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
Twenty percent stronger? What measurements?
When I was in college (at University) I was very well known at age 19, dressing up as SuperWoman at a Halloween party I do not remember, but have the pictorial and video evidence, drunk as a skunk, screaming my head off, and my behavior was shown as an example of why the standards of my college needed to be raised! A very well known university was embarrassed by my picture in a national newspaper, and though I graduated summa cum laude, my children were forever tainted by me, and were denied admission, to a great state university. Yale, Duke and Stanford were fine, though, with them and their mother’s reputation.
Americans are proud to come from nothing. My family includes a coal miner from Wales who ended up owning coal mines in the USA.
Nobody is proud of the HAMS. Being part Scottish, and knowing everything about “Silkies” (my mother thought my brother, born with dark hair and dark eyes, as opposed to all the blondes in our family, was a Silkie. I said, okay, Mom, but did you have an affair with the pool boy or postman? My mom was angry at me, my brother looked just like a great-grandfather, and no Silkies were mentioned again) and other stories. I think the two of them were switched at birth by evil fairies. And how in the world do people bow to an American Duchess? How degrading! Megs never lived in GB for a year total, or even six months!
Yes it’s apparent Harry’s character and who he associates with when given free rain is that of a moral-less despicable person. It’s also apparent the RF did not help him on his way out of the line by giving this person guidance and education in becoming more, well, common.
He claimed to ‘want out’, because he knew he was going to fade out in succession anyway as they always do. He just had no clue what to do, Enter Meghan the Con. It got him out, made him infamous, now what. What’s Harry’s next step?
He could definitely remarry and rehab his image (something he is well aquatinted with). He probably doesn’t speak out or say much because he knows the less you say, the more you can control the narrative. His lessons came from The Rota. While he’s not book smart, he’s definitely smart for his kind of personality and for his position in life. If he wanted fame to eclipse the Cambridge children, that’s what he’s done. He has time to decide what to do next. He’s super famous, even if for all the wrong reasons right now. But guess who’s really taking the PR fall? His idiot wife. He knows this and this is why she’s desperate to ‘defend herself’ through the book. So she can get jobs.
We are looking at two people with wildly different goals. They both know they aren’t suited for each other, but are going to use each other up till the bitter end.
...but the prevailing poorly-kept secret about His Former Majesty is that David also relished being dominated...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...
I'm also not a David expert, but I've read in more than one place that he had more than one illegitimate child. They weren't considered threats to the line of succession because of their illegitimacy, but apparently they looked just like him.
An unintended consequence of all this is that s/he have taken a lot of pressure off the Cambridge children. People who might be giving those kids a lot of flack are more interested in the dastardly duo right now.
What about physical abuse from Meghan as control mechanism? As well as the pharmacological options? There have been allegations about human bite marks on H and also that Harry indicated once that he was afraid of her.
I haven't heard anything about bite-marks or that Harry was scared of MM. Can you remember where you read that?
I wouldn't put pharmacological anything past MM except that such a plan would have more chance of success if she simply let PH snort himself to death with cocaine. Some DM commenters are now openly discussing his cocaine addiction.
Interesting about David’s wrong side of the blanket kids. If this is true then I guess he was able to consummate with other women. But Wally seems to have rung his bell in a special way unique to her.
George V and his wife were cold, critical, distant parents and their elder sons bore the psychological scars of their upbringings. Both coped in different ways. David became the superficial personification of the golden Boy but was unable to care about anything much except hedonism. His painfully shy younger brother was beaten and starved by sadistic nannies and developed his lifelong stammer as a result of this psychological trauma. The son no one expected anything from proved himself to have all the courage. I have never understood one iota why David was considered the good looking one; Even in his prime I think he looked weak and foppish in pictures. Bertie was very handsome in my opinion as a young family man, and in his wartime portraits as King. He reminded me a great deal of Christopher Plummer in those early photos, and I’ve always had a crush on the Captain. If any of you watch the ITV series Foyle’s War, the wartime portrait of George VI hangs in Det. Chief Supt. Foyle’s office. RIP to a good man.
I also heard that the nannies may have sexually abused both boys before the abuse was discovered, and I've also read about David and Wallis's supposed S&M proclivities; I just never read that it included impotence. Queen Mary has a lot to answer for.
Colin Firth won the Oscar for his performance, and Jared Harris shines as George VI in The Crown. The actor who perhaps comes closest to Bertie’s appearance and bearing is Ben Mendelssohn in The Darkest Hour. I can recommend all three highly.
Agreed. Queen Mary sounds like a nightmare mother on every level. I have read contradictory things about her feelings toward her children. It is my impression that Davey was her favorite, until he disappointed her by taking up with That Woman. After Bertie ascended and became a beloved monarch among his people Did she start saying that Albert had always been her favorite. I might be wrong, but I know the entire family found his stammer embarrassing, and from his parents viewpoint rendered him as a defective.
George V Was more clear eyed about his eldest boy, saying “When I am gone, that boy will ruin himself in 12 months.” Papa prognosticated very well… In the end it was something like 11 months between Ascension and Abdication, so Davey couldn’t even stick it a whole year. And England thanks God for that.
Queen Mary had an official biographer, James Pope-Hennessy, who wrote a very nice book about the late Queen Mary. Queen Elizabeth ll looks very much like her grandmother. Then, just recently published in the past few years, are the notes Pope-Hennessy wrote about Queen Mary, all the great gossip, juicy and funny stuff, and yes, sad and bitchy comments, too. The latter book needs to be read along with the author’s official biography. Most of what is seen in the recent book are not in the official biography,
I have read biographies of almost every descendant of Queen Victoria. In the age of another virus, I have had more time to indulge my fun interest in the family that I started My intersect with Czarina Alexandra, granddaughter of QV. Alexandra, born Princess Alix of Hesse, is the great aunt of Prince Philip, and PP is a second and third cousin of Queen Elizabeth ll.
I read two books about the life of “The Queen Mother, Queen Elizabeth.” The Duke of Windsor, who initially welcomed the insignificant daughter of a Scottish Earl and her probable mother, a cook (thus Duke of Windsor calling her Cookie) was not a fan of the woman, he called, the only illegitimate born woman, or legitimate, who in her title managed to call herself Queen twice in her title.
“ 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.”
I think Harry’s hatred was directed more at Camilla at the Commonwealth service. That one photo of them filing out of Westminster Abbey shows H looking possessed and drilling holes in the back of Camilla’s head. Sheer, undisguised hatred. His expression is truly chilling.
Although it isn’t likely to happen, I still hold out hope that H will divorce the narcissist and marry Chelsy Davy and that they will live out H’s dream of living in Africa. She was the One for him, I believe. Maybe now that he’s left the family, she would marry him. She’s still single, isn’t she?
https://blindgossip.com/alarming-around-the-children/#more-100669
Of all the family members that this actress could be targeting with her anger, she seems to have chosen a certain female relative.
Want to know why? Of course you do!
The popular version is has to do with some sort of spat before a family event.
In fact, that event was not the catalyst.
You actually have to go back a couple of years for this one.
It was one of the very first times the actress was brought into contact with her future brother-in-law, his wife, and their children.
Actress was on her best behaviour, and was trying to impress her future BIL and SIL with how much she enjoyed meeting their family and spending time with them.
It was a casual event. The children were running around being noisy and playful.
At one point, Actress excused herself to another room to make a phone call.
She somehow wound up alone with one of the children. Perhaps the child simply ran into the room looking for her? Whatever the case, what happened next was the catalyst.
The Actress snapped a couple of quick photos of the child.
Perhaps it was innocent. Perhaps not.
When [SIL] found out, though, she was alarmed. They had just met [Actress] and she could not believe that [Actress] would try to photograph [Child] without parental consent in the few seconds that they were alone.
Actress tried to pass it off as some sort of innocent, spur-of-the-moment decision, but SIL never trusted her again after that.
What else had Actress done? Had she secretly photographed or recorded them? The children? The house? Other members of the family?
That meetup did not bring them together as family. If anything, it created distrust and a desire to keep a safe distance from Actress.
It may have also been one of the reasons BIL suggested to his brother that he should slow down the relationship.
Perhaps that was when Actress decided that SIL was her enemy.
Perhaps that is why Actress leaks stories to the media to try to portray SIL as a less-than-perfect mother and person. Someone who is privileged and cold and unwelcoming. Perhaps even… unaccepted of her race? Actress has been playing the victim for a while now, so we should not be surprised at any accusation she might make.
So, what was Actress planning to do with those photos?
That’s a good question.
We did find out later that Actress actually kept a diary of all family interactions. Perhaps those “innocent” photos, taken in secret, were meant to be part of that comprehensive chronicle.
We’ll see.
JUNE 2, 2020 BLIND GOSSIP LEAVE A COMMENT
[Blind Gossip] Of all the family members that this actress could be targeting with her anger, she seems to have chosen a certain female relative.
Want to know why? Of course you do!
The popular version is has to do with some sort of spat before a family event.
In fact, that event was not the catalyst.
You actually have to go back a couple of years for this one.
It was one of the very first times the actress was brought into contact with her future brother-in-law, his wife, and their children.
Actress was on her best behavior, and was trying to impress her future BIL and SIL with how much she enjoyed meeting their family and spending time with them.
It was a casual event. The children were running around being noisy and playful.
At one point, Actress excused herself to another room to make a phone call.
She somehow wound up alone with one of the children. Perhaps the child simply ran into the room looking for her? Whatever the case, what happened next was the catalyst.
The Actress snapped a couple of quick photos of the child.
Perhaps it was innocent. Perhaps not.
When [SIL] found out, though, she was alarmed. They had just met [Actress] and she could not believe that [Actress] would try to photograph [Child] without parental consent in the few seconds that they were alone.
Actress tried to pass it off as some sort of innocent, spur-of-the-moment decision, but SIL never trusted her again after that.
What else had Actress done? Had she secretly photographed or recorded them? The children? The house? Other members of the family?
That meetup did not bring them together as family. If anything, it created distrust and a desire to keep a safe distance from Actress.
Mediavine
It may have also been one of the reasons BIL suggested to his brother that he should slow down the relationship.
Perhaps that was when Actress decided that SIL was her enemy.
Perhaps that is why Actress leaks stories to the media to try to portray SIL as a less-than-perfect mother and person. Someone who is privileged and cold and unwelcoming. Perhaps even… unaccepted of her race? Actress has been playing the victim for a while now, so we should not be surprised at any accusation she might make.
So, what was Actress planning to do with those photos?
That’s a good question.
We did find out later that Actress actually kept a diary of all family interactions. Perhaps those “innocent” photos, taken in secret, were meant to be part of that comprehensive chronicle.
We’ll see.
Similar: The Enemy Diaries
Actress and Husband:
Lady Colin Campbell wrote a book about the Queen Mother. The book and the movie show very different personalities. I loved the movie, and of course Colin Firth.
Campbell is very strong in her argument that the “fat”, “terribly dressed” and limited intelligent Queen Mother started unfounded lies about Wallis Simpson and her sexual activities in the Far East. The Fat Queen Mother, who had her children by a turkey baster, according to Campbell, wanted to be Queen, not Duchess. The Queen Mother thus spread rumors about a twice married (divorced once only, but separated with second husband) American woman, and OMG, this woman should be Queen!!! Of course the Queen Mother forgot about her divorced relatives, friends, and homosexuals, the latter including at least one or two brothers, plus many of the Royal family men, but the Queen Mother (no pun intended) forgot the scandals.
. It is known, by fact and many people, that Lady Elizabeth had zero interest in the Duke of York, and kept turning down his offers of marriage. In the old days, Lady Elizabeth was getting long in the tooth, and many suitable men for marriage were killed in WWI.
Something in the article is actually true and they want to find out who leaked to Tatler.
I am not saying this must be so - just interesting.
Catherine does not have an eating disorder so please do not go there. If you insist, I will dig out the pictures of Diane and then pictures of Kate in a similar evening dress and you can see for yourself the difference between someone with an eating disorder and someone who is healthily slim.
Libby Purves
The Cambridges are better off ignoring Tatler
Ill-informed gossip is annoying but the duke and duchess should rise above it like the Queen:
Part I
I am not in the profession of advising the royal family, God forbid, but there are moments when one suffers an overwhelming urge to advise their advisers. Strongly, deploying the impatient vigour with which a terrier shakes a troublesome rat. The report that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge plan legal proceedings against Tatler magazine’s article entitled “Catherine the Great” is plain horrifying. It portends decades of time-wasting, lawyer-feeding, utterly pointless, meretricious and nationally depressing nonsense.
Going to law is a mistake, not because the magazine is right and decent in publishing this particular article for its dumbly socialite readership, and certainly not because the offending article is good and perceptive. It isn’t. Anna Pasternak’s trademark snobbish, sourly gossipy piece, though larded with sentences of insincere-sounding praise of the duchess’s hard work and endurance, is about as entertaining and useful as a rotting rat itself. It’s rubbishy, forgettable and unkind. But for the subjects to take legal action is unprecedented, undignified and unnecessary.
Of course they feel hurt. It always hurts when outsiders get you wrong, and it’s particularly galling if, in malicious faux-sympathetic stupidity, they presume to define and reinterpret your most private feelings, and describe without evidence the complex dynamics of your family life. On a small scale we all suffer that fury when someone addicted to cheap psychobabble inaccurately and without invitation advises us, and announces that one of our friendship or parental roles does not attain the optimum level of “mental wellness” they have been reading about.
The royal family have suffered this irritation from the media for as long as I can remember, and not only in the British press. As a child in France 60 years ago I deciphered a Paris Match headline about “les beaux yeux de la reine Elizabeth” being full of tears about her failing marriage to her handsome “matelot Philippe” Did she sue? No.
Decades later, on the very morning the front pages told us of the Princess of Wales’s death, one newspaper published a lengthy article by an impertinent psychology-hack who had never met her, announcing his cheapo insights under the headline “Diana on the couch”. I like to think she wouldn’t have sued either.
Years later, when Prince Andrew’s marriage had collapsed but he was still seeing his wife Sarah, I sat on a trustee board at the National Maritime Museum which he and his father sometimes attended. One day I had in my bag a paper whose lead story was that father and son were at odds and no longer speaking because of some disagreement about the wayward ex-wife. But suddenly the two of them (from different directions) turned up and greeted one another with a friendly hug and obviously normal enquiries about how they were.
Nonsense is written about the royal family’s feelings and relationships all the time. The worst bits of the awful Tatler piece are hardly accusations of misbehaviour, the sort any citizen might need to sue over. It just says they are overworked and tired because of the Sussexes’ defection, and not having much time with their children. It says that the duchess is too thin (this with a spiteful reference to the late Diana), and that the duke is “obsessed” with his mother-in-law because she is the mother he always wanted (even more spiteful). And that’s pretty much it, apart from some nasty jibes about Mrs Middleton’s middle-class taste in home decoration.
But really, really, don’t sue. Not until you see the whites of their eyes, which you never will; not until and unless you’re libellously accused of a serious crime. Troubling a magazine might feel good at the time — many, when misreported, enjoy the frisson of sending that first threatening legal letter, the one which forces the newspaper or magazine’s editor to summon the writer to discuss their notes and sources. But when the only stuff being written is flapdoodle and invention about your personal feelings and family happiness, you’re unlikely to win in court. And more importantly, the precedent you set means that if you don’t call the lawyers each and every time with equal vigour, all future articles about your private feelings will be presumed to be OK by you. True or true-ish.
Because it won’t stop. Every parasitic writer at the sillier end of journalism will carry on doing it because the royal family are always of interest: as Bagehot said of royal marriages, their private lives are “a brilliant edition of a universal fact”.
So the worst of the “experts” will go on talking to your least sensible friends-of-friends-of-friends and interpreting your body language and the colour of your clothes, like amateur witch-doctors pawing over spilled entrails. They’ll go on TV and be paid to speculate, even though you have never given them the time of day. Meanwhile another Netflix or Hollywood fictionaliser will falsify the facts of your biography and those of your relatives for soapily profitable drama.
You will wake up cheerful one day and, if unwise enough to read any of it, will learn that you are apparently having a breakdown. You will have a pleasant family evening and discover that some parasitic Pasternak imagines you as lonely and dysfunctional, tossing in a few insults to your late mother for good measure. There is a remedy — it is not in court but in the recycling bin.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/3e8ffcc4d2704f88f89530ca011f5044/e3b3e011f63b7f91-ce/s1280x1920/bfcb2c313e009b224d203099eca6753e87661f6d.jpg
If someone on social media can put together such a list, why can't DM or any other tabloid and show up the whining from Meghan as a bunch of self-pitying lies?
Last night (I think; all the days are flowing together) I mentioned the studies that correlate a child's success with the mother's level of education. It may differ a bit for families where a nanny spends so much time with the child.
Anyway, just an observation.
Thanks for the post. As I commented earlier, why in the world would the Cambridges bring up an obscure article from a magazine few know or care to read.
Very funny, but the “attacks” the author made about the Middletons are the very things that Americans love. We Americans are self made, and have contempt for people who inherit much money, but do little with their unearned riches. I think Carole Middleton is a person to admire. She worked very hard to make sure that her children and grandchildren will be and have more than her - The American Dream Success Story. It is yucky to Americans to read that people look at your breeding lines, as though you are a Westminster Kennel Club Dog. It is no wonder that the UK is failing, unless they are saved by the Asians (Indians, Israelis, Chinese, etc.) who can bring their brains and energy to the UK. But heck - who wants to immigrate to a country that values your fake ancestors, who treat you as though you are a pedigreed dog, and listen to your accent, or how you pronounce “Althorp.” The Earl said to pronounce Althorp as Al-Thorp, instead of Ultrupp, how it was and is pronounced by the people who know how to pronounce Lester.
The younger royals have chosen a different path and I am not convinced that they are incorrect.
The 'don't complain or explain' way of doing things was before the explosion of the Internet with social media and tabloids and news sites having to complete for readers and churn out endless entertainment.
There is a difference between suing if you think someone has besmirched your reputation by expressing a very critical (scathing) opinion of you and challenging factual inaccuracies.
As I said before, there is a difference between a writer (one who is overweight) expresses her opinion that Catherine is too thin, but to insinuate that Catherine has an eating disorder crosses a line. The comments she made about the decor at Amner Hall and Carole's role in the decorating was written as fact and can only be read as fact. The writer has never seen the inside of Amner Hall and was not present when the place was being decorated so she has no information from which to form an opinion.
By the way, the article has been removed from the Tatler website, which is what the Cambridges asked for. However, there were a couple of complaints that will have to be dealt with and Tatler may yet have to issue an apology and acknowledge that they slipped up in publishing falsehoods or did not make it clear that they were publishing unverified gossip.
Why should she say anything about the situation? She holds no elected or inherited government position in any country. Nor does she have any position in any organisation that is involved with human rights or the well being of black people or anything else connected to the situation.
She must make a statement just because her mother is mixed race? Billions all over the world can lay claim to that! Or is it because she is famous as she married a Prince (fame gives you the credentials to make public statements about anything and everything and for those statements to be treated as very important?).
Why should old Meghan Markle make a comment about anything? Why do you care what an insignificant person says about the killing, murder, unintended death, etc., of an American black male, which has not been officially looked upon by experts, but whose death is used to commit murder, rape, arson, riots, and more. Why not ask Meghan why 398 black males were murdered in Baltimore, Maryland, most by illegal guns, shot by black males, in 2019? Are the lives of over 800 black people killed by guns used by black People in 2019 in Chicago not worth rioting about? Why should Meghan need to say anything? It is awful to put guilt upon any person who is not directly involved with any crime, incidence, etc.
I am not a Megs fan, but it is not proper to ask the wife of a minor prince about rioting in America. Why not ask Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge? The death of any person is a death to you and me.
All true at your post just above. The hypocrisy gap is huge when it comes down to who *actually* kills who in America. Just to show how screwy America is these days, the family of George Floyd has a go fund me at 11 million dollars
https://www.gofundme.com/f/georgefloyd
This family will be rich! Small businesses that were burned down will get nothing from this cash pool
You’re welcome! I’m never sure if it is a good idea to copy and paste articles here because it does take up a lot of space.
@Sandie
“The comments she made about the decor at Amner Hall and Carole's role in the decorating was written as fact and can only be read as fact. The writer has never seen the inside of Amner Hall and was not present when the place was being decorated so she has no information from which to form an opinion.”
This is another clue that Meghan was a source for the hit piece by Pasternak, I believe. Harry and Meghan stayed at Amner Hall over Christmas 2017, so M has seen the interior of the Cambridge home.
I’m glad to know that Tatler has taken down the article on their website.
Philadelphia police use 'scoop and run' tactic to save ...
https://6abc.com/philadelphia-news-police-officer/5857053/
The Philadelphia police effort known as 'Scoop and Run' has actually been in practice since 1987. "Philadelphia is really the only city in the country that is implementing rapid pre-hospital...
**** You can get the gist of what the police will do there. This looks like very old school to me and effective. Throw the bag of bones in the back of the cruiser, get him (her) to the hospital emergency without wasting any time. Time is of the essence if they call this the emergency room and the Docs are the emergency Docs.
The H/M Royal debacle is a Rorschach test. How we react, reflects-indicates what we hold (have been holding) inside. Is this not obvious?
Paramedics are often at he scene first, ambulances are well equipped and ambulance staff are than mere drivers. Delays can in motor collisions, if patients have to cut free before the paramedics can start work-that may mean waiting for Fire & Rescue service as well.
Reports said that crowds of paps around Diana's car prevented the medics doing their job. They seem to have got off scot free.
The worst UK train crash in my lifetime was at Harrow in 1952 when 112 people died. A recent study decided that, had it happened today, many would have been saved had they received attention at the scene, as they would today.
Fake ancestors? There’s nothing fake about that. Your comment reads very anti-British. Would you want a Brit to rant on about America? I think not. :o/
This blog has many commenters from different cultures and countries, please refrain from being so blatantly ignorant and disrespectful.
Re 'But heck - who wants to immigrate to a country that values your fake ancestors...' (and also ' It is no wonder that the UK is failing,...')
You are right. I'm glad you said something. I don't want to cause trouble so wasn't sure whether to say something myself but as a 'Brit' I wasn't happy to read that. I felt the comments came across as rather insulting.
As a fellow Brit, :o) I didn’t appreciate waking up and reading that comment.
Neither did I.
Link if anyone's interested, although all it really does is describe the old video after briefly mentioning current events:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1290557/meghan-markle-racism-black-lives-matter-george-floyd-US-protests-trump-news
NB `Bertie'(future Geo VI) and Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon were married 26th April 1923. She was 22 (born 4 August 1900)
Wallis - big myth here re Reno: I posted about this, then found the answer-
Wallis Simpson achieved the Decree Nisi, the first, provisional, stage of her divorce, from husband no 2, Edgar Simpson, under English law at Ipswich, 26th October 1936, as I noted in an earlier post on this thread. The Decree Absolute went through quietly at the expected time, in May 1937. Wallis and David married 3rd June 1937
At https://www.upi.com/Archives/1936/10/27/Mrs-Simpson-granted-divorce-public-barred-from-proceedings/6530119514829/
She was legally divorced under English law.
Apparently, there has been a misunderstanding of the headline that she was `Renoed in Ipswich' - `renoed' is a shorter word than `divorced' and probably fitted the space available for the headline. (My cousin was `renoed' but she, not the `second wife', got the widow's pension 30+ years later.) ie I know Reno divorces aren't recognised, but Wallis was divorced properly in England.
re Domination This is what Wikipedia says in the entry on Wallis: `By the end of 1934, Edward was irretrievably besotted with Wallis, finding her domineering manner and abrasive irreverence toward his position appealing; in the words of his official biographer, he became "slavishly dependent" on her' (Ziegler, 2004)
Thanks for the correction :)
I took the word of someone else posting here who said the Tatler article had been removed.
Thank you.
Because England is soooo racist:
https://theconversation.com/asian-grooming-gangs-how-ethnicity-made-authorities-wary-of-investigating-child-sexual-abuse-130099
Apparently in England the police are so afraid of being deemed "offensive" & "racist", they can barely function. It's absurd. I've never seen anything like it in Indonesia. In Indonesia, we've seen viral videos of traffic police officers helping cats cross the street, but UK police are things of a sitcom, I swear.
But yeah raise your mixed-race child in the land of #BlackLivesMatter & the town where there are ZERO paparazzi.
It makes no sense.
She (like don't-you-know-who-i-am Oprah) was just projecting their own social issues on foreigners while travelling. It's ugly behaviour & it's catching up with them.
It's not just the communal narcissism, it's the type of narcissism where you can't handle not being the wealthiest person in town... in Zurich. A BANKERS' HUB. So no nobody's going to shut the entire store down for you like the Chanel at the Beverly hills branch. Get over yourself.
The manifestation of racism in America is so heinous that my guess is: narcissists from America have learned that the cruelest way to punish someone for not treating them the way they think they deserve to be treated is by accusing them of "racism".
I swear if you fed Oprah enough booze she'd transform into Reese Witherspoon and blabber, "do you know who I am?????"
Yet nobody wants to hold Meghan accountable for chasing & marrying a guy who wears Nazi uniforms for funsies?
It wouldn't surprise me if Meghan has relatives the Queen' s age from her white site side who is just as racist as the Queen.
Sorry if I offended the Brits for calling their police force "sitcom material", I was trying to make a point
I'm an Anglophile
If I didn't love Britain I wouldn't be here 💜💜
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/new-editor-tatler-who-is-richard-dennen-meghan-markle-a3770171.html
He went to St. Andrews at the same time as Kate and William, but he seems to have a very distant relationship with Kate, mixed with a bit of envy. It appears to me that he was on the fringes of the "in crowd" at St. Andrews, and he has said he knew Kate and took a couple of trips to France with her, but it appears to me that he is embellishing the relationship. His connection is that he and Kate studied art history. He says that he's met William a couple of times, but that he doesn't know Harry.
"and the fact that he went to St Andrews University and studied history of art there at the same time as Kate Middleton, and Prince William, who did geography.
Were they friends? “Not super-close,” he says. He met William “a couple of times” before, but uni was “a small circle” and he went on “a few holidays with Kate”. When? Where? “The summer I graduated, we went on two holidays together, back-to-back in France. I think she’s lovely.”
Harry he knows barely at all — “I’ve met him once, briefly” — but he verbally shoves him to one side at the chance to talk about Meghan. “Obviously I am obsessed with Meghan.”
Dennen posted this unflattering photo and passive-aggressive commentary on Kate on his Instagram (and later deleted it) in 2011, and it sounds like sour grapes to me, something that one would do when they are just a little bit jealous of not being truly accepted as part of the elite crowd at St.Andrews.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-tatlers-new-editor-and-the-kate-connection-a3756476.html
He put MM on the front page of the Tatler's 310th anniversary edition:
"Mr Dennen also suggested Meghan, with her unique background, has been a positive force for change in the Royal Family - and have, within just months, started breaking the mould (sic) in the royal palaces.
He continued: “I think the Duchess of Sussex is fabulous.
"I love that she is independent and not afraid of doing things her own way.
"I like her fashion choices, which are chic, sophisticated and grown-up, and the way she is bringing a breath of California cool to the drab and dusty corridors of the old guard."
Dennen escorted several British society women, including Lady Kitty Spencer:
"Dennen was a “walker” in his twenties. “I did lots of walking with Kitty Spencer and Lily Collins, the actress whose dad is Phil Collins.” And Cadogan? “I would absolutely walk her, but we also watch movies together, it’s not just going to parties.”
Again, as a walker, he is on the fringes of the aristocracy and the "in crowd." He's a wannabe, not "one of us, dear."
Dennen was photographed with Poppy Delavigne at a SoHo House party March 2011:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/richard-dennen-and-poppy-delevingne-attend-a-party-hosted-news-photo/113208301
There is a lot of material on Dennen's background, and after reading these articles and many more, it appears to me that Dennen has never felt accepted as a part of the young movers and shakers, the aristocracy or the royals in London, and has been trying to gain that acceptance by being just adjacent to, but never reaching, their elite social heights. He is a hanger-on, and now that Kate has not brought him into her royal life after St Andrews, he is reaching out to MM, hoping that, finally, any little bit of tarnished "royalty" will rub off on him.
Thoughts?
Meghan (through the Mulroneys) has been outed as the source of the Tatler article.
Kensington Palace gets the message out that they refute that the 'disagreement' during the fitting for the flower girl dress was about tights (the first time anyone had heard this version) and was about the length of the hem. Meghan (i.e. her friends) through the USA version of DM hit back that it WAS about tights and make some scathing remarks about why Meghan did not want the flower girls to wear tights (it was a hot and sticky day).
I think the Cambridges have come to know the narc well and knew how she would react if they put out that denial of the story of the tights, if she was the source for the Tatler hit piece. (Control and domination are essential for a narc and they will lash out if their control and domination, in this case of the story, is threatened. What people do not realise is that the narc usually acts on deep-seated motivations and thus their behaviour is not calculating and precise, like a psychopath, but is often messy, like Meghan's. Mind you, even a psychopath can display messy behaviour that is a reaction rather than a response.)
I guess I'm in the minority but I agree with the Times piece. It does seem odd to me for W&K to threaten continued legal action over an unkind article.
Yes, it was bad. Pretty much everyone but MM's "sugars" seem agree on that. But it's hardly the first article to bash Kate or her family and no matter what W&K do, in my opinion, it's unlikely to be the last. And it's not as though the article accused Will, Kate or her family of criminal misdeeds or of failing to respect the Queen.
Frankly, the only things in the Tatler article about W, K, & K's family I'd not already read in stories published over the years (and often had seen multiple times) were 1. Will's specific feelings about Carole (but I had read she "spoiled" him [for example, making him cheese on toast] and he liked that. Good grief, I'd even read Carole and Mike let W&K use their bed for "makeup sex" when they were dating), 2. the tights story, and 3. Kate feeling overwhelmed because H&M left (but I had read [often] Kate felt overwhelmed by royal work.) Even the stuff about Anmer Hall...while we've not seen much of the interior, we did see backgrounds in the shots Kate took of Charlotte on her first birthday. And we saw photos of a formal space at KP when the Obamas visited. Like Anmer Hall the room at KP obviously was decorated under Kate's (and very probably Carole's) supervision. Except for the unfortunate Cuyp painting portraying a black boy as a servant at KP, to me all the interiors looked kind of upscale Pottery Barn overly-neutral bland rather than the jumbled "Old English Manor house" backgrounds we've seen in shots of Charles and Camilla in their homes. But who cares? A lawsuit over decorating preferences? When the global death toll from COVID continues to rise, the world economy is collapsing, and the US is on fire with some of that destruction spreading to other countries?
So I do wonder why legal action is threatened now. To me, the article doesn't fall into the same category as publication of Kate's topless pictures taken on vacation when they were newly married. For them to threaten legal action makes sense to me only if there is a very strong secondary motive--- unmasking a leaker, covering up a truth (Whether Kate has an eating disorder is not my business and I have no firm opinion about it. But I will "go there" @Sandie just to say there are degrees. One doesn't have to be skeletal to have issues. And IMO Kate has looked pretty skinny in some photos), sending a warning to the press about future articles that go much further than this one did, sending a warning to MM to shut up, whatever.
I'm pretty confident though that many more people have read (and saved) the Tatler article than would be the case if legal action had not been threatened. And IF W&K do continue down the legal road, that will tend to make H&M's many lawsuits and previous complaints seem more justified. (Nothing can justify M's friends current whining about Kate "snapping her fingers" IMO.)
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/619854839104651264/submissionthe-markle-family-explained-by#notes
The opinion (based on interpretation of the astrological charts) expressed in the summing up is quite interesting:
I think Doria wanted freedom quite early after she had their child while Thomas wanted the family to stay together. It’s an interesting dynamic because you see one parents seeking freedom and adventure while the other is dutiful and stays at home.
Doria probably fell in love with the fantasy of a family, much like her own daughter, and felt dissatisfied when she wasn’t fulfilled by it. She pulled away and Thomas reacted by showering their child with love, ultimately creating the Meghan monster we know today who expects the same adulation from everyone she meets while nurturing a huge resentment towards both her parents.
If you scroll up a couple of comments, you'll see that I wrote about Richard Dennen, the editor of the Tatler. There is some history between Dennen and Kate, although a very nebulous one.
I think it may be that William and Kate are not going after Pasternak as much as sending a firm message to editor Dennen, that they will not accept hit pieces from a hanger on/social climber (Dennen), who had hoped to become a "friend" of Kate, the royals, and the elite.
Because he was not truly accepted into the "in crowd" at St. Andrews, was a walker for elite British women, he was always on the outside, looking in, desperately wanting their acceptance. He never got that acceptance into the royal world, and now he's latched onto MM. That's why he allowed Pasternak's article to be printed, and that's why Will and Kate put a stop to it.
If he allowed this hit piece article to be printed, what would come next?
Oh, and he parties at the SoHo House.
The danger is keeping accusing people who have nothing to do with racism of racism will eventually reach the critical mass of fury. It is like accusing every single black person of being criminal. It will backfire, already is.
Meghan is the worst thing that happened to UK and royals in a long time.
I wish if Harry was destined to fall in love with a non-white woman he would have chosen of one of integrity. She would work hard to become a symbol of unity instead of symbol of discord.
I stand by my assertions:
1. In the modern era, the younger royals (including the Sussexes) have chosen a different way of dealing with the press while being mindful of the approach of the older generations. They have the right to refute false stories that are quickly spread about them, and that are quickly embellished.
2. KP often spoke out in defence of Meghan over stories in the press about her (and, Harry did so vehemently and at length, in official press releases from when they were simply playing long distance romance). The receipts exist and that the tabloids are too lazy to find them and present them does not mean they do not exist.
3. To try and control the narrative on the Internet (as Meghan wishes and tries to do) is futile, but to simply take a hands off approach and let people say whatever they want to (and as a story spreads, it grows and morphs into much more) is foolish and to deny one's personal rights (Meghan was not completely wrong in her whining). Although they may not get it right always (the Sussexes especially fumble with this, in my opinion because of the narcissism), the young royals are trying to balance these two opposing situations.
4. There were inaccuracies/falsehoods in that article that were presented as facts. As a person who has had stories spread about myself, I have personally experienced how damaging and out of control those stories become. As soon as I became aware of a story, I would speak up and refute it as a falsehood (i.e. that did not happen; that is not the situation; I did not say that). My personal experience is that people become very annoyed and will go so far as to attack me for pointing out and correcting a falsehood. Human behaviour is odd. The Cambridges (and the Sussexes used to) have a huge staff, some who are employed specifically for communication. It is not too onerous to send a brief statement refuting a falsehood to the press, even if that has to be done every day. (Charles whining that 'then they will know what is true' is from a person who had a lot to hide!) An effective tool that the Cambridges can use is to eventually refuse to deal directly (i.e. give interviews, include in the royal rota) those reporters who consistently write stories with falsehoods and those media outlets who publish such stories.
5. I am from Africa where in many social groups/cultural contexts fat is considered healthy and beautiful. People associate Africa with malnutrition and starvation but are not aware that obesity is rife on the continent. From that context, I say with confidence that it has been medically proven that most people eat too much and are overweight. Catherine is not too thin nor does she have any kind of eating disorder or exercise disorder. She is healthy but she makes people who are overweight because of lifestyle choices uncomfortable. Note that some people are overweight because of a medical condition and are as healthy as they can be, albeit that they are overweight. On the other hand, some people are skinny because they are denying their body the range of nutrients it needs. Compare photos of Diane at the height of her eating disorder (unhealthy as she was depriving her body of nutrients) and Catherine (healthy because she does get all the nutrients she needs). Diane was eating disorder skinny; Catherine is optimally healthy skinny.
Clues on how to tell the difference (but it is best to not judge ever):
* Muscle tone: A person who is skinny because of an eating disorder will lack muscle tone. Hair not as shiny, eyes not as bright, 'bad' skin are some other signs. A lot of people can be very convincing in hiding a problem but have a look at photos of Karen Carpenter at the height of her eating disorder and look beyond the skinniness. Can you see the lack of muscle tone?
* Energy: An obese person who is physically active without becoming out of breath and perspiring heavily is fit and may be overweight because of a medical condition (i.e. the person is as healthy as they can be).
At the end of the day, we should stop trying to be perfect and expecting it of others and judging others by standards that we would not want applied to ourselves.
There are no signs that Catherine has any kind of eating or exercise disorder; she is not unhealthy skinny at all.
Agree, it’s not gone unnoticed by me and I might not comment much or often, but I do noticed things. :o)
I tend to trust BG because they have been proven right on other blinds about MM. BG stated a year ago that MM was trademarking Sussex Royal and intended to make money off it; that MM was keeping a secret diary (which the BRF found out about, which is why MM was shunned at family gatherings) and that MM was caught merching Jennifer Meyer's line of jewelry.
Thanks. I must have been writing my comments when your post appeared so I hadn't seen it. If Dennen wasn't invited to W&K's wedding (where reportedly Kate's family had trouble filling "their seats" given the church was so large) I'd think he'd have known he wasn't a friend in her eyes.
Part of his MM fascination may come not only from perceived rejection by Kate, but from the CA connection he has with MM. No offense to Californians here, but many do think they are more advanced than the rest of the US in their views and their lifestyles not to mention well beyond those in many other countries too. Frankly much of MM's smug superiority says "California" to me although I can understand why some people from other countries see that as being typically "American."
As I said, if W&K are considering a lawsuit it only makes sense for secondary reasons. And one of those could be to stop worse stories from being published in the future. Certainly legal threats have ensured more people read the current story than likely would have been the case otherwise. Had KP simply issued a quick and firm denial, I think the story would have died a quick death. As it is, people are watching to see if Tatler removes it online which hasn't been done so far. And follow up stories have been written too.
Tatler piece: I have thought that the part about how Carole is the mother figure phrasing was cut from the same cloth as "the family she never had".
@Raspberry Ruffle and Maneki Neko-
This is not the first time Yankee has posted anti-British and anti-monarchy posts here. We may all be entitled to our opinions but we should also be able to exhibit restraint and respect other people's backgrounds and feelings about the RF. This is not an anti-monarchy forum.
I also find it very uncomfortable to read flippant comments about the current US race riots on nutty's blog.
Take a name or you can't complain. Stop being a silly unknown. If you need instruction on getting a legit name then ask here or figure it out. Maybe your fellow bs artist unknowns can help you on this.
https://www.tatler.com/article/soho-farmhouse-new-york-state
Oh, no. There's no connection there at all. :/
I agree that 'unknowns' should take a user name, if only to avoid confusion. Your comment, however, is a bit harsh ('your fellow bs artist unknowns'). In any case, unknown had a point.
An unknown who is floundering, who cannot figure out google accounts to get a name. This is one thing. The other unknowns who are dodgers, they know better....yeah they are bs artists. If/when I am a bs artist you have my xxxxx to call me out.
Brits are NOT the only culture that care a lot about their family lineage and ancestors.
Most cultures on Earth care about who their ancestors are and what class they belonged to. India has a caste system based on it. East Asians (Japanese, Koreans, Chinese) keep meticulous records of their family trees which largely determines their entire lives (school, jobs, spouses, etc...).
Let's not forget the Americans who care a lot about how they are descendants of the original Pilgrims or the Kennedys. What about the early American Industrialists or "Robber Barons" who had their daughters marry into European nobility to gain family pedigree? Then there are the bunch of American institutions that favor family dynasties: Ivy Leagues, Hollywood, etc...
Don't even get me started on the fact that people complain about the Queen being racist....
Yet nobody wants to hold Meghan accountable for chasing & marrying a guy who wears Nazi uniforms for funsies?
This.
Am I making sense? Maybe it could be explained better.
In the beginning, I didn't know how to make my handle appear. Then, next time, I clicked on the `Email follow-up comments...' box and my name appeared with the post. reaing the comments in my email was more of a chore than reading them here, so I clicked on that box again -
Lo and behold, my name continued to appear and the emails stopped.
Or, you could even `sign' the bottom of your post, if that's simpler.
Icelanders who can trace their ancestry back to Settlement Times (847 AD, or CE if you insist) can recite their entire pedigrees. Not to know who one's ancestors are is a kind of non-person status, as if one's heritage and roots have been wiped out. It doesn't matter if your forebears were serfs (ie peasants tied to the land, like slaves) or, in Viking & Saxon time, were actually slaves.
Of course, to modern, rootless, urban globalists, it may not matter - they are bolstered by their wealth and the accompanying values. At another level, it's extremely interesting to know what has gone into making oneself.
It's often forgotten that Anglo-Saxon culture was literate, yet the coming of the Normans reduced the English language to an oral one only and the majority of the native population was in effect enslaved.
As I was looking up info on the Queen Mother last night, one fact jumped out and smacked me in the eye: The Queen Mum's birthday was the same as Meg's, August 4th. Everybody chew over that for a spell. Not that it has to mean anything, but the coincidence is rather delicious, no?
I've just ordered Lady Colin Campbell's book on HAMS. I also ordered her 2018 book on 'The Queen's Marriage'. Given the cruel dismissals of the Queen Mum which were reported here to have been written by Lady C. .. the Queen of England conceived via turkey baster, really? . . I hope there is more on offer than just a b*tchfest. I want some actual intel. But since it's about Meg, a b*tchfest is fine, too.
It's true that Bertie had proposed a few times before he was accepted. The wedding took place when the bride was 22 and the groom 5 years older. Was 22 'long in the tooth' to get married, even in 1926? Girls did get married younger, of course, 17 in some cases, but getting engaged at 21 hardly seems over the hill.
I will need to do my own research about this colorful, complex figure of the Queen Mum. She had her flaws, but the adjectives 'fat' and 'terribly dressed' are certainly a matter of opinion. Her style is dumpy by modern standards, but at the time she was Queen, she was, with the aid of Cecil Beaton, lauded as a fashion icon. Lady C.'s assertion that she schemed and plotted to discredit Wallis Simpson and force the Abdication for the sole purposes of installing herself as Queen feel patently ridiculous, given that Elizabeth always blamed the Duke of Windsor and his failure of duty for killing her husband by forcing him to accept the burden of the Crown. There was simply no way she could have predicted that David would toss the throne over for his American girlfriend.
Such a smear job on the Queen Mother actually ends up smearing her husband and her children. Why would the Duke of York write, in private letters to his friend and speech coach Lionel Logue, that he had had a successful honeymoon in terms of his husbandly duties? If things hadn't gone well in that area, no need to concoct a lie for a friend and volunteer that information, surely? The turkey baster theory, being a primitive form of IVF would surely have cast doubt upon the legitimacy of George's heirs? I just really cannot go there.
The undemanding nature of Elizabeth and Margaret's educations is touched upon in 'The Crown'. They were brought up in accordance with the standards for aristocratic young ladies at the time. They learned French, poetry, needlework, music and how to write a fair hand. And the riding, of course. It was an active outdoorsy childhood for the Queen and her sister and they were very happy. Neither of their parents was of academic cast of mind and thought too much heavy study was not only unnecessary for girls, but also unhealthy. After she became Queen, Elizabeth found this schooling to be more than a little deficient, but she was never supposed to be Queen, and her education would have served her fine as a baronet's wife. The Queen's French is very good, and that can only have helped enormously.
It does not seem like George VI would have been so happy in his marriage if it was as dysfunctional as Lady C. suggests. I will have to dig out her book for myself. Whatever her other faults, she was a bulwark for her husband and the biggest advocate for the picked-on heir. Charles was devastated when Granny died as she stepped into the maternal role he got very little from his mother.
The items about Queen Mum were posted by Yankee Doodle, I think, so sorry to be unclear like I was directly that portion to you. You'd posted the Queen Mum's birthday and I was pointing out for anybody that missed it that it's a birthday we are familiar with.
For the record, Meg lies about just everything, but I believe her published birthday is legit. Lots of actresses fudge their birthdays by a few years and this gentle fiction is tacitly accepted in Hollywood, but that jig was up for Meg once she set her sights on becoming a princess of the United Kingdom. Had she chosen to remain obscure, she could quietly stay 38 for the next 6 years, but now we all know her birth date so that's out.
One of the wonderments, which perhaps Lady C. will address in her book is, if Meg was such a luminary of her high school and of the Northwestern stage and by gum, the social chair of a popular sorority . . . *Where are all the testimonials* by friends, sorority sisters, teachers? Sure, we've had a few names provided for us as Megsie's bosom circle from her school days who aren't the ready-made celebrity 'friends' she's had for all of 2-3 years. A couple of those women attended Wimbledon with her last year, and we can all recall that memorable occasion. But otherwise the silence is absolutely deafening. Something we do not 'know' as a verifiable fact but which has legs and is credible is that a number of little girls who used to be in Meg's classes at school changed schools altogether on account of her bullying. This early past has been covered over so efficiently, it's remarkable. It's really like everyone who ever knew Megsie before she launched her "I'm Wild About Harry" campaign is non-existent. Has she slapped every neighbor, fellow student, teacher, etc. that ever knew her with an injunction, and how in the world would she be able to track everyone down to serve them with it? It's quite mystifying. You'd think some of them would say *something* about her, even fake laudatory things, for a few moments of press. There's nothing. It's weird.
I have to add a "Hear, hear" as well re: lineage.
When I was in the Army, I shared an apartment off-post at one of my duty stations with a Black male roommate and a Black female roommate (no one was dating any of the others) (I am white).
The male roommate was from Baltimore originally, from a very old family that traced its lineage back to the 100 years post-Mayflower. His ancestor was a freedman, and none of the rest of the descendants were slaves. They were all landowners, doctors, merchants and the like. My roomie was quite proud of that. My other roomie, who I'll call "Janet," was someone who was strung out on crack and heroin and living off welfare until she had her daughter. She got her act together, enlisted in the Army, and retired 20 years later as a Sergeant Major with a chestful of "fruit salad" (medals). She is quietly (but equally) proud of her lineage of "one."
Lineage, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Too bad Markle has proven she is ashamed of hers, except when she needs it to score points.
Goodness, yes, not only poor Wills had been exposed to the tampongate, he was also hugely hurt by Pasternak's book about his mother. It was totally cringeworthy. A Cambridge Master of Emanuel College called it "clogging, nauseating and overblown..it makes Barbara Cartland sound like George Eliot."
The Sun run a number of articles based upon the book's juiciest bits: "They did it at Althorp", "They did it in the bathroom", "She begged to do it on Dartmoor". The book profoundly embarrassed Charles, Diana and the whole royal family. I have no doubts William will remember this to the end of his days.
Wills appears to have forgiven his father and seems to be all right with Camilla, but the same doesn't seem to be true about Hewitt's Pasternak.
I think I can say with confidence that Pasternak will now be firmly marginalized and nobody who truly values relations with the Cambridges will ever talk to her. She will turn into the equivalent of rubbish bin for rumors and dissatisfied individuals.
4th August, yes. WWWI, for Britain, began on her 14th birthday.
My bet is that Meghan saw it as a Sign, one that read `This Proves your Destiny is to be Queen of the United Kingdom...'
Lack of corroboration for her early years: it reminds me of trying to read between the lines of a dodgy applicant's cv, when one wonders if they have been guests at Her Majesty's Pleasure. (Big euphemism - ie in gaol!)
Presumably she hasn't had them bumped off (Joke, Meghan,joke!) Did she issue a blanket threat? Are they afraid she'd come after them? Are they in Witness Protection schemes? Or are they so sick of her, loathe her so much they never want to hear her name again, still less stick their heads above the parapet? Afraid that what they say might reflect on them? Or do they feel they'd be sinking to her level and they are decent people? Or have they got secrets that Meghan would share with the world?
Is MM a dominatrix?
I'd fit in with the rumours that have been circulating as to her alleged `special skills' - and I don't mean crying to order. I don't understand the appeal myself but it could connect with a humiliation ritual, I suppose.
A bath in the bedroom? That'd chime with what I feel when TV those property shows proudly display such features, implying more than I wish to know about what goes on in there. I worry about the condensation too!
That photo with the feather duster was surely saying more than `Let me be you char - I'd do a good job of dusting your twiddly bits.'
Was Yankee Doodle an insult?
The song is an insult. It's not just any insult, either. With “Yankee Doodle,” the Redcoats were delivering the most puerile, schoolyard insult in the schoolyard insult book. They were suggesting that American soldiers were gay.Jul 1, 2017
Why would an American use that term to identify herself?
I have problems with YD professing to be the "expert" on everything American He/She is NOT. And seems to be another trying to stir things up sometimes.
>>>That photo with the feather duster was surely saying more than `Let me be you char - I'd do a good job of dusting your twiddly bits.'<<<
Not only can you be counted on to provide such an enormous amount of historical facts to the topics at hand but you have such a discrete way of making fun and offering a hilarious laugh at the HAMS with the upmost lady-like way. Kudos to you again!!
That's great news! I wonder how MM is going to get around turning over her "friends" names? If she provides real names, she will be outing her "friends" and placing them in a very difficult position in court. Are they covering for her, meaning there were no "friends"? Did they do this upon her request? Did they get MM's permission, and if not, why didn't they ask her before speaking about her to a national magazine? When and how did they get the letter? Was it provided to them by MM, and in what detail? What was their motivation to speak to People? Did People contact them or did they contact People? Did they ask the magazine not use their names? If so, why? So many questions, and that's just a start for what the MoS lawyers will come up with.
If she provides the "friends" names, their reputations for honesty and integrity will be seriously affected. However, she may try to say that she was feeling so alone and despondent about her treatment by the BRF, and the media, that she "just needed to talk to her friends", and they spoke to People without her permission. They will say that they didn't know the were doing anything wrong. I don't think that will fly in court, because why did she provide them with the letter, and not just talk about it to them? Sending a copy of the letter to five friends seems a bit over the top, when she could have just read it to them over the phone.
If she can't produce any friends, it will be shown that she provided the letter, publicly outing herself as a liar, and the future use of her "friends" as sources will be suspect.
Will she say that Harry "absent-mindedly" sent the letter to her "friends"? She's been working hard on making him look as if he is mentally deficient, so this may be a ploy she could use. Then, she's throwing her husband under the bus, and he will have to answer all of the above questions and more. I'd love to see Hapless Harry on the stand, being grilled by the MoS legal team. That would be comedy gold!
With these three options, she is screwed. I wonder if she will drop the suit? Is there a time limit on dropping the lawsuit?
This will also directly impact the "validity" of Scobie's book, if he uses MM's "friends" as sources.
Her correspondence with all media concerning the lawsuit also will be very revealing as to her character, which is already in shreds. The few lasting sugars she has will defend her against anything, but I don't think they will have any clout or effect on MM's already negative public image.
I can't wait for this lawsuit to begin!
Interesting to see that Harry Markle names Sussexes divisiveness as a number one problem too. Markle could have become a unifying figure and could have done a lot of good but chose to divide, pour dirt, attack, lie and complain.
I can't stand Markle because she claims she represents the women of color. Well not for me, I have not met many WOC but those I have met are much better, more dignified and far more sincere than Markle will ever be. She simply uses people of color to advance herself and rides on their cause. I can't stand this hypocrisy.
Yankee Doodle is NOT a derogatory term to Americans. It's a reference to Yankee Doodle Dandy, a song and movie about an iconic Broadway star, George Cohan.
Around the time of the Civil War, Yankee was a term Southerners used to describe those North of the Mason-Dixon line (North vs South in the Civil War). My grandmother was raised near Boston and proudly called herself a Yankee. So yes, someone from the Confederate Army might say Yankee with a derogatory tone but the word itself is not an insult.
I've through the open comments and I suggest Nutties do so too. there are some scorchers in there.
One poster said she'd had a quick look at one of the Sleb Rags while waiting at a checkout. It about the relationship with the neighbour and what happens if she's asked about Archie - she just `snarls'. Can't find it now - I tried to follow all the nested comments and got lost.
The other bit was about the Commonwealth Trust which is apparently supporting Black Lives Matter - commenters regarded it as political and a no-no.
I'm off to look at the CWT site now.
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, and the Queen's Commonwealth Trust Shows Support for Black Lives Matter
"Silence is not an option," tweeted the organization.
BY ANNIE GOLDSMITH
JUN 1, 2020
"The Queen's Commonwealth Trust, a network of young change-makers across the Commonwealth, has tweeted out support for the Black Lives Matter movement, and against the rampant racial injustices occurring around the world today. This statement, which was issued on Twitter, comes as protests and outrage erupt worldwide over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers.
"Young people are vital voices in the fight against injustice and racism around the world. As a global community of young leaders we stand together in pursuit of fairness and a better way forward," reads the Tweet.
"The statement then showed support for Black Lives Matter, a global movement against systematic racism and violence.
"Silence is not an option," the tweet continued, "#BlackLivesMatter."
"A photo was also attached with a quote by Martin Luther King Jr., which reads: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
"This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
"The Queen's Commonwealth Trust
@queenscomtrust
· Jun 1, 2020
Young people are vital voices in the fight against injustice and racism around the world. As a global community of young leaders we stand together in pursuit of fairness and a better way forward.
"Silence is not an option.#BlackLivesMatter
View image on Twitter
The Queen's Commonwealth Trust
@queenscomtrust
"We all have the power to effect positive change.
"It is time to speak up and speak out. Time to have uncomfortable conversations with ourselves and with others. Time to educate ourselves and unlearn.
"Time to come together and build a better future as one."
✊��✊��✊��✊��✊��#TeamQCT
553
1:46 PM - Jun 1, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
156 people are talking about this
Shortly after issuing the initial statement, the Commonwealth Trust shared a followup, encouraging individuals to speak up, advocate for justice, educate themselves, and help create a brighter future.
"We all have the power to effect positive change," the statement read. "It is time to speak up and speak out. Time to have uncomfortable conversations with ourselves and with others. Time to educate ourselves and unlearn. Time to come together and build a better future as one."
The Commonwealth Trust is just one of many organizations voicing their support for racial equality right now, and more generally, the Trust acts as a way for young people to engage with global change and connect with one another. Queen Elizabeth is patron of the Trust; Prince Harry serves as its president; and Meghan was named vice president last year.
"We champion, fund and connect young leaders who are working hard to change the world," states the organization's website.
"We use our network, platform and resources, built and shaped together with young people, to demonstrate the leadership, energy and optimism of young people across the Commonwealth and their enormous potential to create a better future for everyone."
"ANNIE GOLDSMITH Editorial Fellow
Annie Goldsmith writes about the British Royal Family, pop culture, and style and beauty for Town & Country."
Are they really implying that they have the effrontery to speak for the Queen? Have they asked her?
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a32730442/sussex-queen-royal-trust-speaks-out-on-protests/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8380239/The-Queens-Commonwealth-Trust-support-Black-Lives-Matter-movement.html
Guess what? The Diana Trust has been roped in as well.
While George M. Cohan did write the wonderful song "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy," the song does originate in pre-Revolutionary America (with even earlier versions) -- it was meant to be disparaging toward the colonists, but they took it on as a badge of pride.
"Yankee" seems to have come from Dutch settlers as an insult toward the British settlers -- "Janke" (pronounced "yonk-eh") while Doodle seems also to have derived from the Dutch, meaning a country bumpkin.
Dandy referred to men who paid too much attention to their appearance, being called "effeminate".
"... came to town a-riding on a pony" -- "Came to town" (a yokel) "riding on a pony" (not a horse, like his "betters")
Stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni -- The "Macaroni" was an affected hairstyle of the more fashionable men of the late 1700s -- the inference is, all this "bumpkin" had to do to try and be fashionable was to wear a feather.
(The rest was supposed to be sheer insult, about being handy with the girls and even knowing how to dance!)
To me it's clear that William is taking this action to 'out' Meghan and flush her out of the shadows. He knows if he does not, she will be doing these types of secret articles basically all the time. Otherwise the Tatler article is more or less like a lot of garbage/gossip articles that are written. He's taking a pro-active approach. I guess it's clear in what I write that I admire Wills and it's true. While I understand that he is not perfect, he seems to make many correct moves. I think he has good advisors and thinks matters through thoroughly before acting. Even though it's clear that Wills is mentally further along in the healing from Diana's issues and death, he doesn't want the type of shit that happened to his mother happen to Kate.
To be fair, neither does Harry. What Harry fails to realize, or maybe realizes now, that Meghan has pathological tendencies so he may feel that he's valiantly fighting to protect her while she has other goals in mind. Her desire for global adoration. Not sure if any of you are Lord of the Rings fans, but in the movies when Lady Galadriel is tempted by the Ring and she says "All shall love me and despair". I imagine Meghan in that moment.
People magazine is running an article saying William is supporting Harry during this time. Not sure what to make of that? Seems like it's a Meghan leaked story but to what end. I find it very hard to believe that while William is trying to fend off Meghan's Busy Typing Fingers, he is also on the phone giving Harry phone counseling sessions. They probably type an occasional "What's up bro?" message. Like "How's pa doing?" and generalities but that's probably it.
Am I the only one sensing something strange in the Commonwealth stepping in? I can't believe this is something initiated by the Queen for two reasons:
1. It would have come directly from the Palace if it was Queen's official view
2. I would expect the message to say "All lives matter". Black, white, red, yellow, brown. It is very unlikely for the Queen to distinguish one category of people over the other, whatever the current political frenzy is.
I don't fully understand what is going on. Diana Trust has been off the radar for so long.
The DM has moderated the comments on yesterday's Commonwealth Trust article, and only one comment made it through. The one comment that made it through said that the royals should not be involved in politics.
This does not look good for The Harkles, as most people will know that HMTQ didn't release this statement.
I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy,
A Yankee Doodle Do or Die
A real life nephew of my Uncle Sam
Born on the 4th of July
I have a Yankee Doodle Sweetheart
She’s my Yankee Doodle Joy
Yankee Doodle went to London
Just to ride the horses
I am a Yankee Doodle Boy!
Yankee Doodles were originally wealthy young colonial American men, who went to London, drank too much, tried to be dressed as dandys, and upon arriving home, mainly to the wealthiest and largest colony, Virginia (Virginia is not called a state, to this date. It is the Commonwealth of Virginia, not state of Virginia.)
Americans north of the southern states, above Maryland and Delaware,began to call themselves Yankees, as they wanted to copy the wealthy Southern states, after the American Revolution. The southern states wealthy laughed at the old Yankees in the north. Thus, during the Civil War in America, also referred to as Tge War Vetween the States, the people fighting to keep the USA together, the Unionists, were also called Yankees. The southern states called themselves nothing, or Confederates. Yankee’s would call the soldiers Rebels. To call a person born in the South, today, a Yankee is not an insult, but would bring laughter. And yes, the Southern states of America outnumber the Yankee and now California states in having the most soldiers during all our wars since the Civil War. The song “The Yanks Are Coming! The Yanks Are Coming” was a song about Americans coming over to a Europe to save athe British and French.
Everybody should youtube the actor James Cagney, who plays George C. Cohan in a movie, and his rendition of “Yankee Doodle Dandy” is amazing. Another fact about Yankees - when Churchill was honored at his death at Westminster Abbey, he requested only one song (hymn) be played, and that was the Yankee’s Union song “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Churchill was part American, you see, and loved being called a Yank, Yankee, or Yankee Doodle.
I wonder if anyone has told her that Prince Philip is regarded as a god (an actual divine being) in the Yaohnanen region of Tanna - may give her even greater aspirations
You've brought up the turkey baster a second time - we chose to ignore it the first time.
Another time, another place. Do you know the quotation `The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there'?
It was an era when many a virgin bride went to her marriage bed without the faintest idea of what was going to happen. Their mothers didn't tell them, or if they did, they left it until the night before the wedding and the classic dialogue is supposed to have ended like this: `I know darling, it's perfectly beastly but you'll just have to close your eyes and think of England', ie your patriotic duty.
Girls were brought up to believe that anything `down there' was dirty, you shouldn't touch yourself and you shouldn't let a boy do it either. `Nice' girls weren't supposed to know anything about it, not even expected to wear nice undies, let alone enjoy sex.
There was no such thing as reliable contraception and even that was never mentioned in polite circles. Girls were terrified of being seen as forward, males were quick to take advantage of any girl who let them `take liberties' and a girl could find the tables turned on her when her beau then accused her of being a tart. Never mind the double standard.
My mother tried her best to bring me up like that - she'd say something like `You go carefully, my girl. You don't want to end up like So-and-so'.
`Why, Mum, what happened to her?'
`Never you mind!'
(I found out a couple of years ago, almost 50 years later,she'd got pregnant at 16 and `had to get married'. Not that Mum ever told me a thing about how baby's were made - she insisted she'd bought me in Woolworths.)
I tried not to take too much notice of what my mother said but it did affect me to some extent. Not as badly as one girl in my grammar school class who was excused biology, (a mandatory subject as far as the school was concerned) because she and her mother both thought it was `dirty'. That was in the early 1960s.
So it's hardly surprising that so many women had sexual difficulties because they couldn't shake off the sense of guilt and dirt and it behoves us not to be judgemental about what did or did not happen in the privacy of their bedroom. We weren't there and we don't know.
Thank you , I'd missed it if, there was something posted. I wonder what the other, `moderated' comments were? I agree with the solitary comment that was allowed
there are multiple versions and it has changed over the years. The original was negaive but i'm going to move on from this subjct
This can only be true when considering mothers born after the mid-1930s in England who would have had the opportunity of free education in the secondary sector, thanks to the 1944 Education Act.
Before that, there was little opportunity for poor girls to have a decent secondary education. They were brought up to know, and keep, their place in society ie as domestic servants or other menials. My mother should have stayed at school until she was 15; my grandmother, a widow, removed her and put her to dressmaking when she was 14. Had she stayed on, she would have been in a Pupil-Teacher, set on a career as a teacher herself. My father, 7 years older, left school at 12 and became an `electrician's boy'. Both were denied an education commensurate with their ability.
Also, old attitudes about educating females persisted, and probably still do, at all levels of society. When I won a place at university, a snooty neighbour informed my father that he `didn't hold with educating girls above their station in life.' At least the opportunities are there now, providing that the family is supportive.
Re. the amorous life of ER’s parents, I cling to the phrase from Bertie’s own lips, or pen as it were, to his friend and coach Logue written from his honeymoon. His description of the wedding night: “I was very good.” Could it have been male braggadocio? Possibly, though this was written in a private letter to a person birdie thought of as a friend, who is helping him with the sensitive problem of his speaking, and perhaps other sensitive problems as well. I think the context of their relationship was honesty, and I doubt Bertie would’ve lied to his friend in an unsolicited comment that was not being made in a barroom full of naval colleagues. There were almost exactly 3 years between the wedding and Elizabeth’s birth Which was unusual for the time. I seem to recall a report that the newlyweds had some trouble conceiving, but it doesn’t follow absolutely that the cause was impotence or a fear of sex.
Queen Mum was Scottish, and they are an earthy people. Her daughters seemed to grow up knowing the score, at an appropriate time for them to learn I’m sure. Elizabeth has been gaga for Phillip since she was 13, and the Royal couple has been more fecund than any of their kids. Two babies in two years with Charles and Anne, and then the surprise second family 10 years later. Margaret didn’t appear to have any sexual hangups either, I dare say. Queen Mum was always close to her daughters and maybe this was a topic that was discussed.
One reason I know so much, and yet so little of the “real” British Royal family is that who knows what goes on, behind closed doors, of any family? It is best to be silent. One learns much when one is quiet, and others speak freely about themselves, families, and all the fun dirt, and overwhelmingly, the best of family members.
My family has contributed to museums in London, artifacts and precious objects, that are on display today.
I am Yankee Doodle.
I believe the turkey baster story.
Well, to be blunt.. if it's your first time and your neither your husband nor you know anything about it, beyond the basic nuts and bolts (heh), it probably would not have been a comfortable thing, esp all those years ago. The bleeding alone can be quite the shock!
The 'Neighbors From Hell' article was in The Star, not a great source. It also said that the Harkles and neighbors are being besieged by drones, helicopters and gawking tourists.
Sounds like a planted story to me for getting more security, or one that was just made up.
@indy,
I wonder how MM is going to get around turning over her "friends'" names? If she provides real names, she will be outing her "friends" and placing them in a very difficult position in court. Are they covering for her, meaning there were no "friends"? Did they do this upon her request? Did they get MM's permission, and if not, why didn't they ask her before speaking about her to a national magazine? When and how did they get the letter?
My guess is she's going to use Jessica Mulroney to get around this dilemma and that Jessica will fall on her sword for her, saying she asked the friends to speak to People and MM didn't know.
If she provides the "friends'" names, their reputations for honesty and integrity will be seriously affected.
My guess is that a lot of these friends are also "in the [show] business" and the U.K. is a part of that market. She's taking one hell of a chance assuming they will all lie for her. Because if they're caught, it will have consequences for them -- consequences for their careers.
However, she may try to say that she was feeling so alone and despondent about her treatment by the BRF, and the media, that she "just needed to talk to her friends," and they spoke to People without her permission.
Which is her present story.
If she can't produce any friends, it will be shown that she provided the letter, publicly outing herself as a liar...
Unless she has been very, very busy erasing emails, fax logs, and call histories, and this is the part I just don't think she will get away with. Too many other people would have to be involved.
Her strategy is so risky, it's reckless! One of the characteristics of a sociopath! All five friends have to hang together or they'll hang her!
I have a funny feeling...I suspect @yankee doodle is really @CatEyes. ... And Maneki Nico?????
And me? What about me? I have nothing to do with either Yankee Doodle and/or CatEyes. Sorry but I genuinely don't understand.
Whether Mulroney falls on her sword on not is a bit irrelevant here, because if she showed not only her own letter to people but even her father's one her privacy claim becomes defunct.
Also don't forget Scoobie opened his mouth publicly to state for all to hear her letter had been written "with public in mind". Would be interesting to see him wriggle trying to explain this.
Thank you. If I have something to say I will say it and I am sure you have seen so.
Lol. And Unfortunately I have not traveled to the UK; so if Yankee Doodle said that about herself, it sure doesn't apply to me.
To me it's clear that William is taking this action to 'out' Meghan and flush her out of the shadows. He knows if he does not, she will be doing these types of secret articles basically all the time.
I really agree, and I think he knows MM's doing this contravenes the Sandringham agreements. So, by flushing her out, he's increasing the chances of the Sussexes' titles being removed.
PW and DOC may not unearth any "smoking gun" about MM's involvement via litigation, but my guess is there are things in the article that they recognize came from MM. Maybe the tights story?
There have just been so many variations of the bridesmaids' fitting story, but now we're hearing two different ones (i.e., it was about tights, it was about Charlotte's hem). But only MM and DOC know which one made Catherine cry.
What about me? You haven't explained your comment. I didn't appreciate it.
...if she showed not only her own letter to people but even her father's one her privacy claim becomes defunct.
I agree with you, but trials don't always proceed along a continuous timeline. And if MM starts playing games with her phone and fax records during discovery, well...
Also, in civil cases, don't British courts use previously taken depositions?
I read the article in the American tabloid today. It also said that they're having money problems. Not sure I would believe everything in it given the source. One red flag was they talked about increased traffic in the neighborhood and honking at night. But it's supposed to be a gated community.
Where is the money coming from? 2.5 for the security people and then there is the repayment plan for FC. That is a lot of dough and it's not like either of them have steady jobs currently or starting up soon that we know about.
And that heavy debt burden will make it difficult to pull out the now we are independent flag.
It's tough in general to be an adult/be independent, it's tough when people are watching you on the public stage and then there is the it's tougher than it could have been if it have been a well thought out plan which ticked the concern boxes of the people who needed to approve it.
@Glowworm
What about me? You haven't explained your comment. I didn't appreciate it.
______________________________________
Eh, don't feel bad. At least your posts get answered. Me, I dunno whatever I must have done to get sent to Coventry, but I guarantee I never once disrespected anyone on this forum, and I challenge anyone to say I did. (With proof.)
But, I guess it's like Groucho Marx said -- I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member, eh? *wink*
So, cheerio, and best of luck to you. I've been in greener pastures lately, only have dropped in here from time to time at the request of a few kind posters, but alas, no can do anymore, so back I go to a fun Harkle-land where I have made many new friends, and no one looks down their noses. I'd tell you where it is, but I don't want to risk anyone's privacy.
To Nutty Flavor -- as Bob Hope once sang to Dolly Parton, "Tanks for the mammaries" *grin* -- hope my absence will purify the air in here. "Something reah-lly must be done about the riff-raff, darling, eh, what?" *wink* This was exactly the attitude I encountered at my first (and only) meeting of the Daughters of the American Revolution. My genealogist eldest sis discovered we have a patriot AND a hired Hessian mercenary in the family tree, and she provided me with the documentation they require. I totes got the side-eye. One nice lady made an effort to be friendly and welcoming, but I could see and feel all other eyes raking me up and down and finding me wanting. The committee of Grand Pooh-bahs In Charge of Gracing a New Person with the Precious Entry into the Inner Sanctum scrutinized my papers with microscopes, and couldn't find anything wrong. But, still no official invite to join. I barely opened my mouth, but was a model of decorum. Alas, to no avail. When I left the air was arctic, and I never looked back. And I don't intend to now.
So, by all means ride herd over the trolls -- you do a stellar job, better than any blogger I've ever seen. Some real talented thinkers here, with valuable insight, certainly not trolls (in the usual sense). Some, however … well, they'll help keep things in line for you, I'm sure. Tell 'em to get a genealogist friend or relative to check out their family trees. If the Nutty Flavor garden-weeding gig doesn't work out, they'd be welcome in the DAR for sure -- that, or they could play Greg Marmalard and Doug Neidermeyer in a remake of "Animal House" ;)
Best of luck to you, and all good wishes for the future. I mean it sincerely. You're a good one.
Lt. Uhura, I feel the same...I seldom, if ever, get a response...then I go and stir shit up and then I don’t deserve one. I need to think a little more before I write.
🐛
I remember a case here in the US where one legal team needed to get into an IPhone for their case, and the person on trial wouldn't give up their password. Apple would not unlock it for the trial. Is that the same in GB?
Do I recall that The Harkles had encrypted phones? How are those accessed?
As for all five friends sticking together, not only will it damage their careers, but if it is found out that they lied under oath, they will be facing serious perjury charges and possible prison time. Will Jessica M fall on her sword for that? What about the other four? It will take only one of them to blow the case for MM, and the others will go down with that person and MM.
I think MM will try to get as much publicity (good or bad, she doesn't care) out of this lawsuit and try to withdraw it at the very last minute. She runs when the going gets tough.
I find you behaved honestly and nobly. You admitted you went a bit far and remedied it. I respect you for that.
As for bad days, we all have them. Hope your tomorrow will be better! Hugs from me to you.
I'm going to miss you, but I understand why you may want to leave here. I wish you all the best!
From one journalist to another, -30-.
Thank you so much :), I was really worried.
Don't worry, we all have an overly emotional day, it happens. Just hope you can relax and I wish you a happier, more serene rest of the week.
Thank you. I'm sorry you're leaving, I always enjoyed your posts.
All the best.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDFsujdXXXJJto5gKPfHGdA/videos
To unknown > You will continue to be confused with other unknowns. Hooray for U.
Re. Lusty noise is emanating from the royal bedchamber.,,
Philip is such an alpha, I totally believe it. After 70+ years of marriage, the queen still looks at her husband the same way that she did in their engagement pictures. The very same, even with all that water under the bridge, and some of it not very nice. How many wives can say that?
I’m a huge fan of the TV show The Crown, which is written in its entirety by Peter Morgan, writer of The Queen. I think it’s fair to say that Mr. Morgan is a royalist, but his work has a lot of dramatic license of course, since he is only able to imagine what would’ve been private conversations between members of the Windsor family, and Elizabeth and her courtiers. About halfway through the first season, there is a scene that will have caused some blushes at the Palace if anyone is brave enough or foolhardy enough to be watching. Elizabeth has just had a victory...I think this was the bit Where she gave Winston Churchill and another of her senior ministers a royal bollocking four down the streets failure to disclose to her the gravity of the Prime Minister‘s health condition. This was a turning point where she began to fully and have it her powers and refuse to be treated like a helpless girl by her senior ministers. Riding high on this, she tells Philip what just transpired and he says that she seems suddenly more powerful than yesterday. ER is about to rush off to a meeting with her newly appointed private secretary, but is detained when Philip says something to the effect of he wonders if his newly powerful woman is too powerful to get on her knees… The implication being that he is up for a bit of royal funin the boudoir. Elizabeth laughs, and then the door shuts and she never does make that meeting. Her new secretary is left sitting in the hall waiting in vain for his audience. It’s a cute scene,,Definitely bored of Mr. Morgan to put that in, considering what it implies. But he has something of an expert on the house of Windsor and must’ve felt that such a scene would be in keeping with the playful private nature, and the mutual attraction for each other between the queen and her consort. The queen is very proper in public and would no doubt find such a suggestion scandalous, that she would blow off her regal duties for another form of blowing, But in this depicted moment, they are just a couple of young parents who are super busy, trying to steal a few moments of alone time where they can get it.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 03, 2020
Blind Items Revealed #2
May 26, 2020
I don't think she would leave because she enjoys the lifestyle, but things have not been going well in the fairly new marriage between the former reality star turned B+ list actress and her celebrity husband.
Katharine McPhee/David Foster
Just going to throw this out here - let the speculation begin:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 03, 2020
Blind Items Revealed #2
May 26, 2020
Clever comments there: https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/06/blind-items-revealed-2_3.html
drew holthaus • 5 hours ago • edited
Mcphee is not gonna sweat some happy endings at the message parlor. Shes got 50 percent or more of the whole estate if she hangs around
-------
Aquagirl drew holthaus • 4 hours ago
Pretty sure there’s a pre-nup. And even if there’s not, she gets 50% of his earnings since marriage (minus 50% of hers), not 50% of the whole estate. Unless she hangs around for 10 years, but even then, he’s probably got a lot of his assets in trusts. This isn’t his first rodeo.
------
Sparky Aquagirl • 3 hours ago
I'd be shocked if there's no pre-nup. Not his first rodeo is an understatement. McPhee is his 5th wife. With respect to community property, under CA law the right to it begins as soon as the marriage begins and ends on the date of separation---which is why the date used can be critical. The 10 year thing has to do with spousal support. Prior to 10 years you pretty much will get support for 1/2 the number of years of the marriage. After 10, the court retains unlimited jurisdiction over the issue which means it can go on indefinitely.
@Henrietta Whether Mulroney falls on her sword on not is a bit irrelevant here, because if she showed not only her own letter to people but even her father's one her privacy claim becomes defunct.
I went back on the blog to see what Elle had said on this subject, and she referred to a new criminal law created after "the" Naomi Campbell case. The decision in that case included criteria for balancing private and public interests. I don't know how sharing something like a letter with friends can be likened to making it public, but I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer or understand all the legal issues involved.
MM seems to have tried to cover her privacy bases by saying she didn't know her friends would talk to the press. I personally think she's probably going to have to demonstrate that in court -- or begin to demonstrate it -- and that that will be the riskiest part of her case.
Something must be going on here that I am blind to. I don’t understand why you have chosen to leave. Lots of people make comments that never elicit a reply, including me. It doesn’t bother me. And I haven’t noticed a DAR-like chill on this blog. Anyway, I’m sorry you are leaving. The attrition seems to be accelerating here.
What a baby you are. An itty bitty baby and a coward besides.
>>>The attrition seems to be accelerating here.<<<
I think it may be due to the fact the HAMS are getting boring and not much is new or interesting. I for one, used to comment more but for awhile there hasn't been too much that motivated me to write as much as I did before. However not to say that Nutties posts are not as intelligent and informative, as they are!! It's just that the Harkles have become so tediously bland and irrelevant.
So consequently, I think some Nutties may be taking a break until something pops up to excite interest among us once again. I am looking forward to the Mm vs. MoS court case and can't wait to see what happens when the 1 yr. trial period is over.
“ I am looking forward to the Mm vs. MoS court case and can't wait to see what happens when the 1 yr. trial period is over.“
Yes, and don’t forget the publication of Lady Colin Campbell’s book later this month.
I am so looking forward to LCC's book having preordered a copy. Should be delicious.
Thank you for asking me about Lady C's book as I am extremely interested in what it has to say; surely there will be new info about MM and probably Harry too. I am wondering if she will actually have any facts regarding Archie and if he was born of a surrogate. Although I am more curious about damaging facts on Meghan and the status of the marriage. I hope it is a blockbuster!
charles fury: Meghan spent all my money with $80M cash crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W6fOLjqGWc
Thanks for the link...it was good!
Hi Nutty and Nutties,
I was wondering whether anyone knows where Ava C is. I miss her wise, informed, warm comments acutely. She’s one of the very best we have,
Ava C, wherever you are, please come back. I hope you’re keeping well and that you are adjusted to your new surroundings following your move.
If someone insults you- ignore it.
If someone tries to bait you- ignore it.
It takes two to tango.
DON'T feed the trolls.
They feed on your responses- ignore them!
Honestly, the need to respond to people who heckle you shows a narc characteristic- the need to be "right."
Perhaps if you can't refrain from defending yourself then your hatred of Meghan is of the "hate the traits you see in yourself" variety.
Prove me wrong, please.
I too miss her posts. I am glad Hikari is back posting and hope that WBBM never leaves, she has the most fascinating posts--history, social commentary, personal, etc.
And for those saying don't feed the trolls....lol, their comments are feeding the trolls!
Wow Ziggy.
It was an IT issues with some devices. Some people couldn’t post at all with nested comments, mine either didn’t go through (or they instantly disappeared as soon as they appeared) after the 200 comment mark. Regardless, I always had to post with Private browsing on to get any comment to go through. We gained a a lot of new Nutties when Nutty changed the format.
Further thoughts... Did someone film it from a screen to release? I'm thinking it could possibly be a reflection on a tv screen.
I just found it really weird as to why that reflection would be in between her and the camera. It leapt out at me and now I'm puzzled. Admittedly it being early and me still being on my first coffee may be affecting my thought processes so apologies if I'm not making much sense lol
For my part, I’m continuing to keep my ear to the ground in L.A. but not picking up much rumbling regarding the Harkles at this point.
My son is Chief National Correspondent for one of the big three “alphabet” (news) networks. He’s based in Los Angeles, and with the corona virus continuing lockdown of L.A. County and now the current civil unrest and rioting and looting there (even in Beverly Hills) he’s way too besieged for me to raise the ever-so-important Harkle matter with him.
As for my brother the veteran Hollywood screenwriter who’s shared some choice nuggets about them with us Nutties and who also does a mean Kyle Dunnigan style impression of the duo, he is of course also under lock down orders perhaps till July and beyond. Standing with peaceful protesters (masked of course) by day, homeschooling the children, shopping before curfew begins and boarding up homes and businesses in preparation for looters, doesn’t leave much time for gossiping with sis. Furthermore, it’s unlikely a huge number of deals are being cut right now.
Meghan and Harry couldn’t have chosen a more inauspicious time to relocate to Los Angeles. I wonder whether they’re panicking yet and floating trial balloons about coming back to join The Firm once again', long before their trial year is over.
‘I had to say something because it would be wrong not too, even if I get crucified for what I say.’ This is her actual thought process. She actually cares about the press.
I mean, seriously?
This isn’t about Meghan Markle, at all. This is about George Floyd. No one else pre-empted their ‘statements of support’ with some diatribe about themselves and their thought process (how embarrassing of her), and her Me-Again self-centered approach.
Why didn’t she just donate to the family, release a simple statement (someone is advising her to be more approachable), only about the issues at hand. As far as, I stand with George Floyd. Instead she has to explain, explain, explain. Good grief. Just get to the point because she is such a minor B list celeb it’s hard for me to understand WHY she thinks her WORDS are so
Important.
Also, I thought she wanted PRIVACY.
Yes, I had difficulty with the other format. I often didn’t know that a new thread was started, and wouldn’t post until the 200th-300 comment, so I didn’t really get to interact with other posters. Also, sometimes my posts didn’t appear. Back then, most of the comments were quite long, so I’d read through everything and then not be able to respond. I actually like the flow better now. Some posters write long, informative comments while others just post a link or a sentence or 2. I find that the combination of these two approaches keeps the blog more vibrant.
I also would like to see a view threads being commented on simultaneously, especially when LCC’s book comes out. That certainly deserves it’s own thread, and I’m sure it will be ongoing as various posters read the book.
Here's a fun one for you
charles fury: Meghan spent all my money with $80M cash crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W6fOLjqGWc
LOL. Thank you for posting this. Pretty hilarious. Some great lines....”Couldn’t Meghan have attended charm school in Switzerland?”
You were asking about Ava C. Funnily enough, I was thinking about her last night. I seem to remember she was moving house (from England to Scotland, I think) so she must be very busy.
In truth, I long for this saga to end. Oh, for a very large boot to be planted on the backsides of the Arch-Offenders and to kick them into obscurity.They absorb far too much of my life - it verges on an obsession.
Am still half asleep (thanks to a bad night) the garden is calling and I can't think of anything else to say at the moment, apart from I'm sorry to see Lt Nyota uhuru go. I'm not planning to go anywhere yet.
Keep the faith, folks. Life's tough all round so we just have to `keep buggering on,' as Churchill used to say.
God save the Queen.
I run a site on these two and I can see the analytics of their news stories. While it garners some interest from small corners of the internet, they actually are ignored by and large for the most part. Based on my calculations, it will be really hard for them to make ‘internet’ money, which is what she was after. So we are seeing the slow fade.
I think their book is too late. We have coronavirus, we have massive job loss, we now have protests. We basically have real chaos. They provided us entertaining chaos. We are in chaos overload mode. So the first thing to go is them. They are literally becoming irrelevant. The only way they can avoid this is to get their perverbial ‘sht’ together. And get it together fast. But their reps are so bad, and their histories so obtuse and bizarre, it looks slim to none. Becoming a Kardashian and actually making money is not easy. Most influencers don’t make a dime. And then it becomes a full. Time. Job. Something megs does not have the time for. And become good at. It’s really hard. She doesn’t seem to understand this. It takes man hours and work.
Where is Harry? It would have been good to see them together talking about George Floyd. I guess they are too off script to handle something like that.
There will be a bump as the books come out, but yeah, everyone is weary of them and just doesn’t care much anymore. I don’t even get why she is somewhat infamous. Time to ignore her altogether as she is so boring. Lol.