"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
We don’t want Harry and Meghan, says pro-monarchy Globe and Mail
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been told by Canada’s biggest national newspaper that they are not welcome there as members of the royal family.
In an editorial that undermines the assumption that the couple would be welcome wherever they chose to live, the Globe and Mail has announced that the Canadian government should tell the couple: No.
Arguing that Canada was not a “halfway house” for any royal looking for a life outside Britain, it said: “You are welcome to visit, but so long as you are senior royals, Canada cannot allow you to come to stay.”
The Globe and Mail, a conservative paper that traditionally supports the monarchy, wrote: “If they were ordinary private citizens, plain old Harry and Meghan from Sussex, they would be welcome.
“But this country’s unique monarchy, and its delicate yet essential place in our constitutional system, means that a royal resident — the Prince is sixth in the line of succession — is not something that Canada can allow. It breaks an unspoken constitutional taboo.”
The editorial argued that this was because the Canadian monarchy was different from the British one. “This isn’t about breaking up with the Crown. On the contrary, it’s about maintaining Canada’s unique and highly successful monarchy.”
Britain, it said, was the inventor of one of the world’s great innovations, a monarchy that reigns but does not rule. “Canada took that system and improved it,” it said. “The Canadian monarchy is virtual; it neither rules nor resides. Our royals don’t live here. They reign from a distance. Close to our hearts, far from our hearths.”
As a result, “the Trudeau government’s response should be simple and succinct: No”.
Although the question of which country pays for their security costs has not been settled, the paper said it was not a question of money.
“It goes deeper than the possibility of the feds having to find a few million extra bucks.
“Canadians like their monarchy, and visits by the Queen and other members of the Royal Family tend to produce outpourings of public enthusiasm. But while the people who embody the Crown pay visits from time to time, they don’t set up a home on the premises. A royal living in this country does not accord with the long-standing nature of the relationship between Canada and Britain, and Canada and the Crown.”
The nearest they get to resident royalty are the governor-general and the provincial lieutenant-governors, who represent the Crown. “They’re as close as Canada comes to having resident royalty, but they’re not royalty. Instead, they’re merely temporary avatars for a virtual monarch who remains permanently ensconced across the sea.”
Since the 1950s, governors-general have always been Canadians. “Princes are not shipped over here when no useful duties can be found for them on the other side of the Atlantic.”
It added: “Canada welcomes people of all faiths, nationalities and races, but if you’re a senior member of our Royal Family, this country cannot become your home.
“The government should make that clear. There can be no Earl Sussex of Rosedale and no Prince Harry of Point Grey. Canada is not a halfway house for anyone looking to get out of Britain while remaining a royal.”
********************
So after all MM's cries of racism, she is not welcome in Canada because she is a senior royal! I wonder if Meg will champion "senior royals" to become another protected group under discrimination laws!
So is all of this another step / push / hint towards stripping them of all royal status?
If you try to say her hands are different colour to her face your comment will be reported and deleted. Several of mine were, although they were merely questioning her make up skills.
Her race card is still playing out but it doesn't have much balance left. However few people still have time to read comments like that before they are removed and begin to watch her games.
Her new life agrees with her so well that she’s gotten the restful sleep of those completely on troubled by conscience, and maybe she’s got some new organic supplements or a new yoga routine because she looks so energized, so fresh, slim and young compared to the more bloated, sweaty visibly older woman we saw just a week ago. Those photos are like getting into a Time Machine back to 2014 When ingénue around town Meg was established on it successful show and was often seen rocking her down to earth BoHo chic Mid priced labels. She looks better in clothes that regular women can afford and like hell in Couture so she should stay away from it.
When I suggested that she was recycling photos from several years ago for this papp coverage, I should clarify that I didn’t mean that I had seen these pictures previously published in 2014...Rather that the Meg we see in these photos looks like she did back then, and not as we’ve seen her is recently as last Wednesday. It’s not just the outfit, or the fact that she wore the same coat before; her face her eyes everything looks like it’s from a younger photo. In one of the shots she’s walking next to rangy looking guy with a black jacket and black wool hat. His face is turned away from Camera but you can see some ginger looking stubble and impression is one of Harry or a Harry standin. Both her eyes are looking in his direction as if he speaking. I wondered if this was her security detail, if so he’d be extremely dressed down, but he does not appear in any other photos. In the next photo she is joined by a heavyset woman wearing a blue sweatsuit and a scrunchie with no coat, but this woman does not seem to be any of the women in the group picture, because no one has The same shirt on.
The presence of other people and all the photos does make it harder to fake the date. Does no one else have difficulty Reconciling the Meg we see in these pictures with the Meg we last saw in London just seven days ago? Either mag has Benjamin button like powers, or these photos where tweaked make her look a whole lot better then we’ve seen her for sometime. If she’s able to lose five years and 20 pounds just with a good nights sleep and a fresh Canadian air Then I am moving to Vancouver as fast as I can.
The sad irony in all of this really for Rachel, though I don’t think she ever wastes time in reflecting on irony, is, These photos show a woman revisiting her look and stomping grounds from Her life before she ever met Harry. If someone familiar with Megan from suits and her time about town when she was on the show fell into a coma after season four and has only now just come to , And those pictures of Megan were the first things he clapped eyes on, It would be no reason for him to think that we didn’t just celebrate New Year’s 2015. What was it all for really? There will be a few distractions before things settle down, but essentially Meg is back where she started... In Canada merching a parka and bustling to get her photo in the papers so she can look like a humanitarianism gracing the needy with her dazzling smile and chic boots. No hint at all that this woman reached the pinnacle of her ambition to become a duchess, only to return to her comfort zone in under 2 years. Oh, besides the Princess bride and a Duchess, a mom too. I have yet to see evidence of the last to convince me.
Since the visit to Canada house, I’m more convinced that TP is a real person. He and I are on the same page about these pictures .
I agree with others Meghan can't come back here even if Harry shows signs of seriously dragging his feet. Feels like the UK is a no-go zone for her now.
I was interested in Sandie's comment i.e. "I also believe she is done with Harry. 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."
I don't think she'd get far on just that in the long run, or with A-listers, but she'd be happy for now. Looks from the photos of her that that's where her mind is at the moment.
Sandie's mention of Archie as part of a cool single mother of royal child image is of course undermined by the mistakes Meghan (and Harry) made with Archie's birth and christening. They threw away, quite unnecessarily, a vast amount of affection from the nation and even overseas. Affection happily given to George, Charlotte and Louis, because their parents didn't crassly exclude media and people at their precious first milestones. That affection should bolster them for life, unless they follow their aunt and uncle Sussex. While interest in Archie is limited and likely to remain so, through no fault of his own.
This was a massive, massive misjudgement, principally by Meghan I think. Archie should be everything, and she should have got everyone on-side for him. Apart from anything else, in cynical terms she needs a bond with him to endure his loyalty later. I often wonder where Priscilla Presley would be without Lisa Marie (much as I admire Priscilla). As Elvis' ex-wife, not widow, she only has validation in the Elvis estate because she had that vital child.
Who knows though. I have abandoned all ideas I have about what is happening and have simply replaced it all with “I don’t know”
We will find it out eventually.
“In response to the sudden announcement of a vague and evolving plan for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – Prince Harry and Meghan – to move to Canada while remaining part of the Royal Family, the Trudeau government’s response should be simple and succinct: No,” the editorial blasts.
“You are welcome to visit, but so long as you are senior royals, Canada cannot allow you to come to stay … It breaks an unspoken constitutional taboo,” it says.
Harry and Meghan’s Canada planned migration mucks up the country’s long history of breaking away from the British political system, according to the article.
“[Canada’s] unique monarchy, and its delicate yet essential place in our constitutional system, means that a royal resident — the Prince is sixth in the line of succession — is not something that Canada can allow,” it says.
“A royal living in this country does not accord with the long-standing nature of the relationship between Canada and Britain, and Canada and the Crown.”
Thanks for the heads up. I am of course referring to makeup and it’s application. Nothing wrong with enhancing your looks, be that a little product or lot. Kate for instance does wear a lot of heavy eye makeup up IMO, a look she is obviously comfortable with. Meghan at one point was going for a very natural look, like at the wedding, again IMO.
I think the RF is cooking up something behind the scenes. I don't see them doing interventions, the closest they got to one was probably the Monday meeting.
Harry's public value in Britain is close to zero now, but they'll never permanently cut him off. He might get a redemption route away from public and woke celebs. Africa or some sort of military service. I just don't believe they're twiddling their thumbs and letting Meghan walk all over them.
I have re-read my comment to you and it was not clear. I meant to say any comments re Markle's colour are promptly deleted on various comment boards, not on Nutty's blog. I am sorry.
Here’s what I predict will happen… Meg will stay till their lease runs out on the Vancouver Island property, even if they are staying gratis, The Russian oligarch must have given them a time limit if he wants to sell it. This is off season now so they got it til spring possibly. I know it’s prime season for skiing in Whistler, But getting on and off the island right now seems inconvenient and expensive with one seaplane from running. What’s left, a ferry? Don’t see Megsie boarding a winter ferry with the commuters myself. Harrys meetings in the UK will stretch on and on by the week, necessitating that he stay in England. “A week of meetings“ might well be code for “ psychiatric help“. If harry does join her in Canada, I for see it being short stays that would not violate Canada‘s constitution since they would be too short to be considered a residency. I predict that Canada will deny their security costs on that basis… M is not a royal and Harry would be a royal on vacation, not official business. I suppose daddy Charles will cover security During this “transition” period. I feel certain that the hope must be that Harry will transition right back into being a full-time royale while unencumbered Meg transitions to LA and Canada can breathe a sigh of relief. Fleeing the UK just as her lawsuit against the mail on Sunday is gearing up doesn’t look too good for her chances. I think fear of being eviscerated in the lawsuit is what made her bolt now, not some time limited view with Disney. If Meg returns to the UK it will be to appear in court. I really don’t envision her on the balcony for the Queens birthday parade, or Harry either unless this all gets resolved in 6 mos. Not likely
Late and kinda dumb but I'm gonna weigh in on the "Coke" discussion...
I live in Texas - where all sodas are called "Coke" - when you go get "a Coke" you actually buy whatever soda you want...but my mother despises the brand Pepsi for some reason.
Recently (I am over 50) she was visiting and I stopped at a convenience store to buy some "cokes" - I bought a 12 pack of Pepsi and a 12 pack of Dr Pepper because they were on sale ...and she said - upon seeing the Pepsi - "I thought I taught you better than that"
It is a big issue for some people.
Archie was withheld from the British public to create an air of mystery about him. Primarily for future merching purposes. By withheld I mean these two screwballs not telling which hospital, not telling which doctors, not revealing the god parents. Now was that cool or what!!! So they thought. Give the big middle finger to the UK press and the British people. Plus the big baby reveal in Black South Africa instead of UK, virtue signalling that we are multicultural and are the woke Commonwealth Ambassadors, so screw you racist Great Britain. We are too cool for you!
You are right that The Gruesomes blew off a megaton of simple goodwill by not being open and forthright about Archie. These nutty ego-trippers only needed to emulate what W&K do.
I feel your pain as I had shingles several years ago and it extremely uncomfortable. I got the shingles vaccine as soon as I could.
@BlueBell Woods
Well, Well. What is Plan B?
"Meg seems to think she has full control of the media on the West coast as in Vancouver and LA. It makes me wonder what went down in England. There has to be more to the story that explains the friction."
I wonder if Meghan felt the UK press played favorites with Kate? There was a lot of comparison made in the tabs between the two duchesses. Although I always felt they were sufficiently sloberingly-sweet to Markle and her appearance and even her sloppy performance, she may have felt she wasn't worshipped enough. One of the many reasons why her role as a RF member did not work out may be because her deep narcissism made it impossible for her to exist in the same world as a "Kate".
I would also guess as has been disgusted here before, that MM generated the entire storyline that the press was unfair to her starting with the false story they broke into her Canadian home when she was still working on Suits. And of course in her usual hypocritcal manner used them to promote herself and the relationship storyline as evidenced in the early Vanity Fair interview.
The Royal Rota has to cover all the Royals and can't be completely controlled by her. But her own hired photographer, and MM generated information released directly by her can be controlled and manipulated when she is holding her own court in Canada or the US.
I doubt MM ever feels any emotion like hurt or fear, and I don't believe she suffers from anxiety or panic attacks. I imagine the only emotions she ever registers are anger, contempt and jealousy/resentment. This really has to affect how she is able to fit in anywhere.
According to Tina Brown, who's featured in the the DM today, Meghan felt doing regular Royal duties did not take advantage of her global popularity.
I have family in the UK. My elderly aunt in her 80's who lives in Scotland thought the Harkles were so in love. She watched the wedding and at the time gushed to me about it being wonderfully romantic. I get upset at the thought of her being markled, and by the RF's part in that.
Perhaps the RF and Harry owe the British people a refund for the cost of the wedding day security as well as the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage. In addition the Archie issue must be dealt with. Although I understand the RF want to leave a door open for Harry to return home, and don't want to anger MM right now, they need to do SOMETHING about the "Archie" issue sooner rather than later. The longer they leave that issue alone, the more chance they will look completely complicit.
"I am not a royalist. I actually knew from the minute I saw Megs she was going to be a total number. It’s kind of twisted, gorgeous and gossipy but with Brexit it all seems hideously fateful!"
"She was there for 5 minutes. God Save the Queen. The actual queen is a total legend. Bye bye harry and what’s her name. Joan Of Arc always get’s the blame!"
"When you break up the brand you break up the band! You talk like she has no previous experience of the limelight! A grown up makes knowing choices and acts them out with grace! Ain’t no accidental princesses."
"It’s all about Meghan! The millennial Joan Of Arc!"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7887359/Did-Justin-Trudeau-hint-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harrys-NOVEMBER.html
I'm thinking she genuinely fled the country. She couldn't be charged with extortion because Harry would have to be a defendant, but I'm quite sure there are criminal charges to answer. She's played her hand badly and her fellow conspirators in this con on the RF will be sh!tting themselves. Jess Mulroney won't be looking too good in her classy Toronto circles now.
This is a story that will keep on giving - my apologies to those Tumblr ladies who saw the con long ago, but I couldn't quite believe it.
I read the Tina Brown article, which was basically saying that, according to Meghan, she was for international red carpets due to the scale of her fame and talent, while Kate could do UK retirement homes and factory tours. I had just that moment finished reading about NPD, which I have tried to avoid until now. The parallels were shocking. As so many of you have said.
Quite apart from grandiose fantasies, the body language Meghan shows in public with Harry - the ownership it suggests and the deliberate maintenance of weakness and distress - is profoundly disturbing even to me, when I have never cared about 'adult' Harry. It's there, right in front of us, in front of his family, in front of the world's media. And nothing can be done about it. Not even an intervention, as it wouldn't work yet. If he was my brother I would be exhausted with anger and despair.
Baby #2? well if the lawsuit hit the courts as she was pregnant, that might be a helpful visual for her side. (just commenting on optics of pregnant woman and talking of being fearful and hounded)
Even they only have the one, I don't see her doing the school run with the yummy mummies. Style cramp, especially if they come off as Kate does, the right level of dress, put together and photo worthy.
I think she will stay at the Canadian house for as long as she can and then decamp for Malibu/Misha Nonoo (the weather will be nicer by then too).
The Canada stay problem - Do you think that Canada House people had a clue why they would want to visit or did they (H&M) spring this on them during? I'm inclined to think spring upon so they were unprepared to say even a let us check on that for you (warning) or the nope, won't pass, we tried. That's the kind of detail you want nailed down before you finalize your toss the bombs exciting exit.
@charade said...
"Meg seems to think she has full control of the media on the West coast as in Vancouver and LA. It makes me wonder what went down in England. There has to be more to the story that explains the friction."
I wonder if Meghan felt the UK press played favorites with Kate? There was a lot of comparison made in the tabs between the two duchesses. Although I always felt they were sufficiently sloberingly-sweet to Markle and her appearance and even her sloppy performance, she may have felt she wasn't worshipped enough. One of the many reasons why her role as a RF member did not work out may be because her deep narcissism made it impossible for her to exist in the same world as a "Kate".
I agree that she has difficulties with Kate or any Kate equivalent and that would be a problem no matter what. I also think they did go out of their way to be nice in ways they hadn't been to Kate. Giving her her own tab on the femail section of the DM - that always bothered me as it showed her as a rank not needing to be lumped in with the whole rest of the royals. They didn't do much in the way of slams about her hair or general less than put togetherness. She was new, she was exotic and that was interesting.
Tina Brown and M not being fully used to the best capacity as a global popular person. Wow. Alas the Palace has to consider a lot of details which might not be at TB's fingers when determining how and where to set up an event. The monarchy has not run on popularity for centuries and is unlikely to change that on a dime from an upstart American.
NeutralObserver and curtsey
There are others who know more than I but there is rules linked to rank.
What I remember from Diana was that the discussion (loss of HRH) was that she might she would need to curtsey to Princess Michael of Kent (someone who had not always gotten along with Diana so it could easily become a rub it in your face). PMofK told Diana that she would not to do this (softening the impact and an act of kindness).
So, I could see that that down the road from now, M would not be in any mood to be subordinate to K. Perhaps the fallout of stepping away now before it becomes a public thing when William is king is a good thing.
I also think the Canada photo today was Photoshopped. MM appears out of proportion to the others in the group photo. A photographer sent Skippy his analysis and he says she is Photoshopped in. It looks like he is correct. I rarely think photos are Photoshopped to deceive. But, for example, the christening group photo of Archie WAS definitely much altered, and very sloppily. I have worked a lot with Photoshop and am always amazed at what it can do in skilled hands.
I noticed, also, that she appears to have two different pairs of boots on today—brown outside and black inside. Brown boots are loose on her calves; black boots fit her calves. Black tights in both photo.
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments and thank you @Nuttie for giving us a space. It’s taken two days to read all the posts for this thread and the last one.
Meghan's modus operandi is to do something or ask for something breathtakingly blatantly, without warning. People are so shocked they're effectively immobilised. Can't gather themselves together. She swoops, gets or does what she wants. Then she's gone. It's like that paralysing agent spiders use on flies.
Could the G&M be aiding the BRF’s cause? Maybe they don’t mean to, but as I see it they are. If royal squatters aren’t welcome (how humiliating for Justin T is that op/ed, by the way?!), then the BRF can say “Ah, well, Meghan can stay as citizen Meghan but Harry will have to remain in the UK except for visits.” It works, plus the G&M was able to say to Harry and Meghan what the BRF could not. A fine Commonwealth nation indeed!
(I still hold out hope that an annulment/divorce is underway, though I see all the ways that is probably wrong, especially after considering that Stockholm syndrome blind.)
Sorry to interrupt!
There were definitely 2 different pairs of boots. One was huge, like "your dad's boots" sized...and since the pics show they worn at nearly the same time as the ones that fit well - makes the whole thing look super suspicious.
I can't imagine her wearing the giant boots that didn't fit....just weird.
Amyway the picture was taken by Backgrid who also take Doria's "pap" pictures.
Interesting times!
I am far from an expert on the rules governing BRF curtseys. But
1. As I recall, TQ clarified the "precedence" rules after Camilla and Charles married because Anne did not want to curtsey to Camilla. (Precedence as opposed to succession)
2. I really doubt the BRF curtseys in private except to TQ. And I may be wrong on this but I don't believe I've ever seen them do it on public occasions either (again except to TQ.) For example, on the Christmas walks we do see some family members curtsey to TQ. Presumably those who do not have already seen her that day. But we don't see them bobbing and weaving to each other. Or at the Easter service a few years ago when Will and Kate arrived at the last minute, and couldn't have seen the others before they got there, there was no curtseying. So I'm pretty confident there was no curtseying expected at the KP residences by family when H&M lived there.
3. The main use of the precedence rules (as opposed to the succession rules) governs who enters a room first. For example, if Harry, Meghan, and Kate attended an event, H&M precede Kate. If Will, Kate, and Meghan attended an event (yeah, like THAT would ever happen) W&K precede Meghan.
@brown-eyed,
Good point about the boots. The lighting could maybe explain the apparent color difference but the fit issue??? The boots outdoors are quite large around her calves. Of course, I guess a flunky could have been carrying an extra pair for her to change to. But honestly, why do that unless the outdoor boots "leak" leading to wet feet and if they do, why intentionally wear them in snow? It's not as though she had no other choice. Odd.
Markle only made that letter public after five 'friends' of Meghan's put extracts in the public domain via People magazine.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/meghan-duchess-sussex-mail-sunday--case-letter-thomas-father
Jessica Mulroney's possible role is mentioned but regarding another aspect.
The article quotes a legal expert who thinks Meghan's legal victory is certain. From the detail available so far, that view also surprises me, although I'm reassured by his closing words. Extract below:
***** Mark Stephens, a libel and privacy expert at the law firm Howard Kennedy, said Meghan would “undoubtedly win the case”, but wondered whether it would ultimately be worth the “enormous price”. While she would win what he described as a “tiny legal battle”, he warned that she and her husband would comprehensively lose the “much broader war”. *****
As for them looking oversize she's got big feet and extraordinarily skinny calves!
What if it is code for Harry doesn't want to go, he's realized he's a fool and going to be eaten alive in LA, et al. He is beginning to understand the stars didn't cross but that he tripped thru a wire that set a trap for him. He still wants Archie, DNA be damned. So, what if he delays things courtesy of the BRF, they set up the new life for Harry, he goes back, a few times, keeps things on as even a keel as they can be with a viper at the helm, and then, he takes Archie back to the UK for the family visit... and he stays. Then, there is no national throwdown re the BRF kidnapping a child, it's a simple he said/she's a whore/custody battle kind of thing.
Possible?
Please guys, check out Eugene Landy! The story about him and how he looted Brian Wilson, drugged him and took over every aspect of his life fits what Megs is doing to Harry to a T. It took lawsuits from Wilson's family and many years to convince Brian to ditch that monster. If you want to know what to expect will happen next and over time to Harry, read up what Landy managed to LEGALLY do. It's insane!
In the PNW, the ground outside is mush right now. Mud. If there is cause to walk off sidewalk/pavement, you really want to have rain/mud boots on, not nice leather. Ditto if it's snowing, like today. Our rain boots aren't warm enough, so we need outdoor snow style. If it's pouring rain, knee-high rain boots are de rigueur (you can wear shorter ones, but you risk seriously wet pants/tights). Wearing nice boots while walking thru the snow (which is a wet snow) on a potentially slippery dock (it's been freezing, so patches of ice can happen) is nothing any of us would do. In that same way, wearing those sloshy, sloppy boots indoors is a big yeah, no. So, while I would never defend Rach under any but the most extreme conditions, this is one area where I've lived long and done much and have had big dogs and lived on the water and on the beach and sailed and hiked and gone to professional jobs downtown, and I'm here to say, many boots are required.
Now, the point we've all been waiting for: suede, really? They look like they're suede, and yes, they can be treated, but that's just damned dumb. So, Rach still messed it up, but the different boots do make sense.
Also looks like Misha Nonoo is going to let them couch surf at her place in Malibu for as long as they want. Whatevs' right? As IF her place is going to be adequate for all the day in day out security needs the 3 of them require. Hey, here's an idea: Is Neverland Ranch still for sale?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meghan-markles-father-is-ready-to-be-star-witness-against-her-in-court-its-time-for-her-to-drop-this-case
Extracts:
"Although most observers agree that Meghan’s copyright was indeed infringed and she has a good chance of winning the case, it’s hard to see how any victory that involved Meghan being dragged through court and having her character publicly questioned and her troubled relationship with her father forensically exposed could be regarded as anything other than pyrrhic."
"The Sussexes have, it would appear, a watertight case: British copyright law states that you cannot publish a private letter without the author’s consent.
"The fact that the person who received the letter has given it to you matters not a bit. English law has some “fair dealing” exemptions, but these mainly deal with incorporating the published text of books into articles about those books."
"The paperwork filed by Associated Newspapers, owner of the Mail group, reported by a number of U.K. media institutions including the Mail itself, ITV News, and The Telegraph suggests a nightmare scenario for the Sussexes: that the newspaper has secured the close co-operation of Thomas Markle, and that he is prepared to testify against her.
"Meghan would therefore likely be obliged to give evidence against her own father if the case went to trial.
"While it seems incredible that Meghan would allow herself to get into a situation where she faced being humiliated and having her character traduced in a British court by her father, many warned Harry and Meghan that this was exactly the situation they would end up in when they filed the legal suit against the Mail on Sunday."
Here is a simple summary of the Hague Convention as it relates to child abduction by a parent.:
"The Convention was drafted to ensure the prompt return of children who have been abducted from their country of habitual residence or wrongfully retained in a contracting state not their country of habitual residence.The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed immediately before an alleged wrongful removal or retention thereby deterring a parent from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court."
Note I did not say such a possibility if Harry did take Archie would be wrong, just that he would have to be careful. I don't intend to argue just to give info.
Thanks for the info about the climate. I didn't know about the mud issue. Two pairs would make sense then. But I agree not suede. I do treat my suede boots and it helps but that's only in case of sudden weather changes (like torrential rain.) For going out in existing snow, suede is a no-no!
Yes! And she is particularly cruel, if it is true her father went bankrupt after paying Meghan's way, as her brother says.
Given the way MM's "friends" are forever speaking on her behalf in the media, it makes no sense for her to single out her father and punish him.
PC has appeared to be kind and caring towards Doria & MM. In return, she and Harry have behaved atrociously towards the entire RF. I believe her visit to the shelter, photographed, of course, was her way of saying "I'm going to do what I want."
Sandie, yes. Megs has no problem mooching from PC or any men for that matter. She's made it into an art form. Maybe that's her definition of humanitarianism. She's the taker/receiver of all the good will. Or, maybe she's been practicing role reversal on how to be a philanthropist by being the receiver, cuz you know, you can't just go out and take money from guys without a good dress rehearsal.
I don’t know.
From the moment I saw this video, I can't shake the feeling that whoever it was in the purple dress, it was NOT Meghan Markle.
Seeing as how Jeff has yet to officially make Lauren Sanchez the next Mrs. Bezos, maybe mm will start insinuating into his circle. Didn't Misha and he join in on some group vacation aboard David Geffen's yacht last summer? Would not put it past MeMyselfandI Markle eyeing her next conquest already.
Well, Bezos’ head looks like a penis, and that and a big bank balance are all Mayhem needs to work with. So yeah, I could see her targeting him. It’s obvious he thinks with his dick, so he’d be perfect for her on that front.
But he’s actually achieved something in life and probably isn’t the vulnerable easily manipulated type that Harry is, so Meghan might not fare well with him. He’d sleep with her so he could say he banged a skeezy royal and then dump her in the back of an Amazon delivery truck.
If this is some twisted way of getting his family back for the way they treated his mom, that is some super psycho passive aggressive crazy train stuff.
I believe the same. Most of us are normal. We can share the limelight, sometimes don't even feel comfortable in it and prefer to work behind the scenes. We can laugh with others, cheer them on, and when they are praised or succeed at something, we are happy and applaud them. When they are popular and liked and in the limelight, we bask in their glow in a proud and happy way. We wish the best for others and they wish the same for us. We are the sum of our friends and family. Most of us know that when we're the smartest, prettiest, most successful person in the room, it's the wrong room. Most of us want to be challenged and encouraged and inspired by others who have succeeded more in some or many areas.
But not the narcissist.
Everyone else's success is their failure. Anyone else's beauty makes them uglier. Anyone else's charm or grace or happiness is not to be exalted but instead torn down so that the Narcissist can be the best and only in the room. A few seconds away to look at another bright, shiny, pretty, smart thing, and the narcissist sees that as total betrayal and wants to destroy the person who was seen as better as well as the person who saw something other than the Narcissist's image before them.
Kate is Rach's worst nightmare. Rach, no matter how "pretty" she might look, always looked dumpier next to Kate. Most of us would. Kate is tall, thin, willowy grace and everything looks good on her and she looks regal always. She could roll up in a chenille bathrobe with her hair a mess, and she'd look English country charm. If Rach were to do the same, she'd look frumpy and dumpy. It's the way their built, the way they carry themselves. The same is true for hair, skin, etc. It's not that Rach can't look pretty, but no matter what she does, she'll never have Kate's regal bearing. Add to that, Rach has a nasty, contemptuous, entitled, smug RBF, and Kate doesn't own an RBF, and there's a problem.
I think that every time Rach looked at Kate, she saw what she was not, and instead of being able to befriend Kate and enjoy a friendship, Kate was the reflection of everything Rach could never be, and a reminder of everything Rach had done (by choice, mind you) to get where she was. I would be happy to be Kate's short, dumpy, older friend because she inspires me and I would just be happy to be around someone so nice and caring and calm and beautiful. I don't think Rach felt that way lol.
Although Rach is without conscience, it seems she was and is full of pride, and the fact that she was doing the wallbanger with Weinstein to get where she got must be the worst. Instead of owning that and dealing with it, she just reflects it outward and blames, and rages, and hates, and Kate is the focus of that.
This is my opinion only - I am not an expert in psychology, narcissists, human behavior, the royal family, or any other thing, although I do have some areas of knowledge as would anyone who'd had a life. This is just my opinion of what and who Rach is and why she hates Kate.
IDK what happened to Rach during her childhood, but my guess is Thomas' fixation on all things Rach of Wonder and whatever the hell Doria brought to it (she's the grey area; I'd like to know more about her because right now, she is the "good" parent, but Rach isn't just the product on one parent and/or genetic FUBARing, she's a piece of work all on her own, but others shaped that) combined with Rach's own brain functioning, and she is the perfect storm, the triad, Voldemort's dream date, etc..
The MO of asking for the outrageous without warning (as I read that, I was reminded of the article yesterday talking about the wife of Eisner being used to people coming up and asking for stuff from them.
the plane pictures
Skippy has some interesting ones which deal with photoshop where the group photo is dissected and various fails (the pattern and color of the knit), hair and so on. Someone else pointed out that the woman (in blue) walking with M ... it's only snowing around them, not elsewhere in the frame (sorry if someone one else pointed it out and I missed that part).
I'd feel sorry if Jeff B banged her for a notch - sad at least for the kid (and H to a certain degree in that is not why he's trying so hard to keep the marriage going). But you know, you gotta let people hit bottom and find their own way. It's very painful to watch someone you love reinvent the wheel.
video of One World Youth Summitt
Looked like her to me, the nose, the walk, the hair touch, slight push away only to have it fall back, the hair flounce as walking, the waving as if a rock star, the let me hug you,
What do you see that says nope, a fill in? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrxheKjnSV4
thanks to all
Tina Brown and M not being fully used to the best capacity as a global popular person. Wow. Alas the Palace has to consider a lot of details which might not be at TB's fingers when determining how and where to set up an event. The monarchy has not run on popularity for centuries and is unlikely to change that on a dime from an upstart American.
The above is not in my opinion TB's position but her explaining M's thinking.
M may be looking forward to the court case where she can play the victim. Somehow an image of Marlene Dietrich in Witness for the Prosecution comes to mind.
He’s not her physical type but he certainly has the networth/ bank account she aspires to.
I’m hoping during the extra time PH spends in England, he puts differences aside and gets together with family & friends. Maybe the break from the claw’s daily dramas will allow him see it isn’t enough ‘to just survive’ her and there are other more sane and pleasant ways ‘to live’
Lizzie, yep, I grew up in the south. I've lived in the midwest. I've traveled up and down the WC and even did a stint in France. This rain is like no other. It's hard to explain, but for 9 months out of the year, it's wet. We get several breaks (sunny, 50s and 60s, glorious) but it's still wet. Ground does not dry out in a day, everything remains dormant, and then the rain hits again. It's not like midwestern thunderstorms or just southern rain. It's an overcast drizzle. Add to that, the daylight hours are much shorter up here in winter (and yay, longer in summer!). I found it very hard to adjust to the weather, but taking advantage of the sun breaks and proper clothing have helped. I've never owned so many kinds of boots/coats/rain jackets/sweaters/gloves/etc. Still, suede?! Yeah, no. I have one suede jacket and i wear it only on nice crisp days where no rain is going to fall (and I generally have an overcoat just in case).
Also,re Harry taking Archie, I should have mentioned that this would all need to be done pre-divorce or temporary court orders for child custody. Rach & H are not legal residents/citizens of Canada. The custody agreement would need to be in place if Harry were to be in violation of taking Archie, so my 'what if' scenario only applies pre-divorce when Harry can take Archie. Even after divorce, a parent with legal custody of their child pursuant to a court order cannot usually be charged with parental kidnapping. Whoopsy daisy, and many parents forget this. Beforehand, no divorce, it's just a dad with his kid. And how do I know this? Well, I spent too much time listening to these family law issues. Of course, it varies by state and there are always legal exceptions, but in general, in the exact same way that Rach has equal custody of Archie and has kept him in Canada, Harry also has equal rights. So, if I were trying to get my child away from a spouse, I would definitely slip in quietly, raise no alarms, and take my child. If I were Harry, I would do this all before any kind of legal agreements were in order. Then, I'd make her come after me. Not saying it wouldn't get messy, but at that time, it would just be a man and his child, and the mean old BRF who've been supporting Rach & H would not have fingerprints on it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7891173/Prince-Harrys-friends-express-concern-cut-contact.html
Also, I do not do FUBAR family he-said-she-said stuff. I served my time and veered off that path because it is full of misery, frustration, and repeat patterns. Sure, I helped some people, I did, and it could be quite fullfilling certain days, but in general, it's a cluster. And so I am finding that other path.
That said, I did reply about the general situation, and you're right for myriad reasons. To begin with, Rach & H aren't citizens of Canada nor are they even legal residents. Add to that, they are not divorced or legally separated. They do not have a parenting agreement in place nor are their temporary court orders regarding custody. So, just like Rach has (allegedly, cough, cough) taken Archie to BC, Harry is his dad, and no reason he can't take Archie to visit the grandparents and then stay. That's what I'd do. And I'd let her come after me. And I'd keep my family from having to save my ass one more time if it were at all possible. Messy, yes, but easiest, I think, because dealing with Rach means dealing with a liar, cheater, and soulless she-devil, so game it out, get Archie, deal with the rest.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jfg_canada/status/1217602782779166720
She is also clearly wearing her engagement and wedding rings.
I have legal knowledge too!! Just to begin with, BOTH Canada and the United Kingdom are signatories as I competently wrote, but as You want to immediately discount my knowledge nothing I can say would matter. You only want to believe Elle des....fine. I am the one who even brought it up! :lol
re: I start some exif analysis on the photos with view to see what dates they originated, location whose bucket it originally was in etc.
Excellent, and no pressure. What you find, you find. Of course, none of us will sleep tonight while we wait, but no pressure, except if you could hurry, that would be great lol. JK. I really appreciate your analysis on this because I know it's pulled out of a place with data and not just a random orifice lol.
Yes Portcitygirl - I agree - God bless Prince William, Duchess Catherine and God Bless the Queen and long may she reign -
These bottom sellers can go suck rocks .....such a disappointment .....and so disrespectful to every member of the Commonwealth - .....
Harry and Rachel should be ashamed of themselves - I certainly am........get out of Canada!
PS. My first sentence said...."Harry would have to be careful not to run afoul of the Hague Convention if he takes Archie after residency was established in Canada" I was responding to her example if down the road harry took Archie from Canada to the UK.
You are So Quick to criticize me at the altar of 'Elle', you missed my qualifier... "..after residency was established in Canada".
I worked unofficially with an attorney who helped women and their children escape from abusive men. I won an extremely complicated custody case and won sole custody and two related appellate cases (I have never known one,a single custody atty ever go the the App.. Ct much less win!!!!
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=69
IMO, this would not apply to H & Rach, but credit where it is due, I think it was a good reach to consider.
Daily Beast has a good article on the court case, echoing Guardian article above. She would win but bringing the case is fraught with risk.
@Ava C: Meghan’s legal action is certainly fraught with risk. It could end up being a case of winning a battle but losing the war in that she’d further diminish and damage her already tattered tiara when less-than complimentary information comes out about her in open court.
The fact that she took no legal action in the US against People magazine or the person who provided a copy of the letter to People, which was prominently featured in a photo in the article, probably also does not help her case. She established that she did not sue over publication of the letter weeks before the MoS published it.
Yes, Meghan will play victim, but she is up against her victimized father, an ailing man in his 70s who lives in a dumpy apartment in Mexico. Thomas wasn’t “Brand Meghan“ cool enough to merit an introduction to Harry when they were dating, while Doria met Harry multiple times and even attended an Invictus event with them.
Thomas knew Meghan was dating Harry more than a year before the engagement, and he kept quiet up until a couple weeks before the wedding. He didn’t receive an invitation and could have been uneasy about that omission and being left out of the lead-up to the wedding. Perhaps he sensed Meghan didn’t want him there when he didn’t get an invitation, so he had the pap photos shot to remind Meghan that he was looking forward to it and excitedly planning to attend. Doria’s invitation was hand-delivered by a British consulate representative.
I believe that along with never intending to live in the UK, Meghan also never intended to have her overweight scruffy father walk her down the aisle in front of A-listers and the world and then have to invite him to both receptions and meet the RF. She was embarrassed by him, just as she was by both sides of het family, which resulted in Doria sitting alone. Meghan had wanted Charles all along and had buttered him up appropriately before creating the last-minute drama with her dad so she could play the victim who needed to be rescued.
That, combined with her recent treatment of HM, Philip, and Charles, who are ill senior citizens, further unmasks her as manipulative, cold-hearted, and generally rotten to the core. What in the big picture view is a little battle with the MoS could end in additional major public relations damage to her carefully-curated facade of a caring humanitarian, even if she wins the suit.
Also, apropos of nothing and for the record, the queen bee thing is a joke. It was a childhood nickname combined with the fact that I want to raise Mason bees up here. It's a thing in the PNW and friends of mine do it. So, yeah, no crown, no altar, no expertise, just a person who has some knowledge and shares theories with facts and cites them where needed. I never rely solely on my personal experience and impressive successes lol because I just don't have that many. Instead, I stick to what I know thru education and professional experience, and otherwise, I throw it out and don't take it personally when I'm way the hell off the mark (which I often am and mea culpa lol).
So, please don't feel bad, Oz. You are a great Nuttier and an asset with your background and I always want to hear what you have to share because even when we have overlaps, I know you are an expert in your field.
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.
I think she looks slimmer 'cause she's stressing a little. My brother - who lives in Saanich, reports grocery stores are low on produce due to the weather disrupting ferry service to the Island/food deliveries. No doubt she's been avocado-free for a few days now. Pics from London the other day could be carb/period bloat.
Those seaplane pics are legit. I live in Vancouver and you are right, Whistler Air doesn't have a winter sched, but its entirely possible one of their planes was leased by Harbour Air or.....that she privately leased a flight. CDAN suggested a private helicopter lease for the trip, but maybe they mixed up types of flying machines!
And those planes fly from Victoria Harbour to Vancouver Harbour (which is about 30 min away from the Airport), or to the Fraser River in Richmond, near the airport. Most likely because she went to the Downtown Eastide Womens Shelter, she would have landed in Vancouver Harbour which is about a 10 minute car ride away.
I am sure Rach has her special foods airlifted in, but her legs were pretty slim before. Also, I'm sure the photos were photo-shopped to show her at her best (sans underarm stains, thinner, etc.)
One thing I did notice in the photo is that her miles-long legs looked to be about the same length as the woman walking next to her, and neither pair of legs looked miles long. Is it possible to have that much distortion in the image one has of one's own body? (Also, would that mean someone could be thinner than they think they are? -- Asking for a friend.)
Justice For Girls
@JFG_Canada
Please contact Justice for Girls at info@justiceforgirls.org for the full, uncropped images from our meeting with the Duchess of Sussex. #DuchessOfSussex #DuchessMeghan #JusticeForGirls
I’m hoping during the extra time PH spends in England, he puts differences aside and gets together with family & friends. Maybe the break from the claw’s daily dramas will allow him see it isn’t enough ‘to just survive’ her and there are other more sane and pleasant ways ‘to live’
It might not be a case of Harry coming to his senses right now while he’s away from wifey. What I’m thinking is that when he returns to Meghan, the 24/7 manipulation, emotional abuse and abject control he likely experiences around Meghan might come into sharp focus and be such a striking contrast to his time in the UK that it creates a crack in his view of his relationship with Mommy Dearest.
I don’t think he would just bail out of the marriage right away, but if he returns to Meghan knowing in the back of his mind he has a way out and would be welcomed back by his family, the seed has been planted.
I doubt Meghan will ever show her face in the UK again. Look at how she cowardly ran away to Canada after dropping her bomb last week. I don’t think she has the balls to face HM, PP, PC or PW, let alone the boos, jeers, and catcalls she’d likely face if she showed up to do a royal appearance.
She certainly won’t get a warm welcome if she returns to the National Theatre — or anywhere else.
2. What can she do for either of these organisations she visited?
3. If she was there for research (to listen and learn), why such a short visit and why take photographs?
Is this a shot across the bow on the day that the Cambridges did an official visit to Bradford (dovetailed with that Invictus Games video from Harry)? What galls me is they are being funded by the BRF and British taxpayer as they set up court in Canada (as visitors there).
Other than that......
I clearly stated I wanted to provide "iinfo: and "did not want to argue". Again you say I am wrong when it turns out your a CPA while I worked 'in pro se' and have had and continue to have legal success built on correct legal knowledge. You have repeatedly attacked my legal knowledge like it is A Competiton. Good grief, please leave me alone.
Ozmanda I was only making my point because you said, "@Elle may be able to expand further as she has more legal knowhow....: I knew she DID Not have more legal knowledge and wanted people to know what I said is valid.
I have been thanked by Nutties for my knowledge and humor before so I won't let @Elle run me off.!! How could I compete @Elle when you take up 50% (or more) of the number of comments here.
My opinion is that as it stands now Meghan would not be barred from having joint custody of Archies (if a legal separation happened today). She has physical custody and Harry could be faulted for being away from him (and using drugs, having such a hard time living that he has a hard time getting out of bed, etc..). Archie is a child and not property of the Crown as if he was a possession. Most likely 'the best interests of the child' would be considered paramount regardless of whatever legal venue it would be. We may not like Meghan for many reasons but that does not necessarily make her a bad mother (despite what we may think). If the courts took kids away from parents who were not likable, or had some psychological problem then a vast number of parents would lose custody.
In many states, the court might order a number of psychological tests of the parents (and child if of an age they could be tested, or at least observed by a psychologist or even a psychiatrist). The reports would go to the judge and the court-appointed professional would be available to give testimony in court. If the case is hotly contested the Court could even appoint an attorney to represents the child ('Guardian ad litem'). If parents are smart/reasonable/fair they would try to work things out before litigating child custody.
I also think MM is playing the charity visiting photo ops cards now because her latest dramas have blown up yet again. the Harkles seem to be getting more bad-ungrateful-royals press than sympathy-victim press.
Therefore, Meghan feels that she has the same right to adulation, respect, protection, support, agreement to her every whim etc. She is, in one part of her mind, fulfilling a divine destiny. How dare people question her actions and motives!! There should be no dirt! I'm a Royal now!
If you think about it, it's rather absurd: we are here talking about a woman we don't know and a family we only know thru media and the absurdities of the entire situation. It's not personal (or at least it shouldn't be, though I've been called some pretty nasty names), it's not going to change the rotation of the earth on its axis or incite riots or nuclear holocaust.
It's a blog.
A blog about a woman we don't know and a family we've only read about, and the fact that anyone would use this blog and their comments to build themselves up or tear themselves or others down... well, that's just sad IMO.
I'm here for the fun and the laughs and the OTs and the experts and @Nutty's perspective and the Nuttiers who are interesting and to have people to share this with because almost no one really cares IRL, and I don't even understand WtH I do, except for Kate being my BFF and all (<< an long-running joke, new Nuttiers, not seriously).
Someone I know who saw her from about 20 feet (6 m) away as she was shaking hands with people while she was at an event said she probably isn’t much over 5 feet 3 inches (160 cm) or 5 feet 4 inches (162.5 cm) at the most without the stilettos. Her acting CV claims she is 5 feet 7 inches (170 cm) tall, but that’s only in her dreams.
I need some help as i am going mad here....
Photos, In the daily mail today 16/1/20 there is a new black and white photo well 2 photos of the Justice for Girls group
one standing, one at a table......
one word - earrings!!!! why can i not see them on the one standing?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7891173/Prince-Harrys-friends-express-concern-cut-contact.html
I agree! I don't think you're reading too much into it at all - good insight.
My sense is that her approach and values are too superficial for a successful "long game".
Seaplane - if someone can see the tail number I wonder what the rego info can show and even the trip routes which are fairly accessible online for everyone to see (along with ships)
We're watching Shakespeare in real time!
At least, that's how I justify my interest ;)
That's what i thought....too bright and stand out of the picture
Also i can't see the necklace
Mentioned earlier today about the "internationally protected persons" bit being removed from the sussex royal website. That's likely a big deal.
I'm hoping that keeps Canada from having to pay for their security. I have deep affection for the BRF, and love to watch them, but if H and M want financial independence then they have to pay for their own security, just like Bey/Jayz, George/Amal, and all the rest.
Maybe Megs thinks she's being smart by asking for way more than she actually wants/needs, knowing that something will have to go in any negotiation.
We're watching Shakespeare in real time!
truth
So, how many hours until we see Harry? I’m going to try and get to bed soon since I wound up on a college student sleep schedule for the last month.
And Shakespeare met up for drinks with George Orwell and Stephen King for a screening of the Lion King...
It would not surprise me that when the media (British, Albanian, Dutch, or Congolese--whichever country) drops a big story, Meghan will give the American network the go ahead to drop the "cozy at home interview with Meghan, Harry (featuring Archie!) filmed at Frogmore and shot before/right after the SA tour). People will be shown their cottage and how they lived their daily life. Meetings with staff about Commonwealth projects, Megs meeting with stylists planning wardrobe ideas for upcoming events, whipping up a gourmet meal for Harry and a walk with the dogs around Windsor Park as the sun begins to set... all while Meghan juggles being a mom, attentive wife, and duchess! (How does she juggle it all?)
I wouldn't be shocked if she sells photos of inside Frogmore Cottage (before/during/after) to some design magazine like Town and Country or InStyle.
Also, maybe a follow up interview with Meghan and Harry on what has transpired since the original interview-the agonizing decision to step back as senior members of the BRF and how brave they were, Meghan begins to set the stage to play the victim card... to be broadcast at a date soon after Harry returns to Canada. (Perhaps this only happens IF they their demands found in the Sussex Manifesto are NOT met by the Queen.)
Anyone have any ideas as to what Meghan does next? She can only show up at so many soup kitchens and women's shelter's.
I guess she has something planned to bring Harry to heel if he doesn't return in an expedient manner. Like maybe an "emergency" trip to the hospital because Archie has croup or an allergic reaction to bananas or avocado toast? Or Meghan gets chased by Bigfoot when she goes outside to place 1,284 wine bottles in the recycle bins?
Part 1
Here on the US east coast New York City area News Programs, it seems that MM's PR has been hard at work. I wonder how she can afford to finance all of this AND keep it up.
Tonight I caught numerous stories about them that appeared PR driven on various REGULAR news shows as well as entertainment news shows, and they were all basically the same theme - the poor wee whiners have been treated badly by the UK press and they are very busy "repairing the fractured fairytale"!
I watched two different news segments about them at 6:00 PM on regular news programs both on major channels. The first program showed video of them complaining in Africa and a flurry of quick clips back in England which presented them in a positive manner. They showed a very speedy clip of Trudeau stating he welcomed the Harkles to Canada - thus the story gave the impression the Harkles have NO problem staying in that country. There was NO mention of Canada not wanting royals living in their country.
I didn't see all of this segment, but the voice-over declared the Harkles were all smiles despite what the tabloids say, and that they are "repairing the fractured fairytale"! Overall impression was poor Harkles, now they will be better off, they are a united couple and they are wonderful beings!
The second news show segment on a major channel, was decidedly cringe-worthy and weird. It was shaped as a story on how Diana MIGHT react to what is happening with the Harkles right now. They showed several clips of Harry speaking about the loss of his mother over the years, the walk behind the coffin, Harry whining in Africa and talking about the camera flashes causing him distress. It was pointed out that Diana herself left the firm.
This news program then posed the question - would Diana understand his decision to step down? The voice-over stated in response "'Don't let duty and responsibility bind you' she MIGHT say".
Only it was not really made clear that it was a hypothetical answer. The "might' was not emphasized and I thought it could have been taken as something Diana DID actually say in regards to duty in general. Someone not paying close attention could have been under the impression Harry was following advice his mother gave years ago. I didn't catch the name of the person doing the segment but he was British with an English accent. When they flashed back to the regular American newscaster he made a point of saying that it was something Diana MIGHT have said.
There have been numerous stories about the Harkles on the US Entertainment News programs lately. Tonight I caught a few quick ones on Inside Edition, Access Hollywood, ET and All Access. The longest and most interesting segment was one that I thought seemed to lay out one of the Harkle’s storylines/supposed reasons for leaving. It started out with the hosts discussing how so many people have slammed H&M’s decision to step down. The rest of the segment consisted of making excuses for them for leaving the firm AND the focus was on KATE MIDDLETON and the alleged constant “unfair” comparison of the two duchesses.
I made a post earlier today BEFORE I saw this show about MM’s apparent feelings about Kate. I just had a growing suspicion with the recent UK trend for the Harkle PR to focus on the Cambridges (the William bullying story) that Kate as an individual would be next.
So, this story continues with (sigh) yet another clip of the Harkle’s African Whine with a specific look at Meghan saying she knew it wouldn’t be easy but thought it would be fair. Then it was all-out Kate VS Markle in the evil UK tabloids edition of the Smegs PR campaign. They discussed in detail how Meghan was supposedly treated differently in the press compared to Kate. Multiple articles in the tabloids were depicted that contained similar stories about each of them - all where Kate and Meghan did similar things but Meghan’s story version was negative and Kates’s positive.
Evie Hall from Buzz Feed News contributed to this. You can see a pro-Meghan Buzz Feed article comparing these storylines of Kate Vs Smegs here:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
This video link is to the actual segment portion from buzzfeed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7akfYyaSew
Now IMO it is indeed odd that some of those stories took a negative turn with Meghan – although I haven’t looked at them closely. I don’t know why a negative story about avocadoes was written and associated with M and not K. And the bridal bouquet stories seem strange.
However, I can find GOOD EXPLANATION for the difference in tone on many of the other stories. For example – the BELLY CUPPING! I really doubt Kate spent her pregnancies cupping CONSTANTLY and obsessively pulling her coat aside while pointing her belly at the cameras.
The air fresheners – perhaps Kate sweetly asked to place her favorite candles in the cathedral, while dragon lady Markle DEMANDED to have deodorizers as well as that staff go around regularly spritzing scents through-out the ceremony!!!
Another entertainment show did two little segments one on each of the Harkles and sort of presented them as separate entities (I may have been reading into this but it gave me a wee bit of hope for divorce). One depicted Markle currently in Canada stating she was back to her pre-royal roots and that she looked happy and relaxed! The Haz portion was his Invictus announcement.
And lastly, the show ET made an announcement for tomorrow’s edition declaring they would be covering Harry’s first event since Megxit, and promised to show us WHAT WE DID’NT GET TO SEE behind the scenes. Now unless they can see into the future, I guess they plan on taking their cameras somewhere “sneaky”. How about the men’s locker room Hazza?
Reminder: Seagrams. Epstein. Expand your thinking!
https://twitter.com/torontopaper1/status/1217672644235005952
Looks like Meghan might be mooching off the Seagrams family (who has ties to NXIVM and the leader (Keith) liked to brand his girls... I listened to a podcast on Keith Reiniere and there was a satellite office in Vancouver run by a girl who was branded and escaped in 2016 or 2017?)
I just tried to book a flight on Harbour Air from Victoria to Vancouver to see if they still fly in the winter and it IS open for flying in the winter. Only the flight to Whistler is closed until May because of dangerous flight weather concerns that Victoria and Vancouver do not have. Vancouver and Victoria are still flying. Here's the website, and notice that's it's listed as Harbour Air, but the plane in the photo uses the Whistler logo. There's a photo of a Whistler plane on the Harbour Air website.
https://www.harbourair.com/flight-info/flight/locations/whistler/#1545260011263-32e2431d-d083
******** A little Googling will clear up a lot of questions like these.*******
Flight #204/Twin Otter 08:00 Victoria Harbour 08:35 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $264.00
GoFlex $227.00
Flight #2040 08:30 Victoria Harbour 09:05 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $249.00
GoFlex $213.00
Flight #2060 09:30 Victoria Harbour 10:05 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $249.00
GoFlex $213.00
GoLite 3 or less left $169.00
Flight #2080 10:30 Victoria Harbour 11:05 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $249.00
GoFlex $213.00
GoLite 3 or less left $169.00
Flight #2100 11:30 Victoria Harbour 12:05 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $249.00
GoFlex $213.00
Flight #2120/Twin Otter 12:30 Victoria Harbour 13:05 Vancouver Harbour GoFlex $213.00
Flight #2140 13:30 Victoria Harbour 14:05 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $249.00
GoFlex $213.00
Flight #2160 14:30 Victoria Harbour 15:05 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $264.00
GoFlex $227.00
Flight #2180 15:30 Victoria Harbour 16:05 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $249.00
GoFlex $213.00
Flight #220 16:00 Victoria Harbour 16:35 Vancouver Harbour GoGold 3 or less left $249.00
GoFlex $213.00
They also do private flights at a much higher cost, in the thousands, and lots of other private services. Harbor Air, Whistler Air and Salt Spring Air are all under the same company, The Harbor Air Group.
My guess is that she flew private.
I haven't had the chance to read everyone's thoughts yet so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about regarding the photo appearing fake or old. I thought Markle seemed overall smaller than everyone else in that Canandian picture - like she had been pasted in but not enlarged enough to fit the proportion of the rest of the figures.
What's up with the boots? Are you guys thinking the photos are faked? Even the big batch of pics in the daily mail?
I just thought of something...so Meghan wants to only work with her chosen photographers and news outlets in order to completely control her press. But what stops the Daily Mail and all their fellow tab friends swooping down on her whenever they darn well please? Yes, they can try to keep their schedule's private but I have a feeling they will have more exposure from the unwanted press than they plan on.
"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 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.”"
We've heard from Liz Cundy how MM lurked around London trying to get involved with rich British men, sports stars and reality shows. But Adams seems to be speaking of something higher up the food chain and I'm wondering if it could be in reference to the yachting.
Nothing (other than Rach's grandiose delusions) stops the DM et al from swooping in. But I guess with her chosen photographers, she can at least photoshop herself thinner. I think that's what happened here, but if she is going to go to all of that trouble, I wish she'd have them photoshop in something that her Bellatrix Lestrange wig. I know she's trying to do the ingenue thing, but she's a ridden-hard pushing 40, maybe something a little less ... IDK, ratty?
And re: Bootsgate - the controversy was over the fact that the boots she was wearing to board the plane are likely different from the ones she had on in the photos later. See the boots discussion above re PNW boot requirements (they're extensive).
I am pretty sure The Queen has custody according to a law from King George I, so she might have something to say about what happens to Harry and Meghans baby, if they were to split up.
According to reports, the royal family operates with a strange custody agreement when its couples have their own children, which states that, actually, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has full legal custody over the young royals. Royal expert Marlene Koenig explained to news outlets: “The sovereign has legal custody of the minor grandchildren.”
Confused? It’s a seriously backdated regulation, as Koenig continued: “This goes back to King George I [who ruled in the early 1700s], and the law’s never been changed. He did it because he had a very poor relationship with his son, the future King George II, so they had this law passed that meant the King was the guardian of his grandchildren.”
Most are fleeing domestic violence and pictures of clients could put them at risk.
I keep getting a mental image of parents being told by a four-year-old that he is going to run away. The parents nod solemnly, say we understand, and help the little one pack their bag with cookies for the long journey. Off the child goes down the street, while the parents are watching from behind the curtain, laughing. They know that the child will be back soon by the time he reaches the end of the block, as it's a scary world out there and night time is coming.
I think this is what the BRF is doing right now. Waiting for the child, Harry, to understand that the Markle Manifesto is completely impossible from a legal and governmental standpoint.
Hopefully, in the meantime, they can keep Harry away from MM and deprogram/de-Markle him.
i keep getting mental image of
Also:
Someone's been photoshopped:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7891173/Prince-Harrys-friends-express-concern-cut-contact.html
And it's interesting that once again, this was the pivotal time when Rach & H were cutting ties. It's almost like they decided distance was the best way to avoid complications? It comes as Harry's friends expressed concern after he 'cut off' contact with them while Meghan was pregnant, with many 'no longer having his phone number'
"@Bluebellwoods/Trudy. I once read somewhere that if Megs enters a room & Kate is there with William, Megs must curtsey to Kate, or maybe even when William isn't there. Apparently the royals do this when they see another royal for the first time of the day. When the Harkles moved out of Kensington Palace I wondered if it was because Megs didn't want to curtsey to her sister-in-law every day. LOL The royals experts on this blog could tell us if this particular tidbit of royal arcana is true. Do the more junior female royals have to curtsey to the more senior female royals the first time they see them for the day?"
***********
Hi Neutral I'm not sure about the curtsey rules since I believe they have loosened up on them in more recent times. I know it is correct that they curtsey/bow to the Queen upon seeing her for the first time that day. But I think the royals themselves have only been curtseying/bowing to the Queen these days. Once William becomes king I guess then Markle would have to curtsey to both of them although I think we can all count on her being long gone by then! LOL! :-)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/megxit-is-the-new-brexit-in-a-britain-split-by-age-and-politics/ar-BBYZG4i?li=BBnb7Kz
Short version of the article - young, liberal people like the Harkles. (Bad) older, conservative people (the same kind of 'bad' people who pushed through Brexit) tend to instead side with the royal family. Britain is headed 'backwards' with Brexit and grasping for remnants of its past (royals), while the enlightened Harkles have (correctly) decided Britain is not for them.
Just rubbish from the USA press. But this is a great representation of how Great Meghan is portrayed in much of the media in the USA. On the other hand, outlets like the New York Post (a tabloid and more right leaning, owned by Murdoch) have pretty much no use for the Harkles and are happy to tear them down, in my opinion.
@BlueBellWoods, thanks for your extensive survey of east-coast press about the Markles.
It sounds like they have a PR agency on the case dispensing talking points, or at least suggesting angles. (And I agree that the Diana one was cringeworthy.) I wonder who their PR is, and who is paying for it.
Re: the Cindy Adams quote - "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 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.”
Sounds like Cindy is implying that Meghan has numerous conquests in Europe, but only Harry was willing to bring her out into the daylight and put a ring on it. Cindy, like Prince Philip, is old-fashioned - "the lady is a tramp." I'm not sure the millennial generation cares, particularly since Harry was a bit of a tramp himself.
What the millennial generation does care about, however, is cultural appropriation.
What in the world is Meg doing getting herself involved in the indigenous rights movement in Canada? She is neither indigenous nor a "settler" or even Canadian at all - in fact, she's the representative of a British monarchy (and monarch) that some feel treated indigenous people very badly. Surely there must be some other cause Meg can better dedicate her time to.
Think it's hard trying to look decent in the PNW? You should try living part-time on the Oregon Coast! We went from full sun to rain, hail, then snow yesterday. Layers on, layers off, all day! At least the snow melted. Sorry you're dealing with a snow mess up there. I'm staying here until it melts, then I'll head back north.
People also don't understand how high and dangerous the mountain ranges are here, but that's another story, right?
Culture war stuff sells very well and generates clicks - both positive clicks and hate clicks.
I would imagine that most people in the media know that Meg is "difficult", but oh!, the clicks she brings.
"Who are Justice for Girls? The left-wing feminist organization that believes climate change 'disproportionately affects girls' and blames 'colonization' for female poverty and homelessness"
The DM sure knows how to show displeasure and I agree with Nutty that the connection to colonializm / colonization should have been one for her to avoid as a royal.
And I think MM may be wearing a NW coast native American pendant - whale tail - totem?
Between that, the new elaborate website they set up which seems to lay-out their global plans, and her showing up at the woman's center I'm getting worried she may be really hard to get rid of.
Oh yes, the clicks. I do think most in the media understand what Meghan is really like, but they do want those clicks. And others, I feel, want to use her to bolster their side of the argument/narrative, even if they know that the version of her they portray is false.
What a non maternal Mom she is, I had a chance to look at the photos from the SA meeting today with Archie and you can see her physically restraining his hands as she brings him in, she was making sure he didn’t grab her face, or muss her in any way.
I also noticed how for a seemingly breast fed baby he did not snuggle into her or even once grab or look at his “food source”
I am Mormon and know the habits of breast fed babies, as my sisters had 6 and 7 babies each, and they have snuggled into my bosom and grabbed at them, just because that is what they do, even at Archies age.
Don't forget that Archie is Her Maj's Great Grandchild....not Grandchild. I wonder if that means the George I rule wouldn't come into play until Charles becomes king. Either way though I don't think they would conjure up that law in the face of this debacle. Especially with all the questions surrounding Archie. :-)
Instead, Judy Journalist gets a call from Patty PR, who took Judy out for a very nice lunch last week and got her that great exclusive about Leonardo di Caprio's latest 18-year-old girlfriend.
Patty wants to know if Judy needs "any help" with her story about Meghan. Patty is "representing Meghan and Harry and just wants to make sure you've heard their side of the story."
Perhaps Patty and Judy attended the same women's studies class at Oberlin or Columbia University and Patty points out how Meghan's situation fits into the "overall narrative of racism, sexism and colonialism."
The two of them chat for 10-15 minutes and Judy gets the full benefit of Patty's talking points - then right before they hang up Patty dangles the carrot of a possible exclusive with Florence Pugh to discuss her Oscar nomination. "I'd really like her to go with you, Judy," says Patty, suggesting that it would be in Judy's interest for the two of them to remain on good terms.
Phone call finished. Judy makes sure Patty PR's points are reflected in her story.
And Patty PR makes her next call, to Johnny Journalist, and Jamal Journalist, and so on.
Harry has grown up with diaries being fixed 6-12 months in advance. Wheels smoothly going round. Calmly competent courtiers. Rushing around merching at the drop of a hat will not be his idea of life or, more importantly for him, fun. Most of all, doing it with minimal backup he won't feel like the 'alpha man' stressed in that Tina Brown article.
If that article is right, being alpha male is hugely important to Harry and makes him far more 'active' in all this. I didn't consider it before as I never thought he COULD see himself as an alpha male. Yes he's a prince but he's a boy-child whose actual annual earned income in the army, though more than the UK average, was less than the cost of that bloody beige caftan. In terms of grandiosity, we now have his alpha maleness and her mile-long legs. Just this week. I can't wait for more well-sourced quotes on the Sussex's mental universe.
Also, while she's rushing around looking the same as she did before she joined the BRF, baby conspicuously absent, Archie is going to become the abandoned one in the public mind. That will undoubtedly strengthen the BRF's PR hand and Harry can hardly be oblivious. I don't care how brilliant the nanny is. Feels as if, were Meghan getting off a bus(!) she'd remember her handbag that cost a king's ransom but forget the baby.
Let her run amok. She is going to make money and get attention on the front-end of this move, in my opinion. In fact, Megxit has probably been a pr boon for her. Even with so many people feeling she's done wrong by the queen.
Meghan has learned some things in the last two years. She learned she should take commercial jets and not private planes, for instance. But I don't think she's learned enough. And so, over time, her fortunes will likely wane. I believe the royal family is thinking the same on the marriage.
Sometimes giving a person all that they want is the worst thing that can happen to a person. We'll soon see if that is true for Meghan. I think it is.
Oh and by the way, I like your posts and am happy you post here. Don't let anyone bully you or try to make you leave. That's nonsense.
I wonder who she's got now since SS claimed they're not repping her any more.
Yes, I agree on the USA media. Not so good. Silly narratives based on wokeness categorization and division. It is depressing, I think.
The good thing is that people get tired of it after awhile. I think that is already happening in the USA.
... whenever she sees an opportunity in her PR battle with the royals she's now playing the battle alone while the grown-ups deal with reality.
No, she thinks she finally getting the unfettered chance to be the true global humanitarian/vision/something she always knew she was.
(snickering to myself - on the naughty step)
A normalised bigotry is indeed hiding in plain sight. It conceals genuine injustices. Diagnosing it is tricky because it involves confronting human shortcomings. Like any self-respecting epidemic, it also has a chillingly sterile name: identity politics.
Dictating that the most important thing about you is your race or gender, its most obvious manifestation is an infuriating “us versus them” narrative: all white people are racists and all ethnic minorities are victims.
“It is not the job of black people and ethnic minorities to educate white people on racism that is perpetrated by white people,” activist Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu quipped on This Morning, in a Meghan Markle debate that has gone viral. She then went on to “educate” her audience at length, ironically railing against the “whitewashing” of unconscious racism and critiquing those who see the world “through the lens of white privilege” (as opposed to eyes, presumably owing to their bogeyman status).
She also refused to give any concrete examples of racism against Meghan. In an attempt to cast a pseudo-light on white ignorance and bigotry, she breathtakingly exposed her own ignorance and bigotry about a country that is largely not racist.
Which hits on the outrageous truth about identity politics: the retrograde movement does not help us address racism, because it renounces both dialogue and empiricism. Who needs to provide evidence when one is clearly right? Who needs to have a debate when the answer is decided? Instead of the End of History, we’ve reached the End of Reason.
It's a fairly wild place to live but I wouldn't give it up for anything. The ocean is in my blood.
Now, back to the Markle Debacle. Sorry to anybody who was offended that we got off topic. It all started with the boots!
I just read Piers article on Harry and Meghan vs Thomas Markle, he eviscerated both of them, and turned their woke spotlight back on themselves. It wasn’t pretty or flattering to them at all. Much of it, Harry’s championing of mental health and how he and Meghan both completely abandoned her Father.
Harry made a mental health video for his Rugby meeting tomorrow and the comments are brutal to Harry, he really messed up, disregarding his Grandmother who is also his Queen.
At least in my circles. The woke media here are all real lefties and are happy to push her woke causes. Is climate change now a gender issue affecting only girls? And also what about that dig at Colonization/ Great Britain? Girl just can't help herself. DM comments are almost 100 % negative and someone over there mentioned she hashtagged DuchessofSussex? On twitter.
I'm sure you're right re this:
Sometimes giving a person all that they want is the worst thing that can happen to a person. We'll soon see if that is true for Meghan. I think it is.
It's just frustrating to watch because it's so obvious and yet, many in the media want to play it for their own benefit. And to read the poor them stuff on Twitter. Seriously, these are adults with $30ish million between them, but they need taxpayers and Harry's dad to pick up the tab until they're "financially independent"? WTF. I don't know about you, but I'm financially independent on a bit less than $30 million. It's mind-boggling. And if she had been a decent person, even with the trashy family and the bad acting, and she'd just done her job with the BRF, none of this would be an issue. But hubris and greed and delusion (bloody hell, mile long legs?) drive her, and she's already hurt a lot of people, and more to come. I'm just ready for her to be over already. And I do wonder what's going to happen when she goes off the rails completely, because that's coming. I just hope Harry is detaching from her (unlikely, I know), then that could help. Also, don't they have a baby somewhere?
What I want to know regarding Meghans appearances in Vancouver. Are they being covered in Canadian and USA media and is she seeing how popular she is moving forward, in those countries? I for one in the U.K. don’t give a flying fig what she does in Canada, as long as my tax payers money is not involved, nor she treating it as an official overseas royal engagement.
I just have to say, too, that I have friends who are very left and right, and the ones who have an opinion of her are anti-Rach, so while I think that her fan base def leans left, I don't want to stereotype that too much. I think that if people on either side of the political fence actually read the details, they'd be offended by her behavior. Problem is, so many don't read the details, they just see the headline, and the headlines are skewed pro-Rach.
The DM ran the story a couple of days ago. It would appear they may not be getting tax payer funded security. Why should anyone/country pay for them as non royals? Charles may end up paying (that’s if he wants to) like Andrew does for Eugenie and Beatrice. If Megs and Harry want security, let them pay for it themselves.
HER Majesty The Queen has agreed to give Harry and Meghan time to sort out the details of their famous “step back” from royal life.
But that should surely be a fairly simple matter. Harry and Meghan have said they wish to be “independent”. A lot of time has been spent working out how that independence can be achieved.
Let them do it entirely independently - no money from the Duchy of Cornwall Estate
Let them do it entirely independently - no money from the Duchy of Cornwall Estate
Well, here’s the thing. I have a cunning plan for the Sussexes as to how they might be “independent”.
What you need to do is get something called a “job”.
If you get one of those they give you money which you can use to buy things — a house, some Pot Noodles, a Hot Wheels car racing set — anything, really, within reason. Remarkable, isn’t it?
It probably wouldn’t pay for the £8million Canadian mansion Meghan is holed up in right now — but they can always ponce a few freebies off their mega-rich friends.
It might not quite cover the legal costs Meghan may incur from her upcoming court case. She’s suing a newspaper and her dad is set to testify AGAINST her.
You have to say she has a knack, this lass, of getting on the wrong side of quite a few people.
I think it’s fair to guess that the Royal Family are not entirely happy with her right now. So she’s hacked off her new family much as she’s hacked off her own one.
It’s no huge surprise they’re both heading off to “Canada” (or “Los Angeles” as it’s more familiarly known).
Meghan seems not to like the UK very much. She doesn’t spend much time in it and my suspicion is that the local people haven’t entirely taken to her.
We had a bit of time for Harry, once. He seemed an amiably thick rugger-bugger with a mischievous sense of humour. Not any more, sadly.
EXTORTIONATE SUM
He seems to spend half of his time crying. And he also seems to have swallowed whole the air-headed, ultra-woke, touchy-feely drivel his wife has imported from the United States.
Still, we were happy to spend an extortionate sum doing up their “cottage” with the most expensive materials money could buy. And we were delighted to see photographs of young Archie — once we were allowed to by madam.
For someone who dislikes the starchy formality of the Royal Family, Meghan displays quite a few airs and graces, doesn’t she?
Hates being photographed and gets her bullying minders to stop people taking snaps. Loves being photographed when she’s promoting herself or her vacuous ideas.
But hey, they love each other and that’s the important thing.
Let them move to Canada or LA, where they can jabber to each other about climate change and how everyone who doesn’t like her is racist, until the cows come home.
But let them do it entirely independently. No money from the Duchy of Cornwall Estate. No royal stipend. No security staff paid for by the taxpayers, either here or there.
Let them be truly independent, which is what they seem to wish for.
Maybe they’ll find it liberating. Or maybe in a year or two Prince Harry will wake up and think: Crikey, what have I done
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7892107/JAN-MOIR-tucks-celebrity-chef-Tom-Aikens-new-restaurant.html
It's as if we're living in the most decadent phase of the Roman Empire.
You are correct in stating this. This subject has come up on the blog before. The Queen has custody, so I don’t think Archie would be allowed to be brought up abroad long term (a non commonwealth country particularly). It matters not that he has an American Mother or what another countries laws state.
As for MM, just let her go. Trying to keep such a narcissistic person from trying to do what they want to do is nearly impossible. It just leads to frustration and sleepless nights, and that makes them thrive. Personally, find it amusing to watch her run around like a crazy person trying so desperately to make a name/game/fame for herself. A truly sophisticated person does not act like that. The BRF will take care of the necessary legal issues. Eventually, she will wear herself out, and people will be over her antics. She will be old news.
PFFFFT! As my mother would say, "her background is showing."
She feeds on our dislike of her, and it also gives her press, even though it's negative. She just wants her name out there in any way she can. Just bat her away like a pesky fly, and if she makes bank, so be it. She'll never be happy, no matter how much money or fame she gets. She'll always want more.
Has anybody seen the documentary on Wallis Simpson on Amazon? New letters written by her were found, and she wrote that she didn't want to marry Edward, but it was too late to back out. She never loved him, but he loved her. She was still in love with her ex-husband and wrote letters that she still loved him so and made a mistake in marrying Edward. It's a convoluted story, so I hope people watch it. The BRF should sit Harry down and make him watch it. The doc is called "Wallis Simpson:The Secret Letters," and is based on a book. She ended up a sad, lonely woman with some pretty jewels. I think that's in the cards for MM.
Headline: Thanks to Harry and Meghan, 'Stepping Back' is now a trend - here's how you do it
However the Sussex situation ends, “Stepping Back” is already set to be the buzz phrase of 2020. It’s early days to be predicting such things but this one captures the mood of the moment - like downsizing before it - and says everything you need to know about current priorities and attitudes.
“We are Stepping Back” to spend more time with the children; to travel and see the world; to do more of the things we want to do and less of the things others expect. It’s what’s known as a progressive choice (also tipping “progressive” to be a big word of 2020), which is any choice that comes as a blindsiding shock to those concerned, but which feels like it will benefit those choosing it.
Everyone’s doing it. The Sussexes recent Stepping Back is just a big example - with constitutional implications - of the Stepping Back we’re all secretly thinking about, because we’re worth it.
Warning. Readers born before 1965 may not recognise any of this but trust us it’s a thing and entirely normal if you are under 40. Here are some examples of Stepping Back 2020 style:
Stepping Back from extended family responsibilities
Like, for example, instead of spending any festivities with all the grannies sitting around watching telly, heading to a sexy hotel in a hot country where we can drink only the wine we like, chilled to exactly the temperature we like, swim, do a bit of yoga. So much better for us.
Stepping Back from work
Just, really, avoiding the unhealthy stresses, even if that means not “stepping up”, old style. (We’re not sure if the progressive choice Stepping Back means that stepping up is now an archaic idea to be lumped on the bonfire of anachronisms along with “pulling yourself together”, “bucking up” and “not dwelling”. Time will tell.).
Anyway stepping back in a work context is the next phase on from finding the right work/life balance, plus acknowledging that what you need to do to feel calm and content is more important than the fact that Janice is holding the fort, on her own, with a temperature, because everyone has gone down with norovirus. Step Backers love work - need the money, need the structure, need the stimulation -but if they wake up in the morning and are just not feeling it, don’t expect them to fight that feeling.
Stepping back from godparenting duties
(While we’re on the subject, wonder if Harry has sent a note round to all his mates reassuring them that he is still the godparent in chief? Because we all know that half the year in Canada means half the year in Canada this year, and eleven months next year, and then the odd weekend trip back to England, once in a while, if there’s something very big occurring. We all know that, right?)
As for us civilians: we want to be good godparents but we just haven’t got the time to eek it out to 21 anymore, especially now that we are not Stepping Back from our own children. When that happens in the new decade we have no idea…when they’re 35?
In the UK, we often have to fill in monitoring forms when accessing any service receiving public funds or provided by any body anxious to demonstrate its not racist in any possible way. This is to check that everyone's being treated fairly. Yet I've never seen one of these documents which I consider distinguishes properly between ethnicity, culture and legal nationality!
A while back - and I can't remember exactly when, but it was around the time that Meghan appeared on the scene - royal reporters were called to one of the Palaces for 'something'. One of them (I forget who), posted on Twitter that this was happening and they'd report back if it was anything of interest. Well, that tweet disappeared and questions about the meeting fell on deaf ears. Interesting ... I 'sort of' wonder if the coercion theory for the wedding going ahead may have some truth to it.
On another note, if Harry wanted out, then why didn't he just marry Chelsy, who clearly did not want the Royal life. She was single at one point before he met Meghan and around the time he first started making noises about nobody wanting to be King.
For H&M in their brave new world, there's a huge risk that someone in a camera lineup - or afterwards in the media - will slip through their censorship and deliver some stinging criticism that will go around the world like lightening. People would feast on it for months. I suppose that's why it's so vital to them that they only have invited press going forwards. And NDAs like confetti. It's a North Korean bubble they intend to live in.
I saw this video sometime last year, but I think it's been scrubbed. There are other videos talking about it, though. Just look up "Meghan Markle Shakira video". She says how she danced around so wildly in the audition that her boobs fell out of her top. She also says she didn't want to go home as she was not on good terms with her father- who gave her everything that she couldn't buy while working at the Paper Store.
That was nearly 20 years ago, and she's only become worse. Let's see where she is in 20 years from now.
@vince, I agree with you. Just let her go...
However, Harry is believed to still be in touch with his friend and Archie's godfather Charlie van Straubenzee
It's from this article linked earlier:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7891173/Prince-Harrys-friends-express-concern-cut-contact.html
Harry Markle post of Oct 27th 2018, Rachel Markle Your Time Is Up, indicates wearing, then returning, clothes obtained on approval but then claiming a refund, a devious but not uncommon practice.
Somewhere, possibly in another post, it's implied that Charles may have paid for items anyway, obtained through a 3rd party confederate/fixer, but the refund has been claimed then been split between fixer & MM. Is there any evidence of MM ever wearing any of the super-expensive duds ever again? Would anyone like to dig deeper?
What about fixtures, fittings and furnishings she wanted at Frog Cott? Were they ordered, diverted and flogged off? Was the designer another fixer who f-d up Charles?
A few observations: as several posters mentioned many hours ago, the Globe and Mail stated in their article that it is not possible for Harry to live in Canada full-time as the 6th in line to the throne. My question is: wouldn't that rule apply to Archie as well, as 7th in line to the throne? If Harry and Meghan would get divorced (one can only hope), then Meghan would STILL not be able to live in Canada with Archie for this reason.
Re the pictures of Meghan at the women's center: not only was she wearing different boots in the indoors/outdoors pictures, but she was also wearing earrings in in one of the pictures (as mentioned by other above) AND she was wearing two different pendant necklaces in the pictures. One was round and the other was a whales tail type pendant. I find this very odd. I can imagine changing your boots but not your jewelry as well.
My gut feeling is still that she does not have Archie (if he even exists) with her. The easiest way for her to regain some sympathy would be to have cute pap shots taken of her and Archie playing in the snow, doing some organic avocado grocery shopping, walking with her rescue dogs in the woods, anything! But she is doing none of these things. Why? Either because she does not have Archie or because Harry has forbidden her taking photos of his child. I am still of the mind that if there is an Archie, he is in the UK. Meghan fled to Canada alone. Or perhaps she was escorted to the airport by an RPO.
My thoughts exactly, that the only thing they could really get her on would be financial, because it isn’t racist, sexist or makes her a victim.
As others have previously mentioned public office and financial irregularities makes Brits (and people in other countries, but not all) extremely angry. Our MP’s know this, so does Prince Andrew with his Pitch@Palace, where it was alluded he skimmed 5% for the deals done. People may consider the Epstein scandal closed that down, but it may have been coming anyway, be it via Prince Charles or Prince William. Not to mention his roving ambassador role and what that brought in. I think the Royal Family, probably more Prince William and the younger generation of royals will be subject to more scrutiny. Even Zara and Peter Phillips often are mentioned regarding their ‘sponsorships’ and what they’re worth. But that is in a different league to what she might have done to coin it in, because syphoning off money garnered through deceit is something else. Plus moving money outside the U.K. will leave a trail.
I’m really intrigued whether anything will come out.
I actually think it's more understandable that she changed her jewellery than her boots. If she merches, as we all.think she shamelessly does, she might want to shine a light in two different pieces of necklaces. Esp since she is dragging a photographer along with her and expects the pictures to be out. But the boots?
M is wearing two different sets of boots. Brown heavy ones while boarding the plane and black fitted ones in the shelter pictures. Now I understand wearyheavy boots while out in the snow and carrying a different pair for the inside. I do that myself. Wear ugly sturdy ones whole walking to work or for tube and dressy ones once inside. I do this both in summer and winter, it's nothing unusual, a lot of people I'm London do it. But most of us don't carry another set of boots in our bags for the indoors. IDK, it's odd. Buts MM right. Maybe her directive was to match heavy snow country chic winter wear options on community service day and she did just that.
I'm 56 on Monday, the age when you start thinking about the years you have left, and the best present I could have is to get Meghan out of my head! I know I could just switch off and tune out - which I did for a while - but I don't want to miss her downfall.
She's damaged my country and taken tax-payers for a ride. She's hurt people like Prince Philip who fought in the war. The war still matters. My grandfather lost his brother and sister in a bombing raid the same night but stayed at his post protecting the city's public transport, ending up being blown clear across a depot by an explosion. I know what he would have said about Harry. My other grandfather helped Czechoslovakian children escape from the Nazis and found people to take them in. Their generation is almost gone, so is all the more precious. I find H&M's neglect of Prince Philip one of the worst aspects of all this.
I think there's a market for a service that would filter Markle news for you. You could get a neat little bullet-point summary and selective media roundup, just to scan if you like, and you'd be alerted when it was finally time to dive back in yourself, to follow real-time. Would save a lot of mental wear-and-tear.
The participants were broken down by age into groups, Millennials in their 20s and 30s, Generation X in their 40s and 50s and the Baby Boomers. Prince William was the most popular royal with all groups while Meghan Markle was ranked the lowest. Anushka Asthana revealed the figures during ITV's Peston.
[...]
Prince Charles divided the generations the most as 61 percent of Baby Boomers felt the heir to the thrown makes a positive contribution to society, putting him second after Prince William with that age group.
However, only 22 percent of Millennials felt the same way, meaning Prince Charles was ranked fourth by that age group and interestingly only 2 percent above Meghan Markle in 5th place on 20 percent.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1229108/Royal-news-Meghan-Markle-Prince-William-Prince-Charles-ITV-Peston-royal-family-poll
@Lurking With Spoon, I wonder why van Straubenzee (or however you spell it) was Markle-approved.I'd want to keep a very low profile right now, if I was him.
@Nutty, Your wrap up of the journalist/pr game is spot on! I completely agree that MM has no business going into the subject of indigenous peoples. To me, that was a direct hit at the BRF for reasons I will not go into now. The indigenous people of Canada have enough problems without bringing MM into their midst.
In case you haven't seen it, here's the latest post (contains swearing) by Jonathan Pie. He is a UK comedian whose schtick is posing as a TV reporter. He is very funny and has a knack of catching the mood of what people are really thinking. Enjoy!
https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/464573854169874/
Losing - Murdoch papers exonerated?
Case dismissed?
Winning - awarded squillions of cash with Costs?
Winning - awarded Derisory/Contemptuous Damages without Costs?
That's what happened to Whistler when he sued Ruskin over the his `throwing a pot of paint in the public's face' comment. Whistler was awarded one farthing (one quarter of one Old Penny in pre-decimal currency, the smallest coin of the realm at the time, far more humiliating than simply losing). Whistler was bankrupted by it.
I like the last these options as it expresses the attitude of the Court - the case may be technically OK but really!
I'd never heard of him before, so thanks for the extra info, I obviously wasn't paying too much attention to the details of that outing. I remember it being mentioned that someone looked at her in that way, but don't recall the names.
I was surprised that he's been mentioned as a godparent in the press because I remember all of the palaver over the godparents being kept "private" and don't recall any headlines (I'd assume there would have been after all the fuss about the secrecy) about any of them being named. Now we have an article that just plops his name into the public domain almost as an aside as if it's something already known about by everyone. Like I said, I most probably missed it if it's already been formally announced, but if I haven't then it feels like a bit of a mystery and I'm curious to know what was behind publishing it.