When the Daily Beast, one of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's favorite PR outlets, reported yesterday that the duo had been bothered by drones over their current couchsurf in Los Angeles, I rolled my eyes.
Yet another fabrication, courtesy Duchess Meghan. Who really cares enough about these people to fly drones over their residence?
Unauthorized drone photos generally can't be sold to commercial publications for legal reasons, so there's not much financial incentive to take photos from above.
(The Beast suggested that some recent blurry photos of Harry playing with a dog outdoors were taken by a drone; other bloggers calculated angles that suggest the photographer was inside the house.)
Even if drone photos were publishable, who cares about the Sussexes sitting by their pool? That's not an exciting photograph. Who can use that?
In addition, if the drones were to catch Meghan topless - as they once caught Kate with long-lens cameras - the photos wouldn't have much news value.
Most of us have already seen Meghan nude from the waist up.
It sounds a lot about the lies she told about paparazzi terrorizing her in Toronto - no police report was ever filed - and in London, where it was claimed she was the subject of a "wave of harassment and abuse" because she is (a little bit) Black.
Meg has lied about so many things, it made me think:
What about Meghan do we know to be true?
Yet another fabrication, courtesy Duchess Meghan. Who really cares enough about these people to fly drones over their residence?
Unauthorized drone photos generally can't be sold to commercial publications for legal reasons, so there's not much financial incentive to take photos from above.
(The Beast suggested that some recent blurry photos of Harry playing with a dog outdoors were taken by a drone; other bloggers calculated angles that suggest the photographer was inside the house.)
Even if drone photos were publishable, who cares about the Sussexes sitting by their pool? That's not an exciting photograph. Who can use that?
In addition, if the drones were to catch Meghan topless - as they once caught Kate with long-lens cameras - the photos wouldn't have much news value.
Most of us have already seen Meghan nude from the waist up.
Yet another lie
My assumption is that Meghan was lying about the drones, as well as the "unimaginable" levels of intrusion in Los Angeles that has the Sussexes "followed every day" (at a time when California is still mostly under lockdown) leaving them "rattled" at the cars "being driven very erratically" behind them.It sounds a lot about the lies she told about paparazzi terrorizing her in Toronto - no police report was ever filed - and in London, where it was claimed she was the subject of a "wave of harassment and abuse" because she is (a little bit) Black.
Meg has lied about so many things, it made me think:
What about Meghan do we know to be true?
A few basics
There's never been any question, to my knowledge, that Doria and Thomas are Meg's parents, and that she grew up in the Los Angeles area, although there is some dispute about her age.
We know that Meg was married to Trevor Engelson from 2011-2013.
Her tenure on "Suits" from 2011-2017 cannot be denied, nor can her blog "The Tig", which lasted from 2014-2017.
Then, of course, we all saw Meghan get married for the second (third?) time on May 19, 2018, and there were a few documented Royal engagements during her 18-odd months in the United Kingdom.
What else about Meghan is absolutely known to be true?
Comments
"Kim Kardashian is getting her California law degree via apprenticeship to, and tagging along with a senior lawyer which is clever and interesting. She still has to pass the California bar exam of course."
But has she passed the CA first year "baby bar?" http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Examinations/June-2020-First-Year-Law-Students-Examination
That's given in June and Oct but I'm pretty sure she should have taken it no later than last Oct. And I'm pretty sure sure we would have heard if she passed.
All the articles I've seen just focus on her plans to take "the bar exam" in 2022. But she can't progress beyond her first year of study without passing the baby bar. It's required for those doing the apprenticeship route like Kim and for those attending unaccredited law schools. Passage rates are terrible. https://www.jdadvising.com/baby-bar-exam-statistics-from-recent-years/
From 2014-2018 overall passage rates ranged from 16.9 to 25.3. Doesn't mean Kim won't pass, but has she?
"Do you think MM may have used her lifestyle blog to obtain free/discounted lodging, food and plane fare...or at the very least used The Tig to write off some of her travel expenses? I believe I remember reading this..."
Wouldn't doubt it. Wasn't it The Tig that got her trouble with the IRS? (She went to court and lost. There are records of that.) But even written-off expenses are still paid expenses. The amounts paid just aren't subject to tax.
I don't doubt she mooched off of various men either. But she also spent alot on travel. And on things like the ungodly number of shoes she showed off housed in a special closet on IG!
I definitely think she got free lodging through The Tig, perhaps with the help of Kruger Crowne. I read a story (can’t remember where), that she was staying in a comped hotel in London. IIRC, the owner kept parrots in a cage (or something like that) and MM was offended by that & decided to leave. I may have some of the details wrong, but that’s the gist.
I think what got her in trouble with the IRS is that she was selling stuff on The Tig towards the end and she wasn’t declaring the income. That’s why she shuttered it.
I thought I read somewhere that her law plans were on "hold"
It seems like she had a documentary called The Justice Project air on April 5th that talks about her projects and her studies thus far.
In other words, it seems like a publicity stunt. Shocker.
Also, I literally have no opinion on whether Kim or her siblings are intelligent. I just don't believe her studying law should bear any significance on it.
I can say I'm studying astrophysics right now. But if I don't understand anything about it, it doesn't hold much weight.
Maybe I just do not understand American laws, but I don't see how she could be entitled to any kind of settlement at all. If he owned property she maybe could have made a claim that, even if she had not contributed financially, in all the time they had been together she provided support and partnership and was thus entitled to claim part of that property, but he did not own property.
It is not as if she gave up a career to be a wife and mother. He supported her for 10 years while she tried to build a career. When she finally got a decent paying job, she divorced him.
But, no, she did not ask for nor get any kind of financial settlement from Trevor in the divorce.
I forgot about all the shoes! It must have cost her a fortune to buy all those shoes!
Why does anyone think she was entitled to a settlement from Trevor? After almost 10 years of supporting her...
In California, after 10 years of marriage -- common law or otherwise -- assets are split down the middle. It all becomes community property.
Oh, that is sad. She seems to be fairly calm and rational about the H&M mess
Ooh. Oddly, I see that the channel is gone, but some videos still available. Like this one, and wow, if true!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGf8iUD2sRY
She says the tights incident ended in tears because MM YANKED Charlotte arm ripping her dress and caused her to cry, which caused Catherine to cry.
George, a witness, reported this to William. Which had the expected result and the falling out with Harry.
I remember hearing some reports that M&M slapped Charlotte. But the Nutties helped me to see, had that been true, we would be reporting on Williams day making license plates in prison.
Probably not true for the yanking. Even HM and PC wouldn't have allowed the wedding to go forth if it were.
Says a lot about H&Ms reputation that these rumours have legs.
I don't think she would be entitled to any settlement from Trevity-Trev-Trev. They were both working and their salaries comparable, she initiated the divorce...Probably a quick, no fault divorce that would have held her up if had asked for cash.
She alleged adultery between Ninaki Priddy and Trevor. Also, as a director and producer, Trevor would have been the main breadwinner. I always got the impression he was a trust fund kid.
"The courts will not consider evidence of adultery, or any other kind of fault, when deciding whether to grant a divorce. It only matters that the marriage failed; it doesn't matter who did what or why."
And
"...generally speaking, judges aren't allowed to consider marital misconduct when making decisions about alimony."
https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/adultery-and-divorce-california.html
And they were married two years, not 10. With no children. And she had a good-paying job at the time of the divorce.
That's not a rule out some sort of blackmail IF Trevity did cheat and wanted to keep it quiet.
Here are some picks from LSA:
* The horrendously expensive dress for the engagements photos.
* The engagement interview and the obfuscation/lies that emerged from that, even if not immediately exposed, there was an unsettling feeling that arose when watching that interview (and all the conversation about separating fact from fiction really got going).
"Trevor's father, David, was a highly-paid orthodontist whose clients included some of the wealthiest and most influential people in the country. His mother, Leslie, was a respected speech therapist. Today they are comfortably retired, and remain pillars of the Jewish community in Great Neck, the affluent New York commuter town where F Scott Fitzgerald lived when he wrote The Great Gatsby."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5625413/Why-did-Meghans-marriage-Trevor-Engelson-implode.html
He called her 'the hottest chick in California' and she couldn't keep her hands off him - so, why did Meghan's first marriage to Trevor Engelson implode?
Meghan met former husband Trevor Engelson at the age 23 as she was starting her acting career
They lived together for six years before marrying in the Jamaican resort of Ocho Rios on 10 September 2011
They were married for 23 months before shocking friends and family with their separation
David Jones reveals how Trevor rebounded after his split with Meghan and began dating Charlotte McKinney
By DAVID JONES
PUBLISHED 20 April 2018
********** The above DM article is a treasure trove of Trevor for his fans out there.
********** Many photos with Megs and minus Megs
You obviously know the ins and outs of getting a California law degree. Thanks. We shall see if KK is making it or faking it as far as getting her law degree. I assumed she was on the level about this.
KK and law degree - doing the self study for learning anything major (language, law) is really hard because
You don't know what you don't know. In law school, it is structured to cover all kinds of options whereas the self study, you may miss this or that because the readings didn't cover it and it didn't come up in conversation with your advisor.
You have to be extremely self disciplined. She may be able to pull that out as she has lots of household help handling the kids, getting dinner on the table that you or I might not have.
You don't have the interaction of study buddies helping you.
So I don't know if she is or not keeping up with it (pun intended) but if she is, good for her. If not, well others have also hit the same road blocks as she so it's not like she's the only one who hasn't completed it that way.
switch to shoes
post in the DM about some shoes for DoC, how they are great if you have bunions. I figured out that her 11 pairs ran close to 2K, a far cry from the 40K allegedly of M and probably got a lot more tread out of them.
Another post in the DM talking of HM covering PA's debts. If so, then that means that there won't be as much money around for the next generation with you know who.
If Trevor did not give her a huge settlement (half of his earnings?) would not this be widely known?
But, I have finally found the information that everyone takes for granted:
Court documents show that Markle wed Engelson on August 16, 2011. By July 5, 2013, they were separated, and she filed for divorce on August 7 of that year in Los Angeles.
Markle cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for the split, but by all appearances the breakup was amicable.
The couple followed a common celebrity procedure by having a “temporary judge” appointed to rule on their issues outside of the courtroom.
Markel didn’t even hire an attorney and the case was uncontested. She waived her right to receive spousal support.
Does this mean that there was no payout for Meghan at all? Would Trevor have been able to give her a lump sum that was equal to half of his earnings during their marriage (and assuming that her earnings would be subtracted from that amount)? Shouldn't the divorce have taken longer and been more complicated if they had to work out how much he had to give her in a settlement? Maybe he did make an offer that she accepted (is that where her rumoured wealth came from?) and she would never admit to getting all that money from him and he has been quite circumspect in what he has and has not said about her.
You could be right about M's divorce from Trevor. But I thought they lived together 7 years at most before getting married...If it was 8, she certainly made a beeline for him after graduating from NWU in 2003. Wonder when all those auditions occurred when she said Thomas was putting gas in her broken-down car? And I wasn't sure if living together would automatically count re: $ (although I do know about the existence of "palimony.")
If her plan is to stay married to Harry for 10 years while staying in CA, good luck. I can't imagine it will last for another 8 years (or 7 1/2 if the living together in the UK pre-marriage counted.) Of course, she'll get child support assuming Archie exists.
-----
@xxxxx wrote about Kim K and law study.
I've got lots of lawyers in my family!
One point of clarification. Kim wouldn't be earning a law degree. But it is possible in CA and a couple of other states to study law ("read law") and to qualify to sit for the bar exam without a degree by following an alternate path. So one can practice if the bar exam is passed. But that baby bar is a hurdle. If as @Imabug said her plans are "on hold" it could be because of the baby bar. The alternate path requires 4 years, a prescribed course of study, and x hours of supervision by a qualified attorney per year. Until the baby bar is passed, nothing beyond Year #1 counts.
https://mol.im/a/8271733
https://blindgossip.com/she-floated-her-buyout-number/
"This DM article says they met in 2004 and were divorced in 2014. Yes, Lizzie, I might be wrong about the 8 years. But do you see how close they were to it?"
You could be right. I don't know. But M filed for divorce in August 2013. I don't know that for payout/spousal support purposes the "length of the marriage" clock continues to run after a separation/divorce filing. I'm also not sure that for payout purposes being "close" to a certain number of required years makes a difference. Usually in legal stuff being close isn't good enough. But maybe it was. I'm not attorney.
But the DM article you cited also says "The couple dated for six years before getting engaged in 2010 and marrying in a luxurious beach ceremony in Jamaica in 2011."
I'm just not seeing their "marital" or "marital type" relationship as spanning 10 years. I'm also not sure why Trevor would have been so anxious to get rid of her that he'd pay big bucks to do it. She's the one who filed, after all. (And supposedly he was shocked.) Normally the filer is in a bigger hurry. But obviously I don't know what happened. If she could have gotten money from him she probably would have. We definitely agree about that!
Personally I think she thought she was "on her way" with Suits and anticipated moving from Suits to what was the real "big time" in her eyes in a couple of years. (After all, even Susan Sarandon stated on soap operas.) But I have no evidence to support my belief.
I have been trying to find it online but can't. I remember at the time finding it interesting. But of course, i had no clue I would still be reading about her over 2 yrs later.
does it ring a bell with anyone else?
Celt has had her channel removed from You Tube.
Celt News to be exact. I wonder what happened? Was it lawyers coming down on her? She-Celt was very very good. She had a very credible delivery, so was effective. The only Megsy force that could pull this off is Sunshine-Sachs=Snakes Inc.
Author and royal biographer Andrew Morton wrote that Engelson's absence was so "noticeable" that the other briefcase models commented on it, claiming, "They were driven individuals, Trevor as busy, if not more so than his girlfriend." Morton also alleged in the book that Markle was, at times, disappointed that Engelson didn't help get her cast in more of his projects, though he did get her a bit part in Remember Me in 2010, as well as a short film called The Candidate, in which she played a secretary and showcased her calligraphy skills.
Read More: https://www.nickiswift.com/97767/meghan-markles-ex-husband/?utm_campaign=clip
In an ITV documentary on Meghan Markle called Prince Harry and Meghan: Truly, Madly, Deeply, the duchess' friend, actress Abby Wathen, claimed Markle simply felt the relationship with Trevor Engelson wasn't right for her anymore in light of her newfound success. "She always knew she would be successful, she just ... knew it. She knows what she wants and she gets it," Wathen alleged (via Metro). "We both went through divorce, so we bonded on that too. I was destroyed, but she was empowered. She took her power back. It wasn't the right relationship for her, so she moved on."
"I have this memory of when Harry & Meghan were first engaged. Meghan had to clear up some business before she could marry Harry. My memory is saying she was receiving some sort of alimony or support from Trevor and she had to end that."
I have absolutely no memory of that. I don't doubt you read that, but am surprised she would have been receiving alimony so long after the divorce in this day and age. I'm also surprised she would have had to take action to "end it." Pretty sure Trevor would have done that without her help.
I DO remember there was a confusing statement from KP after the engagement saying M would be traveling back to the US to "visit family" before the marriage. As I recall (and I could be quite wrong) the implication was it also had something to do with her visa. But I also don't remember she was ever gone much. Seems like everytime we turned around, there she and Harry were.
>>> My memory is saying she was receiving some sort of alimony or support from Trevor and she had to end that. There had to be some sort of legal/formal agreement to end it. I can't remember what the 2nd item was.<<<
California judges only award alimony (also referred to as 'spousal support') if the marriage lasted "x" number of years and there is a need for one party to be supported by the othermso they can get on their feet. In Meghan's case neither is true.
There are only 8 States that recognize common law marriages.
California is not one of them. Only 2 years would be considered in a divorce, I believe.
@xXxXx and @Ligthealhealer
Didn't we hear Celt got caught up somehow in that TCD problem on facebook? She may have taken the channel private to ride out the storm? I hope she'll be back. I agree with everything xXxX said about her. I hope she wasn't one that got doxxed.
But i've got this darn memory of reading something about 2 things she had to straighten out and one was her alimony
"But i've got this darn memory of reading something about 2 things she had to straighten out and one was her alimony."
But no telling what she told Harry about her marriage, after all, and what Harry told people. Doesn't mean it was true.
There was a reason she kept H away from Thomas and it wasn't just because TM was fat. Maybe she did tell Harry a tall tale about alimony because she said Trevor so wronged her in the marriage. M IS always the victim, after all. A victim of her extended family from early childhood, a victim of the film industry, a victim of the BRF, a victim of people in the UK...Why not a victim of her last husband?
How much could Meghan lay claim to, if anything at all?
She probably believed she had hit the big time and would not need Trevor. She certainly seemed in a hurry to get the divorce over and done and behind her. What incentive did Trevor have for giving her a payout? Besides, people talk, he was upset (blindsided) about the divorce, so if he had given her a settlement, someone would know and someone would have talked (i.e. it would be all over the news about the big payout she got from Trevor). I am trying to be open-minded but it makes more sense that she did walk away without alimony or any kind of settlement (other than the juicer, and I assume it was just the rings she sent back but she kept all the other jewellery he gave her, plus anything else he bought her).
Why did they have a falling out?
When and how did they reconcile?
Where was Meghan living at the time of this falling out and who was financially supporting her?
Did they often have episodes when she was not talking to her father?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgbnQ6YNe5cRbQwsqwwxna9ITOq_DNwBJ
But not in chronological order
regardless every comment I am now reading is "no wonder Meghan and harry fled with their son.."
the rumor says Diana was killed due to her knowledge of RF sex ring
Nothing new in those rumours - they've been around from the start.
She hated seat-belts, only wore them in UK because it's the law.
Body guard who survived was wearing a seat-belt.
She was being driven by a guy with excess alcohol in his blood.
End of.
Was that BG about her `stated possible earnings in US' at the time of Megxit and the Sandringham conference? If so, BG or Enty ran it then.
I read somewhere that that family had made her an generous offer, if she went away, before the marriage, engagement even, but she declined. Wasn't it big enough? Did she give her price than?
It’s an old rumour and one I’ve never personally believed. Prince Philip married into our family, he’s an outsider himself and wasn’t liked at all at first. I’m sure he has little or no authority to order such a terrible thing, if anyone does in the royal family. We all know the facts surrounding Diana’s death, I find this rumour horribly distasteful and disrespectful. :o/
Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
@Lucy
Nothing new in those rumours - they've been around from the start.
She hated seat-belts, only wore them in UK because it's the law.
Body guard who survived was wearing a seat-belt.
She was being driven by a guy with excess alcohol in his blood.
End of.
________________________________
That's what happens when you give up Royal-level protection for … not. As the Harkles are discovering.
Nothing new in those rumours - they've been around from the start.
She hated seat-belts, only wore them in UK because it's the law.
Body guard who survived was wearing a seat-belt.
She was being driven by a guy with excess alcohol in his blood.
End of.
I concur.
Or are they still navel-gazing over the fact that they're "surviving, not thriving" while other people literally can't breathe?
Yes the couple can agree to a support agreement when divorcing without a judge ordering it. Treavor seemed like a nice guy and might have agreed to such a thing but Meghan sure didn't need it as she was working on Suits. But if he was so well off why didn't he buy a home.
I also speak from experience having litigated in California on my own divorce and back then the judges were even more lenient than they ate now on awarding spousal support. Now a general rule is that IF support is Needed it will be 1/2 the length of the marriage so a 2 yr marriage might get someone a 1 yr support award (or so I read).
And for those that are stating that common law marriages are recognized, well that is only partly true. California courts will only recognize them if you had your marriage in a state that does honor a common law marriage but divorce in Calif otherwise it doesn't (eg a Calif marriage). Meghan marrying in Jamaica I don't think qualifies her living together as any common law since it happened in her home state.
I was thinking the same thing, in relation to their concerns over racism in the UK, and their son Archie, and they brought themselves over to the USA, which is having severe issues in that regard and would and should be considered ‘less safe’ than the UK climate.
Meghan identifies as both ethnicities whenever it suits her situation. Apparently her friends didn’t even know she was half black, until her mother showed up one day. They thought she was Italian.
All around, their choices do not add up. Not for financial reasons, race reasons, or privacy reasons. What’s left? What other possible reason did they have to abruptly and swiftly leave The Firm, and the U.K. (it can’t be the same reason for both, can it) and be in the contradictory to everything they say they need and want: Los Angeles.
Regardless, I assume the settlement was for less than 500k and no spousal support. If it was more, and she was from the upper class, we would have been seeing incredibly different behavior from her (more appropriate as she would be used to her circumstances). If it was a larger settlement, I think she would have found a more suitable partner (in her mind) quicker. She still needed to work.
Well said. I never understood the accusations and whining about racism in the UK when in the USA being black can literally kill you. However, Meghan never owned being of mixed race in the USA but used her mother to highlight it in the UK. Methinks that she came up against snobbishness in the upper classes (the very same that tormented Catherine for years and are still doing so as the latest debacle with the Tatler shows) and as a narcissist just could not tolerate or cope with it. I reckon she felt trapped in places like Sandringham where she was out of place and just does not have the capacity to be open to getting to know, learning, appreciating. She tried acting (and that can get her very far) but she hated every moment of it, and even the huge amounts of money and privileges did not make up for her feelings of discomfort, which were intolerable to her. Other Americans who have married into the upper classes in the UK, including Harry's uncle's wife, adapted and learnt to love the UK and its people, but Meghan the narcissist could not.
Just my opinion on why Meghan had to flee. (I could write anther whole essay on why the destination in her flight was LA.)
Other Americans who have married into the upper classes in the UK, including Harry's uncle's wife …
Eh?
This enabled my cousin to get a widow's pension when he finally died. They'd gone to the US in the 1950s for his work, she believed marriage was for life, he didn't. He wouldn't even provide for the baby. She and child returned to UK, he got a Reno divorce & re-married, under state law, the other woman.
My cousin finally, after 30 of poverty and trying to get support from him, got a call from the State Department to tell her she was legally his widow under Federal law and as they were in charge of administering pensions, she got a US widow's pension for the last 30 years of her life.
There must be gene in my family that won't let us give in to these blighters - we stick it out!
It raises the question in my mind, what about Wallis? Didn't she have a Reno divorce from Edgar? Or did she?
I had a quick google:
There's a report of an English divorce here:
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/a-real-benchmark-in-ipswich-s-history-is-given-a-new-home-1-4796313
I can also find a date for the `Reno divorce'! What really happened???
Uncle on Diana's side? Lord Spencer? One of his wives? However many children has he got? I've lost count of the wives!
Yes, but the point is the story has been resurrected. The article is dated June 1, 2020. That is itself is quite interesting. Why now?
Choosing to drive across Paris to Dodi's apartment vs staying in the room at his father's hotel where they had dinner. No seatbelts worn by the people who died. Drunk driver. Absurdly high rate of speed through a concrete tunnel. Wasted lives.
I've read all the enticing tidbits, some of which conspiracy theorists claim were intentionally done to kill her..."the Mercedes had been deemed unsafe because of a previous crash but was still in use." Maybe so, but no car is safe hitting a concrete pillar at 65-70 mph.
"If the French practice had been 'scoop and run' vs 'stabilize first, then transport' she would have lived." Maybe, but only if the crash happened right outside a hospital, a chest surgeon and his/her team were ready to scrub, and the torn vessel was identified quickly. Dodi and the driver were pronounced dead at the scene, after all.
"The paps caused the crash by chasing them at high speed." But if Dodi's car wasn't speeding, there could have been no "high speed chase."
"Diana's seatbelt had been tampered with so it broke during the crash because she always wore her seatbelt." No convincing evidence she was ever wearing a seatbelt that night (like bruising on autopsy or evidence from the seatbelt itself that it broke when worn.) And there is evidence she wasn't, like a papped shot during the "chase" where she is twisted around in her seat sitting sideways looking out the back window. That couldn't be done wearing a properly fastened seatbelt.
Just a tragic accident due to lots of bad judgment. I do think the rumors are disrespectful.
@WBBM Charlie Spencer 3rd wife Canadian H has 7 children - legitimate ones that is
.
The Earl of Spencer's third wife is Canadian but has links to LA:
On 18 June 2011 at Althorp, Spencer married Karen Gordon (née Villeneuve; born 30 November 1972), a Canadian philanthropist, the founder and chief executive of Whole Child International, a charity based in Los Angeles that works to improve the lot of orphaned, abandoned, or abused children.
Although Karen Gordon seems to have a lot in common with Meghan (calls herself a philanthropist, has a charity but looks to the USA as a base ...) and has probably encountered some culture clash with and resistance from the upper classes, she has stuck it out and does not employ PR and social media to raise her profile.
I also read a report, again before the crash, that a research project had establish that many drivers in France are so adapted to consuming alcohol that they can be well over what we'd call `the limit' but still exhibit no signs of it when driving.
Another cousin, who regularly drives in France, told me that carrying a breathalyser in the car is mandatory now. Were les flics finding it too expensive to provide their own?
@Sandie said …
Other Americans who have married into the upper classes in the UK, including Harry's uncle's wife …
Eh?
June 1, 2020 at 11:33 AM
Earl Spencer's current wife is Canadian so technically an "outsider".
"I also read a report, again before the crash, that a research project had establish that many drivers in France are so adapted to consuming alcohol that they can be well over what we'd call `the limit' but still exhibit no signs of it when driving."
I don't doubt at all that experienced drinkers (with functioning livers) may be less impaired by alcohol than inexperienced drinkers. But H. Paul's level was reportedly 3 times the legal limit in France. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16120237/ns/world_news-europe/t/report-tests-prove-dianas-driver-was-drunk/
IF that's true, he had to be affected. Also, supposedly he was taking Prozac. Mixing alcohol with Prozac can cause increased impairment. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/expert-answers/antidepressants-and-alcohol/faq-20058231
Finally, HP wasn't employed as a chauffer, he normally drove a Mini, and he was speeding-- at least twice the legal speed limit (and some reports say the car was going even faster than that.) Even one of those factors might have produced a crash, but all of them?
Lt. Nyota Uhura said...
@Sandie said …
Other Americans who have married into the upper classes in the UK, including Harry's uncle's wife …
Eh?
June 1, 2020 at 11:33 AM
Earl Spencer's current wife is Canadian so technically an "outsider".
__________________________________
Thanks, didn't know that!
I have pre-ordered Lady C’s book through Book Depository UK. They are still accepting orders And US customers will get their copies On the UK publication date, which is a whole month prior to the US release. Currently it’s still out June 25 in the UK and July 25 stateside.
https://youtu.be/Y4pqObIViEY
She planted the idea.
The combination of factors we've just discussed made a crash more or less inevitable. A seat belt would probably have saved her but it was her own decision that sealed her fate. Why didn't she wear it if she was worried about cars being tampered with?
Motorists and bikers drive into trees when they misjudge a bend and try to take it too fast. No need for pursuers. We lose a lot of youngsters that way in the UK.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Meghan-Harry-Lady-Colin-Campbell/9781916131712?ref=grid-view&qid=1591015826254&sr=1-1
US$27.63 with free shipping worldwide.
Meghan and Harry : The Real Story
Hardback
By (author) Lady Colin Campbell
You could be right MM was involved in the Diana death story coming up now. I personally am not convinced because it seems like stories of "the RF killed Diana" have circulated and recirculated for so many years. And certainly Harry has said the press killed her on more than one occasion.
Here's a 2007 article from the US about the medical response. There was a doctor treating her at the scene, not just paramedics. That rarely would happen in the US.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-there-time-to-save-diana/
Would MI5 or MI6 organizations that during WW2 were reluctant to share information with the King because they did not trust him (I know that they had a change of heart)actually take orders from Prince Philip especially if those orders were to murder a young woman? Even if they would surely they would have come up with a better plan as after all you cannot guarantee that passengers in a car accident will die .
Of all the conspiracy theories swirling around Diana's crash in Paris, this is the most heinous, and frankly quite laughable--that Diana's own father-in-law, the Prince Consort ordered the security services to take her out. At the time of her death, Diana's increasingly reckless public conduct was of great concern to the Palace, and nobody within Palace circles or the family was exactly thrilled that the mother of the future King, after her acrimonious divorce and incendiary Panorama interview and Morton biography had taken up with a Muslim playboy with potential ties to terrorism. Diana was even teasing the idea, the last weeks of her life that she was pregnant by Dodi. What to Do About Diana? was an ongoing topic of discussion.
But to suggest that Philip's 'solution' to the Diana Problem was to have the mother of his grandsons killed smears him terribly as a cold-blooded monster. By most accounts he was very fond of his troublesome and troubled daughter-in-law, and had written her regular encouraging letters. I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of these, but the warm connection between Diana and her father-in-law has been often referred to. Presumably Diana's lineage at least met with Philip's approval, more so than a "Hollywood actress" . . as a Greatest Generation war veteran who'd been through unspeakable personal losses since he was a baby, he took the stiff upper lip British ideal to its extreme and no doubt finds the emotional excesses of the younger generations hard to cope with--including his own son. If Charles is gushy by Royal standards, an emotional incontinent like Diana had to have been a daily trial. But anyone familiar with Philip's tragic backstory would understand why killing William and Harry's mother would not be condoned: PP lost most of his family, including his most beloved sister and her newborn in a plane crash.
Besides the security services answer to HMTQ, not her husband, and Elizabeth *most* certainly never would have ordered any such thing. Even after all these years by his wife's side, Philip commands even less respect among the Establishment courtiers as did Prince Albert, as The Crown depicts so well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5090807/Princess-Diana-sparked-rift-Philip-Queen.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/9344/Diana-Philip-hates-me
Yes, you're right. This was dealt with by Channel 4 last Saturday-
Up to the Nazi invasion of Poland, Geo VI did not want war, he tended, like many people, towards appeasement eg let Hitler have Sudetenland if that's all he wants - not worth getting involved with - Chamberlain (PM) did a great job at Munich in 38 etc.
Earlier, Geo's bro. David had been far too friendly with Hitler for Baldwin's liking (Baldwin being Chamberlain's predecessor as PM) Wallis also too chummy - quite probably why Baldwin was keen to get rid of him. It was made much easier by the matter of Wallis's matrimonial history (2 previous husbands).
The invasion of Poland triggered an ultimatum to Hitler from HM Government. The deadline passed and Chamberlain announced `we are now at war with Germany'.
MI5 gradually accepted that the King's loyalty to the country was total.
The Royal family themselves refused to flee to US/Canada and resolved to go down fighting. They took shooting lessons, the King saying he would take `his' German with him, to which Churchill said he'd need to take more than one - and gave him a Tommy gun that then went everywhere with him. Queen Elizabeth used to take potshots at pigeons for practice. Young Elizabeth eventually joined the ATS.
Many of the Upper classes in the 1930s leaned towards Nazi Germany because they were terrified of the Communists and a possible revolution eg Nancy Mitford's sister Unity was notorious in this respect - the Mitford girls were the daughters of Lord Redesdale, sister Deborah married (non-royal) Duke of Devonshire.
Diana:
Determined conspiracy theorists would say that an assassination could be contracted out to a foreign service prepared to do the dirty work but there are so many different factors coming together, surely by chance.
Di and Dodi weren't on a prearranged schedule (cf both Kennedies, Lincoln) nobody knew in advance what they were going to do, and when - it's not as if the car had a bomb planted under it or was ambushed. Not as if their pursuers were armed with guns, rather than cameras. Just think of the number of people who's have to be involved if you wanted to set up a scenario like the one that came about.
To me, it's completely understandable as the result of bad luck and worse judgement.
I completely agree that MM is behind this resurfacing now - her replaying the Diana narrative in several different forms is a very sick thing to do.
_______
Here is DM from 2008 on conspiracies to kill Diana. It wuz Tony Blair I tell ya!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515542/Tony-Blair-gave-order-kill-Diana-Al-Fayed-tells-crash-inquest.html
'Tony Blair gave order to kill Diana', Al Fayed tells crash inquest,
Last updated at 17:53 18 February 2008
• Al Fayed: Royals conspired to slaughter Diana and Dodi
• Cover-up 'involved every member of the establishment'
• Prince Philip is a 'Nazi' and 'racist'
Tony Blair personally sanctioned the
murder of Diana, the inquest heard
today.
Mohamed al-Fayed said the man who called
Diana the "Peoples Princess" had instigated
the "horrendous and horrific
action". Mr Fayed said the crash had
been orchestrated by MI6 and French
intelligence.
Mr Fayed's claim came today as he denounced the Royal Family and virtually the entire Establishment over the deaths of Diana and his son Dodi.
Giving evidence on oath in the High Court, he stuck to his claim that they were murdered in a 1997 Paris car crash to prevent her marrying a Muslim.
He claimed the Mercedes
carrying his son and the Princess was
deliberately struck by French
paparazzo James Andanson, who he
believed was a MI6 agent.
Scroll down for more...
Another reason to doubt that Prince Philip would be leading a conspiracy to kill Diana is that he essentially lost contact with his mother at about 9. She had been getting some mental health issues and was committed for schizophrenia. My thought would be that he would not wish that on beloved grandchildren.
Oh, what was the movie about the King working MI 6 during WW II? It sounded interesting.
I completely agree that MM is behind this resurfacing now - her replaying the Diana narrative in several different forms is a very sick thing to do.
Yep . . manipulative and beyond sick. But this is how MM keeps Harry on the hook, I think. She feeds into his paranoia and anguish about losing his Mum and not being able to protect her (as as a 12-year-old who did not live her her full-time, such protection would have been impossible, but Harry has been feeding on this guilt for the last 23 years). Meg slots herself into the 'victim' role and convinces Harry he can be her Knight Protector in the way he couldn't with his mother. At least, such was the dynamic early on. Now? Who knows? Harry has shown his true colors, I think, as at least as manipulative and entitled and arrogant as Meghan, though perhaps still too blinkered to accept that she has conned him, too. In their mutual con of his family and the general public, I think they have aligned goals.
I also believe (in the absence of hardcore receipts-my opinion only) that this couple stays toxically bonded in their shared hobby of controlled substances, which further fuels Harry's paranoia and rage against his family. I think Megsie enjoys getting wasted but has more of a lid on her usage than does Haz. Harry has never had enough limits put on his self-indulgence. Meg indulges plenty, is my belief, but also has her dastardly goals in view and perhaps doesn't imbibe as much as JH, FKAP. I believe she makes sure to keep Haz well-supplied, though, and stokes up his paranoia further with regular reminders of how poorly the Firm treated them . .and Diana. If he's in danger of sobering up and maybe coming to his senses and leaving her, I suspect that she arranges some really good stuff and then makes sure he's got a Zoom chat or PSA dealing with mental health (his) so that he can pick over the mental sores of Diana's loss once again. She cannot allow him to forget that loss, ever, because it is the foundation of her entire con.
As other people have noted, she was exhibiting very bad judgement publicly and privately. Harry would appear to have inherited those traits. Harry's 36th birthday is in September.
An intelligence guy (forgot his name) interviewed for a Diana conspiracy documentary said this:
"To think that some dark forces are responsible for Diana's death and they couldn't find anything better than manipulating her somehow to tie up with Fayed's son Dody under Fayed's total control, in a different country, let Dody abruptly and unexpectedly change the plans for the night, from Fayed's owned hotel, driven by Fayed's own drunk chief of security, in Fayed's car he was not licensed to drive, at a dangerously high speed with Fayed's bodyguard who failed to insist on using seat belts, can be believable for one reason only - if you are absolutely determined to believe in it".
To me this summary puts all conspiracy theories to rest.
Tatler didn't simply politely insist on accuracy of its reporting, it rudely dismissed Kensington Palace objection as "having no merit".
I find this highly unusual and provocative. Will and Kate can't simply let this slip off now, this is a declaration of war. Windsors can't lose this one because this will open sewage tornado if left undealt with.
xxxxx: You need to get a user name. I always confuse you with xxxxxx.
Just kidding.
* Surely they consulted with the Queen and got the statement approved first. The Queen's Commonwealth Trust has such an impressive list of people who serve as Trustees that surely Harry and Meghan did not go rogue with this statement but consulted and got approval from everyone (including Lord Geidt).
* It is their only credible vehicle for making such a statement.
* The Commonwealth has many black people in it and so it is an issue that is creating outrage globally. (Well, not in South Africa where today we came out of a very harsh lockdown to a milder form but after more than two months the bottle stores opened and South Africans could purchase alcohol, and they sure did! So, for today, in this Commonwealth country Back Lives Matter has been postponed until after the party.)
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a32730442/sussex-queen-royal-trust-speaks-out-on-protests/
However, my personal opinion is that it is foolhardy to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Riots, protests, statements and all the other things people are doing have been done every time and nothing changes. My personal opinion is that it is time for people to join hands across the board and bring about change by doing something different. (e.g. We choose, not only in this generation, but within this decade, to end the pervasive and destructive racism that persists in our country, and that in both covert and overt forms stifles talent and ability and dedication and hard work from Americans that make America great, just because they are classified as black. To achieve this we will require Americans to join together, but to lead this task the following organisations have joined forces to educate, inform, support, change laws where necessary, obtain funding where needed and fulfil the goal of ending racism once and for all in this country...)
So they left the U.K. first and foremost, and clearly for whatever reason were not aware they would not be able to continue being Royal and supported as such (I will never wrap my head around making this public before having their ducks lined up -just made them look utter foolish and disrespectful).
I assume things with the family would not be as icy if they sorted themselves privately, out of a royal life, into LA with a home and realistic plan. Because they seem to be flying by the seats of their pants (effectively making the Beneficial decisions not up to them at all). I think the embarrassment and airing grievances and dirty laundry (so low class) is what sent them sailing from the Firms point of view. Such a poorly calculated effort by Meghan, and again, so tacky.
Anyway just some thoughts, sorry to hijack this away from the post about knowing Facts of Meghan (still trying to sort this bit myself).
"To think that some dark forces are responsible for Diana's death and they couldn't find anything better than manipulating her somehow to tie up with Fayed's son Dody under Fayed's total control, in a different country, let Dody abruptly and unexpectedly change the plans for the night, from Fayed's owned hotel, driven by Fayed's own drunk chief of security, in Fayed's car he was not licensed to drive, at a dangerously high speed with Fayed's bodyguard who failed to insist on using seat belts, can be believable for one reason only - if you are absolutely determined to believe in it".
------------
That's a brilliant way of putting it, far better than I managed! Perhaps Dodi was, unintentionally, the immediate cause of the crash.
His father also must bear considerable responsibility - his car, his hotel, his driver, his security guard. Fayed had no love for the British establishment even before D was associated with Dodi. He was refused a British passport for undisclosed reasons (general or specific dodginess?). He probably gloated about D's link to his son - one in the eye for the RF.
----------------
`The King Who Fooled Hitler' is the TV doc. I referred to - it was on Channel 4 (UK) on Saturday evening, 30th June 2020, first released 2019.
CAST & CREW
Director Paul Elston
Executive Producer Simon Berthon
Producer Paul Elston
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10274814/
On a different topic, last night (in the throes of insomnia) I posted a terse comment rejecting the idea that Prince Phillip could have ordered a hit job on Diana. Nutty removed it, which makes me think it may have come off as provocative or combative. It was not meant to be—I just get tired of PP being hammered for whatever reason. I am an admirer of his.
`...beyond sick...'
I seldom use the word ``evil' of a person or their behaviour, apart from referring to someone's `evil' temper, but I find I have no words left to sum up her/his/their behaviour.
In an earlier age, I would have had no hesitation in believing that they had sold their souls to the Devil, and my mention of Faust in an earlier post seems even more appropriate in their current round of activity. Black-hearted, both of them.
`Evil' it will have to be.
Personally, I dont have an opinion whatever they are doing drugs or not. Personally I think most of their erratic behaviour is because their own egos and pride and their shabby looks is to look "relatable". Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
But I do know that being a parent doesnt stop an addict if its still active. Nor security, no nanny, not everyone. We have seen many celebrity overdose, addictions and more play out and they too have security, housekeeping, assistants, even kid's nannies around. It hasnt stop any of them, ao why would stop M&H in LA. Again, I never though much of on the drug angle myself, Im just saying its possible.
Extract from the article published by a charity:
"The entertainment industry may seem like a lot of glitz and glam, but is it also riddled with substance abuse.
The problem with the spotlight is that it comes with a lot of pressure and judgment from others. Not everyone is able to successfully cope with it, so they will turn to drugs or alcohol instead. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) estimates that in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industry, 13.7% of people used an illicit drug in the past month and 12.9% qualified for a substance use disorder in the past year.1 This industry had the second and third highest rates respectfully".
Remember these numbers are official statistics and in reality could be much much higher. I have seen estimates that up to 50% of people in the entertainment industry used drugs at least once and more than 30% are regulars.
Having this in mind, how big is the chance that a struggling actress who served drugs at her own wedding is not familiar with them and is not a user, even occasionally? I don't believe for a second it would have happened if the bride was seriously opposed to drugs.
Now, Harry is an idiot and Charles had been sufficiently concerned for his future to have sent him into a rehab center "to teach him a lesson". Would you do this to your child if you didn't see alarming signs he could step into a dangerous path?
Thank goodness for medical confidentiality, I have seen enough already with the dismal duo and don't need any more unpleasant facts about them.
Concerning Harry‘s assets: Especially in British aristo circles it is quite common that the inheritance is a bound legacy, meaning that the inheritor can‘t touch the capital money but only benefits by it‘s interest. The bequest usually demands that the capital (after the inheritor has deceased) has to be transferred to the next first born male (of course), it can’t even be touched in a divorce. This for British aristos is due to the lesson of centuries of heirs frittering away their money on gambling, drugs and whores leaving nothing for future generations. Which leads to my assumption that Harry‘s might hopefully just be this.
But of course it might be infuriating if everybody assesses you to be worth 30 million but you can‘t even pay for your own security leave alone a humble abode for your family.
Bruno Tonioli (DWTS and SCD judge) would like M to be a competitor as it will make her accessible and funny ...
I believe she makes sure to keep Haz well-supplied, though, and stokes up his paranoia further with regular reminders of how poorly the Firm treated them . .and Diana...If he's in danger of sobering up and maybe coming to his senses and leaving her, I suspect that she arranges some really good stuff...She cannot allow him to forget that loss, ever, because it is the foundation of her entire con.
I think she has more than one con at play, but I think you've absolutely nailed the Diana one.
For regular people, the greatest predictor of success is the mother's level of education. Hm.
Of course, he's not "regular"; he had all the advantages in the world in most ways.
The implication is whatever Pasternak wrote was provided by the Dumburton woman.
If true Meghan is simply sick.
Harry is a double IQ. Americans had all his dirt from the time he was “training” with American troops that the British had no access to read.
Getting back to divorce - unless there was a pre-nup stating Megs will receive such and such money upon divorce, Megs got zero from Trevor. Thus, it was easy for her to say and write that she requested no alimony or money from him upon their divorce. The two were married for what - two years - and unless you are married for ten years (aka being “Cruised”; Nicole Kidman was dumped by Tom Cruise just before their ten-year anniversary, and could not get alimony) you get nada, except for half of what the married couple brought during the marriage. Megs probably spent so much of OPM, Trevor in this case, that she mailed back the rings, knowing she owed him much more, but did not want to step in California. Meg’s will get zero from any trust funds from H. Trust funds are not allowed in divorce settlements, unless any money from the fund is put in a name other than the fund’s primary recipient.
The HAMS are being financed by who knows who, and it will be hysterically funny if Megs or Just H go after Tyler Perry, Oprah, whomever, for spousal support, as they seem to be funding a lifestyle neither cannot afford. Megs cannot go after Charles, for 191 reasons, or 201, as he is just a father giving an unstable and low IQ child some allowance. Megs is not entitled to the Prince of Wales income, or anything else.
The HAMS are losers whenever facts get in the way of truth. Sick, sick,sick of them. And the Cambridge’s were stupid to sue Tatler. Never acknowledge stink. Just hold your noses, and the smell and junk goes away. Their action against a magazine most people have never heard of puts them smack into HAMS territory. Their aristo friends should know their truth. Why remind taxpayers of how little they do?
I've read in more than one place, though, that all they did was ask Tatler to remove the story from the web. I have no receipts for this though. But it makes sense--I doubt W&C have any stomach for a lawsuit.
Was that BG about her `stated possible earnings in US' at the time of Megxit and the Sandringham conference? If so, BG or Enty ran it then.
I read somewhere that that family had made her an generous offer, if she went away...but she declined.
Yes, it was the number she floated at the time of Megxit. I'm not sure if it was termed, "possible earnings." It was supposedly indicative of how much the Sussex brand would be worth. Yes, BG ran it: https://blindgossip.com/she-floated-her-buyout-number/.
I also heard the same thing about the BRF making her an offer before the marriage that she refused, but I never saw it in a legitimate source.
I am an American, with a subscription to - gasp - Tatler. And breathing hard, Monarchy and Hello!
I will never forget the time when the Cambridges really ticked off the media, or just Hello! I saw full page color pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge, without photoshopping. I was very naive in those days. Poor Kate (Catherine, Princess William, etc,) had every pore shown. I was shocked, more shocked than the guy in the “Casablanca” movie! I think the power of photoshopping is more than the power of the “Schwartz,” (Mel Brooks’ movie “Space Balls”).
One friend of mine had the dubious pleasure of seeing Megs in person. She said how in the world does Megs have every photo of her photoshopped?
When Dodi was putting together the plan to use a decoy car to evade the paps and drive back to Dodi's apartment, he called his father to get his okay - and Mohammed gave the plan his approval. If Mohammed had said no, it's a stupid idea, stay put in the hotel - the accident would never have happened. I believe that in order to cope with the fact that he made a huge, fatal error of judgment, Mohammed deflected his guilt by finding someone else to pin the blame on. I'm sure that he really believes Dodi and Diana were murdered - the combination of enormous grief and tremendous guilt can do funny things to someone's mind.
Fayed was protecting his assets, all of which had led to the murder of Diana. Fayed was the owner of the Ritz. Fayed was the employer of the drunk driver. Fayed owned the Mercedes Benz that Diana was murdered in. Fayed has screamed over the years about Prince Philip being the person behind the death of Diana.
Fayed, in any court, is the murderer if Diana. In America, he would be tried for manslaughter. Fayed, I am sure, did not want Diana, Dodi or the driver to die in an obscure Parisian tunnel. However, Fayed has deflected his 100 percent involvement in the death of three people onto rumors of PP. Fayed is a coward, and lucky Diana died from his Drunk, Ritz Hotel driver; if Fayed had any guts, he would be apologizing to the Queen, Prince Philip, and to Prince William and now, unfortunately, Just H, Just H is the saddest of all - his low IQ, getting away with “murder” as we Americans call people who have no right to anything, but demand everything, including getting away with murder -
In fact, the FBI has a sheet that explains all about the double-heart symbol and what it means, as well as the reverse swirl triangle. Interesting Harry would be involved.
Thought that would be more Uncle Andy's speed.
Despite his moral culpability, I am not at all sure in the US Fayed would have been charged with manslaughter for Diana's death. His son and Diana made poor decisions too.
Under other circumstances if Diana hadn't been Diana, he might have faced a civil action from Diana's family. But I really don't see that criminal charges for Fayed's actions would have been possible in the US much less that Diana was "murdered" by anyone.
When a drunk driver killed a person, at least in America, the drunk driver was immediately charged with manslaughter; however, in the past, say, ten years, the cops and judges are very reluctant to charge or even say anything about a death, unless there is/was 100 percent proof that what you see in a camera is true, or not altered by a person or people with an agenda. After many weeks, months, or even years of investigation, it has become what you see is not what you get. Many cameras and other tools, used by victim or perpetrator, are found to be criminally changed or altered.
You can see it in America today. Lynching by mobs who riot; just like Earl Spencer, who treated his sister like dirt, or Fayed, who cowardly, lying, and insanely blames the father and grandparents of children whose mother he killed, is crazy as f. I know. I know. I know.
So far as I know, criminally charging drunk drivers for deaths that occurred due to accidents caused by those drivers still happens in the US on a regular basis.
So if H. Paul hadn't died, I could see criminal charges being lodged against him if the accident had occurred in the US. Since HP died too, in the US there could have been a civil action brought against his "estate" (although in this case, Paul had no real assets.)
But I don't see how criminal charges could have been lodged in the US against his employer, Fayed, given what we know now. Fayed wasn't there. He didn't give HP alcohol. He didn't direct HP to drive (and HP wasn't even employed as a chauffer by Fayed.) He didn't force DF and Diana into the car.
I just see no basis for a criminal charge against Fayed in the US (but I'm not an attorney.) A civil action, sure. But not criminal charges.
Fayed was found to be aware of the drugging and drinking habits of all his employees. He was compliant with the murder of any and all people who killed (murdered) Diana, or just you or me. Deflecting the blame upon the families of the people he murdered is his faulty game. Fayed knew everything about his employees, whom he said were privileged to drive his son and Diana, all over Paris the night they were murdered by Fayed and his drunk driver.
Manslaughter in the US is criminal. Fayed, by his lack of even the basic uses of business, criminally allowed a drunk driver to drive three people to either their deaths or permanent injury. Dodi, as Fayed’s son, was shown to be following his father’s orders, even as Diana was crying in the Ritz restaurant, and treated as cattle in the back of Fayed’s Ritz hotel. Fayed would be jailed in the US.
Re. Spackle on DWTS
Oh, please please please please please let that come to pass! Since Meg is a master of dance from her own lips, I have never wanted to see a potential train wreck more than I want to see this. This would be epically bad on a Kate Gosselin level. The level of exposure though would be very tempting to our toxic aging ingenue. For someone who had years of dance classes, according to herself, South Africa showed us that Meg has no intrinsic sense of rhythm at all despite being somewhat less than half black. Who knows how soon they’ll be able to get back to taping the show, but Mac would be very keen to get herself on TV to try to generate interest in Scooby Doo’s book.
A trainwreck waiting to happen. Please, please, please.....
I would characterize it as an ongoing trainwreck. We could see it coming from afar. The railroad bridge has collapsed into the abyss with the engine and the cars are being slowly pulled down one by one.
It is almost as though God, the Universe, or Fate is conspiring against them. Who would have thought that the Coronavirus would happen to take away their headlines, then the riots. What next? Locusts?
You are the winner of the Latte of the day, and I will throw in a pastry for this:
“The Tyler Perry Sleepaway Camp for Wayward
Children”. Devastatingly accurate!
You are the winner of the Latte of the day, and I will throw in a pastry for this:
“The Tyler Perry Sleepaway Camp for Wayward
Children”. Devastatingly accurate!
Perhaps it should read `Spare a dime...'?
Re Fayed: in the UK we have a charge of `gross criminal negligence' which might have covered it - applied to employers whose employees have suffered as a result of a disaster which might have been averted, had the firm paid attention to health and safety.
I take the point that the RF may have taken the line `Least said, soonest mended'.
Bartenders/servers and sometimes the establishment can be charged criminally & sued civilly if proven they knew they were "over-serving" someone (video proof of number of drinks or staggering/being impaired). Otherwise the driver is responsible & can be charged with any and all injuries/death and property loss from a DUI crash. Can also be sued civilly.
That's my 30 yrs of law enforcement experience talking.
If I wear my tin hat I can think there is a plan to destabilise the monarchy.
The charity logo is actually a heart within a heart one red and one white; the symbol on the FBI sheet is the outline of two hearts made by a single line and it bears a marked resemblance to the Walls Icecream logo in use since 2003.
The charity is situated in the London Council of Brent an area noted for both its racial diversity and it levels of child poverty and does much good work in the local community
Good points - destabilising the monarchy was one of my earliest thoughts when this whole thing started.
re Tatler:
"A cease and desist letter is a document sent to an individual or business to stop purportedly illegal activity ("cease") and not to restart it ("desist"). The letter may warn that if the recipient does not discontinue specified conduct, or take certain actions, by deadlines set in the letter, that party may be sued.'" (Wikipedia)
If the Cambridges did have a C&D letter sent would, I imagine it would be aimed at stopping them publishing the article. If issued after the event, Tatler couldn't do anything about the copies already sold but allowing the article to remain online would, presumably, count as `continuing to publish' and unless they took it down they could be taken to court/sued for ignoring the C&D letter.
Perhaps they are arguing that they had done nothing wrong, that there was nothing libellous in the article and that there was public interest involved.
Whilst I imagine that the public might be interested in how the Middleton family improved its socioeconomic standing, it doesn't count as a `public interest' story.
The article might be found illegal, I think, if it can be construed as harassment. I reckon it calls for apology at the very least, thanks to the gratuitous insults, even if being insulting is no longer an offence under the relevant Act.
Had my latest narcissist continued her attempts to contact me (by letter, as I'd blocked phone and email) I was prepared to go to my solicitor with a view to going down the C&D route, however far I had to.
"Dodi, as Fayed’s son, was shown to be following his father’s orders, even as Diana was crying in the Ritz restaurant, and treated as cattle in the back of Fayed’s Ritz hotel. Fayed would be jailed in the US."
I seriously doubt Fayed told Dodi to be sure to get someone drunk to drive them, to be sure to speed especially in tunnels, and to avoid wearing a seatbelt. It's not even clear (to me anyway) he told them they must leave the hotel (vs simply approving Dodi's lame-brained "decoy car" plan since Dodi wanted to go to his apartment.)
Fayed was not present at the scene. Diana made the decision to get in the car. She and Dodi had eaten a private dinner in Dodi's room at the Ritz and could have stayed there. She wasn't raised in a culture that treats women as "cattle" and she had shown herself to be perfectly capable of saying no in other situations. As 36-year old British women in Paris, she had a choice. Unfortunately she made a bad one with tragic consequences.
I don't see any way Fayed would have ever been charged criminally much less actually go to jail in the US for Diana's death. I am not an attorney but I see @Jdubya has said the same thing from a law enforcement perspective. (Thanks for your input @Jdubya.)
IF H. Paul had been employed by Fayed as a chauffer, and IF Fayed knew he drank while working, and IF Fayed directed him to drive a group of people when he knew Fayed was drunk, and IF there was an accident, that would increase civil liability but still not necessarily make Fayed a criminal. And the case against Fayed is significantly weaker than the hypothetical case just described. For example, AP was not employed as a chauffer. Failure to fire him or failure to fire any other employee who was known to use alcohol isn't a criminal offense, especially if the employees aren't hired as drivers or operators of machinery. And automatically firing anyone who ever uses alcohol would 1. Make it hard to maintain a workforce. Lots of people drink, after all.
And 2. Likely increase the problems alcohol poses for our society. Prohibition certainly didn't work out too well. Criminalizing alcohol consumption & ostracizing those who consume alcohol doesn't have a good track record in the US. (In fact, some argue organized crime was greatly strengthened by Prohibition.)
"Dram shop"/"social host" laws in the US (43 states have them) hold servers of alcohol civilly responsible for drinkers' behavior. But those laws vary by state. For example, in California, bars, hosts, etc are not liable if a patron/guest later drives drunk and causes an accident. However, they are responsible if the drinker is a minor. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dram-shop-laws-social-host-liability-alcohol-related-accidents-california.html
In other states, those parties would be civilly liable if the driver is not a minor and it can be shown the establishment/host knew/should have known the person was intoxicated (HP did not appear intoxicated by all accounts) but in many of those states, criminal responsibility still lies only with the actual driver except in very extreme cases. So the US doesn't have a monolithic set of laws that relate to the consequences of alcohol use.
Of course I am sympathetic to those who have lost loved ones in alcohol-related crashes. And I agree impaired drivers should be held responsible for their actions. But that doesn't mean employers, friends, and relatives who operated in the driver's sphere are also criminally responsible for the driver's behavior.
As I said before, perhaps Fayed is morally responsible. But I'd argue we all are if we fail to make substance abuse treatment easily obtainable without encountering undue stigma or other negative consequences.
If I wear my tin hat I can think there is a plan to destabilise the monarchy.
Agree. The BRF is being attacked daily. Hard for me to believe Markle and her BFF's are behind it all.
If I wear my tin hat I can think there is a plan to destabilise the monarchy.
Agree. The BRF is being attacked daily. Hard for me to believe Markle and her BFF's are behind it all.
Concur. I would place the Harkles firmly in the category of "useful idiots".
---------
She really is epic, isn't she?
It's called being `half out' but perhaps not the half she wanted.
Don't we want to laugh at Megsy's selective memory? On 8 of November 2016, when she was no more than Harry's bed mate, Kensington Palace issued a very strong statement in her defense and later confirmed it stands by it.
Kate had been chased, harassed, mocked as Will's girlfriend. She was dubbed Waity Kaity on the side of a double decker bus for all to see and ridicule. A stronger person would have folded. Kate simply moved on.
I find Meghan absolutely disgusting because she always tries to manipulate people and facts and always fails in a most spectacular fashion when confronted with facts.
They are so desperate for attention and to keep daddy's $ rolling in to assist them. I really hope daddy is going to take a hard line at the 1 yr mark. Give them a list of choices - choose one, end of story. But i doubt it.
I also hope it's true that TQ is taking hard line with PA & Ferg's mess with the chalet. Stop bailing them out. So many of them have been enabled all their lives.
“In the DM: "EXCLUSIVE: 'This is really a slap in the face.' Bitter Meghan complains that Kate Middleton 'snaps her fingers' and gets backing of the Palace after negative Tatler article, while she was crucified by the media and received no support"
Just read the article and it sure seems to confirm that M was the source for the Tatler hit job on Kate.
One of the top comments sums it up well: “when you invite your own bad press because of your own OBSERVABLE behavior there is nothing for the palace to protect. Because you don't deserve it“.
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/anonymous-is-back-and-making-the-world-google-everything-about-princess-dianas-death-22-years-later-2647515.html
The anonymous group is very dangerous. They are the Dark Web activists and are currently wreaking havoc with several police depts. they have been quiet for about 3 yrs and suddenly rep-surfaced - right along with ANTIFA.
Wasn't it no warmer than 70°F (21.1C)? All I could find online was an article from the Sun published that morning that said at the time of the wedding it was forecast to be 18°C (64.5F) with a rise to 21°C (69.8F) in the afternoon. That's hardly hot and I doubt it was very "sticky" as the humidity in Windsor now is only 28% (as opposed to a current humidity of 59% in LA.) Sure makes it sound like a Canadian could have been the source!
TUESDAY, JUNE 02, 2020
Blind Item #3
This disgraced royal was permanently banned when it was discovered he sexually assaulted two 13 year old girls. What isn't clear to me is they were referred to as "sisters." I'm not sure if that means they were close friends, or real sisters that were both 13 so twins?
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 7:00 AM 7 COMMENTS
EMAIL THIS
BLOGTHIS!
SHARE TO TWITTER
SHARE TO FACEBOOK
SHARE TO PINTEREST
When the Cambridges and Sussexes shared an office at KP, they still did each have their own personal staff. There was nothing stopping Harry from putting out a statement through his private secretary, and, in fact, he did do that twice I think.
Are Meghan and Harry really unaware of how childish and spiteful they are acting? But, more importantly, are they aware that this is a huge narcissistic tantrum that she is throwing without restraint now? And, most importantly, I think Harry and Meghan do not know how to tell the difference between criticism/negative opinions and untruths/inaccuracies.
An unnamed source says that Catherine is furious about Megxit because she is now so overworked she does not even have time to take her children to school. Not true. Not only did Catherine not say this, but the workload of the Cambridges has not increased, they were both still doing the school run until lockdown. This is made-up nonsense (and it seems increasingly that the source is Meghan and those close to her). It seems the Cambridges are upset about the falsehoods.
Meghan is criticised for spending so much on clothing (far more than any other royal not only in the UK but also in Europe, and this includes comparisons with first years when a person would be building a wardrobe) and for not using British designers. This is fact and reporters are giving their opinions on facts.
Would Meghan be upset about articles criticising her for getting fat after the birth of Archie? Surely, as a philanthropist and UN ambassador in the past, she who supports the empowerment of women, she would condemn the sneering criticism of Catherine's weight and the accusation that she has an eating disorder? (It is OK to say that as an overweight woman, you personally find Catherine's appearance very annoying and upsetting because she is skinny and healthy and looks so good and makes fat women look bad. That would have been honesty from the reporter, and in that context she could have even said 'I hate her for being so skinny and making me feel so fat'.)
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry
However, the fact that he ut this out when he was just sharing a bed with her on fortnightly visits and they were not engaged, married or even living together, makes the claim that she could not 'defend herself' seem rather dishonest. No, her problem was that the BRF did not bend the knee and worship her, and, in getting all the attention that she always craved, she was also suddenly exposed to negative stories and fake stories and all the rest that she had never encountered before because she was not famous before Harry.
Fake stories and negative publicity are not OK but she was not unique in having to endure it and as a supposedly strong and independent woman, who was well into her 30s, that she could not handle it was about her. Everyone would have been sympathetic if she had said that she found that she personally could not handle it and so would be stepping down as a working royal other than to accompany Harry to some social work engagements. (The Duke of Kent is still a full-time working royal, but his wife stepped down as one a while ago although she has quietly kept some patronages and charitable interests behind the scenes, and they do live on Crown property, so the model for such an arrangement does exist.)
The DM says Meghan pointed out to friends that she was plagued by negative stories and the Palace did nothing to interfere, despite pleas from Prince Harry. The inaction eventually led to the Sussexes quitting their royal duties and moving to Los Angeles. This sounds like they flounced off in a fit odd pique and sounds very childish. It's also unfair to the BRF as Madam had a lot of support even before the wedding. Does she not/do H&M not see that this is very unroyal and undignified? And she claims to be so smart ('whip smart). Unbelievable.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/06/02/the-cambridges-vs-deceitful-tatler-in-denial/
Since psychologically he could not cope with the guilt of being partly responsible for his only son's death, he deflected it onto the royal family, against whom he held a long-standing grudge because they and their social circle never really accepted him.
Dodi was not Fayed's only child. Fayed divorced his mother and married a Scandinavian model. He had several more children with her, one of them had a disability. Diana used his wife as an excuse: "Strictly speaking, I am here with his wife" when public began to show disapproval of her connection to an infamous Fayed. To understand how controversial Fayed was please refer to the cash for questions scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair
I do not believe for a second guilt had been the primary reason for Fayed to organize the vicious attack on the royal family. Already tainted, with British citizenship application refused, he now found himself responsible for the death of the most famous woman in the world. He was driven by fear for his own skin and had enough money to try and manipulate the public opinion. I am very glad he eventually failed.
That Diana fell as low as associating herself with Fayed to whom she would have never given a second glance as a Spencer or even as a wife of an average British aristocrat sadly shows how far she digressed at the end of her life. This is really sad.
I love statistics and numbers because they put so many things in prospective.
Kate was 29 when she married Wills in 2011. They started dating in 2003 when she was 20 or 21. Through the years this very young woman endured absolutely despeakable treatment from the bottom feeders in the media. Literally years of abuse. And look at her now. The future Queen, greatly respected and admired, polished and refined.
Now, look at Megsy. A 36 year old woman who had had her fair share of relations, had been married at least once, performed sex scenes on the screen more than once, used to flaunt her private life via her blog, endures some criticism in the media, mostly deservedly. Her reaction? absolute hysterics, tantrums, blind thrashing about and vicious attacks on people she blames for her own failures.
To be a Meg's fan means either not to know anything about the story or to be blinded by own problems in which Megsy represents the unfairly treated inner self for the fan. I feel sort of sorry for such people.
Couldn't agree more. Well said. The problem is that we can all (well, most of us) see it but Megs simply cannot. She is too deluded. This only serves to show the dichotomy between true royals and fake ones.
I actually do think the RF and HM need to put an end to this....stop this year's grace or whatever it is meant to be, take away the HRH's and the titles and let Harry go his own way
@JDUBYA , I was thinking if the police pretended just this once to take it seriously that it would make Meghan think twice before saying all that crap.
@Indy and JDUBYA: Two things to ponder.
If there really was a chase, why were the police not called during the chase from the car? Did their mobile phones not work?
Also, security cameras are all over these days, either on the public roads to monitor the level of traffic, view accidents, and road conditions, but security cameras with a view of the road that are on the exteriors of businesses and private residences. These cameras often have a view of passing vehicles.
Why was 9-1-1 not called during the chase?
One would think that if a chase truly happened, police investigators would be able to get video camera footage from cameras along the route of the chase for descriptions of the vehicles and possible views of the people chasing them or license plates.
I think the chase story is purely a fantasy.
What I cannot understand about Harry is that if he hated the royal family so very much and wanted to leave it so badly, why didn't he ever take any steps to become independent? Would working on his education and finding an actual job be impossible for royal family members? (I don't count the Army; by accounts if he weren't a VIP son, he'd have been kicked out PDQ.)
June 2, 2020 at 12:08 AM
Prince Richard of Gloucester went to university to be an architect and was in a partnership until his brother Prince William died in an air crash. He's is 27th in line today but was born 5th in line. David Armstrong-Jones, Earl of Snowdon went to school to become a "carpenter" and furniture maker. He runs a shop called Linley where he make furniture. He's 21st in line, at his birth he was 5th.
Lady Sarah Chatto went to school to be an artist/painter and makes her living as one. At birth she was 7th in line, now 24th. So yes there is a precedent of in-line royals that make their own living. The Earl of Ulster's wife, the Countess of Ulster is a medical doctor probably on the front lines of the NHS.
That DM article on Meghan being angry with KP for supporting Kate is an eye opener. One thing that JUST occurred to me, maybe you all have realized this already, is that Meghan has a scathing, horrible temper. I have noticed flashes of anger in her face over certain things but she has a bad, bad temperament. Whether it goes hand in hand with her narcissim or is just a separate, poor quality...I don't know. I believe Meghan is intelligent but this is one area where she seems to show her hand. When she makes this scathing retorts "through friends" she always reveals herself. Clearly she is the source of the Tatler article. She confirms the fight over Charlotte and the other girls wearing tights and basically confirms every other point made in the Tatler article with this angry outburst.
Can you just imagine Harry????? How does he do it. I am guessing she regularly throws angry tantrums at him and then has to smooth it over with psychological word salad on him, with sex and as others have said, possibly with drugs. I believe it was always known that Harry smoked pot and occasionally did coke, as did Meghan.
I'm thinking of other times I have seen those flashes of anger in Meghan's face. Most often you'd see it when she was out with Kate. Those tiny glares of fury.
Well, we can see, William isn't going to tolerate any of this and while he too has a temper, he is more measured and more intelligent than Meg any day, all day long. His plan worked and Meghan has already angrily revealed herself as the leak of the Tatler article.
I too do not believe Diana passed at the hands of any sort of conspiracy. A series of bad choices, unlucky breaks and media pursuit caused her death.
“ I actually do think the RF and HM need to put an end to this..”
I think this every time one or both of the Harkles “step in it”, but nothing ever happens. What will it take for the RF to cut them loose? It seems the longer they wait the more damage will be done to the monarchy.
There have been allegations about human bite marks on H and also that Harry indicated once that he was afraid of her.
Don't forget the kick boxing, either.
What bloke would want to admit that his missus beat him up?
Especially the alledged drones. So easy to prove. Take photo's of them buzzing your property. (of course, H&M could hire someone to fly drones & buzz their property too).
As to the grief heaped on Kate - why the HELL is Harry allowing Megs or their PR people or "friends" to do this? she was always there for him. Supporting him 100%. Including him in their life. Harry could never hang on to a relationship for long (I believe breakups are more towards cheating, bratty behavior, cheap, selfish, entitled) vs "couldn't handle the spotlight".
I recall during the announcement of Megxit when Harry was deep in heated talks with this father and brother, Meghan exited somewhere in England, I cannot recall where and she had her hands splayed out. She was clearly not wearing her wedding rings and she had a cold, determined, angry look. I think that was when she laid it out for Harry, basically saying that she and Archie were leaving and he'd better get it sorted out or she was gone. Harry probably dreads the thought of coming back to the UK, divorcing without Archie, with his tail between his legs.
You're right about M's temper. I saw it in the Archie video when he picked up a different book and she was insistent she was going to read her rabbit, duck book. There was a second or two when she lost her composure and it wasn't pretty to watch.
I think he started a slight resentment when George was born, which has grown into loathing once he truly realized what that meant. I don't think it sunk in at first, when George was a baby, what a child of William's meant in the big scheme of things.
But now that George is older it's become very clear that H has moved down a rung.
And with two other children after George, H isn't really on the ladder of relevancy anymore.
Once W/C started having kids, it wasn't the happy trio of W/C/H anymore. H needed to take a backseat to W's top priority...his wife and kids.
It might have stayed at hidden resentment if mm hadn't come along and morphed it into loathing. Convincing H of all kinds of things...they never loved him, don't give him the respect he deserves, they're only using him, etc.
I thought at the Commonwealth service that H's extreme unhappiness and sense of loathing was directed particularly at Catherine.
A different wife could have shown H the way to be somebody without denigrating William and his family. There are so many other ways this could have turned out...sadly it didn't.
I think we are witnessing Harry's fade into obscurity and his wife's desperate attempts to remain famous. I don't think Harry actually cares (look at him). I think he is fine becoming obscure, and it's his way of controlling his insane wife. We can all see how much grief she causes, and how much grief she probably caused him (insecure back holding, he constantly telling her what to do publicly under the breath).
While Harry used to care about his reputation, I think he has enough funds to not care at all where he heads in life. He never really cared before.
If Megs divorces him, he can remain in LA and rebound with hot chicks, but I don't think he cares. He will become that Royal that faded, and I think he will become more ok with it as time goes on. He will probably start to ignore Meghan, as she is too ambitious for the life he wants to lead. Notice how we never hear from him.
Harry doesn't care.
...Meghan exited somewhere in England, I cannot recall where and she had her hands splayed out.
Pretty sure this is it:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7865065/Meghan-Markle-spotted-leaving-Londons-National-Theatre.html
It sounds cruel to say Harry isn't very intelligent, but frankly he isn't. At the least he isn't self aware. I think he enjoyed hanging out with Will and Kate but when George was born, to the great fanfare of Britain, he started to realize what that really meant for him. I agree that resentment crept in. I always wondered why you never saw cute pics of Harry and his nephew. Well it intensified when Charlotte was born and then a THIRD child. (Very smart of Kate to have lots of Cambridge kids, I wish she'd have 1 more for good measure)
At the risk of repeating what we have all said over and over, Meghan read her mark so well. I think she constantly fans the flames of loathing. I do believe that his brother and father have tried to sit with him, talk to him. But Harry's hackles and defenses come up and he probably heaps a ton of blame, shame, guilt on his father. I don't believe he tries any of that with the Queen, but she's not really the one he resents. He'll never be free of it if he doesn't face Charles and William. Ah well. As you said, it could have gone much differently, but it did not.
Think you pointed out one very important thing - loss of relevance for Harry. Royals made a big mistake not showing him where his place in the order of things really is from early on. Harry was always treated as Will's equal, but with more velvet gloves because he was younger.
It is a big blow for a weak character to suddenly slip down from number three to number six. As George grows the focus is on him more and more, and Charlotte will become a lot more interesting than an ageing Harry and Louis will step in and replace Harry as the adorable spare.
So Harry faces a crisis, has no identity, no aim, no anchor in life. In his charities he is just a figure head. Military is just a nice uniform. Then comes Megsy and offers him a castle in the sky in Hollywood. And the idiot fails to see she needs him to open doors she couldn't open herself.
I doubt even if Harry comes back he will enjoy the full welcome. He will always be bitter and envious of Will's kids and Will is not going to trust him fully ever again. As for Kate...she gathers strength and confidence and she will never open her house to Harry once more. She learns very quickly.
The only alternative is a second marriage to a smart and loyal woman who would be able to build bridges and bring him back into the fold. But this is unlikely to happen soon and the longer Harry is out the more he will fade.
She really is desperate to use anything to get the headlines and I suppose this is the only way she knows how to be relevant and to be able to finance the life she wants (the latter through sponsorship, paid appearances, interviews, endorsements and so on).
This was from 2013. She grabbed any opportunity to get publicity, through any means. Before she hooked up with Harry she really was hardly known at all, even though she had done so much to put herself in the limelight. The irony is that she has found that she cannot cope with the downside of that fame (i.e. criticism and sometimes just sheer nastiness from commentators and hate from random strangers - I distinguish between valid criticsm and commentary and creepy people who hate and threaten).
I would admire her if she had done any of the following in her life (or something similar):
* Through Soho connections and then connections made through Harry (suddenly Oprah and Ellen and George Clooney and so on wanted to be her friend), behind closed doors, she had raised the funds to start a foundation to sponsor education for girls from poor areas/families (and she could have focused on black girl). She could have created something that made the difference to hundreds of women over the years, and in turn each woman would change the lives of people around them.
* Through her patronage of the National Theatre, motivated, raised funds for and lobbied for (behind closed doors) a travelling interactive theatre production that focused on racial issues or gender issues and got teenagers talking about these issues and thinking about them (racism may not be rife in the UK, but it is rife elsewhere and we live in a global word so people should not be unaware).
Race riots spreading, and there is Meghan whining about how she wasn't treated right by a family and their people who work for them (when those very same people showered her with privileges and wealth that she had done nothing to deserve other than marry someone), and then using the situation to get a bit of PR by digging up an old video clip. It is actually quite embarrassing!
"He tells me that he is in a rush "to make something of my life. I feel there is just a smallish window when people are interested in me before [William's children] take over, and I've got to make the most of it."
https://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/30/prince-harry-depression-diana-death-why-world-needs-magic-627833.html
Harry looks and acts like actor two. I do not know him personally, or privately. Just H is most likely enjoying being bullied in public by Megs, and humiliating himself in front of the world. Even if H was born and raised an Average Harry and married Below Average Rachel, there would still be the horrendous pushing of him, tripping him, holding onto him every moment, that would give anybody the chills, and guffaws over a middle-aged man allowing another human to bully him. Just H enjoys it all. Over and over, everybody writes about Mean Meghan and Poor Harry. H is loving every minute of his humiliations, as he needs to be dominated. I think H is low IQ, spoiled beyond redemption, lacks manners, has very low self-esteem, is a bully, and was born into great wealth, deference and “fandom” that is a desert mirage. Prince Henry is now showing the world the middle-aged man, hidden by the Royals as an untouchable son of Diana. He finally met the “Third Actor” who allows him to show in public who he is in private (unlike Hollywood, where everybody hides the truth. Not hiding their nastiness to the world “stage” was the HAMS biggest boo-boo. Who wants to see a sideshow of Domination and Submission?)
Millions of comments have been written about the two. They are interesting to observe as their relationship is weird. Everything about them is abnormal - from preaching about not flying, after flying a private jet to give this lame-brain speech; their rudeness to their family, and now upped to hatred shown, which was hidden; stealing millions from taxpayers on a fake ‘royal” wedding, when they knew they were leaving ASAP; peculiar and rude manners and dress at important country events to show off how they do not care about anyone or anything but themselves. Sometimes I think that some billionaire decided to pay Just H to marry Megs, and the more the two damaged the RF and country, the more they would be paid,
Honestly, he needs to MOVE on. Let go of the resentment and bs and take his father off the cross. For pete's sake. His mother and father should have never gotten married. I feel for Charles. Probably always trying to reach out for Harry who holds so much resentment. Meanwhile the entire RF forgave him for his misdeeds time and time again.
I read up on the scoop and run (never really heard this term before) and this is widespread for the police to do in Philadelphia. (I have family there) This is a very legit, humane and useful thing for the police to do, rather that wait countless for the ambulance to show.
Why is is this not done in other jurisdictions? Because the local fireman and private ambulance companies are jealousy guarding their turf, salaries and profits. But at least Philly has priorities right!
Coal Miners Daughter is a movie I saw.
Just H is most likely enjoying being bullied in public by Megs, and humiliating himself in front of the world. Even if H was born and raised an Average Harry and married Below Average Rachel, there would still be the horrendous pushing of him, tripping him, holding onto him every moment, that would give anybody the chills, and guffaws over a middle-aged man allowing another human to bully him. Just H enjoys it all. Over and over, everybody writes about Mean Meghan and Poor Harry. H is loving every minute of his humiliations, as he needs to be dominated. I think H is low IQ, spoiled beyond redemption, lacks manners, has very low self-esteem, is a bully, and was born into great wealth, deference and “fandom” that is a desert mirage. Prince Henry is now showing the world the middle-aged man, hidden by the Royals as an untouchable son of Diana. He finally met the “Third Actor” who allows him to show in public who he is in private (unlike Hollywood, where everybody hides the truth. Not hiding their nastiness to the world “stage” was the HAMS biggest boo-boo. Who wants to see a sideshow of Domination and Submission?)
When the HAMS first got together, there were guffaws about Haz marrying a scandalous (twice)divorced American just like his great-great-Uncle David. The memes of Rachel as Wallis and Hapless as David have been making the rounds ever since, but the Dom-Sub nature of the Harkles' twisted relationship echoes the earlier one even more than we ever thought at first. I will fully disclose that I have not read enough biographical material on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor to cite sources, but the prevailing poorly-kept secret about His Former Majesty is that David also relished being dominated harshly by a stronger woman and in fact, despite being the world's most eligible bachelor before Wallis came along, had never been able to perform sexually with anyone but her. With her he could actually consummate things, after she plied her skills, allegedly learnt in Shanghai during the First War, and this is why he was so keen to marry her, when she would have been happier to continue as his mistress. He didn't want her getting away and going to another man so he needed to lock her down.
We don't know if H. suffers from these same sorts of problems, but it's interesting that after a Jack-the-Lad period of half his life, during which he had many, many relationships of varying length, from seven years to one night . . that he either freely elected or else got chained into, matrimony with this dominant harridan whose manufactured adoration for the camera lenses has turned into blatant public infantilizing. That process started directly after the wedding. Maybe H. is so warped in himself he can only perform when he's treated like a moronic baby by his wife?
Interesting dynamic, though byzantine to normal folks.
So called friends of Megs go on at length here at DM, how Megs was treated unfairly when compared to Kate
Yore daily DM Megsy >>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8376883/Meghan-complains-Kate-Middleton-gets-backing-Palace-bad-press.html
https://www.relationships-explained.com/Symbiosis.html.
The following website explains a lot https://www.theactivetimes.com/home/what-symbiotic-relationship. Could Harry, and maybe Megs, have been in simbiotic relationships with their parents? These children are more likely to end up in symbiotic relationships later on.