Skip to main content

Prince Harry's new project - Score your vacation's environmental impact!

The Telegraph.co.uk has announced new details about Prince Harry's project Travalyst. 
From behind the paywall:
"The Duke of Sussex is to launch an online scoring system to show travellers how eco-friendly their flights are, as he embarks on the first major project of his new working life.
The Duke, who will return to the UK from Canada next week for the event, will share details of a prototype scheme to “bring more transparency around carbon emissions for individual flights” and make holidays as environmentally-friendly as possible.
The Travalyst project, which he unveiled in the summer, will be the first of several engagements in his 12-day visit to the UK, which will include a recording session with musician Jon Bon Jovi.
In a social media post yesterday, in which the Sussexes’ team mocked up a text conversation with Bon Jovi, Prince Harry hinted he would be joining in the singing on a single to benefit the Invictus Games Choir on February 28th.
The Telegraph has learned the Duke will also be travelling to Edinburgh during his trip home, for a day of work with his Travalyst project.

Testing out plans for a scoring system

It will see him welcome around 100 people from the tourist and travel industry in Scotland to a working summit to test out plans for scoring systems across the three themes of accommodation, aviation and travel experiences.
“It’s not telling consumers and people what they should and shouldn’t be doing,” a source said of the project. “We want to create an industry where people’s choices will automatically be better for the planet."
The Duke himself has received painful criticism over the last year for his own flights, and will continue to travel between the UK and North America in the coming months as the Sussexes split their time across continents.
In September, he answered critics over his use of private jets, saying the “unique circumstances” of his family’s safety made it sometimes essential and promising to "balance out the impact that I have" by offsetting the CO2.
"In my mind it's the right thing to do,” he said. “We need to make it cool. It can't just be a ticking-the-box exercise.”
An interesting project - and Duchess Meghan's name is not mentioned at all. 
What do you think of Harry's idea?

Comments

Madge said…
February 21, 2020 at 10:14 PM

<<<<<>>>>>

Our Queen is really really good at being unfailingly polite and cordial to Heads of State visiting the UK. It's what she does best by making people she meets feel special.

But those of us who have been watching her for decades can usually tell the difference between cordiality and genuine liking. She really like Ronald Reagan, and I think she really likes President Trump. That smile she gives him has that extra helping of twinkle to it. And like most of her generation, she has a soft spot for the USA because she remembers the war.

I don't think Markle or Hapless upsetting Mr Trump will go down well with her. Just the guess of this old woman. ;-)
Madge said…
The Guardian have picked up on the Harkles dropping Sussex Royal.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/21/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-to-ditch-word-royal-from-branding
Sandie said…
@Liver Bird: 'I just don't see any rich or influential man wanting to take on Meghan and all her baggage. What does she have to offer them? She's pushing 40 (not saying that's old as I've got a decade on her but men who want trophy wives want 'em young!), has a child, she isn't that pretty, rich or succesful in her own right. Any royal connections she had have been ruined. And while she might have been able to hide her obnoxious personality when she was a nobody, now the whole world knows what she's like. So I think it will be hard for her to upgrade. So she might hang on to Harry for the moment and seek to 'rebrand'.'

Good point.

I agree that she will hold onto Harry and try to rebrand for now, but she might also be impulsive and take radical action (narcs do that).

Megsy can be charming and she certainly knows a lot of love bombing tricks and is really good at word salad. Both Trevor and Corey were taken in by her. However, it may be possible that some guy (who does not want to be in the public eye and is not interested in an ornament to parade) may genuinely love her, but also find her exciting (her notoriety may be part of her charm for him). Interestingly, along with the wealthy and famous who want young and beautiful (Leo DiCaprio comes to mind), there are also those who do prefer an older woman (Jeff Bezos comes to mind). I don't think any relationship will last for her.
Sandie said…
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have spoken ...

https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

1. I detect some passive aggressive stuff there.

2. They are clinging to that elite very expensive security.

What the heck ... I am going to copy and paste so here it is, slit into two parts by me:

PART 1
We are pleased to now be able to share with you an update on many of the details agreed at a meeting of The Royal Family in January 2020, which outlines The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new roles, taking effect Spring 2020. We had hoped to be allowed to share these details with you sooner (to mitigate any confusion and subsequent misreporting), but the facts below should help provide some clarification around this transition and the steps for the future.

Animal Lover said…
@Liver Bird: 'I just don't see any rich or influential man wanting to take on Meghan and all her baggage. What does she have to offer them? She's pushing 40 (not saying that's old as I've got a decade on her but men who want trophy wives want 'em young!), has a child, she isn't that pretty, rich or succesful in her own right.

How would you explain a Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez? She doesn't fit the stereotype of a trophy as she is 50 had obvious facial surgeries and has 3 kids.
Sandie said…
PART 2

AS AGREED AND SET OUT IN JANUARY 2020:
It is agreed that the commencement of the revised role of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will take effect Spring 2020 and undergo a 12 month review.
The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. They remain a valued part of Her Majesty’s family.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will become privately funded members of The Royal Family with permission to earn their own income and the ability to pursue their own private charitable interests.
The preference of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex was to continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity, while not drawing on the Sovereign Grant.
While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.
Per the agreement The Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties and not undertake representative duties on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen.
As agreed and set out in January, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will retain their “HRH” prefix, thereby formally remaining known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer actively use their HRH titles as they will no longer be working members of the family as of Spring 2020.
As the grandson of Her Majesty and second son of The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex remains sixth in line to the throne of The British Monarchy and the Order of Precedence is unchanged.
It was agreed that The Duke and Duchess will no longer be able to formally carry out ‘official duties’ for The Queen or represent The Commonwealth, but they will, however, be allowed to maintain their patronages (including those that are classified as ‘royal’ patronages).
It is agreed that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son. This is based on The Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into The Royal Family, his military service, the Duchess’ own independent profile, and the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years. No further details can be shared as this is classified information for safety reasons.
In relation to the military, The Duke of Sussex will retain the rank of Major, and honorary ranks of Lieutenant Commander, and Squadron Leader. During this 12-month period of review, The Duke’s official military appointments will not be used as they are in the gift of the Sovereign. No new appointments will be made to fill these roles before the 12-month review of the new arrangements is completed.
While per the agreement, The Duke will not perform any official duties associated with these roles, given his dedication to the military community and ten years of service he will of course continue his unwavering support to the military community in a non-official capacity. As founder of the Invictus Games, The Duke will proudly continue supporting the military community around the world through the Invictus Games Foundation and The Endeavour Fund.
Sandie said…
PART 3

Based on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s desire to have a reduced role as members of The Royal Family, it was decided in January that their Institutional Office would have to be closed, given the primary funding mechanism for this official office at Buckingham Palace is from HRH The Prince of Wales. The Duke and Duchess shared this news with their team personally in January once they knew of the decision, and have worked closely with their staff to ensure a smooth transition for each of them.
Over the last month and a half, The Duke and Duchess have remained actively involved in this process, which has understandably been a saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their dedicated team.
As The Duke and Duchess will no longer be considered full-time working Members of The Royal Family, it was agreed that use of the word ‘Royal’ would need to be reviewed as it pertains to organisations associated with them in this new regard. More details on this below.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS:
As shared in early January on this website, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not plan to start a ‘foundation’, but rather intend to develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally.
The creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to. While The Duke and Duchess are focused on plans to establish a new non-profit organisation, given the specific UK government rules surrounding use of the word ‘Royal’, it has been therefore agreed that their non-profit organisation will not utilise the name ‘Sussex Royal’ or any other iteration of ‘Royal.’
For the above reason, the trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed.
While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.
As The Duke and Duchess of Sussex continue to develop their non-profit organisation and plan for their future, we hope that you use this site as the source for factual information. In Spring 2020, their digital channels will be refreshed as they introduce the next exciting phase to you.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex eagerly await the opportunity to share more with you and greatly appreciate your support!
none said…
@lizzie Thank you for the information. I remember when there was a lot of discussion about removing it and didn't know that it changed. I stand corrected.
Liver Bird said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liver Bird said…
@Sandie

Yes, very passive aggressive. You can almost feel the resentment seeping out of every mangled word. So no foundation of any kind eh? Interesting....

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex eagerly await the opportunity to share more with you and greatly appreciate your support!"

Oh FFS! How old is she? 14?

The security mention is pretty vague. Nothing about who will provide or pay for it.
CatEyes said…
Wow, I feel good about saying the Queen would win regarding the use of SussexRoyal and people came after me for it. (especially because Meghan had no consequences for not wearing tights, hats, etc.).. Guess Meghan read my post and thought my opinion was legally solid! Lol

Now I am going to predict Harry's Travelyst will be a dud (as it looks today). I went to the site and it is thin on content, not persuasive, he is a hypocrite on the issue, and he, unfortunately, is trying to tackle the wrong pollutant associated with the wrong vehicle. But assuming he wants to reduce carbon emissions (rather than the harmful PM 2.5 pollutants.)

. I worked in Air Quality planning for a US regulatory agency with the specific purpose of reducing emissions by requiring the implementation of best available control technology by commercial enterprises, the military and the general public where appropriate. Harry's is trying a small piece of the puzzle by voluntary compliance by a small segment of the populace. His concept, by and large, will go unheeded and is not practical and for those two reasons, will be inconsequential. To give an analogy for Americans who live in a large urban area with HOV lanes designed to reduce emissions by people carpooling during peak commute times there is generally a very small impact. People not only don't carpool they don't commute together off peal hours by let's say, two neighbors, going to church together or going to the store together. Thus an occasional woke person might if they are even thinking of it, consult which flight has less carbon footprint but it won't be in significant numbers and it isn't a given in any event. Like how many people drink water out of a plastic bottle instead of a reusable glass? Yeah right, most of us. If his idea had some financial perk like a very good discount on the trip, then maybe it would have some success but otherwise, in my professional opinion, it won't work.

Harry is only trying to control air pollutants from just carbon emissions but is ignoring nitrous oxide emissions and the more problematic Particular Matter (both PM10 & PM2.5) emissions. True it is the carbon emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases but PM emissions have deadly consequences to humans in the short term (think people with respiratory diseases). PM emissions lead to more immediate deaths than cooling of the earth or disruption of weather cycles decades, centuries or more. later.

Reducing emissions for travel involves a lot more than alleged airline trips. Vehicle emissions are worse. We need a cleaner vehicles the world over (in many states vehicles don;t have to pass emissions tests like California, where I lived and practiced environmental regulation). We need to reduce the number of vehicle trips the world over. What are all the vehicle trips associated with a vacation even if you are using an airline? There are vehicle trips to and from the airport. Potential rental car trips once at the destination, trips to restaurants and sightseeing. Vehicles used by travel agents, tour guides, suppliers to tourist hotels, restaurants, etc...and you'll see the huge use of vehicles and they're contributory emissions.

I think Harry could have picked a better pollutant to address and a better vehicle (no pun intended). I am also a bit jaded in that I think Harry picked this flashy eco-cause because of the HAMS love of travel (can you imagine the freebies HAMS would get) and that it is an endeavor that Pappa Charles' would wholeheartedly endorse and be so proud of his son (read reward with continued Duchy money)

Lastly, after I retired I went 180% into Marketing, (as a later income stream) and from limited experience, I think Harry's effort is pitiful as a convincing scheme to appeal to the masses and has questionable assumptions. He needs the concept to drive the result but as it is now he seems to be looking for the results to reinforce the concept. It won't happen in the short term and it might take a long time.in coming if at all.
Liver Bird said…
"How would you explain a Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez?"

Quite easily. She is not a trophy wife. Bezos clearly chose her as a partner, not an accessory. Why would any rich man choose someone like Meghan now that her reputation as a serial user has been well established?
Tea Cup said…
Directly from Harry and Meghan's statement on their website:

While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.'

Right there tells me the Daily Mail article "Defiant Meghan tells friends there's nothing 'legally stopping' her and Prince Harry from using their Sussex Royal name, despite Queen banning them from using it" did indeed come directly from Meghan.

Now with this capitulation, Harry and Meghan are playing like they are graciously choosing to drop SussexRoyal voluntarily, even though technically and legally they assert they don't really have to.
Sandie said…
Split into three parts by me!

What other members of the BRF are working royals in any way AND are publicly funded?

Beatrice and Eugenie are not publicly funded and do not have security courtesy of the taxpayer, but they do official appearances (garden parties and so on) with other members of the BRF.

I think they are really going rogue again and trying to control the narrative (and keep the elite and very expensive security).

There is no way that is a statement approved, or even checked, by Clarence House or BP (as in the Queen).

By the way, the leak to the DM may very well have been one of the 15 staff. The narrative of a tight-knit, devoted and loyal (we love the Sussexes) team may very well be PR spin from the Sussexes. They made their staff's working life a nightmare, and so many left!
Glow W said…
It speaks volumes that they chose to include HM and the government had no jurisdiction. They clearly pressed the issue.
Liver Bird said…
@Sandie

It says 'titled members' (eh?) but yeah, if they're not receiving public funding and aren't representing the queen - eg the York girls - then it doesn't matter where they earn their income. Pretty basic distiction, but too subtle for Meghan.

And like everything she does, that blurb is so very inarticulate and wordy! Official palace statements are rarely more than 2 or 3 paragraphs. And all that talk about 'misreporting' and not being legally forbidden from using the 'royal' titles.... does she really think she's fooling anyone? Rank amateurs, the pair of them.
KnitWit said…
The Japanese are great at recycling, but their leaking nuclear power plants poison the Pacific Ocean.

When Harry and Meg row or sail a boat back and forth from Van Couver to Malibu, they can talk about carbon emissions.

The bullet proof Landrocers they favor get great gas mileage I imagine. Do they take public transport? Harry should hop the subway sometime.

Morons. As are the sugars who praise them.

The bank had a video streaming for black history month. It was was about the "empowerful" business loans for black owned aka minority businesses. Gag. I support small business irregardless of the owners ethnicity. However, I am sick of the word empower and fed up with bank bs.

Sandie said…
@CatEyes: Thanks for that very informative post about carbon emissions and environmental impact. It is very complicated and I am always very wary of hugely hyped campaigns that simplify it to one issue without even considering the advantages and disadvantages.

For example, even without humans, there will be earth changes as this is a dynamic and changing planet. Some changes occur quickly; some take thousands of years. Sea levels will rise and fall so any settlement (from a house to a city) built on the coast will not be there forever. But, shipping is a handy way for transportation and thus any settlement built on the coast has an advantage over one built inland (e.g. in my country, petrol - what Americans call gas - is cheaper on the coast than it is inland). Short-term, a city on the coast is a benefit, but is it also a benefit long-term (i.e. enable more progress)? Where's the computer algorithm to work that one out?

For me, not all plastic will not pass the test as the benefits gained do not outweigh the mountains of non-biodegradable waste that no one is doing anything with, never mind the micro particles and the pollution of the oceans and threats to fish. (Use a hessian bag for shopping and get rid of the plastic bags.) But even with this, the Japanese (or is it the Chinese) are experimenting with some kind of organism that does break down, ingest, dispose of and thus use plastic.
Madge said…
<<<>>>>


The standard of English in that statement is appalling. I gave up counting at twenty grammatical errors.
Sandie said…
So, have the Sussexes abandoned their foundation, and the directors they appointed and any other staff they hired? That part of their statement comes across as confused and a little bit petulant to me.

Can anyone here work out what they are actually saying?
Sandie said…
@Madge: 'The standard of English in that statement is appalling. I gave up counting at twenty grammatical errors.'

Yep, that is the big clue that it is a Megsy special.
Liver Bird said…
@Madge

I'm a teacher, and I'm always itching to pull out my little red pen and start writing all over Meghan's excrutiating word salads. For a supposedly 'whip smart' person who claims to speak French and Spanish, she has a terrible command of her native language.
Louise said…
If they are no longer permitted to represent the Queen, how is it that they retain their Royal patronages?

Surely the "Royal" in royal patronage refers to the Queen?

This is really all over the place.
Louise said…
Liver Bird: You can tell that she wrote that manifesto update personally. It is full of mistakes.
Liver Bird said…
"If they are no longer permitted to represent the Queen, how is it that they retain their Royal patronages?"

They don't. They can remain patrons - if the organisation still wants them - but they will not be ROYAL patrons. Meghan is fudging the issue in the hope that we won't notice, but it was made quite clear, by professional writers, that they can no longer be royal patrons of any organisation.
Liver Bird said…
@Sandie

I haven't a clue what they're trying to say. I suspect they don't either. This definitely was not part of the plan. I don't think they have a clue what they're going to do next.

And I had to laugh at this mention of "the Duchess’ own independent profile" with regard to the supposed need for security. What 'independent profile'? Was Rachel a target when she was a cable TV actress in Toronto? Of course not, because her 'profile' is all down to the fact that she married a dumb prince.
MeliticusBee said…
Just noticed - on the browser tab - their little HM crown logo thingy looks a bit like a mushroom cloud...you know - a tiny little nuclear explosion....
@AvaC I have watched this series! Those faux bumps, the faux testers! I wonder if Megs showed Harry a faux test result before the rush wedding. I saw the novel in the supermarket today with the same girl who played "The Stranger" on the cover. I also found a face a baby site with ultrasounds, fake bumps of varying sizes, and droopy full boobs. Crazy stuff.
JennS said…
Great post @CatEyes! Gollum loves smart ladies!
💗💗💗
Ava C said…
This part of the statement ...

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not plan to start a ‘foundation’, but rather intend to develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally."

... reminds me very much of that thing Harry has gone on about before, particularly that documentary for the Queen's 90th birthday where he seemed to think his function was just to sprinkle magic dust on the grateful masses. It's that 'complement the efforts' made by OTHERS. Those who are doing the actual work. Very 'Harry'. He's floated through life thinking that's all he has to do. Just exist and make things better by his mere presence. In fact it doesn't even need his presence now. Just an online nod on Instagram from his(!) mansion thousands of miles away. Meghan is enabling him to be his worst self, purely for her own ends. They deserve each other.
Ava C said…
@Lighthealer Astrid on that series 'The Stranger' - never occurred to me you could get a fake pregnancy tester. That's one of the most precious moments, showing your partner that.

How would you get away with not having your partner at an actual scan though? If you wanted to trick them and not just everyone else. You can't have a fake scan appointment. Can you? They could just show a film on the monitor. No, that's going too far. The mind boggles at all this though. We all entered a twilight world of distortion and paranoia when Meghan came along.
The Sussex’s statement is very wordy and full of fluff.🧐

The way it’s written you think they’d made a conscience decision to willingly give up what they have. You can clearly see the things that stick in her throat. She’s very pedantic over the key things they’ve been forced to give up, but wants to make it appear otherwise, and quite pointedly too. 🙄

Security, they clearly think they’re important (the reality, they’re just greedy and pompous!) enough for taxpayer funded security (this has to go!).🤔
KnitWit said…
Have to watch the Stranger! Thanks for mentioning it.

I wonder how much each of the "sponsers" of travelyst pay to be listed.

Seems like the Sussex Royal site is contradicting the alleged " friends" regarding the use of " royal".

Wonder if the dukedom of Sussex is the next to go. The trial year may be one punishment after another.

Perhaps this is misdirection on purpose? Perhaps Meg flew off the handle, made a bunch of calls, without understanding the situation.

I imagine if the CEO of the ISP housing " Sussex Royal" got a cease and desist order from the royal family, he/she would consider dropping the site. The legal expenses are probably more than the site fees.

It will be interesting seeing if the Harkles show up in March.

The Malibu house is apparently a rental, according to the NY Post.

https://pagesix.com/2020/02/21/prince-harry-meghan-markle-eyeing-7m-malibu-mansion-once-owned-by-david-charvet/

Mimi said…
Cat Eyes, you took my admirer away from me. I am jealous, now that i’ve been kicked to the curb! ☹️
CatEyes said…
@Mimi

I just got home. I will have to read upthread to see what you are talking about.
Sandie said…
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/02/which-royals-make-money-meghan-harry-kitty-spencer

Oh dear, there seem to be a lot of misinformed people in the world.

Kitty Spencer is not royal, and she is not related to the Queen. She is the niece of the deceased ex-wife of Prince Charles. Diane was not royalty but married someone who was and her sons are royalty through their father. Kitty Spencer's cousins, William and Harry, are royal but she is not.

Oh, and the situation is a lot more complicated than the following paragraph implies:

'While “rules” around royal life may seem especially cloak and dagger these days, the boundary around who can and can’t take on advertising work is pretty simple, says V.F.’s royal correspondent Katie Nicholl. “If you are a working royal, then you don’t get to embark on commercial deals because there's just simply too much of a conflict,” she says. So what’s a working royal? That’d be “a member of the royal family who carries out engagements on behalf of the royal family and the queen. They are a representative of Her Majesty the Queen, and they're the HRH, the royal title,” Nicholl explains.'

Full-time working royals (The Cornwalls, the Cambridges, the Essexes, previously the Sussexes and the Duke of York, Princess Ann, Princess Alexandra and the Gloucesters, and, of course, the Queen) use money from the Sovereign Grant to cover expenses such as staff, office expenses, transport, entertainment, and accommodation to varying degrees. (Princess Ann has private property that is not part of a Crown Estate, but also uses an apartment in BP, or is it St James's Palace?) I think they all also get taxpayer funded security (RPOs).

'Part-time working royals' is actually not a real thing as family members such as the York girls simply step in when asked and accompany full-time working royals to an official engagement (such as a garden party). I doubt that they get any compensation for this at all. Other appearances that the York sisters do are related to their own charities or organisations they support (e.g. when Eugenie and Jack visited the hospital to highlight scoliosis, it was not on behalf of the Queen but because Eugenie is a patron of the organisation). It does get confusing but consider this: the Queen is accompanied by a lady in waiting, who is part of the aristocracy and could even be a distant royal relative. Is that lady-in-waiting called a working royal?

Everyone in the Queen's family is invited to the Christmas lunch at BP and to Trooping the Colour (plus the odd wedding and visit or very special occasion), both of which take place in Crown properties. (Balmoral and Sandringham are private properties).

Contrary to what Megsy has put out there in her statement, there is no such thing as a part-time working royal. Perhaps she was obliquely referring to the shady business deals that the Duke of York was supposedly involved in through connections he made in his full-time royal work. That didn't go well, did it?
Glow W said…
My adult kids and I decided to head to New Orleans for Mardi Gras tomorrow, so y’all have fun with the Gollum!

Poor sad Gollum’s with no life except that of a troll.

If you get tired of the Gollum or the HAMS, you can follow wwltv.com for Mardi Gras festivities or their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/WWLTV/

The annual greasing of the poles was today in the French Quarter.

I believe some are live streamed. The big parades are Endymion tomorrow night, Bacchus on Sunday night and well, any parade from here until Mardi Gras Day on Tuesday.

Sorry to disappoint the Gollum, but I have a life to live outside of trolling people. Lol.
Vince said…
@Unknown
-ignored-
Not very hard to do, is it? I don't need to take your bait, no one else has to take another poster's bait. Anyone pretending otherwise either has impulse control issues or may be under the age of 13.

Don't worry. I won't run to Nutty and ask her to ban you, and I won't create alternate accounts using the name of movie characters. I moved beyond such stages in 8th grade or thereabouts.
Glow W said…
@vince I wish I could take you to Mardi Gras with me. We’d have fun; you are cool. Gotta pack! See y’all next week. ❤️

Glow W said…
Live parade coverage: https://www.wwltv.com/article/entertainment/events/mardi-gras/watch-live-fridays-parades-in-new-orleans/289-a7f1470a-af70-4476-a5b7-46eaecd10a96
Sandie said…
@AvaC: '"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not plan to start a ‘foundation’, but rather intend to develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally."

I don't understand that part at all. They registered a foundation and appointed directors and other staff and said they would be represented through their foundation in the UK.

They seem to be running around like headless chickens.
pi said…
The Sussex site is so unprofessional and the writing clumsy and pretentious in the way that those illiterate of human sensibility write above their station, in this case Megs the warped narcissist.

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will become privately funded members of The Royal Family with permission to earn their own income and the ability to pursue their own private charitable interests."

And who is providing these "private funds"? Could it be Prince Papa Warbucks skimming off the Duchy of Cornwall and burying the receipts as is the BRF's wont?

It's astounding how Meghan outright lies on the Sussex site. It's mostly propaganda.

As an aside, I would guess that the gilded loafers also flew back from San Francisco by private jet, landed in Seattle and took Alaska Air to the island for the photo op. Because it makes no sense not to fly directly to Vancouver from San Francisco commercially. Hypocrite Harry strikes again.
CatEyes said…
@Mimi

LOL No @Mimi you have the 'it' factor (didn't you say you are still a 'young chick' if I remember correctly), Gollum still loves you. Look at those googly eyes...he has only eyes for you! And Big Eyes for you. He knows you are soulmates in your quest here.

Poor Gollum will be sad his nemesis is leaving. Cheer him up, Maybe offer him one of those drinks that made you feel soooooooooooooooo good the other night! Heck, offer me one!

Now I better read the rest of the posts that I missed in the last hour & half. and say something relevant before I get tattled on.

Glow W said…
@Vince thanks!!

@Sandie I wonder if maybe for the next year they will sit on the boards of other charities or something? Some kind of way around not using sussex royal for now? Idk just a last minute thought.

@gollumsprecious suck on it loser! Lol you are a pathetic excuse for a person and taa taa as I go have an amazing time in the Big Easy. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
JennS said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mimi said…
Cat Eyes, Let’s not encourage him.
Shaggy said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Animal Lover said…
@Sandie and other Nutties
Below is from page 6 which is an edited version of the Sussex Royal nonsense. These twp make me laugh out loud with their pettiness.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle laid bare their hostility with Buckingham Palace — by insisting that neither Queen Elizabeth nor the UK Government owns the word “royal” internationally.

Hours after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed on Friday they would not go ahead with their planned “Sussex Royal” brand after The Queen put a stop to it, they posted an extraordinary statement on their website insisting they still had the right to the word “royal.”

The statement reads: “While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.”

The new statement from the couple, who are continuing to move forward with their plan to step down as senior royals, indicated the tense negotiations with Buckingham Palace over the terms of their departure from the Royal Family on March 31st.

Saying their “preference” had been to “continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity,” they appeared to complain they had been treated differently to other members of the family and hinted at their regret they had not received all the concessions they had hoped for.

Animal Lover said…
Part 2 from Page 6:


The website update came just hours after a Buckingham Palace statement which confirmed once and for all that they would be abandoning their attempts to work under the name “Sussex Royal”.

The Sussexes said: “We had hoped to be allowed to share these details with you sooner (to mitigate any confusion and subsequent misreporting), but the facts below should help provide some clarification around this transition and the steps for the future.

SEE ALSO

Meghan and Harry confirm they cannot call themselves 'royal' anymore
“The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. They remain a valued part of Her Majesty’s family.

“The preference of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex was to continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity, while not drawing on the Sovereign Grant.”

Disclosing their unhappiness, the statement continued: “While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.

“Per the agreement The Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties and not undertake representative duties on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen.”

On the topic of security — amid reports their private protection could spiral into millions abroad a year — they said: “It is agreed that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son. This is based on The Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into The Royal Family, his military service, the Duchess’ own independent profile, and the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years.”

Meanwhile, they confirmed they are closing their London office, based at the Palace, saying they “have remained actively involved in this process, which has understandably been a saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their dedicated team.”

They have worked closely with their staff who will be redundant as of April 1, “to ensure a smooth transition for each of them,” they said.

Contradicting initial plans, which saw them register “Sussex Royal: The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex” at Companies House, the Sussexes will now instead “develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally”.

“The creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to,” they said. Addressing fans directly, and imploring them to use their personal website “as the source for factual information,” they said: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex eagerly await the opportunity to share more with you and greatly appreciate your support!”

punkinseed said…
Nutty, my gosh. You're right about the blog topic today being tossed because Meg's royal BS stomped it. LOL.
Foundation of Duke and Duchess of Narcissus. And, bonus, they can use the Narcissus flower as part of their new masthead for their newsletter.
PaulaMP said…
I thought Dad Thomas let it slip that Meg was really 42, not in those words but by doing the math
CatEyes said…
@Gollum 2020

Thank you for the compliment on my post.
Miggy said…
Meghan Markle has until Easter to prove that she can continue as Royal Patron of the National Theatre, says top West End producer.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8030783/Meghan-Easter-prove-continue-Royal-Patron-National-Theatre-says-producer.html
MustySyphone said…
Per a suggestion, I checked with my Priest. He said lower case h (which I used) is ok, upper case h is not. Can we bury the hatchet now and quit being catty?
Their statement on their website seems rushed and, as usual twisted to suit their narrative. Interesting that they aren't going ahead with the foundation, is that because it's been blocked for being totally unethical. As for doing things to complement others, their history shows that they try to take over, make it all about themselves and they to take the credit. They haven't got an original thought between them, even Harry's Invictus Games was stolen from the American Wounded Warriors - I think that was what it was called. Who would really want to align themselves with them now? They have shown themselves to be shallow, selfish and completely unemployable. Shouldn't they have discussed all the legal implications of the whole Sussex Royal debacle instead of just charging ahead willy nilly? Definitely egg on face time.
Mary H said…
torontopaper
@torontopaper1
·
29m
Darling, using your "trademark" after transition would leave you both without his income. Your only income. Will you resist the temptation?
torontopaper
@torontopaper1
·
2h
Darling, 3 months looking for a job in Hollywood and still nothing! Crawling your way back to Soho using old friends to try and get in. At least there you are a legend, peasant!
torontopaper
@torontopaper1
·
Feb 20
Darling, btw little reminder: April 1st is transition date. They are waiting for you in London! You will be the fool, peasant!
torontopaper
@torontopaper1
·
Feb 20
Darling, Epstein is coming huge and fast. The deals are made. The big fish get grilled, the pawns fried.
pi said…
"As for doing things to complement others, their history shows that they try to take over, make it all about themselves and they to take the credit. "

Indeed, @Janet. They are both historically parasites, sucking the life out of everything. A match made in leech heaven.
Unknown said…
'Different Unknown'

You must have ESP.

You know I am going to start posting my daily activities here, when I go into City when I go here and there and also talk about friends and family. Lets see if we each did that then about what 4-6 mesgs a day times 20 people then that would mean 80-120 OT messages a day. Then it would be the Daily Blabber Blog. Does anyone get the hint?
Ava C said…
Please don't have yet another ugly night on this blog (UK time anyway). It seems to undergo a personality transplant that then tries to clear again in the daytime, but each time more damage has been done. Just ignore it. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. I know it's tough but many of us have been here for ages and if you are targeted in some way, the people who matter will know to dismiss it.

Back to the subject we are here for, the Telegraph has a new article where they are also picking apart the latest Sussex mind dump. It's paywall but here's an extract:

>>>>> The Duke and Duchess have issued an extraordinary statement "clarifying" their own version of events as they leave the Royal Family, as they lay bare their frustrations at negotiations with the palace.

The Sussexes, who have now dropped their attempts to trademark the name “Sussex Royal”, published a series of claims on their own website, elaborating on an agreement outlined by Buckingham Palace just days earlier.

Saying their “preference” had been to “continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity", they appeared to complain they had been treated differently to other members of the family and hinted at their regret they had not received all the concessions they had hoped for.

The website update came just hours after a Buckingham Palace statement which confirmed once and for all that they would be abandoning their attempts to work under the name “Sussex Royal”. <<<<<

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/02/21/prince-harry-meghan-drop-sussex-royal-trademark-claim/

The Sussex weirdness is becoming more visible by the day. I mean for people who aren't looking for it.
CatEyes said…
@Mimi

Are you still here?


@MustySyphone

I was not being catty when I said 'God Bless You'...I was sincere. I am impressed you asked your priest but I know priests can sometimes not say the same thing when asked a question. I would have thought a conservative priest would say not using the word 'holy' in the context as happened is not something that should be done. IMO. I would not say for example.. I swear on my mother's life, or the one we American's do.the worst, "I swear to G_d" I appreciate that you identify as a Catholic. We are blessed. All is good between us.
Jen said…
So if there is no Foundation, what did Disney donate to? Imagine the taxes they will pay on that in 2 countries....
Animal Lover said…
How are they going to represent Her Majesty in Malibu?

Both of them seem to have an emotional age of 12.
Louise said…
Ava C: I agree with you that these threads usually start out strong and then deteriorate over time. It's a pity, really.
HappyDays said…
I think this venture will have a limited audience of well-heeled virtue signalers like themselves. Your average Joe is usually restricted by price, schedule, etc.

But until then, I’m going to look forward to nuclear-powered planes!

From an article in New Scientist:

Bacteria have been discovered that feed on radioactive nuclear waste. Scientists are looking into the possibilities of this being a way to solve the nuclear waste problem.
LET them eat waste. Bacteria could thrive on nuclear waste dumped deep underground and immobilise it to make it safer.
Certain microbes can use radionuclides such as uranium and neptunium in place of oxygen, studies have found.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431211-300-radiation-eating-bacteria-could-make-nuclear-waste-safer/
Ava C said…
Latest Telegraph headline relates to all the issues around carbon offsetting and says:

"With the trading of carbon credits enjoying a boom, concerns have been raised about offsetting projects around the world.

"Environmentalists have warned that offsetting could be doing more harm than good because it makes people wrongly believe they are not having an environmental impact."

These concerns will be given a publicity boost by Harry's latest wheeze. Yes the Sussex's make a difference if they get involved in something, but only in that the world's media then grabs their strongest magnifying glass to examine it. The only organisations/initiatives who would be safe would be flawless ones. Then, even if they passed muster, people would avoid them as they make them think of the Sussexes.

I saw a phrase I liked earlier this evening but can't remember where I saw it. That the only doors the Sussexes open are ones with 'Exit' above them.
Jen said…
Wow Ava, thats really cool about the bacteria and nuclear waste. I love reading about real ways people are making a difference. Its so wasy to talk, but when you actually DO what you are saying, it makes a bigger impact.
Unknown said…
Different Unknown

@Unknown Unknown

You are good. The list is endless. Maybe I should do the same when she gets back. Like you known we are going to be reading what she saw, what she ate, where she stayed, if she saw any celebrities, if she got food poisoning etc...ad naseaum.
punkinseed said…
I also wonder where the $ went that Disney donated. This is getting sour fast because Harry skipped going to the Deal event to get $ for what foundation?
That article today by Megs reeks of resentment and undercurrent of rage. She can't think straight because she's angry about not getting her way and wants everyone who is enforcing the agreement with HM to read between the lines. Vacuous, petulant scribbles. Like a child who is angry with you says, "I'm so mad at you I'm going to draw you an ugly picture!"

HappyDays, LOL, after reading the nuke waste eating bacteria comment, I got to thinking... then what eats the bacteria? Would Godzilla happen? arghhh.

Their statement is so bitter. They keep repeating that all of these agreements happened in January, when you know they didn’t, they are just trying to make it seem like they haven’t spent the last month fighting for the “royal” designation only to lose. Nothing like starting out your new lucrative commercial life already with the stench of failure. Also I assume when they talk about the precedent of titled royals working they are referring to people like Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. The difference being Bea and Eug haven’t branded themselves “royal” and trademarked everything down to the doorknobs. That is the distinction that bothers people, and specifically the U.K. government, though I don’t expect the Sussexes to be smart enough to see that. Especially when the opposite fits more firmly into their victim narrative. In all the world, there have never been too more victimized people than the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Also they basically confirm those stories that Meghan didn’t think the Queen has the right to order them not to use royal, which made her seem next-level crazy, honestly, by saying that the queen and the govt have no jurisdiction over other territories but they’ve “decided” not to use royal anywhere. Ha!

I’m a little baffled by the “now there’s no foundation!” Reveal and it reeks a bit of throwing all your toys out of the sandbox because you didn’t get the snack you wanted, but it could also be that now that they can’t be “royal” anymore they are just going to ditch everything, move to America and set up a 501c non-profit (they even use the word non-profit in their “statement”). That would put them in line for tax breaks and provide a funnel for their speaking engagement $$. Given their massive tax liability that’s been discussed often, they will need somewhere to park their profits so three separate governments don’t come sniffing around. Or maybe they are just trying to ease people into the idea that this isn’t going to be a beautiful, altruistic dream and more of a mad cash grab so it all doesn’t look so gauche when they start making questionable deals with shady characters instead of beautiful documentaries to save the elephants.
Sandie said…
Are they now planning to do paid appearances and give paid speeches for other foundations?

Their funding has to come from somewhere and if they do not have a foundation, then how can they get funding? If papa switches off the tap, they only have Harry's trust fund money, and that is not enough for them.

What about the donations and payments they have already received? I am pretty sure Disney's donation was for their foundation. Perhaps the JP Morgan sponsoring (travel and accommodation) and fee was to them and not to the foundation.

I don't know about other countries, but in my country there is such a thing as donations tax, so if they are staying at the Canadian house for free or for a low rent, they would have to pay tax on that perk (same for any sponsored travel and accommodation). Meghan's business manager must be taking care of this or they are going to end up in court being sued for tax evasion!

I wonder if either of them will learn a lesson from this?

I wonder if Harry's family is really worried about him?
Sandie said…
@Animal lover: The mess is far bigger and more entertaining than I though we would see from the Sussexes.
Mimi said…
Cat Eyes, I’m here. what’s up?
punkinseed said…
Sandie, If Harry was my grandson I'd be very worried indeed. The new "non profit" scheme is probably aimed at getting cash for speaking like the Obamas, et al do after retirement, or what ever. The Sussex's would have to go non profit somehow to launder their cash and avoid tax troubles. If they keep up with the victimhood speaking tours, they might as well just start a Go Fund Me account, because people on the speaking circuits have actually been successful before they launch into such engagements.
The Sussex's have been successful at what exactly? I'm not really seeing that they have done very much at all that makes them so special or extraordinary.
Jen said…
I would love to be a fly on the wall inside that house on Vancouver Island. After Meghan wrote her passive-aggressive response on their website, it must be pretty tense there. They really don't have any prospects for making money, so she must be going crazy.
Mimi said…
Unknown, a quick thank you for being really brave and telling it EXACTLY as it is when it concerns others telling basically to quit crying (when attacked, called names, treated unfairly, disrespectfully) and just suck it up. IGNORE IT! SCROLL PAST! Yeah, well I’d like to see those people practice what they preach when someone on here tells them their particular opinion stinks, like - - -holes that we all have!!!! Yes, I was told that. It is hard not to come back with something just as rude but out of consideration for Nutty and fellow posters I didn’t.
punkinseed said…
Jen, it's after 5 so she's probably good and sloshed by now, but complaining there's not enough of the right kind of cheese, so "Harryyyyyyyy! Go to the store!"
Sandie said…
The posters on LSA are in fine form - they are posting so fast that before I get through reading a page, and they have created another two.

I think the following post is hilarious:

Today, children, has been your lesson in Royal Whack-a-mole.

SussexRoyal? Whack.
Trademarks? Whack.
Foundation? Whack.
National Theatre patronage? Whack.
Commonwealth? Whack.

Queenie likes this game. She can play all day.

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-2951#post-55048862
punkinseed said…
Mimi, I haven't been reading all of the comments, or Nutty deleted them so I didn't know they were that bad. I'm sorry if I ever said to scroll past or ignore in the past. It's not right for anyone to get away with being abusive to others at any time. I too have self censored out of consideration for Nutty and fellow posters.
The main reason trolls exist and is to disrupt and eventually create so much chaos that they can usually and successfully destroy a good blog. That's why other blogs have moderators, but even they can go overboard and dictatorial (Websleuths turned sour after awhile for example).
It used to be that one had an ignore button so one could block trolls or commentors but I dont' see that on this format. I hope Nutty can do something to prevent losing a lot of great people I've met on here. I really enjoy and respect so many of you that it would be a shame to have it ruined.
punkinseed said…
Sandie! OMG! That's hilarious. I love lipstick. They craic me up so bad. Thanks for the link!
Mimi said…
thank you pumpinseed. don’t want to dwell on this too much as nothing is ever done about it. But thank for for your apology in case you were one of the “geez, get over it, for God’s sake just scroll past, just let it go! don’t engage with them, etc. Much worse things have been said to others with nothing done about it. It is not RIGHT!!!!!!!, It is WRONG to allow it to continue and so ebody needs to say it LOUD and clear....like Unknown.
CookieShark said…
Good grief have you ever seen anything like it. Everything MM does is embroiled in statements, retractions, correcting others...it just implodes. It appears they are furious other titled Royals have been allowed to work for money? And she just won't be quiet. All of these very public tantrums would surely scare off potential business partners, right?
KCM1212 said…
Meanwhile, they confirmed they are closing their London office, based at the Palace, saying they “have remained actively involved in this process, which has understandably been a saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their dedicated team.”

Still using the HRH, I see.

And what in the Sam Hill does this even mean?

Contradicting initial plans, which saw them register “Sussex Royal: The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex” at Companies House, the Sussexes will now instead “develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally”.

“The creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to,” they said. "

Blatant propaganda. Does anyone have a clue regarding this mystery entity?

She may self-combust. She is even more manic than usual.

@Avac

I agree. The atmosphere here (in the past week especially) has been very tense. And suspicious.

Surely we can all agree to drop it and get back to the function of the blog: discussing the Harkle shenanigans.

Don't let this great blog get Markled.

punkinseed said…
Mimi, I read today about that little dwarf boy who is wanting to kill himself because he's being bullied and hassled every day at school. Lives in Australia. His mom put on social media as he's crying and miserable in his life. So ya. any of that stuff, anywhere is wrong. We are not here to be mean to each other. There's other blogs for that like Godlikeproductions forum.
KCM1212 said…
@Mimi

I'm sorry a poster was so incredibly rude to you.

Definitely crossed every line.
Rainy Day said…
Wow. Just wow. The petulance and bitterness of that statement from MM and Harry is almost frightening.
KCM1212 said…
@Rainy Day

Wow. Just wow. The petulance and bitterness of that statement from MM and Harry is almost frightening.

I so agree, Rainey. It gives me an uneasy feeling that she is going to try to do something big.

Narcissistic rage?
hunter said…
So many excellent comments, you're all killing me.

"Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Griftershire" inspired.
SDJ said…
Nutty and everyone here: Aren't you curious about the 12-month review? What could possibly happen at the end of a year other than the Harkles will get a further smack-down? Does anyone think that the Queen would allow them to inch their way back in if they stay on best behaviour?

I think that if they behave, they will merely retain the April 1st status quo (I suspect there will be some financial help from Prince Charles during the year). If they get up to their expected shenanigans, then at the end of 12 months, the money will be stopped. What else does the BRF have in their arsenal? Removing their titles? Releasing unsavoury info about MM?
hunter said…
@Sandie - LSA is hilarious, that thread is golden and those ladies are smart too.

The kidnappers would have been driven crazy by the incessant babbling of MarkedDown and the weeping of Handbag crying "I want my mommy!"

They're calling them MarkedDown and Handbag, it's too good.
hunter said…
As for anyone with questions about her Foundation and further planning, people on Skippy's blog are constantly posting receipts on those developments. Both past and current registrations, somebody's always sending them in.
HappyDays said…
FYI: H.G. Tudor has posted A Very Royal Narcissist - Part 13 on narcsite.com
Lurking said…
Didn't she also register The Arche Foundation shortly after announcing the pregnancy? I get the feeling this is all theater. They get to claim victimhood but, have been planning something else all along. She has what she wanted. She will claim she is royal, a duchess or princess, says it right on the birth certificate, and there are gullible people who will fall for it.
Nutty Flavor said…
Good morning!

@SDJ, I think the RF believes Meg will be long gone before the 12 month review and they can have Harry back.
CatEyes said…
@SDJ said:

>>>Aren't you curious about the 12-month review? What could possibly happen at the end of a year other than the Harkles will get a further smack-down? Does anyone think that the Queen would allow them to inch their way back in if they stay on best behaviour?<<,

What could possibly happen after 12 months?
1. The Queen will send them a bill for Frogmore damages after finding holes in the wall doorknob level and broken mirrors.
2. She will tell Meghan she needs to get her tubes tied.
3, She will quit paying the RPO's and tell the Harkles to learn mixed martial arts since the budget gas been cut.
4. Charles will tell her no more 'Himalayan Yak' hair wigs because she has caused them to be put on the 'Critically Endangered' List.
5. The Queen orders Harry for In-patient care for a psychiatric disorder as he is sucking his thumb and stealing Archie's pacifier.
6, The Queen orders Meghan to return her 1 million in clothes and start wearing the 'Capsule Collection' by Misha as 95% of the skirts slacks and blouses did not sell.
7. Charles will tell Harry to stop Travelyst because he should encourage people to use hot air balloons to travel and he can have Meghan supply the hot air.
8. The Queen will revoke the UK passports so they can't come back to Great
Britain.
9. Her majesty demands Harry buy up all the remaining Harkles wedding memorabilia because people are putting it in their trash bins and its overloading the landfills.
10. The Queen on behalf of William asks that Harry be declared swirched at birth so he will shut the F*UP about Diana.
Ian's Girl said…
Barring Harry waking up and pulling his head out his arse, I doubt we (or Harry) will ever be rid of Nutmeg.

I mean, let's face it, despite all the toe sucking and being caught more than once selling access to Andrew, Sarah is not only still around, she is also still living with him. I am a definite Sarah fangurl, but she got up to some serious sh*t while they were married, let alone after the divorce. (I realize it's early days yet for our Meghan) I think the main difference is that Sarah genuinely loves her country, TQ, the royal institution, etc., whereas Markle has no attachment whatsoever, other than loving the aura of being royal herself.

I don't see Meggers leaving Harry; she likes that title. It might come down to a similar scandal where she is caught outright messing about with some billionaire and they push a divorce on her. But I can't see her remarrying and losing her duchiness.

I also agree with whoever said TQ and PC may not be as appalled at their actions as we think. Annoyed, no doubt, but I do believe they expected bumps in the road with an American, and an actress at that. I think they can forgive a lot, and Her Majesty out of all of them probably has a lot of sympathy for those who want out of that very gilded cage.

My guess is that what infuriates them more than anything is the way Markle constantly tries to upstage Kate. If Madame Duchess keeps that up, or starts in doing it with Charles, I bet the hammer will come down like a guillotine.

Sandie said…
@hunter: MarkedDown and Handbag is just the best.

There is a part of me that does feel compassion for two people who are making such a mess of things in such a public way.
Wow that statement. The angst is palpable and makes them look bad when they are trying to paint themselves as victims... wow the lack of insight is profound. Still referring to themselves as HRH? Calling their security concerns classified (I get that technically due to official agency involvement they probably are, but using that word is just so precious)? Challenging the Queen and U.K. on the legitimacy and enforceability of trademark/IP protection mutual treaties btwn nations? And then there are missing words/superfluous words/grammatical errors throughout. This would not pass muster for a press release from a much smaller or less public entity/individual. Do they not have one lawyer or PR person or otherwise adviser to whom they listen? I thought the first manifesto was a lot but this takes the cake.

On a general note, I’ve said before I’ve been reading this blog since it started and since I really can’t w cdan anymore, and I think so many of the regular posters have such interesting views, additional info and senses of humor on this topic. As for the OTT/trolls/stuff btwn posters, I just scroll but I’m not sure how I’d feel if singled out, I suspect not good at all. Thank you @nutty for creating this platform and I hope others can get the distraction out of it I do.
Sandie said…
Gosh, I missed this from her tirade:

'Based on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s desire to have a reduced role as members of The Royal Family, it was decided in January that their Institutional Office would have to be closed, given the primary funding mechanism for this official office at Buckingham Palace is from HRH The Prince of Wales. The Duke and Duchess shared this news with their team personally in January once they knew of the decision, and have worked closely with their staff to ensure a smooth transition for each of them.'

In their original manifesto, they said they would forego the funding from the Sovereign Grant, and it is this funding that is used for staff and travel, otherwise what the heck did they use the Sovereign Grant money for? Plus, is Meghan now saying that Charles has cut off their allowance, or reduced it hugely?

Did she speak to the staff via Skype? London is 8 hours ahead of Vancouver Island. How did that work with the timing?

Same with working closely with their staff (each and every one - all 15) to ensure a smooth transition. Transition to what? Whose transition? And how was this closeness managed given the time difference? (She has used the word 'transition': (def. noun) the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another. Nope, Megsy, they have been made redundant and have to find another job.)

Hands up those who think Meghan got through two bottles of Tig while writing this 'update' ...

A last comment ... and this one is for Meghan: Has it occurred to you that the stress affecting Archie has nothing to do with being royal, royal duties, royal life or the media, but is directly caused by who you are, and as long as Archie is with you, that is not going to go away because you will still be you.

By the way, HG Tudor classifies Meghan as a Mid Range Narcissist and says she is thus unconscious of what drives her:

'this means she does not know what she is, does not see anything wrong with what she does, operates purely by instinct and will not change' https://narcsite.com/2020/02/21/a-very-royal-narcissist-part-13-snapshot-analysis/
Crumpet said…
@ YankeeDoodle...

I love your analysis of Harry...just like Meggs, he is a royal fraud.
Crumpet...aka unknown
harrythetwat said…
@CatEyes your list is too funny for words. Any chance you could send it to Grift and Grief??😂😂
Sandie said…
A thought ... this all makes a divorce more straightforward.

No joint foundation to unravel.

Easier to take the HRH (now obligatory in the event of divorce) and use of 'royal' away if Megsy has set up her afterlife without it anyway. (A duchess without the HRH or an estate is actually an empty title as many women in the UK have had to discover before the law of succession changed, and as some still experience if death duties or a major disaster reduces the estate to nothing. It is the HRH that is magic, and Megsy may as well have lost that even though she protests the opposite.)

For now, no joint property to haggle about (proceedings to get a lease in Harry's name for FC in motion, and no need to put Megsy's name on the lease as she has made it clear she does not want to live there?; no mansion in LA yet).

As the rumblings around, not from, the National Theatre seem to indicate, Megsy is going to lose her patronages in the UK, but all Harry's stuff is on hold. Those patronages are the only ties to the UK that she has left.

I think the Queen is very tolerant and forgiving and gave Meghan genuine support and acceptance and hoped things would work out even though I am sure there was some kind of vetting and the Queen and her key courtiers knew the truth about her unsuitability and the potential dangers of having her in the family.
CatEyes said…
@harrythetwat

'Grift and Grief', now that is hilarious.

You know I am an American and I actually wrote the Queen about a year ago, a nice card and a letter,. I told her politely that I was embarassed about how Meghan was acting and that she needed reining in (or in the Queen's case 'reigning in'.). Well of course you can imagine, I did not receive a Thank you card (but I was kinda hoping). The Queen would have had to order a couple of tons of Thank you cards for that sentiment.
KnitWit said…
Ava, thanks for sharing the link about bacteria and nuclear waste. I have read that the area around Chernobyl us recovering more quickly than predicted. Such discoveries give hope for the future.

More confusion than hope for the Harkles future.

Confused about the Sussex Foundation. If they are dissolving the foundation, how are they going to avoid taxes while grifting/empowering/whatever? Perhaps we are misreading the word salad? Perhaps there are issues with taxes/protocol/donations? Maybe this will be addressed between now and April.

I hope no taxpayers pay for their ridiculous security demands. Plenty celebrities pay for private security. Their demands for state security seem more who driven than threat given. The public isn't told about most threats. Perhaps there are incidents not publicized.
harrythetwat said…
@CatEyes Right now I'm torn between the drama of Brexit and the subsequent EU infighting over their budget and Grift and Grief's tantrums. I suppose the Monarch has more on her plate and her staff are quite busy mopping up the mess that these two have caused. Maybe when all these has died down, they'll have time to send you a thank you card. BTW, I used to work in HR and I administer tests to potential employees. As part of the test, we give out a questionnaire with open ended questions and one of these questions is "When I see a child throwing a tantrum, I....." One of the applicants answered "I would pick up the tantrum and throw it in a bin." 😂😂 Maybe her majesty should do the same with Megs and Begs tantrums.
harrythetwat said…
Sentences, not questions. Sorry😁
Magatha Mistie said…
If they drop Mountbatten they can be known as the Duke & Duchess of Windsor 2.0
Crumpet said…
Hello Nutties!

@Sandie and @CatEyes

Continuing conversation about environment and travel, The Telegraph now has several stories on its front page, The Carbon Offsetting Wild West and Why Offsetting is Fooling People. These are behind the paywall unfortunately... Crumpets aka Unknown
@Punkinseed,’That article today by Megs reeks of resentment and undercurrent of rage. She can't think straight because she's angry about not getting her way and wants everyone who is enforcing the agreement with HM to read between the lines. Vacuous, petulant scribbles. Like a child who is angry with you says, "I'm so mad at you I'm going to draw you an ugly picture!"

Spot on, you said it best! 🤗
@Jen,’They really don't have any prospects for making money, so she must be going crazy. ‘

Going crazy? She’s gone crazy, megalomania has gone to her head and it’s all there in her statement. 🤔
Madge said…
Sorry if this is a duplicate.

The Mirror newspaper claim that The Queen has put lawyers onto the Sussex Royal issue after Markle told people they could defy the ban.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markles-sussex-royal-brand-21551171

Sandie said…
Always worth checking what's new from Richard Palmer:

https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Here are some recent nuggets:

'When she was in Windsor, the Queen went to see the Sussexes regularly at Frogmore Cottage to try to settle them, I’m told. But she also found their behaviour towards staff and others frustrating and disappointing.'

'The Queen started out by wanting to make the Sussexes a generous offer. But as the talks progressed, it became increasingly clear that Harry and Meghan couldn’t be half in and half out.'

'The couple’s new website has proved factually inaccurate and misleading in the past so it pays to take care when reading it. But if the latest post is true, the couple have at least won their battle to retain police protection. Who pays for that remains unclear.'
Nessie said…
I just went to their website for the first time. I refused earlier because I didn't want to give them hits.
I agree with other posters here that the whole thing is a smoke screen and feels utterly fake. Also from energy wise, there is a lot of negativity coming from this website. It feels like they are unable to put out something authentic and only gullible people or those who want to make money of it will be involved. So stay away kids........
Remember, Article 1 in the Narcissist's Creed:

`I am a Narcissist and Nobody, absolutely Nobody, not even the Queen of England herself, ever tells a Narcissist what to do or not do.'

About 30 years ago, when I was trying to understand No 2 husband's behaviour (was he a psychopath or what?) I came across the concept of Personality Disorder. Psychopathy and sadism were mentioned but nothing about narcissism.

The view then was that because there was no `cure' for PDs, they couldn't be classified as mental illness. Nothing had `gone wrong' in the subjects' minds, it was just the way they were wired from the start.

Rather like buying a piece of kit that doesn't work. It can't be said to have `broken down' because it didn't work in the first place, having been assembled wrongly.

Mention of MM of still being a duchess after Divorce led me into an entertaining fantasy.

I recall a time when the Duke of Argyll was a much-divorced man - one duke, several simultaneous duchesses. Can you imagine what might happen were Harry to remarry after divorce? The new duchess would be an HRH - light the blue touchpaper and retire immediately...


@Knitwit: I really feel for you and send my love and all good wishes for a quick resolution to your housing problem. It grieves me deeply that there is so much suffering and misfortune in the world already but, even so, vile creatures, like the Dumb-dumbs needlessly create even more.
@punkinseed,

Narcissus = daffodil = national flower of Wales

If they use that, I wouldn't put it past them to try and claim that Harry should be PoW instead of his brother when the time comes.


@CatEyes, you were much more polite than one person during the State Opening of Parliament, such a shame you didn't get an acknowledgement. I watched the state opening live on tv and was completely gobsmacked - I couldn't believe the rudeness of heckling the Queen to "get rid of Markle" while she's in the middle of a state event!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRInTdkb0R8

Around the 1:25-1:30 mark.

I guess it does show just how badly she's thought of in the UK if someone who had the credentials to be inside the House of Lords during an event of this magnitude was angry enough to pull this stunt. I'm not sure we ever found out who it was, if anyone's heard anything more about this I'd be interested to know.
^ I've just noticed the date and realised it was only last October, so much has happened since that it honestly feels like it happened much further back than a few months ago!
xxxxx said…
DM current headline at top of their Main page....... I liked use of the word sour.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle make extraordinary claim as they complain about their treatment in sour statement after Her Majesty forced them to drop 'Sussex Royal' brand.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have posted an extraordinary statement on their website claiming that the Queen does not own the word royal across the world after they were forced to drop their 'Sussex Royal' brand.Harry and Meghan put a new statement on their own website hours after announcing they would stop using the word royal in their branding after the Spring. In a statement on their website, the Duke and Duchess said that while neither the government nor the Queen herself own the word 'royal' internationally, they would stop using the title.

The statement read: 'While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word "Royal" overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use "Sussex Royal" or any iteration of the word "Royal" in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.' They also appeared to complain about their treatment by the palace claiming it is different to other family members. The statement continued: 'While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.

Per the agreement The Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties and not undertake representative duties on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen.' They also confirmed that their office - based in Buckingham Palace - would be closed, a move they said was 'saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff'.
Lurking With Spoon said...

If they use that, I wouldn't put it past them to try and claim that Harry should be PoW instead of his brother when the time comes.

Yes, they are deluded enough.

That raises a question in my mind regarding Archie -

He must have a `light shone on' him. To allow him to continue this shadowy existence/?non-existence? much longer could be dangerous. The sugars presumably are buying the wonderful image she's painting - we've already seen the slogans about `King Archie'.

History has already given us a number of challengers to the throne:

We've had the 2 Stuarts, James Francis & Charles Edward, son and grandson of a crowned king, James II, if you dismiss stories about warming pans.
D of Monmouth was the bastard son of Charles II.
Earlier still, there were Perkin Warbeck & Lambert Simnel, claiming to be the `Princes in the Tower'.
The consequent battles of Culloden (1746) and Sedgemoor (1685) still evoke painful feelings in the Highlands and West Country respectively.

I'm not suggesting pitched battles along those lines but we've seen extensive rioting in the past few years, stemming from a sense of injustice, and there are plenty of commentators and journalists who might gladly stir the pot.

Did anyone see Yasmin A-Brown on The Papers last night? (BBC News24). Very predictable support for H$M - `mean-spirited Queen 'etc. It's as if she were programmed years ago, so removing any need for observation and thought.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Do not see how Markles can show up in UK after this. This is a direct attack on the authority of the Queen.
They also blame her for their own decisions.
If the Queen continues playing soft with them after this she totally lost it.
I have never seen anything like this in my life, total lack of respect and utter ingratitude to the country and family. Disgusting.
Ozmanda said…
I have been so far behind all the gossip - things have been really bad. The fires seem to be under control but I lost my job and have been in this really horrible dark place. Crying everyday and feeling lost and scared of being homeless and without working where I can help others.

I will now catch up on the comments and hopefully I can vent some gold standard snark :)
Nutty Flavor said…
@Yankee, I hadn’t heard that story about the motorcycle in California and Nevada. Has it been published?
Nutty Flavor said…
Sorry to hear that, @Ozmanda.

It’s good to have you back.

We are pulling for you.
@Fairy Crocodile, ‘Do not see how Markles can show up in UK after this. This is a direct attack on the authority of the Queen.
They also blame her for their own decisions.’

I totally agree. I think it’s now reached an untenable situation, if the dare show up I expect booing and perishable’s to be thrown at them both. 😖
Scandi Sanskrit said…
@Ozmanda: 💜💜💜💜💜💜
Humor Me said…
Time to pull the titles your Majesty.
Enough.
@Ozmanda, I’m so sorry to hear things are horridly rough. 😟Sending good vibes from the UK to you ❤️
Ozmanda said…
Am I the only one to find it interesting that this travalyst thing ramped up again after their ridiculous appearance at the jp Morgan thing? If I was given this case with no idea who is running it etc I would be suspicious there is a shell company/money laundering thing happening
Fairy Crocodile said…
@Ozmanda
Hang on there. I also went through losing my job at the worst possible time. I know what it means to be homeless too. Believe me, you will pull through. There are better times for you in the future. Don't give up. If a person lacking confidence like myself can deal with something like that so can you. Praying for you!
Ozmanda said…
Thanks guys - good thing is a lot of people are interested in my skills and resume so hopefully someone will snap me up - I have very specific skill sets that may be of value. Maybe we should all set up the nutty detective agency?:)
FrenchieLiv said…
@Ozmanda : I'm very sorry for you. I send you lots of love & many blessings ❤️!

@ Fairy Crocodile : She’ll come back to UK because :
- she has no new photos she can use on her IG.
- she wants to stay in the headlines.
- she wants to upstage Kate & Wills, she wants to take revenge on the BRF.
- she will set up new « secret » visits and attend her Vogue event.


Someone who would have been clever would have taken a deep breath, thought quietly about its next move, worked on a new narrative.
That statement shows (again) that Meghan is her worst enemy, so predictable. She is going crazy, bitter, angry. She has no manners, no shame, no self-restraint. All that will cause her downfall.
I think they are broken. She can’t even afford to buy a house of her dream.
They have to beg for some money to « pa’ » and if they finally get a house in L.A, it will be a tiny house (compared to her A+ list celebrities’ mansions).
She must be desperate because her plan failed while she put so much energy to plot, they are broken, she is stuck in the middle of nowhere in Canada with a depressive/dump husband she obviously despises, a range of nannies and RPO she dislikes and an «useless» toddler.
I am looking forward to see the next chapters of this saga, that will be epic.


Portcitygirl said…
KCM

I agree about narc rage. Hopefully, HM is well equipped to deal with her. What I find utterly unbelievable is that Harry is complicit in all of her shenanigans. This woman seems absolute nuts. Who in their right mind with all their faculties would dare challenge and throw shade at HM, and on a global stage no less?

I find them both disgusting and would never purchase/ support anything they have to offer.

I was a little hopeful they could just fade into the background and just work their mischief behind the scenes like so many of our rulers here in the US, but this latest development is beyond anything I've ever seen concerning TBRF.

If anything happens to HM or PP in the near future these two ungrateful greedy grabbers will certainly be blamed for it.
Nutty Flavor said…
Good point, @Portcitygirl.

Philip seems to be holding on. Apparently Peter Philips has been spending a lot of time with him. Still, the Sussex drama is a sad end to a lifetime of service.

The whole thing is like a opera, if they could make Meg sing (traditional villain) bass.
Ozmanda, so sorry about your situation but hang on in there, even if you only think in terms of making it to the next mealtime, to paraphrase the Revd Sidney Smith ( he who defined Heaven as eating foie gras to the sound of trumpets).

Life can be such a bitch, even without the MMs of this world. I recall that kind of despair - (the same day I was told I would be losing my job, my bloke informed me he'd got engaged to somebody else). That was 30 years ago, I think it was pure bloody-mindedness that got me through.

I wouldn't wish these kinds of misery on anyone (or would I make an exception for MM? I'll think about that!) so I send my love to you, as well as Knitwit.
Portcitygirl said…
@Oz

I'm so sorry about your job. I hope things will get better for you real soon.
Nutty Flavor said…
I suppose William would be the tenor, the traditional hero role. The Queen as soprano? Kate? Camilla would definitely be the alto.

And Harry the castrato, of course.
Portcitygirl said…
Thank you, Nutty.

And I agree with you on both points.

Fairy Crocodile said…
@Nutty
Oscar goes to you! "Fariharry Castrato", tragedy in three acts.
Portcitygirl said…
Nutty,

Thanks for my first laugh of the day. Lol. Spot on with that!
Miggy said…
Royal experts blast Prince Harry and Meghan Markle over 'spiteful' and 'completely unnecessary' statement after the Queen forced them to drop Sussex Royal brand name - and one commentator fears 'it will get WORSE'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8032035/Royal-experts-blast-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-spiteful-unnecessary-statement.html
Miggy said…
@Ozmanda,

Truly sorry to hear about your problems and hope that things will improve for you very soon.
Nutty - Yes an opera,

I suggested Gilbert & Sullivan's Gondoliers with the Harkles as the Duke and Duchess of Plaza Toro. It would have been an excellent light-hearted spoof.

Now though, we've moved into much, much, darker territory.

I can't decide whether something along the lines of Don Giovanni is quite heavy enough, although I'd relish the final scene of them being dragged down to Hell. Does anyone remember the Peter Sellars production set in NYC? A controversial production but I loved the way the NY sewers opened up to swallow the Don, a fitting end for out antihero and anti-heroine.

Verdi perhaps? Fool Stuff and the dodgy Wife of Windsor?

Even Puccini? I have a vision of MM as that mythical Bouncing Tosca. It is said a deeply unpopular diva was made the butt of the stagehands’ practical joke. Instead of a simple arrangement backstage to break Tosca’s fall as she threw herself off the castle battlements, they used a pile of mattresses so she kept bouncing back helplessly into full view of the audience. Can you imagine it – away went Markle, away went wig - next week’s washing revealed, if she’s wearing any – wonderful!

I’m not sure about the voice. My immediate though would be dramatic contralto, on the grounds that those parts are `witches, bitches or breeches’. We’re agreed that either of the first two categories will work. Perhaps the third would as well, as in `too big for her breeches’.

Now for the plot. Tragedy? Farce? Or Good Triumphs Over Evil? Sadly, that remains to be seen.

What about Harry as a real Treble - 12 or 13 yr-old unbroken voice?
Fairy Crocodile said…
Can you believe she was called "a breath of fresh air" in the beginning?

People who remember Fergie called exactly that too said immediately Megsy would be a liability.

Turned out to be a manure tornado instead of the breath of fresh air, innit?
Most accurate comment on the DM:

"Let us be independent from the RF by being dependent on our connection to the RF." hypocrisy to a whole other level."

Hard to get more accurate than this.
Hey Ozmanda, sending warm thoughts your way. You have us in your corner pulling for you! Hang tight-things will pick up soon!
Fairy Crocodile said…
DM is trolling them by inviting Brits to come up with their brand names.

Dumbarton Bargains, Burger Queen, TKSuxx, EX-Rex, Woga'n Broke, Royal Connive are all in the run!
Ava C said…
@Wild Boar Battle maid - that Tosca thing actually happened in Newcastle in the 1970s as I saw it then as a child. She flung herself off the battlements and we saw her head bounce up into view again. Just one bounce but I'll always remember it. It ranks equally for me with a performance of Oklahoma at university when the man comes striding along singing 'Oh what a beautiful morning' and pushed a woman sitting rocking on a veranda, joshingly on the shoulder, and the whole house rolled off towards the wings!
Fairy Crocodile said…
Definition of royale.: an egg custard cooked and set in a mold, cut into various shapes when cold, and added as a garnish to clear soups.

Sussex Royale!!

These brand names are the fun of the day!
Ava C said…
@Ozmanda - so sorry to hear how tough things are but all our thoughts are with you. Sounds as if people know your value which is great. We're all rooting for you. Welcome back.
Ava C said…
The more I think of this disastrous statement of theirs, the more aggressive it becomes. They are actually bullying the Queen, for all the world to see. Harry has turned his back on his 99-year-old grandfather and is now allowing Meghan to bully his 93-year-old grandmother. I have no words for that.
hunter said…
I am very excited to see the DM posting such an expose on Markle's ridiculous statement. I find it very funny.
Vince said…
Total devastation. Just reposting this new article from the Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8032035/Royal-experts-blast-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-spiteful-unnecessary-statement.html


It really feels like the Queen walked them into a trap on this matter. A brilliant play. And I'm sure there will be more to come.

It's not just that they are officially "non-Royal" now, including in brand. Or that their previous brand build-ups are now shattered.

It's this:

"Prince Charles' biographer Tom Bower told MailOnline that the public is 'finally seeing Meghan's true nature and motives'."

That's the real pain here. The Queen is lifting the veil on Meg's true face to the public. She's exposing the truth of Meg's grifter ways and shredding the previous 'explanations' for why the Harkles stepped away.

Meg had the momentum and the crowd when Megxit took place. People (some) felt bad for her. The crowd was on her side.

Not anymore. And the further we get away from Megxit, the worse it's going to get. And the Queen gets to review all agreements in 12 months. So she can choose to lower the boom even further as time goes forward.

Openly warring with the Queen and being dismissive of her is a certain route to losing nearly all celebrity support. Particularly when you pretended that the reason you wanted out of the royal family was for noble and necessary reasons, not to grift. So arguing that the Queen won't let you get your grift on really exposes the truth.

The peak of the Harkles' power has crested and is on the wane. Long live the monarchy. I'm SO here for this palace smackdown. Can't wait for the next chapter.
Vince said…
@Ava C
Exactly. The world is watching Meg Harkle trying to bully a 93 year old monarch.

PR death here. Only the most demented of the sugars is going to get on this ride with Meg.
CookieShark said…
Wow to have a sliver of the resources they must have. They are so freaking greedy. Not only are they so disrespectful to HM, but they still demand security. Just start Hawking the products now. But they won't, because they want the titles.
KCM1212 said…
@oz
So sorry about your troubles. Sending good wishes your way. It's good to see you back.

Does she really feel as if this is going to give her business partners? Aside from the freak factor, who would want to be associated with them? Hollywood must have run out of 11foot poles by now.

I kind of feel for Thomas Markle. He doesn't seem like a man who could withstand this type of madness. Explains their relationship a bit more. Puts the "co" in "dependent" .
Meghan Markle- The Opera:

Dramatis personae:

Prince Philip (bass) a Commendatore figure from Don G, rising from his present state to summon MM to dine. Her name fits the rhythm of his call : Megh-an Maaa-rkle rather than Don Giovaaa - ni (sort of ..-. in Morse!). Sinks her in the swamp at Frogland.

Duchess Catherine - young heroine - soprano ?coloratura?

William - young hero - tenor

Harry - boy - or - genuine castrato if available - (treble, castrato, countertenor, falsetto)

HM - mezzo, mature woman, almost the white witch using her power for good.

Choruses of former lovers, RPOs, royal `experts', sugars and frogs, final battle, sugars put to flight, frogs victorious. Archie revealed as no more than Will o'the Wisp, a gaseous emanation from the Frog swamp which lights up occasionally but has no more physical existence than a puff of Meghan's hot air.

Well, we have to laugh when times are dark. Think of the words to Colonel Bogey...
Louise said…
1)I still don't understand how they are keeping their Royal patronages if they may no longer represent the Queen.
Royal patrons specifically represent the Queen, don't they?

2) This manifesto update will surely scare off some people or companies who might have been considering working with her. There are often disagreements in business and no one wants to see their name smeared on her website.
CatEyes said…
@Ozmanda said:

""....good thing is a lot of people are interested in my skills and resume so hopefully someone will snap me up - I have very specific skill sets that may be of value.""

What you have is golden so keep confident and have hope. Keep your chin up, you Will get a job. I will say a prayer for you now.
Vince said…
@Ozmanda

Best of luck with your current situation. Hang in there. I've been where you are at, and it can and will improve with time.

For now, don't worry about helping others. Help you. Everything else can wait.
hunter said…
It appears RegalSussex and SussexRegal were recently submitted for registration.

https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/image/190959352419
hunter said…
Okay and someone suggested Unsussexful.com and frankly I think it's genius.
hunter said…
Also - If I may be the (next) person who everybody hates can I just say,

I am not interested in reading about the personal life problems of internet strangers so please do not expect mewling sympathy from me.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
xxxxx said…
In the beginning the BRF was intimidated (the race card angle) and sucked in by Megsy. Old Hippie Charles fell for New Agey Megsy. Just look at the $1,000,000 in expensive clothing they bought her from Duchy of Cornwall rents. The super expensive Royal Wedding with taxpayers forced to pay 15 million in security costs. Megsy was massively indulged and began to think she could get even more out of these BRF push-overs. This is when she cooked up the scam of cashing in on her Sussex title while shirking off Royal duties. Sarah Latham connected her with the Americans who knew all about branding, copywrites and setting up scam-a-roo foundations. BUT all in America.

What they did not count on was The Queen and the BRF killing all their Sussex dreams right in the UK. By exerting Royal power and citing the law. The BRF brought in their highest lawyers and to me this was an open threat and announcement to potential business partners that the BRF would bring legal actions in America too. Thus the angry Megsy retreat from using Royal Sussex branding.

Along with loony Megsy, blame Sarah Latham for encouraging her pipe dreams of exploiting her Sussex title that was only one year old.
QueenWhitby said…
Ozmanda, although you are a stranger to me, I have compassion for my fellow humankind which is really why I’m here. I can’t stand the thought of an abhorrent, two bit hustler treating the RF, especially The Queen, who should be basking in the twilight of an impeccable reign, with such disrespect. Sending you positive vibes for a quick turnaround in life.

I am savouring the deliciousness of the tables turning, as Elle said, no fingerprints and the Queen has played the un-divine Ms. M like a Stradivarius. It looks like the only option left is shill-for-a-fee for whatever charitable organization will have her, the thing is, they want Harry. Egads, she has blown things more spectacularly than I could have dreamed.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
Do stores in Western countries not have biodegradable plastic bags?

I sometimes don't get the alarmists, always talking like the sky is falling. THE EARTH IS GOING TO EXPLODE IN 11 YEARS TIME!!

Are there no ways to recycle PET bottles in England? There are ways to do that.

Don't let the alarmists scare you just because they want to feel important. There are solutions to everything.

But sometimes the best we can do requires compromise (as in it won't be "sexy" like a years' worth of rubbish in a mason jar, or an extreme all-or-nothing approach to life like a dangerous diet). But so what? We do our best until better solutions come, the SCREAMIIIIIIIING is unproductive.

Just do my best even if things aren't prefect.

I used to do the 100% canvas bag thing all the time.

Then I realised that I *needed* the plastic bags from stores to line my rubbish bins at home (especially in the kitchen).

Plus, I need to be considerate toward the garbage collectors in my neighbourhood whose job would be easier if we wrapped our household rubbish (They specifically requested we do so to help them out). But environmentalists can be a bit elitist and I'm not sure they care about working class people like garbage collectors.

If I don't take the *thin* bags from the supermarket, I just end up buying *thick* garbage bags especially manufactured for waste. They're THICK and not biodegradable.

So I sometimes accept bags from stores to recycle if I know the store uses biodegrable bags. If I have enough bags at home, I use my reusable canvas bags, but when it's time to restock, I accept plastic bags.

Biodegrable plastic is great and I love it. Even when it drives me nuts sometimes. 😂😂 The thing is, you don't even need to bury them in soil for them to break down. I think all some of them need is some CO2 (aka my breathing mouth).

So sometimes I'll wrap something in a biodegradable bag to "keep it clean" or whatever and then forget about it (because I'm a dum-dum like that). Next thing you know, the next time I need the thing I wrapped in plastic, the plastic is ALL FLAKES and it's hell to clean the plastic flakes of biodegradable plastic bags.... unless you wait it out until they completely disappear. 😭

But yeah, let them alarmists so they can pretend to be heroes in their own minds... 👍🏼👍🏼

Just don't let them scare you. Have a good weekend, all! 🍹💜
Scandi Sanskrit said…
Hey also thanks to whoever shared that Richard Palmer guy's Twitter up-thread.🙏🏼

There's some sweet Aston Martin pics on that account: https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1230829123838382080?s=19 💜💜
MustySyphone said…
I like the suggested name "Sussex Regal". It sounds like a cinema. They will get lots of web traffic from people looking for the show times of "Parasite".

Scandi Sanskrit said…
I'm sorry but anytime I hear the word "regal", all I think of is this: http://marieregal.com/lite/product
@Scandi Sanskrit said...

Then I realised that I *needed* the plastic bags from stores to line my rubbish bins at home (especially in the kitchen).

Exactly. Perfect for cleaning the litterbox, otherwise I have to buy standard garbage bags. Of course, the "woke" people will say to use flushable litter, which can potentially cause plumbing issues which would require the use of a plumber who will have to get into a carbon emitting vehicle...
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SirStinxAlot said…
I bet JPM is regretting that speaking invite right about now. If Sunshine Sachs and Disney were in the works, they are probably running away as fast as they can (if they are smart). Wonder how much longer the Russian billionaire is going to continue to allow the to squat in his mansion? They are damaged beyond repair at this point. It would take several years or the rest of H life to get people to forget this disaster.
xxxxx said…
As far as dumping plastics into the ocean, China and Indonesia top the list with>>>>

Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahleung/2018/04/21/five-asian-countries-dump-more...
Apr 21, 2018 · China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are dumping more plastic into oceans than the rest of the world combined , according to a 2017 report by Ocean Conservancy. This isn’t just an Asia problem. Plastic is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world.
Author: Hannah Leung

____________________________

Kayakers help save seal pups entangled in netting.
39,630,033 views•Sep 16, 2019


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKjBKMtuWE8
@Scandi, ‘Do stores in Western countries not have biodegradable plastic bags?’

Erm yes, they’ve been around for a number of years in Britain. We have biodegradable packaging too on some items. Too numerous to mention. 🤗
Animal Lover said…
Nutties,

Good morning or good evening depending on geographical location.

An excerpt from today's Telegraph:

Legal experts said it would have been “arguably highly deceptive” to have a trademarked name that suggests royal endorsement if the Duke and Duchess are no longer working members of the family.

Christina Michalos QC said: “The UK trade marks act prevents registration of royal emblems and words that wrongly give the impression of Royal Patronage or authorisation.

“The palace could certainly stop a registration of Sussex Royal in the UK on this basis.

"The law in other countries will be different but most countries have laws that prevent registration of trade marks that are deceptive or mislead the public."

She added: "If they are set on using Sussex Royal as a brand, I suspect it would be difficult to stop completely outside of the UK.

"You would hope that if the Queen indicated that she was opposed to the use of the Sussex Royal name as a commercial tool, that two people who until very recently were themselves carrying out public duties on her behalf would comply out of respect for the Crown.

Legal experts said it would have been “arguably highly deceptive” to have a trademarked name that suggests royal endorsement if the Duke and Duchess are no longer working members of the family.

Christina Michalos QC said: “The UK trade marks act prevents registration of royal emblems and words that wrongly give the impression of Royal Patronage or authorisation.

“The palace could certainly stop a registration of Sussex Royal in the UK on this basis.

"The law in other countries will be different but most countries have laws that prevent registration of trade marks that are deceptive or mislead the public."

She added: "If they are set on using Sussex Royal as a brand, I suspect it would be difficult to stop completely outside of the UK.

"You would hope that if the Queen indicated that she was opposed to the use of the Sussex Royal name as a commercial tool, that two people who until very recently were themselves carrying out public duties on her behalf would comply out of respect for the Crown.

"However, legal entitlement and doing the right thing don't always go hand in hand."




OKay said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
CatEyes said…
Just found out Meghan is NOT going to be the groundbreaking voice for a new Disney charater as follows:

>>Disney is moving “onwards” with its plans to be more diverse.

The animation giant’s upcoming flick Onward will feature the first animated LGBTQ character to exist in the Disney-Pixar universe.

The role — a Cyclops cop by the name of Officer Specter — is voiced by Lena Waithe and is Disney and Pixar’s first self-identified LGBTQ character in its history.<<

The lucky lady who will provide the voice-over Is a WOC. Sorry Meghan, evidently Harry couldn't do the deal for you.
Miggy said…
@Animal Lover - Thank you for that. Makes things clear.

Any chance you could also tell us what this article says?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/02/22/bitter-desperate-clear-harry-meghan-dont-plan-quit-firm-quietly/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1582390226
Hikari said…
Wild Boar,

For you, an entire Starbucks store today for your Markle Opera.
Particularly love master Archie as nothing more than swamp mist. And of course, prince Philip as the Commandetore.
I’d suggest “black swan” for the title if it wasn’t already taken. Excellent!
JHanoi said…
The Harkles are busy whining about the Queen/Lord Chamberlain cracking down on their use of “Royal” in their marketing of themselves.
Their goal is to live a private life where they can live off private funds versus Sovereign Grant public funds.

If the Harkles truly wanted the private life, they’d offer to give up their titles, HRH, renounce PH place in line of succession and go live their private life. Instead they (MM?) whines over their lack of entitlements. What happened to empowering women and oneself?She’s a horrible example of female empowerment and perfct example of hypocrite.
Crumpet said…
@Ozmanda,

Sending HUGS to you. Library spaces are a welcoming space for all...if you need a place to escape to. This little blog has so many people thinking of you...

Crumpets, aka Unknown
Unknown said…
@Nutty said:

@SDJ, I think the RF believes Meg will be long gone before the 12 month review and they can have Harry back.
February 22, 2020 at 6:51 AM

To take an action out of @tatty's playbook, do you have receipts? Maybe share some thoughts on what formed your opinion perhaps.
Unknown said…
@Nutty

The comment came from 'Different Unknown' not 'Crumpet Unknown'.
Shaggy said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lady Luvgood said…
The roof the roof is on fire, we don’t need no water let the mother ducker burn, burn mother ducker, burn

Lol Smugly and Hapless
Lady Luvgood said…
the World needs more compassion and empathy, Hunter not less.
Rory Gman said…
I'm thinking that this self-serving "royal" tantrum they published is a ploy to not return to the UK in March. What better excuse than "we do not feel welcome or accepted, therefore we are not coming". She is a disrespectful twit who has chosen to go up against the respected and respectful Queen. No way in hell will M&H recover any ounce of respect to capitalize upon. Any corporation that pays these two charlatans any money will lose credibility in the long run and hopefully suffer financial consequences.
Portcitygirl said…
We have gone back to using paper and just recycle.
CatEyes said…
@Unknown

>>>Then you should have said nothing at all, instead of making a callous statement that possibly made those who have shared life altering changes, feel even worse for having done so! SMH<<<

AMEN!!!!!! Hope your supportive comment doesn't get wiped off by Blog Adminstrator like mine did.
Lady Luvgood said…
Kindness shown to other humans is not mewling sympathy, it is honoring the humanity in each other. Grief and loss will happen to us all, let us hope that grace will be given and received when it does happen.
Ava C said…
@Miggy - key passages from that paywall Telegraph article:

If Harry and Meghan were truly content with how things have turned out, they surely would not have felt the need to publish a 1,033-word ‘update’ on their personal website, laced with thinly-veiled barbs at the Firm.

No regrets? The couple’s markedly pointed reaction to being stripped of their royal status smacks of that infamous celebrity catchphrase: “Don’t you know who I am?”

It’s not just the desperate insistence that they “retain their HRH prefix”, pointing out that even though they can’t use it beyond Spring, they "formally remain known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex’"

[...]

Next year’s appraisal was designed to give the couple the opportunity to rethink their position, but by spinning it as an impediment to their independence they insinuate that they are being made examples of (seemingly forgetting they chose to make examples of themselves).

[....]

There is a certain irony about the opening paragraph claiming that the sharply-worded salvo is to “mitigate any confusion and subsequent misreporting” when in fact all it serves to do is confirm the accuracy of what has already been reported.

There is no disguising the couple’s contempt for the media as they once again question the "supposed public interest justification for intrusion into their lives" - while in the same breath insisting they must retain their taxpayer-funded bodyguards.

“Use this site as the source for factual information,” they insist, seemingly oblivious to its own Anglo-American propagandist tone or the need for what we in Her Majesty’s press like to call "proper scrutiny".

[...]

Whatever form their future takes, what is certain from this latest virtual communique is that Harry and Meghan don’t plan to go quietly.
Unknown said…
'Different Unknown' here:

'Unknown' said: The World needs more compassion and empathy, Hunter not less.

Yesssssssssssssssssss! My comments that @hunter was having Meg moment got deleted 3 times by
@Nutty. Yowser! No words needed.
Lady Luvgood said…
@CatEyes thank you and have a lovely day
MustySyphone said...
I like the suggested name "Sussex Regal". It sounds like a cinema. They will get lots of web traffic from people looking for the show times of "Parasite"

I love it!

I think I've got most of the Telegraph article here - funny, there wasn't a pay-wall


(PART1) Bitter and desperate, it's clear that Harry and Meghan don’t plan to quit the Firm quietly
• CAMILLA TOMINEYASSOCIATE EDITOR



Friends insist that they have no misgivings over their controversial decision to step down as senior Royals. Yet the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's latest online outpouring more than hints at an undercurrent of bitterness towards the family they have left behind.

If Harry and Meghan were truly content with how things have turned out, they surely would not have felt the need to publish a 1,033-word ‘update’ on their personal website, laced with thinly-veiled barbs at the Firm.
No regrets? The couple’s markedly pointed reaction to being stripped of their royal status smacks of that infamous celebrity catchphrase: “Don’t you know who I am?”
It’s not just the desperate insistence that they “retain their HRH prefix”, pointing out that even though they can’t use it beyond Spring, they "formally remain known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex’"
Should anyone be left in any doubt of their ongoing status, they helpfully remind us that “as the grandson of Her Majesty and second son of The Prince of Wales”, Harry remains sixth-in-line to the throne while "the Duchess" has her “own independent profile”. That they remain a ‘valued part’ of Her Majesty’s family is underlined for effect.
Yet there is more of a tinge of tantrums and tiaras in the couple’s attempted push back at the situation they have found themselves in.
Other titled members of the Royal family have been allowed to seek employment outside of the institution, but we are subject to a 12-month review, they gripe.
Next year’s appraisal was designed to give the couple the opportunity to rethink their position, but by spinning it as an impediment to their independence they insinuate that they are being made examples of (seemingly forgetting they chose to make examples of themselves).
The couple reiterate that "no new appointments will be made to fill Harry’s military roles before the 12-month review of the new arrangements is completed" in an apparent swipe at reports Princess Anne would be taking over his role as Colonel General of the Royal Marines.
Similarly, the suggestion that their “preference was to continue to represent and support the Queen” albeit in a more limited capacity has echoes of Harry’s misjudged Sentebale speech blaming the monarchy for refusing to allow them to have their royal cake and eat it.
Sandie said…
This is just a summary of one aspect of her marriage to Trevor:

https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markle-humiliation-duchess-shockingly-forced-ex-husband-trevor-engelson-cast-2926940

There are a couple of things that I have realised, looking back:

1. A narc will hold a grudge forever, even if it is not rational, reasonable or justified. She held a grudge against Trevor for not making her a star. The abrupt way she ended the marriage was more than just moving on up the ladder ... she just waited until she secured a spot on a cable show before she acted on that grudge. I wonder what her grudge against the Queen and the Cambridges and the UK is?

2. There is no doubt in my mind now that she saw that Trevor was going to succeed as a producer and he was her path to stardom (by the way, she still has not achieved that stardom in the movie industry). It is not unusual for a director/producer to cast their partner in their movies (e.g. Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw; Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter; Woody Allen and Mia Farrow ...), so that Trevor did not indicates to me that Meghan does not have the talent nor star quality. What did Meghan want from the BRF and not get, and was it as petty as the tiara and air fresheners in the church?
CatEyes said…
@Unknown

Your most welcome! Thank you, for fighting the good fight! The world DOES need more compassion...even on a blog space and maybe especially on social media (where we sometimes bare ourselves to strangers.

There is a saying (something like) "that people should be judged by what they do to others when no knows or they don't know the person."
Telegraph Part 2:


It isn’t their fault their office has had to be wound up with the loss of 15 staff - it was down to Prince Charles’s "primary funding mechanism" drying up, they claim, reminding readers they were prepared to give up the Sovereign Grant (but not, it seems, Daddy’s Duchy dosh).
They only trademarked the ‘Sussex Royal’ brand "as a protective measure", they insist, even going so far as to suggest the Cambridges had done the same for their charitable Foundation. (The fact that applications were made for all manner of commercial goods covering items from clothing and books to stationery and bandanas is conspicuous by its absence - although apparently William and Kate have also trademarked tea towels and the like).
Even the concession that they “do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise)" after the end of next month, is not made without a degree of rancour.
The couple selflessly agreed to drop the ‘royal’ even though “there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas”.
Oh, and by the way - they will “be allowed to maintain their patronages (including those that are classified as ‘royal’ patronages)”.


There is a certain irony about the opening paragraph claiming that the sharply-worded salvo is to “mitigate any confusion and subsequent misreporting” when in fact all it serves to do is confirm the accuracy of what has already been reported.
There is no disguising the couple’s contempt for the media as they once again question the "supposed public interest justification for intrusion into their lives" - while in the same breath insisting they must retain their taxpayer-funded bodyguards.
“Use this site as the source for factual information,” they insist, seemingly oblivious to its own Anglo-American propagandist tone or the need for what we in Her Majesty’s press like to call "proper scrutiny".
Rebutting claims they plan to start a "Foundation", despite their own website stating that they are “actively working to create... a charitable entity”, the couple’s quest to “effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally” appears conveniently ambiguous.
All we know is that the new "non-profit" entity will not be called "royal" with further details set to be revealed after March 31, the date that signals the couple’s separation from the monarchy.
Whatever form their future takes, what is certain from this latest virtual communique is that Harry and Meghan don’t plan to go quietly.


PS The classic answer to `Don't you know who I am?' is along the lines of `Why? Don't you know who you are?'

She, of course, doesn't know who she is. She is under the delusion that she is CEO of The Firm. Well, she got that one wrong!

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids