It seems so fresh, Meg and Harry's wedding ceremony. Could it have really been just two years ago that Meg stepped out of the Rolls Royce Phantom IV that had also been used by Wallis Simpson, wearing the long veil that the Queen supposedly had specifically ordered her not to wear?
Was it only 24 months ago that we were all really wondering if Thomas Markle (or any of the Markles) would show up for their darling Meghan's second - or third - wedding?
Could it have been just 104 weeks since the world was waiting to see Meg's wedding dress, only to see her enter St. George's Chapel in something that looked like she made it herself with a Simplicity pattern and an IKEA sewing machine? (Even Meg's supporters said it looked like it was lacking "one last fitting.")
Has it only been 730 days since Harry's lifelong friends like Tom Inskip were denied tickets to the reception dinner to make room for new friends Oprah, Idris Elba, Priyanka Chopra, and George and Amal Clooney, most of whom appear to have now cut their ties with the bride and groom?
Yes, it has been. May 19, 2020 will be Meghan and Harry's second wedding anniversary.
Cotton for a second anniversary gift
The traditional second anniversary gift is "cotton."
If you were to give Meg and Harry a second anniversary gift, what would it be?
Comments
They have accomplished so, so much in 2 years. Far more than many do in 5 or the 7 year (itch).
Cotton may be appropriate but in what format? Maybe fabric? she could sew some clothes for herself or Archie? face masks for people on the front lines like the postal workers?
Knowing Meg, she's launching an organic cotton fashion line for the entire family. She's always one to give back as long as you BUY from her.
I think my cotton gift would have to be a new shirt for Harry.
Nothingburger there.
Maybe a cotton hanky with a knot tied in it, to remind them that independence isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.
Where will they be and what stage will their lives be at in another 2 years time?
The only gift that they deserve is a divorce.
For Harry a set of cotton T-shirts in bright colours. That dull cement colour one he wears non-stop is mauvais ton. That will go nicely with an iron from Humor Me.
And to her a set of good-fitting non-lacy underwear in neutral colours. Can't forget her flashing her black lacy bra, that was a cringe. Although it may prove difficult because the shape and size of her chest is changing all the time. Perhaps a nice set of furniture covers and curtains for their eventual home instead. Nah, too much. Simply some eco friendly dusters.
Looks like Jess beat meg to the cotton PJs lol
https://smashtess.ca/pages/jessica-mulroney-x-s-t-bridal-collection-preview
Very funny! Shorts for Archie. Poor chap was in his diaper for all world to see. How embarrassing for him later on.
Actually I find Harry Markle's post correctly asking questions. If Markles had been given access codes and participants agreed to it then Ricky Neal simply lies about "surprise taking over" and "gatecrashing the meeting" by them.
If they had not been given the codes (how did they get in then??) they might be in violation of the medical privacy laws.
Either way it is bad for the charity. The fact that Neal had to change his comment section to private means people were not very happy with the whole thing. Another PR disaster for everybody involved.
I totally agree.
Either Ricky Neal, from Crisis Text Line, lied to the public when he said H&M "crashed" the meeting and he lied when he said they "took over" the meeting by surprise. Or possibly he was lied to a higher-up at the charity. And possibly he was lied to by Harry and Meghan.
Whoever was lying (and somebody certainly was) it was a really stupid idea. Can't believe anyone thought it made sense given the work the charity does. It might not have seemed such a clueless thing to do if H&M hadn't already suggested people with too much time on their hands while in lockdown study online to quickly become mental health counselors. At the very least, it reinforced the belief that for all their blathering about mental health issues, they don't "get it."
As she is embarrassed by her feet, I'll make it several pairs of white ankle socks.
ttps://belltentboutique.co.uk/products/4m-bell-tent?variant=15864271667243¤cy=GBP&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrvT0_4S-6QIVgevtCh27Qgd-EAQYASABEgIM_PD_BwE
I had to work on the day of the wedding, and I remember sneaking into the breakroom with some other staff to have a peek at the dress. I didn't know who she was, other than she was an American.
The next day I was off and my parents were coming to visit. I poured a glass of Prosecco and ate Tim Tams while I watched a replay of the wedding. I thought her dress looked heavy and like winter fabric.
Fast forward to today. I miss my parents, and they only live a few hours away. I cannot imagine how isolated and sad Harry must feel, living in LA and unable to see his family because of the pandemic. Much was said of how MM must feel, missing her mom who lives in LA. How does she think Harry feels?
It is interesting that MM's own mother is a social worker. Doria's job as a "clinical therapist" is often referenced in stories about MM. One might think Meghan would have more respect for her mother's training?
I'm pretty sure M used the term "clinical therapist" on her blog to describe Doria's work. That terminology would be unusual in most parts of the US if used to describe a credentialed professional. (Anyone can claim to be a "therapist" in most states-- it's not a protected term. Maybe she used it before Doria earned the degree?) Regardless, I do wonder if she knows much about Doria's training. Doria's MSW is from USC and it would have taken her 2-3 years of year-round study to earn the degree, not a few months in lockdown. I guess it's like everything else with M. Pesky details don't sink in. That wouldn't be so bad if she was willing to take advice from people who do master details.
You know what Scarlett's remedy was when Suellen threw a hissy fit about being too good to work with her hands ...
So many great gift ideas for a second anniversary. Personally, I (I am a functional person) would go for curtains...not only good for privacy, but can come in handy if trying to escape from a second story of a mansion--in case Harry or Arche decide to do a Great Escape. Although for MM, perhaps a spring dress with a daring slit up the side, just in case they are out walking the dog and she needs that extra bit of attention for a paps photo.
I've seen it reported M paid for Doria's graduate school but I've not seen that directly claimed by M. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
I think people assumed it must be true given that the tuition would have been $50K per year. And someone who had been bankrupt less than a decade before couldn't have had much in savings. But I don't know what Doria inherited from her father in 2011 other than the $900K house. Guess she could have mortgaged that for tuition and there are student loans. So who knows.
But if M did pay $100K-$150K over several years for Doria to earn a mental health degree, it's even odder she seemed to think people could easily do the same thing while in lockdown. Although if she did pay, it would partly explain why Thomas seemed to think M should help him. (I do believe he, not Doria, paid for much of M's private schooling including at NWU. And while children don't have the responsibility to pay back their parents, I can sort of see why TM might have been irritated.)
'Cotton Gag Order' . . .Love it! Thanks to DesignDoctor for that, and a large latte of your choice to you!
I'm still dealing with some inner rage over having been bamboozled by the 'Fairytale Romance' narrative into getting up well before dawn that morning and even taking a half day off work to watch that Corpse Bride Zombie Show. It was a beautiful morning, and my very first impression of the bride was favorable. Her dress was very plain but I thought it suited her at first. The quizzically flat and messy hair did give me pause. I did so want to believe in the Meg & Harry fairytale to the point where I interpreted Harry's visible nerves as an excited bridegrrom in love. We were so misled.
Having had 104 weeks to pick over every detail of this toxic S**tShow since then, I marvel that they pulled it off. Apparently future King Wills was not able to defy the weight of expectation and tradition and refuse to stand up as a witness to that travesty of the institution of marriage. Rumor has it that he did put his foot down and refused to affix his name to the wedding register as an official, legal witness. Good for him . . but had he steadfastly refused to be any part of that travesty wedding, what would have happened? Makes one wonder . . .
Now that we know that 'Hero Hazza, Loveable Soldier-Prince' was the most exquisitely crafted line of image rehabilitation BS by the departed Edward Lane Fox and we've been getting unwelcome doses of the 'real' unvarnished Hazza since he pledged his eternal troth to his colorful, multiply married ex-actress, it becomes crystal clear that Meg and Harry are very well-matched. Not in the ways that support a healthy and successful marriage, but they are exquisitely matched in terms of mental pathology and having lived mutual lives of carefully constructed facades until they had the misfortune to meet. The misfortune is ours, by the way . .not theirs, though one could certainly argue that this alliance has not been in any way good for Harry. But he was dim enough to think that it would be.
I will not say any more about Archie here other than that I believe the narrative that he is Meg and Harry's actual child is fraudulent. I believe this 'romance' was fraudulent from the get-go. Oh, Harry most likely made Meg's acquaintance circa 2016, whether on a yacht or at that Invictus dinner. They may have had a brief time of fun together pursuing their mutual hobbies. I do not believe that Harry ever viewed Meg has the companion of his future life and was in fact done with her 5 or 6 months into their acquaintance. About par for the course with his litany of disposable girlfriends. She could have weaseled her way back into his life via blackmail, but that doesn't really explain Haz's seemingly wholehearted participation in laying the charges to blow up relations with his own family and his frankly self-destructive behavior like abandoning his military charities in favor of trolling for jobs for his wife.
I think the Harkle situation is even a bit more insidious than straight out blackmail, if that is possible. The Soho House brain trust that introduced these two went to work on Harry, I think and convinced him that in Meg, he'd found just the woman to be the Diana 2.0 to hitch his wagon to and create the power couple to unseat his brother and Catherine. Meg would help Harry to Matter and to be seen the world over as the better man than his brother. And while they were at it, they'd stick it to Harry's father, at whom Haz continues to nurse unresolved rage, for their extravagant lifestyle. Harry knows he's got his father over a barrel--considering his marital history, Charles cannot come out publicly as critical of Harry's choice of wife and Charles knows it.
There's definitely blackmail or threats of it going on, but it's not Meg blackmailing Harry in order to become a Duchess--it's Harry being complicit in the blackmail of his entire family and their way of life through this toxic woman he married.
Yeah, we were deceived on a grand scale and the pathetic spectacle we are now subjected to is what it looks like when the glass coach is turned back into a pumpkin. It doesn't seem like anybody who really knows Meg is surprised that she couldn't make a go of her showmance for more than a year before cutting bait. Germaine Greer called that before the wedding day, but even she might be surprised that Meg bolted six months before her second anniversary.
Cosmic jokes, both of them.
I think they were just borrowing Archie for an hour, and hence, no appropriate baby wardrobe.
https://twitter.com/Redredred80
They are not big fans of the Sussex duo
Just pondering.
for Harry https://i5.wal.co/asr/87586073-d780-4983-8f91-ef32d95173d5_1.75be8d2fba19559a813d4f8526c2b69b.jpeg?odnWidth=2000&odnHeight=2000&odnBg=ffffff
done. sorry
I thought Doria looked very nice on the wedding day. Having to face global scrutiny with no other family members there for moral support would be utterly nerve-racking for anyone. I can't say the mother of the bride ever looked happy during that wedding. She was definitely emotional but it wasn't happiness . . I'd say more like fear. She better than anyone present knew what Harry was getting himself into, even if Harry didn't at the time.
He's had ample time to find out since. To quote Ben Franklin, "Marry in haste; repent in leisure." Haz is at that repentance stage now and has been since at the very least 5 months after the wedding with the debut of Bump and that whole charade.
There's a shot of Doria looking speculatively at her new son-in-law and licking her lips like a fox studying a chicken dinner. Maybe her lips were just dry, but for the uncharitable among us (which would have to include me, I'm afraid), you could practically see the dollar signs in her eyes and hear the cha-ching bells over Archibishop Welby's voice.
I was under the impression re. Doria's licensure that she has actually never reached the stage where she'd accumulated enough hours as a trainee under supervision required to practice alone and that MSW was the next stage which she never completed. Be that as it may, both sides of Meg's family have documented mismanagement of money and Doria appears to have spent some time incarcerated for fraud relating to Social Security benefits and/or her late father's estate. Money, and attaching themselves to men who have it seems to figure prominently in the MO of Meg and her mom. Apple not falling far and all that. Doria is half responsible for Meg and maybe even more than half if, as reports suggest it was she who counseled her daughter to only make relationships with people who could do favors for her.
What do we think are the chances that when Tyler Perry kicks the squatters out of his mansion that that HFKAP will be crashing at his mother-in-law's place and broadcasting his sporadic videos from her laundry room? Maybe he is already . . .
Yeah, we were deceived on a grand scale and the pathetic spectacle we are now subjected to is what it looks like when the glass coach is turned back into a pumpkin.
_______________________________________
Nice to see you back again :)
what it looks like when the glass coach is turned back into a pumpkin.
File this one under things I wish I'd thought of.
You know, looking back, I remember the thoughts/feelings about the Harkle marriage pretty clearly. Those thoughts followed a definite progression.
Before the engagement interview -- "Wow, a biracial, educated, vivacious wife, how cool! Well done, Harry!" (Didn't know Markle from Adam -- these were first impressions)
During engagement interview -- "Uhhh … you're not 'stepping over' your fiancé's conversation …?" to "Something's not right here. Feels phony. Ahh, must be imagination."
Fast-forward to wedding. (In the interim, all kinds of 'Duchess Difficult' stuff. I researched Markle's past during that time, and things began to coalesce.) The Dad stuff was appalling. The dress looked like a home-ec class project. And the nattering preacher (!). The looks on the Royal Family's faces said it all.
A lot of unsavory water under the bridge. Then came the ditching of the Royal Marines to p ! m p Meghan out to Disney.
That cemented it, for good and for all. I hope they keep on like the two pinballs they are, bouncing around through eternity, empty of anything that makes them human, stepping in pile after pile of dog doo, their only supporters a bunch of rabid stans. I don't know how even Harry dares show his face in Britain again.
Since then, much more water under the bridge. Here the Harkles are, homeless in gilded shelters, relying Blanche DuBois-like, on the kindness of strangers. Wondering, "why don't they love us?"
Time to drag Archiewell, or Arccchhhkkkkh-hack-hack-hack-a-well, or whatever, out of his box and hope the cute kid card works, I guess. It didn't before, but what the h3ll, it's all they've got. By the bye, O Golden Ones, where's this magical charity "source of strength" website no one is clamoring for? The probationary 12-month review is almost half over … tick, tock …
______________________
So there it is -- the evolution of excitement and hope, to hopes suffocated under progressive layers of slime, to a cold anger, and ultimately contempt. Nice job, Harkles! Maybe you'll be the subject of a psychiatric study someday. Researchers pay sometimes up to $25 per diem. Gotta pay back the renovation debt somehow when you're financially independent! So what if it takes till 2099!
(Sez to self, Don't hold back, Nyota -- how do you really feel, LOL)
Agree with your post. Doria looked like she knew what was a head at the wedding. But this is her financial survival--she has no visible means of support and appears to never have really been able to support herself. To me she often looks a little in fear of her daughter. Perhaps the financials make her do whatever her daughter asks or she is basically paid to be a "poster mom". I don't know, none of us do. But I do know that she isn't the best for giving life advice and I truly believe she is the shell company for all the money MeMe has made under the table since becoming a "Royal".
You and I can not hold back together . . I feel the same.
Entirely coincidently I stumbled upon an email exchange between myself and a friend in May 2018, where we are discussing our excitement over the impending nuptials and our plans for how we were going to watch. Only then did I remember that tomorrow is the 2nd anniversary of that day which will live in infamy. It was already infamous as the day Henry VIII had Anne Boleyn's head cut off, but that event has been supplanted by the ongoing royal soap opera.
If that was in fact supposed to be Eugenie's wedding day originally, she must be glad to have been shot of it. Bad karma surrounds May 19th. I think all brides should avoid that day in future but it it would be OK for funerals.
It crossed my mind after that disastrous engagement interview that Meg was just marrying into the Royal family for the swag. Here she was, an actress in her late 30s who hadn't made much of a go of the acting thing and was now out of a job. The pinnacle of her now truncated career was fourth lead on a basic cable show filmed in Canada . . and a royal prince falls into her lap (Literally, I'm guessing. Or maybe she fell into his lap while dancing . . ) Anyhoo, we couldn't blame her for snapping up that opportunity, could we? I figured she was going to be expensive for the Family but also figured she'd play along with at least the bare modicum of charity work and adherence to etiquette demanded by her new role. Because of all the things I suspected Megsy of being in those early days, "stupid" was not one of them.
But she is, very, very stupid. And immature. Had she been smart, she could have milked the Duchess role for decades and played the part people expected to see. Being stripped of everything and homeless in under two years was never part of the plan . . but she's done it to herself. And taken Harry down with her. Along came a global pandemic to halt her grasping plans for world domination in their tracks. Since I am trying to look on the bright side under the circumstances, that's at least one small thing we can thank Covid-19 for--rendering them completely irrelevant box office poison even quicker than they were able to achieve on their own demerits.
>>>Agree with your post. Doria looked like she knew what was a head at the wedding. But this is her financial survival--she has no visible means of support and appears to never have really been able to support herself.<<<
She and Megsy have that in common . .a complete inability to pay their own bills. And unwillingness to if they can con someone else into doing it for them. Meg's mother and father both taught her lessons for life, but what a toxic schooling they gave her. Thomas's failings were a result of his overindulging his child out of guilt and love--guilt and love that she learned to exploit. I think in general daughters have an easier time manipulating their fathers, and Megsy was aces at it. Thomas was not a perfect parent but he was at least present and gave his daughter what he had. The lessons which Meg learned from Mom seem to be of a much harder, streetwise cast. Thomas appears to have been the victim of both his daughter and his ex-wife.
>>>To me she often looks a little in fear of her daughter.<<<
Doria may be a bit of a grifter, but I do not attribute psychopathology to her. Doria is the garden-variety check-forger/play the system type of criminal. If she is indeed afraid of her own child it's because she knows she has given birth to a sociopath, and sociopaths are unpredictable. Check out the movie "We Need To Talk About Kevin" for a portrait of a fragile normal mother trying to cope with having a child who, though no fault of her own was simply born with an essential piece of human wiring missing. It happens. I'm projecting a lot onto Doria and her family situation that I can't possibly know anything about but what if Doria fled the house and left Meg with her Dad because she simply could not cope with having a child that was a coldly calculating sociopath?
Now that Meg is a royal by marriage and worldwide celebrity (for notorious reasons) her mom is bound to her in some sort of financial arrangement. Doria's got her own security detail--who's paying for that? I think yes, the Meghan's Mirror proceeds and other various merching income has found its way into Doria's bank account so as to elude the notice of the Inland Revenue and the Royal Family.
Just speculation, but I'd say that shoe fits.
Perhaps the financials make her do whatever her daughter asks or she is basically paid to be a "poster mom". I don't know, none of us do. But I do know that she isn't the best for giving life advice and I truly believe she is the shell company for all the money MeMe has made under the table since becoming a "Royal".
You are correct about Doria not having the official licensed social work credential of LCSW. She's still registered at the entry-evel of ACSW and has not yet acquired the LCSW. (That's public record.) Either she hasn't acquired 3,000 hours of supervised practice (usually takes 2 years) or she hasn't passed the national exam (ASWB advanced exam) or both. In many states including my own, the national exam must be passed before supervised hours can be accrued for the LCSW but not in CA. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet though she'll not acquire the LCSW.
------
@xxxxx,
You could be right Doria's graduate school was a post-prison perk but I kind of doubt it. CA does have some odd programs but Doria didn't go to grad school until after 2010. None of us know the details of her record (if any) but I don't think serious offenses occurred nearly that late. If they had, I'd be surprised she would have been admitted to a grad program in SW and that she'd have been okayed for even the ACSW. Normally at least 7 years have to pass (assuming the crime wasn't permanently disbarring like murder or a sex crime.) But who knows. Maybe there is something that slipped through at the ACSW registration but won't fly for the LCSW. I did read when she left her job at the Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services in Culver City before the wedding the spokesperson at the center said she planned to open her own practice. That could never have happened without the LCSW though, something a spokesperson for a mental health center should have known.
How dare you- that's racist!
Or so Meg would think.
Maybe she would accept a cotton leash & collar, with which she could drag Harry around.
Only then did I remember that tomorrow is the 2nd anniversary of that day which will live in infamy. It was already infamous as the day Henry VIII had Anne Boleyn's head cut off, but that event has been supplanted by the ongoing royal soap opera.
If that was in fact supposed to be Eugenie's wedding day originally, she must be glad to have been shot of it. Bad karma surrounds May 19th. I think all brides should avoid that day in future but it it would be OK for funerals.
I did NOT know that about poor Eugenie, nor Anne Boleyn*. Talk about bad omens!
It crossed my mind after that disastrous engagement interview that Meg was just marrying into the Royal family for the swag.
You clued in a lot quicker than I did. Plus, I was still fooled by the (absolutely brilliant) Palace PR on Harry (textbook example of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear).
Had she been smart, she could have milked the Duchess role for decades and played the part people expected to see. Being stripped of everything and homeless in under two years was never part of the plan . . but she's done it to herself. And taken Harry down with her.
Weapons-grade stupid. Grand Master of the Stupid Universe stupid. The pair of them.
Since I am trying to look on the bright side under the circumstances, that's at least one small thing we can thank Covid-19 for--rendering them completely irrelevant box office poison even quicker than they were able to achieve on their own demerits.
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din, as Kipling said :)
* Fun fact -- My eldest sis is a genealogist, and she traced our family line back to one William Carey, who married Anne Boleyn's sister Mary. Took my sister years, and lots of trips to Blighty nosing around churchyards and parish records. (I'm glad Cousin Hank and his murderous shenanigans lived centuries ago, though poor Cousin Annie! :) )
(Sis got us all excited when she discovered records on an Anna James, from Missouri, and who had the same name as Jesse James' mother -- but alas, wrong Anna.)
Supposedly Markle and Harry are 87th cousins quintuply removed, or something, descended from some royal or other. Frankly, I'd rather have Henry VIII as a connection than anything related to those two.
(Pretty bad when someone would rather have a murderous monarch and outlaw in the family than Markle and Harry!)
Now I think she left defiantly to show them "look, we will be Royals in Canada too." This was followed by pap shots at the airport and also the Justice for Girls visit. It's only my opinion, but I believe we have seen MM do this before. She just bulldozes ahead and puts her spin on it.
Finally, I suspect Archie was discussed at the Megxit talks. Perhaps she wanted to avoid a confrontation.
Agree with you latest post as well. In the end none of us know what goes on behind closed doors. We all have our own stories to justify that statement I'm sure. When I look at the whole Doria/MeMe dynamic it just doesn't seem quite right. Not at all. Doria seems very submissive to her daughter in public but accounts of MeMe's childhood would paint a little different portrait of Doria's personality.
But in the end who knows? Its a play, its kabuki, its an illusion. IMO.
I can't stand people using that word as a weapon to shut down opinions they don't agree with.
- a cotton handkerchief for their tearful pity party.
- a white flag for when (if ever) they admit the defeat which is apparent to all but them.
I’d like to add:
- a cotton sail for their boat, as they are definitely up the creek within a paddle!
Kingston Trio – Anne Boleyn lyrics
Oh in the Tower of London large as life
The ghost of Anne Bo-leyn walks, they de-clare
For Anne Boleyn was once King Henry's wife
Un-til he had the axeman bob her hair
Oh yes, he done her wrong, long years a-go
And she comes back each night to tell him so..
Chorus:
With her head tucked underneath her arm
She walks the bloody tower
With her head tucked underneath her arm
At the mid-night hour
She's going to find King Henry, she's giving him what-for
Gad-zooks, she's going to tell him off for having spilled her gore
And just in case the axeman wants to give her an en-core
She's got her head tucked underneath her arm
A-long the drafty corridors for miles and miles she goes
She sometimes catches cold, poor thing, it's cold there when it blows
And it's awfully awkward for the queen when she has to blow her nose..
Bridge:
Now sometimes old King Henry throws a spread
For all his pals and gals, the ghostly crew
The axeman carves the joints and cuts the bread
When in walks Anne Bo-leyn to spoil the "do" (Or: "queer")
She holds her head up with a wild war whoop
And Henry cries, Don't drop it in the soup
One day she found King Henry, he was in the castle bar
Are you Jane Seymour, Anne Bo-leyn or Katherine Parr
Now how the Hell (Sam Jerry?) am I to know just who you are
You got your head tucked underneath your arm
The sentries think that it's a football that she carries in
And when they see her, they all shout, Is Army going to win
For they think that it's Red Grange instead of poor old Anne Bo-leyn..
I'm sure the Crisis Text Line is fully aware of the HIPAA Laws and how to use/abuse them. My guess is that they created a special "Staff Meeting" just so Harry & Megs could "crash" it. Yes, zoom you must have a meeting ID, depending on your settings do you need to approve everyone entering the meeting. The charity would know better than to discuss anything sensitive during the zoom, especially knowing outside people would attend. Frankly, I'm not too concerned about that.
As for Ricky Neal and the charity lying, that could be a stretch as well. Maybe the whole reason for the staff meeting was for Harry & Megs to surprise the staff and give them accolades. So, Ricky Neal might not be lying. He (and some of the staff) might have been unaware of an invite to Harry & Megs - so it gave him the impression of a "crash"- even though technically it wasn't.
Brad Paisley is "crashing" people's happy hours. Obviously, he gets the meeting ID and then he surprises some of the people on it. Clearly not the person that gave him the ID, but everyone else.
I personally think it's much ado about nothing.
Having said that, I do think they seem desperate for good PR. And clearly they (and some of the charities they are manipulating) don't realize how unpopular the duo really are. I bet Ricky Neal is getting the idea though....
And geez, maybe Harry & Megs took their own advice for a change, took online courses and became mental health counselors and actually are working for Crisis Text Line as volunteers. ������ I couldn't even type that with a straight face.
Being homeless and unemployed in LA was obviously never their plan. I came across this blog which analyses their initial plan and how it went to horribly wrong:
https://fromberkshiretobuckingham.blogspot.com/2020/05/meghan-and-harry-wanted-to-stay-royal.html?m=1
What surprised me is how they thought the Queen would just give in to their demands and roll over. Harry has known his grandmother his entire life and yet, he really doesn't know her very well if he thought she wouldn't fight tooth and nail to protect the monarchy.
Creating a "pretense" staff meeting only for the purpose of Harkles PR and then claiming they "gate crushed" and "took over" a regular staff meeting is telling lies.
The PR was that Harkles "surprised" a normal meeting by calling in. Your scenario is possible, but it is shameless lies on Neal's part and as such bad for the charity.
Agree it is much ado about nothing but boy it stinks. I am sorry for the people who took part in the spectacle.
The whole thing is as false as Megsy herself.
It's not shameless on Neal's part if he really had no idea the Markles were going to be "in" on the meeting or that it wasn't a real staff meeting. That's what I'm saying - he might not have known anything otherwise.
I have no idea if my scenario is what happened or not. I can just easily see it happening. And without knowing what happened, I don't think it's fair to scapegoat Ricky Neal. He might have been truly innocent (albeit very naive) in this.
As I said though, I think charities might become wiser in the future and realize there is a backlash in being associated with Harry & Meg. The 5 mins of publicity might not be worth it in the end. Despite the saying, not all publicity is good publicity.
I do agree he must have needed permission though. Harry & Megs don't seem to do anything without it being conveniently leaked. So that part stinks for sure.
.
@Hikari, yes it is actually mind boggling how stupid they both are.
https://i.etsystatic.com/20757256/r/il/a4ed22/2364417487/il_794xN.2364417487_oyhm.jpg
I understand that although for the first time the Queen allowed a church wedding for a divorcee to a royal, she expected it to be more subdued. Meghan would not wear white or a veil. Instead, Meghan and the Givenchy designer decided to steal the tribute to the Commonwealth for the veil - from the Queen's own wedding dress! And then Charles indulged the Narcles with an over the top extravaganza fit for the Hollywood poseurs who attended in lieu of Harry's actual friends. Thus the Queen's glare at the wedding. Final insult was Meghan talking about the veil in the special on the Queen at 90. Her false reverence for the Commonwealth countries was her greatest achievement in acting.
Thanks for the 411. I find it astonishing that the BRF would think they'd keep their word in negotiations after that. Just shows that M will do her research when it suits her but plagiarizing from the Queen, that's ballsy. Thought the dress looked meh and inappropriate in white for a 2nd (3rd?) wedding. Can you imagine if she'd gotten to borrow the emeralds she requested? The veil would have needed all WA length. Add up LA egos all together & M's is still bigger.
Hopefully this is near the end. M is exhausting!
IMO it was inappropriate to imitate anything from the Queen's wedding. Maybe a daughter might, but a granddaughter-in-law? Not without express permission, which I can't imagine MM sought.
I've never read anything about the Queen's expressly forbidding MM from wearing a veil, but I can imagine it happening the way you suggest: a quiet remark or piece of advice that MM ignored and/or just really didn't understand. For someone who billed herself as having significant international humanitarian credentials, MM seems to have driven right over one cultural difference after another during her very short time in the BRF.
When I said the Queen objected to a white dress, I meant white as the driven snow white. Not ivory or cream like most of the other brides wore. I know Camilla wore off-white. Even Catherine chose ivory over as I assume she had enough sense, class and dignity to not wear virgin white since everyone knew she and Willam had been sleeping together for a decade. And good on them for taking marriage seriously.
Lovely to see you back and in top form :)
@Lt. Nyota Uhura
Well, I thought I'd share my progression since you've done yours :) LOL
Before the "love shield" and when there were just rumours - wow, biracial, educated, actress, outspoken, American! Never work out. (Didn't know Markle from Adam)
Before the engagement interview and after the "love shield" - is Harry really serious?
During the engagement interview - wow, talking over Harry, tight grip on the hand and not letting go - maybe she's nervous? Nah... smirk says no. She's going to leave him because she won't be able to toe the line and it will be too confining for her.
Fast forward to the wedding - her dad not there because she was ashamed of him, she wanted Charles to walk her down the aisle. The dress was a disaster a very ugly verrsion of Princess Angela of Lichtenstein's wedding dress. A veil?!?!?!?! I enjoyed the reactions on the Royal Family's faces but felt really sad for Harry.
And 2 years later here we are.
I've never thought she would conform to the RF's strict rule of conduct and I always thought she'd bolt. Fame and fortune never factored for me at the beginning but it showed up pretty quickly after they married. All those ill fitting clothes that were worn one and done clued me into her merching. And her clothing tab!! OMG! I remember Kate's first year as a married royal - she got blasted for spending 70K Pounds on clothing!! Then here comes Harry's First Wife with a half a million pound price tag. SMH
Ah well, water under the bridge. If they're looking to still be financially independent well, we won't hear the end of it. It'll go on for years. Not sure if Charles will be subsidizing them for however long. Personally I think he should cut them off now but nobody asked me. If they divorce, we won't hear the end of them either. Well she'll be out there making all sorts of noise about how the RF treated her badly and all that.
OK back to lurking again. Stay safe everybody and be well :)
But it never would have occurred to me an entirely fake work meeting might have been set up just so the couple could "crash" it as @imabug suggests.
I'd be really pissed if something like that ever happened at a place I worked as I would have been lied to about the reason a meeting had been called. If I wasn't lied to, and was told by my boss we were having a fake meeting so an unemployed but famous couple could pretend to crash it, I would have thought my boss was losing it.
In addition, if I had been stupid enough to set up a fake meeting and hadn't told my staff it was fake, and stupid enough to use Zoom for meetings that required HIPAA compliance, I'd have still been a bit worried about what my staff might reveal as my fake surprise visitors were arriving at the presumably confidential staff meeting.
If it had happened that way, it seems that H&M would have had to pretend they'd crashed too. Hmmm. Sounds deceptive to me. As in lying.
If they didn't pretend, and once they appeared the entire hoax was uncovered, then that means Ricky Neal knew it was fake when he told the public H&M "crashed the meeting" and "took over." If he and the staff didn't know it was fake, why wasn't he concerned their meetings could be crashed? Hasn't he ever heard of HIPAA?
Bad judgment and deception all around. Just goes to show all those in-person "surprise visits" made by M and sometimes by H&M were fake too. We suspected that, of course, but now we know it. It also means if we ever get out of lockdown, making "surprise" in-person visits won't work so well for them in the future.
I can't fathom that they randomly try to access organization's meetings. Hey, let's try the Red Cross today, see what they have going on. Uh, no, it didn't happen like that.
So now the trick is to find the connection. How did they even know about this place anyway? And what would make them think that they would be receptive to a pr stunt?
You cannot crash a zoom meeting unless you have the credentials to access it, they may have conned some poor sap into giving it to them. There is no way that two people with the intellectual capability of a teabag would know the technical means to do this.
PS I actually didn't know about the veil!
I am still struggling with the entire royal housing debacle and Frogmore Cottage narrative, so I have a question: whatever happened with Adelaide Cottage, which the Harkles were supposedly gifted in June 2018?
If Catherine McPhee thinks father son relationship I wonder what she thinks her and M are?
Poor Doria. Though I believe shes messed up like her daughter but just not AS messed up. Cause that girl has issues.
Anyone believe Harry had a breakdown or is this divorce set up?
"Harry Markle is really stretching when she claims HIPAA (there’s no such thing as HIPPA) laws are being broken. Honestly, if somebody told me that a super-famous surprise person was speaking at one of our staff meetings, i would be absolutely thrilled. Somebody set it up as either a “treat” for the staff (who were probably hoping for Michelle Obama and got Meghan instead), a freebie publicity blitz for the Harkles, or a bit of both. They weren’t there to eavesdrop on business..."
As M's sugars often say to her detractors when they cite her transparent but unattractive motives, "How do you know? Did she tell you?" ;-)
How do you know it may have been set up as a "treat" for the staff? Did the charity tell you? (I certainly wouldn't consider H&M a treat nor would I welcome hearing from Michelle Obama at a work meeting. I'm too busy at work to waste time that way. Even MO's contribution likely would be "word salad" to me because she's not an expert in my field.)
How do you know H&M didn't overhear private information? Did H&M tell you? How do you know they wouldn't eavesdrop on the meeting? They tell you that too? (Meghan, who reportedly spied on her husband's family, stood outside closed doors to listen, and secretly took photos inside their homes, wouldn't eavesdrop on a meeting. Right.)
If we believe what the person from the charity SAID to the public (Ricky Neal) that the visit was a surprise, that H&M unexpectedly "crashed" the meeting, that H&M "took over" the meeting, then HIPAA concerns are real.
If we decide everybody is lying (including Ricky Neal) and your suggestion is correct that it was a set up for a "publicity blitz for the Harkles," there are plenty of concerns but they aren't HIPAA-related except that recently highlighted security concerns re: Zoom make it a poor choice for situations that do require HIPAA compliance. Assuming a mental health charity that provides direct service should be HIPAA compliant in all activities, that's a problem for the charity. Honestly I don't know if HIPAA applies to this group, but it's certainly not far-fetched to think it might. It's also reasonable to think regardless of HIPAA the charity would want to give the impression that private information it has stays private. And therefore the charity would not publicly suggest their staff meetings can be crashed without warning. Even if requested to do so in service of H&M's unending quest for attention.
------------------------
@ Sconesandcream --
WHOA!!! -- It was just YESTERDAY that I posted about Catherine McPhee and her husband David Foster loving it up on the set of some show or other -- here's my post (which you answered) (edited for length):
Lt. Nyota Uhura said...
In my internet wanderings, I came across a link to paparazzipodcast.com -- can't remember where, sorry. But I listened to their latest (it's done by two pap gents named Mark and "Jedi") -- who talked about a Catherine McPhee (don't know who she is, but she was spotted and snapped throwing herself all over Somebody Foster, twice her age, on some set) and Hannah Sluss, a Bachelor or Bachelorette on some show, whom Mark chased all over L.A. and Hollywood, and never got a shot after all his effort.
At the very end, they briefly touched on the Harkles -- "Jedi" said they've beefed up their security. Mark said "Yeah, I don't want to go anywhere near that s**t-show." They said that perhaps who they call the "savages" will keep after a shot, but that they, the podcasters, didn't want any part of it. (I'm assuming the "savages" are brethren of the men who chased Diana in Paris.)
……………….(snip)
May 18, 2020 at 2:01 AM
______________________________________
Later I posted that there seems to be some kind of "six degrees of separation" thing going on with Markle …. Now with Katharine McPhee (we both misspelled it) -- it appears it's much less than six degrees -- from the DM article --
Canadian mining magnate [Frank] Giustra, 62, is believed to have loaned the royal couple the home on Vancouver Island where they took time to finalize their plans to scale back their royal duties earlier this year.
Giustra is close friends with Foster, who arranged for the Duke and Duchess to stay at the luxurious home for six weeks.
The article goes on to say --
McPhee also spoke about how she attended the same Catholic school as Markle. The Duchess of Sussex was already at high school by the time McPhee was at the Los Angeles middle school. (Keep this in mind.)
'She went to a school called Immaculate Heart, as did I. She went there for middle school and high school, and I went there just for middle school,' McPhee explained. (Keep this in mind, too.)
'I did a couple of shows with her and she was always put together and great,' McPhee recalled. 'I was never really close friends with her.'
She said that while she was performing in Waitress the musical in London, she and her husband, Foster, 70, got to speak with Prince Harry and Meghan.
Last year, McPhee posted and [sic] Instagram snap featuring the Duchess from their school days.
NOW, then. It appears that Markle just suddenly "re-struck up" an old "friendship" with McPhee at the start of the Harkles' self-imposed exile when they were looking for a squat -- by McPhee's own admission, "I was never really close friends with her."
AND NOTE THIS: Katharine McPhee is 38 years old. She was in Middle School when Markle was in High School. Markle claims to be 38. Does that mean she was held back several grades?
-------------------------
@Aquagirl -- Now we've got a "receipt" on the Markle age dodge ;)
(Thanks, @Sconesandcream, for updating me on McPhee and Foster being married, and who they are!)
I noticed the same age, but I think it’s the DM fault rather than PR here. The DM has a bit of a habit with getting those kind of details wrong. :/
Katherine’s was born on 25th March 1984, so yes, she’s younger than Megsy.
I think it's absurd to put a father-son spin on Harry and David's relationship. David, who according to his wife, got to know Harry after he arranged the house loan in Canada. Wow. A fatherly relationship in 6 months. And a motherly relationship with Doria after meeting her a handful of times.
But this quote from DM sums it up McPhee for me:
"Meghan and I did musicals together as kids,' McPhee wrote. 'She grew up to be the Duchess of Sussex and I grew up to star on the West End, so same life if you ask me." Right.
PART ONE
Two years on from Meghan and Harry's fairytale wedding, who imagined it would end up like this?
The 'our way or no way' Sussexes have pursued the American Dream ever since their nuptials in 2018, writes Associate Editor Camilla Tominey
Could that golden day, two Mays ago, when the nation watched the freshly-minted Duke and Duchess of Sussex step out of St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, feel much further away? It seems ironic, now, that some of the more cynical chatter below stairs at the time gave Harry and Meghan’s marriage “two years” – when in fact that timeframe more accurately represented their marital spell in the Royal family.
Currently settled in Hollywood mogul Tyler Perry’s £14.5 million Beverly Hill bolthole while they search for a permanent California home, the couple are meticulously planning their next moves ahead of the publication of Finding Freedom – the ‘tell all’ biography defending their side of the royal split story – and seemingly impatient to relaunch themselves on a world that has been put on hold by coronavirus.
Although due to be published in August, reports claim Meghan, who is understood to have given authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand access to engagements, would rather it was published now to “set the record straight”. While many may question the urgency, given the global crisis at hand, it is perhaps worth remembering that the Sussexes’ assault on America has been a long time in the making.
Scobie recently admitted to the host of the Royally Obsessed podcast that he has been working on the book for some two years already. And while the personal statement the Sussexes released on January 20 may mark the official moment they decided to seek “financial independence” in the US, in fact, the Telegraph has learnt their decision came before they had even celebrated their first anniversary.
It was last April – in the run up to Archie’s birth on May 6, and around the time they launched Harry’s new Apple TV series with Oprah Winfrey – that the couple vowed to usher in a “new era” of control over their public image. They even had a name for their project: “Our lives – our way.”
Little wonder then, that LA insiders claim they have already met with the US entertainment queen to discuss their next steps, with the series on mental health due to launch later this year.
It was Oprah who connected them with her friend Perry for their free, temporary abode, which would normally cost £200,000 a month – a steal when you consider they have now agreed to pay back the £2.4 million bill for renovating their Windsor home Frogmore Cottage, in instalments of £18,000 a month for over a decade.
Yet Oprah also played a significant role in an incident around the time of Archie’s arrival, that helped to seal Harry and Meghan’s royal fate by switching their focus from the UK to the US.
Having told the BBC’s Mishal Husain during their engagement interview in November 2017 that she wasn’t “giving up” her career but “changing” to a “new chapter”, it now appears that Meghan was keeping more than half an eye on her Stateside profile all along.
This January, it emerged that she had retained the services of her close friend and former agent Nick Collins – a partner in leading Hollywood talent agency Gersh – her business manager Andrew Meyer and Hollywood power lawyer Rick Genow, while her business interests were quietly relocated to the ultra-discreet state of Delaware.
Seemingly encouraged by the chat show host, who had attended their Windsor wedding along with Collins, the couple had resolved to make Archie’s birth their first step to making in-roads with their growing and seemingly impregnable Stateside fanbase.
In March 2019, a little over a month before Archie’s due date, they hired former Hillary Clinton aide, Sara Latham as their new head of communications – seen by the palace as an “offensive” move to create greater independence.
Fiercely bright, hugely experienced and with impeccable connections leading all the way to the White House, Latham’s first move was to ensure that Meghan and Oprah’s mutual friend, Gayle King, lead anchor on CBS’s This Morning breakfast show, won a coveted spot in the press pool for Archie’s introduction to the world at Windsor Castle.
King, 65, who had attended Meghan’s New York baby shower in February 2019, had been given unrivalled access to the couple for a documentary about their new arrival, and is even understood to have stayed at Frogmore Cottage the weekend before Archie was born.
The Sussexes hoped the move would kick-start their plan to forge their own path; instead it put them on a collision course with the palace. Told that they could not conduct lengthy interviews with the US media without reciprocating with British broadcasters, insiders say the couple felt “handcuffed” and “without ownership of their public image.”
Which perhaps goes some way to explaining why, after stepping down as senior royals in January, they went on to announce they would no longer cooperate with a number of British tabloids, last month.
As one source put it: “The news came as no surprise. The Sussexes wanted to present their lives in their own way.” Even the timing of Harry’s impromptu press conference announcing Archie’s birth was designed with an American audience in mind.
The incident sowed the seeds for what not only became a widening chasm between the Sussexes and the British press, but an increasingly bitter campaign against the tabloids that appeared to fly in the face of the monarchy’s famous motto: “Never complain, never explain.”
Four months later, the world witnessed Harry and Meghan’s frustrations play out publicly during their African state visit in October. Having already issued a statement warning that his wife was “falling victim to the same powerful forces” as his mother, the late Diana, Princess of Wales, tensions with the media were running high on the tour.
First, Harry snapped at a Sky News reporter for asking a question as he walked to his car. Then the couple gave an interview to ITV New anchor Tom Bradby in which they laid bare their anguish, with Meghan revealing she could no longer adopt the “British stiff upper lip”.
In what was perceived as a barb at her royal relatives, she added: “Not many people have asked if I’m OK.” The Palace was blindsided by the interview – and furious that it had overshadowed a taxpayer-funded trip that had been facilitated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
All of which explains why the couple now are enjoying the autonomy of running their own messaging and public profile, breaking with royal protocol to release a video for Archie’s first birthday earlier this month, rather than an official photograph.
In recent weeks, insiders say the pair “have done as they wish” backing multiple charities and good causes “on their own terms.”
Although Latham has left their employment, she has been retained by Buckingham Palace as an advisor – a move that some think may see her acting as a conduit between the Sussexes and The Firm in the future.
Yet in the immediate term, their post-Sussex Royal strategy has undoubtedly been hampered by Covid-19. They have had to put their plans for the new not-for-profit organisation Archewell on hold, along with other projects they had hoped would cement their place as two of the world’s leading philanthropic influencers.
There is also the small matter of finding a permanent place to live, with their house-hunting in Pacific Palisades stalled by the global pandemic.
On May 9, Harry recorded a video on what should have been the opening ceremony of this year’s Invictus Games in the Netherlands, admitting that “life had changed dramatically.” It came after the Telegraph reported that the father-of-one missed the Army and Vanity Fair quoted friends saying the prince felt “rudderless” and missed his friends and family.
Clearly, it’s been a tough few months for everyone, but as they celebrate two years of marital bliss, Harry and Meghan must be hoping it won’t be much longer before they make their long-held American Dream a reality.
ENDS
PART ONE
The story behind Meghan Markle's Givenchy wedding dress
Just who had won the bridal commission of the year? It was a guessing game like no other in the run up to the wedding of Britain's Prince Harry and American actress Meghan Markle in the spring of 2018.
Now, as the couple celebrate their second wedding anniversary on 19th May, a lot has changed for the then-royal newlyweds, as well as for Clare Waight Keller, the then-Givenchy creative director who ultimately got the job of designing one of the most talked about wedding dresses in fashion history.
Here, we look back at the story behind Meghan's now-iconic gown, the reception it got at the time, and what happened next to both its wearer, and its maker...
The designers in the running
After Meghan wore a £56,000 dress of their design in her engagement portraits (which were released on 21st December 2017) the London-based couture label Ralph and Russo was the bookies' favourite for the commission throughout most of Meghan and Harry's engagement. Other front runners included Roland Mouret, the London-based French designer who was a close personal friend of Meghan's, Stella McCartney and Victoria Beckham, both of whom Meghan had already worn clothes by, and who might appeal due to their celebrity standing. Waight Keller's name was barely mooted in the mix by fashion pundits - a British designer based at a Parisian couture house was a left-of field choice.
Sworn to secrecy
Clare Waight Keller would reveal after the wedding that she hadn't even told her husband she had won the commission of a lifetime. ‘I knew some people might be angry that I didn’t confide in them, but I just thought it would be a wonderful thing for [Meghan] and the day to truly surprise everyone, and the only way I could be sure of it staying secret was not to tell a soul,' she later explained to The Telegraph's Lisa Armstrong. 'And I was right, because once I started telling people I could see it in their faces – it changed everything.’
The big reveal
Waight Keller was right to have kept it a secret. It is understood that Meghan requested sketches and samples from several of the UK's leading design names, leaving everyone guessing about what she would be wearing right up until the moment she left her hotel, Windsor's Cliveden House. Her friends, Mouret and Beckham, could all be seen arriving at the chapel, giving the first indication to the press that it wasn't them who had got the job. Waight Keller was then spotted adjusting the bride's train just before she walked down the aisle.
The dress
Ms. Markle and Ms. Waight Keller worked closely together on the design,' Kensington Palace confirmed in a statement released as the bride walked down the aisle. 'The dress epitomises a timeless minimal elegance referencing the codes of the iconic House of Givenchy and showcasing the expert craftsmanship of its world-renowned Parisian couture atelier founded in 1952.' Unlike perhaps any other royal wedding dress in history, the simplicity of the silk cady design was its most striking feature. ‘Minimalism is really hard to do in white,' Waight Keller later said. 'You can’t hide a thing.’ Every measurement mattered; ‘how it sat on the shoulders, where it hit the wrists. That 2cm gap at the hem so that you could just see the shoes. I wanted it to seem as if she was floating.’
'Meghan Markle's wedding dress is a triumph in its simple perfection,' The Telegraph's Bethan Holt wrote at the time.
The inspiration
In a previous interview, Meghan had described Carolyn Bessette Kennedy’s bias cut silk satin slip by Narciso Rodriguez, worn in 1995 when she married John F. Kennedy Jr., as ‘everything goals’. Devoid of embellishment, its simplicity is clearly mimicked in the design commissioned by Meghan. Audrey Hepburn, Jacqueline Kennedy and Grace Kelly were amongst the house of Givenchy's other muses, and comparisons were drawn between Meghan's dress and Hepburn's look in the 1954 film Sabrina. Waight Keller later confirmed that the neckline was adapted from a design by Hubert de Givenchy for Hepburn, but with an update at the front, which Waight Keller cut straight across ‘to make it look more modern’.
The veil
The embroidery on the veil could be seen as the bride walked down the aisle
The only embroidery on the outfit came via the veil. Meghan diplomatically asked for flora from all 53 countries of the Commonwealth be included in the embroideries on her veil - plus a California Poppy or two, to symbolise the state flower from her place of birth, California.
The jewellery
'An old pair of Cartier earrings, a new bracelet (also by Cartier), a borrowed tiara from the Queen's collection and, as part of her evening look, a blue cocktail ring that belonged to Princess Diana: it seems that Meghan Markle, now known as the Duchess of Sussex, covered off the four traditional bridal essentials through her jewellery alone,' wrote The Telegraph's jewellery editor Sarah Royce Greensill at the time. The Art Deco style headband, which previously belonged to Prince Harry’s great-great grandmother, Queen Mary, and was lent to the bride by the Queen, was arguably the focal point of her whole look. The blue cocktail ring which Royce Greensill refers to is an aquamarine ring, which Meghan wore to her evening wedding reception.
The evening dress
While she wasn't picked for the main commission, Stella McCartney still got her moment, designing the halterneck evening dress which Meghan wore to her reception. The low-back style was made from silk and incredibly relaxed in silhouette. 'While the wedding dress must meet the scale of the day, and try to capture the hearts of the public, the evening gown offers a chance for royal brides to be themselves,' The Telegraph's senior fashion editor Charlie Gowans-Eglinton wrote at the time. 'Perhaps this is the dress that Meghan would have chosen if she didn't happen to be marrying into the Royal family.'
What happened next?
Meghan's dress went on display at Windsor Castle in October 2018, attracting visitors from around the world. Clare Waight Keller made many more successful bespoke outfits for the Duchess during her first year and a half in the Royal family spotlight, including looks for her first official engagement with The Queen, and for her Royal Ascot debut. It looked set to become a patronage much like the Duchess of Cambridge enjoys with Alexander McQueen, makers of her 2011 royal wedding dress.
However, in April 2020, Waight Keller announced that she was leaving the house of Givenchy and, before that, Meghan and Harry had announced that they were leaving life as working members of the Royal family behind. Will Givenchy, or perhaps Waight Keller as a solo artist, play any role in Meghan's new life and new wardrobe over in California, where she, Harry and one year old son Archie are now located? Only time will tell.
I also disliked the blue-white colour. So harsh. What a disappointment it was. It was that, the awful scratchy black uniform for Prince George and Meghan's untidy hair that I remember most about the day. She could have looked magnificent with her hair colour and style, if it had been piled up and arranged properly, with just a tiara. She could have looked like a portrait by Goya.
Meghan and Harry spark row as fury grows over demands Sussexes return 'millions' to UK
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1283830/meghan-markle-latest-prince-harry-news-duke-duchess-sussex-frogmore-royal-family-update
Tabloids do love the word 'fury' but it seems pretty obvious the British public aren't in the mood to congratulate them on their wedding anniversary.
I've already given the links.
And, she said no to Megs veil.
On arrival at the chapel, in an ante room, the Queen was shown a video of Megs in her full attire.
Hence the unhappy face of HM.
Unfortunately, in her case most photos I've seen suggest a good smudge of mascara obscures the view but if anyone can identify wrinkles here, it'll show she's a damn' good 40, surgery & birth certificate notwithstanding, or she's not ageing well.
Zoom has vulnerabilities that can be exploited by sophisticated tech-users. Meg and Harry can barely dress themselves so the chance they hacked in is close to nil.
H&M got into the meeting through coordination. Even if they were hackers, why would they advertise it with their faces? Hacking is a serious crime.
Re Part 1 It was last April .... that the couple vowed to usher in a “new era” of control over their public image. They even had a name for their project: “Our lives – our way.”
I looked up 'Our lives, our way' and found Our Lives, Our Way 2013-2023 - a new learning disability plan for Moray by Moray Council (Moray is one of the 32 local government council areas of Scotland).
Certainly not mocking learning disabilities but our couple always choose well, don't they?
How far might she go, though? With the support of others more techno-savvy?
I don't doubt Meg would go the distance bending and breaking laws and rules for her benefit. However, if she needs to depend on others to get the job done, they won't be so cooperative. If they used hackers and H&M show their faces, they are advertising the misdeed/crime and the hackers can be traced for punishment.
The same way no doctor is advertising they witnessed Meg "deliver" Archie, no hacker whose skills demonstrate a high level of intelligence would damage themselves and their future that way. The only way Meg could achieve such idiocy is if she finds a hacker as dim as Harry.
is this a parody?
https://www.joe.co.uk/life/leaked-audio-from-meghan-markles-duchess-lessons-has-emerged-180513
Re: Zoom in general: I’ve been using it for work and for communicating with family and friends during lockdown. Lately I’ve been participating in some discussion groups, which include topics such as ‘Self-Care During Lockdown’. I’m actually very good at self-care, but figured there’s always more to learn, especially during this difficult time. In any case, when I sign into discussions such as these, it’s made quite clear that the session is being recorded and that your image/name may be used. If you don’t want this (I personally do not), you’re provided with a phone number so that you can just call in and participate verbally. If any organization doesn’t provide this option, I give the Zoom call a hard pass and usually watch the session when it’s available online. (I’ve had my image used without my permission in the past, so I am very self-protective in that regard.)
Re: the Harkles ‘crashing’ a Zoom call, if that were true, MM, JH, and Ricky Neal are all absolute idiots. There is so much concern around Zoom hacking, and for two former Royals to knowingly do this with a non-profit is untenable. I think that all 3 of them are, in fact, idiots, as they thought that the headline of them ‘crashing’ was cute, and, as always, they didn’t consider the repercussions.
delaide Cottage - this was offered but there is no evidence that it was accepted by the pair in fact ome reports state that they preferred Frogmore Cottage when it was offered as they would be very limited in the alterations they could make to Adelaide Cottage given its history and would have more of a free reign with Frogmore Cottage
Amor vincit omnia? Like Hell!
Had I been Roman Catholic, I may have had a range of options under Ecclesiastical Law that would have at least allowed a subsequent marriage in church, although I'd still have had to have a secular divorce, I believe.
I don't know what would happen were she to file in California.
Meghan Markle's High School Friend Is Revealing How She "Toyed" With His Heart
https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a32477559/meghan-markle-nema-vand-high-school-flirting/
We've wondered a long time why so many people have stayed silent about Meghan before she met Harry. This is only a very minor source, but maybe more are going to come out of the woodwork as the Harkles continue their decline.
One person who won't I guess will be her previous husband, who is now a deservedly happy expectant father. He has better things to do. I was so pleased to see how happy he looks now.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-council-meeting-zoom-bombed-21946957
I didn't pay attention to her previously so I didn't see engagement video or have much of an inkling of what she was/is. I blindly turned on the TV just to see the dress prior to heading into work
I remember liking the simplistic style but was completely blown away that her dress was so white, that is whitest white I had ever seen and the whole ensemble was more suited to 25 year old virginal bride than a divorcee
I just thought she was having her princess moment but now upon reflection it is even more bizarre especially reading how The Queen has alot of say so in what goes down
what a nightmare for Royal Family
On
https://twitter.com/redredred80
there's a close up of her (wearing red) where the skin under her eyes looks distinctly crepe-y to me. I know she's a sun-worshipper but olive skins are generally more tolerant than pale pink ones, at least in Europe.
To me that suggests 40+. What does everyone else think?
Thanks, Jdubya, for that link - Ye Gods, what an a*se she's got in those white leggings.
Can someone explain the rationale of butt pads to me please? Fetishism? Appealing to ancestral Africa? I can understand a desire for a little uplift in later life, when gravity has done its worst, but in middle age?
Yes, exactly! To say nothing of the full troupe of little attendants and the triumphal entry.
Is it time to revisit Bad Lip Reading - Royal Wedding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKV6h_5XFbk
Let's push the 16m+ views up - who's for a golden unicycle?
I think she used buttpads to make her figure look "curvy" after gaining some weight.
Its like...if you have a big stomach and small breasts your body would look more in proportion if you bought yourself some siliconbreasts :)
( if you are to lazy to diet )
https://pagesix.com/2020/05/16/meghan-markle-is-trained-in-martial-arts-and-kickboxing/
Camilla Tominey's latest Telegraph article in full - just in case nobody's posted it yet
I think the transition year clock began at the stepdown date. So March 31, 2021. Just an assumption on my part though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle
H&M were given a lavish, white wedding watched by 2 billion people. As part of the "Fab Four," they were going to be new, modern Royals, and start an exciting chapter for the Windsors.
However, H&M were treated so terribly by the people of the UK, they had no choice but to flee to THE pap hotspot of the states, LA.
???
If the RF is so toxic, and it was a nightmare instead of a fairy tale, why is Omid sharing these wedding photos now? Why is MM still going by the Duchess of Sussex? Why are they Zooming in to calls for UK charities if the UK is so evil they can't even give polite sound bites to certain press?
On that note, MM was emphatic at International Women's Day in 2019 that she did not read anything about herself, not even Twitter. She rudely told the moderator "I'll give you that," when saying she did read Economist magazine. This was the first time I realized she has no manners.
Did any of you see the video from DanjaZone? I think it was yesterday (sorry, all the days are running together at this point). She alleges Meghan and Charles became so flirty that Camilla left for several months and finally gave him an ultimatum-“her or me”.
My analysis:
Flirty - Very believable. Charles got charmed and got played. With all her eco-babble, Charles got sucked in by this. Paid for her expansive wardrobe. Remember Charles was very eco even 40 years ago, so was simpatico with MM. He likes to play the big sustainable eco-man with his Duchy and does a decent job
Camilla made herself very scarce for Charles as in boycotting him, but did not leave for a few months. This is ridiculous.
Ultimatum is too extreme a word but Yes! something in that vein
@holly. Could March 31 be end of Royal fiscal year?
Cheerio!
The people who are fighting with each other are disrespecting Nutty so much it's getting to be the same level of disrespect that Cringe and Ginge are showing HMTQ and the BRF.
The level of irony is mind-blowing, really.
Looking forward to discussing books coming out.
And whatever shenanigans are next from H and mm. It just never ends with them.
I bet William and Catherine in some ways were happy to see them exit the royal family. Imagine having to wake up every day to your brother and his wife exuding nastiness towards you, your dad, your grandmother, your wife.
It does seem like W&C are happier now, more than we've seen in the recent past. They seem like a load has been lifted. They've settled into their family, settled into their own skins.
I’m looking forward to the end of next month when Lady C’s new book on the ghastly duo should be out. At 411 pages long it will be a race to the end to finish it. ;o)
Turns out McPhee is 36, as per Wikipedia and Murky Meg. Foster is 70, wow.
Interesting there is not much blah blah on the event of 2 years ago. Richard Palmer posted about the beheading of Anne Boleyn. Lol
Cotton presents ... hmmm .... straightjackets?
“ Last year the official Royal Family account were the only family members to pay tribute to the couple's first wedding anniversary, writing at the time: 'Wishing The Duke and Duchess of Sussex a very happy wedding anniversary.
'Today marks one year since Their Royal Highnesses exchanged vows at St George's Chapel in the grounds of Windsor Castle.'
This year however their focus has remained on the Queen's future gardren parties, while Kensington Palace, Clarence House and the other official accounts have remained silent.”
H&M have branded them toxic, threatened interviews and tell alls, implied it was dangerous for Archie to remain in the UK, quit their duties, insulted Cam, blown through $$$....
But this is MM. She probably will expect some kind of well wishes, and when she doesn't get it she'll blame everyone else.
Since mm is always so hellbent on addressing every negative thing ever said about them, what better opportunity to address the 'they're not together' rumors than a live video of them together on their *anniversary*?
Things that make you say hmmmm...
I agree that it seems odd that the Harkles haven't made an anniversary appearance - and now that the US morning shows are definitively over, it seems likely that they have not made an appearance.
There's a theory that they split some time ago, but were told to carry on a fiction until after the two-year mark, given that UK taxpayers had spent so much on their wedding. Just a theory.
http://yawerebasic.com/one-harry-meghan-deep-dive/
It actually confirms the Botswana trip in August 2018, so she DID go!
I'm getting back to the topics for the blog.
I am really stunned at how widespread the planning was in the move to America/be supportive of BRF and attend the parts we like and think are fun.
It is very clear that HM did not tolerate the idea of a greater than or equal separate court for them.
I can think that M might have been able to convince herself that since so far, no one had ever really done a slap down (short term or even long before she was in the BRF sights) this would be just another Well, it's an American and it's M, so ... what? But H? what was he thinking or his objections overridden? Wonder what SL thought when she finally realized what she had signed on for given that she has dual citizenship and would have had a clearer understanding of the subtle signals from BP? That she did not follow (and was snapped up to stay) might mean that her advise became unwelcome as it didn't offer the strategic planning needed to outmaneuver BP.
And back to the wedding dress. I remember the simplicity of the Carolyn Bessette wedding dress. It was light, airy, bias cut, silk-crepe fabric, not heavy in multiple layers and then you have to have the right figure (body structure - Paper Moon), in shape to handle that slip dress style. I did not (tried on some similar dresses back then and realized that although I liked the style, the style did not like my body. Ditto for M before you get into the differences between the fabrics between the two gowns.
@Charade: I’ve been hearing for awhile now that they needed to make it to the second anniversary, given the cost of the wedding, Frogmore, etc. Wouldn’t be surprised if break-up announcement comes soon. The only delay might be COVID. Nobody really wants to hear about these two during the current crisis. Although OTOH, maybe an announcement would bring joy as well as an additional reason to clap.
I am done with Cats for today and she is done with me. Hopefully. Carry on and get some good vibes and fun here today!
We were wondering if they were together and there are rumours of H needing care. Was this a means of shutting them up?
BTW I'm getting good at scrolling past the trivialities. Patience mes petits.
I am assuming your cotton mention was deleted by mistake. At any rate, it was not deleted for political reasons.
Otherwise, I'm trying to get the various arguments off the board in order to focus on the Sussexes.
That said, I can testify from my own experience that Zoom crashing is real. In a recent business call, we got a fully-nude man. He walked back and forth in front of the camera to provide a dual-sided view.
Unfortunately, he was not a Jason Momoa type of nude man. More of a Don Rickles type.