlier when I made the comment about shade from Kate.
The DM also said the dress had been reduced in price.
@fairy crocodile: I agree with you. Their visit to Yorkshire
was successful and people want to show that they support Wills & Kate.
@Tatty: Harry won’t quit her. She is likely to quit Harry after having meal ticket n°2/baby 2.
Yep, the dress was a whopping £16
That is definitely one of the best ways Kate could say she’s one of the people and us Brits love being frugal.
The turnout for W&K seems to be an obvious show of support, and agreed @Camper, Kate showing she is just like the regular Brits. That dress is quite cute, too, but of course, Kate could make the green army tent look good.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30529397/meghan-markle-prince-harry-website-security-change/
Tried to paste article but couldnt from my phone.
Nope, he is in too deep, and she has Archie.
She will dump him and move on. He will be gutted. And, it will happen sooner rather than later (unless another child delays the inevitable).
She is done with the BRF and the UK (and with the marriage). She is moving ahead with her own plans, with or without Harry, with or without the settlement she demanded from the BRF.
Blogger FrenchieLiv said...
@Tatty: Harry won’t quit her. She is likely to quit Harry after having meal ticket n°2/baby 2.
I sort of agree--I'm sure she has considered carefully if she even needs him now, being so famous herself. One more baby might draw too much attention from her...
I agree she will leave him when it suits (ha!) her.
I’m cracking up over “dying for a fag”
It is much better/"cooler" being a single mother to a royal child, making money and having a great free independent life with her girlfriends than being "Harrys wife"
He is cramping her style :)
But she does not want to do this in the middle of the lawsuit against the press. But soon.
‘I’m sorry my heart attack is… any inconvenience for you.’
It's been proven Meghan's father had a heart attack right before her wedding and she showed no concern for his welfare. She played it to her friends that she tried to call him 20-30 times and he said he got no calls from her. As she hasn't met her father and her father hasn't met his son in law or grand son, I believe him not her but the truth will come out in court and I think none of it is going to look good for Meghan. She didn't take into account the fallout from the lawsuit and how easy it would be to expose her lies. I don't think they thought through the consequences of this lawsuit that it would bring her father back into the spotlight to resurrect that unpleasant little fact that his daughter, who he supported, paid for college and introduced to connections in Hollywood has been ghosted by his own daughter.
On the upside, at least Thomas will finally see his daughter....in court. Her lies are coming back to haunt her and with that there goes her seemingly virtuous image. Let's not look at the fact Charles paid millions for their wedding and walked her down the aisle. Let's not look at the fact he shelled out millions for their renovations at Frogmore to make them happy. Let's not look at the fact she cursed out palace staff or that she's lost personal assistants who refused to work with her. Let's not look at the fact she had no family but her mother at her wedding. Let's not look at the fact she threw herself an expensive bridal shower with celebrities and no family but her mother in attendance. And let's really not look at the fact, that she alienated Harry from his friends, his brother and now all of his family. Harry's not a total victim here tho he is being shown to be a total tool. He's got anger and entitlement issues that Meghan's being able to play upon. If he had a level head or any smarts, she wouldn't be able to do that.
Of course with race relations being so bad in America at this time, she'll have her supporters regardless but they are not that far beyond the miniscule echo chamber of woke celebrities. You can't make billions off a public hawking your royal brand that no longer believes you.
"If the couple think they are going to avoid negative publicity by only briefing journalists who will provide positive coverage then I’m afraid they may prove mistaken."
Journos will just quote the briefed stuff and write about it and add details of their own!
You are right. Looks like the only way for them to try and control the downward spiral is keep her at an arm's length and try mega-detox with Harry. The longer he is kept away with negotiations, details, lawyers the more likely he is to find his AWOL brain.
If this fails there isn't much they can do, only to push his "do not make the granny upset" button.
@abbyh, excellent pushback on the overuse of 'toxic' to describe something. We all know people who use that term to describe anyone who doesn't give them their own way.
@Hikari, don't know if the pics of Megs & the seaplane are real. I don't have the expertise to delve into the metadata, etc., that might shed light on them, but as you pointed out, she suddenly looks much slimmer, even in her face, especially in the group photo at the shelter. Doesn't liposuction have a recovery time? LOL. On Skippy's blog someone has pointed out that the company whose name was on the seaplane, Whistler, doesn't operate in the winter, only in the summer. Another company, Harbour Air, does winter flights.
Someone claimed to have gone to the Vancouver Airport & saw only Harbour Air aircraft. Have no idea if is true, but interesting.
Thanks so much for the new post and for answering my question yesterday - your response did indeed get lost among all the hundreds of comments on your last article!
For anyone wondering, here are excerpts from the original question/answer:
BlueBell Woods said...
@Nutty
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? ... 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.
Nutty Flavor said:
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.
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.
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 you see the blind "Stockholm Boy" Blind Gossip posted yesterday, January 14th? It rings true, aswers some questions, and ties in with what you have presented. I'm reposting the blind here:
"Stockholm Boy"
"Many people have been wondering why this family has not been more brutal and decisive in cutting out its rogue members.
Fortunately, we have some insight from an insider!
The family is thinking about the long-term implications. While they are furious – not just upset, but furious – about what is happening, they do believe there will come a time in which he will return to them.
What time is that?
They believe there will be a divorce within five years.
So, what is their strategy?
They must allow him to go but keep in contact and leave the door open for him to return. If they close the door on him, he might feel obligated to stay in the marriage longer because there would be no where else for him to go.
What about his wife?
The most frequent word I hear used to describe her internally is “duplicitous.” They know that from the beginning she has said or done whatever she needed to do to capture him, all while planning to do the exact opposite after marriage. They call it a “long con.”
If they knew this, why didn’t they warn him?
They did so repeatedly! Any warnings from the family were summarily dismissed by him.
This is a powerful family. Can’t they take her down?
Despite the conspiracy theories, his family will not “take her out” or publicly “take her down.”
They have dual objectives: To get him to return to the family, and to protect the family. To do both requires great restraint on their part.
For example, they know that they can not criticize her openly. Criticizing her would only result in his defense of her and in her positioning herself as the victim or martyr. Unfortunately, she has conditioned him to see her as his only ally and his family as the enemy.
So, does this mean that his family will work with her?
Only insomuch as to facilitate his return. That is a primary objective.
That wording almost makes him sound like a hostage.
In many respects, he is an emotional hostage who is siding with his captor. He is not locked up in a room, but he is emotionally tied to her. She is in charge and he will not work against her.
That sounds like Stockholm Syndrome. Can’t his family pay her a “ransom” to get him back?
Right now, she is confident that she can make much more money with him than by giving him up. That is what makes this situation so unusual.
It certainly will be interesting to see how this all plays out!"
Has anyone seen the paper today?
She needs him for now:
1. she needs to be considered as a royal while building her "empire" :-)
- prestige,
- connections,
- Charles' money
2. Becoming:
She dreams of becoming the new powerful couple : H&M (role models: Queen B & Jay, Kanye & Kimmy, The Obama...)
3. She needs more time to prepare their divorce (recent lessons learned : be patient, don't rush...)
- a second kid to secure a bit more her position ($$$$),
- another man and this guy must be rich, powerful so that she can settle another partnership
- she wants to be the victim, she cannot quit the BRF and initiate divorce 6 months later : she would be crucified making her unable to make cash
- she needs to find another man and this guy must be rich, powerful so that she can settle another partnership
Despite his complaints over the years about being a member of the RF, I don't think Harry would ever have done to them what he did this week, if Meghan Markle had not manipulated him into it in the most Machiavellian manner.
Agree that Megs & Mrs. Mnuchin are unappealing birds of a feather.
My favourite photo is the one of her in front of Buckingham Palace with her friend, where her body is all the same colour, no bronzer in sight.
Sometimes I think she’s trying to morph into an Oompah Lumpah.