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
Some men still apparently get a thrill from this. But never the handsome ones.
1. They are not all together (for whatever reason)
OR
2. They are saving it for the really big money pap shot (this is my current theory)
Finally. Never try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.
Did those accounts wish the Cambridges a happy anniversary a few weeks ago?
We all know the other one won't be believable anyway, but sometimes people give in if it's the only recent book around. I think Meghan must be very very worried about the prospects for her version as that's stalling along with everything else. Quite apart from her own kamikaze tendencies, timing has been catastrophic for her since Megxit.
Agreed personally about the too late part. But firmly believe those two will cling to that thought of major pap pay for dear life.
It wouldn't bring as much money as say last fall but possibly some as people are desperate for anything entertaining.
Such a pity that you have still to clean up this blog but I'll keep going now!
re Carpets:
Scarlet at the Abbey for Wm & Catherine
Royal Blue at St George's for Eugenie, at least at East End of Chapel (not sure about nave/antechapel)
Light blue at St George's for Lady Gabriella Windsor (now Kingston) - first-cousin-once-removed from HM
Bare flagstones throughout for MM - says everything really. I'm sure Harry was entitled to at least a Proggy mat!
See http://www.beamish.org.uk/experience/proggy-mat/
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/05/harry-and-meghan-second-anniversary
As if the intense media scrutiny it refers to just existed and had nothing to do with anything the Hackles had done, such as Meghan spending six times more than Kate on her clothes and more than any royal in Europe. I still don't understand how journalists can overlook this. It's a matter of public record.
Instead, they're spending 'quality time' with Archie (reading him a story?) and, as per the DM, 'will make sure they have no work calls booked in'. Work calls?? Are they trying to make us believe that normally they're busy working? Omid Scobie says 'they'll be hanging out together at home'. Isn't that what they do anyway?
This year, the BRF seems to have silent...
I definitely believe that ‘Archie’ is a baby-for-hire, and that MM & PH are not together. If she could release a photo, she would (even if it was just a pic of her & JH on their Anniversary.)
Between us, we could probably write her case notes. No medical qualifications needed, we just use our eyes and ears.
I don't know. Its just a feeling as she is 100% money driven. Could be COVID changed her plans. I found it really strange that there was no Archie birthday picture. The typical baby, cake, and parents kind of picture (typical for Americans). Or even a solitary picture of just Archie (think the Cambs kids and their first birthday pictures). But again we have not seen all three together in a video or picture that DIDN'T look photoshopped (hello Christmas card) since SA. Only pictures of the three of them together are the christening, SA, and the Christmas card. Very very strange if you're trying to convince the world you're one happy family. Unless its the money. Its always the money.
"On that day in May 2018, we didn't know the Sussexes' stint as senior royal family members would only be a short one. It was full of excitement for the future, as Meghan was welcomed into the monarchy, and so it's nice to think back and reminisce (remember life before lockdown??!). As well as being crammed full of eye-wateringly sweet moments, there were also some laughs during Meghan and Harry's wedding day. Like this moment, when Prince Harry was caught clearly mouthing "I'm sh**ting it" at the altar."
I can understand any bridegroom being afraid of being jilted, hence deeply anxious until the bride arrives, but what a strange thing to say if he was genuinely delighted to greet his beloved.
Or was it stage-fright? Was he putting on an act?
Re. the cotton question, all my answers are taken, surrender flag, diapers for Arch, etc!
Chiming in on Meghan's wedding dresses: Her main dress was very disappointing. I watched the wedding with my sister and we just weren't sure what she was trying to get across. I understand the simplistic look, but the fabric was all wrong for that. She must have wanted to look pure and virginal, thus the pure white color and veil. The pure white color didn't look very good next to her skin color. I thought she should have gone with a simple off white/beige colored, very modest dress with a lovely updo, or leave her hair down long in curls and her tiara.
Do we know that the story is true about the Queen saying no the veil and then being suprised in church by Meghan wearing one? If that is true, then that is appalling. How unbelievably disrespectful. There is a photo of the Queen glaring at Meghan at the wedding. People have said it was just a case of the Queen having, for lack of a better term, resting bitch face. But truly I have never seen such a look from the Queen, ever. It was a look, not really of anger, but it was a somber, concerned look.
I liked her reception gown much better. Looked very nice on her arms. You definitely got the sense that she felt sexy in that dress.
Sort of telling that not ONE member of the Royal Family, not even the Queen, Charles or his brother. So the stories that William and Harry are speaking again are probably not true. Otherwise Wills would have had something posted you'd think.
I don't see why the BRF should ever acknowledge the Sussexes anymore. They are officially private citizens so their relationship to the family is now private too. I am not even sure they acknowledge Anniversaries in general. Maybe just HMTQ's?
I do believe H&M split earlier but are saving face by announcing their separation next year after this one-year transition. A break next year will be natural if they just say they have different ideas for their future. Harry can then return to the BRF *without* Meg.
I have read somewhere that the colour of the carpet depends on the importance of the occasion. Will's wedding is the State Occasion, hence the red carpet. It was a Bank Holiday throughout the UK that year. Very important.
Blue carpet is for the less important events. Like Eugenie's wedding. Even Charles' blessing ceremony at Windsor had a dark blue carpet! His first wedding to Diana had the red one. Every details has significance in the royal world.
When Megsy was told she couldn't have the red carpet but could have the blue one she threw another tantrum and refused the carpet altogether. Bare floor is not a royal tradition, she shot herself in the foot again. It looked...mundane. Neither was black for the boys' attire a customary colour used for royal weddings. Custom dictates avoiding black colour, which royals traditionally use for mourning only.
Harry's wedding was absolute choke full of weird and odd details. I am sure experienced royal staff got all of them. y favorite one was the fly buzzing around her face. A well trained spy fly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKV6h_5XFbk
Best tribute to their wedding ever. Thanks to Deceitful Duchess for bringin it up!
And I’ve been through IVF, so I don’t take the infertility subject lightly but it still makes me laugh.
It conjured up memories- my palms were sweating at how uncomfortable that wedding was. The looks on everyone's faces... Zara, Elton John. The most awkward wedding that has ever been. And Meghan sitting up there positively gloating.
Also, William showed his true love for his brother that day. You can tell William is torn but he is doing his best to support his younger, stupid brother. William just pushed forward and stood at the altar with his brother, albeit staring forward. Wills also looked a million times better than Harry. Frankly he looked very dashing in his decorated black suit.
For me the best bit was the Queen's shudder. And guests' faces, yes!
Most of the celebrities do seem to have gone strangely quiet about the Sussexes, but apparently the Sussexes have Oprah onside, as it was apparently she who set the Sussexes up with Tyler Perry - that is, Tyler Perry's vulgar house.
As for the veil, it's not credible that the Queen didn't know it was being created and worn, especially as they would have had a fitting with the tiara.
But it's quite possible the Queen suggested in her mild way that it was inappropriate, and that in her customary way, Meghan indicated that HM, after refusing to give her the bigger showier emerald-laden tiara Meghan wanted, could just f*** right off re the veil.
Oh, the red flags were everywhere, and everyone pretended not to see them.
I agree but my question to you is...”WHO”? who has ever told them to stop!!!!!!!!!!!! NO! you’re can’t do this or that? The answer....NOBODY ever has and nobody ever will!
This is such an accurate description of the Queen's expression while looking at Meghan at the altar. In over 50 years of seeing pictures of the Queen I too have never seen her with an expression like that. You're right that it wasn't anger. It was as if she was trying to understand something she had never encountered before, allied with deep foreboding. Just as you say.
On a different note, I've been meaning to flag that in Christopher Andersen's book about W&K he mentioned the Queen's strict rule for senior royals that couples should be together at least 5 years before deciding to get married. Obviously W&K met that condition. The Queen doesn't discard rules lightly but she did for Meghan. I always think of that when Meghan goes on about racism, she was actually given far more latitude than anybody else would have been allowed as the Palace was running scared of that issue. It worked for her, not against her. She was more privileged than anyone else. She was invited to Sandringham before marriage. Another rule gone. The Queen overrode all her natural, justifiable caution and it has been a total disaster for all concerned and a jaw-dropping waste of public money. The phrase 'check your privilege' could have been made for Meghan in that particular chapter of royal history.
I'm nervous about raising the 'r' word, especially after a rocky day here today, but as we are noting this wedding anniversary, we should remember that, but for that issue, Harry should actually have dated Meghan for another 3 years from now, before marrying. She could never have kept her act going for that long.
@Cass: Thanks for finding a delicate way of expressing what I was thinking about the fly :)!
Tom C- I tend to agree with you about the veil. I am sure the Queen suggested a non-white gown and suggested no veil. Which, anyone else would have viewed as direct requests and not suggestions. Meghan won't follow demands let alone suggestions. After she didn't get the emerald tiara, she probably just decided to do what she wanted and pressed forward with the dress and veil. I think Meghan knew that Harry would swoon over seeing her look very innocent and bridal. And it did, as I said earlier, Harry just melts when she gets to the altar.
On the Daily Mail, after they ran that story about how desperately Meghan wanted the emerald crown that was promised to Eugenie, there was a commenter that said that they had a family member who worked at Buckingham Palace and the story was 100% true. Of course, people lie, but I distinctly remember that comment disappearing and I looked for it for quite awhile. Back when the Royal Family's PR was still trying to keep up Meghan and Harry's reputation. In a nutshell the commenter said that Meghan had a date to look over the jewelry and tiaras with the Queen, and she takes a fancy to the emerald tiara. The Queen then tries to say diplomatically it cannot be used since it's origins cannot be traced exactly and it may be of Russian origin (if I am remembering correctly). Then Meghan finds out Eugenie gets to use it. Then Harry throws a complete s**tfit which leads to the classic line "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets". ( I believe)
Such drama for the wedding. You cannot make it up!
The only reason NOT to do this is if they are already separated and the divorce is underway. In that case, they are just collecting further ammunition against MM which will help in the divorce settlement. I believe the ultimate goal is to have JH back in the UK (and I sincerely believe that he may already be there). The biggest question, in my mind, is how to handle the ‘Archie’ situation. That’s a tough one.
https://youhavebeenmarkled.tumblr.com
This is just what my mother and I did last weekend. We looked up and compared Charlotte's bridesmaid dresses and couldn't get over how basic it was for Meghan. Really basic. Rushed looking. Bare legs. So perfunctory. As if being done to a tight budget(!) Why? Of course Charlotte's dress fitting is reported to be the famous Kate in tears episode, but I don't think we can lay the low standard at Kate's door. Charlotte is beautifully presented in all other photos and events. I do hope we learn more about that episode in Lady C's book.be
Is it that Meghan wanted all eyes to be on her, not cute royal children, especially those senior to Harry? Maybe Kate was upset because it was a deliberate choice to make no effort about the way her daughter was to be dressed for a national, historic occasion. Charlotte also didn't look very comfortable, and wearing new shoes with bare feet on a hot day is a recipe for blisters.
Besides, Ginge and Cringe don't have SM do they? I don't have IG so I can't look on that site without having to login. I don't have Twitter either but I can browse thru it without having to create an account.
Jenx said...
Ignore the drama llamas and Don't threaten to leave the blog. Stay strong, stay kind, keep sharing. Don't allow yourself to fall prey to the disruptors. Just scroll on by. There promises to be much to discuss in the weeks ahead.
Cheerio!
May 19, 2020 at 6:06 PM
I do the same thing Jenx, just scroll thru the off topic ones. Not worth getting your knickers in a twist so just ignore and go read the rest of the snark for the Harkles. If you do that, this blog is totally enjoyable. Stay safe, stay strong, be kind and keep snarking - about the Harkles only :)
So she turned down Royal blue and was left with zilch - serve her right but it was a strong statement to the world. Doubtless she felt humiliated, such is her need for the red carpet.
Could she have just let HM assume she wouldn't be wearing a veil? A nod is as good as wink in the way HM's preferences should be received but MM would have ignored any statement of wishes, even if they were expressed in glowing, 6ft-high neon lights.
I think for the Queen to give her a fake tiara would be stepping down to the unthinkably low level. The Queen hasn't managed the Harrygate until too late but all jewels Megsy had been given to wear were genuine items.
They were closely watched, followed every step of the way, guarded and safely returned, of course, and they were all real.
The thought of the Queen as a cheap machinator replacing real items for fakes just doesn't stand for me.
The emeralds absolutely made Eugenie's wedding. They were unusual for brides to wear and in fact started a fashion afterwards. Perfect for her colouring and the strong autumnal colours of the flowers and gorgeous wedding cake decorations. So striking and memorable. Her mother also wore emerald green.
If Meghan had gone with emeralds first, it would have been three times Meghan spoiled Eugenie's wedding (she postponed her wedding for Meghan and then Meghan stole her thunder on the day with her unnecessary maternity look, as if you all need reminding).
Still annoys me that a steadfast long-term couple like Jack and Eugenie had to change their cherished plans so a couple like Harry and Meghan could marry first. What a mad rush this has been, getting engaged, marrying and then producing a baby. A real scramble, like trying to get to the bank before it closes.
You earn the Latte of the Day for this, something I have often thought, but was not brave enough to actually type. Kudos to you.
Re. SuperFlyGuy @ St. George's: The fly was trying to do what flies do.......land on doo-doo!
Yeah, a big pile of merde! In that historic chapel, packed with sweaty, overdressed, highly-fragranced people much closer to the entrance, SuperFlyGuy made a beeline (flyline?) all the way up the front to hone in on Meghan. She must have pheromones that are highly attractive to flies. So do corpses. Meg is animated but soulless so perhaps she really is the Undead.
I was 8-and-a-1/2. The fabric was a from a white brocade remnant from Watford market. The skirt had unpressed box pleats, similar line but the hem was even. The sleeves were short `lantern' style - like puffed ones only with horizontal piping halfway down to hold the form out like a Chinese lantern. I think there was a flat pleated frill at the round neck, finished off with a red, white and blue sash made from wide ribbon. In all, better-looking fabric, detail and execution.
Unfortunately, I had to wear a plastic mac over it, which rather spoilt the effect.
I have to say, among my friends and family, I am very knowledgeable about H & M and other members of the Royal Family, but you guys put me to shame.
That is interesting angle, isn't it? Eugenie's wedding had been in planning for some time as royal weddings are. Why was Harry's wedding so rushed and squeezed before Eugenie? It doesn't make sense. It would make more sense for them to stay engaged, get accustomed to the ways, to the country, to the scrutiny, have everything in place as it should be, watch Eugenie's nuptials and learn from them.
Unless she claimed she was pregnant, as some suggested, I don't understand the rushing of things. It was all very un-royal. Nothing was as should with this couple.
I also noticed how strange was the manner of the priest they brought in at Megs demand. It was all way over the top, too much gesticulation and body movements and pathos. Very far from understated ways royals prefer.
Somehow all the odd details just brought it down a notch or two in the quality department for the event.
https://www.ccn.com/either-prince-harry-lied-or-he-meghan-made-the-worst-mistake-of-their-lives/www
It's that CCN that others mistook for CNN a while ago, as I did. A much smaller outlet but don't let that spoil your enjoyment.
Do you think this may be the reason Kate was so unhappy? She learned about the cheap looking dress, the black uniforms for the boys, the absence of pantyhose and tried to say something.
https://www.ccn.com/either-prince-harry-lied-or-he-meghan-made-the-worst-mistake-of-their-lives/
I'm using a different Kindle for my posts today and it's driving me crazy adding bits of text at the end of lines. Weird.
One ironic slap to Meghan was that her chosen black garb for the little boys made Prince George look like a little king/soldier. I thought he looked so good in it. My sister and I loved it, even though it looked very hot, itchy and uncomfortable.
The reason being is that Harry was a more senior royal, as in higher up in the line of succession. :o)
***********
Agree with your comment. There’s no way the royals would stoop to wearing fake jewellery, especially at a wedding which is a very public spectacle. Megsy’s tiara, as was the Diana ring the real McCoy. We shouldn’t assume just because Megsy has no scruples the royals don’t in this regard. ;o)
This also explains the lack of carpet, the bridal gown that didn’t fit properly, the cheaply made flower-girl dresses, etc. This was a last minute wedding that was thrown together.
I doubt very much that she could even ‘claim’ to be pregnant. Harry dumped her in December 2016, and, except for the events that she crashed, such as the Inskip wedding, the next time they were actually together was at the Invictus Games in Toronto which were held the last week of September 2017. And Harry looked shocked to see her there on Opening Night. She had already planned her move to London without Harry’s knowledge (the rumor was that she was living at SoHo House and not at Nott Cott with Harry), yet the engagement was announced on November 27th. Literally 2 months after Toronto. So even if she somehow got pregnant, she wouldn’t have even known it at the time. It’s all a huge scam.
I am trying to understand how things unfolded. Eugenie announces her engagement, her wedding goes into planning, the date is set, royal household gets to work, she picks her tiara, dress, etc. (By the way this may explain why the Queen didn't want to give emeralds to Megsy, too repetitive, and Eugenie is a blood princess, it would look like she copied Megsy in her choice of tiara while in fact she had been the first to choose)
Then Harry gets in and announces his engagement too. He was getting engaged after Eugenie, right? Being more senior royal I would expect them to do for him more planning, polishing, detailing, not less.
So squeezing in before Eugenie at the expense of quality and planning doesn't make sense to me. Him getting married after Eugenie would attract more attention and be more memorable as a pinnacle of the event calendar, wouldn't it?
Or am I missing something?
As I follow the hopeful demise of the Gruesome Twosome, I find my self wondering whether Cringe realises just how monumentally she screwed up. To find herself flailing about in Los Angeles, in someone elses` house, no less, the bloody tat PR pieces she and Hapless continue to put out, the Archie saga, and so on and so on. Do you think it has sunk in yet just what she kicked to the kerb? Is that possible with someone like her? Does she realise now that she is right back to where she started? I cannot fathom that a sane rational women would so willingly give up a life of prestige, wealth, the ability to go on a progress in a country so full of history, the chance to really do something worthwhile. Or is all this lost on a person with narcissism?
I have posted my theory before as to why Megsy bailed on the lush, plus Royal life. She got to the point where she rightfully felt paranoid that everyone in the BRF could see right through her. The way they shunned her at the polo match she crashed with her baby in wraps. That they all knew all her mind games. She had often perused the notorious DM comment section and saw the disdainful/ truthful evaluations of what she was up to. That the average Brit saw right through her too. She could not longer live in England and the UK because of this. She married a Prince of the British Realm but could no longer handle the pressure and scrutiny of living in Great Britain.
This is most but not all of the reason Megsy split with Hapless in tow, along with baby Arch, her eternal claim (receipt!) on the British Royal Family.
Summary- Megsy had worn out her welcome.
Remember the Beatles song - "I'm Looking Through You"? A Paul song, has sung it during his solo career. Can be found, done live, on you-tube.
I'm looking through you, where did you go
I thought I knew you, what did I know
You don't look different, but you have changed
I'm looking through you, you're not the same
Your lips are moving, I cannot hear
Your voice is soothing, but the words aren't clear
You don't sound different, I've learned the game
I'm looking through you, you're not the same
It’s a fairly standard royal practice to get married 5-6 months after the the engagement is announced (Prince Charles’ engagement to Diana was announced in Feb 1981 and they married in July, William I believe announced his engagement in Nov [possibly Oct] 2010 and he married in April 2011), so in that respect the wedding wasn’t rushed, and I personally don’t think it looked it either.
According to a recent royal documentary neither Eugenie nor Megsy got the tiara’s they wanted, and it was discussed here by those that watched it at the time. ;o)
>>>I am trying to understand how things unfolded. Eugenie announces her engagement, her wedding goes into planning, the date is set, royal household gets to work, she picks her tiara, dress, etc. (By the way this may explain why the Queen didn't want to give emeralds to Megsy, too repetitive, and Eugenie is a blood princess, it would look like she copied Megsy in her choice of tiara while in fact she had been the first to choose)
Then Harry gets in and announces his engagement too. He was getting engaged after Eugenie, right? Being more senior royal I would expect them to do for him more planning, polishing, detailing, not less.
So squeezing in before Eugenie at the expense of quality and planning doesn't make sense to me. Him getting married after Eugenie would attract more attention and be more memorable as a pinnacle of the event calendar, wouldn't it?
Or am I missing something?<<<
The Whys and Wherefores of this sham travesty of a wedding being allowed to go forward will have us all scratching our heads in perpetuity, unless Tom Bower or some other intrepid muckracking biographer manages to blow the lid off all of Megsy's dirty little secrets. I don't look for any such until after this Queen has passed on, out of respect for her.
Really, this wedding spectacle should NEVER have occurred . . not just the timing but the whole thing. That it did is down to ER, in whose gift it was to grant this lavish, obscenely wasteful Wedding Show or withhold it. Is/was Harry that much of a favorite? Had he threatened harm to himself (again) if he did not get the big wedding on that day? Eugenie was on deck to get married in the spring; I don't know that she had chosen May 19th in particular. It also happened to be the football championship day, and William as patron had no doubt been looking forward all year to attending the match and awarding the trophy. Due to the selfishness of his younger brother, he was obliged to miss the match altogether and do a super-rushed trophy presentation before rushing back to Windsor for the evening reception. Had this been Eugenie's wedding day, he might have been able to attend both events without having such a high profile role at hers. As a guest, not Best Man, he might have been able to slip out early for his game commitment.
Why should Harry rate the big chapel wedding which ER did not extend to her own son and heir? Or to her sister when Margaret was in love with a divorcee and in Harry's position as the 'spare' who would never reign? It's quizzical. Makes one wonder exactly what dirt Megsy has on the Family, really. That she had to be offered a payoff in the first place to cancel sounds in itself unsavory. She played chicken with the Queen of England and won . . !
I do have more to comment about why I think ER erred to allow this wedding but I am getting kicked out of my workplace. Tomorrow, my pets!
Princess Eugenie Had to Delay Her Engagement Because of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a23384923/princess-eugenie-delayed-engagement/
Thank you. So, the rumor that Eugenie had to postpone her wedding due to Harry's is just that - a rumor.
Eugenie got her proposal in January 2018. Harry proposed in November 2017. So Harry went first and his wedding was fixed first.
If it wasn't rushed why did it feel so badly stitched together I wonder.
I would have insisted for my toddler. Those shoes hurt without tights!
I believe MM often broke protocol regarding dress code. I think this is another example because she didn't want to conform. But they all looked sloppy.
I read in The Town and Country that Eugenie's wedding was announced to take place in the Autumn pretty much right after they revealed their engagement in January of 2018.
I am now not sure there was any conflict with the dates at all.
So many rumors about everything and too many of them are baseless.
I have read the article, thank you.
Jack himself said he proposed to Eugenie in Nicaragua in January 2018. So what Bazaar claims Eugenie's desire to get married a year before but forced to wait for Harry to go first is strange to say the least.
I noticed Bazaar lists a "source" in Vanity Fair as their information provider, not in royal household.
To be honest I just give up on this. Too many contradictory pieces floating around.
Although as I write that I remember that Eugenie's wedding wasn't going to be broadcast at all and it wasn't really intended to be a major royal wedding. Remember all the fuss Prince Andrew made trying to get live media coverage. It was such a beautiful wedding that we remember it as bigger than it was meant to be.
I'm so glad ITV covered it as the BBC didn't. It was, to me, the most beautiful royal wedding I've ever seen. Princess Margaret had a wonderful wedding dress, but Eugenie had everything. Glowing skin, beautiful understated make-up (Bobbi Brown, my favourite), hair just right, the dress perfectly constructed and reminiscent of Queen Victoria's reign and that she is a blood princess. She and Jack were obviously deeply in love, happy, and were surrounded by friends and family. He looks kind, the most important male virtue to me.
The wedding cakes are very illustrative of the difference between the weddings. Eugenie's cake was made with all the precision you would expect of a royal wedding cake, whereas I could have made Meghan's and I'd never win a cake competition. It was more like three elderflower and lemon splats with flowers dumped on top.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/cuisine/2018101263399/princess-eugenie-royal-wedding-cake-photos/
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a14018988/prince-harry-meghan-markle-wedding-cake/
This is just like the lack of care with the bridesmaids' dresses but Meghan can't be bitter or jealous about cakes as she may be towards higher ranking royal children. If you were as convinced of your own perfection and importance as Meghan is, would you want your wedding cake to be perfect too? Why did she fall down on the details so much? She had tons of money to pay experts to do everything properly.
I too thought that Eugenie’s wedding was wonderful and one of the best we’ve seen in a few years. I also loved Lady Ella Windsor’s wedding dress, same venue and another stunning dress etc.
I agree with you about Eugenie's wedding. Lovely, tasteful, full of warmth, family and real emotions it was a joy and somehow much more royal than Harry's.
I loved Eugenie's very deep curtsy to the Queen.
Did we ever see that live? I thought we only saw a picture of a television screen with them on it.
Not arguing, it may have been legit, but like everything else they do there was an element of fishy about it.
"I read in The Town and Country that Eugenie's wedding was announced to take place in the Autumn pretty much right after they revealed their engagement in January of 2018. I am now not sure there was any conflict with the dates at all."
I'm not sure there was a conflict either. However, it would have been pretty much impossible for a royal wedding to take place any earlier than autumn for an engagement announced in January. April was too soon, May was taken, June (usually) involves the Trooping (important events in London over more than one weekend) as well as the Ascot, and in recent years TQ is off to Balmoral in July. So the announcement of an autumn wedding didn't settle the question one way or the other for me.
I thought H&M had to marry within 6 months of her arrival because of her visa. Personally I suspect Jack and Eugenie were thinking about pulling the trigger, but decided not to announce when it became apparent they would have to step back. (I know we were told Jack proposed on a particular trip in January but I never buy those stories myself. Didn't buy the "cooking chicken" story or even Will's "surprise proposal in Africa" story either.)
I thought Eugenie's wedding was beautiful but the sash colors pulled from a favorite painting (the one reproduced in the program) were more spring-like.
@Ava C wrote:
"Remember all the fuss Prince Andrew made trying to get live media coverage. It was such a beautiful wedding that we remember it as bigger than it was meant to be."
All true. But wasn't part of that difficulty due to simmering resentment over the cost of H&M's wedding?
“Did we ever see that live? I thought we only saw a picture of a television screen with them on it.
Not arguing, it may have been legit, but like everything else they do there was an element of fishy about it.”
Agreed that most everything the Harkles do or claim to have done is fishy. It’s hard to know what is real and what is smoke and mirrors.
I am hopeful that Lady Campbell and Tom Bower’s books will put at least some of the speculation about the couple to rest.
This is an OFFICIAL document from the state. She was b exactly when she says she was. I have posted this several times here and on other blogs. It is fair to criticize her abominable behavior, but it really looks bad when facts are treated as made up. Sorry to sound irritated, but I think it is really important to focus on her behavior, not her birthday that she reports correctly.
Her anniversary gift is 100% cotton rag paper on which scripts are written. Oh, but she threw them all away.
Rustiee
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CATqastHzoN/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_mid=1D603152-BB8D-441F-8094-F803E8ED3070
The basics:
Their source quoted in the blind says that early on when they were dating, I presume after the horizontal week in the tent in Africa, Harry told Meghan he wanted out of the traditional royal life, that he wanted to spend most of his tome in Africa to continue his mother’s work, but spend family time in the UK too.
It says that Meghan told Harry how much she realized she adored Africa and the UK made him believe he had met his perfect match, which precipitated the quickie courtship and proposal. None of Harry’s previous girlfriends wanted to mostly live in Africa, BUT MEGHAN DID! Yeah sure.
But she pulled a switcheroo on him after the wedding and said she didn’t think Africa was a safe place to raise a baby from health and security reasons and that his family were a bunch of meanies to her. Which were her excuses to strike both Africa and the UK as possible places to live, which meant they would be forced to go to North America, ending up in Hollywood after the pit stop in Canada. To seal it, she cried.
And now they live in a jungle called Hollywood.
The Switcheroo
MAY 19, 2020 BLIND GOSSIP LEAVE A COMMENT
[Blind Gossip] Some people think that this actress and her high-profile husband planned their current living situation from the beginning. [Read more…]about
I won't post the entire thing - here's the link
https://blindgossip.com/the-switcheroo/#more-100614
I don’t know about the tiara and the ring from Megs wedding, but I completely agree with you about the butterfly earrings. Those were definitely fake.
The only reason I think the aqua ring was the real deal is because she hasn’t worn it again. I think if she had a dup made, she’d wear it more often.
Hi Nutty and Nutties,
I have a bit of further information from my sources in Hollywood, and I wasn’t sure which post to file it under but this seems like not an inappropriate place due to the comments above.
I’ve mentioned before that my brother is a successful Hollywood screenwriter of many years standing and that one of his close friends was a producer of Suits. I had already mentioned in a previous comment that Meghan was loathed on the set of Suits. My brother said she was known during the Suits years as a “royal bitch” (and this was BEFORE she’d met Harry) and a diva. My information is that Patrick was written out of the show, therefore her role would end too.
Also, I had reported that my nephew (brother’s son) is a classmate and friend of Bob Iger’s young son. All of which is to say that my info is fairly attuned to the inner workings of Hollywood.
I’m told that Meg is indeed blackballed in Hollywood. Nothing to do with her on- or off-set reputation. But when Harry collared Bob Iger at the Lion King premiere in London last summer, Iger was shocked and put off because the elephant documentary voiceover had already been signed (and they say the work was already completed. But Iger felt he had no choice but to let Meghan do it anyway. And who had to be kicked off the project (though was paid anyway of course)? Sigourney Weaver, the A list actor, liked, admired and greatly respected in “the business,” and there is only one business in Hollywood. Bad move Meg and Harry, very bad case of shooting yourselves in the foot. Like elephants, people in Hollywood have long memories and seem to have closed ranks around Weaver.
My brother also tells me that Trevity trev-trev is widely liked in that town.
All the above is just the local gossip and might have all been disclosed and discussed already on this blog, Nutty. But the Sigourney Weaver bit is, I do believe, credible.
I’m quiet here but read along every day. Helps me get through the long days under house arrest in New Jersey. Thanks to everyone, and especially you, Nutty, for so much incisive and wickedly funny content.
Cheers, everyone!
PH’s ex, Chelsey Davy, was born in Zimbabwe and currently splits her time between South Kensington and Cape Town. According to her, they broke up because she didn’t want to live her life in the spotlight. If he really wanted to live half the time in South Africa and half the time in the UK, he could’ve done so with her, who he dated for 7 years and knew quite well. Instead, he hooked up with a ragamuffin yacht girl that he met at SoHo House, and she convinced him in a few days to have a future together? Then he dumped her six months later, but subsequently proposed to her 11 months after being apart? After actively trying to avoid her for almost a year? Either this BI is BS, or PH (excuse me, JH) is dumber than I thought. I only wonder how differently this story would’ve turned out had she not crashed the Invictus Games in Toronto with Markus Anderson.
@Happy Days
I also find this latest BG item to be very credible. It seems consistent with Meghan’s modus operandi. I remember reading a remark made by Harry after their trip to SA, saying that they would love to move to Africa but that the current climate in SA (unrest, increased violence) meant that the timing wasn’t right. But I don’t believe his wife would ever agree to live there. Not enough celebrities, red carpet events, merching opportunities, etc. She really is despicable but I no longer feel any sympathy for Harry.
Also happy to hear that Trevity-Trev-Trev is well-liked. Wishing all the best to him, his new wife, and their soon-to-be-born child. The best day of that man’s life was when MM dumped him, but it’s nice to see that he came out the other side.
Things have not been ok with me for a long time (LOL!), and I was tired and particularly under stress so the direction the comments were taking freaked me out and I deleted all my comments, stayed away for a while and then came back to lurk.
Well, things have settled down and the conversation has become interesting again. That actually always happens and the sensible thing is to just scroll on by!
I think we are mistaken when we confuse a narc with the cold and calculating psychopaths depicted in the movies, and even the latter depiction is not quite accurate. I researched a lot on Ted Bundy. He got very drunk in order to do the abduction, murder and all that he did afterwards. After the first, he freaked out completely and his behaviour was very messy. Having no conscience (or, as in a narc, being so self absorbed and self serving) does not necessarily mean that you are talented in planning and carrying out such planning to get what you want.
Meghan is messy. I can believe the Blind and the FBTB blogger that Meghan did not plan to give up being royal with all its perks but that's how things ended up and she actually does not have a plan B (nor the talent or hard-working ethic and certain level of trustworthiness required to pull off a plan B without the BRF), other than to blame everyone and everything.
The thing is there is nothing that she is identified with other than self promotion ...
* Actress? No real acting talent or in-screen charisma, and has been over hyped for the limited work she did do.
* Humanitarian? Nope, that was exaggeration of some publicity stuff she did. She has changed no laws, created no organisation or movement, saved no one or anything ...
* Women's empowerment? See above comments on humanitarian! Besides, she has always used men to climb the social ladder (father, Trevor, Cory, Harry) and that does not look good for female empowerment.
* Brand ambassador? It could work ... highly stylised photographic and video campaigns; carefully managed interviews (no live appearances as she would definitely stuff it up). But what brand would benefit from having her as an ambassador? Something like selling stuff to the Chinese (big market)?
At least Harry does have a decent pre-Meghan CV. He needs to dump all the Meghan people (and Meghan, of course) get some really good BRF staff, base himself at BP under the umbrella of the monarch, and get back to doing real meaningful work for vets and wildlife and children (doing the hard behind the scenes work more and less of the publicity appearances). Hopefully his marriage and the awful ending it is going to be will teach him some humility and compassion and help him grow up!
Im so tired of these CHILDISH grown women who always makes people feel unwelcomed here. It is NICE to see new opinons. Dont let them bully you back to lurking.
1.It doesn't matter a bit if Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the daughter of a cook - there was no doubt at all that she was her father's daughter and he acknowledged her as such. End of.
2.At Princess Margaret's wedding in May 1960, we all saw HM look very disapproving/ miserable. It was brushed off as her `serious face' - I wonder what she knew?
There had been quite a problem over Tony Armstrong Jones's mother and whether she, as a remarried divorcee, could attend - there were very strong attitudes against divorce in those days (IIRC divorced persons could not be admitted to the Royal Presence, even the Royal Enclosure at the races).
I still wonder how MM swung it, given her very iffy matrimonial history. The C of E's policy has changed radically since then but it depends on the individual officiant (where on the High-Low Church spectrum he/she lies) and whether the person wishes to marry was the `innocent' party or not.
Did she produce the race card or blame Trevor by claiming innocence? Questions over a previous marriage could be waved aside as the annulment meant that it hadn't ever existed, even if a wedding had taken place.
I completely agree with you on this, the same as any other official document, they are legally filed documents, and it does reflect very badly to keep disputing they are fake etc IMHO. :o)
Any Meghan Markle BC floating around has questionable authenticity. First question I would have to ask is who exactly distributed it: Meg, her parents, sibling, or a legal representative? Did someone just take a photocopy while visiting the Markle or Ragland homes. In the U.S., people guard their BCs often in safes or at banks. Meg's BC may be authentic but at the same time it may not.
The fact that Meg had to publish Archie's BC in the U.K. most likely shocked her. I can believe she didn't expect such a demand. In general, Americans don't do that.
Except Megsy married into the British royal family not Joe Bloggs down the road, so birth certificate’s are made public, hence why all (senior) royals babies certificates are released in the public domain. :o)
If she didn’t already know this, she didn’t do her homework very well. ;o)
What purported to be Archie's BC is suspect; it doesn't bear the Authenticating Stamp in the bottom RH corner.
It looks like a DIY attempt, using a proforma for a faked BC off the internet.
(I'm going to copy this into Word so I can save myself typing it out when the question is raised yet again!)
Meg's track record shows to me she *never* does her homework. She's a "go by the seat of her pants" kind of person. I am confident she was shocked by the expectation of Archie's BC.
The fact that she spreads news about being treated worse than the rest of the BRF shows her missing homework. Poor Camilla and Kate have been put through the ringer for years.
To add to my suspicions is the fact that Portland Hospital is owned by the American company: HCA Healthcare. This company has been mired in controversy from actual documented fraud they perpetrated on the U.S. Federal government. Here's an article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2002/12/19/hca-us-agree-to-fraud-settlement/9319e88c-a518-4f7b-8d5b-65719727fd69/
I don't have deep knowledge of the hospital systems in the U.K. but I suspect Meg exploited certain legal loopholes that exist from using an American-owned hospital based in the U.K.
I'd ask my British Aunt who is a doctor in London but she's still recovering from Covid-19 and I just don't want her to know the extent of my interest in Megxit.
I don’t think she would wear the big honking blue ring. She likes that little bitty gold stuff. Plus she can’t merch the blue ring but can do so with the tiny gold items. JMO
Capt Tom to be knighted.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-veteran-idUSKBN22V34R
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23552087
* It is handwritten
* Westminster City Council registrar Alison Cathcart travelled to Kensington Palace, where Prince William signed the birth register entry
Journalists were shown the original and were able to take a photograph of the original birth certificate from the City of Westminster birth registry (entry number 207 for that year) for George.
Princess Charlotte birth certificate (2015):
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/princess-charlottes-birth-certificate/6447702?nw=0
* Same procedure as for Prince George.
* The handwriting looks the same as that on Prince George's birth certificate.
Prince Louis birth certificate (2018):
* It is a typed certificate that is signed by the registrar of births for the City of Westminster and William.
* I am not sure if William went to the Registrars office or if they communicated with Kensington Palace, typed up and printed the certificate and then took it to Kensington Palace for William to sign or even typed it up on a laptop at KP and printed it there.
Once again, it looks as if journalists were shown the original certificate (you can see by the signatures) and they took a photograph of that original.
Archie birth certificate (2019)
* Like that for Louis, it is typed.
* I don't know if Harry went to the office or if they went to him.
* It has no signatures (i.e. Harry and the registrar for births for the City of Westminster) because journalists were not shown the signed birth certificate but were given a certified copy of the unsigned certificate.
In between the birth of Charlotte and Louis, The City of Westminster discovered computers! They now had a digital form that could be filled in on computer, printed out and signed. The only difference between the birth certificate for Louis and for Archie in what was shown to journalists is that they were shown the original signed certificate for Louis but a printed and certified copy of the certificate as it was before it was signed was given to journalists for Archie.
The Daily Mail has given another story to explain why the birth certificate for Prince Louis is typed. No, the birth certificate was not typed because of the threats but because the way the office operates had changed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5678059/William-signs-Prince-Louis-birth-certificate.html
The certified copy of the pre-signed certificate that journalists were given for Archie was not fraudulent in any way. In order for it to be so, the entire office of The City of Westminster would have to have participated in the fraud and such a conspiracy is not believable.
For Archie to have been born by a surrogate and for the birth certificate to have been forged is an epic conspiracy that would require the co-operation and silence of dozens of people.
I assume one is given something from the hospital to certify time of birth. We know that William had that because there was a signed document (signed by the whole medical team) that was put on display. The document the Sussexes provided for display had no signatures.
Did the Sussexes lie to the City of Westminster about Archie being born at Portland Hospital and even about the time and date of birth? If so, why did Portland not deny this? Medical staff, porters, office staff (at a private hospital every cup of tea, swab, and so on is recorded for the bill) and who knows who else ... if he was not born there, everyone would know.
If he was born to a surrogate at Portland (or anywhere else), so many people would know and it would require the co-option of so many people to put the fraud into action.
No one would have an incentive to assist the Sussexes in such monumental and impossible fraud. The Sussexes are too cheap to pay for silence and the tabloids would pay a lot of money for such a story.
Why?
I’m told that Meg is indeed blackballed in Hollywood.
The Sussex TV specials get terrible ratings, and I'm sure the Hollywood types know that most of her articles are paid placements and most of her social media followers are bots.
She's almost 40, so she doesn't have much youth appeal or prospects to grow her audience, and she can't act, which cuts her out of potential prestige casting. She also doesn't have much international appeal - is a project featuring her going to do well in China or Russia?
There's just no good business reason to put money into a project featuring her.
I linked to an article of the billions of dollars of fraud perpetuated by the American company that owns Portland Hospital against the U.S. federal government. It took a decade to uncover the fraud and the only reason it succeeded was because whistleblowers received a portion of the settlement money.
The BRF already breaches CoE law by registering their Christenings on HMTQ's private royal register instead of a parish register. Christening info includes birth information. The Sussexes gave the middle finger to British law and British subjects by making Archie's Christening private.
In my book, that's two strikes. WBBM's info on the Authenticating Stamp makes it the third.
Please forgive me but I just can't take Archie's BC seriously.
@Poodle12,
Interesting to read your comment. It sort of confirms many rumours about MM and to hear that she is generally disliked is not a surprise. Oprah is her only (main?) supporter and sort of begs the question why.
I think for avid royal /MM watchers some information here may be old and tired but please bear in mind many don't follow the royals. There may also be new readers who have just found this blog.
I only started to read about MM recently - in the late stages of that bizarre "pregnancy". Would she have a home birth? Would she raise the baby gender fluid? When was the due date? Etc. All so very odd and weirdly secretive.
I still can't get my head around what a strange woman she is and how she has brought so much negativity into the royal family. My amiky, friends and most people I know have very little interest in the Royals and even less in MM and so it's interesting to read people's observations here. Also, bring on Lady C's book!
I don't know about UK or US. I usually don't like to judge based on what the media reports. My relatives who live in UK London still Stan and there are many like that.
The problem Meghan has is that she has her sights on Haley Berry level film roles but she doesn't have the chips for such. Meghan will do better in a reality TV like countess lusepps. I don't know if I got the spelling correctly. But she will see it as beneath her. That's where the problem is.
Try this as a reason for the rushed wedding without the usual long period of getting to know each other; H and M tell the family that they want to have children but M's doctors have told her she will have problems this being the reason she had no children with Trevor. She is alrady in late 30s so time running out. Reference to Zara's 2 miscarriages and a lot of talk about Edward and Sophie's problems several miscarriages and the fact that both Sophie and Louise almost died when Sophie suffered placental abruption so please please please allow us to marry quickly.
According to a school friend of hers Sophie sufffered more miscarriages than ever were reported - unlike M Sophie still sees her old friends. This information given to me by a woman who still refers to her as Sophie Rhys-Jones.
Thank you sourcing and citing the birth certificate info., this subject gets regurgitated and the same discussion goes around and around on this blog. :o)
As much we can fault Megsy for her atrocious behaviour and more , people want to credit her with unprecedented knowledge and power to enable her to influence matters where she’s never had, nor will be able to.
https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all
But if he wasn't born to Meghan at that hospital on May 6, I'm not sure why people keep saying staff at the hospital would have spoken up to say that. So far as I know (and maybe I missed something), no one has ever stated publicly that H&M were seen anywhere near Portland Hospital or any other hospital. Not coming or going or inside. One can argue medical privacy applies even in cars, in parking lots and on hospital access roads, I suppose. (And didn't seem to apply quite the same way in London for W&K) But if so, why expect Portland employees to rush to the press to say "I was at work and I never saw them"?
While US and UK laws differ, I don't think hospitals in either country are in the business of publicly identifying people who aren't patients. Since we've never heard from anyone who saw them, why be so sure people who didn't see them would speak up?
Reporters camped out near Froggy Cott didn't see any coming and going and they have said that.
Just take the time to search `UK Birth Certificate proformas’ and look at the images – there is nothing to stop anyone printing off the relevant image, as per the one that was produced for Archie, and typing in their own details.
One site covers its backside with a disclaimer:
https://www.printablebirthdaycertificates.com/blank-birth-certificate-uk-1404.html
“Each of our online untrue document program (sic) helps you to quickly write a criminal Blank Birth Certificate Uk. Only for fun! ”
And on the home page:
“All the information on this website is published in good faith and for general information purpose only. www.printablebirthdaycertificates.com does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (www.printablebirthdaycertificates.com), is strictly at your own risk.
www.printablebirthdaycertificates.com will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website.”
I’m not saying categorically that this is not a genuine, General Record Office certificate, as issued by a Registrar, but:
- it lacks one critical feature I would expect to see, even in a photocopy
- it is possible to produce an otherwise `convincing’ certificate for `fun’ but were it to be used with criminal intent, that would be a serious offence.
This article Clair Mellon a consultant at the Portland has dealing with surrogacy and links with USA
'In her obstetrics practice she deals with anything ranging from complicated caesarean section deliveries to water birth deliveries.
All her private patients deliver at The Portland Hospital.
Her gynaecological practice includes major and minor surgery, emergencies, transvaginal scanning of early pregnancy, pre-fertility workup and co-ordination with fertility clinics in USA and other countries for surrogacy & IVF
https://www.clairemellon.co.uk/?page_id=181
There was a tragic result of a prank call to the Lido wing when Duchess Catherine was a patient - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Jacintha_Saldanha
The Portland Hospital, like all hospitals, is not permitted to confirm or deny who is/is not a patient. Fraud doesn't come into it.
Even if the Harkles weren't there, they can't say anything as things stand at the moment.
Maybe a baby was born to a surrogate, at some point, in the Portland, cultured & implanted from MM's ovum with Harry's donation.
This suggests another twist to the story - that `certificate' could be an even bigger fraud.
Legally, he wouldn't have been the Harkles' baby, he was somebody else's child! Not the offspring of a `princess of the United Kingdom'. I imagine he would be entitled to an entirely different entry in the Registrar General's records.
Unlike the situation in the US, a child born of a surrogate under English law is the child of the birth mother. That is the only verifiable event as to the child's origin.
Such a child has to be adopted to make him legally the child of his genetic parents.
MM really didn't do her homework, did she? She seems to have blundered on the `born of the body' bit as well as the legal differences on the 2 sides of the Atlantic.
I wonder if she was told but chose to ignore it?
"Patient confidentiality -I believe that no medical professional is allowed to reveal who is/is not being treated without the express consent of the patient."
Thanks for the UK info. I wasn't sure if denying someone was a patient fell into the same category as confirming someone was.
I'm pretty sure in the US a particular professional could safely say "I have not treated X" if it was publicly reported he/she had. There would not be a need for the professional to first seek permission from the person who wasn't the professional's patient to say the person wasn't a patient. In fact, I'm not even sure how permission to speak about non-treatment could be sought from a non-patient.
But that's not the situation here. No professionals were ever named. And unless it was a LE matter, I wouldn't expect a hospital to confirm or deny someone was a patient. And I'm sure that rule is drilled into every employee too. So IF Archie wasn't born to Meghan on May 6 at Portland, no vast conspiracy would have been needed to keep that fact under wraps. If nothing else, the public's trust is eroded if a spokesperson for a medical facility or an employee speaks to the press about much of anything. Hence the tragic suicide of the pranked nurse who thought she was speaking to TQ and POW. And to put it in money-grubbing terms, Portland Hospital administrators probably like being seen as a choice of royalty. There's just no reason for anyone to speak out if things aren't as reported.
Re: hospitals
I remember the whole "joke" about the call to the Lido wing. No doubt, that changed any loose policy and served as a reminder that no one wanted to be the person who fell for something similar again.
About the HCA fraud, that is really, really old stuff. It dates back to the late 90's, wound through for years in the courts and finally paying out vast sums. From a quick look, it had to do with how people (medicare especially) were coded when coming into the hospital and if they were waiting on beds (extra coding as medicare pays only pennies). I'm not certain but I might think not be as big a concern even at the time of the birth of A.
Things which concerned me about the Archie birth were medical. Her age and that it was a first birth (I know, I saw/heard but I'm going on what is supposed to be known fact according to the general public who isn't as well versed in the irregularities which trail her wake). They want to keep mothers a little longer under observation. Just in case (woman still can and do die after childbirth) and especially for her age and that this would be a child in line would have any doctors wanting to be extra cautious. So her stay at the hospital was extremely short for what was supposed to have happened in that time period. For her to leave early would be AMA (against medical advice).
What I don't know is the UK privacy laws which parallel those in the US. The hospital would be required to follow those as they are in that country and would need to follow them to be in compliance for local accreditation. How the UK differs from the US basically. I think they are quite similar and when you layer on the super injunctions, the hospital is probably quite limited to speaking about much of anything.
You will remember that we never learned of who her doctors were after the big HM's were male, pale and stale.
Africa is a wonderful place, but it's not much of a market for Hollywood films, the way China, Japan, Russia, India, and Europe are. (The Washington Post wrote a piece about it a couple of years ago: "Why Africa is Hollywood's Biggest Missed Opportunity." https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/20/why-africa-is-hollywoods-biggest-missed-opportunity/)
Can the businesspeople of Hollywood monetize whatever appeal Meg has in Africa? It's hard to imagine how.
I was also being blamed by our resident kook-disruptor-LSA addict. So slough it off as you did anyway. For sure those three who left in a huff are lurking.
Don't worry about it - people come and go. Everyone is welcome here, and everyone is also welcome to leave if it's no longer a good fit.
We're here to talk about the Sussex saga. Some people lose interest in the story from time to time, and that's OK too.
>>>Wow , I never thought lil ole me had that much influence?.....
If I lost you three people I'm sorry but I don't know whether to be upset or laugh at such a thing bring true.<<<
Great attitude and response to 'Unknown'!! Might try this comment next time I get accused of various and sundry allegations, especially those who always threaten to leave (and don't lol.)
We're a pretty small blog, but we do get thousands of views a day, and seeding boards and forums is a well-established PR method.
Sunshine Sachs certainly spends plenty of money on the DM comment boards.
Not to be a contrarian but how do you know Sunshine Sacks spends money on DM comment boards? Does the DM know this? And what does their money do exactly? Get fake posters to say nice things about their clients?
If MM wanted to be an influencer, she could have posted a photo of a candlelit table, the gourmet dinner she cooked for their anniversary, perhaps a bit substituting an ingredient that isn't available ( like many cooks improvising during the crisis), she could blather about organic baby food, have picnics outside, cook for her dogs .....
I would give Archie a belated birthday gift of organic cotton diapers, a onesie with an American flag, one of those adorable Ralph Lauren sweaters with the teddy bear on it, a pair of baby jeans and adorable red baby sneakers.
After that dreadful reading debacle, I picture the family sitting around with Arch in a loaded diaper and Harry in dingy underwear watching world cup replays on the reply while Mega is in the other room cursing at the computer and yelling at "her people" on the phone. That is if they are together in their borrowed mansion.
I gift Harry a bright green cotton sheet to use as a "green screen". So tired of his dreary video backgrounds. Also an assortment of Polo shirts in bright colors. That dingy grey shirt can be donated to the needy. Perhaps someone in CA can Skype or zoom with Harry and "do his colors" Grey isn't flattering to red heads.
I gift Meghan reliable birth control and privacy. Her worst nightmare is becoming irrelevant and ignored. I hope she is alone in the borrowed mansion with no one answering her calls including Scobie and the paps.
I wish Scobie " an offer he can't refuse" doing or for someone else. Perhaps a woke politician.
The Kardasians and their ilk need to up their game. They need to keep the paps busy and tabloids full of non H&M copy.
I wish Harry a "roll in the hay" with someone other than MM caught on camera. THAT would get Madame C Struck in the headlines again with lots of unflattering angry photos and negative commentary. A nasty divorce has done wonders for Saint Angie's career ...NOT.
I wish Meh ( ha ha autocorrect) a role on the housewives of malibu. The Divorced Duchess Dishes the Dirt with the rest of the gold diggers. She may finally get the notoriety she has always wanted.
I do find the fighting depressing and that's the last thing I need at the moment.That's why I quit the virus blog. My continued presence here was initially because things had calmed down and I thought I could contribute useful content.
If it's the case that SS is trying to get rid of me - well, that changes things! I'm bloody-minded enough to dig in my heels and stay. It's my loyal duty.
God Save the Queen.
Will they echo Oscar Levant’s quip about Doris Day -
`I knew Meghan Markle before she was a virgin’?
brown-eyed said…
Meghan’s age: The official California Birth Index lists Meghan’s birth as Rachel Meghan Markle on 4 August 1981, in Los Angeles Co,, CA. Her mother’s maiden name is Ragland. Meghan is a female.
Sorry. I forgot to cite the specific source. I did not see a birth certificate. The official California Birth Index is on Ancestry.com, a paid genealogy site. The images of the birth index that I saw are there. This information is sent to the state where it is indexed. The index is a public record.
I quite agree, I think most see right through the ghastly Duo now. ;o) I think there was a time you could see paid BOTS, but if SS are still paying the media for BOTS, then they are throwing away money on a battle they’ll never win. IMHO, the longer this awful virus continues its grip on the world, the more irrelevant the Duo will become with each passing day.
Incidentally Harry Markle said some weeks ago that another actor had already done the elephant voiceover she just did not supply the name
It does at times feel like Groundhog Day on this blog, lol but there’s not much to be done about that. Smile I think, and wait for a new topic. ;o)
Thanks for the info, Heard about the bots but I don't see how the DM can't figure out they are paid commenters. Or maybe the DM doesn't care because it looks like more people are reading their rag than really are?
Another possibility is that the announcement of the engagement coincided, more or less, with her being granted a marriage visa in the light of the declared intention to marry. I gather that a marriage under these T&Cs has to take place within 6 months, to circumvent the illegal immigration.
That could explain a 6-month engagement.
It doesn't explain why, if Harry really wanted a family, he didn't go for a woman in her late 20s or early 30s, if it was so important to him. (As somebody else observed, she may have been the only woman prepared to marry him, of course!)
As I said some time ago, I don't go along too strongly with the `dangers' of being an elderly prima gravida, mainly because my conception was like a 38th birthday present for my mother - she hadn't been pregnant before, there was a war on & pre-natal services weren't what they are now and I was born without any medical presence whatsoever. I'm now in my 8th decade and have yet to see any after effects of it!
A royal attempt to buy her off seems more than likely - I read that she refused a very substantial offer, possibly the £37m that was said to have been put aside for a divorce settlement. May have been speculation of course.
I can't suspend my disbelief to accept that she really was pregnant but her reaction at the `procreation' reference in the service suggested to me that She Was Up To Something.
It's surprising that she hasn't yet complained of not being married at Westminster Abbey - that could have been perceived as a slap in the face but Windsor was deemed safer from the security point of view and Charles had set a precedent by having his 2nd wedding there.
With regard to `no children with Trevor' - that's another can of worms. There was a long-term friend whose name I can't recall (an unusual name to my ears) who was reported as saying that she couldn't forgive MM because she had been pregnant by Trevor but had had an abortion without even telling Trevor. MM had, apparently, previously told T that she couldn't get pregnant, nevertheless she'd given him a list of what she wanted in the event of pregnancy - eg. private trainer IIRC.
Btw, in the time that one is writing a comment, other people may be posting without one being aware of it. It may look as if it'll follow the comment immediately above it on one's own screen but it can end up far from the end or what one was responding to. That's how things can get overlooked.
Article today in the business needs section of the UK Times rather obscure not a main news story
Wednesday may 20 2020
Loans to Duchess of York under investigation
Gate Ventures made investments in a number of West End shows including 42nd Street
James Hurley, Enterprise Editor
Wednesday May 20 2020, 12.01am, The Times
Administrators of an entertainment company linked to Sarah, Duchess of York are investigating a number of allegedly suspicious transactions.
Insolvency practitioners are looking at loans, investments and some related-party deals entered into by Gate Ventures, which was chaired by Lord Grade of Yarmouth, the former BBC boss.
Sarah Ferguson was a director of Gate Ventures
PART 1
Hundreds of thousands of pounds of loans written by the company to the duchess, a former director of Gate, and loss-making theatre investments linked to Lord Grade, 77, are among the transactions under scrutiny.
Gate was founded in 2015 and backed West End shows such as 42nd Street and Sunset Boulevard, as well as films and start-ups.
The business was placed in administration in March after it failed to fend off a High Court claim from Zheng Youngxiong an 8nverstor who claimed thst the business owes him £2.5 m
The Dtchesd was a director of Gatecbetween July 17th and December last year She received a £290.000 personal loan from Gate While Ginger *Miss a tea company thst she set up received a loan of £232,000
The latest Harry Markle I can see came up the day before yesterday (18th) - I recall we commented on it on the previous board. Have a look there to see what was said.
"Ginger..has not achieved material sakes to date.We are investigating loanscwhich have been made ,together eithbhow best to optimisecthis investment for the benefit of creditors "administrators recorded in proposalscfilled on companies House .The dutchess is understood to believe that Gate also owes her money and is said to be in discussion with administrators