Prince Harry appeared today in Edinburgh, Scotland, to promote his rather formless "Travalyst" project, ahead of a busy week for the Susssex duo. (And perhaps trio - nobody seems to know whether or not Archie will make an appearance.)
Harry is supposed to hit Abbey Road studios tomorrow to record a charity single with Jon Bon Jovi, a single that absolutely no one asked for. I've got nothing against Bon Jovi, who I think has aged very well, but who wants to hear Harry sing?
Probably not the Invictus soldiers the record will supposedly benefit. These are men and women who have made enormous sacrifices for their country, only to see their founder and patron jack the whole thing in to live in luxury someplace else.
The Invictus chorus will also perform on the song, and Bon Jovi has an eager fan base among ladies in his age group, but really - who else is going to buy this thing? Or stream it?
Probably not patriotic Brits, who have had enough of the Sussexes. And I don't think Bon Jovi is a big draw for the younger generation. If the Invictus people wanted some serious sales, they should have brought in BTS or Post Malone.
He was papped at the train station looking surprised by the photographer, and the mechanics of that interest me.
Did he book the paps? Did Meg?
What about the informal agreement that Royals are not subject to unscheduled paparazzi photos? Harry is, after all, still a Royal for four more weeks.
On March 5, Harry is back (temporarily) supporting the military again, appearing at the Endeavor Awards, given to wounded veterans who have taken on extreme sports challenges like mountain climbing.
Two years ago, this might have been a good fit for Harry. Now, not so much. It'll be interesting to gauge the energy level of these tough, highly-motivated injured soldiers when they meet their runaway leader.
Meg may also attend, although I'm sure they couldn't care less. Vain, self-centered, and certainly not self-sacrificing, she's not really the military type.
This was just hours after her famous quote to CNN about how she and Harry had "single-handedly modernized the monarchy."
It would be hard to top that, although Meg had someone leak to the Daily Mail today that she feels "picked on."
And it's questionable whether Meg will show up at all to the Mountbatten Awards, because this is not a crowd that can be trusted not to "boo" her.
This is Harry's final engagement as Captain General of the Royal Marines, and it would rather spoil it to have to defend his wife from the very British citizens which God supposedly has appointed his family to command.
If I were Meg, I'd limit myself to controllable events like the injured soldiers, who are honorable enough to at least greet her politely while complaining behind her back.
This is interesting only to see how many of Meg's "woke" followers are still interested in having her support their cause.
After the Sussexes' bitchy note released over the weekend, it may be dawning on even the most rabid Meg fans that the problem is not the 'racist' British media or the 'racist' Royal family or the 'racist' British public, but Meg herself.
Edward Enniful of Vogue is still singing Meg's praises, so maybe he can help her find a good feminist place to appear.
That'll be a happy group of people.
Let's see if Meg can top her dress from last year, which was a spectacularly inappropriate "chains" pattern, never a good idea when both countries you represent have been involved in the slave trade exploiting many parts of the Commonwealth.
Harry is supposed to hit Abbey Road studios tomorrow to record a charity single with Jon Bon Jovi, a single that absolutely no one asked for. I've got nothing against Bon Jovi, who I think has aged very well, but who wants to hear Harry sing?
Probably not the Invictus soldiers the record will supposedly benefit. These are men and women who have made enormous sacrifices for their country, only to see their founder and patron jack the whole thing in to live in luxury someplace else.
The Invictus chorus will also perform on the song, and Bon Jovi has an eager fan base among ladies in his age group, but really - who else is going to buy this thing? Or stream it?
Probably not patriotic Brits, who have had enough of the Sussexes. And I don't think Bon Jovi is a big draw for the younger generation. If the Invictus people wanted some serious sales, they should have brought in BTS or Post Malone.
Papped in the train station
Harry's showed up last night in Edinburgh after ostentatiously taking a train there to prove he doesn't fly everywhere by private jet, although I had to wonder if he was granted a private train car. No London North Eastern Railway 36 pound specials for him.He was papped at the train station looking surprised by the photographer, and the mechanics of that interest me.
Did he book the paps? Did Meg?
What about the informal agreement that Royals are not subject to unscheduled paparazzi photos? Harry is, after all, still a Royal for four more weeks.
6 days off
After the Bon Jovi single is recorded, Harry has 6 days off before his next engagement, and it would be interesting to know how he will use it. Meet with friends? He's cut off most of them. Meet with family? Bea and Eugenie, at least, wouldn't be too pleased to see him, and William is travelling to Ireland with Kate. Maybe pay his respects to Prince Philip?On March 5, Harry is back (temporarily) supporting the military again, appearing at the Endeavor Awards, given to wounded veterans who have taken on extreme sports challenges like mountain climbing.
Two years ago, this might have been a good fit for Harry. Now, not so much. It'll be interesting to gauge the energy level of these tough, highly-motivated injured soldiers when they meet their runaway leader.
Meg may also attend, although I'm sure they couldn't care less. Vain, self-centered, and certainly not self-sacrificing, she's not really the military type.
Boos at the Royal Albert Hall?
Meg is also supposed to come along to the Mountbatten Music Awards at Royal Albert Hall, the site of her odd appearance in late October, when she did a victory lap through the crowd wearing a giant wig and a Barney-the-Dinosaur-colored purple dress.This was just hours after her famous quote to CNN about how she and Harry had "single-handedly modernized the monarchy."
It would be hard to top that, although Meg had someone leak to the Daily Mail today that she feels "picked on."
And it's questionable whether Meg will show up at all to the Mountbatten Awards, because this is not a crowd that can be trusted not to "boo" her.
This is Harry's final engagement as Captain General of the Royal Marines, and it would rather spoil it to have to defend his wife from the very British citizens which God supposedly has appointed his family to command.
If I were Meg, I'd limit myself to controllable events like the injured soldiers, who are honorable enough to at least greet her politely while complaining behind her back.
International Women's Day
Meg is also supposed to make an appearance commemorating International Women's Day on March 8, although no details have been announced.This is interesting only to see how many of Meg's "woke" followers are still interested in having her support their cause.
After the Sussexes' bitchy note released over the weekend, it may be dawning on even the most rabid Meg fans that the problem is not the 'racist' British media or the 'racist' Royal family or the 'racist' British public, but Meg herself.
Edward Enniful of Vogue is still singing Meg's praises, so maybe he can help her find a good feminist place to appear.
Spectacularly inappropriate dress
Finally, on May 9 the Sussexes are scheduled to appear at the Commonwealth Day service at Westminister Abbey with all of the family members they've been leaking poison about for the past six? ten? 24? months.That'll be a happy group of people.
Let's see if Meg can top her dress from last year, which was a spectacularly inappropriate "chains" pattern, never a good idea when both countries you represent have been involved in the slave trade exploiting many parts of the Commonwealth.
What are you most looking forward to during the week ahead? What are you dreading?
Comments
It’s just occurred to me that B&E could be sending a coded message to the bewigged one...”Here is our super cute baby, and the photos are going to be off the chain cute… Where’s yours?” Do you know Meg has read the same articles and is now tearing out her yak hair plotting ways to upstage these nuptials by any means necessary.
The bridal couple can choose whoever they want for their wedding party, but I think giving a three year old an adult role in their wedding is going to backfire. Sandie informs me that the role of the best man is merely social, not really important. For such a venerable and conservative institution the CoE seems rather flippant in some of their ceremonial roles. I am an American Protestant, Lutheran, which like the CoE is an Offshoot of the Catholic faith. To us, the best man, and the maid/matron of honor and godparents are all Very meaningful spiritual appointments, not merely for show. The best man is one of the legal witnesses to the marriage. I think a three year old is too young for this responsibility, no matter how well-intentioned. He very likely will neither understand nor remember the experience. I’ve got a lot of experience with three-year-olds; good luck to B &E if they think he’s going to be able to stand or sit quietly for the length of the ceremony while hitting his marks. He’d be a cute ring bearer, but 3 is even a bit young for that. Wolfie’s mom May end up with a Significant role in the wedding herself as the “manager of the best man”, so I hope Bea is prepared for this. Certainly Wolfie should be there to see his dad get married, but giving him a grown-up responsibility feels exploitative to me. It also raises the question, does Edo not have any close relationship with a more suitable adult male person to be his best man? Shades of Meghan...? Also if this wedding is going to be private, the cute Wolfie moments will be for the attendees and not for cameras. If this is truly what they wish, then all the best to them. A solemn occasion will be rendered less serious with a 3 year old up front. WC Fields remarked famously, with reason, that he never worked with dogs or children.
That said, the comments are good! :)
We Finally Understand Why Meghan Markle Divorced Her First Hubby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehi8y97pri0
Although Bob Iger’s stepping down as CEO of the House Of Mouse came as a shock to everyone, it has been in the works for a while. Iger has led Disney extremely successfully since 2005. In those 15 years, he has deferred his retirement 4 times. His current contract expires next year, and his stepping back from the CEO role while remaining involved in an executive capacity allows him to groom his successor. Far from being Markled, Iger is transitioning on his own terms. He may plan a run for elected office in the future.
Harry’s propositioning Iger for voiceover work for his wife is akin to asking the head of General Motors for a sales job at a dealership. The people hiring the boys talent for animated products are way down the chain. Harry just made himself look like a fool.
Travalyst - Harkles have no original thoughts. They know credit cards/retailers use a points system to reward loyal customers and decided it could somehow work for them. I noticed in the DM article on the day that Haz spoke in Scotland that one goal was to "test out ideas with the experts". He is probably expecting the experts to figure out how they can make points work for Travalyst. Someone upthread commented that now seems to be a bad time to roll this out, but I think they caught a lucky break with the coronavirus travel issues because it is clear they are at the very beginning of trying to figure this out and need all the time they can get - odd since the same DM article said he has been working on this for 3 years!
Rush to Canada - I think Megs animosity toward HM boiled over with the birth of Archie when she refused to grant him the "Prince" title because no Royal Drs. observed the birth. No way they chose to refuse a title. In Nov, HM allowed the Harkles to take 6 weeks off to figure out their future. They come back to UK and expect an immediate audience with HM. She says "talk to Pa" and Pa says "I'm going on a trip, will talk to you when I get back". That must have totally infuriated Meg! In retaliation for the snubs, she throws her manifesto on the website in order to "win in the moment" and has been keeping Archie away from HM as punishment for months. HG Tudor points out how narcs always want to "win in the moment" and don't think of the long-term consequences. Now Meg has no RoyalSussex, no money-making foundation, no place to live and will probably have to pay up for security. Her narcissism has yet again foiled her best-laid plans!
That's why you call in the experts, work with them, and listen to them.
Meg's problem is that she's sure she's always right and doesn't want to listen to anyone else. That's how she ends up with ill-fitting couture fashion, messy wigs, Instagram and website posts full of grammatical errors, fashion "capsule collections" of unflattering polyester clothes, etc. etc.
Someone out there probably has a great idea for improving the environmental profile of the travel industry. But it isn't Prince Harry.
On a happier note, I am hoping that Beatrice has a beautiful wedding, and that everything will be filmed, to be seen later by royal lovers and royal weddings. What is a better spectacle than a royal wedding? I do not understand a 3 year old toddler being best man; then again, I find it a joke when people have their dogs as est man or maid of honour at weddings, too. The little one should be a page, or whatever the British call the little boys and little girls who are attendants. In America, most attendants are adult family and friends.
Perhaps they are filing separately? I wonder how she filed for 2018 or if she did. Seems there were rumblings online about her owing the IRS.
Rush to Canada - I think Megs animosity toward HM boiled over with the birth of Archie when she refused to grant him the "Prince" title because no Royal Drs. observed the birth. No way they chose to refuse a title.
I have never seen this little morsel before. Are you sure this rumor is circulating?
The usual account is that M$H took the initiative, did all the deciding. That is was M$H that did not want Archie to have a Royal title, which always seemed absurd. Just look how Megsy clings to titles for herself, because titles = higher status. And just 12 months into her marriage, Duplicitous Duchess Megsy started to calculate that she could make bank on this, while ditching that stuffy old Queen and that stiff Prince Charles.
Former actress Meghan Markle is no stranger to a Hollywood premiere, but on Sunday, she joined husband Prince Harry for her first red carpet appearance as a royal at the premiere of The Lion King in London.
If there ever is a Megsy movie I have a title.... "The Queen That Dumped Me" or "From Rags to Riches to Rags"
I have never seen this little morsel before. Are you sure this rumor is circulating?"
If it is, then it's false. The question of whether or not Archie would be granted a title would have been decided well before his birth. When Kate was pregnant with George, letters patent to the effect that the child would be a prince or princess were issued shortly after her pregnancy was announced. So it was always clear that Archie wouldn't be a prince.
As for Meghan, I have two theories which I can't decide between. In the first instance, I think she may have all along planned to dump the royals just as soon as she'd got the 'fairytale' wedding, the title, the prestige and a royal baby, to head back to LA in triumph, with all sorts of lucrative deals awaiting the Duchess. On the other hand, she may have planned to stay with the royals for life, but on learning that royal life was much more restrictive and less glamourous than she had imagined, that her status would always be secondary, and that she would never be Diana 2:0, she bolted and took dumb Harry with her.
I lean towards the latter but could be persuaded either way. In any case, what is certain is that whatever her plan was, she messed up (ex)royally. A textbook example of how to destroy the opportunity of a lifetime.
I agree with you, I think MM probably thought she'd be a royal forever but once she married in she realized she would literally never be Queen. The chaos/family drama leading up to the wedding shocked most of us, now we realize it's her baseline. I think she couldn't cope with Eugenie having a wedding and attention, so she decided perfect time to announce pregnancy! The folks on CB recently said she was 12 weeks at Eugenie's wedding, not realizing that it's impossible for her then to have delivered on May 6. She is worse than a con artist, because she also seems bent on being hurtful and destroying the lives of those around her. The "Escaping the Crown" special is despicable. I won't watch but I can only imagine it's garbage. It's hard for me to have sympathy with her, after I paid bills today I have about $300 till the next paycheck. And I think I have it pretty good.
I think both your theories are in play. Meg is not detail oriented and doesn’t read the small print, and it seems pretty obvious by now that Harry is the same. He may never have been arsed to pay attention to the small print either, eg the Of the body rule for royal babies, etc. I think Carrie’s always been flighty, and dim. Whatever lessons he and William got on the English constitution and royal rules, Haz was not paying attention. Possibly not capable of paying attention, taking notes and retaining esoteric information, particularly if it was not direct concern of his at the time. As a teen or a young 20 something, with getting married and having children and the last things on his mind, he would’ve blown off any lectures about choosing inappropriate wife and how he had to behave in order to sire legitimate heirs. Everyone assumes that he would’ve sat Meg down and Briefed her exhaustively about what joining the royal family meant before the engagement, but that is expecting far too much of H. Birn royal or no he’s made a career of blowing off the rules. And even if he did know these things, he saw at least two women he was serious about run for the hills when confronted with what joining the royal family would entail. If he was interested in keeping Meg around and not scaring her off, He may have conveniently forgot to tell her certain things. This does not exonerate her from doing her own research.
It was in her interest to have the quickie engagement and wedding before Harry had too much time to think and change his mind. I also think that she believed that once she was a duchess that it would be Permissible and easy to split her time between countries...Chase start them in America with her newly elevated profile, Cash in, Have multiple homes and come and go as she pleased, turning up for the big centerpiece events in London like Trooping and Christmas. After all, thought she, she was such a boon to the monarchy! She, the so woke biracial Queen Of Hearts. She fantasized that the royal family was so lucky to have her, They would give her carte blanche to do whatever she wanted. If the queen had agreed to the Sussex Court a year ago when she first floated the idea, around the time William split the foundation, she wouldn’t of had to write this manifesto. I think it was always her plan to stay in the royal family as long as possible, so long as they were playing on her terms. She discovered swiftly That they were not going to play on her terms, hence the poor attitude and whining and deceptions which commenced pretty much immediately after the wedding.
I think the Ides of March are coming for Meghan. The eyes of the world will be on Harry these next couple of weeks. Will he leave the UK again and join up with Meg wherever she is? As this battle for security rages on, Archie is gonna become a talking point. Where is this child? Where will he live? Where will he go to school? Is a government of a number of jurisdictions responsible for providing security For a baby who may in fact be a nonexistent person? If harry opts to stay in the UK, What does this say about his fatherhood? Are we ever going to see this kid in the flesh? Meg cannot play this out forever...the truth will out her eventually.
I can’t imagine living like this.
Yes exactly, and we can see this so clearly in that idiotic 'manifesto'. She thought she could pick the fun, glamourous parts of being royal while merching and schmoozing to her heart's content in Los Angeles, with dumb Harry as her accessory. What with her being soooo popular and woke and modern, compared with the dull, dutiful Cambridges, there was no way the House of Windsor was letting this rare jewel go! She must have been genuinely gobsmacked when the queen told her, that no, royals are public servants and that you are either in or out. And she was out.
I think she genuinely had no idea. No clue. None. She did not - and still does not - understand that the monarchy, as the name suggests, is all about the monarch, and everyone else is dispensable. Hence the hilariously obvious butthurtedness of her last incoherent missive. She thought she could take on the queen of England. But the crown always wins.
Thanks for clarifying the Archie and his lack of title situation. That the Queen did all the deciding, but still, M$H could not resist spinning it with their own version, that they decided. Decided that Archie would not have a Royal title. That this would be best for Arch.
IOW - Just another Megsy day, another PR spin, another PR lie.
________________________________________
@ Hikari @LB --
"I think both your theories are in play. Meg is not detail oriented and doesn’t read the small print, and it seems pretty obvious by now that Harry is the same. He may never have been arsed to pay attention to the small print either, eg the Of the body rule for royal babies, etc. I think Carrie’s always been flighty, and dim. Whatever lessons he and William got on the English constitution and royal rules, Haz was not paying attention."
_______________________________________________
I second what you both said.
To me, Harry's childishness showed signs way back, tho' a lot of his misbehavior was skillfully covered up by the Palace. Constantly throwing temper tantrums, unwillingness to attend any but his favored engagements (and not too many of those), his hedonism -- the fact that two lovely and suitable girlfriends went running for the hills. I think it was as much him as unwillingness to be birds in a gilded cage. And I think he's still that way.
There are those who want the Queen to throw the Harkles out right away -- but as has been said, HM is playing the long game. I have no doubt it is she who suggested the "12-month review". Harry and Rachel are too impulsive and impatient. By the end of this time, the furor will have died down, and the Queen will clip their wings but good.
Those of a "certain age" (ahem) will remember the old commercial "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature" (thunderclap) -- which goes along with the expression "Don't mess with Texas" -- Harry and Rachel made the monumental error of dissing the Queen, and they will pay.
But I also wonder if they aren't demanding it because they treat the RPOs as "household staff." Household staff they don't have to pay themselves. (Maybe the owner of the house provides maid service and a gardener to preserve the property but I doubt much more than than would be provided for squatters.)
We know they send RPOs on errands. And I doubt Harry takes cars in for servicing himself (and who even acquired the cars to begin with?), I doubt M scoops dog poop, I doubt either H or M routinely grocery shops or picks up dry cleaning, I doubt either picks up the mail or the many packages M must receive from her internet shopping...and if they didn't have security, who would ferry them to and from airports?
"We know they send RPOs on errands."
As I said above, this is one of the stories I don't believe. RPOs are extremely highly trained police officers who take great pride in their work. They would have no hesitation in refusing any job outside of their - very narrow - remit, especially as they are not employed by the Harkles, but by the Met Police. In fact, since if they went out grocery shopping for the Harkles that would mean they weren't there to 'protect' them, they would in fact be in trouble with their actual employers if they reduced themselves to skivvies. I just don't buy it.
That, or they are hoping that the Harkles will already be separated by then! They would take Harry back, but Meghan I suspect is dead to them.
@lizzie
"We know they send RPOs on errands."
As I said above, this is one of the stories I don't believe. RPOs are extremely highly trained police officers who take great pride in their work. They would have no hesitation in refusing any job outside of their - very narrow - remit, especially as they are not employed by the Harkles, but by the Met Police. In fact, since if they went out grocery shopping for the Harkles that would mean they weren't there to 'protect' them, they would in fact be in trouble with their actual employers if they reduced themselves to skivvies. I just don't buy it.
_____________________________________________
I agree. Those two clowns who were following Rachel around with her dogs were clearly not members of the highly trained Royal crew.
____________________________________________
Liver Bird said...
"There are those who want the Queen to throw the Harkles out right away -- but as has been said, HM is playing the long game. I have no doubt it is she who suggested the "12-month review". Harry and Rachel are too impulsive and impatient. By the end of this time, the furor will have died down, and the Queen will clip their wings but good."
That, or they are hoping that the Harkles will already be separated by then! They would take Harry back, but Meghan I suspect is dead to them.
_________________________________________________
From your keyboard to G-d's ears! At some point, Markle, who, while not intelligent in any way, has a kind of animal cunning, which she will employ to survive in whatever way she can (probably to cozy up to some new rich man. So empowered! LOL) once she realizes Harry and the Royal Family are a dead end for her.
I do hope you're right.
>>>RPOs are extremely highly trained police officers who take great pride in their work. They would have no hesitation in refusing any job outside of their - very narrow - remit, especially as they are not employed by the Harkles, but by the Met Police...<<<
Maybe. I probably would have agreed with you except
1. The huge number of RPOs used in Canada was disclosed. (I'm including those employed by the RCMP here too) I'm assuming so many are needed because of separate travel but they aren't always traveling. I don't think H&M would have any problem asking "off duty but assigned" agents to do scut work. And I'm not as sure as you are they would refuse.
2. The behavior of Harry's RPOs in Las Vegas was hardly indicative of highly trained officers.
3. The agents walking *behind* Meghan with the dangling Archie doll didn't look at all professional to me. Chatting on the phone, taking hats on and off to pose....
I have a suspicion that the RPOs used on engagements and at royal functions (State opening of Parliament, weddings, etc.) are NOT the same crew as used for day-to-day functions. The level of training is expensive for the former, not so much the latter. The expectations are very different. As Liver Bird said, there is no way in h3ll the Harkles are being looked after by the real pros if the agents are being sent out for takeaway.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-ugly/
Here are some highlights and they are spot on. I mean I should have cut and pasted the whole thing, whoever wrote this got every single thing right. It is uncanny.
His Vertex (soul angle) in Leo might give rise to the impression she is his soulmate, that’s her Sun sign (expression). However it’s square to her Lilith, eventually there will be a conflict of ego and she will probably leave (that’s the Lilith story, refusal to submit).
Her Chiron is conjunct his Moon, she could literally “break his heart”.
Her Vertex conjunct his Uranus, an exciting connection that could become chaotic. She might demand destructive changes to his life or vice versa.
His Moon opposite her Uranus. She seems exciting at first. This won’t age well.
Her Sun square his Saturn. I’m having trouble thinking of something worse. This could end up an abuse aspect although it’s impossible to say who starts it. She will pull one way, he will try to pull her back. She will feel restricted but it’s necessary for the union to work in the long term. She could feel like he holds her back (or prisoner!) and his family dims her shine, she’ll miss LA a lot.
Her MC/10th house is empty, so according to this they’ll divorce, as are the 7th and 8th houses. She would almost definitely have trouble conceiving.
She wants children with him, for maybe deceptive reasons, her Mercury in his 7th. She would probably have them by IVF (Saturn in his 8th house of heirs, maybe if they divorced she’d keep the kids away in America).
It’s a match made in Hell. [Not that either is a Saint.]I’m sorry, there’s no nice way to put it. Mind games, emotional abuse, hate sex.
She has her Nessus conjunct her Ascendant in the 1st of ego, this explains why people don’t trust her. It’s an intense aspect. She prides herself on standing up to “bullies” but could be the worst one. By far.
Pluto/Venus is hot alas short-lived, about three years, tops.
Her Sedna trine his Mercury. She could betray him once they are married, great deception is possible. She could totally change personality once she’s got the ring for a while and established, perhaps with a child. Don’t trust the mother in law. There’s meddling and plotting.
Her Algol conjunct his Ceres. If he expects her to be a kind mother, he is sorely mistaken. She could be sadistic to his children to hold him to ransom.
The papers will be busy. I should buy shares in the Daily Mail.
It will be intriguing to see who she labels as a target worth attack.
Her Pholus sextile his Chiron. She’d just erupt, dangerously (to his family), she may threaten to bring down the monarchy. Quite literally.
Her potential for rage is hidden from him (Mars in her 12th).
____________________________
So, just wondering: is "whip stupid" is a thing?
____________________________
OT, pls avert your eyes @Swampwoman, exactly. And friends tried to warn me, but for me, it's the gross incompetence and lack of professonalism combined with cutting some serious corner that has left me reeling. You & I might not be cut out for bureaucracy, but I think we're both cut out for integrity & competence.
"And I'm not as sure as you are they would refuse."
I'm certain that not only would they refuse, they would be obliged to refuse. Highly trained police professionals have very strict guidelines about what they do and do not do. As I mentioned in a post above, there was talk around the time of Archie's birth that the RPOs might drive Meghan to hospital but this was immediately shut down by those in the know, since as police officers they are strictly forbidden from any activities outside of their very narrow job description. Imagine if someone broke into the property while the RPO was off buying milk? They would 100% refuse to do this.
"The behavior of Harry's RPOs in Las Vegas was hardly indicative of highly trained officers."
Again this was discussed above, but an RPO - as a member of the British police - has no legal powers outside of the UK. So they could have asked the party guests to give up their phones and/or delete any photos but the guests could have simply refused and there would be very little the RPOs could do about it. That's why the whole question of the Harkles receiving Met Police protection while living abroad is so vexed.
"The agents walking *behind* Meghan with the dangling Archie doll didn't look at all professional to me. Chatting on the phone, taking hats on and off to pose...."
They were highly likely to have been Canadian police, not RPOs. As the Canadians have said, they have been paying for the Harkles' security for some time now.
It is a fact that RPOs are extremely competent and highly trained. That's why they're so expensive. And it's the taxpayer who gets the bill.
Brief comments on what you listed above:
Her Vertex conjunct his Uranus, an exciting connection that could become chaotic - some believe Vertex is a fated point. Anything conjunct Uranus, an outer planet of significance at natal placement (house/not sign) is "interesting" (read: crazy, turbulent, chaotic, unpredictable, uncontrollable, exciting in dreadful and wonderful ways, and BSC)
His Moon opposite her Uranus. She seems exciting at first. This won’t age well.
The moon, traditional lunacy (interpet as you feel appropriate), represents the mother and the feminine side. It can also be indicative of crazy. Her erratic nature pulls him in many emotional directions (think cluster of astronomical proportions). Interestingly, it is common in violent death charts I've studied. I'll stop there.
Her Sun square his Saturn. I’m having trouble thinking of something worse. I can think of a lot of aspects worse than this. It can actually, IMO, be stabilizing, like an anchor, although always some degree of rubbing against, as with all 90 degree angles.
Her MC/10th house is empty, so according to this they’ll divorce, as are the 7th and 8th houses. She would almost definitely have trouble conceiving. I would not interpret this way at all. Empty IME means not a focus or little energy, but it's immp to look at long-term outer transit, etc. Obv 10 is all Rach cares about and yet, it always turns up empty. I'd have to look for more to have more of an opinion. I'd look to 5th for lack of conception, esp with Saturn. I haven't seen their charts, but houses are key. I don't like traditional astrology because it's so hard and fast interpretation.
She wants children with him, for maybe deceptive reasons, her Mercury in his 7th. She would probably have them by IVF (Saturn in his 8th house of heirs, maybe if they divorced she’d keep the kids away in America).
It’s a match made in Hell. [Not that either is a Saint.]I’m sorry, there’s no nice way to put it. Mind games, emotional abuse, hate sex. All this, too convenient, I'd def interpret more. Stopping there.
She has her Nessus conjunct her Ascendant in the 1st of ego, this explains why people don’t trust her. It’s an intense aspect. She prides herself on standing up to “bullies” but could be the worst one. By far. I would not count this as a significant aspect at all, but conveniently, it does apply.
Pluto/Venus is hot alas short-lived, about three years, tops. NOT IME. In fact, this can be the power struggle that lasts for eternity because of the power. I'd have to take a closer look, but except with personal planets making brief aspects, Pluto is never, IME, "brief".
Her Sedna trine his Mercury. She could betray him once they are married, great deception is possible. She could totally change personality once she’s got the ring for a while and established, perhaps with a child. Don’t trust the mother in law. There’s meddling and plotting. Her Algol conjunct his Ceres. If he expects her to be a kind mother, he is sorely mistaken. She could be sadistic to his children to hold him to ransom. Again, working too hard for it. I would not count this as a significant aspect at all, but conveniently, it does apply.
Her Pholus sextile his Chiron. She’d just erupt, dangerously (to his family), she may threaten to bring down the monarchy. Quite literally. Minor stuff. This is an area where IMO and IME traditional astrology stretches and fails.
Her potential for rage is hidden from him (Mars in her 12th). It's also her own worst enemy is herself, and explains part of the lashing out and acting without thought. It's hidden from her as well.
Anyway, that's my quick take.
Hikari is correct in saying that Iger has been an effective CEO for Disney. His aggressive approach to acquisitions has left Disney pretty well positioned in entertainment media for the time being. I was surprised that he was retaining a 'creative' role, as creativity has been in short supply at Disney in recent years. Disney has been surviving on prequels, sequels, remakes & by buying other people's franchises.(Marvel Comics).
We can agree to disagree about the security issue. But I did want to clarify a few things.
First, what I meant about the Las Vegas incident:
I had read the comments upthread. And I was not saying RPOs had the necessary authority to intervene to stop Harry's self-destructive behavior in Vegas. But it seems some RPOs were hard to distinguish from the party guests and it wasn't because they were trying to appear "unobtrusive." While I do understand RPOs can't stop the protected person from acting in irresponsible ways, at some point large drinking and drugging parties attended by unknown guests do pose a potential threat. And being a part of the party would seem problematic for a protection officer.
So far as the security agents in the "papped" shot in Canada go, perhaps they were Canadian police. But it was MY understanding that Canada has been providing protection *in conjunction with the UK* with Canada's contribution to cease on April 1. Perhaps that's not true but it certainly has been reported that RPOs were in Canada (on 2-week rotations, I believe.) It was also reported that a combined Canada/UK team was "on duty" at all times since RPOs alone wouldn't have authority in Canada. And if that's true, where were the RPOs when Meghan and her "child" were wandering around in a Canadian public park with two leashed dogs?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8060475/Its-Meghan-Marvel-Duchess-Sussex-tells-agent-role-Hollywood-superhero.html
‘He’s actively seeking such a movie for her. He’s saying she is available and open to the best offers.
‘Meghan is planning a series of meetings in Hollywood. She has already done the voiceover for Disney and now word is out that she’s looking for a superhero film, as a voiceover or even on screen.
‘She knows she can’t carry a film as an actress. People won’t be able to get past the fact she’s Meghan Markle. But she’s determined to act again and she thinks a big, ensemble film is the way to go… something that pays big but which doesn’t put her front and centre.
Appreciate the link. Notice what is slipped in at the end (below)...So much gaslighting is going on. To what end who knows.
Meanwhile, the atmosphere at Harry and Meghan’s £10 million rented retreat on Vancouver Island has become increasingly tense.
A source told The Mail on Sunday that photographers have been ‘physically threatened’ by vigilantes who keep in touch via social media. ‘The locals are very protective of Meghan and Harry,’ a source said. ‘It’s got to the point where things are becoming violent. There is a Facebook site which only local people have access to and they are taking pictures of photographers and their licence plates.
‘There have been at least two cases of physical violence. Men in black pick-up trucks have approached photographers and threatened violence.
‘One photographer sat inside his car as it was rocked from side to side by local men shouting they should leave. It’s all turned very sinister and nasty.’
Yes, if true that is scary! They certainly have some deluded, unsavoury, nasty fans!
"But it seems some RPOs were hard to distinguish from the party guests and it wasn't because they were trying to appear "unobtrusive." While I do understand RPOs can't stop the protected person from acting in irresponsible ways, at some point large drinking and drugging parties attended by unknown guests do pose a potential threat. And being a part of the party would seem problematic for a protection officer."
I have never heard that RPOs were involved in the party.Any member of the Met Police who did this would instantly be sacked. Do you have a link to this?
"And if that's true, where were the RPOs when Meghan and her "child" were wandering around in a Canadian public park with two leashed dogs?"
It's hard to tell from a handful of photos all taken from the same angle. They may have been walking in front of Meghan. They may have insisted on not being photographed. They may not have been there at all as it could be that the Canadian police force are the only ones allowed to escort their charges in public. We don't know what the arrangements are. But we do know that RPOS are among the most highly trained and highly paid police officers in the UK, which is why the funding of the Harkles' security in their new life of 'freedom' is such a vexed issue.
Don’t know about super hero but she could star as the Wicked Witch of the West Coast
In a remake of the Wizard of Oz, Woz Royal
Harry as the Straw man, If I only had a brain, & Archie as the Wizkid hidden behind the screen.
They can re use the carpet from the Lion King premier & follow the yellow brick road for ever & ever.
And it's so funny she is looking for a huge paycheque for doing next to nothing. Some people don't ever change. "I suck at my job/career, but I deserve a ton of money!" You can smell the desperation. She needs a lot of money, and fast! Nothing is coming through for her.
We all knew she was deluded but this really takes the biscuit!!
I have tears streaming down my face reading some of the comments on that article.
I think someone is planting these stories to make it look like the Harkles are not safe and need security. And taking it one step further it's potentially setting the stage for an incident that happens after security is cut off.
Something really strange is going on with this situation. There are reports no one is living at the house anymore. Then there are reports of violence inflicted on reporters there. Sitting outside an empty house. By men in black pickup trucks. Ok sure.
I found you all in looking for information on MM's narcissism. I've always admired HMTQ and admired Diana back in her day, but I hadn't kept up with the RF in recent years. When I started hearing about MM and PH backing away from their duties, I became interested in their story because it relates to my own family. I've enjoyed reading all of your insights and wanted to jump in now with a comment.
While I respect HMTQ and the RF, I was drawn to this saga because we are seeing narcissistic personality disorder played out on a global stage. When I first heard that MM and PH were cutting ties with the family, my heart broke for Harry and his family. My own precious child, with whom we were very close for all of her life, got mixed up with a controlling man, who has narcissism or a related personality disorder, and they have destroyed our family. I see the very same thing playing out in the Markle saga, the same behaviors and hurts, but the RF has resources and power that all of the normal families experiencing this do not have. There are MANY families today going through this experience. We find one another, but we keep our stories quiet for the most part, because if you haven't experienced the destruction of a narcissist, it doesn't make sense.
HG Tudor at NarcSite outlines why MM is a narcissist. I pray the media and commenters begin to see what is behind MM's behavior so that narcissism and controlling, "influential adversaries" become part of the global conversation. For people to know more about these disorders may help some escape from the control of a narcissist and help others to avoid the pain in the future.
Regarding Harry, as with my own child, it's hard to say how much of their behavior is their own rebellion and arrogance, and how much they're being controlled by their narcissist. HG Tudor says MM preyed on Harry's GOOD qualities, not his bad ones. A narc seeks out a person who is loyal and empathetic. She probably got to him when he was down, worked on him over a long time, got a hook in him and made him dependent upon her approval, etc., just like someone did to my daughter.
This is why Harry's family, who are bound to know the truth, are treating him with as much love as possible, while keeping firm boundaries because they have a duty to their country. They must make a way for him to return home when either MM moves on or he wakes up and sees the truth. I understand it may take a long time for a victim to see the truth, and the narc will make their lives miserable for a long time afterward. Archie, whatever the story there, will be used as a weapon.
Excuse my long post. I don't have all the answers, but wanted to suggest that Harry is not entirely to blame. Yes, some of it is his fault. If a narc can ensnare a prince, they can get to anyone. I hope someday Harry will be restored to his true self, having gained maturity, and help others be aware of this phenomenon.
Thanks for listening and thanks for all of your good work on this story.
"Disney sources said discussions are ongoing. One top Disney executive told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Meghan needs Disney more than Disney needs Meghan. She’s a controversial figure."
I agree! It's all very fishy!!
Also included in the article:"Disney sources said discussions are ongoing. One top Disney executive told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Meghan needs Disney more than Disney needs Meghan. She’s a controversial figure."
Yet it also claims she has already done the voiceover for Disney! If they KNOW she's controversial, then why on earth did they let her do it?
Mind boggling!
It depends when she did the voiceover. I think her reputation went south after she published her manifesto in January and, particularly more recently when she published that childish attack after her ability to use Sussexroyal was removed.
I said at the time that her public attack on the Queen when she din't get her own way would discourage individuals and companies from working with her.
She might have done the voice over in 2019.
"Are battle lines are being drawn between the preaching `liberals' on the left (what Quentin Letts calls the Snootocracy') and the far right?
I loathe fascists and fear that if Meghan gives us yet more of the same, we’ll have bigger worries than wondering how to greet her. If she'd wanted to stir up the neo-Nazis to make her point about us being racists, she couldn't have done better if she'd tried."
Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Socialists, Marxists, Bolsheviks, Antifa, that so-called "peaceful" religion, Totalitarians--you name it, they're all politically Left. All of them.
The far-Right is Anarchy, which means no government at all. Not to many of them. "Far-Right" attacks are false flags. Real yawners. As real as Meghan ever having been subject to racist attacks. Remember, she identified as Caucasian until she got together with Harry. She's had loads of work done lightened her already light skin, straightened her hair, all to pass more easily as Caucasian.
And all that Leftist control is the crap MM identifies with.
We are currently experiencing rail blockades across the country by aboriginals, resulting in a slow down of the economy, inability to deliver propane for heating, chlorine for water purification, etc and commuters are not able to get to work.
The response of the Canadian government has been to politely ask the aboriginals to move on (which some have done as other blockades pop up in another location). Neither the police nor the army have been called in and there have been no vigilante attacks.
Almost makes me think that the "men in the black trucks" are friends of the Russian owners of the mansion.
I read that Markle did the voiceover work 3 months after Harry was caught on video asking Iger about opportunities for her. So yes it would have been 2019.
So I have to wonder what project did she work on? Have any details been released?
And a freaking super-hero role, really?! She has no respect, dignity or class with regards to her position whatsoever. It needs to be taken away.
One of my friends is mortified that the UK's first black princess is such an embarrassing fail. Not that she considers Meghan black, but since that's how Me-again presents herself to the world now, my friend feels like it's a gigantic blow, and one she feels personally. She says Meggers feeds in to every negative stereotype about certain black women, and that her sloppy appearance (especially the crazy hair episodes) are especially infuriating to a lot of black women.
I don't think there are any men in black trucks nor do I think there are any photographers camped out in front of this house. The Harkles have been living there for quite a while now (we've been told) and the only pictures released are the staged hiking shots?
She might have done the voice over in 2019.
Yep -that's possible.
I'll say goodnight to you all now as I need to rest because my sides are aching from creasing up! 😆
Meghan is not expected to bring Archie with her to Britain this week
Meghan is not expected to bring son Archie with her when she returns to the UK this week for a final round of official engagements with Prince Harry.
The couple's nine-month-old son will stay in Canada with a nanny, much to the disappointment of the Queen and Prince Philip, who are said to be 'very sad' to have seen so little of their great-grandson since his birth, according to the Sunday Times.
@SwampWoman Thank you!
ROFL. I'm sure HM and PP will be very sad and disappointed if she turns up.
My in-laws are in their 90s and they see very little of the great grandchildren (or even the grandchildren) in the winter due to the various influenza strains circulating about.
Re the Kapow! article in the DM, my favorite line, "'She knows she can't carry a film as an actress. " So true! I would think, however, she would insist on the evil nemesis of said movie, to be a female, called Catherine!
Thanks so much for posting that astrology summary. It is very interesting and I am delving deeper into it now ...
PS Bias ... it would be interesting for someone to do an in-depth blind reading (i.e. have no idea who the person is).
Right. And aspects can be interpreted differently. Traditional astrologers looked at the stars for direction. More modern or theoretical readers see "communications" from the cosmos. Sort of like a hint from whatever higher power one chooses to believe in or none at all. I find death charts interesting because, except in the case of some suicides, those aren't the result of the power of suggestion or subliminal influence. Gruesome, I know, but interesting, too. Certainly, nothing I'd stake my life on (no pun intended).
You don't even live in that house anymore, Megs, but go ahead and continue to put out these ridiculous stories, grasping at anything to try to get free security.
If anything, I'm sure that your neighbors are tired of having you around and are documenting how disruptive you and Just Harry are to their peaceful lives on Vancouver Island.
Would anybody really want The Harkles as neighbors? Do they want go though full background checks, be watched over by their security detail, and live close to somebody who is a target for possible international terrorists, according to The Harkles? What perfect neighbors, huh.
Moving to Malibu will be just as bad, and the traffic situation will be a mess. The Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is wall-to-wall traffic and very dangerous, even when The Harkles are not around. Adding in The Harkles and their protection officers will cause traffic disasters of outrageous proportions.
This is an article from 2008, and its even worse today. "Malibu Ranks #1 In Traffic Fatalities, Injuries:
http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_7af9bd39-36cb-5fe7-952f-b46d1a9be963.html
What will seeing traffic fatalities on the PCH do to Harry's fragile memories of Diana? Is this not a concern to Megs? She knows how bad the PCH is, and she wants Harry to live there? There is no way they can be properly protected in waterfront property in Malibu and in the horrific traffic on the PCH.
The only way for them to be completely protected is to go back to the UK.
If there is an Archie, he is being neglected by The Harkles, as they leave him with nannies as they travel around the world trying to drum up some money or find a gig. How many days since he was born have we seen Archie with either parent? It's very worrisome for Archie's welfare and emotional development when the parents are never around.
This pattern of leaving Archie alone with the help has been going on since he was born, and I see no indication of it changing.
However, it is assumed in the oE that one gets married in one's parish church by the parish priest and thus the congregation would be your family and community and a spiritual aspect is assumed. Harry and Meghan had no such connection with the church where they got married, the priest (other than the infatuation with Meghan developed during a few meetings) or the congregation (some of whom they had never met). The CoE makes exceptions for the royal family and so the whole religious aspect of the ceremony is a bit of a farce.
Royal weddings tend to be state occasions and increasingly social/high society/trashy celebrity occasions. Kate comes from a religious family but she did not get married in her parish church by her parish priest. The Queen is religious and one can argue that she has many parish churches and parish priests (pick one ma'am!).
Godparents do have a significant spiritual role in the CoE. In reality, this often is an unfulfilled role and it is more a social connection. I am CoE. At my christening one of my godmothers gave me a gold bracelet engraved with my name, which I still have! I had two godmothers and one godfather. None of them played any kind of spiritual role in my life, although they were all CoE. Admittedly we all lived in different countries so taking me to church on Sunday was never an option!
Tarot by Janine, a Canadian with friends on the Island who have admitted to snooping, say the bolt hole allegedly has the same uninhabited feel as Frogmore. Have we been paying for a ruse?
It has been reported that they don't live there anymore. They may have been there for a short time, but I think they have moved on, possibly when the latest tacky "security gates" and hardware store No Trespassing signs were put up. Maybe even earlier.
Sorry that you Canadians have had to pay for this Harkle mess. Unfortunately, I think we're next here in the US.
Here in the US, police reports are public information. Anybody can go into a police station and read the daily police activity reports. I've been trying to find the Canadian law that pertain to this, but have come up empty. Do you know if police reports are public in Canada?
I have always thought her taxes, as small as the IRS is headed, would be looked over very closely as the thought of finding something would taunt their imagination ... if nothing else, an example to others if they did and somehow it went public.
DM article: M tells her agent to find her a role as a super hero
My, my, my. I wasn't aware that actresses can just order agents to produce specific roles like ordering their sandwich without mayo.
My, my, my. Is there a message there about how she might look playing the role of the Black Widow?
Serious - is there likely a band of locals (meaning owners of those big fancy expensive houses nearby) spearheading a vigilante group against the press? I could be very wrong but would they more likely call the cops to have the press moved on legally (if, for no reason other than to document these poor former royals are being harassed for people who don't believe they are AND the press have left tire marks on my grass/pottied behind my trees OR call somebody to call somebody to eventually reach some locals (who could be filmed/identified to the cops) to go rough up the press? The press person could be wired or have some small spy camera they are wearing to prove they are "legally" where they can be.
Has she done something already with Disney? IDK, not according to her IMDB page. If I had something concrete like that, I would would publishing it to help drive the momentum for that piece and get others interested in me for their future works. Usually, if something is signed, then they list it somehow has in pre-production, in the works or something like that. See Keanu Reeves.
As for the film premiere, things may be different than in NYC but I just finished Jeannie Gaffigan's When Life Gives You Pears. She describes them as "odd" in that they are just regular movie theatres, cup holders and everyone is very overdressed for the occasion. The book is great BTW. Very funny if you need to laugh (warning, she is Catholic and does talk about her faith if that might bother you).
http://www.saanichpolice.ca/index.php/public-information/media-releases.html Nothing.
If there was a violent kerfuffle it would make the news. Nothing.
I sure hope she has not already done the Disney voiceover, and agree something would have been announced, if she had.
This is nauseating on multiple levels: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/11070970/meghan-markle-hollywood-appearance-met-gala/
She's been busy the past few days, generating all of these stories.
Although many pages, it is written in summary form rather than a long, wordy essay so it is easy to peruse.
Much of what it portends for the relationship has been picked up by tarot readers from the start. (Interesting: They have foreseen that when the marriage ends, and she will end it, which will leave Harry gutted, she will move on and has already found her next man, who is far more suited to her. The relationship will become sexual while she is still married to Harry. That relationship may not last and she may not get married, to hold onto any titles she can. Harry will need time to heal and then can move on to a good lasting relationship. He has met someone, but the woman is not going to embark on intimacy while he is such a mess, so although they are in touch, it is not an affair in any way yet and it might not become his second marriage if he doesn't sort himself out.)
Here is that astrology analysis, the link provided by NeutralObserver:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-ugly/
I was thinking of Will and Kate's children, too, when I wrote that. Also, who does Archie play with? Just the nanny or is he being given access to other babies to promote good childhood development? Does he go to a Mommy and Me type of group (with a parent, not a nanny) or have arranged play dates? Has he even SEEN another baby or young child since leaving the UK?
Does he even recognize The Harkles as his source of love and comfort or does he look to the nanny for those extremely important things in the development of a child? That poor, poor child. He is going to be one screwed up adult if this continues.
Thanks! I had a hunch that the laws were close to those in the US, and of course, Vancouver Island is not very large. There would have been talk if anything had really happened.
@Walk Humbly,
The Met Ball has been a joke for years now. It no longer has any prestige, as c-list actresses and Kadashian-types are now invited. Also, if she tries to boldly make connections like she did at The Lion King premier, she'll make a fool of herself once again. This is a party, not a place to try to drum up a role in a movie. She is shameless.
I noticed The Black Widow dig in the DM, too. Ha! They sure have her pegged correctly. I'm sure she'll call that racism, when they are alluding to the black widow spider and the connotation of some women who are considered black widows and what that term means.
Kapow! It's Meghan Marvel: Duchess of Sussex tells her agent to find her a role as a Hollywood superhero
Meghan has made no secret of her wish to return to acting as she seeks financial independence and has already reportedly signed a charity voiceover deal with Disney.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8060475/Its-Meghan-Marvel-Duchess-Sussex-tells-agent-role-Hollywood-superhero.html
Blogger Elle, Reine des Abeilles said...
And also, No Archie? How predictable. IIRC, however, Rach & FKAP couldn't be away from Archie for a meal at Christmas, but she can dump the kid for a week plus? Something isn't right here.
@Elle Something isn’t right, but I find it especially rich that she wants the world to believe that they are living in a powder keg of vigilante violence, but she is going to leave her child rather than keep him with her. It makes absolutely no sense.
HM the Queen welcomed the viper into the fold with the best intentions. Now, she is ruing the day.
The author describes Harry as an "empath", the type of person a narc will seek out.
Interesting how, after being dissed by MM and PH, Princess Beatrice is now known to be gaining a new title and a palazzo! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8060603/How-Beatrice-Contessa-marrying-family-posher-own.html
It is sad, though, that she has yet to meet Edo's father.
I think if the Palace can't do the job, then the people of the UK will do it for them.
https://twitter.com/ehutchingsbooks/status/1233775058251853825?s=09
Went to GoFundMe.com and searched "Prince harry". There are several listings, mostly joke listings.... I think.
The DM article about Meg wanting a superhero role sounded to me like her agent was putting out an advertisement for her services.
Not to Hollywood - everyone knows everyone there, no reason to speak through the Daily Mail - but to producers in Bollywood, Nollywood (Nigeria), Asia, and the Middle East.
Someone might be willing to take a flyer on Meg in return for some publicity and/or notoriety.
The article mentioned again that Beatrice and Edo have known each other since childhood, and that Fergie is godmother to Edo's half-brother.
I like this. Edo, whatever his character flaws may be, knows what the Royal Family is about and knows what he's getting himself into. Meghan (and Kate) really didn't.
Edo is "one of us" from the upper-upper class point of view.
Most new parents recoil at the idea of being separated from infants for an overnight, let alone a week or more, and particularly when the child is not in the care of family or the other parent. The caregiver will be Jessica Mulroney? Who lives on the other side of Canada? With several school-age children of her own? What are those kids going to do while Jess leaves town to watch Archie? It all sounds not very plausible.
It seems clear that if Archie exists at all, he's not by himself in a Russian oligarch's mansion on Vancouver Island.
What's really interesting is - who will be burned when the reveal comes through on Archie? The Queen and Prince Philip, since they posed with him? Charles? Probably not the Cambridges, who have done their best to keep their distance.
@Duchess of Cray Rach obviously doesn't game-out her lies before she tells them. The woman seems to lack the ability to connect dots. She also skews towards crazy dramatic, spinning as she goes. Maybe whip stupid is a thing after all. I've come into contact with one other person who lied like this, without thinking of the consequences, and whose lies were so over-the-top, and he made it to some pretty amazing levels before being caught. He actually claimed black SUVs rolled up, sent by a world leader, to get his top secret intel on the Middle East. At the time, he was actually jobless, sleeping on his mother's couch because he was broke. This was not a friend at all, just someone I researched, and it was the craziest stuff. I'm beginning to think Rach is that kind of BSC delusional and like the man to whom I'm referring, she managed to lie convincingly enough for FKAP, but W&K were onto her pretty quickly.
"What's really interesting is - who will be burned when the reveal comes through on Archie?",
the thought that Megxit is tied up tight with and perhaps precipitated by Fauxrchie and not just money/Hollywood at all came to me immediately. Is it possible Rach & H are running from a big lie, one so big that they have to keep moving/spinning it? Is it possible that some of this other drama is misdirection?
If so, they're not really fooling the British public, who can certainly tell that something is off.
I notice there are no comments allowed on the DM's Archie story so far - perhaps when they're turned on they'll be moderated to avoid inconvenient truths.
There seems to be some kind of super-injunction surrounding Archie's birth circumstances - remember when Prince Charles' biographer let something slip on live TV and was immediately silenced, a "slip" I assumed was planned and signed off on by BP and perhaps Charles himself.
If it all comes tumbling down at some point, I wonder if it will threaten the super-injunction system, as well as anyone who was involved in the Archie situation.
None of the BRF members witnessed the birth, and they only saw a baby who was presented to them by The Harkles as Archie, heir to the throne. It could have been any baby that they saw at the christening and at the photo shoot, so I think they would be in the clear if they explained that The Harkles said that was Archie, and it turned out that it was not. They could explain that they were, unfortunately, duped. Whether HMTQ is willing to go to those lengths is doubtful as she is still trying to protect Harry.
As for leaving Archie with Jessica Mulroney, I think we're all on the same page with that. What new mother leaves her new baby with a friend while she jets around the world? Most mothers have a hard enough time leaving their new baby even for a few short hours, not days and weeks, like MM does. And, judging by what I've seen of Mulroney, she's the last person I'd leave my child with, even if there was a nanny present. I would not want Jessica to be responsible for the welfare of my child.
Whether Archie is real or not, it's obvious that MM is not made for motherhood. She shows no interest in watching her child develop and grow, both physically and emotionally.
I think The Harkles have left Vancouver Island and are in Toronto, close to Mulroney, so that they can have her take care of Archie- free babysitting! And, they'd be close to their favorite Soho House and Marcus Anderson.
Of course, all of this is if there really is an Archie.
If I were Charles, I would want this whole sorry situation cleared up before I began my Regency, which could potentially begin at any time - such as the Queen's dual birthdays in April and June.
You're right! On one hand MM is saying that paps are following her everywhere, fights are breaking out outside their Vancouver mansion, that she's a target for terrorists, etc. On the other hand she leaves her new baby, Archie, for days and weeks at a time with all of that going on? It doesn't add up.
@Elle, Good point about their lies about Archie catching up to them. She never thinks her lies through to a logical conclusion. Maybe they are scrambling to get themselves out of the hole they've dug for themselves with the Archie saga.
I know that if my mother was HMTQ and was dealing with this, she would demand that Archie be brought before her and demand that a DNA test be taken as she watched. And her physicians would oversee the testing and results. She would also never coddle me if I had acted toward her as Harry has done. I'd be out of the family and kicked to the curb as fast as possible. My mother was very loving, but she did have her limits when it came to honesty and integrity.
In other news, Oprah tripped on her own feet on stage while lecturing on “balance”. She seemed OK, I never once drop the microphone as she hit the floor, but the Markleing has begun.
has begun.
instagram.com/p/B9KWKfZg0Sg/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again
I've never laughed when I've seen a person fall, but there's always a first time, and haughty, self-important Oprah deserves it. Was she just Markled?
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com
The eyes have been kept the same and the one of male Meghan really freaks me out. I feel as if I've been cursed just by looking at it.
Eyes tell us so much. Someone I know had a really bad breakdown that lasted 18 months and his eyes became the eyes of another person. When he recovered, they changed back again. Harry's eyes this week reminded me of that time.
If Archie is in their care, I really hope something can be done to protect him. I absolutely believe there was a surrogate, but also that Harry is his father, as Archie looks so much like baby Harry. Every time I see the polo or paps hiking photos I'm horrified at the sight of Meghan holding Archie. My mind shrieks "Get that baby away from the strange lady!" Usually when a baby is in an unsettling, unsuitable environment it is away from our sight. This is on the world's stage and all we can do is watch and worry.
I haven't taken to Archie, just as I never took to baby Harry. Seems an awful thing to say but I'm being honest. However, Archie is a BABY and needs someone to look out for him. I agree not Jessica Mulroney. Apart from what we have already seen on her social media, anyone who is friends with Meghan is automatically ruled out. Tells me all I need to know about their judgement and values.
PinkCadillac, Shropshire , United Kingdom, 33 minutes ago
Meghan sent her a banana with the calligraphied message: "Have a nice trip... see you next fall!"
@abbyh wrote:
DM article: M tells her agent to find her a role as a super hero
My, my, my. I wasn't aware that actresses can just order agents to produce specific roles like ordering their sandwich without mayo.
My, my, my. Is there a message there about how she might look playing the role of the Black Widow?
Yet again Camilla Cabello has a video which strangely echoes some things that are going on with Meghan. And it's called... "My Oh My" (hence quoting Abby above, the similarity was just too much not to mention).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fd2kkLmSDQ
Thinks she knows better than her "boss" - check
Tries to hustle the role she wants (the "hero") - check
Goes mad when denied - check
Finds partner who will try to get her the role/lifestyle she wants - check
Hits the papers after tantrums - check
My favourite part: 0:55. I now use that as a mental image whenever something happens that she doesn't like lol
I also chuckled at the the crazy Meghan-like grin at around 2:10 when she's holding the sword, those eyes...
Ironically, the lyrics could almost be Harry's narrative.
....and the video even includes her throwing her wig in a temper lol
Her friends come out all the time claiming this, that or the other.
Such nonsense. I don't believe a single word coming form her side anymore. It's all delusions, lies and wishful thinking. She's dumb as dirt, but fortunately for her, Harry is dumber.
What I do find fascinating on a popcorn-eating level, is her insistence on continuously doubling down her aggression, her delusions, her insults and her lies. I'm mesmerised by it all. You'd think that with all of the backlash, at certain point, she would chose to shut her mouth, and go away. But nooooooo, more insanity, more psycho, more smearing and offensive behaviour a mere 5 seconds later.
Now she wants to be a friggin' superhero in a Marvel movie?
On one hand I really do not believe this will ever happen, just because she ordered her agent to go look for a superhero role for her, it doesn't mean that studios will plow millions upon million s of $$$ to indulge the wishes of a sub-talented narc, who seems to be despised by the entire world right now.
But on the other hand, a small part of me wishes it would happen, and here's why: she would be so awful, so nasty on set, so demanding, such a diva, yet so talentless and bad, that the gossip surrounding production and post production would be gloriously entertaining.
Then of course the inevitable flop would be blamed on the producers, on other actors, on the scriptwriters, on the director, on the racist public, and she'd make herself even more enemies.
There is absolutely no suggestion which indicates that this woman lives in the real world. She lives on another planet, population: 2 and half. Of course she wants to make big fat Marvel movies now with herself being a superhero! Why wouldn't she? It's only natural for her that this should be her next step.
The way she sees herself is nothing like the rest of the world sees her, but it doesn't matter to her, because the rest of the world is wrong, jealous, ignorant, stupid and racist.
Meg doesn't have much of a sense of humor, however.
https://pagesix.com/2020/02/29/madonna-left-in-tears-struggling-to-walk-after-fall-during-paris-concert/
Something interesting I have been told by a source whom I consider to be reliable.
HM was lied to by MM about what she was going to wear to the wedding.
Convention is that all Royal brides must submit their wedding outfit to HM for approval.
MM wanted the whole virginal bride thing, complete with flowing veil, and had the veil made along with the dress.
The outfit was shown to HM, who said that MM would not be allowed to wear the veil. In the RF and the Church generally, women who have been previously married can cover their head with a hat, but must not wear a veil, because veils are considered to be appropriate only for virginal women (i.e. never married) and in keeping with a first-time bride's demure appearance. A long veil that also covered the bride's face, when that bride has been previously married, is considered to be especially inappropriate.
MM didn't want to do anything to risk the wedding going ahead, so agreed with HM that she would not wear the veil. The Bandeau she was loaned was to be worn on her hair, and not as a Bandeau to secure a veil.
On the day of the wedding HM was driven to the door of the Chapel. Between leaving the vehicle, and some time later entering the body of the Church, one of HM's aides showed HM mobile phone footage of the live coverage of MM being driven down the Long Walk.
HM was astounded to see that she had been lied to, and that MM was in the car not only with a veil, but with a full veil over her face.
HM is never defied, and when she decrees that something should be done, people do it. The brazenness of the defiance was something she had not experienced before, and to be lied to was also unheard of.
That is why when HM entered the body of the Chapel, she looked angry and barely stopped to acknowledge William and Harry. And it is why she was photographed looking daggers at MM, as MM smugly sat at the Altar with the yards and yards of veil flowing about her.
Megs is proof that animal cunning and audacity, brazenness can get you far in life. How many women get a real live British Prince? Make that hook in her case.
Wow! Most interesting. So the Queen has known from the beginning what Markle's all about. That's a good sign.
Nutty said,
Not to Hollywood - everyone knows everyone there, no reason to speak through the Daily Mail - but to producers in Bollywood, Nollywood (Nigeria), Asia, and the Middle East.
I'm aware of Bollywood but I've only really seen clips on various tv programmes, never sat and watched a whole movie. Doesn't it involve a lot of dancing? Do we know whether Meghan can actually dance?
This is also the reason why I believe this wedding went forward: the racism card. I don't believe for a second that Harry would have been allowed to marry her had she not been of mixed ethnicity.
They never do, only the Father of the child does, and if he wants to be present. 😁
Megsy really showed her contempt for the Brits by doing the Archie reveal photo ops in far away South Africa with Mr. Tutu. Megs used Tutu here, which he probably figured out later/
I can't help think the BRF is playing cat and mouse here and slowly, slowly backing her into a very tight corner. The long game has been to defuse the racist card and to give her ample space to show her true colours.
I think the statement about the Queen being sad about Archie not coming to the UK Is another two-fold swipe by the RF. Meaning the Queen knows full well what Archie is and where he is and that isn't with MM-dearest.
And with the security hullabaloo, the extra costs for a family split between two continents will not be insignificant. I guess Canada will be footing that bill. Oh dear, I am getting angry again.
Also, what was said on the recent Harry Markle blog rings very true. They came to Canada for a short stay, received our protection and didn't leave. Drawing on the funds without prior arrangement. Good for Canada for putting a stop to it.
Their hustle ... do what they want, let the cards fall where they may and expect someone somewhere to pick up the tab.
I'm no expert, but I don't believe all Bollywood movies are musicals. I believe there are also dramas, romances, thrillers, etc. that do not involve dancing.
Not that I believe Meg is particularly popular in India. My idea was just a non-Hollywood producer looking for a publicity stunt.
As for Harry's public image - I saw a picture of a full height sitting figurine of Harry as a Mermaid in front of a fish restaurant in Spain. That's vox populi.
Archie not brought to UK - don't give two figs about it. Poor kid has become a pawn in a sick game, but I can't do anything about it. He couldn't choose his parents. What I do give fig about is a double security bill. We are paying not only for Harkles' sorry a@@@sess to guard in UK but for their son and his minder in Canada or wherever too.
Where's the *vomit* emoji when you need it?
1. Megsy, Harry and any in their entourage must be tested and cleared before they can see Archie again when returning to Canada.
2. The incubation period for the virus is at least 2 weeks.
3. Can the virus be detected during the incubation period? If not, they will have to wait at least 2 weeks after their return to be tested.
If Megsy uses work (too busy with engagements) as an excuse to leave Archie in Canada consider:
1. They each have three public engagements while she is in the UK - in a week. Each engagement takes 4 hours at the very longest.
2. Any private engagements they have can take place in their offices at BP. After all, they are paying for staff and offices until the end of March (well, Charles and the taxpayer are).
3. Frogmore Cottage is not that far from BP if they want to leave him there, but if they take him to BP with them, Harry's family can see him.
Maybe Megsy is spreading disinformation (to discredit the press) and Archie is with her?
As for keeping Archie hidden ... I do think that Harry has become obsessed with avoiding media attention. Megsy wants to use him for magazine spreads (i.e. merching) and lots of 'artistic' photographs she has taken herself. These two views clash. Megsy still needs Harry for his money and to open doors for her so she has to go along with him, but any chance she gets, she strays over the line. That walk with Archie in the park was a pap walk: the house where they were staying had a private beach, huge garden and lots of trees; Archie was hanging from her with his face squashed against her so had zero chance of interacting with the environment.
I actually feel sorry for Meghan because most of this mess is self inflicted and she does not see that so sees no need to change.
I'm no expert, but I don't believe all Bollywood movies are musicals. I believe there are also dramas, romances, thrillers, etc. that do not involve dancing.
There is an Indian buffet near me. It is somewhat downscale (kinda funky but chic) but has v good tandoori chicken. It was amusing to eat while Bollywood musicals with plenty of dancing were displayed on four hanging LED screens. Sound turned off. I am sure they have non-musicals too. Bollywood productions are popular in other Asian nations too.
Tandoori chicken tastes even better the next day, so I always smuggle out a piece or two. Place that in supermarkets and you can makes millions more than Ms. Markle.
Plus, i hate to harp on it, but i disliked that veil with that dress. Interesting how MM copied HM in having UK florals embroidered on the veil, but i guess HM was not amused!
If he is even there, if course.
Amusing article in the Spectator. Behind a paywall, so I'll paste
Best lines: California here one comes.
Part one
Will you guys take Harry and Meghan to your hearts?
California, here one comes...
Rod Liddle
MY ACCOUNT | LOG OUT
Close
US POLITICS
COCKBURN
WORLD
LIFE
ARTS
BOOKS
WRITERS
PODCAST
NEWSLETTERS
MY ACCOUNT | LOG OUT
LIFE ROD LIDDLE
Will you guys take Harry and Meghan to your hearts?
California, here one comes...
Rod Liddle
meghan
February 29, 202010:48 AM
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Whatsapp
This article is in The Spectator’s March 2020 US edition. Subscribe here.
This is clearly a highly influential publication. Only a couple of weeks after I pleaded in these pages for the repatriation to America of Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, it was accomplished. In a magnificently self-regarding and self-pitying statement to the world, Prince Harry and his recalcitrant wife announced that they would be ‘stepping back’ from royal duties and spending much more time in ‘Canada’, or, as it is more familiarly known, Los Angeles.
In this statement, released without the Queen’s knowledge, Harry and Meghan expressed a vague wish that they might at some point in time become ‘financially independent’ from the British taxpayer, seemingly possessed of the interesting belief that after resigning from a post one shouldn’t necessarily stop receiving remuneration for it, perhaps in perpetuity.
The Queen quickly put a stop to that malarkey and so, within a matter of months, you lucky Yanks may be able to hire the pair to serve drinks at bar mitzvahs, weddings and divorce parties, or maybe just to clean the pool or do some light dusting indoors. They are said to be developing their own brand in order to sell stuff to the world — a brand which right now has connotations only of whining narcissism and petulance. Yes, yes, it might do really well, then.
Don’t let the ‘Canada’ business delude you. You’ve got her, make no mistake. There is not the slightest prospect of Meghan cooling her heels in Ballsack, Saskatchewan — or even Vancouver. ‘Canada’ was mentioned as a sop to Harry, in that it is part of the Commonwealth, a kind of halfway house to freedom, like they use for criminal drug addicts who have just been released.
Nor did the Canucks explode with joy at the news. An opinion poll suggested that three-quarters of the population would rather gnaw off their own legs than pay a single cent in order to keep the pair in the manner to which they are accustomed — with retinues of flunkies, heavies to beat up press photographers, private jets, new house, quinoa smoothies, therapists and a nonbinary vegan nursery for their blameless offspring, Archie. (‘Archie’ isn’t a name, by the way. It’s a nickname, like ‘Bubba’ or ‘Jace’). No — for Megs, it’s California, Here One Comes. She had assumed that being a royal was probably no different to being a B-list sleb. She has been quickly disabused of that confusion and so B-list slebrity once again beckons, in Los Ageless, where she would blend in to the point of invisibility.
She still has her supporters here in Britain, mind you — a small fringe of losers otherwise known as ‘the left’, the people who cannot ever win elections. It is fascinating to see cultural Marxists rally behind a uniquely privileged couple whose position and wealth is the product of a deeply undemocratic institution, the monarchy. And yet it is not so surprising, really. In the last three years the British liberal-left has found succor in all sorts of places it normally loathes — Conservative politicians who argued against Brexit, the unelected House of Lords (which argued against Brexit), the Supreme Court (which ruled against Brexit), rich businesswomen who campaigned against Brexit. So it is with Meghan and Harry, on account of Meghan’s dislike of Brexit and also the pair’s ineffable, flaccid wokeness and ability to use the word ‘progressive’ in a sentence without looking deeply embarrassed. Harry and Meghan have been forced out, they argue, by the racism of the British press and the inherent racism of the British people. This is the trench that the left hastily digs for itself when all of its previous arguments are shown to be otiose. But there is not a scintilla of evidence, anywhere, to suggest that we Brits took against Meghan because of the color of her skin. It was, er, everything else, you know?
There are still some questions to be answered. What happens to Frogmore Cottage, the couple’s UK domicile, lavishly furnished to their specifications at a cost to the taxpayer of at least $3.1 million? Will it remain as an agreeable pied-à-terre when the couple wish to swing by the UK, or will they have to look for a reasonably priced hotel? Will Harry retain any royal duties at all? Will he actually get a job or just try to make money by exploiting his ancestry? And how soon will Meghan appear on a reality television show, given that there doesn’t seem to be a long line of directors anxious to cast her in anything worthwhile?
Oh, and the big question. Will you guys take the couple to your hearts? Will they receive the respect they obviously think is their due, and freedom from an intrusive media? Perhaps, in the end, too much freedom from an intrusive media, one suspects. It is true that in LA Meghan will be enveloped in a comfortable echo chamber where a kind of inane wokeness is not merely widespread but compulsory. Yet once they’re shorn of their royal duties, their capacity to interest the public will be stripped away. And I hope Meghan doesn’t get to see the wonderfully spiteful 60-second skit by Kyle Dunnigan in which she is portrayed as an arrogant, self-obsessed, gum-chewing, hair-twirling airhead who can’t remember her husband’s name.
Still, I remain greatly impressed by the speed with which suggestions made in this publication are acted upon. So here are a few more. A second term for Donald Trump, just to annoy Rose McGowan and the SJW legions. The return of Kevin Spacey to public life, now that he has been found to be innocent. And direct, cheap flights from London to New Orleans, please, with a mandatory business-class upgrade on the way home. By the end of March, please.
This article is in The Spectator’s March 2020 US edition.
Also liked the line about using "progressive" in a sentence without looking deeply embarassed
The funny thing about keeping Archie away from the RF during his baby/toddler years is many kids (a changeling) could be subbed in for Archie at a later date because kids change so much in these years and the RF has presumable only met him a couple of times as a baby.
On the other hand with DNA testing , now that is extremely unlikely.
I suppose many truths about Meghan will be exposed in the upcoming Meghan biography by Tom Bower, Prince Charles' biographer.
From an article about the book: "A publishing source told the Express: "Bower isn’t big on flattery. Finding out that he’s writing a book about you is a bit like hearing the executioner starting to sharpen his axe."
Parallel Cinema films are similar to American Independent Films. They are meant to be serious, artistic, and are not musicals. They may incorporate elements of musicals but if they do, it’s to subvert the genre.
Non-Hindi Language films can be either musicals or not but the defining feature is they are in languages other than Hindi/Punjabi. They can overlap with Parallel Cinema and be serious and artistic. The musicals they make often get turned into Bollywood films.
Bollywood films are in Hindi and are almost always musicals regardless of genre (rom-com, thriller, drama, etc...). It’s rare for them not to be a musical because that was a deliberate decision made by the industry’s founders. Every movie doesn’t entail dancing but you will have songs interspersed in the film. The cast might dance to them, lip-sync to them, or have it blast in the background while you see the actors perform without dialogue.
The serious films don’t pay much and wouldn’t be interested in Meg. The types of films that Indian producers might consider her for are Bollywood or Non-Hindi musicals. They incorporate item-dances, a byproduct from their tradition of courtesans (the Indian version of Geishas.)
Bollywood seeks out light-skinned foreigners (usually biracial) for the item-dance girl roles. They are pure eye-candy meant to titillate the male audience. To deal with the language barrier, they will have a native speaker do the dubbing. For the dancing, they would provide training. There is an actual porno actress of full Indian origin who crossed over into Bollywood and has mainstream success.
@Longview
Interesting comments about the veil and the Queen. I wondered why, when I watched the wedding on TV , why the Queen had allowed the veil. I would have thought , that if the Queen had known about Markle wearing the veil , well she would have not attended the wedding. I believe the term used in the days back , was " a diamond of the first water" to describe a pure and innocent young lady.
How shocked the Queen must have been at this wedding. Markle was no " diamond of the first water". The veil proved that she was perfectly happy to be an imposter.
Also @Nutty
When I read Mountbatten's autobiography or biography , there was no mention about the motives for the bombing except that fingers were pointed towards the IRA.
Well, many years later I read somewhere that many many young boys who were placed n orphanages ,in Ireland , had to suffer extreme abuse. The perpetrators were high up and untouchable. When these boys grew up into men, they never forgot. Word travelled around. So when Mountbatten was on that holiday, he was killed. Those orphanages were shut down. No link to terrorism.
As far as accusations about racism in Britain by victim Markle , perhaps the fact that the man voted into power by the people ( Boris Johnson ), was married to a woman of mixed Indian Sikh descent, should be highlighted by the media.
As far as Helen Mirren goes, yes I read her biography. You readers are quite correct about her being very very comfortable after hours with producers and directors. It was an unstated fact ,that Mirren was easy to work with.
Is reporting and laws on child neglect the same in Canada as it is in the US? I think in the US any child neglect reports HAVE to be investigated by the local authorities / department of human services. And missing persons/ children reports are similar. The crazy lady in Hawaii is being extradited back to her home state because she refuses to produce her 2 missing children. :(
@KCM1212, thanks for copying the Rod Liddle piece from the Spectator. He does love to use the word "otiose", doesn't he? I never remember what it means and have to look it up every time.
Notice the article states that M wants to be of an ensemble as she knows she can't carry a movie. Someone on her team if not her is aware of her limited appeal and popularity.
Ha! I did too!
"Serving no practical purpose"
They like novelty and an actress willing to do things the locals and the daughters of veterans actors won't.
Well, Meg has certainly proven herself willing to do many, many things, so this would suit her well.
Thanks @Charade! Meg would seem to be a little old for an item-girl dance number. I see her more in character roles, maybe a troublemaker, a bit like Rosalind Russell in the classic 1939 film "The Women.
_______________________________________
Nutty, may I first say thanks so much for this gem of a blog, which you have so quietly, deftly and caringly managed. So rare nowadays. I'm very grateful and I hope everyone else is :)
Secondly, may I say that 'The Women' is one of my all-time favorite movies! So effortlessly surfs the curls of feminine behavior. The ending might be a little corny, but 'corny' is very often a synonym of 'true'.
Your site has quickly become my go-to for everything Harkle. I chafe at having to take the tabloids at face value. This little community, filled with intelligent and observant people is like salve for me. I lived in Blighty for 3 years, and grew to love it as I do now.
Sorry not to stay on topic :)
Thirdly,
And as much as he admires HM, i don’t think he’d pay for their security.
A- i dont think HM would ask Trump to foot the bill for the Harkles, it would go against the RF plan to let the Harkles fail on their own and allow PH have to come crawling back. Either (enabling) PC will pay a bill or the Billionaire Harkles will have to pay it on their own as any private citizen outside the country would have to do.
B- Trump has enough trouble on his plate, is cheap, and would refuse to pay for a ridiculous extravagance like that without a benefit to himself, and their are no benefits to him
C- the CA state might volunteer to pay for their security, or even the local LA govt, but they’d get hammered because their homeless epidemic, and inabilty to pay to fix / clean up the problem.
So i think either PC (or RF) will pay during test year or the Harkles will have an Oligarch, (PA type) benefactor haha, or have to incorporate it into their business contracts.
Glad you enjoy being here. :)
T
rump does not have the institutional leeway nor political will to shell out millions and millions on private couple. We have constitutional processes in place for such monetary appropriations, like going to Congress for a budgetary item. Congress will not allow it not even the left. It is a political reality.
To think that the State of California would foot the bill on a semi-permanent basis is even less likely. It hasn't been but a few years ago that Cali was facing bankruptcy. The state has a tremendous load of social programs it must support. In addition, the other day I wrote here that the populace could enact a proposition for or against funding this ludicrous situation; well historically the citizens have used this political mechanism to put the brakes on govt. spending not increase it (or conversely decrease taxation like Prop.13 successfully did).
That leaves the regional or local governmental bodies to shell out millions; in the case of LA county where Malibu is located, they are straining under the cost of the massive homeless population and all that it entails (police, health care, social services, etc., etc., ). Add to that the sizeable influx of immigrants and all the costs associated with that. Then having lived tere, I think the residents would balk at the mere thought of some celebrities (which is what the Harkles are, not royalty) not bankrolling their own security. Heck there are hundreds, or thousands of celebrities who could then whine they need police protection.
I don't have to get into the politician bashing that goes on here, to say it would not be a popular or smart move for a US politician to advocate for millions to be spent on these two constitutionally irrelevant individuals, especially in an election year. Oh that would be a gift for some opponent to point out in the cutthroat campaigning how some stupid politician wanted to give away our hard earned tax dollars to a D-list actress and her throwaway ex-royal husband. All one needs to do is put up some still shots of Meghan's simulating sex and Harry in a Nazi uniform for Californians to get the picture...no politician is going to get behind that (even if Auntie Oprah likes them).
Washington state is little more than spitting distance from Vancouver Island.
Where will Markle run to?
Wait what??? Mentioning MM
in the same sentence as Rosiland Russell??!!
No, the idea was that she could do a troublemaker type role, like Rosiland Russell played in "The Women" - Sylvia Fowler.
I believe Annette Bening played the role in the terrible remake.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8062263/Duchess-Cornwall-known-Princess-not-Queen-Charles-crowned.html
Sounds like the Regency is getting closer.
Sincere thanks for posting the Spectator piece! What a great fun. People there do have a scathing sense of humor.
"Still, I remain greatly impressed by the speed with which suggestions made in this publication are acted upon. So here are a few more. A second term for Donald Trump, just to annoy Rose McGowan and the SJW legions. The return of Kevin Spacey to public life, now that he has been found to be innocent. And direct, cheap flights from London to New Orleans, please, with a mandatory business-class upgrade on the way home. By the end of March, please."
This was agreed and made public knowledge when Charles was going to marry her, as both are divorcees. 🤗
As late as June 2019, Royal-adjacent talking heads like Victoria Arbiter were floating trial balloons:
“Out of sensitivity to Diana, it was announced Camilla would use The Duchess of Cornwall as her official title,” Victoria Arbiter wrote. “Then, come Charles’ accession, she would be known as Princess Consort as opposed to Queen Consort. ‘Princess Consort’ remains the official Palace line, but when the day finally dawns I suspect Charles will insist his wife adopt her rightful title.” She continued, “To accept anything less would be to admit fault and, this many years on, it strikes me as unnecessarily cautious for Camilla to be Queen Consort in all but name.”
A new statement that Princess Consort will be all there is seems significant to me.
Personally, I don't think Camilla ever cared one way or another. This always seemed like a Charles thing to me.
Absolutely Charles wants/wanted her to called Queen. Agree too, Camilla doesn’t mind, she wasn’t bothered about getting married either. They had to get married for decorum’s sake (he couldn’t be King with his mistress on the throne), especially as he was the heir to the throne. 🤗
Here is the really interesting bit about this story:
'The source continued, “Spotting that her man Stedman Graham was running to stage (he sat in the VIP section near Gayle King and Meghan Markle’s mother Doria Ragland), Oprah said, ‘Look at my man coming to help me.'” He didn’t make it to the stage however, as the 66-year-old was already on her feet after taking such a fall. Her adoring audience applauded her the minute she rebounded where Oprah didn’t take any chances after that as she then walked around barefoot while continuing on with the show.'
The pregnancy/birth is when this all became part of the superwonkysphere (yes, I made up that word). The BRF distancing themselves, no photos, etc., we all know the pieces. Then, a huge fight between William & H FKAP the night before Archie's appearance at the polo match (could it have been that W&K didn't want to be seen in public with Fauxrchie, and not just because of the olive-tent horror in a yak wig?).
Something tells me that she, in particular, is running from something and dragging H FKAP with her because he is, at this point, complicit. The BRF know, but obviously have some plausible deniability left in their bag o'royal tricks, otherwise there'd be no sadness shade (nice play, Your Maj). But what? Surrogacy would do it, but is it worse than that? Harry's resistance to having the press snap photos of Archie just doesn't explain all the crazy.
I'm also not convinced that Rach is just a narcissist. I think her level of cray-cray may go deeper, although I certainly have no medical training and couldn't/wouldn't begin to diagnose from my loveseat. Can narcissism alone account for her level of delusion? As I previously posted, I have researched one person who created these outrageous stories and, sadly, a lot of high(ish)-profile people fell for it. When he was discovered, evidence provided, there were some actually angry with me. I can see that level of fraud in Rach now, too. There are people so damaged and desperate emotionally that they will create complex and multiple, sometimes even conflicting, fictions to get the sympathy, attention, and affection of their audience; they'll make grandiose claims of expertise and ability to earn respect. Rach, IMO, has done all of that, and I suspect the story of Fauxrchie fits into her web somewhere. But where?
For almost a year now, @Hikari has been working the Fauxrchie theories. At first, I considered some too much of a stretch, but at this point and all the damage done, I have started thinking maybe... So, @Hikari, I'm listening. I just know it leads to Fauxrchie. And Ozmanda, what's your spidey sense say from a professional standpoint? What happens in the week ahead and after March 31? This puzzle is intriguing and so frustrating. Anyway, I just think that Her Maj's 'summons' and the death throes of Rach & H FKAPs "royalty" is not-to-be-missed and Nutty's post is once again right on time. Something wicked this way comes.
It is all well and good that Camilla observes the title of 'Princess Consort'. She is smart. There is no way she will ever be 'Queen'.
I can think of a certain 'royal' wife. Who is busy-busy-busy digging herself deeper into ugliness and ignominy and a horrible place in history.
M if she is indeed showing up, will be there as the guest of he British Vogue editor (he is the worst editor for British Vogue, and in my opinion, very hostile and racist towards white people.). Thus Meg is not invited for herself, but as the guest of a guest. The spare, ironically.
The United States Homeland security, of which the Secret Service, in a disastrous move, is an agency under the bloated bureaucracy, is in charge of government security. It will be impossible for them to just give security to another country’s ex royal. We do not have royalty, FGS, and fought a war to be independent. HAMS and their kid? are afforded diplomatic protection whilst working in the USA only for the Queen. After the millions of dollars, and the “leaked” comments from State Department officials, this will not be repeated. Most celebrities hire ex-Israeli military who must be American citizens in order to be armed. Funny, all the Hollyweird are for massive gun control, except when it comes to their own hides, hidden by spiked fences and walls from the great unwashed.
I think you may be on to something. It did start unravelling after the baby's birth. Her behavior got bizarre, secrecy and mania about the birth went overboard, strange circumstances like absence of signatures of doctors, BP not informed and forced to act in a rush, Harry's ominous mistakes "babies change so much in two weeks" speaking of a newborn, she caressing the top of baby's head which should never be touched in a newborn, Queen removing their pictures, nannies dropping off right and left, Harry's erratic behavior in public etc etc.
There is something very wrong with the whole saga.
From Rod Liddle article:
"There is not the slightest prospect of Meghan cooling her heels in Ballsack, Saskatchewan..."
Incidentally, there is a place called Balzac but it's in Alberta. We who live here do tend to mispronounce it with some frequency... :D
Did you notice that the so called anti-racist movement becomes more and more polarizing instead of having a unifying effect? It is because the skin colour still matters to these people, though they twist it as a positive. One thing is celebrating the cultures of many races equally, another one is using race as excuse for hypocrisy.
I can name several women of colour who did huge amount of good without demanding preferential treatment. Priti Patel, Dr. Alexa Canady (the firs black women neurosurgeon), Dr. Mae Jemison, the first black woman astronaut, Mary Mahoney, the first licensed black nurse, Marian Anderson, the first black opera singer to perform in the White House and Metropolitan opera.
Markle remains a controversial and polarizing figure because she behaves as if her colour itself as an achievement demanding universal respect. She will continue clinging to various exclusive groups. Without this and her marriage to Harry she has really little to recommend her. Remove her royal status and she melts compared with a lot more deserving and prominent people.
You said just what I was thinking. Megsy will go, would luv to go to the Met Ball but only if someone else is paying. She would love to swan around there and network, but at present money is too tight (to mention). She only needs one loaded sponsor and it just might happen.
Admission is in the area of $30,000. This might cover two people?
Of course the BRF wasn't watching MM give birth in the hospital. That would be rather intrusive, wouldn't it?
I was using that as a major example that the BRF was kept in the dark about Archie's birth and if he truly is "of the body." If push comes to shove surrounding Archie's birth, the BRF could use this fact as plausible deniability on their part because of this. They saw no baby being born, and only saw a child whom Harry and MM presented to them as an heir to the throne.
Then came the christening and a baby was presented to them as an heir to the throne by The Harkles. How is the BRF to know that this baby is of the body? Why would they even question that The Harkles would be duplicitous about the origins of Archie?
Somebody was asking whether the BRF could be drawn into this mess by willfully lying about what they knew about Archie. I was supplying a counter argument on how they can use plausible deniability to release the BRF in complicity in any scheme surrounding Archie's origins
They accepted the word of The Harkles as an heir to the throne, based on what The Harkles presented to them and why would they expect the Harkles to lie about this, so they accepted it as fact, as most families do.
Bascially, it comes down to the fact that if you don't really see something, how can you know it's true?
Rosalind Russell as “Auntie Mame”......she could do it all, and BRILLIANTLY I might add....comedy, drama, I can never pass on that movie when it comes on TMC here in. the US! She was also brilliant in “The Women” and it was a toss up between her and Norma Shearer as far as who stole that movie! Sorry but I could not stand Joan Fontaine’s character!
And yes, @FairyCrodile, Fauxrchie is when it started to unwind at rapid speed, and of course, we've all considered that in pieces, but much of the story has been sliced and diced into different pieces -- are those competing clusters or are they diversionary tactics with Fauxrchie at the center?
None of us know with certainty, but what happens if we consider every grand delusion since the announcement with Fauxrchie's story at the center, and every lie/drama/distraction/erratic decision springs from that center? When something seems "off" to me, and I get a sudden flash, it's often a meaningful one, and in this case, I think the key is Fauxrchie, not because I consciously choose to think it but because my intuition keeps dragging me back there again and again.
Thanks! It's difficult to explain plausible deniability, so I'm glad that you got my drift. I think the BRF is in the clear on that part of the MM saga because of this.
I, too, was imagining the entire BRF standing around MM's hospital bed, watching all of the action, and it gave me a good chuckle. That would be quite a sight, huh!
And completely OT, does anyone else think Samantha Markles daughter looks exactly like Meghan?
There was speculation at one point that Noel was actually Meg's daughter from her first, annulled marriage; Noel also looks a lot like Joseph Goldman-Giuliano, Meg's classmate at Northwestern, and the ages roughly line up.
Unlike Samantha Markle, Noel hasn't sought publicity or tried to make any money off her family connections, so I think we should leave her alone.
Another consideration is that all of the BRF's chess pieces may have been moved with this in mind. If that were the case, then all moves post-pregnancy announcement would need to be considered from that perspective. One example that comes to mind is the article about Rach being "overdue" and the next day, on Clooney's birthday, voila. One of many: https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/05/meghan-markle-might-give-birth-hospital-instead-frogmore-cottage-9414638/
And re the birthing bed, I'm sure that the Senior BRF have already seen enough of Rach in various stages of undress from her "professional career".
I concur on all of your points! That last minute switcheroo from a home birth to the hospital, the odd timing of the release of Archie's birth announcement to the press, and it's unusual lack of physicians signatures adds more to the story. But, again, unless the BRF was physically in the hospital room and witnessed the birth, there was no way that they could absolutely confirm that Archie is of the body. They could only go on what they were told by The Harkles.
Documents can be altered and some physician have been known to lie before. Remember that they stayed away from the Lido Wing and wouldn't present Archie on the day of birth. The BRF could have fallen for the The Harkles quest for absolute privacy without knowing the real reason. Hence, the plausible deniability comes into play.
@JocelynsBellinis,’I was using that as a major example that the BRF was kept in the dark about Archie's birth and if he truly is "of the body." If push comes to shove surrounding Archie's birth, the BRF could use this fact as plausible deniability on their part because of this. They saw no baby being born, and only saw a child whom Harry and MM presented to them as an heir to the throne.’
Arh. I understand now why you said what did.🤗 I’m one of the few Nutties who believes Megs did give birth to Archie herself. Too many lies, and too many layers of lies would have to be told for it to wash. I don’t believe either Meghan or Harry could deceive the royal family over a fake birth. I don’t think the royal family would be that foolish to go along with a lie, or collude with Meghan and Harry with a plausible one. 🙁
His Girl Friday
Thanks! I am on the fence as to whether Archie is real, that they used a surrogate or that MM gave birth to him. There aren't enough facts to make to a solid conclusion, so it could be any of those things. Some people believe any one of these options, and I believe in their right to do so. It IS a good mystery, though, isn't it? :)
@JocelynsBellinis, ‘It IS a good mystery, though, isn't it? :)’
Everyone loves a good mystery! 😁
I do believe she used a doll for that ludicrous pap (unofficial ) walk in Canada though. 🥴No nappy, and it looked far too lifeless to be a real baby. 🤔
I would never suspect that they would collude. I do think that there is a way this could happened without that, however:
If Rach announced the pregnancy, the BRF would have believed that she was preggers. Why wouldn't they? No one was seeing her naked. They wouldn't have known about any bumps. Rach could've gotten away with several months' worth of lies. She & FKAP didn't even live at KP, and the breakdown had already begun, so it's not like she and Kate were besties sharing pregnancy details.
Of course, at some point, Harry FKAP would have realized he'd been duped, but obvs decided to go along (I can see that happening; Rach had quite the hold.). He was totally controlled by her and would not want to lose face. I can see how she'd have convinced him to go along.
The BRF might have been suspicious, but how would they have known with certainty? No royal doctors, no Lido Wing, no family visiting, no photos except at BP and the Christening. No W&K interaction whatsoever -- that polo match was proof of that. How would the BRF have known? Suspecting is one thing, knowing is another.
At some point, this started going off the rails, and I suspect at that point, some digging was done. But even if the BRF found out that it was all a fraud and was by surrogate or whatever nefarious means, what would they do? Run screaming the news from Buckingham Palace? I think not. That is not done. They're not Americans dumping their dysfunction for the world to dissect. Instead, the BRF would maintain plausible deniability while slowly leaking the news thru trusted third parties, leaving the BRF defenses intact. This is not collusion. This is smart strategy.
If Rach was preggers and did give birth, there is still something terribly off about this entire saga. I can't prove it, but I know it.
Great post! Completely agree. I don't think the public will ever know the truth of "Archie's" origins and will be expected to accept that he is Archie Harkle. I'm sure the BRF knows the truth and is sorting things out internally.
*********************
Oh absolutely, forgive me if I came across as meaning to attack her! I just read an article with her in it and was staggered at how much she favors Meghan. I look more like one of my aunts than I do my mother, so I know it isn't unusual per se, but she stuck me as looking a little like Doria, even.
Agree. Proud parents enjoying show off their babies to their family. Especially the first born. I remember watching my parents interact with their grandbabies. It was a very special time full of love.
@Raspberry Ruffle,
Of course the BRF wasn't watching MM give birth in the hospital. That would be rather intrusive, wouldn't it?
Guaranteed that that MI6 knows exactly what is up.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018050248293/prince-louis-birth-certificate-different-prince-george-princess-charlotte/
Archie was born after Louis, and as you can see in the following, his birth certificate resembles that of Louis:
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/mother-and-baby/2019051873193/error-spotted-archie-harrison-birth-certificate/
If Megs and Harry had managed to dodge the above and did use a surrogate, no physician worth their salt would knowingly deceive the crown, it would cost them everything (if they were found out). Their reputation and their job for life, they’d be ruined.
The dubious duo means and power are lowly and inadequate, and not even comparable to that of the royal family and crown as a whole. Overall, this scenario would be giving both Megs and Harry far too much credit if they could pull off a truly massive stunt like that IMHO.
I do agree there were peculiarities regarding releasing the time of birth etc., but I feel it was more about smoke and mirrors and them wanting to garner more media attention etc. , than anything else.🤗
I’m hoping there’s no typos and grammatical errors, but my phone takes over and changes what I type as I go along, even when I go back and correct over and over again. 😟