People Magazine - whose owners have just asked staff to take a big pay cut - has put its name behind tonight's documentary on the little-watched American broadcast network CW.
The documentary, "Harry & Meghan: A Royal Rebellion" will for nearly two hours on Wednesday, April 22, not counting ad breaks.
Here's the program description:
"From their captivating love story, to their shocking exit from royal life, the world has been fascinated with every twist and turn in the romantic real-life drama of Harry and Meghan. A team of full time, royals-focused PEOPLE reporters in New York and London break down the ins-and outs of all things royal, offering new updates and insights into the couple who have thrown out the royal playbook."
It must be rather hard to produce the final cut of a documentary when the main figures - who had promised to live a quiet, private life - keep coming up with new idiocies every day.
Let's discuss the new documentaries, along with Meg and Harry's "private" Zoom call to the Queen on her birthday and the upcoming hearing in Meg's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday.
The documentary, "Harry & Meghan: A Royal Rebellion" will for nearly two hours on Wednesday, April 22, not counting ad breaks.
Here's the program description:
"From their captivating love story, to their shocking exit from royal life, the world has been fascinated with every twist and turn in the romantic real-life drama of Harry and Meghan. A team of full time, royals-focused PEOPLE reporters in New York and London break down the ins-and outs of all things royal, offering new updates and insights into the couple who have thrown out the royal playbook."
It must be rather hard to produce the final cut of a documentary when the main figures - who had promised to live a quiet, private life - keep coming up with new idiocies every day.
Let's discuss the new documentaries, along with Meg and Harry's "private" Zoom call to the Queen on her birthday and the upcoming hearing in Meg's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday.
Comments
thank you Nutty for your blog!
K in California
Not sure if any of you are Rufus Wainwright fans, but his Instagram is wonderful during this quarantine. He does live Quarantunes or "Robe Recitals", languishing in a silky robe at his piano singing one of his songs every day of this hell we are all in. Anyway, his latest album has a song called "Damsel in Distress", and at first I just liked the song in general. Then I read the lyrics. In my Quarantine Delirium, I imagine it was written about MM. Hope you don't mind that I post the lyrics. They are too good, when you imagine him writing about MM:
Will you forever be a damsel in distress?
Will you forever be a harbinger of loneliness?
Yes, I remember smiles
Yes, I remember wiles
Behind the Square of Sloan
Under the English moon within the Chelsea sky
Will you forever be wandering the wall
Looking for what you see?
Your father's face in a waterfall
Yes, I remember smiles
Yes, I remember wiles
Behind the Square of Sloan
Under the English moon within the Chelsea sky
So much
You got exactly that
You got exactly what you wanted
But what the hell is that?
Who do you think I am?
A traveler on the wind?
I am a prince of man who was raised to soon be king
All I can do is fight
All I can do is wright
Behind the Square of Sloan
Under the English moon there I learned to survive
So much
You got exactly that
You got exactly what you wanted
But what the hell is that?
I hope you find your way for the sake of what we've lost
And that there comes a day
When you realize the precious cost
Yes, I remember smiles
Yes, I remember wiles
Behind the Square of Sloan
Under the English moon, you in your disguise
So much
You got exactly that
You got exactly what you wanted
What the hell is that?
OK, here's to a less-shaky night. Good morning everyone on the other side!
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/20/oh-get-lost-harry-and-meghan/
& Prince Louis birthday.
Rather than enjoying the day, much like the Queen’s birthday, everything will be about Megs latest
mockumentary/trial leaks, again.
I am so tired, not to mention embarrassed, by her/their crass thirst for attention.
My opinion now is that they are both totally, beyond reasonable doubt, mad!
Hopefully the courts will see fit to section her.
Love it!
Also the Eagles, “Desperado(s)”
“Why don’t you come to your senses”
I would rather pound my own hand with a hammer than see one of their People stories acted out on-screen
Now, thinking back to the last board, regarding `tantrums', the last time I was on the receiving end of one of these from my most recent narc, I thought that anyone else witnessing her raving would assume she was in the throes of a serious mental illness.
I succeeded in placating her, by grovelling. Had I not succeeded I’d have called the police.
Overall, she gave me enough evidence to understand her behaviour was an expression of narcissism.
Mutual friends had thought that she was autistic so I had to ask myself if could have been a `meltdown'. I am clear in my mind that it was not, because it was directed (at demeaning me) and was triggered by me saying I'd had enough of her hurtful digs. I have read since that asking someone to stop being nasty is a sure test – a narc will explode with rage.
I had previously wondered if she suffered from something really serious, like paranoid schizophrenia but I believe narcissism is enough to explain her behaviour.
Some time ago, however, I did wonder if Duchess Henry had a condition over and above narcissism, possibly the other 2 components of the Dark Triad, or even something more.
It had struck me that her delusions, about her acting ability, beauty, and intelligence, to say nothing of her perceived superior position in the human race, plus a large helping of paranoia, amounted to something more serious.
Curiously, the simple description of paranoid schizophrenia I mentioned referred to `word salad'.
I was, however, shot down for giving an `unqualified' diagnosis.
Herein is the bind - were I medically qualified, I would be bound not to give an opinion on the mental state of someone I hadn't examined - and if I had, patient confidentiality could prevent it. Yet as a biologist interested in how the brain and mind work, I should still not comment as I am not medically qualified, although I am not bound by a code of ethics. Also, `nice' people don't say others have psychiatric issues because it can cause trouble.
As a result, we pussyfoot around the issue. Would anyone care to comment, nicely, please.?
Suppose the RF realised from the first that she was `eight stops short of Upminster’ (see London Tube map – on the District Line. NE end!) - what could they have done, legally and politically, apart from humour her and hope Harry saw sense?
Meg no doubt wants flattering, Vanity Fair type stories that are approved in advance by her PR people.
Don’t doubt your own wisdom.
I’m sure she’s “eight stops short of Upminster” and also as fake as a nine Bob note.
We don’t need receipts to show how unhinged she is, she shows us in her actions, often.
There was no lovestory. Meghan Markle has been obsessed with Diana since she was a child. She did not meet Harry out of a coincidence. And since she loved Diana she hated the royal family. She never intended to be a royal. Her plan was ALWAYS to pick up and continue were Diana left. She ( and Oprah ) thinks they are saving Harry. She is not a rebel she is a psycho. She is also not a feminist, she is not a "humanitarian, and she does not care about the environment. If she was a feminist she would never have worked as a briefcase girl, she would never have made that grill video. And if she cared about the environment she would not travel with private planes. I just dislike this woman SO much. I cant belive there are people out there who belives the things she and her PR people puts out there.
I agree, Charles needs to cut them off completely.
But I also think he is scared for Harry’s mental state.
Awful situation, for anyone.
If anything happens to Harry?
The press are waiting, with baited breath.
The press will have every last penny accounted for, and outstanding.
Fools and their money....
Off topic
This is a commercial put out by Greta for Fridays for Future an LA based creative agency FF. Greta was put on the map by MM's Forces for Change Vogue cover. A commenter suggested HAMS may be involved. I've always wondered if she was getting a cut from Greta's climate gigs.
Here's my input on M's "word salad" speech coming from a psychology perspective. I am not offering a diagnosis about M but am merely talking about what is and what isn't word salad.
The term word salad was first applied to speech present in thought disorders in the early 1900's by European psychiatrists, I believe. I don't believe M's word salad sounds psychiatric.
We use the term word salad here (and it's used other places too) to describe M's sometimes confusing speech. I think it does adequately convey her "woke babbling." But to me, the way M talks doesn't have the same flavor as the word salad of someone with a schizophrenia-type illness, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, advanced dementia, or certain types of aphasia arising from hypoxic/anoxic brain injuries.
True word salad lacks logic (in the eyes of the recipient), is incoherent in the true meaning of the word (He fell inside out), may involve loose associations/derailment (American history reference, sorry, I'm not fully awake! Q: What did you do today? A: We sang hymns at church Francis Scott Key ramparts bombs Japan mushroom omelets.) and may include clanging. (The hard rain fast train tracks my pain stain.)
M's speaks in a way people I grew up with used to describe as typical of someone who "likes to hear herself talk." While she intends to communicate, at times communication is almost secondary in importance to the sound of her own voice (or in written communication, the sight of her own words. Using random caps and/or calligraphy may be used to enhance "beautiful" written words.) Along with word salad, these folks may also use the overblown language typical of a budding adolescent poet.
In contrast, someone with one of the above psychiatric or neurological illnesses is truly trying to communicate, but the brain dysfunction that is present precludes normal language use and instead yields a jumbled salad of words often sprinkled with neologisms (made up words.)
More recently the term word salad has been used when describing "gas-lighting" by a "malignant narcissist." This occurs when the narcissistic speaker wants to obscure the meaning of his/her communication so the listener doubts his/her own grasp of reality and thus her/his perceptions can be ignored. No offense to those who have been hurt by raging narcissists as I am sure the psychic pain is awful. But the "cottage industry" that has sprung up to explain the effects of narcissism on others often lacks scientific grounding or even grounding in theoretical psychiatry/psychology. Yes, some people ARE narcissists. But alot more are just selfish, manipulative, cruel jerks who don't warrant any psychiatric label. It's up to someone else to decide where M falls (based on more than her public speech.)
You are saying she is just a selfish, manipulative, cruel jerk?
I agree with that.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/04/22/meghans-pity-party-of-porky-pies/
Yes, `adolescent' is the correct word. her so-called `calligraphy' (I call it `pretentious handwriting') is like a 13 or 14 year year old girl who insists on dotting her `i's with a circle, or even my cousin's grand-daughter drawing a little heart instead, profoundly irritating her teacher. The garbage Princess Henry spouts reminds me of marking a student's first serious essay- reach for red biro (you could still do that in my day), tidy it up and then, with luck, see the sense behind it.
I'm not sure that what I've experienced of gaslighting quite fits though - my ex-husband was very specific when he was denying what I'd witnessed or heard him say. It was when I saw I was doubting my own perception that I realised I was in deep trouble.
I think I'm like so many of us here, just trying to make out what the Hell is going on here, in the light of what happened to us.
That is spooky - I can't believe it's not about her, although the only way Harry would have been king was if Wm had predeceased him, with no children. Now, everything depends on the survival of George, Charlotte and Louis.
I'm sure that, if push came to shove, the Government would do everything in its power to prevent him being monarch, given his wife's political meddling and the way she controls him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mills
CW tv will stream the show for free for any who would like to see it. https://www.cwtv.com/
Vanity Fair did some really nice one hour editions of some of their more interesting (crime related) stories but they stopped after four seasons. Vanity Fair would have been a cut above People I think.
Then the CW. I had forgotten we even have that in this area. It just isn't a channel I normally look to see what is on the schedule. That the big guys aren't willing says something to me.
I think we could see a lot of artful innuendo, a lot of personal opinion based of the preconceived ideas/beliefs/worldview of the person.
In the last one, I saw a fair number of people who were caught up in the dream that finally we had a woman of color in the BRF but the BRF were mean/didn't allow her to express herself/had a bunch of horrible/unimportant manner rules like which one is the fish fork so when they were speaking> they were personalizing what happened as if it happened to them.
I think we will see a lot of "backstory" linking to Diana (it would be amusing to time how much is on her and that the two never met). Also I think you will dancing around her bio family although supposedly it has something about the lawsuits so her dad/s photo may appear after all. Other than Omid, it will be interesting to see who is listed as friend (I don't remember Marcus listed in the last but I have been wrong before).
I also think that this had been in the works for a while and then the whole plan went in a handbasket. The big networks didn't bite. Disney didn't springboard her to the upper echelon. And the world didn't cooperate with them to allow this to be a shining light story - nope, it will be rolled over in the tsunami of C-19.
What is interesting to me is what will come out which could be used by the BRF privately in this year of they getting towards fiscal independence at the review.
Sandie, I have a work conflict for most of it. I plan to try being the operative word to watch it. Wine may be involved. And chocolate. Maybe popcorn and more wine.
I did up the link above.
1. What are the text msgs supposed to prove? The case is about privacy/copyright against the newspaper. Not against her father. So why is trying to establish that she and H were offering help to Tom?? Useless and only feeds her "I was a good daughter and am blameless" narrative.
2. The 5 friends. I believe both she AND Harry were involved in this People article. That bit about her being close to God or whatever is definitely her. The bit about how down-to-earth and stay at home the couple is could be Harry IMO.
So, that leaves 3 other people involved in concocting the article.
3. I think their PR collaborated heavily in the whole People gig - that includes writing the article. She drafted it IMO. With help from clever Jess.
The make up artist was told he gets to add a sycophantic quote, so he should add a narrative. That's 4 people. The number 5 was misleading is what I think.
4. I believe either Markus or Abigail Spencer might have contacted someone higher up the ladder on the People totel pole who OKed the article as a puff piece, as a personal favour. No one would have commissioned this nonsense in their right mind, even if the PR peeps had approached the magazine with the idea.
5.Ideally, even for PR purposes this idea should have been better executed. This was a mess because this was personal to both Harry and Meg. And it's not about revenge against her father. It was likely to make people like her more (and we know that is never a good reason to do anything!)
6. Just a suspicion, but I feel Harry is in control of this epic Trainwreck which is why this is in shambles. If it was just Meg and her Machiavellian friends, this might have gone a bit smoother for her.
I have a super narc in my immediate family, so I know and have experienced narcissism from a very young age. This person also happens to be on the wrong side of intelligent. MM reminds me of her.
Meghan is definitely a narc, but I don't see some devious sociopathic manipulative genius behind that. Rather the contrary. I see a juvenile moron. Everything she does backfired, and then she doubles down and makes it even worse. The emotional maturity of a toddler coupled with a middle school education and grandiose sense of self importance.
Both my narc and MM try hard. They try hard to sound smart, they try hard to sound compassionate, they try hard to make people like them. Whoever doesn't like them is jealous or in her case, jealous and racist.
But whatever they try, in just never comes across for whatever reason. Too many words with too little meaning, too much self importance, too much drama, too much mememe.
I think she's very very stupid, a simpleton. Primitive and basic. Poor Harry just needed to be a tad dumber than her, which he has proven, he is indeed.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-3562#post-57028146
She hustled and clawed her way to the top (all those mini sexy girl roles and photo shoots, all the interviews, all the appearances ... everything) and finally got there by marrying Harry. Then instead of being the most adored, admired and famous person on the planet, she got criticism (some of it was very mild and the usual British tabloid stuff, which Kate and Camilla had in spades for years), felt inadequate and out of place in the palaces and among Harry's friends and relatives, and just could not adapt to a new way of doing things and drop the merching and hustling from the past ...
This is something ppl who aren't exposed to narcs do not realise: the lies. Big lies, small lies, lies about things that matter, lies about things that do not matter, it's lies all the time and about everything.
The 5 friends and her dad's letter is a typical example. Who would ever believe such nonsense? Firstly, this woman has no fiends. Show me her friends, she did not even have 5 friends at her own wedding, let alone 5 friends she would show a very personal and intimate letter to her FATHER to!
Secondly, what sort of 'friends' go to the fiends to get involved in another friends' private family matters? Show me people like these. Maybe you can find 1, perhaps even two, but 5?
She lies all the time about everything, and she thinks everyone is stupid enough to believe her, while she's the one who comes across as the stupid one. This is my narc's MO since I can remember. They will look you in the eye, tell you something so outrageous and clearly made up, and then when you don't believe them, insult you and cut you off. It's very typical narc behaviour.
Honestly, the description makes them sound like Bonnie & Clyde, instead of dim people who couldn’t follow directions. Honestly, if I’d been some late-30s actress who was approaching my sell-by date, and got the chance to marry into the royal family, I would have moved heaven and earth to make sure I stuck to all the royal protocols, to fulfill my role responsibly. I don’t understand how that was so difficult to grasp.
the new Harry Markle post is up and it is a doozy!
I await the court case and all the details and are slowly dribbling out. I want the truth, be it for the Mail or for Meghan. I am tired ot these two; say one thing (privacy) but do another (press).
The following analysis on JH in LSA is spot on.
If you're enormously entitled, very dimwitted, and have no real natural interests other than enjoying lots of attention, life is going to frustrate you. I think Harry inherited the worst of his mother, and I don't think her death traumatized him in the way of the narrative - fixed him at that point. I do think her death made everyone enable him, and that's the root issue.
Yes! Smash and grab merchants, authors of their own downfall.
`Bonnie and Clyde were pretty lookin' people
But I can tell you people They were the devil's children,'
`Couldn't follow'? - as we've said before, the First Article of belief for a narcissist is ` Nobody, not even the Queen of England, tells ME what to do!'
Oh yes, the lies - just what we have experienced with own narcissists.
Also, her unshakeable beliefs that she is more beautiful, more intelligent, more worthy than anyone else.
They may not have used firearms against the British people and the Royal Family but they have done incalculable damage to our reputation and absorbed a great deal of public money, one way or another. Whether this amounts to criminality is something I'd like seen thrashed out in court.
@TexxMaam
Love it!
Also the Eagles, “Desperado(s)”
“Why don’t you come to your senses”
April 22, 2020 at 11:03 AM
-------
Yes! I forgot about "Desperado". We used to call girls who acted similarly "Desperados". Here's to bringing it back.
I'm glad my explanation was helpful. I do want to make clear I was in no way casting doubt on your personal experience (or anyone else's.) I'm sorry if it seemed I was.
But there is a lot of material online about narcissism that's not supported by empirical research or even by a robust theoretical framework. And it does seem Narcissism/NPD has become the disorder du jour. That can make it sound like there's someone with the disorder hiding behind every bush when a number of those people are simply scum.
For example, this link
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1519417-overview#a5
states:
"It is estimated that NPD is present in 0.5% of the general United States population and in 2-16% of those who seek help from a mental health professional. NPD is found in 6% of the forensic population, in 20% of the military population (the actual disorder as well as narcissistic traits), and in 17% of first-year medical students." (Link contains citations for the reported stats.)
The above source as well as others report about 75% of those diagnosed with NPD are male.
Many people do believe the prevalence rate in the US is increasing. Reasons cited include cultural factors----Internet generally, Facebook and the like more specifically, the emphasis on promoting self-esteem when child-rearing, more reliance on amorphous government resources rather than communal give and take support involving family and friends, the luxury of first-world experiences allowing healthy individualism to become pathological, and so on. Also though, there have been changes in diagnostic criteria. Certainly we've seen prevalence rate changes after changing criteria for other disorders--- autism, PTSD, Dissociative Identity Disorder/Multiple Personality, for example.
I do think M is a selfish jerk. As to whether she's more than that, I don't know. And I don't know what the BRF could have done to stop the marriage. At the very least, Harry strikes me as a spoiled, emotionally stunted brat who'd have stopped at nothing to get his way. With benefit of hindsight perhaps he could have been steered towards a suitable marriage partner earlier in life by the RF but after the Diana experience, I wouldn't be surprised if no one tried to do that.
If things are starting to leak now, there should be a torrent of similar stories in the coming years, once Markle dumps Just Harry's sorry a$$.
I think the ranting emails from the "PR" person makes a good case for MM's rage at baseline. It would be interesting to know what set her off.
As Dr. Phil (!) says, the past is the best predictor of future behavior. I think we have already witnessed several MM hissy fits that have manifested themselves as warning shots to the press and descriptions of the RF as "toxic." She wreaks havoc wherever she goes.
Are these people crazy?
What financial damage was there to Megsy? She still got her free housing, travel, security plus all other freebies and funded office, staff and all related expenses, huge clothing and jewellery allowance ... none of that was going to be taken away because of the article from MOS. She really is going to look tacky if she claims her earnings in the present are affected because of that article (she IS still subsidised and still gets a huge allowance and still has the use of Frogmore ...).
It is going to be an epic soap opera - think the McCartney/Mills divorce times ten!
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2020
Blind Item #6
Apparently it was deliberately planned to upstage the family member celebrating a birthday and a very very long life. I think we could expect no less from the former alliterate actress who had all the air sucked dry from her thirsty throat when the virus hit and she couldn't implement her plans as she hoped. All that sitting inside and not being able to be seen, must be hard.
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 8:00 AM 21 COMMENTS
My view is that she was spoiled rotten as a child by an indulgent father trying to compensate for the absent mother. I seem to recall that he touched on his documentary that he was not there as much as he wanted to be for his two eldest. He over compensated with Markle. It's entirely possible that the ambiguity her step-siblings have towards her is based on them seeing her get every privilege they did not get, including a very expensive education. Their Princess Pushy nickname for her says it all.
At the core of it, I think Markle is nothing more than a spoiled brat with a nasty vindictive streak a mile wide. That's very common in adults who were spoiled rotten as kids.
The following is a good summary of OUP Style and includes American English forms for an American market:
https://global.oup.com/academic/authors/author-guidelines/house-style/?lang=en&cc=ch
Charles has been known to use Oxford Style often. The reporter is displaying ignorance ... I would cringe if I were the editor of the media outlet!
https://66.media.tumblr.com/bcdd90cb2d6b52d03c4c109fc4d0a4e1/3ba2e62924b3af40-36/s1280x1920/0e61c871389d7f862f37f8e02b3133a22b8a7736.jpg
Word salad when used colloquially doesn't have same the applicable meaning in psychiatry. Word salad is a term that describes a person's stream of though process. Specifically it's a series of jumbled words lacking in logical coherence. There are other terms to describe observable components of disordered though process. Thought process is a manner of organization and formulation of thought. How thoughts are linked together. It cannot be directly observed but can only be described by client herself, or inferred from the client's speech. In that sense it's objective and observed by the assessor.
I agree that NPD has been misused to describe bad behavior. In psychiatry we joke that there is no normal anymore, everyone has got to have something on the thought/ behavior spectrum from which we make diagnoses. NPD is very rare, certainly not reflected in the preponderance of online blogs or posts about NPD. We also joke that NPD is the new bipolar disorder, as bipolar disorder was the diagnosis du jour about 15-20 years ago. While Meghan possesses certain traits of NPD, it's my opinion that she's more of an awful, horrible human being with some psychological dysfunctions that perhaps were rooted in her upbringing. That said, certainly we can still use narcissistic to describe her personality. But yes, too often we attribute being a shitty person to having psychiatric conditions because we don't want to believe that such horrible individuals exist among us.
🐛
I think that releasing the text messages is a preemptive strike: she knows the Mail's lawyers intend to call her father as a witness, so she is trying to portray herself as a kind, loving daughter who was only trying to help her dad, who then sold her out. Except it isn't going to work. I now believe that she set her father up to prevent him from attending the wedding because she is ashamed of him, just like she's ashamed of the rest of her family. Seeing her ordinary middle-class relatives sitting in the pews would remind everyone that she does not come from a high-society background like the other guests.
Apparently Doria received a formal wedding invitation but Thomas did not? Harry never met his future father-in-law (how strange is that?) and she made no arrangements for his travel to England nor for his suit fittings or other preparations. Even people who used to be her fans are asking questions now.
Last night I read a blog entry from someone whose younger sister went to high school with MM. The writer only met her once and found her very sweet, but the sister described another side to her. Apparently MM was charming to teachers and other authority figures as well as members of the "in" clique, but was the quintessential mean girl and bully to students who weren't pretty or popular, or who didn't fit in. I've always wondered what kind of adults mean girls grew up to be, and I think MM provides the answer.
What do you think? Serena and Meghan falling out? Serena throwing shade?
https://66.media.tumblr.com/bcdd90cb2d6b52d03c4c109fc4d0a4e1/3ba2e62924b3af40-36/s1280x1920/0e61c871389d7f862f37f8e02b3133a22b8a7736.jpg
I don't think Serena is throwing shade here just because the outfit she's wearing is, I think, an off-the-shelf replica of Snow White. (You can buy them at Disney stores, and they closely resemble how Snow White appears in the movie.) But if Serena really said, in reference to MM in an interview, "I don't know her," then I would definitely consider that shade.
A professional athlete is never going to fit in an off-the-shelf Disney costume. Serena's just goofing around with something she and her husband picked up at Disneyland.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/blind-item-2_21.html
The fallout between the alliterate former actress and the permanent A++ list athlete is complete. The next level of shade thrown by the athlete this week towards the former actress was impressive.
Also, bonus LOL https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/blind-item-6_22.html
Apparently it was deliberately planned to upstage the family member celebrating a birthday and a very very long life. I think we could expect no less from the former alliterate actress who had all the air sucked dry from her thirsty throat when the virus hit and she couldn't implement her plans as she hoped. All that sitting inside and not being able to be seen, must be hard.
1.The five page manifesto towards four press outlets has me wondering. Im no expert but barristers tend to NOT want you talking to anybody during a case and especially about something that could be dragged into the case. It puts the barrister in a difficult position, defending something they themselves did not put out.
2. I've long suspected anyone getting an invite to the wedding has to return the favor when called upon (ahem, Oprah). So who owed a favor for the food delivery paps? Several (former) volunteers brought up that no one was allowed to volunteer because of the virus and yet......someone said these two could but only 20 meals, over two days????
3. I've always believed IVF and/or surrogate. MeGain made at least two trips back to north America after the wedding without Harry. To visit "friends". This would also explain the rumours about separate rooms, fighting, and "are you really pregnant" during the Aussie trip.
4. For love nor money I can't figure out why no one is digging into Doria's life. She's not ever held a job for very long or, apparently, not been very successful at one. Two bankrupcies. Social worker for two years then quits as soon as MeGain gets married to a prince. Too young for social security, not at a job long enough for pension, etc. So just how does she afford property taxes, monthly bills, and a new car? Her "housemate"???? Can pap pictures really offer that good of money???
5. They've had three "specials' on American TV and they've only been married two years. Are they really that special that you can't put everything they've done in one, one hour production? MeGain did very little, all things considered, as a Royal. She was on maternity leave or break longer than she wasn't on maternity leave or break.
6. What woman in her right mind turns down the best ob/gyn doctors in a country during her first pregnancy and has an unknown and unnamed attendant instead? Unless there was no delivery on her part.
7. I'm having a little trouble believing the LSA post. While it confirms what I want to believe, that MeGain is bat shat crazy, I can't get over the poster saying she though MeGain would be huge, that she was on the verge of being a big big star (or whatever she said). MeGain would be in her early to mid 30s when this was supposed to occur. Females past 30 in the industry are past their experation date (sad but true) so if MeGain hadn't made it by 30, she wasn't going to make it after 35. Just my opinion.
Apparently she loved Penhaligon's Bluebell:
https://ca.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/skincare-and-fragrances/2019012166856/princess-diana-favourite-perfume-revealed/
I remembered reading a while ago about Meghan's favorite scent - Jo Malone Wild Bluebell!
https://dresslikeaduchess.com/portfolio/jo-malone-wild-bluebell-cologne-for-women-meghan-markle/
From the Telegraph's Camilla Tominey:
'You might have hoped these testing times had begged the question – is all this really worth it?'
What I can’t quite work out about Harry and Meghan’s latest assault on the tabloid press is, why now, and more importantly, what’s the point?
I appreciate they could not control when their case against the Mail group would end up in court, but is the middle of a global pandemic really the right time to launch yet another attack on the British media?
Most journalists around the world have got the rather more pressing concern of reporting on the diseased and dying, while readers are grappling with the biggest national emergency in peacetime.
I would imagine the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are pretty low down on everyone’s priority list right now but it seems that in their quest for a ‘quiet’ life, Harry and Meghan just can’t help chasing headlines.
What makes their latest salvo even more baffling is that, like the court case itself, it only serves to generate the very scrutiny that the couple apparently left the Royal Family to avoid.
They are suing the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail for breach of privacy (among other things) and yet in doing so, they have ended up invading their own privacy even further by laying bare intimate texts they sent to Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle.
While you can understand them wanting to set the record straight, you might have hoped these testing Covid-19 times had begged the question – is all this really worth it?
We already know what Meghan wrote to her father – via her friends’ contributions to a People magazine article, which then prompted Mr Markle to publish the letter in the Mail on Sunday.
What does the court action actually achieve beyond reminding the world just how badly both sides managed the father-daughter relationship in the run up to the royal wedding in May 2018?
Once you take ego out of the equation (on both sides), all this litigation really does is make an already toxic relationship even more poisonous. There will be no winners here – so much damage has been done that it’s almost irrelevant what the judge decides. As ever the case with such challenges, only the lawyers will benefit in the end.
Similarly pointless was the announcement that the couple were no longer going to be cooperating with the tabloids, offering “no corroboration and zero engagement” from now on.
But since when were they engaging with the tabloids? For months now Harry and Meghan have only been dealing with favoured journalists, including some of my Telegraph colleagues. While I’m glad that reflects the balanced way we cover royal stories, if the couple think the tabloids need their cooperation to write about them then they are even more ignorant about how the media operates than these petty outbursts suggest.
When I broke the story of their romance in October 2016 (while working for a tabloid, the Sunday Express), I didn’t feel the need to run it past them first because I knew it was true. So if newspapers know things to be true then they are perfectly entitled to run them without any cooperation or corroboration whatsoever.
It’s interesting that the Sussexes have so far been unwilling to detail which precise stories they believe to be false. Is it because this would in turn confirm which ones were true?
It isn’t all made up, you know! There are two sides to every story and I sincerely hope journalists on both tabloids and broadsheets will continue to cover the work of the Sussexes without fear or favour.
Stay safe, everyone. These are testing times and I hope this newsletter provides a welcome antidote to the trials and tribulations of lockdown.
Is there anywhere to get live updates from the court case?
I find Greta very disturbing. Anybody who wants to keep respect and stay out of controversy will be well advised to give her a wide.
There was a documentary about her and her family. She threatened her mother with suicide and forced her to drop a previously successful career, forced her into vegetarianism and threw multiple tantrums with the intensity that frightened everybody around.
Greta is a very ill girl. I believe God will punish people who use her as their marionette, she needs exactly the opposite of high stress and high visibility.
Charles dropped in my estimate when he jumped up on her bandwagon, but I believe his team caught what is going on behind the scenes and backpedalled. If Harry gets seriously involved with her I believe there will be some great damage down the line. They both have mental issues.
People Magazine-
A friend from LA recalls visiting Meghan at Nottingham Cottage: “We had a couple of days together recently. Her husband was out of town on work...We were the only two in the house. It was our time.”
Vanity Fair Interview-
Meghan is quoted as saying: “We’re a couple. We’re in love. I’m sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward...but I hope what people will understand is that this is our time.”
I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase “this is/was our time” before. It’s an unusual turn of phrase, at least IMO. Distinctive enough that I seriously doubt both Meghan and her “friend” are independently throwing around this term to reporters. Sounds like Meghan either supplied the quote directly or the “friend” was given some heavily scripted talking points. Sloppy Megs, sloppy.
There are tools to analyze the writing style and speech pattern. The reporters should use them to analyze the comments from MM's "friends".
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/why-hackers-should-be-afraid-of-how-they-write-20130116-2csdo.html
No wonder his family was put off by her at the very beginning.
You guys are so knowledgeable so I wanted to ask about this Markus Anderson. I know that he and Meg are very good friends but I have heard conflicting things about him. I have heard he is gay but then there have been many comments and blog entries saying that he and Meghan are known to sleep together on an occasional basis. Apparently amoung Misha and other friends, it's an open secret that they had a casual sexual relationship. Anyone know about this?
One of her friends has or used to have connection to the editor of the People. Harry Markle blog dies a pretty good analyses.
I would like to point to one most glaring fact nobody else pointed at. She had to show both Thomas's letter and her own to her "friends" in order for them to comment on the content, so she knows exactly who they are.
And yet when Thomas is upset about them attacking him in the media she doesn't say something like "Dad, I am sorry this happened, they spoke without my permission, I have had a firm word with them, they apologize for causing you distress". I can reasonably expect she DID agree to them speaking to the People because she doesn't say she didn't - when time was right to do it.
Harry and Megsy flood the court with all sort of c***p messages without realizing what is missing speaks louder than what is present.
I agree with your thoughts on Greta.
I saw that article and thought what a psycho manipulative brat. And presumably, her parents were enabling that type of behaviour growing up so it’s just mushroomed into crazy.
She sulks in her room, goes on hunger strike to get the reactions she wants from her parents. They destroy their careers to accomodate her crazy. They alter their diets, go vegan because of her demands. She’s like a crazy pre-cult leader or evil -seed child. And the parents were not prepared to deal with her. Even her sister had to change for her. Total manipulator , alot in common with with MM, no wonder JH likes her.
Im surprised Greta didnt hold her breath until she turned blue too
I'm late to the party -- been having internet issues off and on for past week -- fixt now, hopefully :)
My gosh, there are so many spot-on posts here that if I tried to chime in on all of them, this post would take up the whole blog! Well done, everyone -- can't see a single one I DON'T agree with.
So, my contribution, only slightly O/T -- I've apparently been banned from DM on account of this exact comment --
Meghan is the devil, and Harry is her enabler.
Apparently, according to an email I was sent (marked "Do not reply"), "numerous" people complained. I can only think either A) the DM is being well paid to moderate negative comments, or B) Markle's "stans" launched a concerted attack.
Ah, well.
Carry on :)
https://honey.nine.com.au/latest/queen-elizabeth-relationship-with-princess-alice/81292236-899c-40ed-9cbf-5bcf9461837e
Fairy Crocodile,
Nice point about needing both letters to show her friends.
What else do we know about him?
He is Canadian and says he grew up in Ontario. He says he moved to London aged 19 to be a waiter at Soho House there (was that why Meghan had an obsession about London?) and returned to Canada in 2012.
Supposedly, he went to Highland Heights Public School and graduated from Peterborough Collegiate (really, and moved to London aged 19, but maybe it was a short course in something).
I think Meghan got membership at Soho House and then met Markus there through her boyfriend Corey (I think she started dating him in 2014 so Soho House connection could have predated that relationship), who she supposedly dumped in May 2016 when she was set up with Harry. She was in London looking for a famous man in 2013 (just after divorcing Trevor) so she may well have met Markus by then and even met Corey through Markus? I'm not sure how the Markus/Meghan/Corey connection fitted together ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8246905/As-Prince-Louis-turns-two-years-old-shows-support-NHS-staff-colourful-paintwork.html
"Fairy Crocodile,
Nice point about needing both letters to show her friends."
I agree. Plus M's letter was written in Aug 2018. My impression is that Thomas wrote back fairly quickly. Yet M says the "close friends" were worried about her early in 2019 and decided (without telling her, yeah sure) to give the interview that was published in Feb 2019.
It is absolutely unbelievable to me that even one friend much less five would remember the contents of two personal letters they'd been shown many months before. So did M show them the letters in early 2019, nearly 6 months after they were written? If so why? As I recall, TM was being pretty quiet at that time. So why was M obsessing over those old letters?
@Abbyh wrote:
"Fairy Crocodile,
Nice point about needing both letters to show her friends."
I agree. Plus M's letter was written in Aug 2018. My impression is that Thomas wrote back fairly quickly. Yet M says the "close friends" were worried about her early in 2019 and decided (without telling her, yeah sure) to give the interview that was published in Feb 2019.
It is absolutely unbelievable to me that even one friend much less five would remember the contents of two personal letters they'd been shown many months before. So did M show them the letters in early 2019, nearly 6 months after they were written? If so why? As I recall, TM was being pretty quiet at that time. So why was M obsessing over those old letters?
_______________________________________________
IIRC, the excerpts from the letters to the five "friends" were all alike, and were verbatim from the original. Markle probably Xeroxed it for them. Seems to me this issue can and should be brought up in court.
My friend is 6 months pregnant right now and I definitely wouldn’t think of her has “heavily pregnant”. That’s more like someone with twins or about to pop!
Those with upward social comparison issues are used to a certain level of achievement, consideration, adoration etc and as such what we would consider satisfactory in life they don't consider the same. Best analogy to use is a movie star - after many many years of being adored, feted, treated a certain way they often need to get on that level to achieve the same level of satisfaction that many of us feel over everyday things such as family life, work etc. I see all of this in these two - I am not equipped to make a diagnoses but I still think harry has mental health issues and may be worsened by all the substances he has been on (if a person takes articifrical substances their emotional growth stops at that age and they act as per that age no matter how many years pass).
This is alway there is no way they will be able to cope without being in the public eye, it is like a drug and they need it to satisfy their base urges.
Hope that makes sense - time to get to work :)
"IIRC, the excerpts from the letters to the five "friends" were all alike, and were verbatim from the original. Markle probably Xeroxed it for them. Seems to me this issue can and should be brought up in court."
I agree. I do appreciate the input from the attorneys here, and I do understand something can be enormously important from the standpoint of common sense yet not be admissable legally. But it's hard for me to believe that when, where, how, and why specific friends were given both letters is incredibly relevant to the legal questions.
____________
@Suzy1972 wrote
".. weren’t the friends saying the spoke out because she was “Heavily pregnant”? But she gave birth in May - so she would’ve been around 6 months pregnant at that point."
Good catch. I agree the end of the second trimester isn't usually considered "heavily pregnant" by anyone except maybe Nadya Suleman (the "Octomom")
But then again, maybe we need to pull out the tinfoil headgear. Are we really sure Archie ("they change so much in the first two weeks") Harrison was born in May? ;)
@Lt. Nyota Uhura wrote:
"IIRC, the excerpts from the letters to the five "friends" were all alike, and were verbatim from the original. Markle probably Xeroxed it for them. Seems to me this issue can and should be brought up in court."
I agree. I do appreciate the input from the attorneys here, and I do understand something can be enormously important from the standpoint of common sense yet not be admissable legally. But it's hard for me to believe that when, where, how, and why specific friends were given both letters is incredibly relevant to the legal questions.
_____________________________________________
Indeed, yes. I don't know even much about our legal system in that regard here in the U.S., much less Britain. Don't know much about the judge, either (no jury) -- hope politics doesn't play any role. Seems to me, tho, that American judges tend to be more political and "activist" than British ones. I hope I'm right!
“Meghan is the devil, and Harry is her enabler“—In the past I was banned from the DM for an equally tepid remark. There seem to be an army of M supporters that scour the comments section and flag anything negative. I wrote to the DM with quotes of a number of posts with direct, very nasty personal attacks (some using foul language disguised with creative punctuation) that were allowed to stand in the comments section for some asinine reason.
Anyway, the “devil” label fits perfectly for M. In fact, the song that for me captures the essence of the Harkles’ twisted relationship is the Beatles’ She’s Got the Devil in Her Heart: https://youtu.be/IGe-jfFrxCk
@Lt. Nayota Uhura
“Meghan is the devil, and Harry is her enabler“—In the past I was banned from the DM for an equally tepid remark. There seem to be an army of M supporters that scour the comments section and flag anything negative. I wrote to the DM with quotes of a number of posts with direct, very nasty personal attacks (some using foul language disguised with creative punctuation) that were allowed to stand in the comments section for some asinine reason.
------------------
Strewth!
Admittedly, I don't believe Markle really is the actual devil, but she certainly isn't completely human, IMO.
-------------------
Anyway, the “devil” label fits perfectly for M. In fact, the song that for me captures the essence of the Harkles’ twisted relationship is the Beatles’ She’s Got the Devil in Her Heart: https://youtu.be/IGe-jfFrxCk
_______________________
Ha! Nice one :)
appy Birthday To Me
APRIL 22, 2020 BLIND GOSSIP LEAVE A COMMENT
[Blind Gossip] For a couple that claims to want privacy, they sure have a knack for drawing attention to themselves on a regular basis.
It is always amusing to watch this couple take any subject… and make it all about them!
Something as simple as wishing someone a Happy Birthday actually becomes a device to to draw attention to themselves and show how important they are.
Not everyone is amused, though!
The family is gobsmacked that they would make this about them. Before the call was set up, it was explained to them quite clearly that the only appropriate public statement would be to wish [The Birthday Girl] well on her day. That they chose to completely violate that agreement is both stunning and infuriating. Every member of the family is appalled.
Yikes.
It seems that by attempting to prove how “in” they are… they managed to push themselves “out” even more!
We don’t know if our actress and her jobless husband thought they were being defiant or smart, but this is certainly not the first time that something like this has happened.
We recall a time last year when the wife was given very specific guidance on the dress code and behavior for a major event… chose to do exactly the opposite… was criticized for it… and then complained to her husband and friends about how no one in the family was helping her.
Does she think she is smarter than everyone? Why did she lie about what happened? Was she trying to play the victim? Was she setting up the “us” versus “them” narrative to force her husband to choose sides? Why does she chronically leak to the media and then claim she had nothing to do with it?
Whatever her motivations, her husband certainly seems to be on board with it.
They are definitely a team when it comes to pursuing publicity while simultaneously demanding privacy.
It’s all quite puzzling. And outrageous. And endlessly amusing
To be fair, Dolphin isn't on it either. It highlights: Hostile Planet, Wild Yellowstone, Sea of Hope, Sharks of Lost Island, Winged Seduction: Birds of Paradise, and Tree Climbing Lions.
"Former G list actress and briefcase girl on deal or no deal social climbing narcissistic duchess." is only how it begins.
It's just too, too good.
I caught only the last 10 minutes.
So many talking bodies who work for People against a background which looked like the interior of a room at BP.
Jaw dropping how much of it was all about how they went to Canada (represents safety to M), the world is their oyster and all the deals which will be coming their way(said several different ways to make the point), the JPM speech (and sitting with JLo and ARod - aren't you impressed?), they can do anything pretty much they want although they will respect the Queen ...
Canada is so wonderful except that they had to say something about paps (mentioned that the British are restrained because of what happened to Di) - noting the baby/dog walk being a problem linked to paps continuing to be around.
Made me laugh when they said that both JH&M's friends were all just so supportive of them after seeing them so suppressed. (what friends does he have left? anyone?)
At the very, very end, they touched on how they "want" a presence in Canada, UK and LA and that they have a net worth of 30 million.
Then there was something about the wording of it (moving to LA) almost was didn't sound like the rest of the scripting. I wonder if it was an edit insert after they left Canada so the show sounded like this was current (which it didn't touch on the lastest press of cutting off they ones they don't want to work with).
It did mention that they really want privacy and protect their child but didn't mention moving to a place of greater covid cases (potential) or the food run for helping.
It did mention how wonderful it is that they stood up for themselves and that because of this, their child and the kids of W&K can possible have greater options/choices?
And, in case you didn't know, they might even be more famous than they were before.
Ashley
Thanks for taking one for the team. ��
So the queen wants to save them?? What,from.yhwor own self-annihilating stupidity??
And they have 30mil between the. Sure. Such a perfectly round, sound, hearty figure. I guess Harry's money is now their money. And they got Frogmore apprised as well. Added Queen Mary Tiara to their hypothetical fortune as well, I guess. And the many range rovers. And Meghan's shoe collection obviously. (Yawwwn....how insufferable, to talk about money like that.)
And Canada is safe! Yes, which is why you should have stayed there. And not be pursuing this mind boggling court case long-distance.
And why are her friends always so happy for her and always ready to chime in. Why don't they grow a pair and actually appear in camera. We are tired of seen the self serving make up dude blubbering.
And they are very smart. Wow...applause. we can see that.
Why are they emphasisinh that M has more money than H? And if so, why does he buy him a new shirt?
>>>At the very, very end, they touched on how they "want" a presence in Canada, UK and LA and that they have a net worth of 30 million.<<<
$30 million is chicken feed for a celebrity couple with a child. I see now why they can't buy a @12 million dollar home. At they rate they are spending money they are going to need a loan from Capital One soon.
They are changing everything for the monarchy. they called her Meghan Rachel Markle.
She is from a regular family, cherished by her family. At age 11 she was campaigning for womens Rights. Her father urged her to write the letter that would gain National Attention.
then went from that to teenager at Immaculate Heart High School and wanted to be in acting
then straight to graduated college (showed in cap & gown with mother)
then straight to Briefcase girl in 2006 and how her role was a great opportunity to make connections.
Then straight to 2011 and her "big break" on Suits. Character on Suits is alot like Megan in real life. Once Megan hit the big time, she had a plan. Then mentions her involvement in activism & The Tigg, then the Romance with Trevor, wed in 2011 but pressure of long distance relationship and how it ended in less than 2 yrs. "back on the market", ready to find her "Prince Charming" unaware he was living in London and an actual prince.
Then the whole thing moves to Harry - i will start a new post for that
Thanks @Jdubya ... 2 hours for this rubbish I can see Cam and Kate giving this a very special side-eye.
First, family tree going back 1000 yrs - naming off people - then the immediate tree
When they get to Diana and Charles - stating they had 2 boys, William and Harry. Then says "thanks to his brothers kids, Prince Harry is knocked back to the 6th in line and knows he will never get hands on the crown jewels".
(that part, the wording, really surprised me. they showed a pic of the kids during it.)
Then to Harry's tragic childhood. How he was 12 yrs old and diana was chases by paparazzi and it effected him for life. Royal family always pushed to not show emotions and "stiff upper lip:. Photo's from funeral
Then to young adult hood - reputation - became rebel, globetrotting party boy, wild years, showed some photo's of him looking intoxicated - nazi uniform - a headline about drugs & alcohol.
But it was his last hurrah before he left for service. "Party Boy to Action Hero" mentions 2 tours in Afghanistan, showed photos apparently from over there, in uniform, carrying gun, with other troops, in chopper. Rose to the rank of Captain and was finally just "one of the guys".
He was how the most sought after bachelor in the world. A big hit with the ladies.
Then mentions Chelsy and Cressida as 2 of his former girlfriends and how the time in the spotlight was what ended their relationships. They couldn't handle it.
Then single again and most eligible bachelor in world (again).
Then jumped back to ancestors and their love life. Henry the 8th and his wives - "Eddie" & Wallis Simpson. And Wallis learned some tricks in a house of ill repute. (??)
Then starts talking about the "rules" and marrying down and royal privileges - "easier to downgrade then upgrade". Losing titles etc.
And then..............mentions that law got changes when Will & Kate married by the way
(yes, they popped that section in suddenly and their words "by the way" - i personally took that as a dig against Kate). Then they talked about Princess Margarat and referred to her as Madge.
Then they go to Harry & Meghan - new post
Then - some weird Astrologer comes in - very over the top in her outfit and is talking about comparing charts and merging charts. She was quite comical looking. Love at 1st sight, revolutionary. ????
Then back to 1st date, Botswana and to an interview they did talking about it. 5 days. then frequent trips between London & Canada. Then to Oct 31 2016 when the news leaked of their relationship. Meg says she has never been involved in pop culture or tabloid culture to that degree. Tabloids are harsh, racially tense language. Referring to her as social climber. Harry did the smart thing by defending Megs.
This was the 1st sign that Harry wasn't like the other Royals. wasn't going to be put in a box. It was a bold move protecting his girlfriend.
Meghan was in LOVE. They were breaking royal protocol regular basis. Touching, holding hands, PDA (shows photo's/film from various events). They were "so relatable". Meg then shut down The Tig and walked away from Hollywood.
And Palace basically said - "okay if you're going to be a Princess, we need to get all things in order. " - (yes that is quoted - they used the Princess line)
New post
But press focused on negatives - including not wearing tights, not following royal protocol. the coverage was "ridiculous and archaic"
showed how loving they were in "stark contrast to Charles & Diana's announcement" (showing video). Then Harry saying how his mother would LOVE Meg and they would be best friends.
Then straight to wedding - more glamorous than ever, Royal Family have never seen one like this before - everything was different.
Then mentions W&K wedding in 2011 cost 34 Million - Harry & Meg cost 34 Million BUT then does comparison to Charles/Di and said adjusting for inflation, theirs would be around 70-100 million.
Harry's bride, caused controversy, Hollywood meets royalty. Mentions Oprah, Clooney's, Beckhams. Showed the stars walking in. "more glamorous than the Oscars".
Then a brief blurb about the press on Charlotte's dress and the rumor or Kate crying but says to remember Kate had recently given birth and was very emotional ?? (nothing else)
Describes her dress - very simple, tailored dress - understated, impeccable, modern. "new version of Princess" (yup Princes again)
Dad not there due to heart condition - and media went crazy - ground breaking moment for her to start walking down the aisle by herself !!! Show she's a strong woman. And then to be met by Charles.
She was obviously NOT nervous because she knew she was doing the right thing. There was nothing to be nervous about. Then shows the Minister and plays some video from his sermon. and then...........
Gives a brief view of Beatrice & Eugenia looking toward altar and smiling (almost laughing) and then............Shows Kate & Camilla and the commentator says - about seeing Kate giving Camilla the "side eye" while the minister was talking. (another dig at Kate)
And then it's over and they are walking out and the first kiss and how authentic they are and genuinely in love and are ready to begin their new life.
I stopped watching there. Just had to take a break.
From me - i was quite surprised that People put in the "Princess" remarks and very upset at their digs at Kate. What the hell? I will try to watch a bit more but it is almost 11pm here now.
I will watch more tomorrow (eye aptmt at 9am) and if you want - i will post some more - let me know if you want some additional info on it.
Sweet dreams everyone
something for me to look forward to ...
You certainly took one for the team!!!
More please, when you can stomach it??
The way you described it, it seems more and more likely that MM and a bunch of her sorority sisters got together in that haunted Mansion in Canada and hashed this all together over copious amounts of wine and popcorn. It's not even petty...it's all gossip and overcompensating for that one time poor lol Meg was in stuck in Windsor with the evil in-laws and her tiny heart was hurt. And what's with Kate as the mother in law from hell?? Lol... As if that isn't the biggest red flag that Mm and her minions weren't personally involved in the making of this.
Also think Kate sussed he out long before we all saw her for what she is. And so Kate kept her distance and don't fall for MMs simpering. Now that might just be Kate being her typical English self but Mm got defensive cz she was faking her personality anyway.
I’ve been wondering about the discussions that take place behind closed doors within both the RF and the government back in Great Britain.
It seems obvious that Harry is psychologically unfit to ever be King. And even though he is only 6th in line to the throne, if I were a senior royal I would want to eliminate the possibility of the Ginger Poodle ever being crowned.
All this is a roundabout way of asking a question: Do you think there has been any discussion about this in BP or Parliament? I know the Queen doesn’t have the authority to change the order of succession, but could she or Prince Charles or William be able to persuade those individuals who do, to drop Harry (and Archie too)??
If I were William I would be losing sleep over this.
Megs is mean, nasty & spiteful. I do believe it will all come back at her, big time.
I honestly can’t think of anything nice to say about her, not one thing.
Gorgeous photos of darling Louis.
No doubt she’ll over shadow his birthday.
Probably an article discussing the show & her vomitous, vaporous vendetta, disguised as caring, loving feminist Megs.
Yuck!!
I’m sure BP will have discussed Harry & his line of succession.
I reckon steps have been put in place to ensure, God forbid anything should happen to the heirs,
that Harry doesn’t get in sniffing distance of the throne.
The RF protects the Crown above all else. I’ve got as much chance as Harry of ascending the throne 😉
The BRF is bringing their social media A-game to little PL's birthday. The Clarence House post is beyond adorbale. Made me cry just a tiny bit. (Also note, they are very tactfully shutting down the recent rumours about the photo frames behind Charles in his recent videos, and how the sugars said it was Archie in the bnw frame)
KP has a super cute Insta vs Reality post of Louis's handpaint pic. Who ever is handling this now (I suspect it's Burberry James) needs a pay raise and seems to be having genuine fun putting these things up.
O.would go so far as to say, they are really bringing out the personalitiof the royal they are posting about. This also includes the cupcake recipe shared in HMs bday 2 days back - cute, soothing, feel good and full-on bday vibes. Very good Jason.
mm must be seething. I'm almost expecting an article in the near future siting a source close to Meg saying they are very proud of the work their special friend Jason is now doing, Rachel taught him all about Instagram and her royal family. And she is happy he is doing so although they had to let him go because BP asked them to let go of their beloved staff after stripping them.of their titles which they had no intention of using commercially, but only to hounour Harry's believed granny who is the Queen.
(Geez, I'm getting so good as word salad!)
Meg really is nasty! I don't believe it but if Kate was "nasty" behind-the-scenes, Meg is shooting her own foot with these digs. All the spheres she's clawing to enter are filled with nasty people. Meg has shown her cards and that is she is not-a-team-player and that she goes rogue with dirty laundry. Going up the ladder high requires niceties AND discretion.
No one who wants access to the BRF or is big in Hollywood, Fashion, Tech, or Finance will touch Meg because their success depends on being as non-controversial as possible. No wonder Disney called Meg controversial.
Now I understand why Meg has been getting so much mileage in the American media. The gatekeepers don't want or like her, they want to squeeze all the juice out of this BRF controversy. This is Kardashian territory. Once the well dries up, Meg's going to be fed to the wolves. Meg is not seeing the forest for the trees because of the mixed signals and that explains her false sense of grandeur. Le sigh.
I love Tennis and respect Serena's accomplishments but she has put a cloud on her career because of lapses in good sportsmanship. Who knew Brits would care so much about "stiff upper lips" in their sports too?
Way too many coincidences for it not to be heavy-handed shade.
First, Serena's hubby's tweets: he called out people using words and phrases that were straight out of Meg's word salad thesaurus.
Second, the Naomi Campbell interview. Both Naomi and Serena may be controversial but they are dark-skinned black women that faced a lot of racism and came out on top. Naomi is someone who would have sussed out Meg right away and I am sure that's why she broached the topic. Meg's race-baiting and ignoring Black History Month in America and the U.K. is a huge insult to Naomi's, Venus', and Serena's careers and accomplishments.
Third, Serena in the Snow White dress. Not only does she do a callback to Meg's Disney premiere, she is harkening back to Meg's race-baiting by wearing SNOW WHITE'S dress.
It was a matter of time for Serena to make her exit from Meg's rolodex. Priyanka Chopra made damn sure people knew she would put a kibosh on being used when she saw Meghan Gray's painting in the attic.
Although problematic and not a wise choice, I don't begrudge Charles cozying up to Greta. His whole life, he has been overshadowed by his parents, ex-wife, and now his sons. He truly loves pro-environment initiatives and was considered an *ugly duckling* because of it. Seeing a teenager girl (he wanted Harry to be a girl) that gives a message he was prescient and ahead of his time makes him feel like a *swan* and addresses emotional needs he has been starved from. I imagine Meg took advantage of these emotional vulnerabilities in him.
How can wanting clean air, water, saving wildlife, and having beautiful countrysides and landscapes be political? Unfortunately, figuring out how to get or preserve them is political.
My family and I are very eco-conscious but we're not fans of Greta being the "face" of saving the environment. We don't like that she is more an ad checklist than a legitimate "leader."
Pretty-ish teenage girl. Check.
Young enough to appeal to people's protective instincts. Check.
Autistic, so her involvement in the cause has to do with logic/science, certainly not emotions or politics. Check.
Le sigh.
At most, she was not quite 6 months' pregnant when the 'friends' were interviewed and the article written. It was so long after the letters had been written and received. What was going on that she suddenly had to reveal them?
She got dragged for the baby shower in New York - it was such a 'trashy showing off wealth' episode and she was rightfully called out for it. This hurt her - instead of being worshipped and adored as the most fashionable and famous woman in the world, she was criticised (very skin-thinned and cannot tolerate criticism, or even advice that she perceives as criticism). This was enough to send her over the edge, but there was more...
This was followed by a short tour of Morocco where the label hanging from her dress, rudely touching and then refusing the dates, barging ahead of Harry made it into the papers and the 'odd shape shifting bump' was a hot topic on the Internet. They made her go to some smelly crowded nothing African country and then she got criticism!
She must have been filled with rage. She had to do something ... hence the People article and the use of the letters to support her portrayal of victim hood. Never a thought to her father's feelings, just all about her. Other commentators have said that to Meghan, all relationships are transactional.
Does it boil down to `Narcs are horrible people but not all horrible people are narcs'?
Btw, the term `Horrible people’ comes from reports on Dr Kostas Papageorgiou’s work at Queen’s University Belfast.
Unfortunately, most reports are a bit thin - the best account of this, which I think may be closest to what was actually said, presumably in a press release, is at
https://nowhealthnews.com/narcissists-horrible-people-but-happy/
I don't get why you would be happy to have people bragging about your supposed untold millions in the bank and more to come, and yet expect to continue with the conspicuous non-payment of the Froggy £2.4M. If they HAD paid it we'd sure as hell know about it. That specific issue has always been high on the list of British taxpayers' grievances and it's not going away any time soon ...
You are probably right there were external stressors/events involved. But the PEOPLE article came out the first week of February (the 6th, I believe.) The baby shower wasn't until Feb 20 (although M had been in NYC for several days before the shower.) And the tour of Morroco was Feb 23-25. So responses to the shower and the tour couldn't have caused an article to be published on Feb 6th. And a Feb 6th article had to have some lead time. So if an external stressor triggered all of that, it was likely in January.
@Wild Boar Battle-maid wrote about NPD
"Does it boil down to `Narcs are horrible people but not all horrible people are narcs'?"
Personally I think that's a great way to put it. Narcissism tends to create horrid effects for people who interact with those with the disorder. But there are many reasons people may be horrible human beings that don't stem from clinical narcissism.
Also - any bets on what will come out today to overshadow the birthday ?
Any thoughts Nutties ??
Badmouthing Kate and making up a nickname for Princess Margaret Rose in a supposed documentary? So far as I know "Madge" was never one of Margaret's nicknames--- Margot was. And she was known as the "Rebel Princess" but I can see why Margaret wasn't given THAT credit in a Meghan-centric movie entitled A Royal Rebellion.
And H&M are supposed to have £30 million (~$37 million) between them but the bulk of that (so around $19 million) came from Meghan? Even the most determined "sugars" only claim M earned the inflated amount of $7-10 million on Suits, so where did M's other $9-12 million come from? (Yachting couldn't be that profitable... and we've seen M in a bathing suit.) Plus, she magically never had any expenses while in Toronto all those years including US income taxes? (Some sugars have claimed the studio paid her income taxes on top of her salary. Apparently they do not realize tax payments would simply generate more taxable income for M that the studio would have to pay tax on, and those tax payments would then be taxed generating another tax bill creating an unending expense for the studio...) I guess the film didn't mention M fought the IRS over a $900 bill, supposedly owed for income from The Tig or Frim Fram...No one in her right mind would pay an attorney to fight an IRS bill of that size IMO. And she lost. Maybe M got a huge amount of money when she divorced Trevor? They'd only been married for two years though. How much community property could there have been? Blackmail maybe?
And claiming Diana's money was mostly inherited from the Spencers? Sure, in the UK money is traditionally left to the youngest daughter, especially when that daughter is the "money-strapped" Princess of Wales.
I hate that some people will believe the movie. But mostly I hate that it makes Americans look really stupid and clueless about the RF since PEOPLE is an American entity.
---------
@Charade wrote about Charles and Greta:
"Seeing a teenager girl (he wanted Harry to be a girl) that gives a message he was prescient and ahead of his time makes him feel like a *swan* and addresses emotional needs he has been starved from."
You could be right. But so far as Charles wanting Harry to be a girl, I think it's only fair to remember Diana's role in all of that. She said Charles wanted a daughter (and she did too) but that she knew she was carrying a boy. She claimed she could tell from the sonogram...Not sure I believe that is how she found out early on. Having had ONE child she became skilled in finding a fetal penis in a sonogram? At 18 weeks, the penis is only a little over 1/4 of an inch long. Sure. (Sometimes even sonographers goof in identifying the sex.) Anyway, Diana admitted she led Charles to believe she was carrying a girl. She said she and Charles were very close during that pregnancy and spoke only about names for girls. So Charles's response upon seeing his son born was entirely understandable to me. Talk about a cruel set up. Diana really was a piece of work in some ways.
Let's pull a Piers Morgan on this troll (and we can all safely guess who it is) and not engage them on this blog going forward.
Pretty please!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/23/harry-meghan-tabloids-sussexes-newspapers
I think this is fair criticism of the Sussexes from Suzanne:
What are they doing? In the midst of a pandemic this letter looks purely solipsistic. Now is simply not the time for a display of their very thin skins, when others are covering themselves in PPE to help the gravely sick.
The court case, the grandiose letter and their exhibition of hurt has been met with predictable scorn from tabloid rottweilers. But all of it indicates that the symbiotic contract between royals and the tabloids is even more dysfunctional than ever. The Sussexes, minus their royal duties, now fall into that category of celebs around which any gossip can be spun. If they had truly wanted privacy, perhaps they wouldn’t have moved to Los Angeles, where paparazzi lie in wait too.
All rich and powerful people would love to dictate what the media says about them. This is not to defend the worst excesses of the tabloids, but Meghan’s shock at her treatment by the British tabloids is hard to understand. Gossip mags and tabloid exposure exist in her homeland.
I do like her polite way of telling them to shut up at the end of her piece:
They could have continued in self-isolation, far away in LA. But in the time of Covid-19 their actions look both petty and grandiose. Some much vaunted emotional intelligence would be appropriate from the couple now. The privacy they desire would be more achievable if they undertook a period of extended silence.
We don't have the same level of obsession on ratings and viewings as the USA does so I do not understand most of it, but 892 000 views sounds low in times of lockdown. Perhaps it is a very accurate reflection of the real lack of interest in them. Their biggest presence seems to be in the comments section of the DM and most people posting there loathe them!
@alice GREAT advice
The People article must have been written in January when Megsy was only 5 months' pregnant, so definitely not heavily pregnant.
Let's pull a Piers Morgan on this troll (and we can all safely guess who it is) and not engage them on this blog going forward.
Pretty please!
Done!
Serena with Naomi talking or rather not talking about MM is not that surprising. Was it ever more than a PR friendship?
Actually I rather suspect Naomi wanted more and Serena didn't succumb to temptation if in fact she and MM have fallen out.
Serena as many have already mentioned is not a particularly nice person. She doesn't have the best reputation in Wimbledon - quite rude in fact behind the scenes and of course her unsportsmanlike behaviour. Many sportsman/women are not as nice as their PR portrays them just like actors, singers etc.
Naomi- not nice at all and that is quite well documented.
It is interesting why People magazine or any TV programme wanted to cover MM &JH. It doesn't seem to have been successful or noticed. Perhaps they are discussing the first "exclusive" post Megixt interview? The Corona virus has most likely delayed that event but maybe that is what they are planning. As Nutty mentioned non-Corona related news might bring more advertisers.
Hey Ashley, the lockdown has taken to all sorts of wild places on YouTube, so yes I've watched the Danja Zone. Yes, she is kooky, her info highly suspect if not flat out wrong but very entertaining.
So small does not necessarily mean poor content. But, based on the summaries of the documentary, there was nothing new or interesting abut the documentary nor was it a quality and interesting production ... just rehashed propaganda with a bit of hogwash thrown in (Diane did not inherit a huge fortune from her father).
"What bad press was she getting in December and January? What set her off?"
I don't know but in December 2018-January 2019:
There was the Christmas scarfing (and according to rumors, the Cambridges were asked to appear at the walk and hadn't planned to go. Rumors were in full force about W&H's breech.)
The visit to the dog charity with the squat. Accompanied by the folding, popping, beachball-sized bump. Wore the Kim Kardashian cream outfit.
That very odd visit to the Royal Variety care home for retired actors. Wore that way-too-tight summer dress. Reminded me of a Blanche DuBois type. To accessorize M chose a more flat square bump that day.
The visit to Birkenhead-- Red coat, purple dress (Diana colors) baby bump slipping to her knees. That was close to same time as Kate's birthday-- there were comments about them not being invited. But even pre-Meghan we didn't see Harry at the "Kate's birthday weekend church walk." I sort of doubt he was usually invited to a house party of W&K's friends and Kate's family. Why would he be? Sibs can be very close but entertain separately. And Harry didn't live in Norfolk.
The Henry van Straubenzee Memorial Fund Carol service where M read the Marianne Williamson poem...odd only because she never met Henry van Straubenzee who died in 2002.
Of course the same night over at BP the jewel-studded, Diplomatic Corps Reception complete with tiaras was going on and W&K were there. But again, it's not as though
1. Will and Kate were invited to those kinds of events their first few years of marriage. (I believe Kate's first post-wedding tiara event was the Diplomatic Corps Reception in Dec 2013 after the April 2011 wedding. So it was going on 3 years. In Dec 2018 H&M hadn't been married for even one year.)
2. Harry didn't usually attend those events pre-Meghan.
So I don't know. But we aren't Meghan!
Tho I'm fairly new here, I too was briefly stung by the poster in question, and have assiduously ignored her ever since. If it's true she's trying to organize some kind of attack against Nutty Flavor, it's a very s***ty thing to do, pardon my language. I don't know how a person can live with herself behaving like that.
I also hope everyone ignores her and deprives her of any "oxygen" here. The trouble is other newbies coming in who are not aware as we are, and fall into the trap of engaging. Well, Nutty spells it all out in her blog intro -- be respectful. The vast majority of people are respectful here, thank goodness.
FWIW, don't worry about my email address being shared - it's used only for this blog.
I can see Enty recently changed to a Disqus system of commenting. Perhaps we should look into that.
@charade -- BTW, loved your reference up-thread about Meghan Gray, :) -- what an apt analogy for her!
I had the greatest English literature teacher in 10th grade, Mrs. F. Johnston. She was elderly, with white hair she wore in a bun so tight it was on the verge of a scream. Very severe, but with a twinkle in her eye. No one knew her first name till the middle of the year (Frances). She used to call us by "Mr. Smith" and "Miss Jones".
Anyway, when she introduced us to "The Picture of Dorian Gray" I immediately recognized people in my life just like Dorian -- pleasing and attractive on the outside, but rotten and shallow on the inside, with the rottenness accumulating somewhere hidden -- and have never forgotten it since. It fits Markle to a T. Sooner or later, her own "portrait" will be her downfall as well.
One last Mrs. J anecdote, if you can stand it -- on a midterm exam on "Julius Caesar," there was a multiple choice question -- "What does 'et tu, Brute' mean?"
The choices were "How could you, Brutus?", "And you, Brutus?" "Have you lost your mind, Brutus?" …. and ….. "Have you eaten, Brutus?"
I burst out laughing right in the middle of the exam quietness, and couldn't stop. Of course, everyone turned around and goggled at me. Mrs. J looked at me over top of her granny glasses, and her eyes twinkled, and she smiled. She knew exactly what I was laughing at.
Hahaha, still laughing to this day -- what a gem she was :) RIP, Mrs. J.
"This person wasn’t bullied. They started talking stupid shit and people were like gtfooh."
"Maybe this quarantine has caused you to lose your mind and this is coming from someone who likes Meghan."
Yeah, the LSA ladies aren't buying her victimhood either.
If you have a LSA profile, kindly report the messages. Not for me - it doesn't upset me at all - but for Elle's sake.
Sigh. This is why we need pseudonyms.
one comment
"This font is 100% a troll trying to drive traffic to that website."
Mrs. Johnston sounds awesome. I always remember having the best time and best teachers for English. I played Julius Caesar in 10th grade and yeah, maybe things could have worked out for him if Caesar got Brutus a pizza or something. LOL!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rnzhZgTiNbk
She mentioned finances being brought up during the trial. Never has a RF members finances been put on display for public scrutiny. MM believe that she is a "private person" and is entitled to her privacy even though she was a working Royal and public figure at the time.
In the recent statement to the Big4 they also reference as a "private couple". They want to capitalize on their own images and appearances not media basically.
What if M$H stepped back from being working royals bc their attorney told them the public has the right to know? We all suspect that MM was taking payments for some of her appearances as a working Royal. Or atleast that was the rumor for the bakery appearance( the one with no hairnet). If the taxpayers are funding your staff,travel, clothes, etc for appearances but you are taking money from the bakery too that would be a major issue. The equivalent of being a millionaire taking food stamps sort of thing. It would just show what fraud she is. Same thing with taking money for merching clothes and jewelry for Jennifer Myer.
To bring misuse of taxpayers funding to light by Sussex scoundrels would be a story worth breaking for MoS. Thoughts anyone??
LOL @Lt. Nyota Uhura :) I'm glad you liked that Dorian Gray reference.
Mrs. Johnston sounds awesome. I always remember having the best time and best teachers for English. I played Julius Caesar in 10th grade and yeah, maybe things could have worked out for him if Caesar got Brutus a pizza or something. LOL!
______________________________________
Hahahaha!!! Nice one, you owe me a new keyboard, spitting out coffee has ruined mine *grin*
--------------------------------------
SirStinxAlot said...
To bring misuse of taxpayers funding to light by Sussex scoundrels would be a story worth breaking for MoS. Thoughts anyone??
____________________________________
I totally agree that all of Markles' shady deals should come to light, and I'm sure there are many, many more than have been reported.
Just dunno whether the Royal Family would allow it, just because Markle is, however peripherally (and wrongly) a member, and they'd worry that yet more scandal would reflect badly on them.
they didn't even fly any of her family in at that cost. struggling to find breakdown of expenses. anyone know where I can find it? thanks
I read up thread that H&Ms wedding cost $45 million dollars (omg)
they didn't even fly any of her family in at that cost. struggling to find breakdown of expenses. anyone know where I can find it? thanks
____________________________
This was posted before the wedding, but gives a breakdown -- https://www.businessinsider.com/royal-wedding-cost-meghan-markle-prince-harry-2018-4
Anything they do will reveal other things.
Here's my TL:DR: Can't stand royalty, never liked him, never worshipped Diana, and I hope the whole royal facade comes crashing down in these unprecedented times. We're going to lose a lot of the world we've always known; why not royalty?
Oh, I don't really agree with you, Teasmade.
I think human beings need other people to look up to and rally around, particularly in a time where religion is lessening in influence.
If relatively anodyne figures like the Royals don't exist, politicians begin to take their place, and politicians can have extreme and dangerous views.
@Teasmade -- I know a lot of people share your feelings, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the demise of the BRF. After all, it's a tradition going back centuries (albeit not without numerous scandals, murders etc. -- which kind of contributes to the fascination with them) and will forever be associated with British history.
I do agree with those who believe the BRF expenses should be pared down to the bone. Anyone who is not in direct succession should not be subsidized, IMO. We'll see if Prince Charles does the right thing in this regard, tho I suspect he'll only make token gestures. Perhaps when Prince William ascends the throne more stringent measures will be taken.
As an American, I don't believe any of them should have 5 different houses apiece (or even 2). They can use one of the superfluous ones as a getaway, if need be, kind of like the Queen uses Balmoral, but the rest of them can be set up as museums.
I hope the whole royal facade comes crashing down in these unprecedented times.
Oh, I don't really agree with you, Teasmade.
I think human beings need other people to look up to and rally around, particularly in a time where religion is lessening in influence.
If relatively anodyne figures like the Royals don't exist, politicians begin to take their place, and politicians can have extreme and dangerous views.
_________________________________________
^^ This. Well said, Nutty.
I don't mind having someone to look up to AT ALL. I would like it to be someone who's accomplished something besides being born.
It’s amazing how for some, pressure leads to desperation and poor executive (double meaning intended) decision-making skills. For others, pressure brings a sharper focus. We are watching that dichotomy play out for the Harkles and every group they touch, as well as on an actually relevant world stage owing to COVID-19. Nutty has created her own platform for each of these topics; thus, the dichotomy plays out on them as well.
@Nutty, I rarely have time to post these days but wanted to express support for whatever extra hoops you want to implement that will ensure our conversations here can remain as focused and reasoned as possible given the subjects, and that our posters can carry on without fear of bullying. Challenges to thinking are always productive, but ad hominem attacks of people never are, and I guess that goes for what we say about the Harkles too. I vow to discuss their decisions and behavior, and the consequences of them, vs making any more easy attacks on the superficialities about them, no matter how much fodder they give me.
It’s no surprise that, given this subject, the personal attacks come from those who support the demonstrably irrational and poorly thought through behavior of the Harkles. What’s interesting is how the attacks have heated up of late. So have at it, Nutty! Layer us up! :)
Could the Sussexes may be going slowly on setting up the new IG account because they are still fighting with IG about moving their followers?
I can imagine Megsy threatening to stay away from IG altogether if she doesn't get what she wants and taking her billions and billions of followers with her to some new platform.
Maybe TikTok would be a good fit. 😀
In total agreement about suffocating the troll. Although I'm very sorry Elle and Nutty have to deal with this b.s. That seemed to implode very quickly, although I guess it did take a few months.
I'm not really sure at what point the rumours of surrogacy became a tide. Could she have been trying to distract from that with the People article? That purple and red dress event did a LOT of harm. Everyone was watching her after that. And of course the fashion awards double clutch.
@jdubya
Thanks for the synopsis. I couldn't have watched that without eye bleach. I'm so sick of just outright lies!
One of the pay for access stories that makes me the angriest is the SA ladies lunch. To be in the middle of all that poverty and charge...what was the figure...50k? To lunch with her?
Of course that entire tour was about getting' what they could before they could get out.
LMAO I just went to Meghan's Wikipedia page just to see how it read but omg that picture of her is HORRIBLE lmao wow
-------------------
Whoever `fixed' her front teeth needs to change profession - Princess Henry reminds me of Ken Dodd here in this photo and I am not tickled.
Well, we in Blighty have just been reminded who'd love to be the opinionated Head of State - Blair's back, sticking his oar in on TV. He too is believed to have cash-register eyes, that goes for his missus too.
I recommend Robert Harris's novel, The Ghost - it's chilling. Pure fiction, naturally.
It's funny!
"I can see Enty recently changed to a Disqus system of commenting. Perhaps we should look into that."
Please NO ... I find the new format on CDaN to be extremely unfriendly - so much so that I found myself getting frustrated and wondering if I would ever return to the site. I really like the current format here because it is so easy to pick up where I left off previously so as not to miss any great commentary ...
Have not watched show yet (need to work and crisis at house) ...
but from what little I saw (the 10 mins) something someone mentioned about how all the People talking heads were all young.
Young and American (or at least while I was watching).
American - you know, over here, we don't appear to have a lot of respect for elected officials or government/appointed government officials so there is no built in respect for other governments - especially one which is not elected but has ruled for centuries.
Being think being young exasperates this. When I think of the royal correspondents in the UK, they've been there a long time plus they tend to have grown up reading/seeing it in their daily lives. They heard their family talk about how they viewed the BRF handled the bombings or abdication. Someone who grew up in America, even if they had some British family.
Good morning....I just glanced over at the DM and not one MM article today which seemed a bit odd. I thought that was kind of interesting.
__________________________________
Me too -- wondering if it has something to do with the Harkles' upcoming court hearing?
I am very sure that this story was not true and started as a careless comment that just grew.
South Africans with a lot of money to throw around DO pay a lot to attend something like a fancy gala dinner and more if they can sit at the table of the president or some other high-ranking official. It is strictly quid pro quo: I donate to your campaign by paying a huge amount for attendance and in return you make sure I get those lucrative (VERY lucrative) government contracts.
Meghan had nothing to offer anyone in return for such a huge 'donation'. South Africans are not stupid - they knew she has no influence and nothing to offer in return for a donation that big.
50k, if dollars, is about R750 000 (at the time); if sterling is about R1 000 000 at the time. No way is a South African going to spend that much to attend a lunch with Meghan Markle. Sure, we have billionaires but none of them would have any interest in even meeting Meghan Markle (Ramaphosa was forced to as he is president and the visit from the Sussexes was an official one - even then, the Sussexes kept the president and his wife waiting when they paid them a visit at the official residence).
The attendees for the lunch she DID have were has-beens or wannabees on the South Africa scene (two in particular think they are very important but have no influence nor power ... empty drums). None of them have the kind of wealth to spend on a lunch with Meghan, even if you divide the 50k between all attendees and not see it as per person.
Fake story.
By the way, Crowns of Britain did a mid-week post this week.
It's funny!
________________________________
You're right! I hadn't heard of that blog before, but will add it to bookmarks -- wow, it's comedy gold :)
Sandie said... Other commentators have said that to Meghan, all relationships are transactional.
@Sandie: In addition to all relationships being transactional to a person like Meghan with narcissistic personality disorder, ALL people, and this especially includes Harry and Archie, are objects to be used to advance the agenda of the narc and fortify their false sense of self. Once a person is no longer useful, they are discarded like a candy wrapper tossed from the window of a car speeding down the road.
After a lifetime of experience with people with personality disorders, I can usually spot a narc quickly. Meghan checks all the boxes for narcissistic personality disorder with a sledgehammer.
When I first heard of her, I thought, “Oh that’s nice, he finally found someone.” But just a few minutes into the engagement interview, the sirens and bells were sounding in full force regarding the future Mrs. Harry and I felt ill. Not only for Harry, but for Charles and Diana to have their son become involved in a an essentially loveless, brutal, toxic marriage. No loving parent wants their child to end up with a person like Meghan.
@Elle
duly chastened ... I tend to scroll past all the crazy so TBH, I didn't realize that such a change might make it more convenient to deal with individual posters ...
May you and your loved ones be safe, healthy, and happy.
Others will not like a potential change either.
As for engaging, I do not engage with that BSC woman. I was gone for months because of her. When I came back, she seemed to be "normal" (well, on a scale lol) and I tried being nice. Big mistake.
But this has gone on for months without my engaging at all with her.
I was busy yesterday, then asleep, commenting only on perfume and Kate (I have priorities, people, priorities lol), and I wake up to find out that I'm being maligned on another site? And the rabid Rache lovers could be here at any time to take more of Nutty's energy and efforts and drag me for doing whatever that BSC UCLA girl thinks I've done to her. So, I got my thoughts out there on blog change pronto.
https://www.blogger.com/profile/11774145826367565882
Ironically, for someone who says she's been constantly attacked, everyone has pretty much left her alone until now.
Her choice to take it to Lipstick Alley, another site, was a bad one.
But - as we see with Meghan herself - these things often escalate.
https://support.google.com/blogger/thread/26856551?hl=en
"Comment moderation is not granular (you can't block individuals and if you could it would be trivial to defeat such a block).
"Moderating comments is a pain in the neck and I understand why you don't prefer it, but probably after some period of time your obsessive deranged guy would find some other obsession and you could open things up again.
"Moderation of comments is not that unusual and I'll bet your readers would understand, especially if they have been seeing these comments!"
Stay safe and happy. I can't wait until you come back. Don't worry, you're a strong cookie :)
perhaps someone needs to draft complaint we can all collectively copy and paste, otherwise I just don't know what I would say. being utterly annoying isn't much grounds for anything but an eye roll