Sometime within the next seven days, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will release a new photo of their little-seen son Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, according to an article in the Sunday Times (quoted in the Sun, with no paywall).
It tickles the imagination to think about what this image might look like, particularly considering the Sussexes' passion for Photoshop.
The classic Archie photos - the ones used again and again in British tabloids, including the link above - were taken in South Africa in September 2019, a good 7 1/2 months ago.
The little red-haired fellow in those images looked healthy and well-fed, although entirely uninterested in the two people who were supposedly his parents.
None of the nuzzling or the seeking of comfort or approval that infants usually display with their primary caregivers, or people they know and like. (Prince Charles' recent image with his grandson Prince Louis is a good example)
Will the birthday images show the same little human? (At the time, there were suggestions that the South Africa Archie was a baby model, with exclusive rights purchased for a full year by the Sussexes. For what it's worth, South Africa has a thriving modeling community used frequently by European catalog producers who want a variety of ethnic types in their campaigns.)
It wasn't entirely clear if the same infant was pictured in the uber-Photoshopped Sussex family Christmas card or in Harry's recent Canada shot with Archie. (The Canada shot looked a lot like a little girl.)
Even as far back as the Christening photos, there were questions about multiple infants. One of our regular commenters at the time - KayeC - was married to a pediatrician.
She showed him two of the Sussexes' Christening photos and he said, "Those are two different babies."
Really? she asked.
He gave her a look, having seen hundreds if not thousands of babies in his career. "Yes," he said.
Or will he be out playing in the California sunshine? If the Sussexes are staying in Malibu, as they would like people to believe, will we see Archie on the beach? (The beaches are public, so even if they're not living there, they could just drive up the coast and do a photo shoot.)
Or will Archie be in the grounds of a lavish estate where the Sussexes want people to think they live?
And will both parents be with him in the shot? There have been rumors, based on the white-wall videos, that Harry may be at least part-time in the UK while Meghan is in California.
The South Africa baby, supposedly only four months old, was already clearly standing - in fact, the bottoms of his socks were dirty. Pulling up to a standing position is generally a 6.5 months to 8.5 month behavior.
If we throw aside the multiple-baby model theory and assume there is only one baby pictured in all of the Sussex images so far, how old is he really? There have been many suggestions he was born in late February or early March 2019, not May.
At any rate, Happy Birthday Archie, whenever it was, and whoever you are.
It tickles the imagination to think about what this image might look like, particularly considering the Sussexes' passion for Photoshop.
The classic Archie photos - the ones used again and again in British tabloids, including the link above - were taken in South Africa in September 2019, a good 7 1/2 months ago.
The little red-haired fellow in those images looked healthy and well-fed, although entirely uninterested in the two people who were supposedly his parents.
None of the nuzzling or the seeking of comfort or approval that infants usually display with their primary caregivers, or people they know and like. (Prince Charles' recent image with his grandson Prince Louis is a good example)
Babies change a lot
Babies change a lot in 7 1/2 months - or in two weeks, as Prince Harry notoriously said around the time of Archie's first public presentation - so it will be interesting to see how much Archie has changed since his last non-Photoshopped appearance in South Africa.Will the birthday images show the same little human? (At the time, there were suggestions that the South Africa Archie was a baby model, with exclusive rights purchased for a full year by the Sussexes. For what it's worth, South Africa has a thriving modeling community used frequently by European catalog producers who want a variety of ethnic types in their campaigns.)
It wasn't entirely clear if the same infant was pictured in the uber-Photoshopped Sussex family Christmas card or in Harry's recent Canada shot with Archie. (The Canada shot looked a lot like a little girl.)
Even as far back as the Christening photos, there were questions about multiple infants. One of our regular commenters at the time - KayeC - was married to a pediatrician.
She showed him two of the Sussexes' Christening photos and he said, "Those are two different babies."
Really? she asked.
He gave her a look, having seen hundreds if not thousands of babies in his career. "Yes," he said.
Both parents?
Another interesting aspect will be the setting of Archie's first birthday photo. Will he be up against the plain white wall that's served as the background for Harry's recent videos?Or will he be out playing in the California sunshine? If the Sussexes are staying in Malibu, as they would like people to believe, will we see Archie on the beach? (The beaches are public, so even if they're not living there, they could just drive up the coast and do a photo shoot.)
Or will Archie be in the grounds of a lavish estate where the Sussexes want people to think they live?
And will both parents be with him in the shot? There have been rumors, based on the white-wall videos, that Harry may be at least part-time in the UK while Meghan is in California.
How old?
Finally, how old will Archie be in his first-birthday photos?The South Africa baby, supposedly only four months old, was already clearly standing - in fact, the bottoms of his socks were dirty. Pulling up to a standing position is generally a 6.5 months to 8.5 month behavior.
If we throw aside the multiple-baby model theory and assume there is only one baby pictured in all of the Sussex images so far, how old is he really? There have been many suggestions he was born in late February or early March 2019, not May.
At any rate, Happy Birthday Archie, whenever it was, and whoever you are.
Comments
Of course,the MoS did & their homework and they also engaged the best legal brains.
As for MM having the brains to 'scuttle off into a dark, publicity free, corner', that doesn't sound like her. She might just fight back noisily. Playing the victim again?
If Meagle (if? ... when) has a source leak an article tomorrow it will simply be out of spite. She’s no better than that girl that everyone knew at schools that HAD to be better than everyone else.
I fully expect the "Duchess is full of confidence and determination to fight" statement tomorrow. Or a picture of her and Harry hand in hand.
On a personal note they say Harry's messages to Tom show Harry cares. Well "admonishing" a man right after the heart surgery for talking to the media (for which he apologized already) doesn't strike me as caring.
Both Harry and Meghan have already been exposed as very unattractive people in this case.
Yes, it’s wishful thinking that she’ll scuttle off. She’s an actress playing the best role of her life. Right from the get go, I thought that. Those intense, longing, come to bed gazes she gives people are vomit inducing. Everything she does has ‘public perception ‘ in mind.
< bBoth Harry and Meghan have already been exposed as very unattractive people in this case>
Absolutely, they have irrevocably damaged what little reputation they did have.
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog/meghan-harry-pt1
With all respect but I couldn't even finish reading this. The moment the author said British press had had a hidden racial agenda since before they got engaged I dropped it.
Adoring headlines about "Meghan the breath of fresh air" are still too vivid in my memory.
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/616945057491288064/submission-meghan-explained-through-astrology
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8279093/Princess-Charlotte-five-today-drops-homemade-pasta-vulnerable-Norfolk-residents.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
Seems the Cambridge were out and about delivering food including some "home made pasta" to elderly isolators. Home made meaning the Royal chefs put it together:)
It actually does not surprise me. Before lockdown, and throughout the marriage, those two were spending a lot of time apart and before Meghan got her hooks in him Harry was used to playing the field. (My favourite tarot reader is not surprised and says neither will be faithful in the marriage and until Meghan dumps him it is going to be a bit of push and pull in the marriage, but Harry is really not happy right now and for Meghan things are not going according to plan so she still needs Harry to pay the bills.)
There are a couple more posts coming from the source (no timeline given for those).
The rest of what was in that first post is not unexpected: Meghan is a social climber who is seen as such in Hollywood, she used Harry and the BRF and never meant to stick around in the UK or the BRF...
stolen link from plant's site. I haven't finished reading it yet
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog/meghan-harry-pt1
That's the Hollywood insider spilling some tea about the Harkles. Apparently she is the real thing and her tea is a reliable.
Charlotte's pics are ADORABLE!!! curious when these were released isn't it midnight over there?
This was the poster, an attorney with 20 yrs. experience (I think UK exp.) that commented here a few days ago and was so knowledgeable on Meghan's/MoS case, Harry's potential visa issue and citizenship status re: Archie.
Yet when Meghan first moved into Harry's cottage in the Kensington Palace grounds, Kate had been welcoming and both couples had got on well.
'Kate is actually one of the nicest royals, and she hasn't let life in her extremely grand apartment at Kensington go to her head — or at least not too much,' said a palace insider.
'She is nice to her staff, in the main, and she was very warm towards Meghan when she arrived.
'But tensions were bound to arise because Meghan inevitably had to accept that, although she is a duchess, she is not married to the next king.
'I think she has found that difficult to deal with.
'And although Harry loved their cottage in the grounds, Meghan was conscious that it was tiny in comparison to the vast apartment complex where Kate and William live.'
Meghan, another insider agreed, was affected by her new status.
'Being a royal goes to everyone's head eventually — and after a while, William and Harry would meet without their wives in tow to avoid rows and stony silences.'
But what exactly triggered Harry and Meghan's move to Windsor?
'Kate was horrified when Meghan shouted at a member of Kate's staff — that was definitely the beginning of discussions about leaving Kensington Palace,' the former servant continues.
'Like many people not used to dealing with servants, Meghan overdoes the imperiousness; so on the one hand she wants to be like Diana, a people's princess, and on the other she wants people to stand to attention when she clicks her fingers.'
From the viewpoint of many of the palace staff, she was the dominant partner in the marriage. As Harry has said himself: 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets'.
Meghan did not find much solace at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor: once she'd settled in, says a Kensington insider, 'Meghan realised that living there would be like living in the Russian steppes'
This cut no ice with the staff who, according to reliable reports, began using rather unflattering nicknames for her within weeks of her arrival: 'Me-Gain', the 'Duchess of Difficult' and even 'Di 2' or 'Di Lite'.
Meanwhile, the royal courtiers at Kensington — the same tweedy, British, public-school, ex-army aristocrats they've always been — simply didn't know what to make of Meghan.
After receiving a number of severe reprimands from her, they seemed relieved when she and Harry moved out.
Certainly, many longed for the old days when they had to deal only with royals and aristocrats.
Meghan, meanwhile, worried that people would look down on her or treat her differently because she was a divorced, mixed-race American.
'There are the more reactionary elements in the Royal Family who do look down on her, and she knows it,' added a Kensington insider.
'This makes her overreact sometimes — she doesn't have Kate's assured way of dealing with people.'
But the old guard's prejudice was not shared by the Queen, who liked Meghan very much.
I find this hard to believe. The Queen may have admired her confidence, but over bearing confidence and personality, no.
@
lucy said...
stolen link from plant's site. I haven't finished reading it yet
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog/meghan-harry-pt1
That's the Hollywood insider spilling some tea about the Harkles. Apparently she is the real thing and her tea is a reliable.
I just read this blog post and find it to be lacking in credibility. It is poorly written, riddled with factual errors, and her “bombshell” at the end is not backed up by any proof. It reads like the Enquirer—which occasionally publishes scandalous stories that are true, but deals mostly in sensationalized fiction.
https://blindgossip.com/her-circle-of-friends-may-not-hold/
I assume that in the USA a publisher has the right to protect sources, so, contrary to what everyone assumes, People magazine may refuse to say who the '5 friends' were and we thus may never hear them testify?
I wonder if that would help or hurt Meghan's case? I am actually in two minds about that. Meghan will want her friends to testify how hurt and traumatised she was and how much damage her father had done to her (and the tabloids). She wants the choir to sing for her. On the other hand, if they do testify, everything could go belly up and she could be exposed as a liar (she would still have a case for violation of copyright but would not come out of the court case looking good at all, even if she did get a judgment in her favour for that aspect). Imagine Danial the make up guy blubbing on the stand. It would be epic!
Not sure I buy that TQ liked M quite that much. I saw her face at the wedding. And while I may just be taking offense as an American (and I know we can be obnoxious) but I would hope it didn't take meeting President Obama for TQ to "develop a soft spot for Americans." She was what, 83 when she first met him? And she had been meeting presidents and other Americans since she became Queen at age 25? And the UK and US supposedly have been close allies?
And if she's really asking her staff "frequently" if Obama can come back for a visit, wonder why he hasn't? (Plus, the way it's written it makes her sound senile...asking her nurse why so-and-so can't come visit.)
Also I don't doubt M was jealous of Kate, but I certainly hope Kate isn't "married to the next king" as the article claims.
At the very least, Meghan played the victim and riled up her friends to go to People and 'defend' her. However, I think she was more involved than that in that article.
Thomas must have been hurting badly. That article must have been like opening the wound again. He is obviously not the kind of guy who can take the high road, so lashing out publicly was what he did. It is very human. All the drama could have been avoided if Meghan had taken the trouble to introduce Harry to her father and just generally made more effort instead of simply using family when they were useful to her.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part38
I have no legal expertise (I'm sure that's evident!) but it seems clear that Meghan is now in too deep to stop now even if she wanted to.
Reminds me of when I got 98% for a history essay years ago at university, which was more common for sciences than humanities. My tutor wrote that I had missed a couple of aspects but that in order to include them I would have had to remove other aspects which were also relevant. He couldn't think how I could achieve everything so he refused to penalise me for it. Unfortunately the law doesn't work that way.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a32345159/prince-harry-meghan-markle-loved-iconic-rain-photo/
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Loved Their Iconic Rain Photo as Much as We All Did
How could they not? It’s LEGENDARY.
Remember the *moment* Meghan Markle and Prince Harry had in the rain? You know the one. When it was like the entire world stood still so they could get the most perfect royal photo of all time? Yes, that one. If for some reason you don’t have a single clue what I’m talking about, please take a look at this glorious masterpiece ['masterpiece' is then reprinted here]
As it turns out, Meghan and Harry loved this stunning picture as much as we all did [...]
-----------
That's as far as I'm willing to read, otherwise I'll never get to sleep (nearly 2am). They're laying it on a bit thick aren't they? To a ludicrous extent. Also the repeated emphasis on 'all' as if everyone admires them without question. This is demonstrably untrue. Have they missed all the polls showing over 90% of UK respondents want the Harkles to stay away for good? It's hard to believe any journalist would write such stuff and expect to get away with it. Yes ... I know ... Someone has to write for the sugars.
Being in my 50s I used to enjoy Cosmo years ago. Also Vanity Fair and Vogue. What's happened to them all?
My guess is that if the "five friends" refuse to testify or if People refuses to name them under the guise of protecting their sources, then there is no proof that MM didn't provide everything to People herself. So, the burden would be on MM to prove that she didn't, and how could she do that with none of the friends to back her up? She would lose this part her case by not providing the names of the friends who spoke to People.
She could lose the case of copyright violation part, too, because, by not providing the names of the friends to testify as to how they obtained the letter (or parts of it), she can't prove that she didn't write the letter with the intention of giving it to the magazine in the first place.
Either she wrote the letter just to get it into People, or she just Markled five of her closest friends. Anybody think they will remain her friends after this? Today's decision proves that The Harkles have no clout, and she only had most of these friends, if they exist, because they are looking to gain fame and money through The Harkles, who are pariahs now in almost all circles of society.
I'm not a lawyer, so this is just a guess. Thoughts?
By the way, that she wrote to her father that he broke her heart into a million little pieces? A Million Little Pieces is a book by James Frey whom Oprah chose for her book club. Later, it was discovered that he lied about the entire book which was about his supposed addiction and recovery, and Oprah had to do a lot of backpedaling. Again, its a small world, huh?
the limit for winning, 60K limit
My guess is that when the decision to to pull the sue cord was pulled, on some level it hadn't registered how small the amount would be (even if it was mentioned) and that the legal costs per side may exceed the win money. I suspect it was more about showing the MOS and everyone else that then needed to be aware there was a new sheriff in town (so to speak) and that they needed to that line. I could be wrong.
As for who made the pasta for the food gifts, I don't care. What I'm seeing is a child being taught that birthdays are not about how many presents you get or how you are the center of the universe on your special day. And that the long term values are passed on about service to others. That's the making of a great kid.
Thanks for the review. I do have four questions I hope it's not too much trouble to answer.
1. As I recall, one or more friends was quoted as saying "we" alot. As in "We've all visited M at KP." Is that right?
2. Did the article say the friends were interviewed together? That always seemed odd to me. Not only was I doubting she had 5 friends willing to do this but that they'd know each other well enough to band together. Or be in the same place at the same time but I guess they could have Skyped.
3. Was there a quote explaining the desire for anonymity or was the explanation in the reporter's words?
4. Did one friend say she had a disabled child?
Thanks.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/who-meghan-markles-five-friends-13964823
Says they spoke under conditions of complete anonymity. Certainly this reads like a co-ordinated approach. Seems too pat. All requesting the same conditions. All emerging around the same time.
You can rest assured the identity (if any) of the five "friends" was already uncovered and any revelations were already included in the discovery period. Their identity is already known to both sides. High powered law firms don't leave things like this to chance, at $1,000 - $2,000 per hour or more, for legal representation plus paralegals plus expenses.
In Christopher Andersen's book 'William and Kate' he writes about the period when William and Kate got back together after their six-week separation in 2007 (date from memory). Kate was, from their reunion onwards, subject to severe press harrassment, being chased by as many as a dozen cars at a time. Let us remember also that Diana's death was more recent then. Andersen writes:
"William and Kate had been intimate in front of hundreds of people at the Concert for Diana afterparty — their declaration to the world that they were back together. To the press, however, this was an invitation to ramp up their coverage of Kate. “Nobody knows how terrifying it can be until you’re chased by these people,” she told a coworker at Jigsaw. “They have no regard for their own lives, much less anyone else’s. They’ll do anything to get a photo. Anything.”
Meghan has received nothing remotely as bad as this. She was given more than a fair chance by this country and our press. Only now, in California, is she at risk from similar treatment, entirely by her own choice. If Archie is with her, he faces the same risks. Imagine placing a baby in that situation voluntarily.
"In the application last Friday, her evidence was that she didn't know who the 5 were. Not that I believe that for a minute."
I don't quite remember it that way but you may be right. I thought her "evidence" (at least as far as we know) was she definitely knew one of them. That person was friends with the former editor but she didn't know until after the fact she and the other friends had done the interview.
But if she has no idea who they were, that makes it sound like she must have been running a weird B&B at KP...robes on the bed, candles, no Harry around ever, (our time), for lots and lots of people!
I have to agree with Tide on this one. Both sides either know who the five friends are, or if there really are five friends at all. They wouldn't leave that to chance, and the old adage for lawyers is to never ask a question at trial if you don't know the answer first.
As for Kneepads, a name coined by Enty, I haven't read it in years, but they used to cover legitimate news stories, too, such as the fires in Australia and CA, politics, crime, etc., however slanted their coverage may be, as most news sources are these days. I don't think they would get very far in saying that it isn't a legitimate news organization.
Of course, we all know that they pay for celebrity stories (or celebrities pay them for PR stories), but celebrity news is only one part of their business. It's just not worth People's time and money to get into a legal battle over a letter from a daughter to her father. The legal definition of a legitimate news organization could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they don't want that to happen.
However, narc Meg would love to see it go that far to keep her name in the news.
Thank you so much! I'll have to mull those points over.
Your response triggered a memory of a thought I had at the time I read the article way back when: it really read like a set of talking points (even beyond the trashing of Thomas and Samantha.)
M abandoned her 5-year old "elderly" dog in Canada. So, we get an account of M lovingly wiping her dogs' paws at Nott Cott.
M wanted air freshener in the Chapel. No! She respects God and (apparently his equal) Justin Welby too much.
M is a diva. No! She takes care of everyone else first.
The close confidante could be Doria?
Close confidant-Serena?
longtime friend - Lindsey Roth
former co-star - Abigail Spencer
friend from LA - Yoga friend
a one-time colleague - Benita Litt
close confidante - Jessica Mulroney
I also wonder where Misha Nonoo is in all this.
Maybe launch their own airline, Harry & the Jets, come fly with Meg...
Was she the one Megs picked up from the airport in Canada?
Because she is a lawyer, I don't think I don't think Amal would back herself into a corner like this. Marcus may be too smart, too. He's crafty and street smart.
Yes, it was Heather Dorak.
English courts, like most others in the world I imagine, don't take kindly to litigants playing silly blighters but, hey! this is the great Meghan we're talking about.
What else is a girl supposed to do?
Hopefully the five Stooges & It will perjured themselves.
Megs might land a starring role in “Green is the new black”
As with the failure copying Jackie Kennedy, with that weird white pillbox hat, she could never get it right and spent a ton of money proving it.
*****
Why would she copy it, in calligraphy, from a typed email ?
Why in the 21st century didn’t she just call or text her father on a non public cell phone if she wanted it to remain private?
Why did her father use her paparazzi agency of choice?
Why? Why? Why?
Lots of questions will be asked. Lots. Of. Questions.
*****
The one I've longed to have investigated by a good reporter is why did Thomas Markle use the same pap agency Meghan does? To me this is the core of EVERYTHING.
https://ladygreyhound93.tumblr.com
yes @lizzie that is it! I read that as through all of this she can only walk away with $60,000 irrespective of attorney fees!
This is from Thompson Reuters Practical Law
Copyright disputes of substantial value are generally started in the High Court and heard as part of its normal business. Lower-value claims are litigated in the IPEC, which has a fixed scale of recoverable costs capped at GBP50,000 and damages awards capped at GBP500,000. There are no judges who specialise only in copyright. However, a full-time IP-specialist judge presides over the IPEC and the Business and Property Courts of the High Court have several IP-specialist judges, and copyright matters are most often allocated to such judges.
Decisions of the High Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal (CA). Final orders of the IPEC are appealed to the CA whereas interim orders of the IPEC are appealed to the High Court. The Supreme Court (SC) hears civil appeals from the CA (or sometimes the High Court) where a case is of public or constitutional importance. Parties must obtain permission from the court before an appeal can be filed.
“The Queen has a job to do, and she does it full stop,” said Prince Philip’s cousin the Countess Mountbatten. “She expects everyone in the Royal Family to work hard, and they all do.” According to another courtier, the head of the Firm wanted to make sure of one thing: “The Queen is just sick to death of dealing with women who wouldn’t behave. Diana, Sarah Ferguson, her own sister, Princess Margaret—she feels they all had too much time on their hands.”
That was in 2007-8. If the Queen was 'sick to death of dealing with women who wouldn't behave' then, imagine how she feels now! Also highlights what a dim view she will be taking of Harry hanging around in another country with no opportunities to do any useful work, when William and Kate and even their five-year-old daughter are doing their bit.
Reading about how bothered the Queen was said to be during the 'waity Katy' years, of Kate's lack of career, I think that must have played very much in Meghan's favour early on. The Queen would have been pleased she had an actual full-time, comparatively well-paid job. The Queen may have suspended her critical judgement a little at a crucial time when this ongoing disaster could perhaps have been averted. (I'm thinking of Harry at the Inskip wedding when those scary photos were taken of H&M, when it looked as if he had escaped, only to be recaptured by her. Will we ever know more about that?)
Prince Philip’s cousin the Countess Mountbatten.
'And she was so convinced she had real talent — like her so-called friends — that she'd have found it unbearable not to be praised.'
No, this is not about our Megs but Princess Margaret in the new book about KP. You could be forgiven to think this is a description of MM, who is supposed to have been spoilt and indulged by her father. This explains what we are seeing today.
Incidentally, among the various nicknames given to her by staff there is also 'Dino' - Duchess In Name Only😉
Her parents married at some sort of odd ?Protestant? church-
She doubtless had a good Catholic education at school-
She converted to Judaism (or rather, was received into Judaism)
She converted to Anglicanism (or rather, was received into the Church by Christian baptism)
Yet barely 2 years later, she wears the Eye of T(h)oth...
Magatha Mistie - we need a parody of the Vicar of Bray, please. I can only get as far as
`In Good Prince Charles's Golden Days,
when money was no bother,
I spent and spent in umpteen ways,
And also did my Mother...'
Change of subject: What bad press was Meghan getting that she had to organise the People magazine article? (If Jessica, through her contacts at People, arranged the article there is no way that she did not discuss it with Meghan.) The article was before the baby shower (isn't that when the ton of bad press started?) but after the scarfing at Sandringham. Maybe she was furious about the latter because it did go viral! The criticism before that was petty stuff - the stuff that Kate and Camilla were bombarded with for years. My sense is that Meghan was still getting a lot more fawning good press than bad press at the time. But maybe I am wrong about that, and she does seem to have a very thin skin with no tolerance for criticism at all.
It was months after any bust up with her father, so why did Jessica (assuming she was the friend who leaked about the letter but it could be someone else since Jessica was not a long-time friend) make a big deal about it?
Meghan says she does not know who the 5 friends are. Did she show the letter (give a copy to) to so many friends that she did not know which one would have divulged the contents to the press with such accuracy that it seems that the press was actually shown the copy? It is all very odd.
Who has the disabled child? If longtime friend is Lindsey Roth, then she showed the letter to People, not Jessica. Benita is a long-time friend and not a one-time colleague; her daughters were bridesmaids and neither seemed disabled in any way (ditto for Jessica). Here is who could fit each description:
longtime friend - Lindsay Roth; Benita Litt; Heather Dorak
former co-star - Abigail Spencer (although neither were stars in Suits)
friend from LA - Heather Dorak; Benita Litt
a one-time colleague - Abigail Spencer; make-up guy?
close confidante - Jessica Mulroney; make-up guy; Lindsay Roth
The more one tries to compile the list of 5, the more likely the bizarre theory that Meghan is the '5 friends' becomes!
I just shared it as another's opinion. it is interesting to me to read other's takes on situation as I only seem to read news here and a couple other sites.
`In Good Prince Charles's Golden Days,
When money was no bother,
I spent and spent in umpteen ways,
And also did my Mother.
And this is law that I'll maintain
Until my dying day Sir,
That I am Meghan and shall reign
Whatever you may say, Sir'
`In Good Prince Charles's Golden Days,
When money was no bother,
I spent and spent in umpteen ways,
And also did my Mother.
And this is law that I'll maintain
Until my dying day Sir,
That I am Meghan and shall reign
Whatever you may say, Sir'
Magnifique!! Can’t really add much, perfect.
To merch my frock, I never missed
A ruse so very pointed.
And damned be he who befriends me,
He will be disappointed.
I don’t give a damn what HM says,
I’ll take this, that, and t’other.
Who are you to count the plays
I’ve made to your big brother.
"Her parents married at some sort of odd ?Protestant? church.."
To the extent it matters, M's parents weren't married in a Christian church, even an odd one. They married at:
The Self-Realization Fellowship Temple on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles. It was founded by
Paramahansa Yogananda. Here is the website. https://www.hollywoodtemple.org/
Supposedly Doria's choice which makes sense given her yoga devotion. (Thomas was raised Episcopalian.)
Doria (and supposedly sometimes Oprah--woohoo!) reportedly now attends Agape International Spiritual Center in Culver City. Supposedly Meghan attended services there with Doria when she was young and attended the Center's summer camps. It's described as a "trans-denominational New Age mega-center" whatever that means. Jesus is recognized as a good guy because he was enlightened and achieved "cosmic consciousness." Not quite a Christian view.
Don't forget the rumor that for the wedding M wanted the Dalai Lama but settled for Bishop Curry, supposedly at Justin Welby's suggestion.
The often-repeated notion that biracial M "grew up" in Black churches in America where Curry's style of preaching is common is ludicrous, and frankly, a bit racist. (I grew up in and still live in the American South and while I'm white, I've been to funerals and weddings at traditional Black churches. I know that style of preaching. M did not grow up with that in Doria's church in LA.)
Here's the website for Doria's church, the Agape International Spiritual Center. https://agapelive.com/blogs/this-week Looking at the meditations, I wonder if M's experiences at that Center during her formative years might explain her preference for a word salad style of communication.
If her religious upbringing emphasized an eclectic view where denominational teachings and practices are mushed together into a spiritual stew, I guess I can see how she could change religions like some women change hairstyles. I don't think she actually converted to Judaism though. I believe Trevor's brother said their wedding had "Jewish elements" (like the Hora/chair dance) but it wasn't a Jewish ceremony.
Hope I didn't offend anyone.
What I find really odd, though, was her sending that letter to her father. Did she expect him to leak it to the tabloids and if so, to what purpose? At that time, two months after the wedding, MM and the press were still in the honeymoon stage. She had already ghosted her father, so why go after him like that, unless it was a way to discredit him and stop him for speaking to the media.
I stand corrected too about her `Judaism' too - somehow I couldn't imagine her keeping a kosher kitchen, not if she can't get the hang of being a vegan.
Agape - oh my goodness. `Syncretism Rules, OK!'
It's not even sub-Christian. I can see how that sort of thinking could have fed into her mind and helped to produce the woman we see today. I also overlooked the Dalai Lama element, not that she seems to have much grasp of that, to judge from what a Buddhist friend tells me. `Non-Attachment'? I suppose she thinks that the rate at which money goes through her hands is a form of `non-attachment.
Anyway, how about this for another part verse;
`I've got until King Will comes in,
For whom I give not tuppence.
He'll tell the World of all my sin,
And give me my come-uppance.'
a couple of thoughts
I was wrong about Princess Charlotte doing food giving on her birthday as a way of teaching you are not the center of the universe but I still say that they are the value of service at a young age and that's a good thing.
This article?
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog/meghan-harry-pt1
It's interesting. Has a nice timeline of when things were coming down. Did not appear to notice what someone posted here about the long stretch between the letter written by M (nice catch) and when the People article hit although they did do a nice job of noting all the PR stuff. According to them, all the positive stuff came from Sunshine which is reasonable except that before they came onto the picture, she was getting positive ink. It may not have been enough or the negative was viewed as overshadowing the positive. But I've never seen anything really good come out of even trying to control the narrative long term. things just have a way of increasing the pressure to explosion like a volcano.
Why the letter at all?
Someone posted an idea that it may, with all the handwritten glory, have been thought of as something which might be a nice insertion in a positive bio book. It will be interesting to see the entire letter and then compare it to what was written out of order(?), what was included, and most of all, what was excluded in the MOS article.
What I never understood was the timeliness factor of sending it. It had to go to her agent who then had to send it to a third country. If I was really trying to have a conversation where we were working out differences, I wouldn't have:
wasted time in snail mail,
hand writing it in calligraphy (which is more about the look than the message of hey, let's try to work out our problem),
and I probably would not have sent a text (too short for a long message about a big problem)
or email where you don't get the nuance of tone of the voice.
Re: the timeline
The article definitely pre-dated the shower. The article came out the 1st week of February and the shower was the 3rd week.
The letter was obviously expected to be leaked. I think that was its main purpose. TM had talked to the media in the summer AND M (supposedly) got pregnant. She wanted to be able to rid of TM for good. But he didn't leak the letter then as she expected.
Who knows when Archie was really born (as her friends said in the People interview she was "heavily pregnant" and that couldn't have happened later than January.) But she probably was getting private pressure from palace sources to make up with TM before the birth. And there were stories in the press about that too. And don't forget, TM claimed he kept texting and calling her. He didn't want to be written off and she knew that.
The Christmas scarfing (after W&K were made to attend) the popping bump at the dog shelter, the square bump at the actors care home, the year-end account of the cost of M's clothes, W&K attending the Diplomatic Reception tiara event while H&M went to the Henry van Straubanzee event (an event not attended this past year), the Queen's extended family event at BP (where M probably felt she wasn't given her share of attention) and the hoopla over the avocado toast she served to the crying makeup guy.... Seems there was plenty to set M off. But I think mainly she wanted TM to be gone completely before Archie was born. And remember, the editorship of People was about to change. Not that the approach of the rag changed but the old editor was definitely friends with Abigail Spencer.
If I remember correctly people didnt take to kindly that they announce the pregnancy on the wedding or even her over the top Australia tour, but she still have some good will with people and the media and for example DM comments were still half and half after it. The baby shower really break that and it all went belly up very fast afterwards regarding the public opinion, the bananagate, the vogue incident really cement people this dislike of her, although Harry was still somehow in the clear (For Archie's birth announcement I dont recall a negative response, people were asking questions but in general it was well receive). And then they skip a visit to the Queen and took 5 private planes in like 7 days, and thing went so bad. I think that this really was a pointing turn for the image of Harry, he really deserve it as the travelist thing he was peddling was a way to line up his pocket while lecturing people. The SA was rather successful and I remember thinking "ugh, I hope people dont forget all the stupid things she has done" but they shoot on their own foot the last day with that poor me interview. I dont know what were they thinking with that interview really. Most turning points were not random negative pieces of DM, but things that she and Harry actually do and say that really piss off people, but of course, they would never admit to any wrong doing or miscalculation. The press is just mean apparently.
This has been my general impression in relationship with the public opinion of her, but it has been so much drama that I may be wrong and forgetting parts of it. I cannot believe that they got marry for like two years only.
People on here often rush to correct themselves, but I for one always get the meaning and don't need the corrections. We are all writing on various devices and platforms that often have minds of their own, and there's no way to edit post-posting.
Neither Will nor Kate
Can confiscate
That what I grabbed beforehand
Oh woe is me, my game is up, much ado with lies
I Sealed my fate through greed & hate
And those I failed to subjugate.
@M.A.: Your English is charming (and correcting other people's writing is my profession.)
Completely agree! Your English is just fine, M.A., quite better, in fact, than many native speakers :) And copy editing is my profession, too, along with general journalism (writing articles, paginating, etc.)
People on here often rush to correct themselves, but I for one always get the meaning and don't need the corrections. Same here We are all writing on various devices and platforms that often have minds of their own, and there's no way to edit post-posting.
My problem is the conditioning to spot and fix errors almost reflexively. There are so many talented writers here that I am full of admiration, and all, including lowly me, will inevitably have errors slip through (which in no way detracts from the message). As you say, Teasmade, we needn't worry, what with microscopic keyboards on phones and the like. Life's too short!
And speaking of talent, how about our resident poets @Magatha Mistie and @Wild Boar Battle-maid! Well done!
Hear hear!!!
The point is that she could have phoned him, or called him, or even fed ex’d Him this letter. She didn’t. She used all these official channels and spent a couple of hours with a calligraphy pen because it was yet another staged act that was supposed to gain her massive sympathy points. Yet at some point the scheme fell apart.
Another reason why I think this is whole letter is yet another utterly fake and PR scheme is that Markle ALWAYS overplays her hand. It’s like her penchant for wearing undersized bras so that her boobs are falling over the rim. She doesn’t do subtle. How much more believable had she claimed only ONE friend had leaked the letter to People. That would be believable. Five? Please. Clearly she thought such a large group of friends supporting her would make it look more legit. Hello, my narc brain, we meet again. It completely undercuts the validity of her claims. People must be furious at her because it puts them in the onerous position of protecting its “sources,” and yet it makes them look ridiculous.
Part 1
At the heart of Meghan Markle’s legal battle with Associated Newspapers is a letter, written to a father by a daughter in a moment of heightened pressure. But you’d be forgiven for thinking that, because—in its first pre-trial hearing last week—it quickly became apparent that this case is about much more than a humdrum family dispute. It is actually going to be Meghan Markle vs. All Media. And Meghan Markle vs. Her Dad. And, for that matter, Meghan Markle vs. Her Own Worst Tendencies.
If the pre-trial hearing is any indication, Meghan Markle plans to go down swinging, regardless of how many punches she ends up landing on herself in the process. As things stand, they might be numerous.
Already we have seen the release of endless text messages that do nothing but shine a light on the utter dysfunction that exists between Thomas Markle (a man who never saw a news outlet he wouldn’t yammer at for cash) and Meghan (a woman so thoroughly inept at achieving privacy that even Lindsay Lohan has started offering her advice).
The following day, Thomas undergoes emergency heart surgery. Harry then sends a text, according to court documents cited by the Daily Mail, “admonishing Mr Markle for talking to the press and … accusing Mr Markle of causing hurt to his daughter. The text did not ask how the surgical procedure had gone or how Mr Markle was or send him good wishes.” The messages include Thomas’s passive-aggressive masterpiece, “I’m sorry my heart attack is … any inconvenience for you.”
And this is just the start. Come the trial proper, all bets are off. Meghan’s somewhat famous friends will take the stand. The couple’s finances will be explored, as will their cooperation with the authors of the upcoming book Thoroughly Modern Royals: The Real World of Meghan and Harry, which has the potential to be another semi-authorized Andrew Morton Diana-style tell-all. No stone will be left unturned in the trial. It is destined to go down as an ugly and unnecessarily public slugfest that will cause permanent damage to Prince Harry, the royal family, and the Markles. The only winner in all of this, regardless of the outcome, will be the press, which Harry despises so much.
The relationship between the couple and the media is already extraordinarily strained. Harry and Meghan have effectively boycotted four major British tabloids, who no longer need any excuse to go after them. And what better way to do that than by covering weeks and weeks of a trial that will leave the pair fully exposed? Neither of them seems very happy—this week alone Harry reportedly told his friends that he was nostalgic for the days of his active military service—and a case like this isn’t going to change that. There are ways and means of dealing with an intrusive press. Harry and Meghan really should know that willingly offering up all their dirty laundry isn’t one of them.
then picture a grown woman sitting at desk for HOURS penning out over the top sob story to their dad! seriously . in calligraphy! what is going through her head? what is she thinking at that moment and for hours during!
I don't think there has ever been such drama in history of world . the fake pregnancy catapults it light years beyond any other dysfunctional relationship I have had displeasure of viewing
,Another reason why I think this is whole letter is yet another utterly fake and PR scheme is that Markle ALWAYS overplays her hand. It’s like her penchant for wearing undersized bras so that her boobs are falling over the rim. She doesn’t do subtle. How much more believable had she claimed only ONE friend had leaked the letter to People. That would be believable. Five? Please. Clearly she thought such a large group of friends supporting her would make it look more legit. Hello, my narc brain, we meet again. It completely undercuts the validity of her claims. People must be furious at her because it puts them in the onerous position of protecting its “sources,” and yet it makes them look ridiculous.
Overplays her hand is right. There were one or two or just one and reluctant second friend who were in on it. Then Megsy and her PR ran with this and made this into the mythical People Mag five. The initial number of friends in on this are at 1.5 for me. They were willing and when the original People Mag treatment came out, they were as surprised as everyone else that Megsy had FIVE friends backing her up. On how the UK press has hounded her, plus also trying dispose of her father.
Megsy has ghosted many but the only ones to raise a major stink, to expose her rotten behavior, are Piers Morgan (he had her number early on) and her father Thomas Markle.
Brilliant!
We're doing OK!
I've got another half - verse:
`How dare Queen Liz sit on my throne!
And wear the Jewels of Sta-ate!
She must ha-ave known it's mine alone,
And so incurs my ha-ate!'
For those unfamiliar with English balladry, `The Vicar of Bray' is a skit on a turncoat clergyman who change his `beliefs' to keep his living whenever the religious climate changed. The original priest is said to have lived through the Catholic- extreme Protestant - Catholic- Elizabethan C of E Settlement vacillations of the 16th century. The song though, refers to the events of the late 17th century, from the CofE under the near-Catholic Charles II, through Catholic James II to the Protestantism of William & Mary.
The only belief this vicar had was in his own income...
Bray is a place in Berkshire, home of Hammer Horror.
It's a jolly tune, the basis of `In an English Country Garden'
Not a cheep to overshadow Charlotte's birthday.
It's hard to imagine that she's taken legal advice to shut up-
Did she direct her inevitable rage at her hapless team of lawyers? Hours of raging at them until exhaustion set in?
Has she fired them?
Is she hunting through Yellow Pages for another firm to take on the case, with no success?
Or is she unconscious, out cold from overdoing the booze and controlled substances?
Has anyone heard anything?
Thank you! You guys are so sweet. I know that the only way to get better at a second language is just using it, so here I am trying.
And the poem is just wonderful, Im reading in breaks of work and its hilarious! My poetry level is in negative form or I would join. Maybe I should try something in prose.
@Piroska
I would do for the last option. Asking for payment seems to be her thing.
@Piroska: I would be surprised if the other members of the RBF post anything other than generic birthday wishes to Archie - the bare minimum without pictures or a personal note.
She is probably raging to everyone that hears her.
If she made an agreement with a magazine or two, she may not be able to publish that much until said magazine does. If anything can keep her quiet is money.
I have never been the lover of the press pack. They can be vile. But After reading Megsy's statement post ruling I now want to see the media tighten their belts, get all money they can and litigate her to bankruptcy.
"As part of this process, the extremes to which the Mail on Sunday used distortive, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to target the Duchess of Sussex have been put on full display".
Is she out of her mind? The Judge said her allegations against the media were inadmissible. He kicked them out. She should have shut up, learned fro it and regrouped. Instead she goes on about her manic idea of universal plot against her again.
Is she schizophrenic?
Time for the MoS to open the defamation case against her.
You have done such a good job with the article.
After reading it again and after looking through your analyses of it I entirely agree there is little doubt this article had been premeditated, agreed and discussed between all of them.
I also think Megsy's mouthpiece Scoobie was well aware of the whole thing, as his rater careless statement at the time shows.
This is a transparent, shameless and clumsy attempt at manipulating media coverage in her favor.
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-faith-relationship-god/
How Meghan Markle Leans on Her Faith and ‘Close Relationship with God’
“A deep sense of gratitude and humility has guided her,” her longtime friend tells PEOPLE
Michelle Tauber
February 06, 2019 03:00 PM
Meghan Markle has always remained very private about her faith — but it is an essential part of her life.
“Meg is extremely faithful,” a longtime friend tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story. “We pray a lot together. We meditate. She has had, and especially has now, a very close relationship with God.”
Meghan, 37, was baptized into the Church of Englandin a secret ceremony last spring ahead of her wedding to Prince Harry. And the intimate service, which was a significant nod to Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth’s role as head of the Church of England, had special meaning for Meghan, as faith is a key pillar for her.
“A deep sense of gratitude and humility has guided her,” the friend continues. “We can still be modern women and feel all the feels with feminism and be strong moms and strong wives but understand that [our] relationship [with God] is so critical.”
Meghan has also grown close to the Archbishop Justin Welby, who not only conducted her baptism, but also officiated her wedding. It’s her respect for the church that leads another close confidante to call rumors that Meghan insisted for St. George’s Chapel to be sprayed with air freshener ahead of the ceremony “outrageous.”
“I can’t think of anything more ridiculous. If people knew how spiritual she is and how serious and respectful she takes her relationship with God—she would never ask for something like that,” the longtime friend adds. “The day after the wedding I said, ‘You were so serene.’ She has a huge loving fondness for Archbishop Welby. She’s like, ‘I’m there, I’m with Harry, I’m with you guys, and I’m with the leader of my church.’ She doesn’t think about the narrative: ‘What will people think?’ She doesn’t do that. She really lives in the current moment. And when you do that, there’s no fear.
“She and Harry are both very grounded. She has a firm understanding of the things she can and can’t control. And she tries not to put any effort into the things she can’t control.”
Her strong sense of faith thas helped Meghan navigate her new world as the Duchess of Sussex.
“Her lifestyle can be very isolating. The rest of us get to go out, see each other for coffee, just go, ‘I’m having a [bad] day, I’m going to have lunch or do a little shopping.’ She can’t. So you kind of have to look inward and go, ‘How can I be part of my own solution?’ And that’s really challenging.”
No wonder poor Thomas reacted. Meghan Markle was not *born*...she was vomited straight out of the roiling bowels of Hades.
Thank you for posting this though. I can’t wait for the trial.
🐛
In a series of interviews with People magazine, five of Meghan’s closest female friends revealed her pain at her father’s behaviour. Meghan, 37, wrote: “Dad, I'm so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1083516/meghan-markle-news-father-thomas-markle-letter-royal-wedding-kate-middleton-feud
Here's the search page the results for the "People" articles start from, if anyone feels bored enough to look at the rest to see if there's anything I may have missed. It has been quite amusing scanning through all of the old headlines from 2016 onwards.
https://www.express.co.uk/search?s=meghan+letter&order=oldest&o=370
1. More than one quote from PEOPLE seems to say "and she's like Dad I'm trying to..."
Maybe alot of people still use "like" that way? LTF does apparently. I know Serena W uses "like" alot but given her verbal stumbles about whether Archie was or wasn't in NYC for her match make me think the PEOPLE LTF is not SW. Plus she and M aren't LTF's. M and Jessica are and M and Pilates Heather are. (By the way, Heather does have two sons but her second son was born about a week after the article came out. So I don't know if she played the main character of LTF.)
2. "Former colleague" says M asks her about "the kids." Can't be Abigail Spencer--she has only one child.
3. LTF says TM "..writes her a really long letter in return." Longer than 5 pages? I wonder. But if it was longer, it's super-odd all that mattered was the closing mention of a photo. (And IMO Thomas was right..if the desire was to stop media attention to the family split, a photo would have helped.) I wonder if TM kept a copy of his letter to M?
4. The closing paragraph in the religion PEOPLE article about the isolating royal lifestyle---boo hoo, poor M can't go out to lunch or shopping whenever she wants to and what a challenge that is for her... Kind of ironic given the lockdowns.
_______
@BlueBellWoods,
I don't know how early PEOPLE issues are released. PEOPLE is published weekly. Monthly mags usually get to subscribers at least 2 weeks before the start of the month and then hit the newstand shortly after that. I don't know about weeklies. But it was out there because the date of the MoS article with Thomas's response was Feb 10.
______
Big whoop about the book announcement IMO. It's 10pm in England. Charlotte's asleep. It wasn't nice on M's part but W&K kind of outsmarted her by releasing the pics early. And too, I suspect the motivation was to detract from more articles about the 1st round court loss.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/05/blind-item-1-royal-gossip.html?m=1
CDAN:
The alliterate one is rumoured to be using their fame as leverage to get lower prices on houses and/or reduce or very low rent. A friend who sells reality show ideas also has heard rumours She's angling for a reality show. Desperation! (Harkles)
The top of the heap is rumoured to just want all of this to go away. She's rumoured to have offered to help with money from her personal funds on the condition that they remain out of the spotlight. Apparently an agreement was made with monies paid and which they have already gone back on. Not surprising. Senior courtiers are calling them Mr and Mrs Davidson (alluding to David the duke of Windsor) Ouch (The Queen andthe Harkles)
Another credible source has said that the upcoming nuptials will be canceled. Rumour is that the fiancee can't keep it in his pants. As if she didnt know.(Beatrice and Edo)
Rumour from my friends is that the top of the heap is also regularly meeting with the receent anniversary celebrator. The older one really likes her and is grooming her big time.Lots of jealousy from other family members. (Queen and Kate)
More rumours and talk about the next in line/rumours about dementia and him being hard to handle. One story I was told is that due to the dementia male caregiving staff have to work with him exclusively because sexually inappropriate acting out behaviours have happened with female carers. This is not uncommon with dementia. Sad (Prince Charles)
Lemon Tea Here
There is too much going on with the number of people supposedly involved in this case.
Nutty, what about that editor, I forgot her name. The editor of People magazine. I think she is the one who unashamedly published the letter article. She should be held accountable. She has not been drawn into the fray. Why?
The alliterate one is rumoured to be using their fame as leverage to get lower prices on houses and/or reduce or very low rent. A friend who sells reality show ideas also has heard rumours She's angling for a reality show. Desperation! (Harkles)
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/05/blind-item-1-royal-gossip.html<
Thanks Lucy and GlowW!
CDAN Royale sources are usually awful but now that H$M live in the CDAN region of LA..... This looks true to me on a scale of 9+++ out of 10. Hollywood is at standstill so there is leverage for aggressive Megsy, she will be bargaining down hard on the realtors there as far as rentals and probably rent-to-own-for-Pretend-Dumbarton-Royales.
Megsy just might score cheap so the couch surfing and fantasies can continue unmolested for a while. It looks to me like no Hollywood action for three months and even then the pipelines will be clogged with projects from before the arrival of the Malibu Two.
Their biggest hiders/enablers are their Royal Protection officers, paid by UK taxpayers. This is how they hide out in Malibu or who knows where, and no one knows where they live right now.
I agree re Phillip, not Charles has dementia. I think this is the reason that the Queen has spent little time with him [except now that they are in quarantine together]. I am sure it must be tough for her to see dementia taking hold--perhaps he does not even recognize her at times. I think the last time the prince was seen in public was about a year ago
As in angry and pissed off realtors getting the manic Megsy treatment. These realtors are hungry due to the lock down in California. Even though this state is doing very very well as far as Covid goes. It must be the sunshine.
Anyways... Los Angeles/Malibu Realtors show Megs around only to get bargained down in a huge way, realtors get angry as they are talked down to by faux know-it-all Duchess, this feeds back to CDAN. Resulting in the blind.
Charles has dementia to the point he's "hard to handle"? Quite unlikely IMO given the speeches we've heard him give in the last 6 months.
Beatrice maybe not making it to the altar, could be. And didn't we already know H&M seek free accommodations?
----------
@Glowworm asked
"Can the Queen passover Charles and go directly to William?"
No. The throne is not a personal possession TQ can bestow on a whim even if she wanted to. The line of succession is set. And I'm pretty sure Will has zero interest in being king next! He's been a full-time working royal for less than 3 years. (He left the air ambulance job in July/Aug of 2017 and they moved from Anmer Hall to KP.)
The Queen doesnt have the power to change the line of succession. Only the parliament can do that, and to skip someone like that it would need the approval of all the countries in the Commonwealth as well. I would think that the parliament have bigger issues to deal with at the moment. The rumor to skip Charles has always been flowing around, but its extremely unlikely to be real as it would be a legal hazzard and make the monarchy unstable, both things that the Queen is very against. A reign with a very visible William as a Prince of Wales would be a much safer choice.
Charles could be force to abdicate by the parliament in time, but it seems unlikely as well unless the are literal riots on the streets. If he is sick an especial act could pass to let William take over I guess, but there is no evidence he is sick, he was doing tours and speeches a few weeks ago.
Lemon Tea here
No issue with tea or tree.
That editors name you mentioned , also does not sound familiar. Many pages back, the Editors name was mentioned, perhaps it was the journalist who wrote the article, anyway what i am saying is, forget the so called friends, maybe it was the People magazine editor or journalist that set this whole scene up. Which would mean, there was no friends. It is late, sleep patterns are out the door, hopefully someone else picks up on my thoughts.
The PEOPLE editor was Jess Cagle. He announced he was stepping down in March 2019. He said he wanted to live in the same city as his husband and dog. (He married the year before.) He was a close friend of Abigail Spencer. His replacement is Dan Wakeford.
https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/peoples-jess-cagle-is-the-latest-magazine-editor-to-step-down/
Running a magazine isn’t as glamorous as it used to be.
Just ask Jess Cagle, the long-time editor-in-chief of People, who announced his departure Wednesday after five years running the popular celebrity magazine.
Cagle, 53, said he is leaving People to spend more time “under the same roof as my husband and dog.” But sources tell The Post that he had been feeling crimped by the magazine’s new owner, Meredith Corp., a Midwestern company known for penny-pinching.
When People was still owned by Time Inc., Cagle had sold his Manhattan apartment and bought a home in the Hollywood Hills in order to live with his now-husband, Matt Whitney, sources said.
That arrangement — among other job perks — came under pressure after Des Moines, Iowa-based Meredith bought Time for $2.8 billion in January 2018, sources said.
Meredith placed business executive Bruce Gersh in charge of People, adding a new layer of supervision that irked Cagle, sources said.
“Bruce was not supportive of Jess spending a lot of time in LA,” said a former People staffer. “There was no love lost between them.”
According to another former staffer, Cagle “hated” Gersh. (except)
I've known some pretty ruthless people in my life, but I've never known anybody who treated a parent as coldly and callously as she treated TM, especially not a parent who has always loved, nurtured and supported them. That kind of behavior is chilling.
Neither Charles nor Prince Phillip appear to have dementia; there is simply no evidence.
Beatrice and Edo have postponed their wedding due to the virus. No one at CDAN knows what Edo is doing with his private parts. LOL!!!
Rustiee
Googling along the lines of `Meghan as Queen' I came across this at:
https://www.newidea.com.au/meghan-markle-her-plan-to-be-queen
Meghan Markle: her plan to be Queen
The future royal reveals her secret ambition. - by New Idea
23 NOV2017
"She's set to marry the world's most eligible royal bachelor, but it seems Meghan Markle has even bigger dreams in her sights.
The Hollywood star has finally told close friends and family of her dream to become queen one day, revealing her hope to take charge of the royal family after she and Prince Harry, 33, walk down the aisle.
Meghan , 36, has said that she thinks it's 'destiny' she met and fell in love with Harry, and she can see them taking charge of the throne one day.
'Meghan's always been ambitious, even more so since she started dating Harry,' says a source. 'She loves being in the public eye and having the power to help people and really make a difference to many lives which is why she's relishing the opportunity to have an official role in the royal family.
'She thinks it's destiny that her and Harry even met - they're from opposite sides of the globe - and she thinks it's all part of her path to be the most important woman in the world.'
'She has absolutely no fear of being in the public eye and actually really relishes it - it's one of the things that Harry loves about her, how excited she is to embrace royal life.
'Meghan's always seen big things for herself - she really thinks she can, and should be queen one day.'
News of Meghan's big dreams comes as respected royal watchers and commentators agree that the Suits star is a new brand of royalty for the family, and will bring different energy to the palace.
'You haven't seen anyone like this since Diana,' royal author Katie Nicholl told Grazia. 'She's clearly very self-assured, fearless even. In that respect, she is really a breath of fresh air. She's not a blank canvas on to which royals can project an image, but already has a clear idea of who she is and what she wants to achieve.'
She adds that royal fans are now eagerly awaiting another royal wedding and notes that 'it feels like [Harry has] met the right woman at the right time in his life.'
But while Duchess Kate seamlessly stepped into her role as a royal and injected some much-needed glamour into the monarchy, commentators predict that Meghan is set to build on Kate's hard work and kick things up a notch.
'While the Duchess has shored up the House of Windsor with much-needed stability, love and a sense of duty, Markle's work ethic, diversity and self-determination could take it even further,' writes columnist Angela Mollard."
This was published on the 23rd November, before the engagement was formally announced - my emphasis.
According to
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-did-prince-harry-propose-to-meghan-markle.html/
`they had become engaged weeks before, during a cozy and romantic night in.'
So she was blabbing to `friends'/the Press well before she should have done.
I gather from Nutty's archive that this blog dates from January 2018, a couple of months after the engagement so perhaps that is how we missed this. We might have scoffed at this report, as a fantasy about a fantasist, but in the light of subsequent events it's chilling.
Also: ...told close friends and family of her dream... Hmmm.
Might she be heading for a charge of High Treason?
God Save the Queen.
' Meghan Markle ‘shouted at Kate Middleton’s staff’ and tensions grew between the royal wives after the Duchess of Sussex had to accept she would not be married to the next king, a new memoir claims
I knew she'd been reported as yelling at Kate's staff and Kate had put her right on it but hadn't picked up any details as to where or when.
Do we know when the penny dropped that Harry wasn't going to be king? Or any evidence that she thought she could subvert the law?
Finding Freedom: Harry, Meghan, and the Making of a Modern Royal Family
Omid Scobie, Carolyn Durand
Publisher: Dey Street Books (A HarperCollins Imprint)
American authors
American publisher
American Meghan and now choosing to live in America Harry
It IS the British Royal Family, and America is not even part of the Commonwealth. It is not up to Americans to decide what is royal and not nor what is modern royalty and what is not.
I just hope that whatever is in the book (which is going to grab headlines for a short while, depending on what happens with the virus in the next 3 months) does not cause more hurt to Harry's family and cause more damage to his relationship with them.
Interesting CDAN blind, although some of it - like the bits about Beatrice and Edo - are pretty easy for anyone to guess at.
I do hope Charles is not dealing with Alzheimer's, although that can certainly happen in one's 70s (Joe Biden?). I have an acquaintance who had early-onset Alzheimer's in his 40s.
As you may have noticed, CDAN has gone over to a Disqus commenting system. This gives Enty access to your IP, which means that unless you are using a VPN, he or anyone who can see the back end of his blog knows precisely where you are located.
(Sometimes very precisely - I had someone annoying me in another context, and was able to trace the IP to some students at a local school.)
Just something to keep in mind - at least until Meg stops going after her critics.
I just imagined Harry living with Doria and paying her bills. He who never had contact with the real world will be living with mather in law. Good luck to Harry.
Just two things:
I think, in the CDAN feature, the poor soul suffering from A is the D of E and what is meant by 'next in line' is not according to the succession but to influence. Don't forget he was considered to be the Firm's boss at one time. He's also always been known as a womaniser. As to the person being groomed by TQ, my money's on Camilla. We've been seeing more of her recently and it's all been very polished.
Secondly, I found this on one of my lurking sprees:
An ageing, failed thesp from L.A.
Still working at 'you play, you pay'
Hooked a dumb, troubled prince
And now ever since
Has been trying to gag all hearsay.
Will now exit stage right.
I was looking at the new book about the Harkles:
Finding Freedom: Harry, Meghan, and the Making of a Modern Royal Family
Cost fromAmazon in UK £20 not to be confused with others on Amazons list Finding Freedom from the prison of Chronic Fatigue Syndrom or Finding Freedom: How Death Row Broke and Opened My Heart
I can see Doria living with Harkles one week a month. D is quite settled in right where she is. She is too wily to live there full time as a slave to Megsy. She knows that's a Megsy trap for suckers like Hapless Money Bags.
Plus Megsy calling D her rock is put out there to counteract her God awful PR with her father.
This is a very fine real estate showcase. This is worth at least $5,000 in free publicity for selling this house. The DM might have been paid something for this brochure-like display, guaranteed to get lots of eyeballs due to the Grifting Gruesomes being mentioned.
Remember that everything is a PR production with Megsy. Definitely Megsy collaborated with the realtor. So that Megsy could rattle on about how important Doria is to her. Obviously to counteract what came out last week about Megsy's poisonous relations with her father.
Meanwhile, thinking of Archie photos, I've been playing with 2 from the Daily Mail -
The first is of Meghan exiting the private plane (a Cessna) at Nice airport, carrying `Archie' (dated 18th August 2019),
The second is from the`dead-frog pap walk' in `Canada' (dated 21st January 2020).
I'm no Photoshop expert but I copied both images into Word, cropped them so they could be side-by-side, and then resized one or the other until Meghan was the same size in both.
Comparing the 2 images, I'd say there's not much difference, as far as I can see, in the size of the 2 `babies' in relation to Meghan's torso.
In the first, `Archie' was supposed to be 3-and-a-half months, in the second 8-and-a-half months.
A real baby or the same doll?
The addresses for the 2 photos are:
10 August 2109 https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/08/18/22/17424346-0-image-a-38_1566164679056.jpg
21 January 2020 https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01/21/00/23657458-7909539-image-m-72_1579566467602.jpg
What do you think?
What size will he be on his birthday?
......and the making of a modern royal family.
Please just who are the dubious duo trying to kid, they are not part of the royal family!
Long Walk To Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela by Nelson Mandela
-boasting about her suffering now, typical bloody narcissist, `Nobody's suffered like ME!'.
Look how many houses these two have supposed to be interested in/buying,as well? Too many to mention, not forgetting they can’t afford any of them. All PR and for revenue.
No, you aren't alone in thinking "Finding Freedom" is an offensive title for a book about H&M.
History AND current events are replete with examples of oppressed people seeking freedom and paying with their lives or if they survive, paying a permanent and steep psychological price: POWs, slaves in civilizations past and present, East German citizens before the Wall came down, those fleeing the Nazis, those seeking to escape the Hermit Kingdom, reporters in oppressive countries seeking to report the truth to the world, those fighting Apartheid, those fighting any kind of religious persecution (in May 2019 the BBC said Christian persecution was at "near genocide levels" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48146305 ), women living in societies where they are considered property and being raped is a death sentence for the victim, those protesting at what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, those involved in the Arab Spring..
Not wanting to comb or pin back one's hair, not wanting to wear pantyhose or a decent bra, not wanting to follow royal protocol including tamping down the excessive PDA, not being able to ignore words that suggest one is a hypocrit, not wanting an older brother, his wife, and his children to "hog the spotlight," having to show up at brief but "boring" events a couple of times a week in return for an exceedingly grand lifestyle, a lifestyle that surpasses what 99% of the world can achieve?
Yeah, that's just like being oppressed to the point of death. And "escaping" to freedom with guaranteed continued financial support and a personal fortune in first-class seats on a commercial flight from England to a gated, guarded Canadian estate is just like boarding a homemade raft in Cuba with no more than a sack of possesions to try to traverse the deadly Florida Straits, a journey that killed an estimated 70,000-80,000 Cubans between 1961 and 2016. Sharks frequently attack the rafts and survivors report seeing body parts, bloody patches of water, and empty rafts on their journeys. Guess that's just like encountering unwanted camera clicks or bad food on the plane. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/03/01/what-is-it-like-to-escape-cuba-by-raft/
Finding Freedom while heavily subsidized by your "captors". Yup, makes sense.
Making of a modern royal family with an estranged, shadow of a Bristish prince and no proof of life regarding offspring.
This woman will be a case study for the ages, both in psychology/psychiatry and uber marketing. Keep lying, someone may believe you.
I, for one, hope that her "integrity and honesty" are exposed in a trial and the tangled web is plucked apart for everyone to see. Just the facts ma'am.
Marriage
Birth
Christenings
Funerals
Meghan didn't want her father anywhere near at such times. She was ashamed of his appearance, financial situation and the fact that he was white as she was now using her ethnicity in a way she never had before. She only needed her mother for that.
What a shield that has been for her. It's still working now with woke journalists who don't deign to find out about her actions and behaviour. It is also a weapon that enabled her to force her way into the BRF in record time, with no due diligence. They are still scared of her for this reason. Kate had far more hoops to jump through. Meghan coasted in, as everyone was terrified of appearing racist.
I think Thomas Markle was set up for those photos before the wedding, to ensure he wasn't AT the wedding. She wasn't to know he would end up in hospital anyway. I'm sure all the stress didn't help him there. Next I think she planned to set him up with the fancy, totally implausible, written-to-be-published letter to make sure he was gone before the christening, and gone so totally in PR terms that he'd never be back.
I agree with you 100%. Everyone but everyone could identify with this in human terms whether they were interested in royal coverage or not. It is an instant, indelible indicator of character. Goes straight to the heart. Spoiling someone's wedding. The most special day of anyone's life. You just KNEW, with absolute certainty, that that woman was a nasty piece of work. Nothing she could do after that would win back your good opinion. I remember it so well, because I had initially been happy about Harry finding someone at last and I enjoyed their engagement interview. I thought she would get up to speed faster than Kate had managed.
My disillusionment had three stages. First, her sloppy appearance at the engagement announcement with the bathrobe, bare legs and overlarge, dirty shoes. Still, I shrugged it off and thought it was only a blip. Second, the incredibly expensive dress for the engagement photoshoot. That really shocked me. Yet still, I cut her some slack. Third, her attempt to grab Eugenie's spotlight at her wedding, and make the day and the coverage all about HER. That was unforgivable. The baby shower was then just confirmation I no longer needed, that she was the worst kind of adventuress and had no business being in our royal family.
For me it was the engagement interview, her whole demeanour, there was nothing genuine about it and I saw right through Megsy, and could see what we were in for.
BUT i don’t understand, after developing a tumor on face gland, why in the world she would risk injecting $hit into her face now? i she that vain? obviously, yes, but she looks puff and, swollen, not better, healthier and younger.
What I don't understand though is how Harry could drink enough of M's Kool-Aid to resolve in his head that M and Thomas had a "'particularly warm relationship" up until just before the wedding per the court filings, yet he never met Thomas. I've seen posts on various blogs saying it wasn't that unusual not to meet a future father-in-law. That it happens with couples. Yeah, it happens when the adult child is estranged from his/her parent or when tight finances or visa considerations don't allow travel for a meeting. Neither of those applied here.
And now H and M have chosen to live only 150 miles from Thomas with apparently no intention of repairing that "particularly warm relationship," a relationship that spanned 36 years before it was ruined by the mean nasty tabloids? That's choosing to give the tabloids alot of power over their lives if H really believes that. And if he doesn't, how can he possibly believe he might not be next, if M's decades-long relationships can turn on a dime so easily?
Or does he think that statement in the court filings is false and he's just fine with that? I can see he might feel that entitled, but doesn't he understand someone who lies in one court filing might lie in another?
So far as I'm concerned, H deserves whatever M does to him.
HMTQ must be so very, very grateful for "our Trusty and Well-Beloved Catherine" that she must be on her knees every night thanking the Heavens that William chose so very wisely.
Meghan just loves to copy Diana, down to her perfume. Wondering if her end game is to go out in a blaze of glory to eclipse Diana. She certainly does not have an original thought, ever. Guessing she needn't have any fear of Parisian tunnels, that would be too obvious. The cliffs of Malibu, however, may prove her downfall (pun intended).
This particular comment is the author's personal wild train of thought on a lazy Sunday morning -- intended for entertainment purposes only -- and should not be construed as educational, a threat or copyright / trademark infringement. Indeed, this author claims all rights, restrictions, copyright and trademark privileges. (Two can play that game, Meghan.)
I think she must have just held Harry off week to week with various reasons why that particular trip could wait and that would have been when she had maximum sexual power to distract him. Then, as the wedding got closer and Edward Lane Fox started hassling her about her father's travel arrangements, drastic measures were called for ...
This particular comment is the author's personal wild train of thought on a lazy Sunday morning -- intended for entertainment purposes only -- and should not be construed as educational, a threat or copyright / trademark infringement. Indeed, this author claims all rights, restrictions, copyright and trademark privileges. (Two can play that game, Meghan.)
~~Stands and claps~~
Well done and well said.
~~Curtsy~~
Marcus, Meghan and Scobie...they are like a mean gang who planned all this together.
And now they have isolated Harry. Harry is away from his friends and family, in a foreign country with only Meghan to rely on.
Sometimes Harry appears in videos, but it always looks as if the videos have been filmed in a cupboard. Maybe they keep him there? In a cupboard? :)
And when he is out Meghan is always steering him with either a hand on his back or a claw on his arm.
Its creepy.
Did you see the photo of Marcus lecturing Harry? and Meghan looking down in shame( or whatever..she is not defending Harry anyway )
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/is-markus-threatening-harry/
Markus Markus Markus
Who the F is this man?
I know you all hate Harry as much as you hate Meghan but I dont and I feel we should all save Harry.
He's been kidnaped!:)
I missed her engagement interview, bathrobe picture and over the top dress. First eyebrow raise for me was her ill-fitting wedding dress with too much veil. I was not used to seeing royal brides so sloppy. Then came her stripy summer dress with a huge cut at the side. This is when I realized something was off with this one and actually started watching her.
I never paid attention before to the RF because they DID WELL. There were traditions, manners, behavior and customs that they followed, so the balance had been right and as expected. I met and despised Andrew but that was it.
As for the book title it didn't disappoint. It is pompous, over the top, sugary and pretensions. Did we expect anything different? Immediate question is finding freedom from what? It is not like Megsy had been forced into this marriage. Her actions were her own choice. "Family she never had", remember?
Sorry if she had not been able to understand being royal involves certain standards, public scrutiny, hard work and duty then it only serves to prove her as a gold digger who is stupid too.
As you may have noticed, CDAN has gone over to a Disqus commenting system. This gives Enty access to your IP, which means that unless you are using a VPN, he or anyone who can see the back end of his blog knows precisely where you are located.
(Sometimes very precisely - I had someone annoying me in another context, and was able to trace the IP to some students at a local school.)
Just something to keep in mind - at least until Meg stops going after her critics.
@Nutty: Look at the private citizens who were Meghan critics who were doxxed and appeared in the Daily Mail in February 2019. I doubt any if us would want that sort of uproar, and due to the nature of some people these days, possible threats due to doxxing.
Meghan would love to shut down all criticism of her, and would likely have no problem doxxing private citizens who criticize her on this blog or any other forum. I am on favor of staying with this current platform.
Meghan has plenty of OTT sugars to troll people on blogs, which in the psychology realm are nicknamed “flying monkeys” after the flying monkeys the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz had to do her nefarious bidding. Some of Meghan’s more OTT sugars would likely be more than happy to take on the role of flying monkeys to dox people they feel are unfair to their put upon Meghan.
Her “five friends” from the People magazine letter to daddy article, if they do indeed exist, are also flying monkeys. They did dirty work for Meghan.
Megsy and her Flying Monkey’s! Love it, best description of her OTT sugar’s, here there and every bloody where!
401 times. From all I have read, Markus has been there at critical junctures to make sure that Megsy hooked Harry. This was a Markus-Megs conspiracy of sorts. Some say Markus introduced the two. As another Nutty has said - "All roads lead back to Soho House"
She must have known that her life would be circumscribed by expectations of how she should conduct herself but she paid it not a whit of attention. She can hardly have been unaware that there was a quid quo pro for living the royal life, that she had to behave in a certain way, observe the established hierarchy and pay respect where it was due.
There is almost a sign saying `Beware, Gilded Cage’ but, being the avaricious magpie that that she is, she hopped in through the open door , her gaze fixed on all the bright shiny things inside, clearly thinking that the rules didn’t apply to her and anyway, she was going do what she wished – if need be, she’d change the system, once she was Queen.
Her hubris, arrogance and pure nastiness are unbelievable. Apart from Isabella the She-Wolf of France, I don’t think there can have been anyone else like her in out history – and Isabella was at least intelligent and genuinely beautiful. The only Deadly Sins that cannot be laid at Megalomaniac’s feet are Gluttony and Sloth – Pride, Envy, Wrath, Lust and Avarice she displays in spades.
To use the title `Finding Freedom’ to suggest that she had been forcibly imprisoned is grotesque, overblown and downright ludicrous.
I’ve been reflecting on the 2 men I once knew who had been Japanese PoWs. One, father of a boyfriend, was still broken, in both body and spirit, more than 20 years after VJ day.
The other, Canon Noel Duckworth was a remarkable man. He’d been an Army Chaplain in the Malaya and was imprisoned for almost 4 years. I can’t find where I read a full account, detailing how he would take the place of men sentenced to punishment beatings but he did, a really tough little man who risked death in defending his flock from their captors. I knew him in the mid 1960s and had no idea of what he had been through – he has been described as having `all the hallmarks of a Twentieth Century Saint” and being ` a true servant of his Master’. One wouldn't have guessed.
My first job was in a N.London school where at least one third of the pupils were Jewish, children of those who fled the Nazis, grandchildren and great grandchildren of those who had fled pogroms in the Czarist empire. We also had youngsters from families that had managed to get out of Prague after 1969, also from apartheid S.Africa. And Poles whose fathers came to join the Forces during the war and didn’t dare go back to Soviet oppression.
Using that title, to suggest suffering in common with all those people, is obscene.
http://www.bigredbook.info/noel_duckworth.html
https://www.cofepow.org.uk/armed-forces-stories-list/2nd-battalion-cambs-regiment
Personally, I never like her much, but I dislike a lot of people and it doesnt make them bad, we are all different and we cannot all get along. But I smell trouble when she gave the interview on VF. Royal partners dont usually talk to the press, especially pre engagement. The engagement photo didnt make any sense to my either. She in a 75k dress and Harry in a old suit while walking in a garden. It really speak volumes to me. But never in my wildest dreams I could imagine the amount of drama and how fast it would unfold. Their second year anniversary is still a few days away! How stupid do you have to be to destroy everything in such short time? Unless that was always the plan? But, there is anything to gain by destroying everything? No, they are just stupid and have no idea what they are doing.
I know some people excuse Harry and see him as a victim, and at certain point I agree, but I also kinda believe that he was always like this and he is just finally showing it.
I agree. Harry has always been weak, spoilt and petulant. The talented people royal family employs had been able to hide the truth about him for a while.
Harry's problem was and is he believes the palace PR about himself. May be his life in USA will wake him up and toughen him up, but I think it will simply damage him further.
I have heard they changed the name following the backlash to something like "Leaving the firm". May be just a rumor.
Noel Duckworth was in Changi too, along with the Australian author & broadcaster Russell Braddon. How different from the modern airport.
It must have been appalling - what struck me most was a note to an illustration of a prisoner's drawing in one of my books: when the men were finally liberated, many had such badly damaged alimentary canals from starvation that they could not be given ordinary food because it could kill them.
Then again, we like visiting the Channel Islands but cannot escape the relics of the war - and the memory of how the slave labourers were treated.
How DARE she!!!
Apparently she was snooping long before they were engaged - it's such s betrayal of the trust that was placed in her - pure treachery
I do agree that Meghan is only doing what she knows best and that is to gain credibility and status on the back of those who are genuine. She doesn't have a genuine bone in her body, it's why she's such a bad actress, as the best actors are also the ones who are able to convey genuine emotions without us seeing that they're acting. With Meghan she literally is acting every single day, always thinking about how to best put herself forward or how to use others for her own gains.
There is no way that Charles could do the many engagements he does, keep up the work schedule he does, and keep as many engagements he does if he had Alzheimer's, even the early stages of the condition.
There is no record of Alheimer's, dementia, or even senility in the royal family. The rumours of the Duke of Edinburgh's mother becoming senile are not true (she had paranoid schizophrenia when much younger and was physically frail in the last years of her life, but claims of dementia or senility are unfounded gossip).
History (from George III to Prince John) has shown that the royal family 'remove' from public life those who have some kind of 'mental ailment'. There is no way Charles or the Queen would continue with public duties if they had any kind of mental ailment (with physical ailments they are supposed to grit their teeth and bear it). Although there are rumours that the Duke of Edinburgh is increasingly physically frail there is nothing to suggest that he is mentally incapacitated in any way.
The rest of the CDAN blind sounds like someone making up gossip while bored during lockdown (or rehashing old gossip that had no legs in the past). The only royal family gossip from CDAN I would find credible at present is that which comes from Hollywood about the couple in LA. The LA gossip mill is legendary and the possibility of leaks are many (they are not surrounded by well trained and supported palace courtiers nor backed up by the experienced and powerful royal machinery).
Funding Frivolity: How Meghan and Harry got the Money to Live Like Rich People, from Kensington to Los Angeles
Perhaps if articles about this books are flooded with derision about the title, the publisher will have second thoughts about the title. As said, above, the use of 'freedom' is not only absurd but also insulting, and they are not royal and they did not modernise anything ... rudeness and modernity can be confused by the ignorant. However, I doubt that the publisher will care about anything other than sales and appearing woke to the target audience.
One made the good point, when inevitable comparisons were made with Diana and Andrew Morton, that Diana had been part of the BRF for years and was the mother of a future king. Meghan on the other hand, has been in the BRF for no time at all and Harry just isn't seen to be important now. The Gransnet folks have moved on.
The Harkles must be at the flickering embers stage now, in terms of capturing public interest. One day it just goes ... out.
Let's not mention the personal gain though - if she spends it quickly/gives some to her cronies, perhaps nobody will notice the total if she's nearly skint most of the time.
Just bleed Cashpoint Charlie dry - kerching! - before administering the coup de grace.
Wasn't the Dissolution of the Monasteries really because Henry VIII wanted their wealth to fill his almost empty coffers? Just focus on the theology and abuses, don't mention the dosh.
Great career move.
`...at the time, the Japanese did not equate surrender with honor...'
Yes! I remember Russell Braddon saying almost the exact words once on the radio programme `Any Questions'.
When Duckworth and the rest of his flock had been captured and were about to be massacred, he stood up to their captors, all 5' of him, and gave them such a tongue-lashing they were astounded and spared them. He must really have had `fire in his belly' that day. (He often told his Sweaty Betties/ Perspiring Persephones that they needed `fire in their bosoms' to
defeat Oxford.)
He also endured vicious beatings to spare the men he thought wouldn't survive it. truly Christ-like.
(1) The post-COVID-19 world will be a harder sell for dippy hippy stuff at insane prices.
(2) I don't like Gwyneth Paltrow, but she has qualities Meghan will never have such as attention to detail. Gwynnie must also have some form of genuine work ethic. Not everything can be done by flunkeys.
(3) H&M are not a good ad for a healthy, calm and productive life. Kate's family flourishes while Meghan's husband spirals downwards and her child is simply invisible. Apart from the glimpses we get that horrify us because she has no bond with him and doesn't even know how to hold him properly or even protect him from the sun.
This brings me to this little comment about a future Tig 2.0 found online:
"Another new topic the website could cover is parenting, something she hadn't yet experienced when she closed 'The Tig' in 2017. With her and Harry's son Archie set to turn one in just a few days' time, Meghan's new site could offer insights into her experience of motherhood, or share parenting content the duchess herself resonates with."
Sometimes, as an observer of the Harkles, I feel like Monty Python's Mr Creosote. Feed me one more crumb of exquisite ridiculousness and I think I'll explode.
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/meghan-markle-gwyneth-paltrow-the-tig-goop/9c1e91e6-39dc-4656-bde9-e59f0b6d69c9
https://pagesix.com/2020/05/02/is-meghan-markle-taking-on-gwyneth-paltrows-goop/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-markle-to-bring-back-21963328
I agree with everything you have said about WW2. I am sorry your family member suffered so horribly.
@Ava
You save me from typing. I agree with all you have written.