Although numerous polls of the British people suggest they'd like to see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lose their HRH titles and funding from the Duchy of Cornwall, cutting the Sussexes off entirely is impossible, and the Royal Family knows it.
It's impossible because Harry is vulnerable and could end up in a gutter - quite literally - without the support of his family.
(As the Prince William character says of his family on the TV comedy series The Windsors, "These people are like budgies. Let them out of their cage and they'll be eaten by the first animal they see.")
And it's impossible because social media makes it impossible to control information that might be released about the Royal Family by Duchess Meghan.
True information, false information, it doesn't matter.
Meg can just make it up, release it on social media, and someone will believe it.
Meg can just make it up, release it on social media, and someone will believe it.
Since the bananas
Social media has been a key player during Meghan Markle's two-and-a-half years of acknowledged connection to the Royal Family.
She first hinted at her relationship with prince Harry with an Instagram photo of two bananas cuddling; when she closed her lifestyle blog The Tig six months later, it was seen as a sign that the relationship was getting serious. After the engagement, Meghan closed her Instagram and Twitter accounts, something her supporters later described as the former actress being "muted" and "losing her voice."
In the run-up to the May 2018 marriage, social media in the form of the Daily Mail comments was the first sign that the British public was not entirely behind Harry's choice of bride.
Meg "clapped back" with a team of PR posters paid to defend her on the DM comment boards, along with some vicioius Twitter bots and perhaps some pseudonymous Twitter accounts of her own. She also seems to be the person behind anonymous messages to the notorious anti-Meghan Tumblr blogger Skippy. (A few anti-Meghan bloggers were doxxed, although Skippy was not one of them.)
Meanwhile, the Meghan's Mirror Instagram and Twitter offered lightning-quick information on where to buy whatever Meghan was wearing that day. So quick, as a matter of fact, that they must have had advance notice of what would be worn, likely by someone who would receive an affiliate fee.
Very confident in her abilities
Ultimately, Meg was allowed to start an official Instagram account again, the much-derided @SussexRoyal, which has been used to trumpet the Sussexes' achievements and offer lukewarm birthday greetings to members of the Cambridge family.
Meg feels confident in her social media abilities, so confident she apparently writes much of the @SussexRoyal text herself without the benefit of a copyeditor.
She also appears to enjoy do-it-yourself Photoshop, as displayed on the Sussexes' bizarre last-minute Christmas card.
Why is is this important?
Because social media is Meghan's insurance policy for the future.
Deference to the Royal Family
When Edward VIII, then Prince of Wales, met Wallis Simpson in 1931 and they became lovers, the British public knew nothing about it.
Foreign newspapers wrote freely about the developing romance between the prince and the then-married American socialite, and Brits abroad delighted in cutting out clips and mailing them to family back home, but British newspapers did not report on the situation out of deference to the Royal Family.
US newspapers arriving in London had articles about the situation removed with scissors. In the case of Time Magazine, pages were ripped out.
The public only learned of the nascent constitutional crisis involving the not-yet-coronated King in 1936, when a local Bishop mentioned it in a sermon. After that, the gloves were off.
No photos of Royal children
The British media still shows some deference to the Royals today, such as the de-facto ban on publishing candid images of the Royal children, whether they are taken by paparazzi or the public.
Various older Royals are also rumored from time to time to be having extramarital affairs, but this is also kept out of the papers unless some event forces the question, such as the theft of then-married Princess Anne's letters to her lover Tim Lawrence.
(Super-injunctions also help enforce this deference, the "articles removed with scissors" of the 21st century.)
But social media shows no deference. Anyone can write anything, and it's up to the public to decide whether or not the statements are credible.
Credibility and rumor
The rumor of an affair between William and Rose Hanbury was invented by a blogger in Utah who has never met anyone from the Royal Family and was inspired by photos she had seen in the Daily Mail; they were given additional weight by a Soho House habitué and Meghan pal named Giles Coren who said "everyone knows" about the affair. (Coren, ironically, was recently bullied off Twitter after making a distasteful joke about a gay journalist.)
But "a lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots," as Churchill once said.
Some members of the public still believe the thin gruel of the Rose rumors (Enty lawyer at CDAN is one of them). Certainly Meg's fans enjoy adding rose emoji's to Tweets taunting Duchess Kate.
How much more power would such a rumor have if it came from the Duchess of Sussex?
What she could say
Rumors of an affair are one thing, but the Duchess of Sussex could also cause havoc with innumerable other types of accusations - and they don't even have to be true.
Creating quotes or otherwise suggesting that members of the Royal Family are racist, sexist, or homophobic is an obvious tactic, and given Meg's hatred of the Cambridges, they would be her number-one target. How delicious to damage the heir to the throne by crediting him with some vicious statement that would always be believed by at least a few people. A little mud always sticks.
She might also Photoshop embarassing images and release them, or cast aspersions on the Cambridge children, and true or false, whatever she said would follow them for decades.
Meg's a viper. She doesn't have to win, as long as other people lose.
Social media makes it possible, and unfortunately makes it very easy. Some people will believe anything, particularly when they want to.
They need something they can take away
This is why the Royals must always keep Meg onside, at least nominally. They need to have something they can take away - an ongoing income, a title - if she misbehaves. They cannot leave her with nothing, because they will then have no leverage over her.
The only other alternative, if I may be so bold as to say it, is to neutralize her.
(Sensitive souls should look away now.) When I say "neutralize", Ari Behn, Andrew Burkle, and Jeffrey Epstein come to mind.
Controlling information about herself
Ironically, despite the growing power of social media, Meg seems obsessed with controlling what the traditional media say about her.
Her lawsuit against the Daily Mail is ongoing, as is Harry's lawsuit against some newspapers involved in an ancient phone-hacking scandal. The Duchess has long worked with People Magazine to promote her side of the story.
And on their personal website, the Sussexes say they would like to remove themselves from the Royal Rota of traditional-media reporters in favor of "grassroots media organizations and young, up-and-coming journalists."
In other words, small-potatoes types who will be so flattered to meet us that they'll write what we want.
Hey Sussexes - you can cut off the Royal Rota's access to your events, but you can't prohibit them from writing about you. And if you don't have anything to trade, they're likely to be harsh.
Traditionally Royal reporters temper their stories in order to maintain access. If you've already removed access, why should they bother?
The Gayle King interview
There's been some suggestion that the Sussexes are planning an interview with Gayle King, who has been responsible for two previous (low-rated) specials on the pair.
Are the Royals worried about this? A little, perhaps, but Gayle King is an establishment journalist and a somewhat responsible gatekeeper. She'll let Meg say, "I never really felt welcome in Britain" and suggest that Meg is unpopular because she is (a little bit) Black.
But she won't let Meg go full-throttle. She won't let Meg say crazy, damaging, or demented things about Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis.
Social media will. Let go from the Royal Family, Meg will waste no time re-establishing her accounts (there are suggestions that the "Meghan-ish" accounts popping up means she already has) and becoming an ongoing thorn in the side of the Royals at a vulnerable time, during the transition from a beloved monarch to a plummy and unpopular successor.
The Royals will pay her off, or they will pick her off. We'll see which.
Comments
I know that everybody is hoping that the divorce is on the way and that Harry is out of the clutches of The Claw (dang, forgot the html for making the trademark symbol which probably wouldn't work on the site anyway). When I read the first reports of her 'borrowing' a house from a divorced billionaire, I was optimistic, but he denied it.
What do you think about the multiple people that were supposedly advising her, supporting her, etc. who are tweeting pointed negatives?
My hope for the summit is that QE, PC, and PW are united with their objectives and plan to achieve them. William will be angry anew if he sees the bullying piece, but surely he will understand that piece was timed to produce a reaction. I hope Harry has clearer vision and humility. Again, I just cannot imagine Harry looking his grandparents in the eyes and not cracking, and I cannot believe that if Meghan had any intention of staying, she wouldn’t insist on being there (I’ve already said I think she is done except for the money, and maybe she already has deeper pockets in her sights). I find interesting the report that he will be excused to a hall to take phone calls with Meghan as necessary.
For the most part, I have no clue about anyone’s politics at Nutty’s house and that is part of why I landed here. That and the civility and intelligence. Tonight the mood feels different, and I would guess Nutty’s audience is a bit larger than usual.
Meghan (and Harry) want to "step back" as senior royals but "be on call" in case HMTQ has a need for them... all so that they can retain diplomatic immunity afforded to them as a member of the BRF. No doubt Meghan has enjoyed this perk of breezing through customs while her staff handles the paper work. I wonder about the diplomatic bags? No telling what kind of treasures she could stuff in those bad boys (kind of like a portable freeport?!)! That is a fascinating food-for-thought exercise in itself.
The usual, probably. Cash and drugs.
None of the rest do.
On another’s note, I think MM will not be able fo abide by a no politics clause. No way.
Nutty is going to have to clean more blood out of the aisles in the morning. She will not be pleased.
>>> I find interesting the report that he will be excused to a hall to take phone calls with Meghan as necessary<<
That is a plus for Harry/them as I posted earlier, as it gives more opportunity and power to him (with Megs and who-know who sitting at Meg's elbow).. But frankly, I think Meg will think she knows how to best decide for them both (poor Harry is just a lapdog).
It seems clear that Meghan attempted to bully the royal family from the get go, and that probably included William. My guess is that Meghan wanted to cash out when the Fab Four were sharing a charity, and Wills said "no", for the sake of dignity for the royal family.
The Harkles are not monarchs to be, and never will be. Thus, they do not share the same family position as the Cambridges. I'm sure that burned Meghan to the bone, and throttled her "wannabe Diana" ambitions. But that's how it works. It has nothing to do with being "bullied", it's called the royal line of succession and being an ambitious foreigner doesn't allow you to jump your place in line. Trying to be at the center of the stage when you are a minor royal will not work, and will not be tolerated.
Obviously, the Harkles have been competitive with the Cambridges from the onset of the Harkles' union. The Cambridges are doing their jobs as future monarch/wife, same as they were doing before Meghan entered the picture. But Meghan, seemingly wanting to suddenly be the star of the royal show, didn't like being confined to a role that was not befitting her (in her mind, she's the star and everyone else is a bit player). Too bad. If you wanted to be the star of the show, you should have married William.
Again, I don't believe that article in any way, and think it's merely damage control and spin from Team Harkle. The Cambridges don't care about the Harkles (in terms of "competition"). They simply don't want the Harkles to make a mockery of the royal family and embarrass themselves and the nation.
So, synopsis, what are they saying? More rampant speculation? (Because I think that is all that it could be.)
I'm not sure that's quite true.
I believe TQ has diplomatic immunity no matter what. But other members of the family do too IF they are carrying out duties for TQ. For example, it was reported PA had immunity if acting as Trade Envoy, but not if partying with "friends."
I believe TQ has diplomatic immunity no matter what. But other members of the family do too IF they are carrying out duties for TQ. For example, it was reported PA had immunity if acting as Trade Envoy, but not if partying with "friends."
That is how I understand it to work, too. If they are representing the monarch, diplomatic immunity; representing themselves, nope.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/the-sandringham-plan-vs-the-sussex-strop/
However, I want to say something to the author (a person who says they have lived in the USA and who seems to be from the UK) regarding this passage:
"The USA media need to stop throwing out empty race cards, accusing a nation when they have little to no concept of British culture and to focus on their own domestic turmoils."
The USA media is so used to relying on this tactic (race card) that it's probably impossible for them to cease doing it now. It's reflexive, and (in my opinion) very often done in bad faith. Why is it used? Because it works.
The USA media has built up Meghan. She has been a very useful prop for our (USA) media. Thus, with things now falling apart, the USA media has two choices - they either examine Meghan's behavior and choices up to this point and give a fair accounting of how we got here, or else they fall into a lazy, cant-be-disproved smear job of the UK (and any critics of Meghan).
Any rational observer knows that we got to where we are currently with the Harkles because they (she) did not want to fit into royal tradition and she wanted to do things (like merch) her way, as she wanted.
But that's not the story the USA media has sold to the USA public. And so, in order to preserve their hagiography of Meghan up to this point, we get "UK is racist and forced out the Harkles" rather than "perhaps the Harkles could have handled things differently".
Don't expect anything else from the USA media, at least not the supposedly prestigious outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post. You're not going to get it, at least not in the current era we're in now.
I believe TQ has diplomatic immunity no matter what. But other members of the family do too IF they are carrying out duties for TQ. For example, it was reported PA had immunity if acting as Trade Envoy, but not if partying with "friends."
I believe the Queen has Soverign immunity and may not need a passport to travel. I think members of the BRF at least Charles, William, Harry, maybe Andrew (and their wives and children) have diplomatic immunity. Whether it is only applied when traveling out duties at the behest of the Queen or it is just blanket diplomatic immunity, I am not certain.
But Meghan is crafty, so I could see her wanting to travel to do an event for HMTQ and then tack a couple of extra events in that locale that would benefit the Sussex Royal Foundation, thereby giving her that diplomatic immunity that she clearly thinks is necessary. (Just my speculation of course)
Exactly. The Cambridges are all good. If I were them, I would only be thinking "hey Harry, don't bring down the entire monarchy here and ruin things for all of us".
People like Meghan (at least as I see Meghan in my opinion) have a tendency to engage in significant projection and they often blame others for their own failings. It's sad, but typical.
I must say that I am very proud of William for standing up to the Meghan shake down attempt. He wasn't having it, that seems clear. He bullied no one, but was not going to allow himself or the monarchy to be bullied, either. Definitely a shining moment for him.
The Harkles, I think, will likely get all that they want. And only because the royal family is afraid that fragile Harry could be lost forever if they don't help him out now and let him save face for himself and his wife. I don't think they want to cut him loose for good, particularly given his marital situation and how that might go if the Harkles lost their titles. Things could get bad quickly, I imagine they are thinking.
All of this is madness. I just hope that the royal family can remove themselves from the Harkle machinations as completely and cleanly as possible.
There is an audience for what Meghan is selling, or what she symbolically represents, anyway. She knows that, and she knows where to pitch her wares. Unfortunately for her, she is not (nor is Harry) a great front woman. She may think she is Mick Jagger, but she's more like Ringo.
Vince - agreed that there is projection of bullying from the H&M side.
None of us were there to hear what was said, how it might have been said or ... also, how it was interpreted by anyone listening ... that your place in the lineup is set in granite (and any SJW or SM talk won't change that no matter how loud or long you pitch it). It is what it is and that is reality.
I didn't follow W&K story much (before I really started on this journey of the next generation) but I can remember that W kind of pushed her aside and saw some other women but that Kate didn't sit at home pining. She worked at the family firm doing something and went out with her girlfriends so she was noticed as out and about. Others, I'm sure, have more detailed stories but my impression was that she worked and she played.
I have been in jobs where "family" "worked" and it never seemed to match what the rest of us had dished to us but otoh when we went home, we didn't have to think about work and weren't forced to talk about it over Sunday dinner if we didn't want to. Each side had pro's and con's.
Perhaps add to the list: Kate had a family which could offer her a job out of school while she figured out her next step (if any thing outside of it). Having been through jobs which ended because of the economy and your date of hire (ie not your fault), having a steady paycheck can be a comfort that M didn't have.
Diplomatic immunity - agree with the others that only when on official duties (as what I've read before) but like how Dido mentions they could see the potential for misuse. Agreed. yeah, can see that.
As someone else wrote: the trolls seem to be out and about. And many seem on edge while waiting ...
waiting for news of decisions. It's going to be a long wait. May peace come soothe hurt feelings so those end now and not carried on into the future and may people reconnect with loved ones.
Probably a good choice by you to just avoid the chatter :)
Anyone who lives in the USA knows how "woke" things have gotten over the last decade, on a variety of subjects.
Meghan knows who her target audience is and the Markelites are very ready to defend her, at least for principle's sake. Facts be damned.
We live in a time ripe for snake oil salesmen and saleswomen. It's sad to see, but here we are.
Yes, you are where you are in the hierarchy and there is no way around that. You know that when you marry into the family. Diana was a monarch's wife to be. Meghan will never be that, and I think that realization (lower in the pecking order) really bothers her. But that's what it is.
I respect William and Kate. It took Kate time to adjust to being a royal, I have read (did not follow it at the time), but she stuck with it and now seems to be doing extremely well. Wills isn't perfect, but I would personally take him in a second over his brother or his father. He seems to be warming to the task well of being a monarch. It's not all fun and games. You have to know when to rattle the saber and take charge of the family.
I believe that the race card has been so overplayed via the media as to have become meaningless. Whenever the term "racism" is used, my eyes start to automatically roll. Yes, there is racism. There is racism against blacks. There is racism against whites. There is racism against Hispanics. There is a LOT of racism against the Asians. Then there is the hatred directed towards the old, the young, the fat, the fit, the less than attractive, the overly attractive, the smart, the dumb. Everybody at some point has had an ism directed at them. Now everybody is a victim that needs a safe space with a comfortable blanket and Play-Doh because they have no coping skills.
That is not healthy. What is healthy, IMO, is teaching people how to be responsible for their own circumstances. How to be the best they can be within their physical parameters. I'm not going to win any racing championships against 20 year olds, but I might win some against other grandmothers. Maybe my retirement income would mean I would be homeless in California, but I might be able to afford to live very well in Panama.
But God forbid you actually suggest that people might want to make better decisions when it comes to their lives.
That is what is happening here lately someone (and we know who) has been dominating the blog by writing on and on and on big passages about almost every point, and then if something is disagreed with this same poster lambastes the other party, using mean comments intended to degrade, and make fun of then finally they whimper for Nutty's intervention. They have been doing this for months but it has gotten to be more of a problem in the past month. They lash out at someone they thought was stalking them and they were dead wrong. Then they publically whine who they won't respond to, who they ignore, trying to tap into a gang mentality of 'woe is me' these are my enemies. They are using Nutty's blog as if it is their own territory and they are Queen. It is hard to ignore (and maybe you can because you are not villified terribly (a mere mention of your pork recipes) and don't stand up for anyone. But us who are the subject of this person and the troll turned arse kisser are disgusted with the scenario. This is a bit like the south when no one stood up for blacks hardly. I find this intellectual racism, attack someone for their ideas just because they're not your own (not referring to you SwampWoman). But I bravely stood up for people when no one else on this site did. What a joke, people criticise Meghan but what people do here is sometimes just as bad.
I completely agree with you on the overplayed race card and I think you said it perfectly. Thanks for that.
“I know this has been asked many times before but how on earth was she permitted marry into the RF? Did Harry just present her as a fait compli?”
I’m sure she was heavily vetted. The previous spare (Princess Margaret) was told “no” when she wanted to marry Peter Townsend. She was miserable and spent the rest of her life letting everyone know it.
They were d@mned if they did and d@mned if they didn’t with Harry. Can you imagine the fallout from him if he was told no?
Vince - agree on a lot of things with you.
I do like Charles who was a leading edge on the organic save the farming earth thinking before it was cool. I'm not saying that I agree with everything but he didn't stop that because he was teased publically (probably not just in print).
As for the idea that M was bullied/put in her place ... stupid question: was it because she was insisting that the rules don't apply to her and people (W/K/BP/HM/others) were trying to bring her into reality of where she was in the Firm? There is a difference between being bullied and people who have eventually lost patience with you because you are adamant you are right/they are wrong (just an observation).
bully: seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).
I don't think so!
I've encountered folk like that in the office. First day on the job and they are telling everyone why they are doing everything wrong and telling everyone what they should/must do.
Her and Harry bring out the worst in each other. I think she has always been a narc, but since she married Harry she has really gone over the top narc. He has always been inclined to rebel and sulk, but he has gone into crazy territory.
I'm holding thumbs for a major intervention for Harry today. Unfortunately my most reliable tarot readers are still seeing him sticking with the marriage and her dumping him. She's done with the BRF and the UK, and is putting in place her financial strategy for herself (gosh, that title and security and huge allowance, plus other perks, would be useful) and then she will be done with Harry (but not before more drama and scandal and press tsunamis).
Harry was always an indulged man child with no direction - and Meghan capitalised on this like any narc.
If you're worried about privacy, I suggest creating a new email address you don't use for anything else. Gmail makes this quite easy.
FWIW, strict EU privacy laws mean that I can see only your screen name, not your email address or your location.
I am sorry to be bothering you about this, but I need your feedback on your preference.
I’ve copied & pasted just a few of the comments below (they often get deleted before you see them). I would just quit posting altogether, but I enjoy your blog and most of my fellow Nuttiers, and the others, I just skip. But they do not skip me. And if I comment on anything that they don’t like, then the harassment starts.
It's sad, too, because I really wanted to share the excitement about all of this tomorrow night. I am tethered by my work responsibilities, in the same way that Rach & H feel "tethered", but I cannot get paid without those people demanding things of me lol. I don't even know if I should bother to try to post here, however.
I am not whining for myself, but I just don't want to be the cause of more crazy anger on your blog, and it seems I have overtaken Tatty in the most-hated competition. However, I know I’m not the actual cause, because when I was gone, there were still these issues with a very few commenters.
Also, there were a few things I wanted to address re the madness below, and then I'm sure you'll delete this. I just feel like there is so much trashing of me that I need to defend myself:
The cashmere thing was a brief and (I thought) funny story of what a flake I used to be. It literally was a paragraph, and a short one.
Ditto with the tea. I asked a question, long term nuttiers chimed in.
The BFF with Catherine is obviously a running joke that started last summer with the Contemptinis. Long-time Nuttiers know the reference. It's hard to imagine anyone else thinking it was meant seriously (although I'm certainly open to being Kate's BFF lol).
I did not accuse Trudy of stalking me. I said that i felt like my comments were being stalked because someone was always there to jump on them. And someone is. Unfortunately, I thought it was yet again the same "Unknown". I was wrong. And I apologized to Trudy when I found out that she was not the usual "Unknown". I believe Trudy Blue has forgiven me and we have exchanged several comments since. I made a mistake, I apologized, I owned it. But I had grown weary of the constant jabs and attacks.
As for my extensive and long posts, I believe that if you count the posts here, you'll find that I'm not topping the charts, and my posts are not about me. I did have two long comments on Saturday am when I was just catching up after a long week of work and all hell breaking loose on the Rach & H show. Others do that, too, of course, because life gets in the way and we have jobs and classes and commitments.
continued...
I have not lambasted anyone, and I only @ those Nuttiers who've said something of specific interest. I believe that if you look back thru my comments, you'll see that.
I have suggested that commenters who do not like my posts just scroll on by, but that isn't happening. I have let others know that I won't respond to them. That hasn't slowed it down. I don't understand the issue, but if you think that my dipping out will help, then I'll do that.
______________________________________________________________________
CatEyes said...
Talk about self-promotion, the poster spends reams of space talking about her cashmere, her tea, her BFF Catherine, of give me a break, who does that but a self-obsessed woman, Then she accused a poor woman of stalking her two days ago and had to apologize because she was dead wrong!!! .Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
Blogger CatEyes said...
My information was had by multiple classes in negotiations by an Attorney working for a fortune 500 International company where I received multiple 'A's. In addition, I singlehandedly settled a $500,000 case in my favor so I can speak with some authority @Elle not just empty words on a gossip website.
There are other considerations but you didn't offer anything and I have the right to add content to the topic (unlike your weird deranged purple puppies and dark this and that. (which adds nothing to the discussion).
___________________________________________________
Blogger Unknown said...
Oh my gosh, more self-promotion, Off topic and always me, me, me, me, just like Meghan.
Blogger CatEyes said...
@Elle (AKA 'lurking')
>>>I think that someone above is now picking at CatEyes for bragging about her legal prowess.<<<
I guess you are drunk if you can't see that someone complimented me for my court case wins (maybe that burns you up as an atty). You seem just like the old poster known as "lurking" who went off on legal diatribes when I wrote and attack me for my knowledge. How sad! You weren't well recived as 'lurking' so guess you changed your name.
For the record, when a layperson in 'pro se' prevails in a case, an atty always calls it "bragging" , but if an atty. prevails you will call it success. How telling, how jealous!
Lalready asked you to leave me alone so bugger off!
January 13, 2020 at 2:24 AM
You are welcome to respectfully disagree with her, but bullying is unwelcome, and says more about you than it does about Elle.
« Sources close to both the Cambridges and to the Duke of Sussex strongly contested the claims that the couple feel pushed away by Prince William. »
Even Sussex's aids deny that nasty accusation.
The Sussex have no shame, they only pursue their own game. Don’t feel sorry for them !
@Nutty Thankyou for maintaining a really lovely blog and for your moderating:)
There were a few points that were ok and related AT FIRST but come on, stop this rambling.
Nutty why are you allowing this? Then if criticized so offended and mean.
I don't write much and love this blog but it gets hijacked by UNRELATED personal stuff. It is hard to scroll by because some offenders usually have great comments.
Unless really related please respect the time of everyone else because a lot is going on.
A quick sentence or two to get a small glimpse of each other can be interesting but that's it.
I think it is discriminatory to allow @Elle Reine des Abeilles free rein to attack (despite her followers) us 'Unknowns'. You want us to have a screen name only because you want to single us out and bully us too as you have in the past.. For what? I have not used Insults. I have not resorted to calling names like @tatty has.. I have not said derogatory things like @tatty and @Elle Rein des Abeilles has. You ignored that @Elle Reine des Abeilles wrongly accused an 'Unknown' of stalking her, she had to later apologize. She has a legal background but still did such a bad thing. You play favorites. That is one reason why things are going on here because you support the wrongdoers and castigate the ones who complain. Sure some 'Unknowns' may react but after much abuse, most people would,
But it doesn't matter as this is now the Tatty Flavor Blog and alternatively the Elle Reine des Abeilles Flavor blog. I am sure you will censor this as you cannot withstand an opposite view on your behavior. This used to be a good blog but it has changed a lot since you started playing favorites.
And Yes people, Jump On Me as I expect it! Look at how many times over the months @tatty has treated people rudely. I don't have that track history. I have said in my quotes yesterday that I thought people should treat others with respect, people should 'lighten up and allow others to express their opinion without getting attacked.
So pile on those who want to join the Bully Train. BTW I bet Nutty won't leave this up for two seconds as she is hypersensitive to criticism.
Thanks, Nutty. I agree everyone should have a screen name. It is confusing to have so many “Unknowns.”
So, the next post is off to the races, and I'm looking for signs that H is out of the marriage and they're going to do the slow drag on Rach (the idea of this is so cheery :)
And I encourage anyone who doesn't like our little one-offs and ramblings or opinions, just scroll on by (I do that a lot, a whole lot). Many of us were here 6 months ago and have an easy rapport and a few running jokes, but it's always fun meeting new peeps and sharing ideas.
I could be wrong.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-harry-and-meghan-and-why-members-of-the-royal-family-cant-live-in/
I had an Instagram account, a small one, pretty harmless as it focused on art, photography and horses. I didn't use it much for social media, except for one time I went onto Sussexroyal and disagreed with a foaming follower about Meghan being a Princess or some such garbage. My Instagram account was mysteriously disabled.