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
Interesting point about SS, DM & possibility of paid disrupters.
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.
______________________________________
Hear, hear.
It should go without saying that there is a *right way* to discuss disagreement, and a *wrong way*. But, here it is:
Wrong way -- "You are wrong about Markle's X, Y or Z, and you shouldn't keep spreading such disinformation."
Also: "Stop beating the dead horse of X, Y or Z topic."
Right way -- "I have to disagree with you on X, Y or Z. Here's why." (Or even, *gasp, faint, collapse* "I respectfully disagree, because … etc.)
Absolutely wrong way -- Going O/T without an acknowledgement of some kind, hopefully respectfully.
Also going off topic to try and instigate, or prolong, some kind of fight.
Nuttiers, we know these types when we see them. PLEASE don't give them the oxygen of any kind of answer or attention. We all know that's what Markle and her ilk thrive on!
With the benefit of hindsight viz. the Haz & Mess relationship, we have learned so much.
Back in the day, two whole years ago, we (I should say I) could excuse what seemed to be a precipitate engagement & wedding owing to the unique circumstances of this couple. Their transatlantic romance (koff .. ) meant that Megs was going to have to give up her Toronto life and relocate (of course now we know that she'd already been released from Suits & very likely had that storage unit locked and loaded before any 'proposal'). The bride had no home base and no job and was moving to England to be with her man. Of course a longer engagement would have been prudent, given the couple had spent no more than a few weeks together in the sum total of their transatlantic booty call arrangement, including the getaway to Botswana that may actually not have happened the way Megs tells it because her own dated Tig photos show that she was attending the wedding of old pal Lindsay Roth in NYC the same weekend she was allegedly being wooed under the stars by Harry in Africa).
But "prudent" is not the way Haz & Mess go about doing things. Meg had to get that ring on her finger and a public commitment from Haz before her facade & game completely unraveled. They announced their engagement in November 2017 in the gardens at Frogmore, supposedly a favorite spot of Diana's. Diana was not renowned as a nature girl, but perhaps she loved the place for the bluebells which ostensibly grew in the area, as attested to by Meg's 100% baby-doll feet photo of Arch + bluebells on her first Mother's Day. Despite general impressions, Harry's engagement was a standard length for royal engagements, six months, give or take a week. William and Kate's was similar, and Charles & Diana's was even a bit shorter, clocking in at 5.5 months. The York girls and some of the other lesser royals have had more sedate engagements, but the senior royals generally beat a path to the altar within half a year. What made Harry and Meg's engagement seem briefer than average was the brevity of time in which the general public had had any awareness of this California actress Harry was dating. She only appeared on the scene in the general radar a couple of months before getting engaged.
On the engagement day was the first time that most of us had gotten a good look at Meg. At first glance she seemed to be what she was marketing herself as . . a fresh, lively California girl with exotic features who had given up everything to pursue love in a foreign country. ('Exotic' is considered racist by the woke brigade, though I, completely lacking in exotic features of any kind view it as a complement. The incontrovertible fact is that compared to the circles Harry was accustomed to running in, Meg was exotic on every level, and her physical features were only part of it. That was her appeal to him, or so we believed). We knew she was only recently arrived from North America, and was living in the not-hugely spacious NottCott (as the story went) with Harry and maybe only a couple of suitcases of clothing. The white trenchcoat was an oddly unseasonal item to be wearing in an English harden in Novemeber, not to mention the bare legs in the strappy sandals (which on close inspection were a size or two too large and also dirty). The whole outfit, including the sleeveless emerald green sheath dress underneath said "Brunch in Malibu" more than "Engagement Photo Call Outside in an English November to a Royal Prince" . . but here was our first glimpse of Meg's "Down to Earth Bo-Ho California Chic". We (I) figured that she'd be appearing in more seasonal-and occasion appropriate attire now that she was engaged to a prince and being schooled in proper Princess wardrobe. We (I) assumed that Harry's fiancee and soon-to-be Duchess would receive this help in putting a suitable presentation together for her new role.
Compare This:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Kate_and_Wills_engagement.jpg?1589990747792
And This:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/5019566/how-prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-engagement-interview-compared-to-prince-william-and-kate-middletons/
********
Even granting that Harry's announcement could be expected to be lower key and more casual than his brother's, who will after all be monarch one day . .the contrast is pretty stunning. The second photo looks like a couple of tourists who've pitched up to pose for a photo to prove that they were in a famous spot, not a Royal couple announcing an upcoming wedding. I'd go so far as to say they look like a couple of Gypsies, but that would be racist, as I gather 'Gypsy' is considered pejorative and the preferred term is Travellers.
Meg and Harry have proved themselves adept at Travelling, all right.
But from the earliest public debut of Meg as the future Duchess of Sussex, it feels like the Palace powers that be were keeping a wide berth from this loose cannon couple. Even with all the doubts about Meg's opaque history and motives (and the prior incident in which Prince Charles had her removed from Kensington Palace for spying) still, this engagement and wedding was allowed to proceed, and reflect terribly on every Royal ideal and code of conduct for centuries. I can only think that ER is paying the consequences now for too much leniency then. The Meg-Harry match benefits no one, least of all Harry, and has done so much damage. That is the legacy of Harry and Meghan .. Mayhem and destruction for their own sake apparently.
Do we ignore it, because we've had enough of it, thereby upsetting a new contributor who feels they've been ignored?
Or do we try to reply succinctly, thereby attracting shouts of `Bo-oring!!!'
Blessed if I know...
It was reported at the time that Chelsey left Harry because she didn’t want to live in a goldfish bowl. I’m quite sure there was far more to it then that, but it wasn’t to be. Chelsey was too good for Harry in the long run. :o/
In my reply to Piroska I was going to add because a new poster has not seen or noted a subject matter discussed on previous posts. I deleted that bit because I thought it would upset or offend someone. Before I started posting, I read all the previous blog posts, but that’s me. :o/ The blog could have subjects (discussed) on the sidebar, but that requires work from Nutty.
"What should be done if someone relatively new raises a point we've been over on a previous board?"
Good question. And often when an "old" issue is brought up, something relatively new has triggered it. For example, we see Archie in a video for the first time in 8 months. Although it's ostensibly filmed a few days before his first birthday, to many posting he looked to be about 15-16 months old, not barely 1 year old. Cue questions about his admittedly murky birth, questions that go beyond his birth certificate. Or H&M celebrate their 2nd anniversary with a slew of articles from the cakemaker, the dressmaker, the facialist, plus a few look- backs from royal reporters. Not surprising questions about the odd wedding would come up.
Wild Boar...good point. Some newbies will read old posts, others won't. I read some, not all.
Another point could be that although a topic was previously discussed here, as time has gone on a poster may have changed their thinking, or may have more to say about it as the topic now may appear to be in a different light as new information has become known.
If I do find something boring, scrolling is a good option. :-)
I don't find bickering between posters interesting in the least. Someone saying they don't read here anymore because xxx, and yet responds within a nano second to *anything* that they find offensive is pretty funny.
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog
Thanks for the Fergie update, Sylvia. I think she has been in hot water before for dodgy loans, but sheesh, she and Andy are a pair. I wonder what it's going to take to bring them fully down. I dislike PA intensely, but Fergie seems to be fun at least.
Those girls don't deserve such humiliating parents. I really like Eugenie and Jack Although I don't follow that branch very closely.
Thanks @Hikari. Well written and spot on as usual
@piroska
This board can move fast. Don't get discouraged. Someone will come along and respond later.
And please, everyone stay! @WBBM your insights are incredibly valuable! Don't let a bit of sniping (while tedious, I know) run you off. I loved the image of a lovely little girl in her white brocade dress scowling at the plastic mac. I can't believe the detail you remembered about its construction. OT, I know, but the do you have a dress design background? Most people couldn't use the word "placket" in a sentence of their spring wardrobe depended on it.
And finally,
MM strikes me as incredibly vain and clothes conscious. I get that the out of season and badly fitted clothes are for merching purposes (although she doesn't show the clothes favorably) but why the wrinkled and dirty bits? That's more than a lack of attention to detail, surely? Especially for someone who is so obsessive about her image. Harry always had a valet to keep his clothes tidy and he strikes me as adolescent in many ways, so his grunge doesn't seem as odd.
Is that some type of Narc Myopia? A custom dress costing thousands and her shoes are filthy.
Thank you to all the nutties (and @nutty) for this wonderful blog.
Re. Meghan's birthdate. I believe that she's 38, I view this in the same vein as her potential surrogacy. A topic that just isn't true that people re-hash. I know many believe she used a surrogate, so I defer and respect that. I feel these myths or circulated gossip are probably partly responsible for any possible pity she may have received by the Royal Family. I believe Meghan wants these types of rumors and gossip to continue. I think it's best to focus on actual things we have seen and not go nuts with conjecture- just my two cents.
Sigourney Weaver got dumped for Meghan Markle. WOW. Meghan's ego probably exploded out of her head after that news. Weaver is wonderful, with a beautiful, nuanced speaking voice. I have a feeling that is the first and last time that will ever happen again in Hollywood.
Oprah- I think Oprah still believes Meghan was a victim of 'unconcious racism' and that's why she helps them. If she would only look back to ALL the goodwill at the time of H & M's wedding. People were so happy for Harry. I mean, I was super skeptical when I saw the engagement interview but I thought, hell, she's just a different American woman, go for it Harry. I highly doubt approx 90% of Britains and around 60-70% of others around the world are racist. They just.....don't like her and don't like what she did to the Royal Family. I think Oprah will dial back on her support of them.
Lastly, sorry I'm writing so much- Prince Philip. I think the rumors over the years that he may have stepped out on his Queen have stuck in the minds of people. Some people like his candid humor and others don't. I personally think his comments are hysterical, but I have a thick skin and not much offends me. When you read of his steadfast support of his wife over the years and how he is the family leader behind closed doors, you get a different idea of him. It had to be hard, he always had to publicly take the back seat to his Queen, especially since he's kind of a dominant male type. You can tell, no matter what, that Queen Elizabeth loves and has always loved her husband.
This is a stunning portrait of Philip. Says a lot about the role in his life.
http://cdn02.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2017/12/prince-philip-portrait.jpg
You’re not alone with this. His humour is droll, dry and sarcastic. Lost on many people, especially given with live in a very PC age. I saw a synopsis on telly a little while back showing all his quick witty remarks, they were indeed hysterical and I laughed out loud at so many. :o)
Christine said...
Hello!
When you read of [Prince Philip's] steadfast support of his wife over the years and how he is the family leader behind closed doors, you get a different idea of him. It had to be hard, he always had to publicly take the back seat to his Queen, especially since he's kind of a dominant male type. You can tell, no matter what, that Queen Elizabeth loves and has always loved her husband.
____________________________________
Not to mention his having really come into his own, for the first time in his life, as a naval commander. He was born to it.
To give that up was a hell of a sacrifice, probably the biggest one among all of them.
Prince Philip's bluntness is an inseparable part of him, and part of his charm, to me. I am already missing him very much.
Nicely said, Christine.
(P.S. I don't really consider posts on other members of the Royal Family as going O/T, but I'm sure others may disagree)
It should have read....
Lost on many people, especially given we live in a very PC age.
Oh dear Lord - MM's PR machine is in overdrive. Remember yesterday or the day before it was reported that Adele had become a good friend to MM, giving her all kinds of advice? Today it's being reported that Adele's music helped MM to get through the divorce from Trevor - and I'm speechless. If anybody needed help coping with the divorce, it would be Trevor. She is the one who ended the marriage in a spectacularly cold and abrupt way, blindsiding him by mailing back her wedding and engagement rings. Andrew Morton wrote that when he tried to interview Trevor for his book, he was still so angry - five years later - that he refused to talk about her. MM? I'm sure she didn't give Trevor or the divorce a second thought.
_______________________________________
Aaaaaand into the garbage can that is Markle's soul went "Trevity-Trev-Trev." (At least he got an original nickname -- All poor Harry gets is "H.") I'll bet about a hundred new bleeding ulcers and pustules went on the face of Markle's "Dorian Gray" portrait after that divorce stunt.
What might be the reaction of our US friends were a Limey of no consequence marry into an influential US family and announce, unbidden, that she was going to modernise it? Especially as it could well threaten the Constitution?
All very hypothetical but please do your best to imagine the situation. Suppose she said she was going, single-handed, to abolish the right to bear arms? Oh, btw, she's a Brit of non-European origin who was prepared to pull out the race card if opposed and is completely unscrupulous.
You see, that's roughly what we're up against.
I await your answers with bated breath.
Oprah- I think Oprah still believes Meghan was a victim of 'unconcious racism' and that's why she helps them. If she would only look back to ALL the goodwill at the time of H & M's wedding. People were so happy for Harry. I mean, I was super skeptical when I saw the engagement interview but I thought, hell, she's just a different American woman, go for it Harry. I highly doubt approx 90% of Britains and around 60-70% of others around the world are racist. They just.....don't like her and don't like what she did to the Royal Family. I think Oprah will dial back on her support of them.
I have news for the dumb and the naive. All peoples and all races are racist. This varies from mild to serious. It is sick to think that only whites can be racist. Japanese are, Chinese are... Oriental racism is notorious. As in the Chinese and Japanese hating each other for eons. Rape of Nanking anyone? We in the West don't see Chinese and Japanese as looking much different, but between the two, they each think they are vastly superior to the other. This is wearing off a bit in our modern age but it is still there.
We have loads of black racism in the United States. The progressive media here has an anti-white slant. Older white men are always up for disdain and ridicule in our proggy dominated media. I hope I don't offend anyone but all "peoples" think their own are the best that ever walked the planet. This is tribalism which has always existed.
White Brits being racist? I have read that white-black inter-marriage among the working class there is higher than in the USA. Nigerians are doing very well in the UK. There are so many Nigerian-British actors, they come to our Hollywood and ace out our native blacks to scoop up acting jobs. I must suppose the best actor was picked for the role.
- WBB-M: a very small point but Charles and Camilla got married in Windsor town, they had a registry office wedding as they were both divorced.
- Abby: I too did find it very strange that MM didn't spend one night in hospital. I checked and Kate spent one night at the Lindo wing when she had George. They wouldn't have let a member of the BRF to go home after a few hours, considering this was the first child for an 'elderly primigravida'
- The Portland has apparently a private rear entrance https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9055322/prince-harry-portland-hospital-secret-entrance/. However, no one saw anything nr Frogmore on the evening/night of 5th May
- re the birth cert, I seem to remember that a baby born to a surrogate had to be adopted by the 'recipient' couple and I think a birth cert couldn't be issued until after 42 days (?)
Talking of D Ragland, didn't she (slightly) change her name? I think I saw it was Radlan or Raglan, just a couple of letters were different but I can't find anything abt it.
I'm happy to stand corrected if anything is wrong.
...about the Succession by law established and can't understand that it's not a matter of a popular vote
Just as well it wasn't, say back in the time of Henry VIII. All the ex-wives and their families would have been trying to stuff the ballot box or buying votes.
>>> why not Chelsea when she would've loved to live in Africa half the time. I really believe it's just a matter of who they are as people. Chelsea was straight with what she wanted and Markle knew better and said anything to hook Harry. She pretended and lied and Chelsea didn't. I know Chelsea has moved in but this still has to sting her a bit.<<<
I think of all the women Harry has dated, Chelsy could have been the One. They really seemed to click well and be into each other. Chelsy met Harry at secondary school, so they were friends for quite a while before they were a couple. The on-again off-again nature of their relationship feels like they both felt a tie that was incredibly hard to sever, but in the end, the timing was never right for them. They had the quintessential youthful college-age romance that could not transcend that post-adolescent period of life and last into adulthood. It can be argued, with success, that Harry, despite being 35 years old and a father (allegedly) is still largely in an adolescent frame of mind, the perpetual Peter Pan who never grew up because he was catered to and covered up for his whole life. Initially I dismissed Chelsy as just another vapid blonde party girl of the type that Harry seems to favor--that being his level--but that was before I learned of Chelsy's background and her birth ties to Africa. Despite her appearance of being a party girl with questionable taste in wardrobe, she's got brains. She is a qualified lawyer, though she is no longer practicing law but, last I heard, working on her own line as a jewelry designer.
The fact is, she outgrew Harry. If she turned down his marriage proposal (twice), I think by this stage we can only commend her for making the correct decision. Harry is not equipped to be the kind of man an intelligent, caring and balanced woman needs, which is why he's wound up with Meghan. I imagine that much of what we are seeing now as the 'real' Harry--the petulance, the rage, the laziness, the scrambled priorities, the aimlessness, the party lifestyle--are things which Chelsy had to contend with behind the scenes for years, while the public swallowed the burnished narrative of Hero Harry, Soldier Prince who loves kid, his country and his Gran and always has a cheeky good time everywhere he goes.
The shot of Chelsy's face at the wedding will always haunt me . . she looked to be near tears during the vows, and the cameras made sure to find her in the crowd (the lesser ones relegated to the back by the door . . I doubt they could see a thing back there.) I think that face was more than just regret that it wasn't her up at the front. She might have been at Harry's funeral. I suppose she knows him better than anyone but his family, and it was reported that the ex-lovers had a very emotional farewell phone call that lasted for a long time in the days leading up to the wedding.
I don't know if it's customary for all English weddings or just aristocratic ones, for the bride and groom to extend invitations to their wedding to all the people they used to sleep with . . it seems like a rather cruel custom to me. Is it the epitome of the stiff upper lip aesthetic to throw down the gauntlet of a wedding invite to a former lover as a dare, and they are expected to show up and stiff upper lip through the ordeal, or be considered a coward if they decline to put themselves through that? There must be some ex-couples out there who have remained amicable and would be overjoyed at the notion of someone they once loved getting hitched to someone else and publicly underscoring the failure of the relationship(s) that used to be, but those have to be in the minority.
If I were Chelsy, I could not have attended that wedding, particularly after the emotional phone call. Especially not if I was going to be seated so far back from the action that I was practically on the threshold of the chapel.
I really doubt that Chels had an invite to the evening 'do, nor Cressida. Meghan's ego wouldn't have stood for having Harry's more attractive blonde exes in the room.
It’s not unusual at all for the aristocracy, upper classes or royalty to still be friends with ex’s, and extend invites whereas in other social classes and circles it would be considered poor taste etc. Camilla invited her ex husband to her wedding to Charles, William and Catherine both had ex’s at their wedding.
A hypothetical subject that’s been raised in my family and something I’ve thought often of too. It’s been touched on, but not really discussed, but it’s an interesting factor (although slightly controversial) and allows others to put themselves in Brits shoes. :o)
18 months after Harry and Meghan posed on the steps of the Frogmore House garden for their engagement press call, an event which seems to have had no input/involvement from Palace courtiers, Harry was outside on the pavement again in Windsor for another supremely unique take on a Major Milestone announcement--the arrival of his first child.
In front of the Queen's stables, while royal steeds George and Sir John looked on, appearing quite agitated at the proceedings, Harry announced the birth of his son & his awe at the miracle of childbirth, accompanied by the fragrant aroma of manure. Whether from the horses or from what Harry was shoveling . .or both. He declined to name the baby at that juncture, but did call him 'a little thing'.
No royal birth has ever been announced this way. Even presuming that the couple wanted to keep things low-profile and not have a phalanx of press there, skulking around the back of the stables to give an interview to one (1) reporter and his cameraman seems beyond clandestine. Harry is incredibly nervous and keeps looking around anxiously as though he's a guy about to be chased off the premises for stealing a TV, not a blood prince announcing the arrival of the seventh in line of succession to the British throne. For this momentous announcement marinaded in horse dung, Harry had donned his favorite grey zip cardi and old pants. He constantly worries his hands and emits high pitched giggles.
He acted like he was trespassing, quite frankly. What a bizarre setting for such an important event in his life and that of the family. Dodgy and deceitful to the core.
I re-share vlogger Celt News' take on the occasion. I revisit this clip periodically as possibly the funniest thing I have seen posted to the Internet. If you haven't seen it yet, you are in for a treat! Watch it and ask, "Do you trust this man and what he is saying? Is this situation in ANY way normal conduct for a new dad?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VMthQm2kRE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VMthQm2kRE
For some odd reason, she allowed Harry to marry after about 18 months of a trans-Atlantic relationship with a woman he only saw every few weeks, and then only for periods of a few days at a time, when both Harry and Meghan, especially Meghan, would be on their best behavior so as to keep the relationship moving forward.
Charles and Diana met with each other less than two dozen times before they were engaged, and it’s my guess that an approximate number held true fir Harry and Meghan.
I think HMTQ and history will regard this as one of the worst decisions of her seven decades on the throne. If she had told Harry to date Meghan for five years, my guess is that the relationship would have ended soon after. Meghan’s expiration date on her career and fertility and she was known to be cruising the circles of European elites hunting for a husband (like any good feminist would do).
Agree re racism. It is tribal and it can be evident in any nation. Japanese for instance had a huge difficulty accepting Koreans in Japan despite the latter living there for generations. It gets better but very slowly, such changes need patience. As for Markle I have no doubts she could have encountered some snobs in the palace, near-royal crowd can be very unpleasant and haughty as Kate's mom experienced and Kate too. But I take exception at her branding the whole UK racist.
@ManekiNeko
You are right, the surrogate baby gets adopted and issued a new birth certificate that states her adoptive parents as parents. The original birth certificate gets sealed indefinitely and can only be opened to the child if he or she wishes to see it later in life. The original one states the surrogate as mother.
Now I’m thinking or Claire Underwood from House of Cards who wanted more power than her president husband. . Okay I have to give this more thought.
I may be wrong, but perhaps Chelsy’s family would also bring up Prince Philip’s three brother-in-laws who were SS in Nazi Germany, and very close friends to Hitler.
A brief comment re.
>>>Agree re racism. It is tribal and it can be evident in any nation. Japanese for instance had a huge difficulty accepting Koreans in Japan despite the latter living there for generations.<<<
I lived in Japan for six years and got introduced to the sad plight of the 'burakumin'--the descendants of Koreans whom the Japanese had forcibly imported as slave labor centuries ago. The Koreans who have been living in Japan for generations did not emigrate there by choice, and share that in common with African-Americans. The burakumin are the untouchable caste of Japanese society who still today perform all the dirty, spiritually 'unclean' tasks of society which Japanese refuse to do--handling of dead carcasses of both animals and people; tanning, butchery, embalming. Touching dead things is considered to pollute the soul of the good Buddhist; hence the burakumin are 'unclean' and considered unfit to mingle in mainstream society. Even in the 21st century this prejudice endures. The burakumin have taken Japanese surnames over the centuries and tried to blend into the larger culture, but even today, prospective employers and prospective spouses' families will employ private investigators to be sure to avoid hiring or marrying a burakumin. It's a very sad life.
Harry was what? 34 when they married and Markle is approaching 40. They couldn't afford dating for 5 years if they wanted children born in a wedlock. Especially Markle. It is not unheard of women entering menopause early.
I also recall vague rumors about Harry's issues with fertility (whoever started them). This may be one of the reasons he could not afford wasting time either.
May be one of the factors the Queen consented. Also, how the heck she is supposed to stop him if he wants to marry? He is an adult. They could have showed her a finger and married anyway in a private ceremony. Imagine headlines "Queen bans the marriage because the bride is black, forced them to abscond and get married in secret".
Yes, I was shocked when I learned about burakumin. I think it is changing as the Japanese society slowly changing. But what you say is sadly still true for many. Racism is ugly whatever colour it is.
By Camilla Tominey, Associate Editor
Against all odds, it’s worked
Part I
It is hard to find the positives in lockdown when we are all growing increasingly frustrated living our lives in limbo.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure I really want to go back to the 100-mile-an-hour life I was living before we started being told to “stay indoors”. If we have learned anything from this protracted nightmare then it is surely that health is wealth.
In the same vein, I’m starting to wonder whether the monarchy will ever be the same again after this – and I mean that in a good way. For the Royal Family, there may be a silver lining to the very dark cloud that has been hanging over us since March.
I was discussing this with our Royal Correspondent Hannah Furness; the ease with which the Royals have adapted to a different way of working has surprised us both.
The Queen’s mantra has always been: “I have to be seen to be believed”. But in the absence of any official engagements, the Royals have had to dispense with decades of tradition and go digital.
Against all the odds, it’s worked. William and Kate have embraced Zoom, along with the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, the Princess Royal and the Countess of Wessex.
Even the Queen has allowed audio of her private discussions to be broadcast in a bid to remain as visible as possible while forced to self-isolate at Windsor Castle.
As a result of these efforts, the Royals appear to have saved themselves from their own internal crisis. Having endured a second annus horribilis last year, followed by the furore of the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ split from the Firm in January, the monarchy appeared decidedly unstable at the turn of the decade.
But since the Covid-19 outbreak, it has emerged calm, regal and at the forefront of leading the country out of this unprecedented national emergency. The Queen’s “We will meet again” and VE Day addresses have only served to remind the public how much they love HM. This renaissance of royalism will undoubtedly have a trickle down effect.
An unintentional yet convenient consequence of all this has been that it has overshadowed Harry and Meghan’s Stateside relaunch. Before all this happened, there were fears the Royals might not be able to compete – but in fact, it now feels as if it is the Sussexes who are struggling to command the column inches they used to.
Yes, the Queen stands to lose £18 million from closing Buckingham Palace this summer. And it is far from ideal that major royal events like Trooping the Colour have had to be cancelled. But compared to those who had to be furloughed or worse, the Royals have not only survived, but thrived.
>>>May be one of the factors the Queen consented. Also, how the heck she is supposed to stop him if he wants to marry? He is an adult. They could have showed her a finger and married anyway in a private ceremony. Imagine headlines "Queen bans the marriage because the bride is black, forced them to abscond and get married in secret".<<<
That race card has sure been aces for Meghan. It has absolved her of any responsibility for her bad behavior, and gotten her everything she wanted from the Royal family. She knew that was her ace in the hole, which is why, after 35 years of trying so hard to be Caucasian invested in suitcases full of bronzer once she had snagged Harry.
As we see, despite the RF's bending over backwards to give into Meg's every whim so as to avoid being called racists, she bailed and lobbed the racist charge from another continent anyway. There was no way they were going to win. Harry was (chronologically anyway) a grown-ass man of 33 years of age, older than Charles at his first wedding, older than William. Granny technically could have lawfully denied the marriage until the birth of Louis. She chose not to rest on her sovereign authority in that regard. I believe that she was operating as a grandmother, not as a sovereign in this matter. The heartache over Margaret and Group Captain Townsend and the fissures that brought to her relationship with her sister is something I think she's regretted for the better part of 70 years. On that occasion she cleved to what she believed to be her spiritual obligation and duty over her personal inclinations, as head of the Church. She no longer has the will to wage that fight. Meg was not suitable as a royal bride for the same reasons Wallis Simpson was not--a woman with two husbands yet living violates Church law no matter what color she is. Of course, such views are dismissed as old fashioned these days.
Harry's marriage was not a state occasion. Yet his doting Granny compelled the British taxpayer to splash as much or more on the Harkle wedding than was paid for William and Catherine's. The wedding of the future king is an historically important event for the nation. Harry's marriage was a sentimentally important event perhaps, but did not justify the amount spent on it. Particularly if the Harkles are already splitting up or will be soon. Do we doubt that a divorce is coming?
The Queen did not 'HAVE' to provide such an extravagant wedding for a woman who none of them barely knew and certainly did not trust. She might at least have made the couple have a longer engagement before splashing out. Not because Meg was half-black . . because she was a divorcee, a foreigner, a non-member of the COE, and to acquaint her with her new country and prospective marriage family. There were tons of uncharted territory inherent in having a prince of the realm marry a divorced non-Briton and her race wasn't even a factor. But of course it was to MM's immense benefit to have her race be her ace card in all things.
Her need for the red carpet makes it even more amusing that the "red" carpet at The Lion KIng premiere was yellow.
I am sorry to interfere, just wanted to say this. You have made a lot of interesting comments on Harry and Megs in the past and I enjoyed reading them.
If we waste our time and energy on posts that upset us we will be missing out on conversation that is interesting for all of us.
I am looking forward to more of your posts on the subject of the hopeless duo.
You have a talent nailing things.
Of course Queen behaved as a grandmother with Harry. They all suffer from the guilt complex "poor boy who lost his mother, mustn't upset him". Harry successfully manipulated them all including Willam throughout his life.
Dumbartons had been given everything and they had been undeservingly praised early on in the media.
My only hope is Queen is compos mentis enough to see Markle is destructive and can't be reasoned with. This leaves just one option - cut them loose.
Royals will not cooperate with any book unless it is an official biography.
Near-palace people is another matter. Harkles made enough enemies who will talk to Campbell.
I didn't like her book on Diana but there was no shortage of "sources" then. Will be plenty now.
You may very well be right. Lets see what people think when the book is out. Interesting to see the reaction from Harry and Megs too.
I just read the reviews from her “the queen’s marriage” book and they are all disappointed that the book had nothing much on the marriage and a full book of irrelevant lineages. I’m expecting a mash up of everything we already know.
But, again, maybe she will surprise me.
https://youtu.be/XyaJ3YFCe_A
I am very sorry to hear about how you are feeling. It is not doing you any good, I am concerned for you.
Please just try to rise above it. I would not wish any more stress on you because obviously it is already stressful enough.
Is it worth it? I am thinking of you and wishing you well. Hope it all settles and you join the exchange about Harry and Meghan again.
The goodwill Megsy had initially was what caused her family to be branded trash, liars, wingnuts, etc. In hindsight, it turns out they had her number all this time. Seems there's only one member of the Markle family who is a crazy liar, and she's holed up in a borrowed mansion in LA wondering how her plans for world domination turned to dust.
Funny coincidence, but I just started reading Lady Colin Campbell’s book about the Queen Mother. I always read, or inferred, that the reason the Duke of Windsor called his sister-in-law “Cookie” or “Cooky” was because she was overweight, and ate too many “cookies.” Now I realize that the British use the word biscuit, not cookie like Americans do in describing these desserts. Cooky takes on a whole new meaning for me now. I must get back to the book!
I would be interested to know if Campbell paid for the interview with the Markle's family. It is counter to her case if she did. On the other hand if she simply convinced them they would be just telling their side of the story to an unbiased listener... it would carry a lot more credibility.
If I were her I would certainly try to present a sympathetic ear to the Markles and encourage them to talk.
I also wonder if Scobie was savvy enough to talk to her family, if they are not quoted in his book it will be even easier to dismiss it as Meg's pure propaganda.
The books war.
And as for the Markles being paid, that has been one of the critiques consistently levelled at Thomas Markle by Megsy's "unknown" friends. But if memory serves, I think he only ever was paid for one DM interview early on. Subsequent ones including the publication of the self-serving Megsy letter which is the subject of the current litigation, expressly stated he was not paid a dime. Not sure about Samantha.
Thomas Markle IMHO was the victim in this whole debacle. If I was getting haughty texts telling me what to do, from my daughter's significant other who had never been arsed to even meet me, using her phone/without the decency to even text from his own phone, I would blow a gasket. Those facts are straight from the recent Chambers application which the MOS won, and they make Harry look an utter disrespectful prat.
Anyway, on topic PP is not unpopular and as a Brit has never been, he was until his retirement a breath of fresh air with his totally off the mark un pc comments, he has supported TQ for many years and should be applauded for that
The thing about embalming in Japan doesn't fit with what I experienced. A friend there told me the body is burnt, and afterwards the family comes with chopsticks, and picks out the bones. It is ceremonial. Then they bury the bones.
Rustiee
The optics would have been terrible if the Queen had refused or required delay, but with the benefit of hindsight, any amount of critical coverage would have been a price worth paying. However, how could anyone have guessed the scale of the purely negative impact Meghan has had? It's out of all proportion to her actual importance. Her entire trajectory across this period of royal history has been one massive, seemingly endless "WTF?!?"
There are usually posters here who can help with telling you how to get a name on your account. Think you might have to have to get a google email acct and personalize it. I wish I could tell you specifically but the technical aspects of this is beyond me. My homecare worker set mine up (lol my skills lie elsewhere).
I appreciate saying you aren't the other 'unknown'. I know what you mean about being new and asking questions (one can't possibly go back a year or more here). Anyway many things get rehashed so its not a big deal it happens all the time.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8341841/What-Charles-think-Prince-Harrys-new-father-figure-TOM-LEONARD-writes.html
I entirely agree. Who has time for that? While H&K are being relatively quiet, what's wrong with revisiting topics from previous posts? I tend to think of this blog as a group of friends passing the time of day and we shouldn't get hung up on things like that. It will deter new folks from joining in.
It was lovely revisiting Eugenie's wedding for example. We need some happy things to discuss too. Especially now. Revisiting can also tease out some new insights, such as the ones we've had in this post about Charlotte's plain dress and no tights with new shoes at H&M's wedding and the effect that may have had on Kate.
If people are bored they can follow that surefire remedy of scrolling on by. As I am doing.
Many Nutties commented that such new blood was healthy for the blog. Priceless!
@Ava C,
I have a sneaky feeling that the children not wearing tights at the her wedding was Meg's way of laying the ground for her not having to wear them either!
It's late. :-(
I remember a couple wives back watching David Foster when he was married to Elvis' ex Linda Thompson on The Princes of Malibu; you could tell that marriage was doomed with Linda always putting up with the crazy antics of those 2 Jenner boys (yes, Bruce's as he then was). Foster, however, was not so amused...
Also still enjoy the photo of Kat and Megsy when they were in some high school drama production, make-up trowelled on and both with their original noses!
The Queen really couldn't say no. Cries of "racism", etc. They could get married any where else in the world and how would that look?
I have come to believe they accepted MeMe because they thought she could control Harry (using what I can only speculate).
Most people would be happy to accept a few protocols in return for the world of riches, fame, etc being a British Royal brings. I imagine they could not fathom it wasn't enough for someone.
Most people would understand that they had offended the Queen by breaking protocols and would feel some amount of remorse and shame. But not MeMe. She validated every bad thought Harry had about being Royal.
Harry has to cling to her. He really has nothing else. Return to UK? Sure. Enjoy the fame and good will as before? Nope. His best bet is to split time very quietly between UK and Africa. To stay behind the scenes for several years and only slowly and quietly brought back into the public fold.
But I'm not sure I can ever see Harry performing royal duties again. He's all but given the UK two fingers (took their money and ran, called them racist, etc.). Maybe the best bet is to keep him quietly out of the spotlight for a very long long time.
Pantsface
I only know what I've read recently about Katherine MacPhee and David Foster. Before that the names meant nothing to me.
Agree about the photo of her and Megs though - it's a good one - for all the wrong reasons. LOL
It was an incredibly stupid and disrespectful thing for MacPhee to say and I do wish these people would engage their brains BEFORE opening their mouths!
Charles, like any parent, will be deeply hurt.
Pantsface
Unknown said...
OK, I am an unknown here, because I can't figure out how not to be, comments are emailed to my verified email address - I would like to make it clear that I am not one of the trouble makers. I also think it is unfair to tar new posters with the same brush, they may ask questions that have been adressed ad infinitum, BUT they are new to the blog, it is unrealistic to expect them to wade through thousands of comments.If this blog wants to be inclusive to the longstanding contributors only, then please let me know. IMHO you will be missing a trick, everyone whether new or old may have something wothwhile to contribute to the discussion.
Anyway, on topic PP is not unpopular and as a Brit has never been, he was until his retirement a breath of fresh air with his totally off the mark un pc comments, he has supported TQ for many years and should be applauded for that.
_______________________________________
You may want to make sure you're not logged in as another identity somewhere else that might be conflicting with this one. I'm told that can mess up other sites, and might be why you're appearing as "unknown." Try logging out and checking your other open tabs, clear history, and try again.
And yes, everyone old and new does have something worthwhile to contribute (except for, well, you've probably already seen it here -- suffice it to say there are some posts that are not on topic). On other sites I've seen the preface "Apologies if this has already been addressed, but …. etc." Might head off the tutting ones at the pass :) Also, might be good, once you do get the identity nailed down, to let others know that you are you under the right name.
This blog is big on mutual respect, as it should be -- which is probably why I have been in Coventry here for some time now (with a handful of exceptions -- so not sure I'm the best one to give advice!) -- no doubt it's because I am quite snarky at times and mean-spirited toward Harry and Markle. I own it and wear it as a badge. I am NOT like that in real life, however. In fact, people who know me would find it quite the Jekyll and Hyde -- but the level of anger I feel toward the Harkles for disrespecting the British monarchy is deep and vast, like an ocean of lava. I won't stop mocking, heckling and otherwise thumbing my nose at them until they are well and truly living in oblivion. For the record, I have NEVER addressed anyone here with anything but courtesy, even if I disagree.
Anyone can read all of my comments here and see that I'm not one of the erm, more "aggressive" of the posters. I'm just invisible :) --
Anyway, rant over! Hahaha, all this "me, myself and I" I've been blathering about is as bad as Markle herself, *grin* (But wait, there's more!)
I know you will enjoy reading some of the contributors here who, if not already, should be published writers, the talent and ability to put across ideas is that good. You'll probably develop a deep gratitude to Nutty Flavor for maintaining such a civilized space to share ideas.
Me (told you there was more), I've found a site where I can bathe, swim and luxuriate in Harkle snark (Snarkle? LOL), and the posters are not only intelligent as all get-out, but friendly and engaging with everyone, oldie or newbie alike :) It's a TON of fun. So far I haven't joined up, but I'm teetering on the brink.
I'll drop in here from time to time, tho. There is always something good posted. But, I'll mostly be in ::lurking mode::.
Welcome, and best of luck! :)
Kat McPhee = many years ago runner-up on American Idol, lost to Taylor Hicks (surprise winner, known for "soul patrol", quickly faded into obscurity) and 4th place who should have won that year, Chris Daughtry. She went on to do a middling TV series, a marriage that ended in somewhat shady circumstances (don't quote me, but rumours she cheated I think), a middling career. I think Foster may have produced one of her musical numbers when she was on Idol and she was very young, later they reconnected. Heading to middle age singer with middling career marries much older very wealthy man, wife #8 I think, what could possibly go wrong??
Poor Charles!!
Pantsface
You and all the newer posters are very welcome here.
Let me see if I have this right.
Write your post, then at the bottom of the post, you will see "preview". Click on that.
That will bring up a smaller box showing your comments. At the top left you will see your name, unknown. At the top right you will see "edit". You can change your name there(and add a picture if you like).I
Good luck
Pantsface
However I think it will need to be carefully balanced. Many people have their own personal experience of seeing royals in person and it's a red letter day but for the rest of your life. I vividly remember being just inches from the Queen in 1977 and how beautiful her skin was. She was pretty. I'm sure it was as special to me as it was for the people who gathered to see Elizabeth I centuries ago. see
So I hope they don't forget the value of being there in person, especially when the younger generations take over. Something precious would be lost if they significantly cut down the number of actual events in the way William hinted in the documentary for the Queen's 90th birthday.
Pantsface
MM is probably more than happy for others to make snarky comments on her behalf. But Katherine is an accomplished actress and singer, unlike MM. She needs to watch David closely, as he has exactly the cash flow and connections MM likely wants.
We need interludes like that to keep things light at times. It's exhausting to be permanently outraged like Piers Morgan, or habitually hostile and argumentative. Yes there are perfectly good reasons to call the Hackles to account. That's why a lot of us are here. But we need to vary the mood when the Harkles are quiet.
Speaking of which I saw a headline today that Harry and Meghan 'powered down' for their wedding anniversary. Laughed so much I spilled my coffee.
but, does anone think it’s a subtle back- handed (and well deserved) slam by the Cambridges to the Harkles when they changed their instargram names to KensingtonROYAL lol? and i think they are now lbled Duke and Duchess of Cambridge? I’m not sure what it was before, but I was amused by the Cambridges taking full advantage of ROYAL. LOL
Pantsface
Loved your story about being near the Queen, in person.
I agree with you re being careful with distance meetings and Royals. There are some things that really do not have the cache or ambiance or capture the feel online--no matter how well done. Visiting the Chelsea Garden Show (never done that, but am sure it must be wonderful to visit in person), a concert, a Broadway performance, a fireworks show, a sporting event, a museum--there are some experiences that need that face to face with other people, the excitement, the smells, the shared experience of just physically being in the same space.
thanks for the laugh.
I read them too.😁
Prince Harry, a source tells The Daily Beast, “is enjoying the California sun, being with his wife, and enjoying being with his kid.”
He and Meghan are “building out” future plans.
Tom Sykes
Updated May. 16, 2020 4:20PM ET / Published May. 15, 2020 3:27AM ET
If you love The Daily Beast’s royal coverage, then we hope you’ll enjoy The Royalist, a members-only series for Beast Inside. Become a member to get it in your inbox on Sunday.
Sequestered in a hidey-hole somewhere in Los Angeles since mid-March, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have had plenty of time over the past six weeks to reflect on their post-royal future.
Stories suggesting that Harry is miserable and depressed, sources tell The Daily Beast, are wide of the mark. While his friends are more than ready to concede that he may be somewhat unsettled or on the back foot owing to the lockdown, who, they ask, hasn’t been?
“Everybody’s in a weird place,” said one friend.
The lockdown may have driven a coach and horses through the carefully laid plans of all humanity, including the Sussexes, but Harry, they say, is far from the morose and miserable figure portrayed in some media in recent days.
Indeed, one source said that tales of Harry’s supposed unhappiness are much overstated: “He’s enjoying the California sun, enjoying being with his wife, and enjoying being with his kid,” said a source. “He’s not unhappy. They are both busy and excited, and they are building out their plans for the future.”
On the philanthropic front, Harry’s plans for the next year are being kept under wraps. However, a renewed focus on military values and mental health initiatives, anchored by the postponed 2020 Invictus Games (they take place every two years) seems likely.
The cancellation of Invictus this year was, undeniably, a huge blow to Harry’s post-royal relaunch. The Paralympic-style event for wounded servicemen has been the cornerstone of Harry’s work with military and veterans groups, and it is notable that Harry has sent not one but two video messages to the event’s disappointed competitors in recent weeks.
But as to what exactly Harry’s commercial future will hold, no-one is telling just yet.
It was, of course, in large part in order to be allowed to undertake commercial work, to achieve “financial independence” that Harry left the royal family. Had it not been for the arrival of the pandemic, it is entirely likely that Harry would by now be a familiar figure on the high-end speaker circuit or Ted-like stages.
Harry’s debut into exec producing comes later this year with his Apple TV+ show on mental health with Oprah Winfrey. Oprah is a friend of Meghan’s from the Hollywood circuit and was a guest at the royal wedding.
It must have seemed a decent bet at the time and could, arguably, provide a road map for Harry’s future, but with Apple’s TV service struggling to connect with viewers so far, it seems a long shot that it will be seen by the requisite millions to lead to a deluge of job offers in the TV world for Harry.
The British brand consultant Mark Borkowski, who has long been fascinated by the royals, says that Harry’s commercial future success will be intimately linked to how well he manages his emergence into the post-COVID world.
“I just don’t see him having the skill set to be a producer,” said Borkowski. “What people forget about Harry is that because he was trained to be in the firm, so as a result he is a man who is very tuned into concepts like public duty, service and community. Putting him in California is a bit like putting an animal in a zoo. It is so far out of his natural environment. It would definitely be a mistake for him to become too closely identified with the Hollywood glitz and the glamor. That’s Meghan’s world.
“He is the outdoors guy, the explorer, the guy in your local community doing cup challenges for charity, and that was why the Invictus Games was a huge success; it had all the attributes and brand values he stands for. That’s why he is so strong on Africa and the environment. I can easily see him walking across Antarctica for charity and making a film about it, for example—the adventure for good purpose—and setting up a very compelling narrative about someone overcoming huge hurdles in life to establish who he is in the process.”
Borkowski says the money needed to fund the dreary details of life such as security teams will come if the narrative is right: “Harry can build a business structure around that kind of narrative and get paid big commercial money. It might involve sitting on the board of a Silicon Valley company, for example, leadership courses, inspirational seminars or helping corporations with their own philanthropic goals to give back. He could be a very disruptive force in that world.”
The couple are of course fortunate that Meghan knows the shark-infested waters of Hollywood well. She has worked in the entertainment industry all her life, and proved herself as an actress on Suits.
Thank you for the Telegraph article.
But I do wonder if Royal Reporters are very accurate when they try to gauge the level of support the royals have from the general public. Now, I know that the comment section of the Daily Mail skews toward disgruntled people with buckets of chips on their shoulders. But they are, in the main, British citizens, upon whose goodwill the future of the monarchy reats. So I am shocked and dismayed at the vitriol hurled at the Cambridges whenever the DM runs a story about their efforts to help out with phone calls or encouraging initiatives. They are slated for being lazy, out of touch, arrogant, condescending, and it goes on and on from the top comment down. It breaks my heart, because I think they're trying to find a way to contribute in a very difficult time, but their options are limited.
Now she is returning to the town as one of the most famous women on the planet, so finding a few well-paid roles to bankroll their lives and, ideally, symbiotically highlight their philanthropic work shouldn’t be overly taxing.
Both Meghan and Harry will, of course, be well aware of the cautionary tale of the declining financial fortunes of the last notable abdicant, the Duke of Windsor and his wife Wallis Simpson. They are the elephant in the room when it comes to any discussion of how Harry and Meghan might manage the transition to private citizens.
The Windsors were forced into exile by the Crown and were at first feted around the globe.
But their earning power decreased as the scandalous events of 1936 receded from view and they became not-very-important people.
They eked out their days relying on the generosity of friends, financial crumbs cast by intrigued American millionaires and, denied a pension by the British government, ultimately relied on a stipend of £25,000 a year from the monarchy (said to be equivalent to around $1m a year today). After the duke's death, the amount paid to his widow was cut to £5,000.
Harry seemed in mortal danger of ignoring the lessons of this chapter of history when it emerged that his first big-money commercial gig was speaking to a crowd of investment bankers at a JP Morgan event.
Unverified reports that he was paid a million dollars for the speech, and that he said in it that he had been in therapy for several years to help him cope with death of his mother, were met with slack-jawed disbelief.
As well as leaving Harry—who has long complained with good reason about invasion of privacy—open to charges of hypocrisy and covetousness, the event made little long-term business sense. Dishing on yourself isn’t really a viable long-term model. The people who consistently and continuously bag giant paychecks for a quick speech are the ones, like the Obamas, who have had the most extraordinary careers, and done incredible, pivotal things.
Harry and Meghan have not done that hard work, yet, and to make a decent fist of financial freedom in the long run they will need to. When this pandemic is over, they have two new identities to build.
The last three paragraphs are a pretty good indication that some aren't buying what the Harkles are selling. Enjoy!
I do think Megs & Harry will have a lot of problems playing the racism card in Hollywood now. She's already been around the block a few times in Hollywood, & there are now not just super-star black actors, but also major black directors & producers like Ryan Coogler & Shonda Rhimes. Will they see Megs as one of their own, or a talent that they need? I doubt it. Post Covid, the US wants uniters, not dividers. The Democrats have been hiding their SJW flame throwers because they know a backlash might strengthen you-know-who. This in not OT, because Meg & Harry's claims of British & American racism are political to the core.
I do think if Megs can lose weight, glam up again, & get some kind of catchy publicity, not the phony do-good stuff, she can be a J-Lo type money maker who appeals to the Walmart shopper.
I kind of get the idea, that they've cottoned on to the fact that without the royal family connection, no one is very interested in them, & they're desperately trying to find a way back in, hence the do-good drive-bys. Will it work? Well, the RF has been pretty spineless in dealing with them, so the Brits might find themselves having to put up with them again at some point. They have my sympathies if that happens.
Was she considered an unsuitable choice because of her past? No doubt, but people do overcome that. I'm thinking of Princess Sofia of Sweden. When her engagement to Prince Carl Philip, people were aghast because she was a glamour model (read: nude modelling) and had participated in reality TV shows. However, since their marriage five years ago, she has been an exemplary royal spouse - discreet, hardworking, dedicated to her charities and a devoted wife and mother. Recently there were pictures of her in PPE gear as she prepared to join front-line hospital workers who are treating coronavirus patients, after taking a crash course as a nursing assistant.
MM will go down in history as the woman who had an opportunity of a lifetime and blew it.
I just want to take a moment to say thank you to @Nutty Flavor and @Hikari.
To Nutty, for having this blog, in the first place; and giving us the forum for such witty, insightful, and incisive comments as I have read here in the past.
And to Hikari for making so many of the comments I have considered to be so witty, insightful, and incisive, regarding JKMPFKAH and his unfortunate choice in matrimony to whom I consider to be one of the most fake, insecure, and dishonest people I've ever come across in the celebrity realm (and I've been reading/following gossip since I was a kid and it began with soap operas and their casts and morphed into including the people who appeared in the rags my mom would buy, too.
I'm pretty sure one of my earliest memories was seeing Princess Margaret and Mick Jagger sitting at the same table and laughing and thinking to myself that Princess Margaret looked a lot like my great-aunt Sadie, who always looked so glamorous to me when I was a child/pre-teen.
In short, Hikari, I think that if you had the connections to go into gossip writing, you'd be one of the best there ever was. I think that anyone who you turned your attention to would both respect and fear you, but would be secretly be dying to get into your column/show/blog.
I totally agree with you about playing the race card. I have a friend who works in the industry (she is 100% African American, quite intelligent, breathtakingly beautiful, a great actress, and very kind.) She dealt with so much harassment and racism in her acting career—everything from being continuously offered roles as a Ho to having costume people not believe her measurements and her size (i.e., she does not have a big ‘booty’), to being sexually harassed. She finally quit acting and is now a successful writer (which is actually how she began her career: writing plays in New York.) She is married to an actor/director who is Caucasian (he’s one of those guys that you would recognize his face but not his name, probably, but has had a consistently successful career), and they now have two children. Although their relationship is accepted in Hollywood, it is often not accepted when they travel. They have actually been chased down a street in New Orleans, for example, with him being screamed at and bullied because he ‘likes chocolate milk.’ (And this occurred within the past several years.) I’m using this example to illustrate that many, many people have undergone and still undergo bias based on their race. It’s a real struggle, even for many people in LA. That’s why Halle Berry winning the Best Actress Oscar was such a huge deal. So I really doubt that anyone is going to feel sorry for this suitcase girl/yacht girl who is not only a terrible actress but also tried to pass as Caucasian during her entire (unsuccessful) career. When you add to all this that she has reportedly pissed off A-listers, such as Sigourney Weaver, and as we’ve seen first-hand, Serena, I just don’t see anyone hiring her. Oprah can promote her all she wants (although it seems as though even she is backing down), but MM is just not likable and Oprah’s reputation is basically in the gutter.
As far as her recreating herself as a ‘J Lo type’, I honestly don’t see that as a possibility. While I recognize J Lo as the thirsty fraud that she is, many, many people see her as aspirational. Part of my job is doing consumer research and it’s unbelievable how many woman (of every race), cite J Lo as being the person with the best hair (even though it’s extensions.) But no matter how she gets there (hair & makeup, plastic surgery, endless hours at the gym, a wardrobe that shows off her fantastic body, etc.), J Lo is a triple threat, who, at 50, is totally hot. Nobody that I know, male or female would dispute this. Markle, at 40-ish, is not. And most people either totally despise her, or are completely unaware of her existence.
@nutty just wanted to say that I don’t envy you. Literally every night. I’m exhausted for you right now. I find it sad that you can’t wake up in the morning and just enjoy reading insightful comments. .
Oops she is back with her multiple misbegotten manias. Her hallucinations Fueled by Lord knows what.
@nutty just wanted to say that I don’t envy you. Literally every night. I’m exhausted for you right now. I find it sad that you can’t wake up in the morning and just enjoy reading insightful comments.
I agree, Imabug. Nutty has her own Derek/Tricia (if you don't know who they are, they are commenters on Crazy Days and Nights who have a years long feud going on) situation, here.
@Imabug, @Leela: MM is merching both the tiara and the ‘aquamarine’ ring on Meghan’s Mirror. They are $94.27 and $55.11 respectively.
I know everybody hates Disqus, but I wish we had it right now so I could post a laughing GIF for this comment. ������
MeMe does not. End of comparison
Also @Nutty, so sorry you have to wake up to this every morning. It always happens when you are in sleeping hours for where you live.
@Pantsface
Welcome to the blog. Scroll past what you don't like, read what you do like.
@Sarcastic Bimbo: Ugh. I hardly ever go to CDAN anymore because of that. It’s just not worth it.
I ended up blocking Tricia today, I hated to do it because I enjoy her guesses, but I'm hoping it will cut down on the scrolling I have to do over there.
@Sarcastic: I know, right! Especially love the prices! So high-end.
I don't even think those prices are QVC-EZpay worthy, are they?
I do disagree with one point in the following:
Even with all the doubts about Meg's opaque history and motives (and the prior incident in which Prince Charles had her removed from Kensington Palace for spying) still, this engagement and wedding was allowed to proceed, and reflect terribly on every Royal ideal and code of conduct for centuries.
I don't think Charles had Meghan removed from Kensington Palace or had anything whatsoever to do with the alleged incident. He is not the monarch and has no jurisdiction over Kensington Palace whatsoever. Even the Queen governs affairs at the palace through staff.
It is a case of the broken telephone (a rumour growing legs and all sorts of embellishments, becoming wilder with each retelling). What I think actually happened is:
* Meghan had moved in with Harry but it was not something that was planned and there were no formal arrangements made. She kind of turned up with her suitcases and never left.
* A guard at Kensington Palace (perhaps a newbie or an emergency replacement) came across this stranger (who turned out to be an American woman who may or may not have been taking photographs at the time ... Meghan really loved selfies so my guess is that she was actually taking selfies at KP). He confronted her and Harry had to rescue her from being escorted off the property.
* She was not thrown out nor taken to the airport and put on a plane, but a few phone calls may need to have been made to stop the guard from escorting her from the premises as he did not know who she was. (She may have made a planned trip to North America shortly afterwards, perhaps to renew a visa.)
There was another interesting incident, from which I draw inferences:
While she was squatting at Harry's place in Kensington Palace, she went to a beauty/hair salon for some treatments. When she was finished, she stood outside, leaning against a wall, made a phone call, and waited for a taxi to pick her up and take her back to the palace. She was papped doing that (not arriving or getting to the place but leaving it, so someone in the salon told the papas she was there) and she did not go back into the salon to wait for the taxi, but stood there in full view for the photos. (Is Harry really still unaware that she does this?)
What I find most odd about this was that she was staying with Harry but he did not make a car available to take her to a salon (or to go shopping or buy flowers as she was papped doing that and walking back to KP as well). Was Harry too mean, did he have another reason for not making a car available, or did she insist on walking and/or using taxis so that she could get papped (i.e. she would have control)? If she was his formal partner, living with him, I find it odd that she was walking/calling taxis. Even if he would not pay, as a supposedly wealthy woman could she not hire a car and driver for the day?
The incident at the Salon/Spa occurred in May 2017, during the time that they were still broken up and she was stalking him. I just confirmed the time-frame, because she was apparently in London, trying to get in touch with Harry, because she desperately wanted to go to Pippa’s wedding. SHE set up the paps (not realizing how stupid it would look, as you pointed out, to be waiting for a taxi when she was supposedly PH’s girlfriend.) In her tangled mind, these photos would show that she was ‘getting ready for the wedding’, to which she was never invited. She ultimately released a ‘photo’, ‘from the wedding.’ We can always rely upon MM for some bad photo-shopping!
I'm personally convinced Harry said he'd marry Meghan regardless of TQ's permission. I suspect he also said he'd leave The Firm as he'd said that before. While it might have been a good thing if a split had happened then, the public (mostly) still saw him as the cheeky hero prince so the fallout would have been really bad even without the race card that Harry had already played a year before the engagement in his letter to the press.
I also wonder if as Queen she isn't concerned about plans for a "slimmed down" monarchy after her death and she wouldn't have wanted to lose Harry for that reason. As @Ava C said, appearing on zoom/film may serve the royals well during the lockdown, but it's lacking as a permanent MO. I'm American but I imagine TQ is right about "needing to be seen" (in person.) She knows how much her elderly cousins and Anne have done over the years and she knows Will has spoken about not following that precedent.
And TQ knows how hapless and irresponsible Harry is in ways we don't (as I'm sure alot has been covered up over the years.) So as a grandmother I suspect she was and is worried about him self-destructing on his own.
As others have said I think the most TQ could have done was to mandate a longer period before the engagement was announced. But that would have caused M to have visa problems, wouldn't it? And there was the age/fertility issue. Waiting for Louis to be born would have made no difference. The first 6 in line need permission, not the first 5 as someone stated.
What could have been done differently was how Harry was spoiled all those years. But that falls more on Charles than TQ. I actually like Charles and think he often gets a raw deal. But I also think like many divorced fathers he spoiled his children. Then add in Diana's influence and her sudden death...Diana demanding Harry have equal treatment to Will within the extended family did Harry no favors. Neither did being the "fun parent" compared to stodgy old Charles or telling her children "you can be as naughty as you want as long as you don't get caught." So the trainwreck was set in motion long ago.
Making Harry the Commonwealth Young Ambassador was an avoidable mistake. I expect Harry did manipulate TQ into that.
Thanks for that timeline, which does make things more interesting.
1. I still think it is highly probable that she was taking selfies at KP and was caught by a guard who did not know who she was or why she was there. Her Tig was still active then. However, I can find nothing in the Tig archives for December 2016 that indicates that she was even in London. (Her relationship with Harry was outed in October 2015.) Something seems more than off about that story. As I said, Charles has no jurisdiction to have her removed from KP at all and such actions would be left to staff and someone at Charles' level would not get involved. It sounds like the sort of story someone who is completely ignorant of such things would make up.
3. I did find some of the cutesy quotes she posted in December 2016:
Namast'ay in bed
What brings me joy
You, of course.
Always you.
If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun. Katherine Heburn
3. There is no proof that there was a breakup between them at all. What does seem clear is that she pursued the relationship and if she hadn't chased him he might have moved on from her instead of marrying her.
4. Yes, I remember now that the pap pics of her outside the hair salon/beauty parlour were the day before Pippa's wedding. Meghan was still working on Suits at the time and she took time off and flew across to the UK for a long weekend for a wedding to which she was not invited, and then got papped outside the hair salon/beauty parlour! It was odd behaviour.
@CatEyes, I'm going to total up all the time I've spent deleting your comments and send you an invoice.
New post later today.
JLo can dance and has a strong base of fans that follow her. Meg could try to follow that recipe but JLo has been at it for decades when she was young enough to be of interest to Pop Culture.
Here's a roundup of JLo's ghost-singing: https://youtu.be/kLlDeZGDPhg
Here's her singing that had to be auto-tuned to death: https://youtu.be/JzQBqabThh4
https://www.ccn.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-toxic-relationship-wedding-day/
Nothing we didn't know already! The article says she's a control freak and the relationship with H is toxic. Although this is not new to us, these are very strong words in print and it's clear that now H&M are no longer royals the gloves are off.
We need interludes like that to keep things light at times. It's exhausting to be permanently outraged like Piers Morgan, or habitually hostile and argumentative.
Agree, the lighter subjects breathe a much needed relief at times. They were royally connected so to speak, so not totally off topic IMHO. ;o)
I did! Lol I saw it last night just before I went to bed. Subtle but meaningful. ;o)
Also, thank you for your kind words, @SarcasticBimbo @Imabug @MustySyphone and @KCM1212.
@JHanoi
I thought you might be joking about the kensingtonroyal Instagram. That is real shade!!! LOL.
Many (not all) are working-class and/or Hispanic women who see JLo as a more glam version of themselves, and they have followed her through her various romances and marriages, career ups and downs, childraising, etc. while they've been going through their own various romances and marriages, career ups and downs, etc.
Reese Witherspoon is another good example; a lot of women who connected with her during "Legally Blonde" in 2001 are buying Draper James dresses today. Chrissy Teigen is an example too - some people identify with her and her family, and that plays into wanting to buy her branded products.
Meg doesn't have a large cohort of fans that have followed her over time and identify with her. I'm not sure her name means much for branding.
I also appreciate the work you do to make this blog so enjoyable. It’s near perfect except for the lack of a volunteer resident psychiatrist. ;)
This is just a rehash of old news but the house is described as 'unlovely' and 'charmless quarters'.
According to a local estate agent, 'They like the cachet of them living here but high-profile people don't like the paparazzi, so it would be sensible to have them living behind gates.'. The 'cachet'?? What cachet? More of an embarrassment.
Not sure why we are treated daily to a glut of 'news' about these two. Do they want to appear 'normal' and do-gooders before the Campbell book appears? If so, it's a tad late.
I read that as “being sensible to have them living behind bars” 😉
Duchess of Cornwall becomes the first president of Bees for Development as she announces funds raised from sales of honey from her own hives will go to the charity
Duchess of Cornwall has become president of the charity Bees for Development
It champions beekeeping as a way to combat poverty and highlights the important role honey bees and other pollinators play in the UK
Camilla, 72, first began keeping bees at her private home Raymill in 2010
The Duchess of Cornwall has celebrated World Bee Day by becoming president of the charity Bees for Development which promotes beekeeping as a way to combat poverty.
Camilla, who is a keen beekeeper and has a series of hives in her garden in Wiltshire, said funds raised from the sale of her honey crop this year would go to the organisation.
In a video message, she described how bees are not only 'vital to the natural world', but can also be used to help provide a much-needed income for people living in some of the world's poorest countries.
Looking the picture of sophistication in the clip, the 72-year-old, who is currently living at Birkhall on the Queen's Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire with Prince Charles, sported a white blouse and black blazer while a framed drawing of bees sat next to her.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8339279/Duchess-Cornwall-president-Bees-Development-charity.html
Harry and Meg are the losers
They fought tooth and nail to be free
They got their comeuppance, the Queen gave them tuppence
And said, go, get on without me
Haha! You should be the new poet laureate ;)
As someone else posted yesterday (I think @HappyDays?) they barely knew each other and hardly spent any time together. Most people think that it was over 18 months (which would be bad enough), but it was really from when they met (and who even knows if the Botswana trip is true given that she was at/in her friend’s wedding in NY during that time period) until December 2016. Then from the Toronto Invictus Games in September 2017, when she apparently black-mailed him (and subsequently moved to London) until whenever (I don’t believe that they are still together.)
Harry’s fatal mistake was releasing his statement in November 2016 (sheer stupidity on his part) to ‘leave his girlfriend alone.’ She was being left alone because nobody knew who she was! Even the Toronto police have confirmed that her claims of being followed and harassed never occurred. And any pap shots were arranged by her.
So when he decided to dump her in December 2016, she had him backed into a corner. He couldn’t actually say that they had broken up after releasing that ridiculous statement just a month prior. So she stalked him, and continued a pretend relationship through PR, paps, and photo-shopping.
Here are some specific examples of what she did during that time (and these are just a few that are easily confirmed):
-Crashed the Inskip wedding in Jamaica. She was initially invited as his +1, but since they had broken up, everyone assumed she wouldn’t attend. One look as those pics tells you everything that you need to know about the status of their ‘relationship’.
-Attended the Polo without tickets, only to be thrown out by Prince William. (Again, there are pics showing this.)
-Showed up in London to pretend that she was invited to Pippa’s wedding (we’ve already discussed this one.)
-Showed up at the Invictus Games Opening Ceremony in Toronto with Markus Anderson. (Again, pics are readily available and Harry looks absolutely terrified to see her.)
She kept a non-existent relationship going for almost a year! But if you look at all of the fakery that has transpired in the 2 years since the wedding, this should be no surprise, as once again, most of her ‘life’ is smoke and mirrors, with much assistance from Sunshine Sachs and photoshop. Oh, and the actor that she uses as a stand-in for Harry. (See food delivery photos & dog-walking pap shots with Harry for good examples.)
@Maneki Neko
- Re Windsor & C&C’s wedding. Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was thinking about the blessing/church service in St George’s rather than the civil ceremony at the Windsor Register Office, especially as I am familiar with Windsor.
- Birth Certificate: The only time I’ve ever seen an image of a certificate without the authenticating stamp was in a report about somebody who had transitioned and had gone to court to try and get the original birth entry changed and to have the right to a new birth certificate.
It’s quite right that a UK-born surrogate baby has to be adopted by the genetic parents to be legally theirs under English law. I don’t know anything about the paperwork associated with adoption and whether what we were shown was a new `birth’ certificate detailing the `birth’ of a new legal person.
(Btw, decades ago, in my first year of my first marriage, the law allowed me, as a newly -wed woman, to claim 2 lots of Personal Allowance, on the grounds that I was two different people in that first year. This has is connected to the idea of a bride wearing white, the true symbolism of white being that it’s the `colour’ of death – a spiritual meaning that the previous, virginal ,woman has `died’ yet now has a new life in marriage.)
How might that 42 days fit with the idea that the birth of the child-who-became-Archie was significantly earlier than May? Would 6 weeks be enough to cover his accelerated development?
Not sure abt the 42 days so I checked:
'Legal parenthood can be transferred by parental order or adoption after the child is born.'
The Child law advice says 'The intended parents can apply for a Parental Order 6 weeks after the child is born, and before the child is 6 months old. The surrogate and her husband must fully and freely consent and can only give consent 6 weeks after the birth.'
This in the event there was a surrogate - you never know with the duo.
In that case (surrogacy) with the 42 days this means Archie was born around 25 March, maybe a bit later as the birth cert was published vin 17 May. I don't want to add to this but since you mention it, 42 days is a huge difference.
BTW, if you look at the picture of Harry at the Invictus Games in 2017 and his expression of dismay when he saw that she had arrived, look at the expression on Justin Trudeau's face as well. Of course he knew Harry, and he knew MM through the Mulroneys (they ran in the same social circles, which MM had somehow managed to work her way into) and he is looking in the same direction as Harry, with an expression of "What the hell is SHE doing her?". He actually looks angry.
The great thing about this blog it encourages research. You are right, of course, Harry did need consent from the Queen to marry if he was to stay in succession.
It just makes me more disappointed in the Queen who didn't do her own due diligence re Markle.
Or may be she did, and tried to talk to him and he went crazy demanding what he wanted? What a bdy mess totally avoidable!
So 42 days is the earliest the H$M can apply? With the latest at the 6 month mark?
What I'm now wondering - Is what we have seen a second birth certificate for a `legally new' child? That might explain the lack of the stamp. That's on the genuine original certificate in its sealed envelope, to be opened only by the adult Archie?
Does it mark the point at which the new legal entity called Archie Harrison M-W came into being and `another' child, a different legal entity born by another woman who was not his genetic mother, ceased to exist? The actual biological child could have been anything between 6 weeks and 6 months old at that point?
Just as when I was Miss A who became the different legal person, Mrs B, upon marriage (under the old Inland Revenue rules) although the biological person that was me had continuous existence?
I do wish we had a legally-qualified person here to comment.
Or is it a hired baby that's really too old and they are dim enough to think nobody will notice?
Sorry to have gone on about this but it was really bugging me!
If she denied, screams of racism.
Awful situation.
Time will tell...
They got HM over a barrel.
The image of her leading the charge of bargain hunters as they pushed through into the store to get at the sale goods is printed on my memory. I've thought of it every time since when I've been involved with a bazaar and the doors are opened!
"It just makes me more disappointed in the Queen who didn't do her own due diligence re Markle."
"Or may be she did, and tried to talk to him and he went crazy demanding what he wanted? What a bdy mess totally avoidable!"
As I posted earlier, I think Harry threatened to marry anyway (not that I think M would have wanted him to give up his place in the line of succession.) I think he had no trouble convincing everyone he'd leave--- he's said publicly he'd considered that before.
Of course, I could be wrong but I'm curious how some here think this could have been avoided (except by Harry's choice.) It wouldn't be the exact same mess but it would still have been a big mess if HMTQ had said no. And not only because of the racial issue which Harry had already made a big deal about a year before they became engaged.
Facial expressions at the ceremony make me believe royal family knew enough to make them very weary of the union.
Perhaps they hoped attention and favors Markle received will help her get into the royal way and follow it.
We now know this could never work with someone like her and Harry. They don't view things like most people do. They are both delusional about their place in the order of things.
What a mess!
I'm with you on how much the Archie "delivery" bugs me. Things do not add up! I'm a trained quant and if I don't have a solution for a math problem, I will NEVER stop trying to solve it even if it takes me years.
I really didn't mean to stir things up earlier and annoy and offend other Nutties. @Nutty is making another post soon so I'm writing here to make my temporary peace.
My best friend had her son in late March, just weeks before Archie. Both parents are athletic and tall: 5'8" and 6'4". The baby was her first and she carried small gaining ~25 lbs. She studied ballet for over a decade. She could tolerate very high heels but even she could not bend down the way Meg did with her legs closed. Her center of balance shifted and it was physically impossible for her to bend down that way. Archie is also so much bigger than my best friend's baby.
I brought HCA Healthcare earlier for two specific reasons. First, to point that hospitals/institutions commit outrageous fraud and this one happened to be connected to Archie. Second, exposing fraud is prohibitively expensive because whistleblowers or how they are more affectionately termed "rats" are extremely vulnerable and need compensation for risks.
On record, the Sussexes get away with flouting British law with their secret Archie Christening. Add in British press injunctions, and prohibitions on hinting at existing injunctions. How on earth can anyone expect limitless transparency from the BRF or on Archie? I certainly don't.
Anyways, I just had to let it out somewhere.
I have registered and set up a free wordpress blog for her to test drive and move there at any time she is so inclined. Wordpress blog allows her to block abusers- disruptors such as our resident loony toon CatsEye and disruptors who like to operate by using the name unknown.
Of course this blog also gets unknowns who are honest and are not disruptors
Nutty -- I will send you the user name and password // Anytime- I will transfer it over to you completely.
We all want the answer to Archie??
The BRF and Harry were just another stepping stone in her game. It's not about winning, it's about getting what you can and moving on to the next mark. She will never stop. It's who she is.
Questions for me are how the split will be rolled out to the public and what will happen with Archie.
Oh dear, that royal baby brought a lot of question Mark's.
Her refusal to see royal docs
Extra quick delivery for overdue geriatric pregnancy with too quick discharge
Absence of signatures
Harry's babies change comment
Her superhuman abilities to bend and squat during gestation
Changing sizes and at one point total disappearance of the bump.
Strange behavior of the family - zero pictures of them interacting with Archie
Removal of their pics from the Queen's desk
It is a blooming big collection of red flags for anybody, let alone people like you and me who dig until find answers!
I’m not sure what you mean by secret christening. :o) They had it at Windsor Castle, no royal christenings are televised, all we ever see is the arrival and departures of the participants and this is normally captured on film and camera. This didn’t happen with the Duo, we just had a family photo of the occasion. We are also usually privy to the names of the God parents, as we know the Duo took exception to this. We know the Duo are very much about smoke ‘n’ mirrors and saying they want privacy, but really it’s all done to garner as much attention as possible, (but at the same time coming off as contradicting themselves). They managed that with this christening, much to many people’s dismay. :o/
I’m leaving this comment as that, as the subject has been discussed many times before. ;o)
Glad that you “got” Margaret Rutherford.
Don’t know the film you’re talking about, more Miss Marple.
Also big fan of Josephine Tey & Dorothy L Sayers.
I can't find the original post to credit author but to whoever said she waited (badly paraphrasing)) the 42 days it took for surrogate to sign over Archie to H&M ,to present him as their own makes alot of sense
IMO Archie appears 2-4 months older than his stated age but I could go with 6 weeks older "they change so much in 2 weeks" and him just being advanced for his age and maybe even they presented a stand in or one of those fancy fake dolls at the christening because I find it odd there is not one grand photo op of HM or PC holding baby Archie
MM was never pregnant. even if she padded herself to appear more pregnant there were pics in the mix of flat belly within those 10 months
yesterday I read someone state they 100% believe Meg was pregnant. I say prove it. that squat in stilletos was absurd. team surrogate all day long
Made me smile. I need it at the moment. We signed contracts to sell our house right before lockdown and yesterday we heard the buyers want a big reduction before exchange and completion. Last thing I needed was all the angst that happens here at night. So thank you Nutty for all your work, and to everyone else who make this such a friendly, interesting place to drop into.
Got to love Margaret Rutherford! I saw her in a film recently when she was in her 50s, she looked no younger from when she was much older! Lol Wonderfully gifted actress of her era. :o)
I am sure that the group photo they published was a fake.
Another thought has just occurred to me - I mentioned how much the baby looked like Harry on his Christening day (hmm...) Now Harry started to look like the Harry we knew and once loved from a very early age. If the likeness is that strong, would a `real Archie' look like Harry quite soon? If the babe is an unwitting impostor, will it become evident?
Btw, `Christening' is conducted under ecclesiastical law, as it's the child being baptised/received into the Christian church. I'm not sure of the status of St George's - private chapel under a licence? It's nothing to do with civil registration which is under the law set down by Parliament.
I have changed my surname by Deed Poll, under civil law. I can't change my given, Christian, name in the same way as it was given under ecclesiastical law, `in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. There was once a court judgement when a judge ruled that the hated first name was `given by God' - and couldn't be changed ie it was imposed under a law system that was nothing to do with secular law. Cue much derision from the secularists.
Both my aunt and an old school friend were able to change/add to their Christian names when they respectively were married in church (CofE) or were Confirmed(not sure if CofE, RC or other). Traditionally, marriage and confirmation are sacraments (a means of receiving God's grace, like baptism) and a new name signifies a new life.
Baptism is a once-and-for all thing; if the child was signed with holy water a second time, it doesn't count spiritually! (Yes, I know there's Conditional Baptism in an emergency and that doesn't preclude a later formal baptism to confirm it)
All this must sound very weird if you're not familiar with the Christian Church and/or the different legal systems involved.
All the BRF is in breach of CoE law by using a private royal register instead of a parish register for the Christenings. However, they are transparent with the information that is on Birth Certificates and Christening Certificates. The BRF always makes sure we know who are the Godparents of the royal children. Sussexes breach is insult to injury after they did not even bother to tell us all of Archie's Godparents.
Here's an article that discusses the breach:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/archie-christening-queen-keep-baptism-17480710
Phil Rickman
Merrily Watkins series.
Anglican priest, English/Welsh borders.
Female Anglican vicar facing the church, locals & the devil!!
What a sh*t! You have my sympathy. Your gazunderer is despicable - you, like HM, are over a barrel. The swine!
Please tell me you know who Josephine Tey is/was?
I haven’t been to Cambridge for thirty years.
I used to stayed in Fulbourn.
I did say the Sussex’s took issue with letting the public know who the God parents were. :o)
***********
@ WBBM,
As if the Queen and entire royal family would allow a fake christening photo to be released to the public? This is serious tin hat stuff. ;o)
I didn't say anything about a Baptismal certificate - I didn't have one, my parents either decided it was unnecessary or lost it. Fortunately, when I was confirmed as an adult, I knew where and when I was baptised, so the records could be checked.
A Royal Peculiar is not under the jurisdiction of the local diocesan bishop, so presumably it doesn't have to produce Bishops' Transcripts to pass the details of church register changes upwards.
After all, the monarch is Supreme Governor of the CofE, but not the Head, that's Christ.
I think I’ve seen V.I.P’s, but I’m off to look it up. ;o) I have her collection when she played Miss Marple.
The Archie Christening spectacle highlights my point. The BRF uses loopholes to their own ends and there are clear examples of pushing boundaries for the Sussexes. How far can they go? That's the REAL question.
Anyways, I'll drop it right now.
There’s usually a clip or a slide (sometimes a hidden band) that keeps it in place. I’ve worn them and personally had no issue with them moving or even blowing off! Lol :o)