It's no secret to regular readers of the blog that we're dealing with some regular posters who are very unpleasant. In particular, they target popular commenters with the goal of making them miserable and driving them away.
My suspicion is that these posters are paid, and that their real goal is to get rid of me and the blog itself.
Social media nitwits have long been part of Meg's PR budget; who can forget her clueless supporters on the DM comment boards? And Meg and her sugars have "outed" or gone after other bloggers who displeased her.
Alternately, we could be talking about a single troubled person who gets their jollies out of creating multiple personalities and arguing with themselves. Whatever it is, it's unwelcome and annoying, and we need to take action.
Anyway, I've identified a few possible approaches, with upsides and downsides.
Here they are:
The negatives: Everyone would have to take a few moments to create a Wordpress profile if they don't already have one. Also, Wordpress shows me your IP which can indicate your general location - unless you use a VPN - plus whatever email address you have set up to comment.
I personally don't care about your email or your location, but if big corporate websites can get hacked, I suppose a small Wordpress site could as well.
Also, this solution would have to wait until I have time to fully implement it.
The positives: Can be implemented today. Allows for nested comments, which is something many Nutties have wanted for a long time, plus GIFS - not sure if that is a positive or a negative!
The negatives: Again, you will have to create an account, and Disqus exposes your email and IP address to me unless you use a VPN. (I suppose our troublesome poster could use a VPN and come up with a lot of nonsense postings from mulitple IPs, defeating the purpose)
I don't go to CDAN much any more - has Disqus worked well for Enty?
Personally, I rather like it that way - should someone get uncovered, I can say with full confidence that I had nothing to do with it!
Unfortunately, that wonderful openness has resulted in abuse. Some dullard seems to think it's fun to make me waste my time deleting multiple idiotic comments, multiple times per day.
What do you think the best way forward could be? I'll leave this poll open until late Monday to get everyone's input, and I'm also open to separate suggestions.
My suspicion is that these posters are paid, and that their real goal is to get rid of me and the blog itself.
Social media nitwits have long been part of Meg's PR budget; who can forget her clueless supporters on the DM comment boards? And Meg and her sugars have "outed" or gone after other bloggers who displeased her.
Alternately, we could be talking about a single troubled person who gets their jollies out of creating multiple personalities and arguing with themselves. Whatever it is, it's unwelcome and annoying, and we need to take action.
Anyway, I've identified a few possible approaches, with upsides and downsides.
Here they are:
Move to a Wordpress Blog
The positives: We can have several moderators, which is not possible for a Google Blogger Account. This would allow someone to moderate during the hours when I am asleep, roughly 10pm-6am Estonian time, which is when the mischief seems to happen.The negatives: Everyone would have to take a few moments to create a Wordpress profile if they don't already have one. Also, Wordpress shows me your IP which can indicate your general location - unless you use a VPN - plus whatever email address you have set up to comment.
I personally don't care about your email or your location, but if big corporate websites can get hacked, I suppose a small Wordpress site could as well.
Also, this solution would have to wait until I have time to fully implement it.
Add Disqus to this Blog
Enty has recently switched to Disqus commenting system on his Google Blog, which allows him to ban users and IPs.The positives: Can be implemented today. Allows for nested comments, which is something many Nutties have wanted for a long time, plus GIFS - not sure if that is a positive or a negative!
The negatives: Again, you will have to create an account, and Disqus exposes your email and IP address to me unless you use a VPN. (I suppose our troublesome poster could use a VPN and come up with a lot of nonsense postings from mulitple IPs, defeating the purpose)
I don't go to CDAN much any more - has Disqus worked well for Enty?
Continue without changes
Google Blogger allows for excellent privacy protection, and it is truly open to all. I see nothing but your screen name; I have no access to your email address or IP.Personally, I rather like it that way - should someone get uncovered, I can say with full confidence that I had nothing to do with it!
Unfortunately, that wonderful openness has resulted in abuse. Some dullard seems to think it's fun to make me waste my time deleting multiple idiotic comments, multiple times per day.
What do you think the best way forward could be? I'll leave this poll open until late Monday to get everyone's input, and I'm also open to separate suggestions.
Comments
I have good days and bad but my life in general is all good.
No worries! Its a happy mistake if it brings a smile to a face and it brought a smile to mine! Hugs on the twitching.
Apologies for the butties. I can't control my fingers at times and sometimes it's worse than others and if they're twitching uncontrollably I can't always go back and try to correct it as it can make it worse. It's a pain having Tourettes but it's nothing at all compared to what many other things people deal with.
I have good days and bad but my life in general is all good.
___________________________
Don't apologize, what you worry about as an *accident* is really a gem, so it truly is all good :) (((hugs)))
Hey, why can't we be both Nutties and Butties? ;)
https://images.samsclubresources.com/is/image/samsclub/0002430083471_A?$img_size_380x380$
do you feel at some point, if not already, that everyday folk that don't follow the Harkkes that constantly see this "threat" to their lives, personal safety and all the house hopping in every news outlet and plastered all over internet every single day along with feverent declarations of financial independence on perpetual force feed. don't you feel those that are neutral or otherwise have no opinion of Harkles are going to turn quizzical eye and ask what the heck is going on? man up Harry and provide for your family!
not trying to spark any sort of feminist debate but I would imagine the presumption is Harry has money so hire super duper security and get your wife and child into a secure home of your own yesterday! if you are under constant threat , handle it! how is any of this good for their image or "brand"?
or maybe it does work "oh poor Archie can't even put on birthday outfit as they fled from racist toxic royal family with only underwear and gray t-shirt on their backs.."
nevermind they did so in borrowed passenger jet, straight into the soothing and calming waters of ultra private Hollywood! and oh by the way have you seen Meghan's new face? I mean seriously Harry looks like whiny punk for entirely too long now. how can this incessant whining mixed with Meg's yoga instructor of 8 years ago accolades and "niceness" plugs going to accomplish?
I seriously think they are beyond repair. they may end up with chunk of change from whatever super secret projects they are currently cooking but when all said and done I don't ever envision then being toast of the town or respected. they are a punchline at this point . what in the world could possibly be done to allow them to rise to the top in all this?
or does he let it ride full force into absolute and utter implosion knowing full well he can always flee home. they will always take him back, in what capacity remains to be seen but Harry will always have an out.
Meghan was always a nobody, Harry is the one with everything to lose. what is his rock bottom? and if he wasn't involved in this Skip is bringing his infant to play with toddler Archie then oh my gosh the cringe! involving your buddy of umpteen years in your sad pathetic PR? wasn't the spectacle at his wedding enough? I've read many here saying "scorched Earth" and it so befitting.
I have also read that many of you say Harry reads the DM comments. how in the heck is Meghan spinning that continual rage? or she isn't and Harry has completely checked out. gonna go teenager for the summer until the bank forecloses on his home. oh that's right he does not have one
I apologize for the rant but it is so incredibly frustrating to realize what could have been and what and where they are now. why does it seem like we care more?
they have to know their star is fleeting. but all this money on PR and Meghan would rather stroke her ego 40x a day between 12:newspapers than rely and trust and relinquish control to experts.
it is just mind numbing how self-absorbed and dim they both are. they aren't excusable young twenty somethings out to rise and fall on their own. they are both racing to 40 with a baby ! couple of selfish creeps . no idea whose head has previously layed on their pillow in this week's crash pad but I damn near know Meg can tell you without hesitation where to buy the earrings she is wearing. enter code WANKER for additional 10% off and don't forget to check box to make charitable donation to cause that has yet to be determined, but we are really going to care about it when we figure it out
ok I am done. sorry bye
Does anyone have a subscription by chance?
I want to see justice!
I got a compliment for one of my remarks yesterday besides people commenting. Thank you Nutties!
I got a compliment for one of my remarks yesterday besides people commenting. Thank you Nutties!
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is crowned Catherine the Great on the July/August cover
Kate Middleton's star is going stratospheric as the country looks to the monarchy for morale. Anna Pasternak charts her ascent
by ANNA PASTERNAK
2 DAYS AGO
Has the Duchess of Cambridge suddenly become one of the most influential women in the world?
Front and centre of the new, slimmed-down monarchy, Kate hasn’t put an LK Bennett-shod foot out of place in the nine years she has been William’s wife. That was clear as the coronavirus outbreak became a pandemic and she took on extra royal duties – making public appearances remotely as the country went into lockdown. There she was, clapping for the NHS, speaking to primary-school children over Zoom, offering support to the new Nightingale hospital by telephone from Kensington Palace and giving relatable interviews about the challenges of homeschooling. William seems adrift when Kate is not by his side (take the awkwardly wooden Children in Need skit he attempted with Stephen Fry, for example). Kate is, some argue, a kingmaker.
Certainly royal courtiers have murmured their approval. ‘Kate understands that the only credo of the Royal Family is duty, duty, duty,’ says one. ‘Whereas with the Sussexes it is constant uncertainty, [the Cambridges] represent stability and continuity.’ It’s easy to forget, with the all-encompassing threat and disruption of the coronavirus crisis, that this tumultuous time follows an extremely busy period for William and Kate. In the wake of Harry and Meghan standing down as senior royals and seeking exile in North America, Kate took on 11 royal engagements in a month – three in the space of 24 hours. It was a gruelling attempt to buffer the barrage of bad news destabilising the House of Windsor on a near-daily basis: the divorces (the Queen’s nephew Lord Snowdon and her grandson Peter Phillips); Prince Andrew’s mortifying fall from grace; the Sussexes’ surly press statements; and those naff Chinese milk adverts. Amid it all, Kate has emerged serene and smiling.
Out went safe shift dresses, in came silk pussy-bow blouses and softer blowdries. Everywhere, there was talk of Kate, opening up on podcasts about ‘mum guilt’. As a good friend of hers points out, ‘Kate knows what the country needs and wants. Championing how to raise your children is perfect.’ Yet, privately, said another friend, ‘Kate is furious about the larger workload. Of course she’s smiling and dressing appropriately but she doesn’t want this. She feels exhausted and trapped. She’s working as hard as a top CEO, who has to be wheeled out all the time, without the benefits of boundaries and plenty of holidays.’ Some say that beneath the yummy-mummy exterior is a spine of steel; that, in many ways, she’s reminiscent of the late Queen Mother, whom Cecil Beaton described as ‘a marshmallow made on a welding machine’. Because surviving, let alone thriving, in the House of Windsor is no mean feat.
Was it Kate who advised William on his recent modernising speeches and causes while toning down her own rigid body language? Was she instrumental in William’s jarringly woke ‘inclusivity’ Bafta speech? Has seeing Meghan exit stage left from royal life played to Kate’s advantage? Is the royal once dubbed the Duchess of Dolittle because she had so few public engagements stealthily establishing herself as kingmaker – the person to save, and salve, the monarchy?
In many ways, it’s difficult to get a true sense of the real Duchess of Cambridge – so determined does she seem to project an aura of blandness as part of her regal persona. When I broach the subject, I hear the same sentiments from others, from royal insiders to society figures: ‘I just don’t know who she is.’ One member of the young royal set says: ‘I’ve spent quite a lot of time around Kate and she is impenetrable. There is nothing to like or dislike.’ Yet, the source continues, ‘she has a ruthless survival streak, just like the House of Windsor. It’s why she is so well suited. She keeps her head down because the prize of being queen is so great. She models herself on the Queen and now speaks like the Queen.’
It’s been a rapid ascent for a girl born into an upper-middle-class family in Reading. She and her siblings attended Marlborough, thanks to her parents’ thriving mail-order business, and while there she had a poster of Prince William on her wall. Then in 2001, at university – Sloane central, St Andrews, where she read history of art – she met William. She reputedly mixed with an almost exclusively grand set and famously appeared in a sheer dress on the student catwalk. Dating William for several years earned her the cruel nickname Waity Katy from the press. The waiting paid off – they married in fairy-tale splendour in 2011 – but the sniping persisted.
‘In the beginning it was quite difficult for Kate as she wasn’t born into those circles,’ says a royal insider. She suffered the indignity of the ‘doors to manual’ jibe (a reference to her mother Carole’s former role as an air hostess) and needles about her ‘common’ family background – Carole being ‘NQOCD’ (Not Quite Our Class, Darling) for having been born in a council flat in Southall and descended from Durham coal-mining stock. Plus, horror of horrors, Carole allegedly ‘chewed gum’ during William’s passing-out ceremony at the Sandhurst military academy.
Worse yet, Carole’s brother, Kate’s uncle Gary, is a flamboyant boulevardier on his fourth marriage. He owned a villa in Ibiza, where Kate and William stayed, called La Maison de Bang Bang, and was a victim of a News of the World drugs sting (he said he was manipulated and set up). Yet Kate has never complained about her press drubbing nor disinvited dodgy relatives from her wedding. There seems to exist within her a genuine stoicism. But one wonders if the criticism gets her down.
Notably, in 2013, the Man Booker-winning novelist Hilary Mantel sparked outrage when she gave a lecture in which she described Kate as ‘gloss-varnished’. In what the press called a ‘vicious’ and ‘venomous’ attack, Mantel said: ‘Kate seems to have been selected for her role of princess because she was irreproachable; as painfully thin as anyone could wish, without quirks, oddities, without the risk of emergence of character.’ In fact, the lecture provoked such a maelstrom of opinion that the then prime minister, David Cameron, took time out of a trip to India to refute the ‘completely misguided and completely wrong’ summation of the Duchess of Cambridge and what Mantel called her ‘perfect plastic smile’. No doubt it stung, but Kate bore it silently. In crisis, friends say, Kate retreats to the protective embrace of her family. Her commendable backbone comes from her mother. ‘They are a very close family and totally united,’ says a friend of the Middletons. It helps that in William’s eyes Carole and Michael Middleton can do no wrong. ‘He absolutely adores them. Michael is charming. Really kind, soft and gentle. William loves going to the country to stay with them. Their family life is so soothing for him as it’s so different from his own family.’ Another country grandee says: ‘I’ve heard that Prince William is obsessed with Carole. She’s the mummy he always wanted.’
There is, imo a real bias for Meghan and a very shady time with Catherine.
The same old crap the sugars pull out: Catherine doesn't want to work hard, she is stiff, her mother is a gorgon, she dressed boringly.
Me g may as well have written that article.
Maybe she did
Yet it’s Carole, with what some call her Hyacinth Bucket aspirations of grandeur, who, rumour has it, puts people’s backs up in a way Kate does not. Some people have apparently found her exacting. A skilled craftsman who worked on Anmer Hall, William and Kate’s country home, and is used to a roster of prestigious and potentially tricky customers, said that he found Carole ‘the most difficult client’ he had ever worked with: ‘She was exceedingly demanding, fussy and questioned everything.’ Carole has put her stamp on Anmer decor-wise. Far from being a typical aristo abode, with threadbare rugs and dog hair everywhere, like, say, Windsor and Balmoral, it is, according to a visitor, ‘like a gleaming five-star hotel, with cushions plumped and candles lit’. Another adds: ‘It’s very Buckinghamshire.’
While Kate has praised her close family and happy childhood, there’s no denying that Carole is a formidable matriarch. ‘Carole is a terrible snob,’ alleges a friend of Donna Air, ex-girlfriend of Kate’s brother, James. ‘Donna is a really lovely girl, but Carole got quite grand.’ She adds: ‘Carole is the masterminding force between those girls.’
Kate and her sister, Pippa, remain the closest of confidantes, presumably because it feels safe. ‘Pippa now speaks like the Queen, too, and is absolutely paranoid about the paparazzi,’ says one of her circle. ‘She refers to her sister as Catherine or “the duchess” in public, which feels too regal and try-hard. Pippa is a bit lost now and is struggling to find her place. She’s always in the shadow as someone’s sister or someone’s wife. But they are all utterly loyal to each other. The Middleton family will always close ranks. None of them can quite believe that they have hit the jackpot, so between Kate, Pippa and Carole there is an unspoken bond. A sort of “We have to bring it to fruition at all costs”.’
When it comes to the Middletons, continues the friend, ‘The big thing in their family is control.’ Another member of their circle concurs: ‘In person, Catherine is a bit warmer and slightly more fun than in public, but you are aware that she is always aware of how careful she has to be. There is a level of control that she has to retain. I don’t think she’d know how to fully let her guard down now, even if she wanted to.’
It’s true that when she speaks, in her carefully modulated voice (coached with the help of the late Anthony Gordon Lennox, Old Etonian nephew of the Duke of Richmond – friends say that Kate’s accent became ‘posher’ at Marlborough and that now she sounds ‘even more plummy than William’), she says all the right things, and more often prefers to be called Catherine. But where is the passion? Maybe this is a defence against appearing like Diana, Princess of Wales, who put The Firm’s backs up by being over-emotional, volatile, vulnerable and skittishly complex. But God, she was loved for it.
Publicly, Kate may not inspire Lady Di levels of adoration, but she certainly has a following: a big one. And as time has gone on, the other royals have developed great respect for her because she’s doing the job so well. ‘She doesn’t create press headaches or court scandal, which, given everything else that is going on, is an almighty relief,’ says a courtier.
Her loyalty has been noted and duly rewarded. In 2018, the Queen bestowed on her granddaughter-in-law the Royal Family Order. One of the highest orders that the monarch can bestow upon a female member of the Royal Family, this is undoubtedly well deserved.
Not everyone is pro Kate. It’s no secret that the royal sisters-in-law never got on. ‘I don’t think that she ever pulled Meghan under her wing and said, “I’ll show you the ropes,”’ says a friend. ‘Catherine and William were very circumspect from the beginning about Meghan, which hurt and incensed Harry. William rightly cautioned Harry to slow the relationship down. That’s why they all fell out. As the rift got deeper between the brothers, Kate, who used to be so close to Harry, tried to pacify things. But her loyalty will always be to William.’
‘Then there was an incident at the wedding rehearsal,’ another friend of the Cambridges’ claims. ‘It was a hot day and apparently there was a row over whether the bridesmaids should wear tights or not. Kate, following protocol, felt that they should. Meghan didn’t want them to.’ The photographs suggest that Meghan won. Kate, who has impeccable manners, sought the opportunity to put Meghan in her place, reprimanding her for speaking imperiously to her Kensington Palace staff. ‘In the palace, you hear numerous stories of the staff saying so-and-so is a nightmare and behaves badly but you never hear that about Kate,’ says a royal insider. Another courtier says: ‘Kate keeps her staff whereas Meghan doesn’t. Doesn’t that say everything?’
Kate's loyalty extends to a coterie of friends that is incredibly small, tight-knit and long-standing. Yet you never see her out lunching with girlfriends, as we did Diana, papped giggling on the steps of San Lorenzo. Her group, on the face of it, appears more staid – or cautious.
'Kate is one of us in the sense that all her friends are Sloanes and aristocrats,’ says one of her group. ‘She’s very much decided that that’s her tribe, even though she wasn’t actually born into that background.’ Commendably, she’s kept her girlfriends from Marlborough, including Emilia Jardine Patterson and Trini Foyle, as well as blending with William’s friends such as Lady Laura Meade and her husband, James Meade, and Thomas van Straubenzee and his wife, Lucy Lanigan O’Keeffe, who teaches at Thomas’s Battersea, where Charlotte and George go to school.
Then there’s her ‘Turnip Toff’ crowd, the Norfolk Sloanes, including Sophie Carter and Robert Snuggs, who live near Anmer Hall. And the Cambridges’ glamorous Houghton Hall neighbours, Rose Hanbury and her husband, the Marquess of Cholmondeley – with whom there was an alleged falling-out last year, over Rose’s apparent closeness to William. The whole of Norfolk was agog and the story spilled over into the newspapers. No party has commented publicly on the matter.
Outwardly, it seems that with years of scrutinising public pressure Kate has become perilously thin, just like – some point out – Princess Diana. One could argue that Kate is naturally slim and indeed, like Pippa, a vigorous exerciser. Or perhaps her size is down to the stress of being a multitasking mother of three – one countenancing the additional worries of defending a Royal Family seemingly under siege. ‘William is absolutely incandescent about Megxit,’ a courtier confides. ‘Every time the Sussexes issue a statement, it hits everyone like a fresh bombshell. The Cambridges are left reeling like everyone else. Everyone is terribly worried about how this is affecting the Queen.’
Then there’s the matter of the Sussexes’ awful timing. As the Queen gave a historic speech urging the public to adhere to the government’s pleas for self-isolation – and on the day the prime minister was taken to hospital gravely ill from the coronavirus – Harry and Meghan chose to announce a new charity endeavour, Archewell, from their haven in LA.
‘Meghan and Harry have been so selfish,’ says a friend of the Cambridges. ‘William and Catherine really wanted to be hands-on parents and the Sussexes have effectively thrown their three children under a bus. There goes their morning school runs as the responsibilities on them now are enormous.’ More’s the pity. For it is Kate’s presentation as an everywoman that has endeared her to the public lately. There she was, catching the £73 Flybe flight to Scotland; expertly making roulade alongside Mary Berry on TV last Christmas; popping into the pub with her fellow school mums in Chelsea; and, during a visit to a children’s centre in Cardiff, talking about feeling lonely as a new mother.
There she was too at the school gates. One mother at Thomas’s says: ‘Kate has grown in my esteem because she is genuinely involved with the school. She does the drop-off herself, comes to coffee mornings and even queues to get her own coffee after drop-off, like the other mothers.’ Which, of course, she is, and she isn’t.
Perhaps Mantel had it right about Kate – up to a point. The aura of blandness is practised. In her future role as queen consort, her enigmatic containment will enhance her sovereignty. She is a royal ballast, William’s most trusted adviser, and someone who puts duty above all else. Endearingly, following the spirit of Diana, both William and Kate consult psychics. A medium who went to Kensington Palace to ‘channel’ for them found William to be ‘open-hearted and lovely’. Kate, while scrupulously polite, was more ‘shut-down’. Maybe she was merely going through the motions to appease her husband?
Whatever the truth, as the woman behind the man who will reign from what Winston Churchill called ‘the greatest throne in history’, Kate has emerged as the ultimate power player. Underestimate Queen Catherine at your peril.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8363199/RICHARD-KAY-Kate-Meghan-snobbish-claims-sparked-palace-fury.html
Thank you for posting the Tatler article. It is much more balanced than I had thought it would be. To me the most eyebrow-raising tidbit is William and Kate consulting psychics. Hopefully that was a one-off.
shade towards Catherine oh my.
To me, the comment about impenetrable, nothing to like/dislike means someone thought they would be welcomed in open arms by her and this after all the tone about how her background (which she had no control over) was somehow less than the speaker. Why would she open herself up to someone who appears to somehow judge her without making an attempt to get to know her. as an individual. She is not her genetic legacy ruling her future options. And after all the looking down the nose at her, why would she seek comfort in those people instead of her family and exceptionally close friends who can keep their mouth shut?
Maybe it's really about who she doesn't trust with what she really thinks or feels?
Notice the comment about how she might not even know how to let down her guard. Somewhere, wasn't there a comment about how M somehow implied or talked about how constrained basically Catherine was by the palace and that M didn't want to lose herself. Something along those lines - which almost made it sound like becoming a Stepford Wife.
The charming backhanded compliment about how she isn't creating problems for the palace and that is a relief.
And then in part 4, not everyone is a fan. That is odd phrasing. Another swipe at failing to somehow not be helpful to M. (as if everyone needed to drop everything immediately and come help someone who spoke of being able to hit the ground running - sorry) (gosh, C has her own life, family, handling all kinds of plates spinning on sticks and M has all kinds of resources to cue her on the nuances of meanings like hats or how not stand or get into the car but that somehow C is also responsible? heck, if she had, would she be blamed as it went south as somehow M was given disinformation? ... maybe taking a wait/see attitude was the safe one?).
Again, keeping Catherine's friends private is somehow a failing by not emulating Diana with friends lunching to be photographed.
Wowza. So I was thinking about this. Remember Lady C's comments about people from M's side wanting to assist Lady C and set the real record straight (not)? I read this and thought that the slams to Catherine could easily be "placed" commentary with just enough real disinformation to counter this as a source. When lies have some truth, they can look to be true because you know the real truth part is really true which makes the untruth look more realistic.
or there were sources which spread the Catherine slams and some others who weren't into the Catherine issues.
rosemarie375, London, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago
Anna Pasternak, for Tatler, whose former work colleague at the magazine is Vanessa Mulroney, just happens to be sister in law of Jessica, the very person who linked up Jessica and Meghan. Mulroney is always ready to return some back-scratching for her BFF Meghan. Jessica also close links with with People Magazine who first leaked the 'letter' and denigrated Thomas Markle. She better watch out that she does not push her luck too far. Disgusting low lifes, all of this Soho House rat pack.
If i had drones buzzing me and my house/my family - i would be all set up to film it as proof or harassment.
I regret that there was a misunderstanding - I should have stated my intention explicitly. Hey ho.
Lets forget it. End of.
Thank you for posting the Tatler article. A lot to digest but first thought is I understand why KP issued their statement the other day. A lot of digs at how boring C is and a lot of backhanded compliments. Stepford wife?
The consulting of psychics, if true, is a bit jarring. It seems to want to plant the seed that William may be a bit like his mother - not in a good way. A lot of rehashing of old stories about the Middleton's nothing new.
I look forward to Nutty's take on this and of course everyone here as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51592810
I have to admit I hadn't heard of her but I do wonder how MM will react to a WOC getting such plaudits, especially when it's quite a long piece. (over 2 pages of text when C&Pd into Word, minus photos) and I expect she's gets equivalent, or greater, coverage in the US.
That phrase `Top US Actress' would really hurt.
Pasternak has gone right down in my estimation.
My source: "the real diana"by Lady C
https://www.hellomagazine.com/cuisine/2020052790477/meghan-markle-favourite-chicken-recipe/
1. The Queen does not visit other royals for dinner at their house. Actually, the Queen rarely eats out and when she does, it is at a restaurant. It is not only unlikely but I can state with great certainty that Meghan will NEVER cook for the Queen, just as Kate or anyone else in the family.
2. It is NOT Meghan's recipe, but the magazine uses big bold letters to name it 'Meghan Markle's Filipino-style chicken adobo'. She did not invent the recipe. It is not even a recipe she uses and has supplied to the magazine. There is no proof that she has ever even used this recipe (she said she did but there is no proof that she ever cooked a Sunday supper for family or friends).
Nichola Murphy, Author, has a good pedigree but uses her experience, training and education to write such sycophantic rubbish. How sad.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/tags/nichola-murphy/
Does anyone have a subscription by chance?
I do, I receive the actual magazine and the digital version, but I haven’t had chance to read it yet. ;o)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8363199/RICHARD-KAY-Kate-Meghan-snobbish-claims-sparked-palace-fury.html
If you have a look at the comments, rather than damage the reputation of Catherine and William, the Meghan-inspired article reflects badly on Meghan.
With Meghan, she is tearful, not OK, vulnerable because no one has asked how she is, because people are criticising her, because she is not getting the attention she wants (positive and adoring, not negative and critical). With Meghan it is fury that anyone could consider her not good enough. (How dare they not see how special I am.)
With William, the discomfort seems to be about being the centre of attention and fear of getting it wrong and not fulfilling his duties in a way that is honourable and living up to high standards. With William it is the fear and insecurity of feeling not good enough (I am in this privileged position and I do not deserve it).
I think people instinctively see and understand that difference. The more Meghan and her supporters try this kind of Cambridge bashing as a form of PR for Meghan, the more likely they are to fail in improving her reputation and trashing that of the Cambridges. I am a great believer in free press (we should not be censured, threatened nor punished for expressing an opinion, but should accept that others are just as free to challenge or reject those opinions), but do think there should be quick, decisive and effective challenges to falsehoods being published.
In view of the bitchy Tatler ariticle, here are some thoughts I’d been holding back:-
I’d been pondering how this all could have been plotted from the start and how H could have been drawn in. Perhaps you talked about it before I discovered this blog so please bear with me if you have.
The perfume ruse.
Did this work on H at a subliminal level? H may not have recognised it at a conscious level (blokes recognise that a girl smells `nice’ but it doubt if many could put a name to the scent responsible, or who wore it the first time they were aware of it).
Perhaps it was effective because the molecules hit this brain almost instantly and stirred up echoes of warmth, maternal love & security, even if he didn’t know why. Had he recognised it for what it was, she would’ve insisted it was a Divine Sign that they were `meant’ for each other.
Her spiel could have drawn out of him that he was unhappy in the RF (she’d already researched that) and painted a vision of the glorious future they could have as King and Queen of the Savannah, saving wildlife.
They could make wildlife films that would earn them megabucks. After all, she’d been around the Industry since childhood and had umpteen contacts (or would have, once she’d invited them to the wedding, she thought. Perhaps she didn’t mention it, but she’d be Queen of Hollywood, out-Streeping Streep, out-Closeing Close 'cos nobody would dare ignore her now.)
She’d told him she’d give him the courage and moral support to leave his stuffy old family in the lousy UK. They could work as part-time Royals, doing what they wanted, with a minimal amount of what his family expected, but keeping all the perks all the perks.
`After all, Honey, they need you - you’re too important for them to cut you off without a penny.’
She knew she could do it, she’d seen Dangerous Liaisons - she’d be the Marquise de Merteuil to his Valmont.
`Engagement interview? No sweat - Hairy is a lousy actor so I’ll tell him to leave it to me. From then om, I'll ape Diana. After all, if you can fake sincerity, you can fake anything. …’
All fantasy, of course.
The last bit in the Tatler article about William and Catherine consulting a psychic is so very odd. I wonder if that is a story planted by William as his way of finding out who was talking to Tatler for the article (Tatler claim that they told KP months before that they were working on the story)?
‘Then there was an incident at the wedding rehearsal,’ another friend of the Cambridges’ claims. ‘It was a hot day and apparently there was a row over whether the bridesmaids should wear tights or not. Kate, following protocol, felt that they should. Meghan didn’t want them to.’ The photographs suggest that Meghan won. Kate, who has impeccable manners, sought the opportunity to put Meghan in her place, reprimanding her for speaking imperiously to her Kensington Palace staff.
My guess is that this passage is the "smoking gun" of the article, showing it came from the MM camp. At least one DM commenter said it was self-serving to MM because what really happened was that a KP person spoke up in support of Kate -- yes, wearing tights is protocol -- and then MM went off at the KP person, causing KM to defend them.
I guess, if anything, the Cambridges will know who's behind the hit job.
Of course, there are likely falsehoods/inaccuracies in the article, I'm not denying that. There will be in any article that purportedly interviews a number of people and presents their divergent views. I'm also not denying there may have been a MM-camp influence. The material about Carole is mean-spirited but none of it is new, including the gum-chewing, the "class" issue, the elocution "plummy voice" lessons for the Middleton women, and the fact that Carole was very involved in and demanding re: Anmer Hall work. That's all "old news" although the quote from the "skilled craftsman" is new. While the quote about Carole as mum for Will is new, it's old news in a way--- it was reported long ago that Carole reportedly would take Will's side even when it conflicted with Kate's early on in their marriage--that she acted more as his mother than Kate's.
So I do wonder if a friend or friends might have thought they were helping Kate, that KP knew about the article so it was ok, that the Tatler is usually pro-Monarchy so it was safe, and finally that a "Kate the Great" article had to be flattering and had to take her side.
I wonder too if some of the sentiments expressed aren't those of her friend(s), and are not Kate's. I expect Kate's friends (and Will's) do have a negative view of H&M's exit and do worry most about the effect on W&K vs the effect on other family members. I can't see Kate calling herself a CEO, but a well-meaning friend might. And the perspective of the author of the article (and her goals) determines what is and isn't reported and the context.
I could easily see someone who doesn't work at all thinking it would be overwhelming to anyone to do 11 events in a month (with 3 in one day one time) even though those events very likely required less total time than an ordinary working woman (including those with children) spends at her job every week. And 11 events a month would come to only 132 year, far less than other royals do.
So I'm not sure. But I don't think the article will do long-term damage if that was the goal. And even those buying the "Kate is lazy" narrative seem to have a larger "they are all lazy including Harry and Meghan" view so it didn't benefit MM if that was the goal.
I’d been pondering how this all could have been plotted from the start and how H could have been drawn in...
Everything you've theorized is consistent with Blind Gossip's "Switcheroo" article.
WBBM re: Tracee Ellis Ross and praise for nailing it on multiple levels
I had not known she was the daughter of Diana Ross. Had heard of Blackish. She has chops.
Thank you for posting the article.
What’s strange about the article is that wants to appear as though it is praising Kate, but it really is undercutting every part of her life.
The author takes underhanded cuts at her outfits, her personality, her family, her friends, the rumors about William affair, her weight, her relationship with Harry & Meg, and compares/contrast her to Diana. it’s really quite harsh.no corner of Kate’s life is untouched.
I’m sure William is unhappy with it as well. It says that Kate is a kingmaker. And then all the rubbish about how Carole is the mummy he always wanted. Wow.
It doesn’t portray Harry and Meghan well though, but it they are mentioned so briefly. But the writer almost tries to connect the two that Kate “doesn’t take Meghan under her wing” leads to the TightGate.
Meghan’s dress sure looks heavy and quite warm, that I’m sure the little girls could’ve managed stockings just fine. I’m guessing this involves Jessica Mulroney daughter. She must hate them and maybe refused to wear them, which caused a problem during the dress fittings.
I haven't seen,let alone read, Blind Gossip's 2Switcheroo2 article. I just put my thinking cap on. It's original thought on similar lines, I suppose.
Add in some sort of blackmail, (I read somewhere that `the sex tape' involves Harry in a particularly embarrassing context) and Bob's your Uncle, she's got him. Assuming it was him and he had been caught in (some sort of) flagranti.
If he did say, at the altar, that he was `sh*tting' himself, as has been alleged, that would fit in with nerves because he was about to commit a monstrous fraud.
Aabbyh - Thanks, I loved that headline! `Top Actress' - great!
For the heck of it I looked at Megs chicken adobo recipe and it is phony baloney from her Tigs blog and accompanied by bs about her family dinners. Fake adobo recipe in that it uses whole chicken. Adobo is peasant food. It uses dark meat chicken only. I checked out other internet chicken adobo recipes and all use dark meat except for Megs and one other. Here is chicken adobo from a reputable source
https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2019/11/filipino-style-chicken-adobo-recipe.html
The above recipe uses - "chicken legs, separated into thighs and drumsticks"
^^^^^^^^^ On her now-defunct lifestyle blog The Tig, Meghan said she credits her love of Filipino-style chicken adobo to her childhood in LA. "I am a big fan of Sunday suppers. Whether we're eating lamb tagine, pot roast or a hearty soup, the idea of gathering for a hearty meal with friends and family on a Sunday makes me feel comforted," the 38-year-old told Today back in 2012. She went on to reveal her recipe: "I enjoy making slow-cooked food on Sundays, like Filipino-style chicken adobo. It's so easy — combine garlic, soy (or Bragg Liquid Aminos), vinegar, maybe some lemon and let the chicken swim in that sauce until it falls off the bone in a Crock Pot."
https://www.hellomagazine.com/cuisine/2020052790477/meghan-markle-favourite-chicken-recipe/
"My guess is that this passage is the "smoking gun" of the article, showing it came from the MM camp..."
Maybe. But it's been two years since it reportedly happened. If the story is true, I bet alot of people in both "camps" have heard it by now. (It would be different IMO if the story had come out right after the wedding. And the lack of tights was discussed back then. Like on this site https://whatkateskidswore.com/2018/05/george-charlotte-just-like-what-uncle-harry-aunt-meghan-wore/) So I'm not sure it pins down the "leaker."
It also seems quite odd to me the issue would have been raised at the rehearsal. I'd have thought it would have come up long before that, like at a dress fitting. Maybe it had and bringing it up at the rehearsal was a last ditch effort to convince M? If it was discussed more than once, that widens the field of people who could know.
Same with the psychic stuff. If it's true (and I suspect it may be-- Will hasn't seemed to adopt a "straight and narrow" traditional COE approach in many things), I suspect more than one person knows about it (besides W, K, & the psychic.) If it's not true, but was planted to test a particular person's loyalty as @Sandie hypothesized, wonder why a psychic claimed she had worked with them and was quoted in the article? Are we thinking that part of the article was entirely made up?
Megsy is a triple threat and heading for Broadway. From Blind Gossip.
I'd have thought that any psychic leaking about clients would soon find their clients deserting them.
What new insights could a psychic have? No more than we have and Pr.Wm wouldn't have to pay to read us either!
My attitude to astrology and the like is that we may be able to assess what might happen but in truth the future is unknowable.
As for `signs', I once had a line manager who believed in the occult. She arranged to meet a prospective boyfriend at a cafe in a park halfway between where they lived. As they walked in, they saw a notice saying `We serve Lavazza coffee'
He commented, ` Lavazza! Good, I like that.'
To which she replied, `So do I - it must be a sign!'
Indeed it was a sign. Tt was on the wall & it said `Lavazza'.
When she told me, I could hardly keep a straight face but she was oblivious to the humour. What must one have done to get such crazy bosses?
If it's warm enough for bare feet, the convention here is to wear sandals.
If a man wears socks with sandals, he's a twit.
If a woman wears shoes without hosiery, she's no lady.
But as so often seems to happen with Kate and the Cambridges, they end up looking unfairly victimised, a position, ironically, that Meghan has been trying her best to occupy from the beginning.
The one thing everyone knows about Kate is that she knows how to keep her mouth shut, and wouldn't have told anyone who would talk to the press, let alone TATLER and Pasternak, that she was "exhausted" and that "Meghan had thrown [Kate's] children under a bus".
It's yellow journalism with a veneer of class because it's TATLER - which, like every other print publication these days, is struggling financially.
Looked at through the long-term lens, the nastiness in the TATLER article reflects what people so hated about Meghan and her endless attempts to undermine Kate because she couldn't take coming second. The outcome will be, yet again, making Kate look like the dignified long-suffering, dutiful heroine . . . again.
It's curious how the attemmpts to undermine what is, if anyone is being honest, Kate's now unassailable position keep working to her long-term benefit, and how few people doing the undermining get how that works. Mehgan and her PR camp, of course, are charter members of that particular club.
Nothing will change. Kate will keep moving forward to her continually upgraded status as Princess of Wales, then Queen Consort.
And William, particularly, has a long memory and a tendency to hold grudges. One day, as his influence and the shadow he casts on the Throne becomes ever longer, the opportunity will arise for him to call in this one, and he will.
"@Lizzie- The `psychic' could well be a plant from William, `mentioning' it to somebody he wasn't sure about as a test."
I think I must be missing something. Are you saying the person Will told as a test is the psychic supposedly quoted in the article? Or that Will told someone everything about consulting psychics? That he told this person one they consulted found him to be "open-hearted and lovely" and Kate was more "shut-down?" Or that those quotes were just made up by someone Will told? I'm just not getting it. And IF it was a test plant, it seems Will must not think there's much wrong with consulting psychics (which is fine with me. I'm not into that but if he is, fine. I can see though some would find it concerning given his future role in regard to the COE.) Otherwise why plant a damaging story just to test someone? I know some folks also thought he planted the Rose story as a test. That didn't make sense to me either. In his position I can understand being paranoid about who is trustworthy. But testing with damaging info doesn't make sense to me.
So, to labour the point of explaining:
* William makes up a story about a psychic visiting him and Catherine (and their reactions).
* William tells this story to someone he suspects of talking to the press (and to really bait the trap, he may do so in front of someone whom he trusts and who is in on the scam).
* He might have done this at the time that Tatler was asking for co-operation for this article.
* When the information about the psychic emerges in the Tatler story, William knows who talked to the magazine and gave the information for the article.
The leak is unlikely to be the psychic whom they supposedly consulted. The psychics/astrologers that Diane worked with only told all after she died. While she was alive, they wanted to keep her as a client and thus they were discreet. What would be the purpose of talking to Tatler but not revealing your name? Without your name, the consultation with William and Catherine cannot be used as advertising (the psychics/astrologers who spoke about Diane all gave their names and were photographed).
Besides, the Cambridges, via Kensington Palace, have stated that the article is full of untruths and misrepresentations. That can be seen as a blanket denial, t I suspect that a more precise denial is going to be issued in some way (we have never consulted psychics).
I cannot imagine William and Catherine consulting a psychic, but who would have thought that the Queen used 'ghost busters' to banish/talk to a ghost?
He's probably already got some safeguards in place, but it seems to me that this entrapment method is not foolproof.
Thanks. If that's the way it happened, I'd be pissed at Will if I were Kate! Why didn't he make her the "open-hearted and lovely" one in his faux test story?
And as @Teasmade said, it doesn't seem to be a foolproof method. Not only could the tested one have talked to someone else who then talked to the press, if Will did have a "co-conspirator" as @WBBM described, that person could have talked to the press too and might have especially if he didn't like the person being tested.
I'm not so sure a psychic wouldn't talk, especially if no longer consulted by W&K. (We've seen just about every other type of professional talk about royal connections.) And while speaking anonymously doesn't directly court business for the speaker, normalizing the use of psychics would help business.
I agree with your comment, I read the Tatler article with much the same view point as you. I’ve been reading Tatler for years,. Catherine has endured a lot of criticism over the years either for her background or the fact she’d never thrive within the upper echelons of the upper classes, and royalty and its hard matter of fact work regime. She’s not only thrived but surpassed the required merit mark. William chose well and wisely. :o)
But how does he know that the person being tested doesn't tell someone else, who then tells the media?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the whole point. If I want to know that you are a snitch, then I make sure you get a piece of information that is planted. When that emerges in the media, I know that you leaked, i.e. told someone, and you cannot be trusted and are thus banished!
It does not matter if the person themselves told the media or if they told someone else who spoke to the media ... the person set up in the trap was the initial source of the leak. (I swear I did not speak to the Tatler. Maybe not, but you spoke to someone who did speak to the Tatler. I told you the information was confidential. Banished!)
William obviously does not mind if people think he consults psychics (his mother did, as did his granny!).
I enjoyed your comment on this page and your comparison of the Disastrous Dumbarkles to 'Dangerous Liaisons'. I have often thought the same thing.
For those unfamiliar, it was a 1988 film starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich about two narcissists in the 18th century French court toying with the lives and reputations for sport. It was based on an epistolary novel, then play of the same title, and I really recommend everyone interested in the Harkle saga watch it or read it, preferably both. It was made a year later again as 'Valmont' starring Colin Firth and Annette Bening, and although there are good things in that one, I consider it the far weaker version, mostly because it is too sunny and toothless. The antagonists in it aren't nearly nasty enough, but they are more attractive certainly than their counterparts. These two are nasty pieces of work, though by the end of the film, we have some sympathy for Vicomte de Valmont, the Beta narcissist of the pair. He is in the Harry position. He enjoys his sport, but he gets sucked into the Marquise's machinations and continues far beyond the point he would have otherwise stopped because he is in love with the Marquise. He pretends not to be, but in the end, he is also one of her victims.
The Marquise, unlike Meg, is a very skillful and elegant Narc. She slips the knife in and not only does her victim not feel it . . the Marquise is nowhere near the scene when it happens. Additionally, she is, in public, impeccably groomed and dressed and impeccably charming. She is so successful in her schemes because she is such an admirable and accomplished style icon, everybody wants to know her and be approved by her.
Like Meg, her most dastardly plots are reserved for the woman she views as her chief rival, Mme. de Tourvel (Michelle Pfieffer), a young and beautiful virtuous wife. The Marquise is very threatened by this genuinely good . .nearly perfect . . wife of a high-ranking man and sets about destroying her reputation piece by piece, using planted gossip.
These people certainly sound familiar, don't they!
I put `psychic' in inverted commas to show I didn't mean it literally. I suspect it's an invented psychic he might `use' to fool somebody whom he doesn't entirely trust to keep their mouth shut. He would have to mention it to only one person, the one he was testing. no one else must hear it.
@Teasmade - that's the whole idea.
It has to be a juicy bit of fake gossip which the hearer finds difficult to keep to themselves. To be the only person with such information is be exciting - they can't keep it themselves - it gives them status in the eyes of their acquaintances and they blab. Then the person or persons they tell spreads it to other people and so on. Sooner or later it reaches the ears of journalists and finds its way into print.
It is then seen by the William's staff and relayed back to him. He knows there's only one possible source and that person is never entrusted with real confidential information again. They're `dropped' from any close relationship with KP. It wouldn't matter if they hadn't told the Press directly - they were the only agent responsible for the careless talk.
If it doesn't appear in print, Wm can have more confidence in their discretion. I assume it's worked for him in the past.
I've read that Wm is very cautious about not giving anything away.
@Sandie - what's this about ghostbusters? Do you mean HM has used them to stop others `talking to ghosts'?
Could it be a case of `You can't use reason to talk somebody out of a position they haven't been reasoned into'? That's a maxim used by a County Education RE Advisor when telling teachers not to try arguing with parents whose religious beliefs led them to demand special treatment for their child, beyond what the Law allows. I couldn't have talked my boss out of her weird (to me) beliefs but she might have responded to something irrational. I just left her to it.
I do see your point . . . a breach of confidence is a breach. I just meant that telling their spouses or friend is different from selling info to the DM or some other "official" outfit. But sure, if he said "Don't tell ANYone!" then telling anyone would certainly identify the leaker.
Los Angeles was one hotspot of the pandemic and New York City is, while on the downswing, still the global epicenter of COVID-19, so this feels so very Megsie. In other words, so daft it defies the belief of all sane persons. I'm thinkin' they must have worn out their welcome with Tyler Perry. Eight whole weeks . . that was MM's triumphant return to Hollywood via couch-surfing at someone else's home . . Again.
Newsflash to Meg: Just as the entertainment industry was shut down in L.A., it is also completely shut down in NYC. It does get JH, FKAP that much closer to London, though. Maybe this announcement is actually code for "Harry is leaving Meghan and going back home, but he's going to have to do it in stages, like."
This is in three parts.
**************************
When we put aside the justifiable anger that Meg stirs up with the destruction that she causes everywhere she goes, the depths of her delusions are actually very sad. Here is a woman that really never developed emotionally past the age of 11, when she got a taste of fame in a Nickelodeon video. Her showbiz-connected father sent her to all the best schools with children from wealthy families, some of whom were Hollywood elite. Many of Meg’s schoolmates Had the talent and connections to have an actual career in show business. I haven’t followed Katherine McPhee, though I know she placed highly in her season of American Idol, so I assume she does have actual vocal ability, and some albums to her credit. The more I hear about her however, the more similar to Meg she seems to me in her personal conduct, shallow relationships, and willingness to exploit her sexuality to snag a meal ticket husband. If Meg is now identifying herself as McPhee’s bestie, I say that’s a case of birds of a feather flocking together and yet another transactional relationship in the life of MeMe. Notice we don’t hear too much anymore about Misha N. or Jessica Mulroney. They have served their purposes, because Meg can’t get anything more useful out of them. Serena Williams has openly renounced her. So now she turns to this younger, prettier woman who’s had some success, with one of the most powerful husbands in Hollywood, and she will leech onto them for what she can get.
Had Meg chosen to focus on her father’s specialty of lighting, he might have been able to teach her something and introduce her into that segment of the business. But of course, doing the lights does not put Meg front and center on camera and that’s the only place she’s interested in being. I foresee an increasingly desperate Norma Desmond style post Royal career for Meghan, the difference being that Norma had a heyday. Meg never did, and has always been grasping far beyond her reach. Beyond narcissistic rage and malice… My non-psychiatric practitioner opinion of her I hasten to add...Meg’s chief failing is that she wants all the glory and all the money and all the non-stop adulation without doing anything to earn any of this. She just wants to be given it. She’s in for disappointment. She and Harry will be figures of notoriety for a few years yet and will milk that for every bit of cash, free lodging and free private planes that they can grift. But there is no there there with either one of them. They may as well be holograms. A life without substance is ultimately meaningless, and I think meaningless sums up the disastrous duo very well.
Tatler said "Kensington Palace knew we were running the 'Catherine the Great' cover months ago and we asked them to work together on it. The fact they are denying they ever knew is categorically false."
Knowing about the article and asking the Cambridges "to work together on it" is not mutually exclusive with "falsehoods and innaccuracies".
Did KP actually see a copy of the finished article? And approve it? Apparently not. I get so weary of this game of PR spin and half-truths.
My guess is that Tatler has made a grave mistake. The future King will not forget this. They have just made sure they will never have a moment's cooperation from any member of the Royal family until Gabriel blows a selection of Louis Armstrong hits.
To please a couple who are sliding into infamy and obscurity.
If anyone wants to see/hearit....Meghan singing "Santa Baby". With a friend in a high school performance
It's not as bad as I hoped.
She still can't dance, I hope. We know she can't act.
https://jerseydeanne.com/2020/05/27/meghan-singing/
I think it will have enraged him, and he must not lose his cool. They must stay on the high road. To quote Michelle Obama, “When they go low, we stay high.” They must keep saying this as a perhaps ironic mantra.
It would be helpful if Prince Charles or HMTQ could act with cooler heads. I agree it was a grave mistake on Tatler’s part. Amazing what these flailing periodicals have come to.
Where is decency?
One...Anna Paternak is apparently the executive producer of a movie adaptation of her book about Wallis Simpson. Possible that she write this current article to drum up interest in her movie?
Maybe she started out trying to piggyback on mm notoriety, but as mm becomes increasingly irrelevant, she decided to glom onto Catherine?
It seems in light of her other writings that she thinks she is the go to authority on duchesses.
https://womenandhollywood.com/film-adaptation-of-wallis-simpson-biography-the-american-duchess-in-the-works/
Two...so many touted mm as an independent woman, making her own money, a staunch feminist, like she was the first woman ever to do this.
But if it's cool for mm to earn her own money, why are they beating up Carole Middleton for starting a business and making it into a rather successful one?
Why is it ok for mm but not for Carole? I don't understand the animosity towards Carole Middleton.
Complaints that Carole was bossy and particular about the Amner Hall renovation, but laud mm for being a micro manager with the Frogmore Cottage renovation?
And if we're going to go after Duchess's mothers, why aren't we going after mm's mother who appears to have much more shade in her background?
In a lot of ways, this appears to be as much of a hit piece on the Middletons as it is on Catherine. An effort to put them in their place.
The Latte of the Day goes to you for this inspired riff:
My guess is that Tatler has made a grave mistake. The future King will not forget this. They have just made sure they will never have a moment's cooperation from any member of the Royal family until Gabriel blows a selection of Louis Armstrong hits.
I was a bit surprised too that Tatler was so b*tchy to Catherine, but it's the aristo rag and therein lies the pitfall. Apparently there are still many within aristo circles that will *never* accept Kate, even as their future Queen (most especially because she will be their future Queen) because generations ago, her mother's people mined for coal, Carole was an air hostess without a posh address growing up and Kate's father is that most distasteful of creatures, 'in trade' . .which is one step up from a social disease in their world.
Harry's louche and layabout lifestyle is profoundly distasteful to most of us whose lowlier circumstances of birth mean that we are forced to work for a living, but according to the aristo code, being gentleborn means, by definition, that one does not Work, darling, how grubby. If someone who has had to work, or whose parents have had occupations attempts to join their circle . . that is the cardinal and most grievous sin of Social Climbing. It may as well be called Indecent Exposure for the horrified outrage it stirs in some of the so-targeted. So for some of that circle most dedicated to the age-old traditions of aristocracy, it doesn't matter a whit that Kate obtained the same schooling as a royal prince (doing better in her courses by all accounts--Wills began in Art History but dropped out for another subject after a year or two, while C. won departmental honors), learned how to talk posh, ditched the roller-skating hotpants and tiny dresses and calls herself 'Catherine' exclusively now. To them, she will always be the predatory Wisteria Sister whose Mum used to be a sky waitress and say 'Doors to Manual'.
In the States, while it is fair to say that there is still a respect for and snobbery among 'old family money' . . generally, the descendants of the Mayflower Pilgrims, and other tycoons of industry from the Victorian era who have had their money and property long enough to be considered what passes for old money here--the adage goes that "In England, 100 miles is a long way; in America, 100 years is a long time"--in general, 'new money' is the only kind that we've got here. We absolutely love a rags to riches success story. The 'self-made man' is in fact the American ideal. Being rich and important merely because your daddy and his daddy before him were rich and important, and popped their clogs and left it all to you to loaf around ad infinitum lacks character in our lexicon.
Considering the opposition and scorn she has faced and continues to face, Catherine is doing amazingly well. Her poise, and that of her entire family, deeply impressed me on their wedding day, and continues to. Were Catherine the First Lady of this country, her background would be celebrated in every ladies' magazine coast-to-coast. Her parents own and operate one of the, if not *the* top online retail party business in the UK and are worth millions of pounds. In American terms, the Middletons are aspirational figures and resounding successes. And definitely not 'middle class'. Carole Middleton may be 'exacting' but that quality has contributed to her family's success. It may not be fair to label Catherine as the 'Kingmaker', but her mother can certainly be called 'the Queenmaker'. Seeing how good Catherine is for William, I don't think that's a bad thing.
I was thinking Tightgate. Tights area finished look and she hasn't had that in a while. Details. And, while we've been thinking about little girls getting blisters, if she's been buying shoes which are way too large, then she's not going to be thinking of that as a potential problem for the kids. (It could have been a distraction erupting just when she is about to have all eyes on her, which luckily did not happen.) It could be about imposing her Cali values of how you dress little girls while having the pomp and magistry running the look and feel of her wedding.
I'm wondering if the Tatler piece ran late and then they were stuck with what they had received. And yes, I bet PW will remember this for a long time.
I liked the comparison of PW concerned about how he fits into the picture in a way which is all about others/his duty and M is why aren't others doing more to make me feel like I fit in/their duty. Nice.
I so agree With your comments.
Regarding the transactional nature of her women friendships: I wonder if MM was not after a woman friend, per se, but using the women to go after her man?
Ben Mulroney: TV host, but more importantly, son of a former Prime Minister. Only worth about 10 milliin, but serious prestige.
Alex Ohanion - Serenas husband is a co-founder and chairman of Reddit, (worth a couple of billion) along with other companies. We saw her behaving inappropriately with him at Serenas match.
Misha Nonoo - Mikey Hess, the heir to an oil fortune worth a billion plus. His own fortune is worth 600 million.
Amal Clooney - George Clooney is not only Hollywood royalty, but he's worth about 500 million
Priyanka Chopra - Nick Jonas is only worth about 25 million, but it's not tied up in a trust, he's going to make more, and there are no pesky rules attached.
David Foster- worth about 80 million. And in his 70s. Got to be a plus to a thirsty girl like Megsy.
And just for fun:
Anthony Joshua- the British/ Nigerian boxer Megs was flirting with (and touching, despite Covid 19 guidelines) at the Commonwealth Service is worth 80 million. And he is single.
Justin Welby - Me g is over the top flirty with the Prince of the Church. Pure coincidence he's worth 62 million?
Prince Charles - worth about 400 million. And we have all seen Megsy seriously flirting with him. We have also seen Camillas response to Meg. She laughs at her.
And finally,
Catherine Cambridge. Could her rage at the Cambridges be rooted in Catherine's refusal to allow Me g into her inner circle, and Williams open disdain? Perhaps Megsy threw a pass early on that William not only didn't catch, but told Kate about.
A rumour about an affair would be particularly painful to a faithful husband.
THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2020
Blind Item #5
Of course the alliterate former actress had a member of her group be the source/instigator for the tabloid hit job on the family members she can't stand.
In the States, while it is fair to say that there is still a respect for and snobbery among 'old family money' . . generally, the descendants of the Mayflower Pilgrims, and other tycoons of industry from the Victorian era who have had their money and property long enough to be considered what passes for old money here--the adage goes that "In England, 100 miles is a long way; in America, 100 years is a long time"--in general, 'new money' is the only kind that we've got here. We absolutely love a rags to riches success story. The 'self-made man' is in fact the American ideal. Being rich and important merely because your daddy and his daddy before him were rich and important, and popped their clogs and left it all to you to loaf around ad infinitum lacks character in our lexicon.
Yes, this. The saying "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" is apt here as well. I'm not a huge fan of lineages and bloodlines. I want to know what that particular person has done. I think there is more shame in being a layabout (regardless of social standing) than a person engaged in honest work.
As you point out, all of MeGain's short-lived female 'friends' have wealthy & influential husbands. MeMe glommed onto Mischa N., Priyanka & Serena before their current marriages, but I could definitely see her making a play for the husbands. In the case of Serena, we *did* see it, in tawdry living color . . our American 'Royal Duchess' in the stands at the Open practically doing a Sharon Stone in the short denim skirt to give Serena's hubby a look at her lady bidness. I think she waved her rump suggestively at him when she was standing up as well. The Open was the end of her 'friendship' with Serena Williams, no doubt. Serena had asked her point blank not to come to the match. But there's MeMe, horning into the Williams family box next to their mother . . spending the entire match making goo-goo eyes at herself on the Jumbotron, fiddling with her merch-du-jour dinkety trinkets and shaking her a$$ at Serena's husband. The distractions would have been extreme. Serena's mom's face said it all.
According to the rumor mill, Mikey Hess is gay, but Megs would probably relish the challenge. Mischa was instrumental as part of the Soho House crowd that had something to do with engineering the introductions to Harry. Whether MM actually met H. at the Invictus dinner in Toronto catered by MM's then-boyfriend Cory or not, Meg seemed able to keep tabs on Harry for over a year no matter where he was in the world, and the Soho House contacts may have helped with that.
Basically Meg only knows one way of being with people: She sizes them up as marks for what they can give her. When the mark is male, overt flirtation/signalling sexual availability. I know we don't have any verifiable proof that Megsie was ever on the game, but she meets all the markers of being a seasoned professional to the casual observer. It is a form of 'acting' after all, and she's about as subtle at it as she has been with any of her other acting gigs.
Meg reserves particular rage for Catherine, not *only* because C. married into a higher position within the Firm, although that is a big part of it. You can see the wheels turning behind the limpidly calculating gaze she turns upon William . .and even upon Wills's 71 year old dad . . "I deserve the top spot as much as they do, dammit'" . .That Charles was charmed by Meg, I can believe . .but did she ever seriously think Chuck would toss over Camilla, love of his life, for his son's actress hussy? Really, it's laughable. Meg's belief in her own irresistiblity would be funny if it weren't so deluded. A father making a play for his son's wife is, however, fodder for a great many low-rent Hollywood screenplays, so that bolsters Meg's delusions all the more.
William is tempting fruit, though . . her own age and far more accessible.
Kate snagged the more desirable Prince, but she herself is so much of what Megs aspires to be and isn't . .sylphlike, tall, looks like a dream in clothes, great hair, great complexion, all the perks of a glam squad that obviously were never given Megsie . . three healthy attractive children whose paternity (not to mention maternity) is beyond dispute, one of whom will also be the heir . . presumably even Meghan would have to draw the line at flirting with George, but were he 10 years older, I believe she would do it . .
Meg hates Catherine because C. shatters the self-deluded mirror Meg prefers and shatters Meg's carefully constructed facade. Side-by-Side the comparison is just too painful. We've got the poisonous looks Meg gives C. preserved in photos for all eternity. It amazes me that Meg is still able to fool anybody. Her nakedly grasping and malicious interior is *right there* in the photos, with their gimlet stare.
Man, she really has a hard on for Catherine, doesn't she.
I can believe 100% that this hit piece MM's handiwork. Fortunately, anyone actually reading Tatler at this point knows Kate's friends never speak to the press, but MM's often do. I doubt very much anyone reading Tatler, in hard copy or online, would believe that Kate is complaining.
The RF probably already suspects that MM is behind this hit piece, which means she and Harry are further ostracizing themselves. The negative press about Kate is fleeting, but William will not forget and that does not bode well for H&M's future funds from the palace.
I thought the same thing back in March when the Sussex camp was expressly told, do not make social media posts during Camilla's speech. But they did, and was a few hours of limelight worth it? Camilla looked aghast at the Commonwealth Day services when she saw MM.
Way back when, we likened MM to Bertha Mason; now she's the Marquise de Merteuil.
Both Jane Eyre and Les Liaisons Dangereuses were set books for my OU Arts degree, as was Kit Marlowe's play Dr Faustus.
What a coincidence!
I read the Tatler article intently and this is my opinion. It is 100% Meghan Markle. I feel that she actually penned it. No leaks from William or Kate's camps. You can feel the disguised venom dripping from the article. Meghan feels that she is a masterful writer and can cause readers to believe what she wishes to convey by weaving a tapestry. This is now emerging as her style. She outwardly pats these stories with glitter, but the inside is literal shit. There are so many swipes at Kate, it's hard to know where to start. What is startling, is her absolute hatred of Kate.
The world only knows Kate outwardly but there are some things that are definite about her personality that the public can be sure of. Kate does display warmth, she may be a bit snobbish, but she is clearly private. The main thing that is evident with Kate is the absolute love and devotion she has for William. She loves that man intently and of course subsequently their children. She's a very loving mother and seems to gel very well with children. Sure Carole probably groomed her girls to marry up, but so what? Carole probably had enough connections with higher social class people that she wanted that for her daughters. The Middleton gripes in the piece are really ineffective. I can promise you that if my daughter started dating an English Prince, I would encourage that relationship too.
It's notable that there are very few swipes at William, except that bizarre piece about Will and Kate seeing a psychic. That reads as Meghan for sure. She doesn't like the idea that Wills is viewed as so level headed and intelligent compared to Harry. She doesn't like that Wills is viewd to have progressed much further mentally in processing Diana's death compared to Harry, so she mentions the psychic. Boy, she is working hard to try to bring them down. I sense she is somewhat nervous of William, probably more so than any other member of the RF. I wonder what William will do about this. I'm sure he'll keep a stiff upper lip probably, but he's gotta make some move. Get out the scarf Wills!
Harry is so, so, so, SO stupid.
“I have been wondering why the vulnerability Meghan showed on the South African documentary (no one asked me if I was OK) was so annoying and caused such a backlash, yet William, in this documentary, admitting to such vulnerability that he would not wear his contact lenses (I can relate!) is so endearing.”
I think the difference in public perception of this is also down to how each of the handled it.
William had a fear of public speaking. He identified what he thought to be an issue, found a solution, and put said solution into use. There was no grand announcement when it happened. He didn’t whine about other people not helping him with a solution. He didn’t just stop giving speeches because it made him nervous. He's talking about it now to help others.
Meghan on the other hand whined loudly and inappropriately with a complete lack of regard for where she was (South Africa) and was technically WORKING on behalf of HM. She then complained that no one helped her, and her solution was to turn tail and run- first to Canada then to LA.
IMO, it boils down to her having a victim mentality.
I think this may be some ammunition for their own lawsuit. Perhaps she is hoping that W&K would sue Tatler over this piece and help bolster the lawsuit against the Mail.
If you read the passages of "what Kate thinks" in the Tatler article, it sounds just like things the "friends" have said on MM's behalf to the press. Not sure how else to describe it.
They have been living in other people's houses for months now. Why haven't they secured their own housing?
"They have been living in other people's houses for months now. Why haven't they secured their own housing?"
I have a feeling they won't purchase/rent their own place until their one year trial period is up. I have a feeling they asked for Prince Charles to pony up some financial assistance for this. I think he's making them wait until the one year is up because in the event that they (or just Harry) come back, it won't be a waste of money.
I just don't understand how they are broke. On top of their own considerable pile of cash, PC is still supporting them to the tune of about 2.5 million a year. That's over 200k a month. If they aren't paying rent, then where is all that money going?
These secret, sneaky attacks from Meghan are worrisome but Wills is the bright spot here. The Queen is too elderly, Charles doesn't want trouble and has a lot of guilt about Harry, but Will is intelligent and canny enough to see through Meghan. I am picturing that wonderful, enigmatic smile he had on his face at Archie's christening. :)
The housing issue is so strange. There can only be a few reasons for it. 1- They don't know where they really want to go. 2- They don't have the funds for anything that they really want. 3- Marital issues and/or indecision on the part of Harry about whether he wants to return to England or not. Can anyone thing of any other reasons?
CookieShark- Good point about suing the Tatler. I think Wills is too smart to fall for that. To my knowledge, the only time he sued papers was when they took those long lens topless pics of Kate, but that was to prove a very important point that has set a precident.
These secret, sneaky attacks from Meghan are worrisome but Wills is the bright spot here. The Queen is too elderly, Charles doesn't want trouble and has a lot of guilt about Harry, but Will is intelligent and canny enough to see through Meghan. I am picturing that wonderful, enigmatic smile he had on his face at Archie's christening. :)
The housing issue is so strange. There can only be a few reasons for it. 1- They don't know where they really want to go. 2- They don't have the funds for anything that they really want. 3- Marital issues and/or indecision on the part of Harry about whether he wants to return to England or not. Can anyone thing of any other reasons?
____________________________________
Maybe all 3?
Somewhat related: this story about moving to New York: they will need a big place to crash if they are bringing this supposed toddler AND two medium-size dogs, it seems to me. Just having dogs at all in the city seems difficult to me, but then I am a cat person.
NYC would be quite expensive. Not just the location (being on the right streets) but that the space needed would expand to cover the nanny, the room for security to hang, the offices and so on. And the walls are a very different vibe (hint: not open and airy in the same was as LA). And, it is harder to get a place where the board will make you qualify and approve or not approve your application.
Easier to stay in LA, closer to her comfort area/connections and probably well visualized dreams. A pied a terre in NYC can come later in the dream for the future I would guess.
The middle class has long been a threat, too close to comfort, I suppose, to the top drawer crowd (some of them look down on the RF for being `middle class'. It was even said that Diana was higher class/grander/posher than Charles because Daddy was an earl.)
I read that Carole was sneered at because she used the word `toilet' - that's taboo because it's harking back to French and the presumed need of those who use it to appear educated, ie it's pretentious and twee.The Uppers may say `lavatory', which my mother (lower-middle at best) thought was `common'. Had she learnt to say `loo' she might have been OK, as Carole might have done.
(btw The use of `toilet' by tough guys in US films falls very oddly on English ears!)
The English class system is not entirely based on money but that's best if it's inherited, like the house(s), land and chattels, not bought with money one has earned. It's lineage, education and being `well connected' by birth.
The Uppers may see this mobility as `climbing' so it's best done very gradually, over the generations, no elbows, no trampling over others but with grace..
How like MM to criticise for the Middletons for the very thing she does.
Can you imagine Carole's joy when she learned that Kate and William were striking up a friendship and then romance?! She hit the literal jackpot with that .
Meghan scratches, claws, uses, dumps, crawls over friends, boyfriends, etc, etc to better herself.
New blog post - "What do we know to be true about Meghan?"
https://nuttyflavor88.blogspot.com/2020/05/what-do-we-know-to-be-true-about-meghan.html
Have you ever noticed how many self-proclaimed "humanitarians" were really horrible people?
Her Maj (I am sure it was arranged by some courtier and not by the Queen herself) got in some ghostbusters to banish a ghost at I think it was Windsor Castle. It was a long time ago,
In about 2001 HM arranged a service at Sandringham to allay the fears of si=ome staff members who did not want to work in a room they believed to be haunted. Service conducted by local parson and attended by Queen, Queen Mother and a lady in waiting
Are either use of “toilet”
Isn’t it odd that in this one particular instance, the French term is perceived as déclassé! And just about every other situation I can name, if you want to posh something up, you use the French. The Norman derived words in English have a posher connotation then the Anglo-Saxon ones… “Fragrance“ sounds so much better than “stench“. Nowadays we reserve stench for only the terrible smells, but once upon a time both of those words meant exactly the same. Even in our bourgeois, new money society Stateside, “Toilet” is considered impolite. You might say “I need the toilet” if you are in your own house, but if you visit a public establishment, or even a private home, 99.8% of people would never ask “where is the toilet?“ We ask for the restroom, or perhaps the bathroom, in public or in the company of others not in our own inner circle. Only truckers are other rough characters would be likely to blurt out where is the toilet, or perhaps where is the John?
There shouldn’t be anything inherently wrong with asking for the toilet… After all, we all know why we are going there, and we neither rest in the restroom no I take a bath in the bathroom unless we are at home. Americans generally learn from a very early age that in
Public, if we are out of elementary school, the appropriate word is restroom.
It's notable that there are very few swipes at William, except that bizarre piece about Will and Kate seeing a psychic.
I thought the magazine cover itself was also a swipe at William, they've literally covered him up with the name, he's barely visible. I wonder if they also shaded his image a little, it seems a bit weird that he's so much in shadow compared to Kate when it's clearly a picture taken of them as a couple. Surely they could have found a suitable solo picture of Kate instead of choosing one where they "had to hide him in the corner" - to me that's either sloppy or deliberate and although I'm not that familiar with Tatler, I don't think they have a reputation for sloppiness (sloppyness?).
Here's a link to the DM image of it for ease of finding:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/05/28/07/28900944-8363199-Anger_The_Tatler_article_has_incensed_Kensington_Palace_Accordin-a-2_1590647808944.jpg
Your comments on the recent article on Catherine has some very intriguing original thoughts which really adds to the discussion here.
@Wild Boar Battle Maid
Your comments as usual are so informative on things we wouldn't normally know about eg. genealogy, the life habits/attitudes among UK people in the past. etc... which gives an insight many of us would have no clue about, so it is much appreciated by me.
I think that too, that a house would be a very big deal in a divorce and Meg would do her best to get the whole thing plus more.
Having lived in Calif. and personally litigated there years ago, it used to be that if one put one's separate property (as Trust funds would be) into the purchase of a residence then when it is sold or disposed of through a divorce one would be able to get back ones invested separate monies. This happened to me as I got back all of my money from the marital home in direct proportion to the separate funds I invested.
I suspect the law is still the same. However where it becomes complicated is, if the couple also used community property towards the mortgage payments However Harry has a clear right to claim his funds (inheritance and gifts from TQ or Charles) to be his separate property IMO..
Some (many) months ago these legal issues were discussed at length. If you know something different I am interested in learning though.
Funny you should mention `fragrance' - according to Jilly Cooper (1985) that's declasse too!
The U crowd still tended say `scent', rather than `perfume' (from `parfum')as even I still do. `Fragrance' is an advertiser's term, possibly because they're aiming at a wider demographic for whom `scent' might be perceived as `too foxy'!
Uppers are rather blunt in their language (think PC's `c-struck') and detest euphemism.
Sorry, we're `two nations separated by a common language'.