Has the story of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex entered its endgame?
Late Tuesday, the Daily Mail was informed that "as part of their new working arrangements, (the couple) will not be able to use the Sussex Royal name as they had hoped."
This makes perfect sense, considering that at some point later this spring, the Sussexes' retreat from the Royal Family will be complete. If you're no longer Royal, you have no right to brand yourself as such.
But it puts paid to the enormous amount of time and effort the Sussexes (read: Meghan and her Los Angeles-based team) have spent copyrighting the name and buying associated internet domains.
"Dozens of trademark applications were made for everything from bandanas to notebooks," the Daily Mail reports, "although sources have always stressed that these were preventative measures to protect the trademark from others, and never intended for commercial use."
Yeah, right.
The Sussexes could certainly rebrand, perhaps simply as "Harry and Meghan," a bit like "Kelly and Ryan" or, for our followers with longer memories, "Steve and Eydie." (Or even "George and Gracie" for followers with even longer memories or a history fetish.)
On a recent trip to the US, I was surprised to see how many magazine covers still feature the Sussexes - I really didn't think interest was that strong. Meghan holding Archie was the main image on the cover Life Magazine's "Year in Review" for 2019.
Somebody is clearly buying what they're selling, even if right now they're only selling their life story.
But to be frank, that's all they really have to sell. Without the stated Royal connection, will they be able to leverage their story into a business?
Most celebrity fandom has an element of self-identification to it: "They're just like us!", or at least us a reimagined by a glam squad.
Sometimes it has an element of wishful projection - all those accountants and office managers who follow heavy metal, violent rappers, or the Real Housewives for a taste of the dangerous or decadent lives they don't want to live themselves.
Which type of fandom can the Sussexes offer?
If they were a more likeable couple, a daytime talk show would be a fun idea - the (slightly) multi-racial couple meeting people and figuring out how to raise their non-traditional (i.e. surrogate-born) child.
But Meghan is irritating and Harry is inarticulate. Nobody wants to have them in the background as they eat breakfast or fold laundry or take the dishes out of the dishwasher, which is one of the functions of daytime TV.
They could still sell products, perhaps under the Harry and Meghan brand (although they'd have to avoid confusion with the popular gift fruit baskets). But what would make their products special without the Royal imprimatur?
And their other ventures - a speaking career, a voiceover career, a supposed bid for an honorary doctorate at Stanford - have so far come to nothing.
(Meghan should have aimed lower if she wanted a honorary doctorate. There are hundreds of struggling liberal arts colleges in the US that would be happy to give her one for publicity value alone. Perhaps a small women's college trying to bring in students?)
The big question is, at what point does Meghan decide she's better off without Harry and throw in the towel?
The endgame of the Sussex "empire" may be in sight.
Any value he might have as a baby model is rapidly diminishing as he approaches (or perhaps has already passed) his first birthday.
His parents seem perfectly happy to travel to Floria, California, or any place else they may be visiting without him.
Who's taking care of Archie? Is he in North America with his parents? Are his parents - one narcissist and one deeply depressed, unemployed, possible addict - in any condition to take care for him at all?
This is simply stupid, for so many reasons. First of all, given that George was her first pregnancy, how would Kate have known in advance that she'd have such a difficult time of it?
Secondly, given that George is the heir, Kate must have had a reproductive health check before the wedding and constant monitoring throughout the pregnancy. The idea is just dumb.
Enty has acknowledged that his main source on Royal matters is someone within Meghan's camp, and I wouldn't be shocked if it were Meghan herself. Could there be a deal in place there? Publish item X so I will continue to supply you with items Y and Z?
(The surrogate item ran at 815 PST on Sunday, and two other Royal items ran at 830 and 915 that same day.)
Enty's always been a little flexible with the truth, which is why his old confederate John Doe recently publicly cut ties with him. I don't see him as being above publishing a little nonsense to keep his Sussex connection going.
(There's a new one today suggesting that Meg has been meeting with the GOOP marketing guru. Sounds like a Meg plant, as does this one suggesting that Meg is ready to disclose all of Harry's sexual fetishes.)
Anyway, Enty has been embarrassed in the past by his lack of royal sources, and he's very conscious of which stories are most popular and get the most hits. This is something he mentions constantly on his podcast.
It could be that the Sussex side is continuing to sell the fiction of a Cambridge surrogacy in order to soften the ground for any news of a Sussex surrogacy.
Late Tuesday, the Daily Mail was informed that "as part of their new working arrangements, (the couple) will not be able to use the Sussex Royal name as they had hoped."
This makes perfect sense, considering that at some point later this spring, the Sussexes' retreat from the Royal Family will be complete. If you're no longer Royal, you have no right to brand yourself as such.
But it puts paid to the enormous amount of time and effort the Sussexes (read: Meghan and her Los Angeles-based team) have spent copyrighting the name and buying associated internet domains.
"Dozens of trademark applications were made for everything from bandanas to notebooks," the Daily Mail reports, "although sources have always stressed that these were preventative measures to protect the trademark from others, and never intended for commercial use."
Yeah, right.
The "Harry and Meghan" rebrand
So what now?The Sussexes could certainly rebrand, perhaps simply as "Harry and Meghan," a bit like "Kelly and Ryan" or, for our followers with longer memories, "Steve and Eydie." (Or even "George and Gracie" for followers with even longer memories or a history fetish.)
On a recent trip to the US, I was surprised to see how many magazine covers still feature the Sussexes - I really didn't think interest was that strong. Meghan holding Archie was the main image on the cover Life Magazine's "Year in Review" for 2019.
Somebody is clearly buying what they're selling, even if right now they're only selling their life story.
But to be frank, that's all they really have to sell. Without the stated Royal connection, will they be able to leverage their story into a business?
Celebrities and self-identification
Most celebrity fandom has an element of self-identification to it: "They're just like us!", or at least us a reimagined by a glam squad.Sometimes it has an element of wishful projection - all those accountants and office managers who follow heavy metal, violent rappers, or the Real Housewives for a taste of the dangerous or decadent lives they don't want to live themselves.
Which type of fandom can the Sussexes offer?
If they were a more likeable couple, a daytime talk show would be a fun idea - the (slightly) multi-racial couple meeting people and figuring out how to raise their non-traditional (i.e. surrogate-born) child.
But Meghan is irritating and Harry is inarticulate. Nobody wants to have them in the background as they eat breakfast or fold laundry or take the dishes out of the dishwasher, which is one of the functions of daytime TV.
What's left?
So what do the Sussexes have left without @SussexRoyal?They could still sell products, perhaps under the Harry and Meghan brand (although they'd have to avoid confusion with the popular gift fruit baskets). But what would make their products special without the Royal imprimatur?
And their other ventures - a speaking career, a voiceover career, a supposed bid for an honorary doctorate at Stanford - have so far come to nothing.
(Meghan should have aimed lower if she wanted a honorary doctorate. There are hundreds of struggling liberal arts colleges in the US that would be happy to give her one for publicity value alone. Perhaps a small women's college trying to bring in students?)
The big question is, at what point does Meghan decide she's better off without Harry and throw in the towel?
The endgame of the Sussex "empire" may be in sight.
And what about Archie?
Finally, what about Archie? His face now hasn't been seen in a non-Photoshopped version for nearly 6 months, dating back to his South Africa appearance in September 2019.Any value he might have as a baby model is rapidly diminishing as he approaches (or perhaps has already passed) his first birthday.
His parents seem perfectly happy to travel to Floria, California, or any place else they may be visiting without him.
Who's taking care of Archie? Is he in North America with his parents? Are his parents - one narcissist and one deeply depressed, unemployed, possible addict - in any condition to take care for him at all?
A side note
Finally, a side note about our old friend Enty at CrazyDaysandNights. Enty recently published yet another suggestion that the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince George via a surrogate.This is simply stupid, for so many reasons. First of all, given that George was her first pregnancy, how would Kate have known in advance that she'd have such a difficult time of it?
Secondly, given that George is the heir, Kate must have had a reproductive health check before the wedding and constant monitoring throughout the pregnancy. The idea is just dumb.
Enty has acknowledged that his main source on Royal matters is someone within Meghan's camp, and I wouldn't be shocked if it were Meghan herself. Could there be a deal in place there? Publish item X so I will continue to supply you with items Y and Z?
(The surrogate item ran at 815 PST on Sunday, and two other Royal items ran at 830 and 915 that same day.)
Enty's always been a little flexible with the truth, which is why his old confederate John Doe recently publicly cut ties with him. I don't see him as being above publishing a little nonsense to keep his Sussex connection going.
(There's a new one today suggesting that Meg has been meeting with the GOOP marketing guru. Sounds like a Meg plant, as does this one suggesting that Meg is ready to disclose all of Harry's sexual fetishes.)
Anyway, Enty has been embarrassed in the past by his lack of royal sources, and he's very conscious of which stories are most popular and get the most hits. This is something he mentions constantly on his podcast.
It could be that the Sussex side is continuing to sell the fiction of a Cambridge surrogacy in order to soften the ground for any news of a Sussex surrogacy.
Comments
Yes exactly...the Queen can make anything happen! But before she acts, she finds out everything she needs to know before she makes a move. Many have commented on how she may be slow to act. So is this a race between the tortoise and the hare? Maybe an apt analogy. She waited to learn, observe and then decide. She has acted after much thought, research and careful consideration of the consequences regarding the options no doubt.
She has been on the throne decades, as an experienced ruler who has stood the test of time. Not as a simple duke but a Monarch. a leader who has learned a long time ago to rely on court officials whose sole purpose is to give the Queen all the information needed in which to make sound lasting decisions. As an excellent ruler, it was her habit to obtain the facts and knowledge to aid in her coming to conclusions which would be legal, correct and best for the country and the commonwealth. Most anyone can see she puts her sovereign duty first and paramount over even her family's needs or circumstances as is true for most great rulers. This decision regarding Harry and Meghan is probably one of the hardest she ever made and it was done with the utmost care in all likelihood.
If you will. she listened to the heartfelt desires of the duo. researched the law, was advised by court officials and select members of Parliament, pondered long and hard and came to a decision that had to be made for not only the parties involved but the country now and in the future. For those who question the Queen's decision would almost have to be saying she and her advisors are inept, even treasonous in their actions if they are attempting to circumvent the law of the land for personal ulterior and illegal purposes. For these reasons, I think the Queen should be applauded for making such a difficult decision that will go down in the history books as a precedent-setting act other royals will respect in the future.
As for the HAMS, they brought this on themselves by putting the cart before the horse. How often jas people observed that Meg is not good with details and this could be one of them. However, it is possible that Harry thought he could get by with escaping from the royal family with as much as they could grab and go but they overplayed their hand. Gan-Gan and indeed the BRF was disrespected at best and taken advantage of, by submitting a laundry list of items they demanded in their manifesto. They got their freedom. some money, to keep their HRH tho not to use it and was stopped from being to make bank off their SussessRoyal brand which went against the law of the land and the Crown. They can pout, they can cry, or they can pick up their marbles and go home...too bad, they were outplayed by an old lady. They are luck they didn't get put in the Tower, which surely would have happened if they attempted a coup against the Crown a mere four hundred years ago. So if they are smart they won't pick another fight with her Majesty.
God Save the Queen!!
"Would Charles fund their side of a suit against his mother and the country?"
I wondered about that too. If they persist in using Royal and if the Queen decided to take legal action then probably yes, Charles would be funding it (albeit indirectly).
Harkles have not shown the ability to earn enough money to finance a big lawsuit (and Charles is probably already getting stuck with the MOS bill). So they would have to use money from Daddy's allowance.
Which means Charles (as heir apparent) would be funding a lawsuit agains himself.
It would not surprise me if the Harkles are going to stiff everyone (i.e. not pay their MOS lawyers etc). This I could actually see happening because MM knows that the Palace would pick up the tab to avoid embarrassment. In the words of other Royals: "Send the bill to the Palace".
Lovely.
I doubt the full credit for the decision goes to the Queen. It has been stated there were "family discussions".
I should think Phillip, Wills and possibly Anne made their opinion very clear, plus some very intelligent people took trouble to enlighten her Maj how far the merching of the Crown could potentially go. These people know things we don't
I think the Queen's hand was very cleverly directed in this.
That’s rather lame to compare her non tight wearing etc., to them being banned from using ‘royal’ for their dodgy business shenanigans. The last time I checked you couldn’t be potentially sued and your reputation left in tatters for not wearing tights, hats etc., at royal events. 🙄
I am sooooooo curious as to what EXACTLY it is that has made Harry sooooo angry and bitter and resentful to be acting this was. It could have all been handled soooo much better. In private!!!!!!!!!
P.s. If he still allowed to be “Prince” Harry....that’s all they need!!!!!!!
My point was not to compare the act of not wearing tights with the act of continuing to use Royal. That would be silly. It was merely meant to be an example of how she slowly tested the waters and came to the conclusion that nothing of consequence is done if you break the rules. While most of us have the moral compass to at least be respectful, even if at times it may cause us some discomfort, she does not. Would it harm her to wear tights? No. Was she punished for not wearing tights? No. She was given "Princess lessons" by Samantha Cohen so she knew, absolutely knew, that Harry goes first. Always. Always. And did she let him? No. Was she punished? No.
So my point is that she figured out early on that actions do not have consequences. Goes a long way in explaining her behavior.
Hence I could see (not saying they will) them continueng to use "Royal".
I agree with all you said about no consequences for misbehavior...it’s been that way from Day One. The stakes are higher now, legally speaking, but Markle will test these waters too. She is a free range American citizen outside of the U.K. she will try some shady deals with Sussex Royal...just to show her utter contempt for the Queen. So let’s stay she launches a product line of SussexRoyal baby onesies. The Queen’s lawyers send her a strongly worded desist letter. She continues. They threaten lawsuit . She continues. They sue. She fails to appear. She loses in absentia. She claims she’s broke and can’t pay a farthing. Queen or drops it bc she’s wind up paying herself through Charles. Even if Meg’s whole stock of made in China baby onesies is impounded, she’ll be onto another. Another rogue business would be swiftly quashed because there would be real financial and legal repurcussions for someone’s not related to the Queen by blood or marriage. The DumDums have both. As long as Harrybis part of the rogue faction a hurt but loving gran and father isn’t going to reinforce the throwing of the book. It’s all words and second chances ad nauseum. Meg needs to hold onto Harry for the protection he provides.,,as long as he’s in the picture it’s gonna be loopholed and half measured in the hope that the traitorous prodigal will return. They could milk this until William ascends but I think Haz will be dead by then if they are still married.
Blind Item #12
"They can say what they like, but the alliterate one is holding firm to no appearances in the UK at all. Her husband will show up, but only if there is not a conflict with a paying gig."
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net
>>>MustySyphone: "Will the HaMS continue to use Royal? I could see it. She is quite insightful in that she realized early on there are no significant consequences to misbehaving. She tested the waters with no tights, hats, pushing ahead of Harry, etc. No major punishments (lack of access to Crown jewels--big deal)."
Exactly!<<
So not wearing tights, or a hat or pushing in front of Harry is by your logic the same as the Queen's direct order and the law of the land (a law of international importance). So your examples had no consequences so the same should apply if if HAMS disobeys the edict not to use Sussex Royal?
I would maintain there was no consequence of not wearing tights, hat or pushing ahead of Harry because it was not against the law or a direct order of the Queen. I believe it was protocol which is like manners, something people should do but not required to do.
If HAMS decide to go against an order of the Queen and against a law of the land (indeed a law with international ramifications) it is not a simple lack of protocol. Should a consequence attach to such a serious violation? I would think so and should. Why should HAMS be allowed to violate any law, when Harry still is subject to theMonarchy rules and he has pledged his allegiance. I am not sure what Meghan;s responsibility to the Queen is, Sussex Royal is her husband's handiwork since he is the holder of the Dukedom on which the name is derived from.
I will use an analogy...not wearing tights (mere preference by the Queen), is like me only using one license plate on my vehicle (not a big deal). Or to go more extreme, maybe me not putting on my blinker before turning (actually a driving violation). But the HAMS going against the law of the land and against a direct order of the Monarch, a ruler who Harry pledged his allegiance. is like me going down to the Federal Reserve Bank and committing a bank robbery or maybe me going to the White House and kidnapping Trump's son. It is wrong, very wrong whether I get caught or not or whether I have consequences or not.
So in summary 1. People can commit a wrong even if they don't face consequences. 2. All wrongs are not interchangeable to an aggrieved party. 3. Serious wrongs deserve serious consequences.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/19/harry-and-meghan-to-split-from-royal-family-on-31-march
"Meanwhile his 93 year old grandmother gets dressed and goes to work.
OUCH. So true.
'If they want to give up all their free stuff and pay for everything themselves then good luck to them, but even then if she makes tens of millions of dollars it won’t be because of her acting work, it will be because she married Prince Harry.'
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/piers-morgan-meghan-harry
A question for folk here: Media is reporting that the BP office is being closed down (expected but I was on the fence about them keeping one member of staff there for liaison) and that they will be represented by their foundation in the UK. Holy Moly, geez Louise ... does the foundation have employees or an office (and who is going to pay for that) and surely they need someone who understands royal protocol and family dynamics plus a whole lot of legal stuff and media stuff? They do not have a good track record of hiring the right staff nor of keeping staff. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen to me. Surely the directors (whatever) they have already appointed are not going to represent them in the UK?
LOL Thank you for the credit re:Typo Excuses...but you are probably too young to qualify (no need to reveal age here)
Meghan's proclivity to bending the rules in the BRF probably is a function of her Narc personality everyone always cites..Her father commented that she bent the rules from an early age and it is not surprizing since she lies, manipulates and scams.
On the issue of whether Charles would fund a potential lawsuit if Queen needed to sue the HAMS...well I think he would not. I think as a loving father he would encourage his son to do the right thing by obeying the Queen (Charles has an allegiance to his Mother also) the law of the land. Charles should threaten Harry with withdrawing funding altogether if HAMS doesn't follow the agreement. No parent does their child a favor by aiding and abetting wrongdoing.
If the HAMS don't abide by the agreements with the Queen, then she should strip them of their titles.
Does anyone know when the trial will start?
Is Meghan deluded enough to go ahead with this or will she pull out (and pay costs)? A minor role on a minor legal TV series does not make her a legal expert and winning in real life is not as easy as winning on a TV show.
By the way, where are the Harkles going to stay when they are in the UK? Frogmore Cottage has been locked up and staff let go. Is the Queen going to lend them staff for a week or two or will Megsy and Harry simply stay in a very expensive hotel?
https://madworldnews.com/meghan-harry-queen-scam/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7866679/Duke-Duchess-facade-crumbled-writes-RICHARD-KAY.html
It is actually just a summary of major mistakes made by the Sussexes.
And the following is a summary of the most recent events:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8021217/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-lose-Buckingham-Palace-office-April.html
@LiverBird: You’re on the mark with this comment. Now that Meghan has had a good look at people with truly big money, she wants that too. As a narcissist, valuing herself by how much stuff she has is typical behavior. The problem they will have us that her taste and cravings far out distance whatever money they will make, because as you said, she will never be satisfied with X amount of money, X number of homes, etc.
I think they will eventually experience money problems due to her desire for an uber extravagant lifestyle to keep up with the Joneses. Charles might tire of funding their nonsense, and William will likely cut them off as soon as possible.
I think their shelf life is limited because they diminished their brand by the manner in which they departed, and they no longer have the cache of being part of the REAL royal family. They are camping out on the steps like homeless people, and as a couple, they probably will never be allowed to come in from the cold to experience the warmth. Who in their right mind wants to associate with a pair who cast themselves out of the most well known and prestigious royal family on the planet? After all, it’s not as if Harry or Meghan can ever invite someone to sit in the royal box at Wimbledon ever again or access to a garden party or similar event. That bridge was burned to a crisp in January.
When the money runs out, Meghan will run out too.
“Who in their right mind wants to associate with a pair who cast themselves out of the most well known and prestigious royal family on the planet? After all, it’s not as if Harry or Meghan can ever invite someone to sit in the royal box at Wimbledon ever again or access to a garden party or similar event. That bridge was burned to a crisp in January.”
I think the concept of monarchy, especially with a commonwealth, is on the verge of being abolished. Albert David said as much when he abdicated. (I would have to find that reference for a receipt, but if you read about the abdication, you will likely find it). They are well-known in as much for their dysfunction as anything else and prestigious as any intentionally smaller monarchy in Europe. As far as monarchies go, theirs makes the most noise, yes, but it’s not always tasteful.
I believe many people, including European royalty, support this drive to help make the monarchy smaller and to do this on their own. I forget which monarch basically said that they will find their way in time. (Paraphrased and speaking of HAMS).
I think the idea that there is more cache for Harry if he is living within the monarchy to be overstated. He is Prince Harry, and truly I think that is all he needs.
As I mentioned before, I seriously don’t think HM is as worried/disgusted/antagonized by them as many people here are.
All my opinion, of course.
Interesting article on the National Theatre. I am flummoxed by the idea she is an "engaged" patron. Without the direct quotes I would say it's her PR, but that may be naive. I have wondered what that last meeting in the day of the manifesto was about.
It occurs to me that if the RF has to battle it out in court over the Sussex Royal name, they might find themselves paying for both sides of the courtroom! It's is most likely Charles' money paying for their legal counsel now.
And may I correct my earlier thoughts? I meant to say the Harkles might very well be met by booing in the UK. A scene I would thoroughly enjoy.
I'm sorry Abbey, I didn't realize you had made the point about Charles funding the court battle against his mother.
I should really read all the comments before posting😁
2. What legal basis would Harry think he could win against the Queen?
4. Do you think the British government would be named a co=defendant or co-plaintiff or relegate their status to merely submitting an Amicus curiae?
I can explain my thinking on the first point: Charles is unlikely to let Harry go broke, or hungry, or homeless. He doesn't believe in Harry's abilities any more than we do. I would guess Harry gets an allowance. Charles may ask for receipts, but if he doesnt, his money could be used against him. Irony.
Point two, I can't comment on because I think he would be insane to do it.
If they didvsue, I would think The RF would act in an Amicus Curiae capacity, while the Govt would be the plaintiff since they would be in violation of British law.
Anyone think she'll wear tights to court?
Yes on the MOS court case!
Many attorneys would love to represent a client in a high profile case, and that truly be as about as high profile as you could get. Lawyers don't even per se care of they think their client does not stand a good chance at winning, in fact some would find it a challenge. I don't want to sound dismissive but attorneys are concerned about whether their bills are paid (in this kind of case I doubt any firm would take it on a contingency). Thus billable hours are racked up and you better pay as you go, lol. At the end of trial it is possible for the winning side to get awarded legal fees and costs, but it is far from a given.
>>>I can explain my thinking on the first point: Charles is unlikely to let Harry go broke, or hungry, or homeless. He doesn't believe in Harry's abilities any more than we do. I would guess Harry gets an allowance. Charles may ask for receipts, but if he doesnt, his money could be used against him. Irony>>>
I understand your reasoning but I think Harry needs to learn to live on his own money. Tough Love. Then maybe Harry will make better decisions..
>>>>Point two, I can't comment on because I think he would be insane to do it<<<
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly..
>>>If they didvsue, I would think The RF would act in an Amicus Curiae capacity, while the Govt would be the plaintiff since they would be in violation of British law.<<<
I think if the Queen has a contractual agreement with Harry then she could sue I would think (IMO).Ut might be preferable of the Queen let the govt sue because of the optics.
>>>Anyone think she'll wear tights to court?<<<
Yes and look demure and well put together, complete with 'doe eyes'at the judge!
I think the Harkles will comply unless they are crazy!
I agree. I can't believe some posters here believe Charles would help fund a potential lawsuit on this issue!.
Yes, Meghan can use 'royal' or even 'HRH' in the USA and unless there is a signed agreement with the monarch, there would be no point in embarking on a court case to try and stop her as it would be prolonged and messy (however, the monarchy is a very old institution and has a history of fighting all kinds of huge battles).
In the modern world, pretty much everything is online. Probably most people do not read the fine print but any ISP, host for websites and and all other social media has an agreement with the client. The monarch simply alerts the ISP/host that the user has broken a legal agreement and the site will be taken down. Meghan cannot use the HRH and 'royal' online with impunity, unless the monarch chooses to turn a blind eye and do nothing when she does. Most ISPs/website hosts/social media hosts will not act unless asked to, but then they act quickly. As I said previously, I had an entire website taken down with one email.
The Queen has another way she can control the activities of the Harkles: money. They get a sizeable allowance from Charles plus taxpayer funded first-class security and subsidised travel for any royal/Commonwealth work. Once they are billionaires they won't care about that, but until then, they don't want to lose the few perks they have left.
Her Maj did not use HRH in the birthday post for Andrew. It is not unusual, but it is another point against them in trying to hold onto titles that they have no right to.
They are not free to do as they please in the USA, and certainly not in Canada who still recognises the Queen as the head of state.
Hopefully, Nutty can get this sorted soon even though it is a bit entertaining.
On a happier note:
@Genia, I really liked this little story.
The only woman in this group that I know who's still a big time Meghan fan is a woke self-described Bernie fan. She's sort of a nut job herself, she brags about returning used clothing and shoes to Nordstrom's for full refund AFTER she and her daughter have used these items. She brags about it to everyone because she thinks how easily it's done due to Nordstrom's customer-centered, lenient return policy. Even her husband is ashamed by her doing it. She doesn't have to do it, as they own a million+ home in Berkeley, drive Teslas, and her husband rakes in bank working as exec in a biotech firm. Last month she and I happened to converse during down time in things royal as she'd brought up how much she loves Meghan, LOL. I quickly ran down a list of shady things that the Sussexes did, but she didn't believe them or had an excuse for them. I gave up finally.
Sounds like a selfish con woman loves a selfish con woman...
Ok, goodnight, and thanks, Nutty.
If HAMS do walk all over the Queen by ignoring her mandate I believe it will reflect very negatively on them.
However, many in the youtube and Twitter comment sections are pro HAMS and I'm not certain they would care. I would guess by their posts they're young and not well educated. Most I read are anti-Monarchy as well.
Before Mexit, I would have never thought PH could would disrespect HM, but now it seems he just flat out doesn't care who he offends in his family even if it is his 93 year grandmother, the Queen.
“Communications employees at social networking giant Facebook routinely blow-dry CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s armpits before big speeches, a new book claims. Zuckerberg — who became famous for his perspiration during a televised 2010 interview — “is consumed by his public image,” according to a Bloomberg review of Steven Levy’s new book, “Facebook: The Inside Story.” The 35-year-old wants to look cool and dry instead of sweaty and nervous, and has assistants make sure his famous gray T-shirts are immaculate before he takes the stage at public events, according to the report.”
I thought of MM’s sweaty armpit photo as soon as I read the article! I think she’s set the benchmark pretty low as an employer, but it sounds like Mark went even lower. Try putting THAT on your resume!
I would be very surprised if Meg turned up in the UK, we know she has no shame but even she must realise how despised she is by the majority of the public.
As for H&M worth, I’ve said it before, the first interviews will be worth the most. Once they’ve done the rounds of Oprah et al, books etc, interest will wane.
The Queen has played a blinder, softly, softly...
I don’t think Harry has the nerve to turn up in the UK either.
He’s an embarrassment, he’s let the Queen, country & the forces down.
Why would he turn up?
The bridges are smouldering as we speak, as for NDA’s, it’s Megs!!
“Harry, Meghan and the Royal brand”
“ It’s not clear that plain Harry & Meghan will pull in the hundreds of millions expected from Sussex Royal”
Ouch!
Yes, I know a bit about peers & coronets, royal & non-royal dukes, different modes of address and so on, from having been around, and very enthusiastic, for the Coronation in 1953 - the popular press was full of who'd be wearing what and why. I collected the lot for my scrapbook - the ticket for my seat in Whitehall is in front of me as I type this.
I just didn't want to get lost among the strawberry leaves.
There was that lovely Osbert Lancaster Pocket Cartoon of Maudie Littlehampton in the grocer's buying provisions to sustain her & Willie during the service -
`You know the size of foie gras - fits into an earl's coronet along with a packet of biscuits' or words to that effect.
Did anyone see Louis Theroux's interview with the Duke of St Albans a few years ago? The story about the origin of that title is that Charles II wouldn't give Nell's sprog a title but when they were at Salisbury Hall, a moated house just outside St Albans, she held the babe out of the window over the moat and threatened to drop him in it.
`Nell! Put the Duke of St Albans down at once!' cried the king.
Well, that's the story.
For once, Megsy missed a trick.
MM is all for `empowering women' but fails to recognise when she's up against a truly powerful woman.
Wall Street Journal Editorial:
When ABC News asked Hunter Biden whether the Ukrainian energy company Burisma would have appointed him to its board “if your last name wasn’t Biden,” he answered, “probably not.” There are many things in his life, he went on to say, that probably wouldn’t have happened “if my last named wasn’t Biden,” son of the Vice President Joe Biden.
Surely the same is true for Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan. As part of their own plan to trade on family connections, Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have spent the last year trying to trademark the brand “Sussex Royal.”
In a better world the sons of vice presidents wouldn’t serve on boards of companies like Burisma. But at least Hunter Biden never repudiated his family. In sharp contrast, Prince Harry was promoting his own royal brand even as he was arranging to exit the royal family. In the end, Queen Elizabeth gave her blessing to Megxit, the nickname given to the couple’s break with the family.
But apparently the Queen has not given her blessing to the Sussex Royal brand, which Harry and Meghan had been banking on to promote everything from their new website and Instagram account to charities and merchandise. It’s not clear that plain “Harry and Meghan” will pull in the hundreds of millions expected from “Sussex Royal.”
In the centuries since the Magna Carta was forced on a reluctant King John, the crown has lost most of its direct power. But the Queen still retains tremendous influence over the royal brand, with good parts of British law backing her up.
And now she’s reasonably decided that she’s not going along with an arrangement that would allow people who so publicly demanded release from their royal duties to then make money off the royal connection. Independence does not have certain privileges.
I was also struck by the fact she only had one public meeting at the National Theatre. Time will tell f she is really involved or if this is just PR like her one rime Instagram pics at charities.
Of course they would have to be careful when cosying up to rich dictators/ oligarchs etc.
With good advice (whether they will get that/listen to it is another matter!) they would choose carefully who to represent.
And then there are clever ways of making these people look good, and getting paid, without it looking too direct and too grubby. Not just turning up at a birthday party.
Imagine a totalitarian country, somewhere in the Middle East for example. MM/PH go to visit a charity that has been set up in this country which does good deeds and they go to 'raise awareness.' It will be designed to be good PR for the ruling country/despot as it will (hopefully for them) make them look good and transmit their 'goodness' across the globe. And MM/PH will get paid for doing this. Not direct payment by a despot for turning up at a party, but a clever way of everyone winning. Of course the payments would be secretive.
This projection of PR for countries is in vogue at the moment. Witness the ownership of Manchester city and Paris St Germain football clubs. They are being used on a 'soft power' basis, projecting Qatar into the West via huge (and dodgy) deals.
The more I think about it the more this way of making money makes sense. All still totally dependent on whether they will have much of a brand and much of a following of course. Will have to wait and see on that one...
Thanks for posting full WSJ article, I’m using my phone, not sure how to upload articles & have dodgy internet at the moment.
That goes straight back to Diana and her telling her boys that it's OK to be naughty as long as they're not found out.
As for Reverend Bible-basher, I'd say `Surely Christ's ruling about a man leaving his mother and cleaving to his wife is over-ridden by His Second Commandment, that one should love one's neighbour as oneself?'
(And what was that about a man who says he loves God but hates his brother?)
Of course, Harry’s difficulty is that he still cleaves to his mother, both in his head and oedipally in his body to MM.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8024167/Meghan-Markle-reunite-Vogues-Edward-Enninful-London.html
Also, if the Harkles are no longer royal, or are cut-price, discounted royals, so to speak, of what use are they to anyone needing a pr boost? The Queen has eliminated their ability to sprinkle royal star dust. However, I have no doubt that Megs will be successful in continuing her life of grift, with, or without any association to the BRF. That's a role she was born for & that she's good at.
It's like calling something "Texas Global" or "Tallinn Global" or "Springfield Global" or even "New York Global".
It doesn't make sense.
"@Genia, I really liked this little story.
The only woman in this group that I know who's still a big time Meghan fan is a woke self-described Bernie fan. She's sort of a nut job herself, she brags about returning used clothing and shoes to Nordstrom's for full refund AFTER she and her daughter have used these items. She brags about it to everyone because she thinks how easily it's done due to Nordstrom's customer-centered, lenient return policy. Even her husband is ashamed by her doing it. She doesn't have to do it, as they own a million+ home in Berkeley, drive Teslas, and her husband rakes in bank working as exec in a biotech firm. Last month she and I happened to converse during down time in things royal as she'd brought up how much she loves Meghan, LOL. I quickly ran down a list of shady things that the Sussexes did, but she didn't believe them or had an excuse for them. I gave up finally.
Sounds like a selfish con woman loves a selfish con woman..."
Absolutely. Especially Sussex, of all UK counties. Actually it only feels right to say 'English counties'. I hope I don't offend any Sussex nutties (if we have any) but Sussex to me means the oldest of 'olde' England, in the best possible way. The opposite to modern and global. They are just using Sussex, purely for their own ends, as with everything else.
When I was recovering from the death of my friend in the tsunami, which I referred to earlier, I went to Sussex, in the depths of winter, near Rye, to stay in an old cottage. There was the most beautiful thick snow and it felt like being out of time. Sussex is a glorious county and so much the opposite of all that H&M represent. I just wish their titles would be removed. Now.
William and Kate came to Cambridge (where I live) early in their marriage, and waved at the public from the Guildhall balcony in the market place, in the heart of the city. They haven't done anything to bring their titles Duke and Duchess of Cambridge into disrepute. There's such a glaring gap between the two couples now, in so many ways.
I've explained everything that you just mentioned in my last post! How soft PR works, how they would be able to protect themselves with a few degrees of separation from dubious individuals/ruling structures and how they would get paid. I also added the caveat "All still totally dependent on whether they will have much of a brand and much of a following of course. Will have to wait and see on that one..." so I think I've got your points covered:)
She probably has an internal commentary going on all the time, magnifying her pre-Harry supposed philanthropic activities and magnifying Suits, for so long now that she probably believes it. After all, we know she only wants to hear from those who agree with her.
Oh to imagine her in a room with someone who really walks her through all her mistakes and faults since she married Harry, just to see her trying to respond. I'd never expect her to see herself for what she is, but oh for someone as bolshie as she, who wouldn't be stampeded or diverted away from laying it all out there and forcing her to at least look at it.
At any rate, they are STILL using a royal connection, albeit a more tenuous connection, to sell themselves to the highest bidders. They should not be allowed to use any name that has a connection to the RF.
HRH
Royal
Duke
Duchess
Sussex
Harry would still be Prince Harry as he was born that and will one day be the son of a king, but Meghan doesn't get to ride on those coat tails. Let them use 'Harry' and 'Meghan' and see how far that gets them. That would only be fair, to all the people they have let down.
Let them earn everything on their own merits. We would be empowering them to discover their authentic selves(!)
Typically ignoring the ancient history and pride that the people of Sussex feel. No wonder they have signed petitions to strip the titles.
If only the Queen had waited a bit on any titles. Of course, shouts of "racism" would have been heard across the land. Originating from the mouth of Harry.
Anything we can do to limit Gollums fun? It's so annoying and everyone drops off once the critter shows up.
Not to mention your clean up.
Last night it claimed to be one of us who changed her username. I would ask that person to knock it off. It's incredibly childish.
Really. Just stop.
See the website where they claim to be:
Sussex Global – Global Collective at Sussex University
www.sussexglobal.com
Contact address
1234 Santa Monica Blvd
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
It seems to be offering the sort of goods, services and start-ups that might interest MM. This could be an accommodation address. As far as I can see from Google Earth , the address looks like a block of flats. Do any US Nutties feel like investigating?
Do they know about this at https://www.sussex.ac.uk/, that is the REAL Sussex University?
I kid you not - does she really think she can set up a university named after the Duck and Duckass, as part of her charity work? - Ye Gods - the answer's probably `Yes!')
Anything to do with Stanford?
It’s a blooming cheek to impersonate a respectable British university but if she annoys them as well, so much the better. Perhaps I'll let them invest a little more time and cash in it, see what happens and then grass on them to Sussex Univ.
Btw, some of my ancestors go back to at least Tudor times in Sussex so I'm really snarling now.
I agree with Tatty that the Queen is not as upset with H as many bloggers here are. From the Telegraph:
The Queen is to leave the door open for Prince Harry to return to his honorary military roles after a year, it has emerged, as Buckingham Palace announces the Sussexes will undertake a final flurry of engagements before leaving the working Royal Family on March 31st.
Following a statement in January saying Prince Harry will be losing his military roles, it was on Wednesday confirmed that he will retain his ranks of Major, Lieutenant Commander, and Squadron Leader but will not use his honorary military positions or “perform any official duties associated with these roles”.
Those honorary roles, including that of Captain General Royal Marines, will not be filled during a 12-month trial period agreed by the Sussexes and the Royal Family, leaving the door open for him to return.
A palace source said: “The point of the 12-month review is that the family wants the best for them and everyone recognises this is unchartered territory. Rather than do something finite, this is a pragmatic family conversation about what's working and what's perhaps not working.”
The settlement comes after an ongoing debate about how Prince Harry and Meghan will build a global brand suitably separate to the working Royal Family and Queen, without trading on their positions for cash.
All will be covered by the Royal Rota, the accredited British newspapers, photographers and broadcasters invited to report on public royal events.
The couple’s foundation, delayed after a series of set-backs including the need to rebrand from the original “Sussex Royal”, will be launched later this year.
"The comments over at CB are hateful."
I took a glance over there and had to close the site. Both hateful and delusional. Saying that the Sussexes - including the baby - are at physical risk if they return to the UK? Those wokerati don't mind insulting an entire nation when it suits their agenda. But at least I got some comic relief out of them saying that the Sussexes had themelves chosen not to use the 'royal'monikor but that the evil British media had to twist it all to claim the queen had stopped them. So they go to all that trouble to trademark hundreds of items under 'Sussex Royal' but yeah, THEY were the ones who chose not to use it....
You just can't reason with some people.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8024697/Meghan-Harry-wont-suffer-losing-Sussex-Royal-clever-causes-support.html
"I agree with Tatty that the Queen is not as upset with H as many bloggers here are"
It's not about being 'upset'.
As head of The Firm, HM has to protect it at almost any costs. I'm sure she loves Harry but she has made it very clear that there can be no 'half in half out' status, that they don't get to pick and choose royal duties from another continent and that they cannot trade on the 'royal' name while consorting with dubious types and making money by commercial means. Clearly - re their idiotiic 'manifesto' - they hoped and believed that they could do all of the above. I know some here disagree, but HM came down about as hard as she could reasonably have been expected to do ('stripping' titles was never seriously in question).
At the same time, as I say, Harry is her grandson and she loves him. When - and yes that's a 'when' not an 'if' - the divorce happens, he will be welcomed back and all his titles and honours 'unfrozen'. By suspending rather than removing them, she makes his eventual return to the fold as seamless as possible. Meghan however is dead to them. Like the rest of us, they are just waiting for the inevitable to happen.
>>>Megs believes "Sussex" is her married last name. She feels she has every right to it.
Typically ignoring the ancient history and pride that the people of Sussex feel. No wonder they have signed petitions to strip the titles. If only the Queen had waited a bit on any titles. Of course, shouts of "racism" would have been heard across the land. Originating from the mouth of Harry.<<<
It has been mentioned here that 'stripping' a ducal title would require an act of Parliament, which I find a bit odd, seeing as the title of 'Duke of Sussex', eg. is in the Queen's gift to give in the first place, isn't it? One of our British readers can chime in here if they know--is the Queen required to seek the permission of Parliament to *grant* the titles in the first place? If she is not, then why would permission be required by *the Queen* to revoke them? As a born royal, it's not like Harry is going to sit in the House of Lords the way another duke would, and so his titles confer absolutely zero political influence. They are merely ornamental. It's kind of like requiring the government's permission for her Majesty to take back the punchbowl she gave them . . .only she gave Harry a title instead of a punchbowl.
Making One's own child or grandchild, already blood princes of the ruling dynasty and HRHs from birth Dukes & Earls in addition seems like gilding the lily to me. It has been observed that there are tons of minor princelings running around all over Europe, and even the Queen's distant cousins are called 'Prince' and 'Princess' . . but being HRH, son/grandson of the Queen of Great Britain is surely the pinnacle of princedom. The Duke titles are useful for delineating the various branches of Elizabeth's family tree . . the Yorks, the Cambridges, the Cornwalls (already the Waleses), etc. And now, the Sussexes . .the rotten branch that will live in infamy. I've not been to England yet, but my itinerary of any such trip will definitely include Sussex, the bucolic county of rural beauty and sea; retirement patch of Sherlock Holmes & jurisdiction of DCS Christopher Foyle, strategically so important in the Second World War. Without the brave citizens of Sussex, England might have fallen to Hitler . . read up on Operation Dynamo and how civilian watercraft evacuated hundreds of thousands of stranded soldiers on the beaches at Dunkirk.
Harry is such a profound disappointment. Meg might be the engine driving this sideshow right towards the cliffs, but Hapless the Eejit is her willing accomplice.
I doubt the Queen (or any of us) could have anticipated just how rapacious and blatantly disrespectful and abusive Megs would turn after being given that title. I knew she was a greedy and self-centered madam from the first minutes of her engagement interview, but I really thought she'd be happy to collect clothing and jewels and shoes and photo ops as the Duchess of Sussex for some years before bolting for the door. Meg's father was right--being a real-life Princess is the pinnacle of every little girl's dream. Meg had the Royal family brand behind her to be an influencer on a global scale--a 'real' influencer . . .look how many people Diana influenced with her fashion and her causes--Meghan foremost, it seems . . Had Meg taken the pains to transform into a legitimate member of the Firm, she really and truly could have had all the influence she could have dreamt of. But she refused to play the game, and her idea of enviable influence is a tacky website and tackier merching deals and a berth on 'The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' . . the mind fails.
Why is this parasite not repudiated by any group under the sun?
Women of color should repudiate her because she never became 'black' until it was expedient and trots her black mother out like a trick pony at a show. The black, woke princess didn't give a sh*t about the plight of struggling black women in South Africa, or in London or anywhere else. Meg treats persons she regards as 'lesser' than herself terribly. Meghan Markle is a racist.
Independent, hard-working women who provide for themselves should repudiate Meg because she got everything she has on her back or on her knees, catering to the sexual fantasies of men for cash and self-promotion. Some of these men loved her too, and married her, or wanted to. The yachting set that was 'using' her was being used right back. Meg garnered her latest promotion into global celeb and titled Duchess solely on account of who she married. Apart from her job on a TV show, she's never honored a job or volunteer commitment to completion. Meg is not a feminist.
Americans of all colors should repudiate her because she was all too happy to sell herself out to a foreign power that used to subjegate us and from whom we have declared our independence. It goes against the grain of every freeborn American that we should be obligated to bow in servility to any gem-encrusted overlords . . or that any person should be forced to bow to another. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident . .that 'all men are created equal'. Remember 4th grade social studies, Meg? She pledged herself to a system in which all men are better than others dependent on who their ancestors are and what their dad does for a living. Meghan Markle is anti-American.
She's fascinating, because it shouldn't be possible for a person to do everything so spectacularly wrong as she, and been so *blatantly* dishonest and self-serving as she has, and yet, here she is, still a Duchess and the topic of endless media speculation and, in some deluded quarters . . unequivocal worship. These last 18 months or so have been like slipping into a wormhole of some twisted alternate reality. It shouldn't be happening, and yet it is.
I'm fresh back from a visit to the family and Meg came up on one occasion. I didn't say much, just curious to gauge what my mother and sisters, none of whom are regular tabloid readers or Internet blog readers, were thinking about the Dumbarton Debacle. My mom watched the wedding. There is a vague general awareness that H & M are leaving the Royal family to do their own thing . . but as to the gruesome psychological warfare we've been dissecting these many months . . nary a blip. If you put it to an average citizen (American, UK or anywhere) that Meg is a malignant narcissist intent on bilking the Royal Family for everything she can get and that Harry, her mentally-challenged dupe hates his family and is all-in with the grifting, all you'd get is a 'Huh?' They see Harry getting subs at the grocery store; they don't know or care about anything else.
This is both good and bad for the Harkles. Out in the general population that doesn't read British tabloid press, the extent of their depravity is unknown . . but so is the more wholesome 'star reach' image they think they are successfully conveying. (erroneously)
For good or ill, real people (as opposed to paid-off celebrity endorsers) do not care about these two. The average person would have been happy to see Harry get married, but those two years ago feel like such a long time.
I look forward to all the books and documentaries which will be forthcoming about the Sussexes' fall from grace, most of which will probably not be forthcoming in this Queen's lifetime, but are doubtless in the pipeline, just waiting to be unleashed.
Not at all.
Odd as it may sound, in the British peerage system, being a 'blood prince' has no special status. A prince - even the heir to the throne - is considered a 'commoner' unless he is granted a peerage. That is why all the queen's sons and her male-line grandsons have been granted peerages prior to marriage, and why her own husband was created Duke of Edinburgh before he married her. Indeed, until the day she was crowned Queen of England, Philip technically outranked her as he was a royal duke and she a mere commoner.
It seems that blogspot is weak to non-existent at blocking unwanted commentators via their ip addresses, foul language etc. Wordpress does it better. It has a page in administration where you can do it.... I just tested it. A quick search says that you can migrate blogspot blogs to wordpress/ the free version should work.
Your free wordpress blog can be nuttyflavor.wordpress.com (they try to get you to pay....but look for free)
I admit I like the way comments display better at bllogspot/ your blog than at wordpress
Observing last night it seems the one Gollum is an anti-?? (won't use dislike poster's name per Nutty's preference) troll. But who can blame them sometimes since the unnamed person is a sugar and also does mean things to other posters and Nutty protects this person (like happened last night). Then another poster, a decent poster gets her response deleted unfairly. Nutty plays favorites and other besides I have noticed. I have also noticed some good posters have either left or are not commenting as much. maybe they don;t like things like this either. Sure we can leave like the others but the problem will continue regardless unless Nutty uses better discretion.
1) It's really bizarre that this conversation happened in the first place, and very bizarre that is was taped. So it appears scripted.
2) EE is praising MM for editing a MAGAZINE, and it is presented as if she cured cancer.
3) It's no surprise this was posted just as Kate was doing work on her Early Years survey.
She is vile. Harry, if you ever cared about your sister-in-law, why not politely tell MM to knock it off already?!
sussexglobal.com is registered to Sussex University in 2017. From search in Whois.
Scratch that off.
A message from Jon Bon Jovi awaits!
Thanks for your insights about the British peerage. To an American, this is confusing stuff.
>>>Odd as it may sound, in the British peerage system, being a 'blood prince' has no special status. A prince - even the heir to the throne - is considered a 'commoner' unless he is granted a peerage. That is why all the queen's sons and her male-line grandsons have been granted peerages prior to marriage, and why her own husband was created Duke of Edinburgh before he married her. Indeed, until the day she was crowned Queen of England, Philip technically outranked her as he was a royal duke and she a mere commoner.<<<
I can't wrap my head around a blood Princess of the realm being considered 'common'. Particularly when her father is the reigning sovereign of Great Britain and she herself Heiress Apparent from the age of 10. So William was a commoner until he got married, even though he was born to be a king? Odd is too mild a word. The Queen has a very select number of children and grandchildren, but peerages are a relative dime a dozen, at least compared to her direct descendants, so you can see my difficulty.
Philip had to renounce his Danish and Greek titles to marry Elizabeth, so it made sense even to Americans that he would be created a British duke. That bit about him outranking his "common" wife, the future Queen was news to me, though. The Queen Mother was the daughter of a Scottish earl before she married into the Royal family; did she then outrank Bertie who wasn't yet Duke of York? Why then was she identified as a commoner when she joined the Firm?
***********
It's probably not worth me investing much more mental energy into it, but I see why the loss of the Sussex title would be such a big deal. For we Americans (leastways who do not follow this saga online), "HRH Prince of the United Kingdom" sounds much more desirable. Americans' familiarity with 'Dukes' is probably limited to the following
1. The 'Duke' . .aka John Wayne
2. The Duke of Earl . . 1962 #1 chart topping hit by Gene Chandler
3. Put up your dukes . . 'prepare to fight'
4. The Duchess Shoppe . . chain of gas (petrol) station convenience stores--one potential outlet for the 'Duchess' to merch her tacky crap in--sunglasses, hats, baby onesies, et al . . except, whoops, they can't.
The Dumbass of Dumbarton could have gone to live quietly as the Duke of Sussex on his green estate, lovingly prepared for him by his father, and would have had the excuse of the distance for scaling down his public appearances as a royal. He would have gotten his 'privacy' and been able to retain his uniforms and military associations. He could have still done his Africa work. He could have had all this if he'd just remained a bachelor. Unfortunately for Harry, he married the whirlwind, not an actual human woman. We have not yet mined the depths of Harry's regrets. Oh, no.
How many times can Harry talk about his mother’s death and how he felt afterwards? I get he has trauma. My mom died too, it was horrible. But I don’t go around talking ad nauseum to groups of strangers about it. How many times can he talk about it without it getting old? And the environment....you can google environmentalism and read the info they are spouting.
Nothing ground breaking or new, just the same old stuff.
They will speak here in the USA as many are still starry eyed over royalty fairy tales. But how long till that gets old too?
Coming soon... #WeAreInvictus
•
*Disclaimer - this is not a real text conversation*
How low will these two go?
Tatty has just as much right to comment on this stuff as anyone and she doesn't seem crazy argumentative or anything. Gollum is far more annoying and disruptive.
I don't know tatty but I don't think there's any reason for her not to join us here.
Observing last night it seems the one Gollum is an anti-?? (won't use dislike poster's name per Nutty's preference) troll. But who can blame them sometimes since the unnamed person is a sugar and also does mean things to other posters and Nutty protects this person (like happened last night). Then another poster, a decent poster gets her response deleted unfairly. Nutty plays favorites and other besides I have noticed. I have also noticed some good posters have either left or are not commenting as much. maybe they don;t like things like this either. Sure we can leave like the others but the problem will continue regardless unless Nutty uses better discretion.’
I agree, and you have raised some valid points. However, there’s little any of us can do about it. 😐
Nutty has said herself this isn’t an echo chamber, so I agree with the sentiment. 🤗 The Gollum’s though have appeared for a reason or not, and it’s very odd they turn up together. 🤔 As per my last comment to poster Unknown, there’s little we can do.
Visas have dropped off my radar in recent weeks, probably due to my relief that Meghan isn't going to get anywhere in the opposite direction now, or indeed want to. What happens about this? Isn't it a huge issue for them?
Thinking of Harry's speech at GS, I guess that's no different to a UK celebrity going over to the US to perform and getting paid for it? How does it work, when it's not an ordinary kind of 9-5 job? Please excuse my ignorance. I hardly ever travel abroad (Meghan should pay me to offset her gallivanting. Me and a cast of thousands!)
I agree with what you said about the troll and the fact that Nutty plays favorites. I'm sure we are not the only ones who have noticed this either. I also have noticed others have left. Maybe they are just lurking, maybe not. And it's a clicky blog with a few snarkies as well. Such is life I guess. It is her blog though to do as she likes and I respect that.
Hikari
I just had a girl's night recently and I didn't say much about my Monarchy/ Meg obsessions (lol) and two of the girls thought it nice they were forging their own way and wondered what the big deal was and the the other girl ( who is woke to the extreme) had the most to say about how HAMS were run out of the UK because of all the racism from the RF and the Brits. She is a huge Bernie supporter as well. She only parrots what NBC tells her and doesn't seem able to form an opinion that is other.
All of us in the group are white and forties-fifties.
They asked my opinion, which is much less strong in public vs the blog, haha, and I truthfully said I was pro Monarchy and Her Majesty.
Interestingly enough, PA's situation didn't even get a mention.
The two girls in the dark do have young children and work full time in their defense. The woke chick- who is a dear friend- is very intelligent and VP for a global company.
Also, I wonder, has HM been one step ahead of MM in releasing "bad" press on HAMS whenever PA's name comes up negatively kinda like they troll Kate?
I have one last thing to say, sorry so long, imho, most people, even in my own narc family are unaware of many things going on around them, or just don't care, you know the old bread and circus example.
I went over to LSA and found the anti Markle thread there and I noticed several (many?) people who post here also post there. Not all the names are the same, but some comments under different names were nearly word for word the same as posted here.
I think that makes it easy to say “so many people dislike them” when really one has found oneself in an echo chamber of the same people.
Maybe it’s not enough to say it’s nearly a duplicate thread to this site, but the same people in two locations saying the same thing makes it sound like double the people dislike them.
When like you said with your family and as I have seen with my friend, no one cares IRL. Oh, Harry is out getting Sammie’s, good for him. Etc.
I think the average person is unaware and uninvolved and uninterested in HAMS.
I don't add a lot of commentary to this blog, but I read almost every word because I'm interested. Early on, I was like many on here and thought Tatty was a sugar and was mostly annoyed with her but just ignored it. But then I started reading what she wrote, and the research she does has benefited my thought process on certain things. I don't agree with everything she says, or all of her opinions, but I do think she at least opines from a position of having researched what she's saying and knows it to be true.
I do love this blog and I love all of the contributions from all of you. Everyone brings something to this discussion whether it be from Oz,Canada, UK, US or Thailand! If we are going to have real discussions about this couple that can then be used to make arguments against her sugars, IRL, then the truth matters (and yes, may hurt sometimes).
Tatty goes for the truth. She may be over the top sometimes, but I appreciate what she has brought to the table and my opinion of her has changed. No one is asking for us all to like each other; we are here because of a common interest and that's it. If you don't care for a certain poster, then don't read what they write. It's really very simple.
@hunter gee, thanks I guess? Lukewarm support there
I’d really rather if everyone stop bringing me up unless it’s responding to a comment by me. People bring me up just to be snarky when it related to nothing discussed (like the recent unknown post). It’s getting ridiculous when I feel like I have worked hard at how I come across on the internet and I have worked hard with a friend in how to come across as more welcoming and “sweeter” and less confrontational.
Meanwhile, I was crying last night and couldn’t sleep because of the gollums. It’s so mean. Deliberately mean and attacking me for existing.
I read a LOT, and have a background in British Literature (so have been studying the monarchy since the 90s, really the 80s when I was interested in Charles and Di when I was a tween). I feel like I correct a lot of misinformation, not because I’m a sugar, but I believe this blog has enough intelligence on it that we could be discussing the real issues instead of repeating falsehoods and wasting time discussing things that aren’t true.
Anyway, I've emailed the university enquiring whether this is indeed a legitimate venture (I'd expect any UK university to display at least a bit of its heraldry on the site) or some other outfit trying to cash in. I'll let you know what they say.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if her thinking is so warped that she believes that a) William has a university named after him (!) so b) she is entitled to have one as well.
Meg was supposed to report to the U.S. consulate/embassy in London to register the birth of an American child abroad at the time of his birth . .we of course have no proof that she did this.
The Matter of Master Archie is going to remain of interest for a long time to come. She shouldn't think we have forgotten all about Archie just because we never see him.
********************
Children of U.S. Citizens Residing Outside the United States
Children residing outside of the United States may obtain citizenship under Section 322 of the INA. A child who regularly resides outside of the United States is eligible for naturalization if all of the following conditions have been met:
The child has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent, who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization;
The child’s U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent meets certain physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession;
The child is under 18 years of age;
The child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent, or of a person who does not object to the application if the U.S. citizen parent is deceased; and
The child is lawfully admitted, physically present, and maintaining a lawful status in the United States at the time the application is approved and the time of naturalization.
https://www.google.com/search?q=edward+lane+fox&oq=edward+lA&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l15.4944j0j4&sourceid=silk&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=KkVcCCkBzLKS_M:
Says it all. What a man, to have coped with that for 5 years. Persuaded many of us that Harry was A Good Thing. I didn't fall for it myself as I had friends of friends in the armed forces, and heard the same things I heard about Prince Andrew in the Falklands all those years ago. Rudeness and entitlement.
I'm really doubting the justification for monarchy now. Never thought I would say that, but when you see PA and PH still living high on the hog and how it deforms all but the most sterling and/or resilient characters, you have to question it.
To me she is an overhyped person who is trying to pass herself off as a great humanitarian as opposed to being a world class social climber.
Re. Harry's visa status, I don't know what the future will hold. Right now he's on a diplomatic passport, presumably until March 31st, which probably renders the need for a separate visa to a Commonwealth territory void. Possibly the States, too, though I am not familiar with diplomatic papers. Going forward as no longer a royal, he would have to apply for a spousal visa for more permanent status than a tourist visa. But if the Suxxits divorce that would go away. Harry would be obligated to leave the country, unless he could find a full-time employer willing to sponsor him as a guest alien on a green card. (Good luck with that Haz!)
If Harry resides in the U.S. for seven years and sits for a citizenship test, he could become a naturalized American citizen. Personally I don't think this little project/experiment is going to last even a fraction of seven years, but seeing as he's turned his back on his country of birth, he might want to look into this.
Accommodation can be made for him via a tester to read him the questions aloud if he needs help with comprehending the test. It is not necessary to be fluent in written or spoken English to become a citizen but Haz would have to sit for the exam (a difficult one, by all accounts) and answer the questions to the best of his own ability.
What a spectacle it all is.
But that is in fact the case as regards the British peerage system. There are 3 ranks - the Sovereign, peers and commoners. A prince without a peerage belongs to the 3rd group.
"The Queen Mother was the daughter of a Scottish earl before she married into the Royal family; did she then outrank Bertie who wasn't yet Duke of York? Why then was she identified as a commoner when she joined the Firm?"
Bertie was created Duke of York a few years before his marriage.
In any case, because his wife was merely the daughter of an earl, not an earl herself, she was still a commoner. Only the person - invariably a man - who himself holds the dukedom (or other peerage) is considered a peer. Titles held by his wife or children are considered mere courtesy titles bu have no legal status. That is why every female in the royal family, except the queen herself, is strictly speaking a commoner in the peerage system.
Tatty does not come across to me as a Meghan apologist or sugar. She sometimes posts some scathing stuff about both Meghan and Harry! She just comes across to me as someone who tries to be reasonable and objective and wish everyone well.
Personally I have considered the following hypothesis:
Part 1
The Meghan and Harry relationship very quickly became intensely intimate in a way that he had never experienced before (if she hangs onto him and looks adoringly at him in public, imagine what she does in private, and photos from her entire adult life show that this is how she operates in relationships).
That it was long distance and relied on texting and talking on the phone on the one hand gave him some relief from that intimacy but also heightened the infatuation/being besotted. Until she moved in with him at Nottingham Cottage, very shortly before the engagement, they had no opportunity to build a realistic relationship.
More to the point ... that kind of intimacy opens up emotional wounds and brings unresolved issues to the fore. It is not surprising that Harry, after years of therapy and walking a decent and ethical path in the public eye with the support and guidance of his family and staff (such as the superb ELF) started to unravel and break down (come on, we have all seen it).
Meghan gave up her job and packed up (bizarrely leaving stuff in storage in Canada and retaining her USA business, agent and PR team) and moved to the UK and eagerly accepted the marriage proposal from the man of her dreams who could give her wealth, fame and adoration, status ... tiaras (and he was kind of fun to be around and quite classy)! She finds herself married to a man who is unravelling and being who she is in trying to love and support him through the crisis she actually leads him into making rash and damaging life-changing decisions - she makes things worse instead of better. (My favourite tarot reader picked up right from the start that it is a karmic relationship in that it pushes buttons, but they are not meant to be together but to find out what they need to heal and how they need to live in order to be authentic.)
She wants to leave him (the marriage and the BRF gig are not making her happy) but can't because it has all become very messy. He is going further out on a limb to make her happy and keep her. (His recent happy face is either a mask, which Harry has never been good at, or he has landed a huge financial deal that he thinks will be the game-changer to make her happy.) They have kind of entrapped each other in a toxic relationship that should not last, not if they are going to be their best authentic selves.
The pre-Meghan Harry is a bit of a dork - far more a ladies man then the media has revealed, and not a deep thinker - but he was personable and motivating and genuinely connected with children and wounded vets and loved the adventurous stuff like the Antarctica project, the sporty stuff like polo and shooting, as well as the fun cool stuff like concerts. With the right people working with him, he was building a lasting legacy. He actually needed a wife like Camilla - country at heart but can dress up and do the formal stuff, personable and fun but actually caring and dedicated to causes she supports, and completely devoted to him in a realistic way (is ok with all the time off he needs and his oddities). I actually think Harry is more like his father than his mother!
Meghan needs a husband like Beyonce or Kim Kardashian have and a life like they have. She thinks she is a combination of Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie but she is not - she does not have the talent, work credentials nor charisma (yes, Gwyneth's is the pale insipid kind but it is still charisma) that they have. It seems that Meghan has settled on selling herself as a 'force for change' for women empowerment. She is going to have some problems with that image because of her own history (always used men to get where she is), because of her lack of real compassion and empathy (she cries on cue), and because it is an issue that requires real power (to change laws and religions) and real money. I think she should settle on Tig 2.0 but just a lot bigger than Tig 1.0 was, drop all the title and royal and foundation stuff (leave that to Harry) and go back to being Meghan Markle (and reconcile with her father as part of that).
Meghan and Harry separated can be happy and successful. Meghan and Harry together are a disaster. I would like to see the former. We don't have to buy Meghan's products or give her likes on IG and we only need bother about her if she makes a grab for real power, such as campaigning to change a law in our country, or if she leads a close friend or family member astray into that world of shallow consumerism and woke self-consciousness to a detrimental level. Let her have her word salad and designer wear and private jets and so on. As for Harry? Find a genuine good woman and go off somewhere and plant trees or capture poachers or build schools and homes for HIV children and centres and special homes for wounded vets ... and do it quietly. One at a time for a lifetime adds up to quite a legacy.
Is it just me, or does Edward Lane Fox almost look like a doppelganger for Uncle Edward, Earl of Wessex? ELF looks like a Montbatten man down to the bearing and the male pattern baldness.
https://www.google.com/search?q=edward+lane+fox&sxsrf=ALeKk00JzxoJC9FJNmWnBpqxZx5cfJGOMw:158222136355
https://it.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/child-family-matters/birth/crba-1/
It says:
A child born outside of the United States and in wedlock to a U.S. citizen parent and a non U.S. citizen parent, may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a period of five years, two of which were after the age of fourteen, prior to the birth of the child. ***The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent, and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth.***
So it technically matters whether a traditional surrogate or a gestational carrier was used. If the former, that person's citizenship matters. And heck if I know how the UK law which I believe requires adoption of surrogate babies would work.
The 5-year requirement does not mean 5 years *immediately preceding* the birth, I don't believe. It just means it had to occur before the birth. Meghan has lived in the US for at least 5 years, and many more than the required 2 years were after age 14 so she's good to go on that.
Neither of which we can unequivocally say is true for poor Archie as it pertains to MM.
So obviously I have missed some posts recently. I agree with Jen. And no one should say anything knowingly trying to make someone upset. Sometimes, written words meant to be in jest can come across as spiteful or mean spirited.
If I have said anything to anyone to upset them I humbly
apologize. I've become a little immune myself due to other sites when comparatively speaking, Nutty's blog is a cakewalk, which I do appreciate!
Also, I don't hate HAMS and I feel PH is in some serious trouble emotionally. MM is a textbook narc and will be fine either way.
I'm just sick to the back teeth of all the wokeness and I know she won't be able to continue to keep that mouth of hers closed.
I disagree about @Twinsmama. Every time she is on when I am she flames me for no reason as she did last night. Thankfully for once, @Nutty deleted her outrageous accusations but also deleted my response to @MustySyphone ridiculing me for my analysis of why I thought Markle would face punishment if the HAMs don't honor the ban.
This is Nutty's empire and you are either a 'Pet'or a 'Pariah' and I fall in the latter in her eyes (along with some other nice posters). I wear the label proudly though.
Yeah, what can we do about one poster asked? I might just start a blog, at least I have the time to do it and oversee it and I know I would not allow the slander which has occurred here by some posters against another (no one named herein) and I could strive to be fair instead of playing favorites.
>>>@Tatty, you are more than welcome. Please don't let people on here make you cry. None of us are worth the tears. You are worthy of a spot at the table, just as we all are...which is why Nutty doesn't delete your comments (as she has said MANY times). We all just need to learn a little grace. <<<
What do you think I felt when @tatty Posted For All the World to see that I was "Crazy". "was a Drug Abuser" "was a drunk" etc...Did I respond in kind..a big fat "NO" Allm i asked is @tatty delete the libelous posts and she refused repeatedly!!! I had to ask @Nutty several times to delete the horrible posts by @tatty. Finally she did seemingly relectantly.
I am an old lady. living on Oxygen 24/7 and don't you think I have disabilities (like autism). and can cry? What about my feelings? Just a rhetorical question...but @tatty you can address this!
Does anyone know for sure?
Gollum is enough for me, LOL
I'm not sure if it matters that much because as some of us have agreed, the Harkles don't just want to open a Sussex Royal coffee shop or market a line of Duchess duvets, like Fergie 2.0. No, they consider themselves well above that. They want a global brand, almost a rival 'royal' court. So no way they will be allowed to use the word 'royal', anywhere in the world. The palace lawyers will make sure of that.
Megs knows this is a huge possibility and is using the Kate surrogate lie as a preemptive deflection cover when the Archie surrogate truth will out. That's how NPD's think. They think deflection will work for them. It doesn't, but since when do they have solid reasoning?
>>>The Meghan and Harry relationship very quickly became intensely intimate in a way that he had never experienced before (if she hangs onto him and looks adoringly at him in public, imagine what she does in private, and photos from her entire adult life show that this is how she operates in relationships). That it was long distance and relied on texting and talking on the phone on the one hand gave him some relief from that intimacy but also heightened the infatuation/being besotted<<<
I believe it was like this, yes, in the early days. Full-on Love bombing Narc charm offensive. Harry admits that he was interested in meeting her because of "Suits" and thought she was "hot". The trouble with Hazza is that is the only level of his thought when it comes to his women. That's why the women of more substance in his life--Chelsy and Cressida--rebuffed his marriage proposals. Chelsy is a lawyer (ie, a legitimately whip-smart woman). Can you imagine how dull Haz must be when asked to formulate conversation or interests in an intellectual sphere like the law? Meg is the brighter one, but I think her interests are on the same shallow level as Haz's, and she was, furthermore, willing to reflect back Harry's idea of 'the perfect girlfriend' back at him. I'm sure it was the sex of his life and he got infatuated quickly, aided by romantic Botswana getaways and subliminal hints of his mother's perfume and outfits.
Something soured in this LDR though, about 6 months in . . November/December 2016, which may have been the incident where she was forcibly ejected from Kensington Palace for secret photographs/recordings and escorted back to the airport on orders from Charles. Having your dad forced to kick out your girlfriend due to shady/blackmailing type behavior would convince a normal bloke that said GF is bad news. Seems like it might have worked on Harry for a bit, unless he was clandestinely seeing her between Christmas 2016 and April 2017 at the Inskip wedding. His body language in those wedding photos didn't say 'relaxed man in love with his gal at his best mate's wedding', nor did the sinister looking gang-up on Harry at the Invictus Games six months later. Within six weeks or so of that sinister gang-up, though, they were announcing their engagement to the world press.
Well, she fed us a lot of guff about cooking roast chickens at NottCott and being proposed to in the kitchen of NottCott and etc. but it seems doubtful that her story of happily nesting with Haz at his bachelor pad in the lead up to the wedding is legit. The tensions with the Cambridges seem to indicate that the Cambs were obliged to see a lot of 'their neighbors'. Yet a number of other sources are pretty insistent that the only lodging (apart from a weekend at Sandringham for Christmas) she had prior to her wedding was at Soho House, and she was in fact NOT living at KP with Harry. Since Meg insists that she was at KP, happily cooking chicken . . I am predisposed to believe that she wasn't there. It's quite possible, then, that she and Haz have *never* lived together in a meaningful or consistent way since they met . . which would make it a whole lot easier for her to scheme and plot & turn up at engagements unannounced or inappropriately dressed--if they were not in fact sharing a domicile or arriving at engagements together.
That Cotswolds property they allegedly rented might have been where Meg was staying since the wedding . . conveniently close to the Soho Farmhouse in the area, where they may have parked her during the engagement. Actual sightings of Meg entering or leaving the KP grounds during engagement period/decamping to 'Frogmore' . . seem to be nonexistent.
>>>Meghan gave up her job and packed up (bizarrely leaving stuff in storage in Canada and retaining her USA business, agent and PR team) and moved to the UK and eagerly accepted the marriage proposal from the man of her dreams who could give her wealth, fame and adoration, status ... tiaras . . .<<<
Part of Meggy's narrative is yes, she 'gave up' a thriving acting career as a star TV actress and influencer to follow her heart across the Pond for Twue Wuve. The timing was fortuitous for Megs, which so often seems to work out in her favor, but I believe her character had been written out of Suits quite a while before Harry proposed, due to star Patrick Adams' desire to leave first . .and she hastily shuttered the Tig due to some tax issues with the IRS--the merching side and unreported income--she'd been sued by the IRS and lost. All of these went down long before her status as royal fiancee-to-be would have necessitated her giving up her SM.
We see as soon as she was installed as a Royal, she wasted no time in creating a bunch of new accounts for herself, in defiance of the dictum anyways.
You've got this right . . making things worse instead of better for everyone she touches is a Meg specialty. But I seem to understand you not equating the unraveling of Harry so precipitously as we have seen to **Meg's direct influence***. He is unraveling *because* of her, not *despite* all her efforts to 'love' him. I hope you do see this.
>>>She wants to leave him (the marriage and the BRF gig are not making her happy) . . .
Because Meg's happiness is paramount, always . . .
>> but can't because it has all become very messy.
Yes--*she* is the architect of the mess, though. Harry may have fantasized about breaking free from his family for years, which is why he's going along now, but *she* was the push. It wasn't just the leaving itself, but how it was done--and it was done *her* way, in a typical reckless, reactive fashion. She really didn't care how Harry would be hurt in this process--what Meg wants, Meg gets, and she wanted OUT, pronto. They could have disentangled themselves in a more gradual, less divisive way . . but that would have taken time and diplomacy. Meg doesn't have any of the latter and wasn't willing to invest the former.
Frankly, the only 'happy Harry' faces we have seen lately are at staged papp ops. Deplaning while carrying his wife's luggage/merching . . do we think that some random photog on Vancouver Island parked himself out front of a farm market on the off chance that one of the Dumbarkles would drop by to pick up sandwiches? Harry may not be down with pimping out Archie, but he's pimping out himself for the lenses . . at his wife's urging, no doubt. If he's smiling while being snapped by a camera he has hired expressly for the purpose of depicting his carefree new life in which Haz is just one of the plebs, picking up his own lunch! . . .I'm sorry but the genuineness of the happy face is suspect to me.
They have kind of entrapped each other in a toxic relationship that should not last, not if they are going to be their best authentic selves.
>>>The pre-Meghan Harry is a bit of a dork - far more a ladies man then the media has revealed, and not a deep thinker - but he was personable and motivating and genuinely connected with children and wounded vets and loved the adventurous stuff like the Antarctica project, the sporty stuff like polo and shooting, as well as the fun cool stuff like concerts. With the right people working with him, he was building a lasting legacy. He actually needed a wife like Camilla - country at heart but can dress up and do the formal stuff, personable and fun but actually caring and dedicated to causes she supports, and completely devoted to him in a realistic way (is ok with all the time off he needs and his oddities). I actually think Harry is more like his father than his mother!<<<
I agree with all of this . . it's obvious that Meg is *not* the right person to bring out the best in Harry. Haz did have a niche to fill within the Firm and he was filling it well, thanks to people like ELF to shore him up and remind him of his duty. He always got a lot of leeway in what he was allowed to pick and choose as far as patronages went, and given a pass for a lot of misbehavior or 'boredom' . . things the other royals just buck up and do. Harry's been overindulged/coddled and never held accountable, to his detriment, but when Haz was 'on', he could be an appealing face of the Firm.
Those days are way into the past now, though, sadly. Meg has been the ruining of Harry, not without his own complicity.
Now that we know that Harry's persona has been largely constructed for favorable optics, I think it's safe to say that it's William that embodies his mother's natural ease with people, charisma and dedication to the royal brand. Harry's appeal has all been surface, and it turns out, largely counterfeit.
But you do have a group of people here who care about you. We are concerned about your brother, and concerned about what it's doing to you. I know it's easy for me to say, but focus on the good and leave the bad behind.
I truly enjoy everyone's opinions and knowledge on the various subjects we've discussed here, and I've learned a LOT. I'd really hate to lose that if Nutty come to the conclusion that this just isn't worth it any more.
But if you want an apology, then I apologize to you in front of everyone here if I attacked you. I am sincerely sorry.
Way off topic - I value every single poster on Nutty's blog, except for what ever that was from the MIsty Mountains last night.
I value you opinion on the designated topic and your right to express it within Nutty's guidelines.
Carry on......
My popcorn and coca cola await the Kraken swimming ashore.
I felt very terrorized last night from the Gollums.
@portcitygirl thank you.
@animal lover thank you for seeing what I am hoping I am doing
@sandie thanks again
I understand how this would upset you!
Please don't be upset! I enjoy your posts very much.
I'm often imbibing when I post especially after 5 and I don't care what people on here think about that.lol. However I do become a little saucy, pun intended, in my commenting.
Just do like I do and laugh at it.☺ I hope you feel better!
One last comment which I missed responding to before . .
Do we really think that an 'authentic self' is possible for either of this pair? I guess, if being lazy, spoiled, rude, entitlist and hypocritical is the best they can do for authenticity.
Harry Likes:
Doin' his own thing
Girls
Sport
Drinking
Gear (at least in the old days)
Shooting things (with gun or failing that, camera)
Gambling in Vegas
Historical cosplay
Private jets
American cable shows
Selective naturalism
Bonking underneath the stars
Photo ops with disabled vets
Photo ops with cute kids
Meghan Likes:
Meghan
Pink water
Inventing her own definitions for words like 'monochrome', 'vegan', 'humanitarian'
Meghan
white fedoras
ganja
Roast chicken
Free swag
Exes' home appliances
Purchasing bots
Plotting ways to show up the Duchess of Cambridge
Papp walking
Pulling rank on the plebs
Meghan
Authenticity is thin on the ground with the both of them.
I gather that both Harry and MM will be in the UK for their last hurrah. Is it 3 or 4 engagements? About a week or ten days I think.
Any information on Archie? Will he arrive with his parents or will they leave him in Cananda?
On your summation of HAMS, so true and spot on! You are so funny. You need to publish your thoughts! Thanks for the laugh.
I surely would like to get a glimpse of Archie. They will prob leave him in Canada though.
An appearance by him would surely gain them some popularity points. I don't even care for the Kardashians, but love the pics of their children. How can anyone hate on somebody when they are with their adorable child? It baffles me a little that they don't show him off more.
Oh, well. Maybe we will get another pic this Christmas of his head in black and white. Lol.
One day we asked him why he was so cool about these things and he said 1) he didn’t want people working for him who didn’t want to work for him and 2) let them go see how the other company was and 3) let them find out how good they had it and if they return 4) loyal employee for rest of career.
So maybe that is how the queen feels: not everyone is cut out for Royal life and if Harry doesn’t want to be there, he shouldn’t be there. If he decides he left a good thing and he was stupid, then he can go back and maybe possibly be content because he went off and tried and realized how good he had it within the monarchy.
@Portcitygirl
Thank you, it means alot. I do try to focus on the good when I have had so much happen lately, :D
@tatty
My version is correct in that you stated with authority that you "knew if someone is on drugs".. But i am glad you finally apologised and I accept it and now I won't let it bother me anymore. And I commend you that you have really improved in the last 5 or so months about personal remarks on others.. I do enjoy your knowledge on the BRF and I am glad we can get this behind us. :)
Hugs back at you...and I am not the kind to do that! lol Hope you feel better! Sorry for the loss of your friend!
@Genia, Nutty Flavor, Back in the late 70s a saleslady at Lord & Taylor told me that married-to-a-millionaire Ethel Kennedy did the same thing. Maybe it's a liberal thing?
NuttyFlavor said...
@Genia, I really liked this little story.
The only woman in this group that I know who's still a big time Meghan fan is a woke self-described Bernie fan. She's sort of a nut job herself, she brags about returning used clothing and shoes to Nordstrom's for full refund AFTER she and her daughter have used these items. She brags about it to everyone because she thinks how easily it's done due to Nordstrom's customer-centered, lenient return policy. Even her husband is ashamed by her doing it. She doesn't have to do it, as they own a million+ home in Berkeley, drive Teslas, and her husband rakes in bank working as exec in a biotech firm. Last month she and I happened to converse during down time in things royal as she'd brought up how much she loves Meghan, LOL. I quickly ran down a list of shady things that the Sussexes did, but she didn't believe them or had an excuse for them. I gave up finally.
Sounds like a selfish con woman loves a selfish con woman..."
Actually a co-worker of mine did the same thing and she encouraged me to do it. We were having a conversation about going to the workplace Christmas party and I had said, I don't have a thing to wear. She said, go to the store (name any high end store) buy a dress and put it on your credit card. Don't take the tags off just make sure they're not seen. Wear the dress to the party then return it the next day. I do it all the time. To say I was shocked was an understatement. No she wasn't rich either on her receptionist's salary but apparently, it's done by people rich or poor.
AvaC said...
@Liver Bird - apt you bring in Amal Clooney. Meghan keeps expecting the same as Amal, Michelle Obama and other women of distinction and real achievement. She wants parity. She doesn't see her own lack of substance at all.
Bang on point. She thinks she's on par with them but sadly she's not even close. More like high school and mean girls squad.
Hikari said...
The Dumbass of Dumbarton could have gone to live quietly as the Duke of Sussex on his green estate, lovingly prepared for him by his father, and would have had the excuse of the distance for scaling down his public appearances as a royal. He would have gotten his 'privacy' and been able to retain his uniforms and military associations. He could have still done his Africa work. He could have had all this if he'd just remained a bachelor. Unfortunately for Harry, he married the whirlwind, not an actual human woman. We have not yet mined the depths of Harry's regrets. Oh, no.
THIS. Charles had an estate already for him and Meghan but they turned it down. Hello?!?!? Ah just as well... in the divorce she would have had that for sale to get more money or whatever else she decides she wanted to do with it.
I'm afraid I don't have much to add after catching up with the comments, other than a bit of kind of random light relief.
Has anyone in the UK seen the Phillip Schofield advert where he's mocking himself trying his best to get his face into the product image shots? I only saw it for the first time today and had to chuckle because my mind went immediately to Meghan and wondering if this is the kind of thing we'll get when she's ready to start advertising her own branded items when (if?) they finally appear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E78eRzqKjQk
Hopefully my picture will show too, I was going to use a pic of one or both of my budgies, then I saw this photoshopped one online and couldn't stop laughing at how ridiculous it looks with the eyes on the front lol I know, I need to get out more...
'Unknown#3 here:
I lurk too (but always identify as 'Unknown#3) and I can say you are wrong. She is brave to tell it like it is using her screen name while you, are nothing but a coward and crank. I find @Cateyes comments funny, analytical and generally spot on. Now after people comment about making bad remarks against others you feel the need to do it. Strange.
I now am puzzled, because they were supposed to be cut off, were giving up royal duties and yet they are promising to hang out in the UK more often than I imagined, and Harry hasn't been stripped of his military titles. Which tells me this is their "one foot in, one foot out" of the royal family- getting all the perks and status while making loads of sleazy money off that continuing and very visible (photo op) adjacence. It doesn't matter that they lost 'HRH' or 'royal' (for the time being), they are getting exactly what they wanted in the end, it seems to me, to have their cake and eat it too. Thanks to gran and papa. Looks like smoke and mirrors to me because the BRF take the citizens for fools just like in the past. I wonder if this has all been a con job.
The only thing I have whined about is my missing brother with Dementia. may God Bless You and Help you whatever your problem is.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/the-battle-of-the-the-royal-family-vs-the-sussexes-continues/
Same here.lol. Ive been banned and doxxed before so this has been pleasantly surprising!
And an added bonus is everyone seems educated. Very unlike the little monsters on some other sites. Brutal, I tell ya!
I am so happy you finally put your differences aside. I'm proud of you tatty for being humble enough to apologize to cat eyes. And I'm so happy that cat eyes was so gracious in her acceptance of tatty's apology. Now take note Meghan, that's how adults and self-aware people do it! So proud of you both!!😀
Also, sorry about your friend.
I agree! Hear! Hear!
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/the-battle-of-the-the-royal-family-vs-the-sussexes-continues/
and another kraken emerges....
You know I do not for a second understand how Meghan can live with herself....,,
- starting with her atrocious actions toward her father beginning prior to the wedding
- her open disrespect of protocol even toward her own husband
- playing people for fools regarding Archie
- taking 'Charles's' money for almost 1 million in clothes while plotting with Harry to leave
- her probable planting of bad PR regarding Kate
- her unwarranted accusing of the UK public and BRF of racism
- not fully attending to her patronages as needed
- probable encouragement of Harry to renounce his duties and her own
- defiance of the Queen's order not to use the HRH designations on their Sussex website
- emigrating from Britain with nothing but seeming disdain
- her smug concern for making millions for herself not charity
- not allowing her son to associate with relatives, none of them.
How can any normal person do these and not feel bad in some way? She has to be devoid of a shred of decency I am sorry to say. Most people if they had done one or two of these items would feel some careful introspection and concern, if not genuine remorse. But Madame, not so! People say she thrives on publicity like it is oxygen, but so too she seems to delight in dysfunction and unkindness. What a pathetic but unsympathetic creature she truly is..
Post at 10:46 pm
No where has Nutty ever said this is an anti Markle or anti HAMS blog.
You’ll be sorely needed during the “March madness” that we are all anticipating as the dreadful duo prepare to take their next steps!
What a missed opportunity for a good PR exercise to foster Anglo-American relations. Meghan could have visited the USA embassy as a formal public visit with Archie to register his birth and say that she wanted Archie to have the opportunity to embrace the heritage of both his parents or something like that. She could have taken along a quintessential British gift to give embassy staff (perhaps a bespoke basket of goodies from Charles's Highgrove Estate). It would have been iconic.
She had it all ... everything she had always hustled for, and all the best advisers to give her guidance on the right thing to do, and she acted like a human wrecking ball. (Perhaps Harry's unravelling was something she never factored into her plan and she did not know how to really deal with it other than all the wrong things.)
Thanks for all that info on citizenship Hikari. I'm pretty sure Meghan has sorted out citizenship for Archie, but Harry ...?
Title: “The Queen Bans Prince Harry And Meghan Markle From Using ‘Sussex Royal’ Brand—Here’s Why That’s A Bad Idea”
“Ouch!
The Queen has just banned Harry and Meghan Markle from using "Sussex Royal." Apparently, they won't be allowed to sell themselves as "Royal" after stepping down as working members of the British royal family.
Game, set, match, I hear you say?
Not quite. In fact, the ban has left me scratching my head.
What was the Queen thinking?
Not only have the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent tens of thousands of dollars on their Sussex Royal branding with a new website and Instagram page, but they've also registered Sussex Royal as a global trademark for a range of items including clothing, stationery, books, etc. And to top it off, Sussex Royal is the name of the much hyped "billion-dollar" earning charitable organization they were looking to establish—Sussex Royal, The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Yes, but what about maintaining the integrity of the British royal family's brand? I hear you ask.
Brand integrity doesn't mean a brand straight jacket.
In case the Queen and her advisors haven't noticed, it's 2020. The Woke consumer (born in the mid-Nineties and early 2000s) has arrived, and the rules of the game have changed.
Yes, you have to remain true to who you are and what you believe in. I like to call that brand authenticity. But that doesn't mean you are inflexible to change, you don't reinvent yourself with the times, and you end up losing relevance with a new Generation-Z that thinks and feels very differently from previous generations. (An audience, by the way, that represents $150 billion of spending power in the United States and makes up a whopping 40% of consumers worldwide.)”
Snipped, more at link.
Title:
“Which Royals Are Allowed to Make Money? It’s a Little Complicated
Harry and Meghan may not be allowed to use their “Sussex Royal” brand, and Peter Phillips was mocked for his Chinese milk ads. But some of the queen’s relatives are signing major endorsement deals with no problem at all. So what gives?”
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could be pivoting yet again. On Tuesday the Daily Mail reported that the Queen of England has “banned” Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from using the term “Sussex Royal” in their public and private business work moving forward, even after the couple sought to trademark the phrase and indicated it would be their personal branding for their work now that they have stepped down as senior royals.
Is this a slap in the face, as some royal commentators would like to have it, or a hair-splitter that’ll require the 30-second step of editing their Instagram handle? For now it’s hard to say—as is anything specific about what commercial work the Sussexes will do, and how they will brand that work and themselves. But it’s not the only head-scratcher that’s had royal watchers wondering in recent weeks who gets to make money in this family. The queen’s eldest grandson Peter Phillips made sure of that, in the brutally awkward Chinese milk ad that surfaced a few days after Harry and Meghan first announced their intentions to leave the firm in January.”
(Snipped, more at link)
Title: “'Megxit' effect could turn Vancouver Island 'into the next Martha's Vineyard'” NBC news
“The Kennedys put Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, on the map. The Bush family made Kennebunkport, Maine, a tourist destination. And now, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may be doing the same for Vancouver Island, Canada, according to marketing experts.
Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, have been living on the picturesque island, located on the Northeastern Pacific Ocean, just off the coast of British Columbia, since they officially stepped back from their duties as senior members of the royal family in January.
Vancouver Island is slightly bigger than the state of Maryland, and is home to more than 800,000 people. Meghan has already been spotted on the hiking trails, but other activities, such as whale watching, kayaking and golfing make Vancouver Island a dream destination for outdoor adventurers.
“The couple could have chosen to live anywhere in North America and they selected Vancouver Island. That’s a powerful endorsement and is generating positive buzz for the community,” said Andy Levine, chairman of the marketing company Development Counsellors International.”
(Snipped, more at link)
"Apparently PH and and Jon Bon Jovi are gonna pair up for Invictus."
Bon Jovi cares nothing about Invictus. What does he know about it? It all about increasing the "Bon Jovi" brand recognition and visibility. Why? Because this brings in more money for Jon Bon Jovi...not today necessarily... but somewhere down the line. It brings more "likes" for Bon Jovi with his participation in this charity.
___________________
"Next week, Bon Jovi will join members of the Invictus Games Choir to record a special version of his hit “Unbroken,” in Studio 2 at Abbey Road Studios where The Beatles famously recorded their music. The prince, who founded the Invictus Games to benefit wounded veterans, will meet the singer at the studio."
I hear a bunch of nice ladies whose comments I dearly love reading. I will ask though, would you buy a book by an author you already know doesn’t appeal to you? When I see a comment by a participant that experience has shown me I will strongly disagree with or that I know was written to intentionally push my buttons, I just scroll right pat her remarks. I don’t read it and I would certainly not engage with her. In his instance, ignoring it might make it go away.
This is my baby boomer Aquarian solution that works for me.
Yes.
Acting lessons from Megsy?
Apologies if anyone is annoyed about me going on about my favourite tarot reader. She seems to have done a channelled reading on Harry and Meghan - has not posted the reading but has shared some insights.
1. Harry is VERY upset about threats to not being able to use the 'royal' and probably the loss of the HRH. First he was sort of crying and begging, and then he got angry and demanding. Anyway, the tarot reader reckons that the titles and royal branding are important to them and they are putting on an act.
2. For Meghan, she picked up the following: When they first left she felt liberated and happy, but now she is feeling insecure, scared and unsteady. They are isolated, they are not getting the huge deals they fantasised about, they are being rejected by some circles, and she is going to spiral into another wave of depression.
Personally I have suspected that the zillions of deals (Oscars, Davos, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Disney) are not as huge and certain as the media report and their success will not live up to the hype.
However, energies do change and sometimes something small can change the path, but that is what the tarot reader is picking up on them for now ...
Harry and Meghan don’t even own a shed, let alone turning Vancouver Island into the next Martha’s Vineyard. As one witty Nutty recently said...they are ‘sofa surfers!’ 😂
https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/jon-bon-jovi
List of charities:
BID 2 BEAT AIDS
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
Children Affected by AIDS Foundation
Covenant House
DKMS
Dream Foundation
Elevate Hope Foundation
Elton John AIDS Foundation
Food Bank For New York City
Habitat For Humanity
Hannah and Friends
HELP USA
Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation
Keep Memory Alive
Live Earth
Love Our Children USA
Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center
Musicians on Call
PeyBack Foundation
Project HOME
Red Cross
Robin Hood
Save The Music Foundation
Special Olympics
Stand Up For A Cure
Stand Up To Cancer
STOMP Out Bullying
Stop Global Warming
Strike a Chord for Cancer Foundation
TGR Foundation
Tico Torres Children Foundation
Valerie Fund
Victor Cruz Foundation
Through above, is linked to:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bill Clinton
*Ellen DeGeneres
*Elton John
Halle Berry
Jordin Sparks
Kanye West
Katy Perry
Keith Urban
Kelly Clarkson
Lady Gaga
Miley Cyrus
Sheryl Crow
Sting
List of causes he supports:
Abuse
*AIDS & HIV
Alzheimer's Disease
At-Risk/Disadvantaged Youths
Blood, Marrow & Organ Donation
Bullying
Cancer
Children
Creative Arts
Disaster Relief
Economic/Business Support
Education
*Environment
Family/Parent Support
Health
Homelessness
Human Rights
Hunger
Literacy
*Mental Challenges
Parkinson's Disease
*Physical Challenges
Poverty
*Veteran/Service Member Support
*Women
@BlueBell Woods Said:
"Personally I find many of her posts to be deliberately oppositional with the intent to negate the points other posters are trying to make.
And I for one will not forget the many nasty posts she made calling others names and accusing them of being drug addicts or stupid. Most of these posts are still here on the blog. And many of Tatty's current posts continue to have a mean-spirited flavor to them.
I agree with poppycock's response to the gollum poster re Tatty (the original gollum NOT the troll who followed her in and posted all the weird content)"
@Tatty said "I went over to LSA and found the anti Markle thread there and I noticed several (many?) people who post here also post there. Not all the names are the same, but some comments under different names were nearly word for word the same as posted here.
I think that makes it easy to say “so many people dislike them” when really one has found oneself in an echo chamber of the same people.
Maybe it’s not enough to say it’s nearly a duplicate thread to this site, but the same people in two locations saying the same thing makes it sound like double the people dislike them."
Understandble @BlueBell Woods. I guess to get it out of the way upfront...'it's a free world' and we have the right in a democratic society to say what we want. That being said, should we put up with oppositional people and especially those whose views are diametrically opposed, well it is hard to swallow. I think we should, as much as I hate to say it. But why does someone write things that are bound to irritate. It would be like a US Democrat going on a Trump fan site and saying things bound to stir up ill feelings. I think it reflects poorly on the person intending to disrupt and cause strife knowingly. Yes we should defend our position and call @tatty out to explain (like she likes to ask, er demand receipts). However most things fall into the realm of opinion.
I have found @tatty's oppositional position at times irritating but I take it generally with a grain of salt. However I would comment strenously on the quote you reprinted today. I find that laughable that she thinks all these posters on LSA also post here. I go to LSA for the heck of it but don;t even bother posting anythings since my venture there is out os curiousity. I don;t see what @tatty sees. I have a pretty good memory and can;t recall any familiar names except once I saw @Nutty's name. I think the antiMeghan faction is huge if not the vast majority of people who comment on articles on online news media sites. But another large segment is people who just don't care. I can't think of any man caring about Meghan unless it is Edward E. at Vogue...even Marcus and the weepy hair stylist have been quiet about Meghan. Where are the women MP's now who supported Meg..they are quiet too after Megxit. I guess everyone can see a sinking sink and are abandoning it.
Back to the main issue...maybe it would be kind if @tatty would be sensitive to the feelings of us who are on this blog because we highly disapprove of Meghan and Harry's deplorable actions. Be thoughtful about what you post if it is oppositional and sounds sugary. Like the recent comment of how Harry is perhaps treating Meghan as black women want to be treated as a 'queen' (little Q) in light of Christ admonition for men to put their wives paramount. I had to slap my hand figuratively to not write something sounding judgemental. If @tatty wants us to be understanding and careful about her feelings then the reverse should be true too.
Part 2 from Unknown#3
@tatty it would be kind to be cognizant that by and large we don't like Meghan period. No excuses no explanation needed. We are here to criticise her, vent and rejoice in seeing her get what she deserves and Harry too (although he is a wee bit more sympathetic of a figure). We don't need nor want to try to understand or much less like Meghan, as we all probably tried that to varying degrees a year or two ago. Please be respectful to our mindset and not try to make inflammatory remarks that you know will not be well received. We appreciate your factual contributions but try to leave it at that without inserting sugar bombs. If you feel like detonating a sugar bomb then the people at CB, LSA or Twitter would welcome it. There is truth to the old adage 'birds of the feather flock together'.
NEWARK — Rutgers University and a celebrated rock star joined forces Wednesday, opening a restaurant on the Newark campus targeting thousands of college students who face food insecurtiy.
At JBJ Soul Kitchen, a project by Grammy Award-winning rock-and-roller Jon Bon Jovi, college students can get a fresh, three-course meal for free. At Rutgers-Newark, more than 50 percent of the 13,000 undergraduate and graduate students have exceptional financial need.
Two other JBJ Soul Kitchen restaurants are in Red Bank and Toms River. Combined, they served 100,000 meals last year, said Bon Jovi, 57, a New Jersey native.
The BRF is not a brand to sell to the latest generation. Although public relations is always important (in the past, the threat was 'off with their head'!), those who confuse the BRF with a brand to be advertised and sold are misunderstanding all the complexity (just like Meghan did).
This is from the royal website:
'Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom.
In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.
Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.
As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.
In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.'
Yes, there are similarities between a brand and the BRF, but to reduce the BRF to a brand that must adjust to a woke generation is to be crass and shallow, at the least.
However, thanks for posting that article because it brings a better understanding of Meghan and why she was so unhappy in the BRF (besides wanting to be the top dog and not being able to work with authority or collaborate ... it is just who she is and the best place for her is not the BRF).
By the way, I do not think this is representative of all Americans. The USA is centuries old and no doubt has traditions and values that require a BRF dedication rather than a brand management approach.
"According to the foundation, Jon Bon Jovi will be joined by Prince Harry at Abbey Road Studios, known for being the recording studio of The Beatles. Bon Jovi will be recording a charity single " Unbroken" with the Invictus Game Choir."
https://abc7ny.com/5951786/
To clarify - "Unbroken" is the first track from his latest album Bon Jovi: 2020. The song was written for a Netflix film called "To Be of Service", released in November 2019.