Jessica Mulroney was one of the earliest players in the Meghan Markle fame drama.
She met Meghan sometime between 2011 and 2015, when Markle was in Mulroney's native Canada playing a role on Suits; by 2016, the two women were pictured vacationing together in Italy.
Jessica was right by Meghan's side during the romance with Prince Harry, even present during the couple's first public outing at the Invictus games in September 2017.
She was a visible presence at the Royal Wedding in May 2018, and even made a brief appearance during the Sussexes' Royal Tour of Australia, for reasons that have never been fully explained. There was also gossip about the Sussexes giving the Mulroneys an expensive Jaguar car - why is also unclear.
There was great speculation that Jessica might be chosen as one of Archie Windsor-Mountbatten's godmothers, although as a follower of the Jewish faith, she would not ordinarily be eligible.
And when the Sussexes returned to the UK for their last appearance as Their Royal Highnesses, they reportedly left Archie - such as he is - in the care of Jessica Mulroney, even though she was living in Toronto at the time and they were based in Western Canada.
She and Mulroney started their family quickly - their twin boys were born in summer 2010, along with a daughter in 2013.
And they leveraged their family for publicity from the beginning, regularly sharing images on social media. Mulroney even served as a spokeswoman for Pampers diapers, along with a side business distributing high-end lingerie.
In November 2015, Jessica had her big breakthrough as a stylist, choosing a range of ensembles by Canadian designers for Justin Trudeau's wife Sophie to wear on the world stage.
After hitching her star to Meghan's, she won a regular spot on "Good Morning America" and her own reality show featuring re-dos for brides whose first wedding had been botched.
She met Meghan sometime between 2011 and 2015, when Markle was in Mulroney's native Canada playing a role on Suits; by 2016, the two women were pictured vacationing together in Italy.
Jessica was right by Meghan's side during the romance with Prince Harry, even present during the couple's first public outing at the Invictus games in September 2017.
She was a visible presence at the Royal Wedding in May 2018, and even made a brief appearance during the Sussexes' Royal Tour of Australia, for reasons that have never been fully explained. There was also gossip about the Sussexes giving the Mulroneys an expensive Jaguar car - why is also unclear.
There was great speculation that Jessica might be chosen as one of Archie Windsor-Mountbatten's godmothers, although as a follower of the Jewish faith, she would not ordinarily be eligible.
And when the Sussexes returned to the UK for their last appearance as Their Royal Highnesses, they reportedly left Archie - such as he is - in the care of Jessica Mulroney, even though she was living in Toronto at the time and they were based in Western Canada.
From shoe sales to celebrity
Born to a Canadian family that had made its fortune in retail shoe sales, Jessica Brownstein was married in October 2008 the son of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, whom she had known since her teenage years.She and Mulroney started their family quickly - their twin boys were born in summer 2010, along with a daughter in 2013.
And they leveraged their family for publicity from the beginning, regularly sharing images on social media. Mulroney even served as a spokeswoman for Pampers diapers, along with a side business distributing high-end lingerie.
In November 2015, Jessica had her big breakthrough as a stylist, choosing a range of ensembles by Canadian designers for Justin Trudeau's wife Sophie to wear on the world stage.
After hitching her star to Meghan's, she won a regular spot on "Good Morning America" and her own reality show featuring re-dos for brides whose first wedding had been botched.
Jessica is cancelled
Now, at a time of heightened sensitivity about racial matters, Jessica has been "cancelled" after a feud with a Black Canadian influencer.
I don't have any special insight on their disagreement, which was explained in greater detail by Meghan's longtime supporter (and Jessica's friend, I thought) Lainy Liu.
But I do think it's a sign of the thinness of her celebrity that Jessica could be washed away so quickly and easily; she seems to have lost all of her gigs and sponsorships in a matter of days.
Is there anyone at all who stood up for Jessica? Anyone who was sorry to see her go?
Transactional friends
Celebrities with deep support are people who have been around for many years, people who fans can see themselves reflected in: Jennifer Lopez, Reese Witherspoon, even Harry Styles.
Were one of those celebrities to make a serious misstep, they would probably be able to work their way back again. (Witherspoon did, actually; she was caught driving drunk in 2013 and told the arresting officer, "Don't you know who I am?")
Jessica, maybe, not so much. Did anyone ever really like Jessica?
Did Meghan? Or were they only transactional friends?
It will be interesting to see if the Duchess of Sussex, eternally polishing her woke credentials, says anything about her supposed good friend's sudden fall from grace.
Comments
I see no good way around the Jessica issue for Meghan, LadyC book is about to be promoted hard, and then it’s going to be a lot of chat when that’s online in the next 10 days (amazon kindle version).
Meghan wanting to stand up for BLM is short sighted, first the movement is already happening by the people, second she married into what you could call a white privileged family, and third she denied and omitted she was black for years. Too many skeletons. Won’t work due to backlash. And honestly, for the best- it’s not her place to wade into that.
Yes . . sometimes even held 'captive' by physical force. A hostage, such as some can argue that Harry is, is 'captivated' on a daily basis.
Re. Archie
Despite features which resemble both Meg and Harry at times, the baby we have been told is 'Archie' does not appear to have a shred of emotional connection to the woman marketing herself as his mother. I do think there was a surrogacy arrangement behind the backs of the Royal family, leading to the flamboyant play-acting of a 10-month 'pregnancy' in the public eye. MM was thwarted by British surrogacy laws and I believe, failed in her bid to adopt the child known as Archie. If this child is the genuine genetic child of Meg and Harry, I'd really be surprised. He may be, though I still find it quizzical that, while one can see Thomas Markle if one tries to see that, there is no trace whatsoever of Doria's side's contribution. Archie is one snow-white baby. He's a cute little blighter, but I don't believe that Meg is his gestational or custodial mother, and most likely, not his genetic mother either. She is not fit to have charge of a baby and I think the courts have deemed it so as well. It will be interesting to read what Lady C. surmises.
Even were she not allowed to turn Archie into a cottage industry of merching income for TigTots, which I believe was her original intention, a few candid snaps of the family establishing Meg's "We're Happy and We're All Together!" narrative wouldn't go amiss. I think it's very instructive that we have had so very few pictures of Archie in the first year of his life and yet so many of his 'mom' posing with dolls. We all have to draw our own conclusions from that.
It's difficult to take anything that MM says seriously after being caught in so many lies and uses her "friends", then discards them when they are of no more use to her. How can she glom onto the BLM movement when she let everybody think she was Caucasian until Doria showed up at school one day, and her schoolmates had to find out for themselves that she is bi-racial?
If she is such a warrior for the BLM movement, why did she list her race as Caucasian on her resume? Would she have been such a "good friend" of Serena if Serena was poor and unknown? That's highly unlikely.
MM just digs deeper and deeper holes for herself. At this point, she and Harry are merely international fools. Her attempts to be an international force for good has caused such division and hatred, then she labels herself as a humanitarian. Humanitarians are supposed to bring people together, not divide them, as she has done.
The best thing she could do is to publicly ask her sugars to stand down and stop spreading the vicious hatred. But MM is a coward, as most bullies are. She is known for running when the going gets tough.
I don't hate MM. I don't like her and the way she purports herself, but I don't hate her. That's a huge difference.
Jocelyn, As soon as my eye fell on the word's "Meg's dominant personality", followed by "vivacious", I had a laugh and almost had some coffee come out of my nose. As you point out, *that* is the perfect aristocratic take-down. The subject herself would read this description and be pleased with it, but these words are most decidedly not compliments....
Thank you for that! It was one of those "Aha!" moments for me, you've decoded so many nuances in one post. Of course there is a coded meaning to Brit aristocratic communication, that sails right over the head of most Americans. Just as many Americans don't even understand regional speech patterns...in the Deep South "Bless his/her heart" doesn't mean what you'd think, basically it means "Que'lle Moron!".
And so forth.
I should have known, my BFF is an expat Brit, and sometimes even in the same basic business and a language in common, we'd confuse each other until we were crying in laughter....and we've known each other for years. I can't wait to ask her about this the next time I see her, as we have a standing "date" if and when they ever reopen the beach here. Thank you again for the clarification (or a ginormous clue-bat, as we sometimes call it here).
(BG here, could use a cluebat on how to sign up for an account, too).
There is something they deem necessary to hide with Archie. I don’t know what it is (surrogacy/IVF/deformity/etc)(real/not real/borrowed). If it’s Meghan or Harry’s issues alone (claims for needing privacy, and yet paying a PR company hundreds of thousands) that’s not Archie’s problem either. So either there is an issue, or they are projecting. Or they want to create the illusion that they do all his care (the birthday video that was more about Meghan than Archie, which was bizarre).
Either way, as usual with Megs, the truth is being hidden and eventually we will find out why.
Agree about Archie. The whole thing is just strange, from the pregnancy announcement to the "birth" to the Christening to the....
What I find truly strange, if indeed it is true, is that Harry asked MeMe "Are you really pregnant?" during the Aussie Tour. Really strange.
It’s funny because before she insulted Beyonce by trying to steal her thunder at Lion Kong Premier, Beyoncé was prompting Meghan in her music video! Beyonce! The woman who is known to shy away from anyone else in the business to protect her profile. She made a fool of Beyonce!
So yeah, I think the entire community she wanted to be apart of (Hollywood A-list) just wants to meet her husband (fading) and move on.
No one likes a quitter!
I think he was not an ‘In the know’ party to the ‘creation’ of Archie. He definitely was not expecting Archie, either at that time or that soon. And of course not. He wanted to marry someone he seemed to lust after, he is a party guy. There is no chance he wanted to start a family as soon as the wedding bells rang.
She clearly hijaked his whole life, and it’s funny yet awful to watch.
And remember MeMe went back to North America a couple of times the first two-three months after the wedding. Without Harry. Would be a very good time to arrange IVF/surrogacy. A very good time.
If you believe Lady C that Archie was adopted, everything about him falls into place. Unfortunately, "whip smart" MM was just not smart enough to keep her mouth shut and her extremely odd actions quiet. Nobody would have questioned his birth. MM is her own worst enemy, and she has brought Harry down with her.
If they had just said that they had adopted a baby, nobody would have blinked an eye, but her subterfuge, yet again, caused this world-wide questioning of Archie's birth. What a horrible thing to do to a baby who will grow up to read all of the history about his parents denying his adoption. How will he feel when he reads all of this? The poor, poor child. What a sad beginning to his life.
What's really interesting is that no one theory explains all the things that we've seen with our own eyes.
Which leads me to believe that maybe two or three theories are correct. It doesn't have to be just one theory I guess.
Reminds me of when I was going through some pain issues. All the tests were turning out frustratingly normal, symptoms didn't seem to match anything. Turned out it was two causes. Once we eliminated the first cause, the second showed itself.
I hope Lady C's book gives further insight
I think he was not an ‘In the know’ party to the ‘creation’ of Archie. He definitely was not expecting Archie, either at that time or that soon. And of course not. He wanted to marry someone he seemed to lust after, he is a party guy. There is no chance he wanted to start a family as soon as the wedding bells rang.
Not forgetting the blazing rows the couple had in Australia on the ill-fated tour, with Harry being overhead by AH staff asking MM 'Are you really pregnant'? Also, that the couple slept in separate rooms the entire tour. Separate rooms are an aristocratic practice, and a Royal practice historically . . . but if *this* couple were in separate rooms barely 5 months into the marriage, that doesn't bode well for the paradise of their so-called 'soooooooooo in lurve we can't keep our hands off each other!!!!' union, notwithstanding that Americans, at any rate, look askance at separate sleeping arrangments for married couples as a sign that all is not harmonious.
Apparently the PDA and the sweet looks were always only for the walkabouts where they were being photographed. Hazza spent the rest of his time going around apologizing for his wife's boorish behavior, so the legend goes.
We all thought it was odd that Meg jetted off to 'see friends in Canada' only a few weeks after her star-studded wedding, sans Harry. I don't think there was ever a honeymoon, and already the couple was doing their own separate things unless there was a photo opportunity to be had. If we go all the way with this, Meg and Harry have never actually shared a home together in the entirety of their relationship--she was never with him at NottCott or Frogmore or some hideaway in the Cotswolds. Since leaving the BRF, they must be compelled to share a domicile, especially now that Covid in on the table, which is why Harry looks like such hell . . but I've never believed that this is a 'normal' marriage in any sense of the word.
During the wedding vows, when Archbishop Welby came to the 'procreation of children' part of the vows, M. & H. exchanged a knowing smirk, which many interpreted as 'proof' that an underhanded plan was already in the works to deceive the BRF and Harry was a full participant. I don't know the meaning of those looks, but based on his subsequent behavior, I don't think he was fully onboard with this plan at any time. Harry didn't really start to look miserable and stressed out until after Eugenie's wedding/the Oceania tour. I think he thought there would be time to talk about the baby question and what they would do about it, but not for a year at least. MM hastened that situation because she had no intention of lingering in the hateful BRF that was funding her lifestyle in the millions one second longer than she needed to.
I cannot abide her dishonesty and hypocrisy and the way she treats other living things, so yes, I’d put actual money into protecting Jessica if she would just out with it all.
My words for Jessica M. are 'Karma, baby!' When I first saw photos of her and Markle together, it was hard to tell them apart, as though they were intentionally styling themselves like they were the same person. Very symbiotic. I think they've got similar values in life, which is self-promotion uber alles, and people are expendable. Particularly if they aren't 'pretty' people. You can see the self-absorption, with the constant preening, posing and plastic surgery are shared in common by these two. Stories are starting to flood out now about how poorly Jessica has treated people in the past, including women of color.
I would not give JM a cent of my money because even thought she has destroyed her career, she's still got plenty of money through her husband's family. They are very well-connected and can afford to hire the best legal team in North America. Which I hope they do, and JM gets rock-solid legal advice about how she can proceed in publishing what she knows about Meg. A book from Jessica would be even more valuable and devastating than anything Lady C. can write, because JM has been acknowledged as MM's best friend for years and has been in on the Bag a Prince/Grift the RF plot since the beginning. I don't like her, but I'd say she's entitled to her revenge, and I sincerely hope she gets it. Meg needs to be completely decimated as someone anyone will ever give two seconds of time or attention to in the future and cast into her own personal version of hell. Jessica could finish her off for good and all. I hope she does, but she will have to pick carefully through legal landmines.
As much as it would be interesting and amusing to watch a catfight between JM and MM I do not think it will happen.
If JM has unsavory facts about MM so does MM about JM. And with MM currently riding the black movement bandwagon JM will not risk deepening the racial controversy and attracting the rabid hate of Saint Meghan congregation. She probably knows better than anybody how easily these people manipulated into attacking those they deem unfair to their goddess.
No, if JM has any brains at all in her botox and silicon filled head she will stay low for a foreseeable future. It is actually her best weapon at the moment, the chance she MAY spill the beans. Heck, she MAY write a book where she MAY say various things Megs would not like. After all JM dressed Megs in Suites, it means she was around listening and watching all sorts of things that can be damaging to Megsy's current humanitarian feminist Duchess persona.
Spot on as usual. Off the top of my head, and a big if I remember correctly:
1. Rumours that H&M visited fertility clinics before marriage (H could have made a deposit in that bank) because of MeMe's age there was concern about conception.
2. Rumours that the Queen asked them to post pone creating children for at least a year
3. A few weeks after the wedding MeMe flies to Canada solo "to see friends" . I guess she didn't get to see them at the wedding or lead up to wedding.
4. Flies home from Canada and has one glass of champagne (which one seriously would not do if trying IVF, not even a single glass)
5. Announces pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding because "she was afraid the news would get out while in Australia and the family had to know from them not the press"
6. Separate bedrooms in Australia tour and Harry asking "Are you really pregnant?". Wouldn't he know for sure?
7. Refusing the Royal doctors (best OB/GYN in the land, would any sane woman on the up and up refuse such help?)
8. Never naming whom the birth team would be
9. Ever changing moon bump size, location. Constant coat flicking and belly cupping. Above and beyond what I have seen any pregnant woman do. Ever.
10. General time of year is typical royal due date information but this one kept changing.
11. Goes on maternity leave in early March but doesn't deliver until May
12. Birth no-one seems to have witnessed. Any part of it from going to hospital to in hospital to going home to no doctors/witness signatures to birth
13. Under UK law, after 42 days a birth certificate is issued (in surrogacy cases) with the parents listed as the birth parents and no birth record of the surrogacy exists after that.
14. Why a closed and secret godparents christening?
I'm guessing Harry was not clued in to the plan. He found out like everybody else at Eugenie's wedding or the morning of. I'm betting surrogacy. The baby was born in March/April. MeMe held out until the very last second (with threats from the Palace to induce). The release of the birth certificate was delayed until the 42 days were up so that she and Harry are listed as parents. This puts Palace in a bind. Legally baby is theirs but according to law, not a Royal as not "of the body". So acknowledge him but no title. Hopefully it never gets down to Archie is next in line to succession so leave him in place to save face.
Whether Archie is Harry's or MeMe's or both or neither doesn't matter. Legally he is theirs. Whether he is legally entitled to be in the line of succession is another story.
Finally, the name Archie is not royal at all. Its a perfectly fine name, a nickname, but Archibald would have been more aristocratic. I think there is a baby but its real name isn't just "Archie Harrison". That sounds more like a place holder name.
Shame on Harry for ever laying this crap on an innocent baby. No matter what parts are true or not true in my thoughts above, this poor kid will be the butt of jokes and gossip his entire life.
I wholeheartedly agree about Jessica M. To me, she is as phoney and deceptive as MM, if not worse. I don't believe that she is a fabulous mother, but one who trots her children out when necessary for the paps, then hands them over to the nanny when she they have performed to her liking.
You ARE the people you associate with, and JM and MM are two of a kind. To me, they are cheap, tawdry and money-grubbing. I don't see a bit of true kindness or integrity in them. It's all about me, me, me.
Those photos of MM and JM hugging so tightly, as if they were lovers, are, in my view designed to appear to be extremely soft p*rn- a "come and get us guys and gals. We're open for anything" advertisement. Their clothing choices are designed to attract the kind of attention that most women would not want. It makes them look just one step up from hookers.
No, I wouldn't give JM one red cent. She is as untrustworthy as MM, and I wouldn't take anything she said or wrote as truthful.
@Hikari and Jocelyn , I totally get the "captivated " idea. I, myself , call it rubbernecking lol.
That photo- A very nice turn on for me and men in general. I am one and what am I doing here? I like to see women's evaluation of what is going on.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48315300
Until today, we knew very little about the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's newborn son, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
Now snippets of information about the day have been revealed in his birth certificate.
Here are five things we learned from it.
1. Archie was not born at home
Despite earlier speculation that Meghan had given birth at the couple's home in Windsor, we now know for definite that the birth happened at the private Portland Hospital in Westminster, where the cost of a basic birth begins at £6,100.
Meghan isn't the only royal who has given birth at Britain's only fully private maternity hospital.
Sarah, Duchess of York, gave birth to Prince Harry's cousins, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie at the hospital in Great Portland Street, central London.
2. The Duchess of Sussex is listed as Princess of the United Kingdom...
... as in that's her occupation.
You might know Meghan as the Duchess of Sussex, but following her May 2018 marriage she did also technically become a princess.
Meghan is not the first royal to list her occupation as princess - Catherine did the same on her children's birth certificates.
3. Prince Harry took a total of 11 days to register Archie's birth
Which is "pretty normal", according to Alicja Gilroy, who works as a superintendent registrar, although in Oxford, so is not likely to register a royal birth herself.
She adds that, from her own experiences, most
people manage to register their baby's birth within the official 42-day deadline.
However, not everyone is as organised.
Sometimes people register their children's births just "at the edge" of the 42 days because they can't agree on a name, she adds.
4. Harry signed the birth certificate
The prince registered the birth of his son but Meghan may well have been present as well. When a couple is married, only one parent is required on the register.
Ms Gilroy says that sometimes, when dads come on their own, "they're more likely to make mistakes, perhaps because they're not aware of all the information required".
She added that they don't always know when they got married and "don't want to ring their wives up admitting it".
There appear to be no such issues for Prince Harry.
But sadly we don't get to see how the new (possibly sleep-deprived) dad forms the "H" in his signature. The copy of the birth certificate issued for public consumption is a typed-up version of the original
5. No special treatment for Archie and his dad
Despite being royal, the birth certificate wasn't signed by one of the most senior employees at Westminster Register Office.
Just like with "normal people" it was handled by whoever was available and on duty - which in this case was a deputy registrar called Dexsha Mevada.
I read elsewhere that Archewell scheme may have been pushed back so that H&M will not reveal the true nature of their merching game until they have forced the BRF to make final decision about whether they are “in” or “out.” Makes sense!
Re: Lady C’s tone and choice of words - I always imagine the words as if spoken by Maggie Smith’s character, the dowager Duchess of Grantham, in Downton Abbey. As noted by others, seemingly complimentary phrases can take on a whole different meaning!
Thanks for the info! Your research skills are superior to mine, I could never have found all that info in less than an hour!!!
If surrogacy theory were true, it would be a fraud of epic proportions, involving Harry (who signed the BC) and likely HM and anyone else associated with it, such as the government offices, the doctors etc.
Maybe they are all protecting Archie. Maybe. Who knows.
I tend to think internet sleuthers aren’t going to crack open a multi level government fraud involving royals, possibly including the queen.
Must run now, more thoughts later. But interesting to ponder if Archie is legally theirs but not legally entitled to be in line of succession. Shame on Harry if this is true. Heck of thing for a child to have hanging around their neck their entire life.
...Well, their trademark application is on hold and being reviewed, after initial denial due to Meghan messing up a lot of things on it. No lawyer submitted it. It was Meghan or her personal assistant. And they messed it up.
Seeing how other 'charity' businesses are in operation under the name Archewell, it's doubtful she will win the trademark anyway, and will need to go back to the drawing board.
I think it IS a fraud of epic proportions and the BRF knows. And that's why I also think the truth about Archie will never be told.
Also, I can be wrong about things. For instance, I have always believed Madeline McCann was accidentally killed while her parents were eating dinner, and it is looking like she was indeed kidnapped and murdered.
I do agree with you that if there is fraud here, it will never be revealed.
Indy, do you have a link for this delightful piece of info?
https://pagesix.com/2020/06/17/meghan-markles-friendship-with-jessica-mulroney-was-over-before-white-privilege-controversy/
Will you point me to that article about MM's "friends" saying she feels that JM was using her? That didn't take long, did it, but it is certainly typical of MM's behavior.
This should be very interesting with the upcoming court case, too. Can MM still drop the case at this point?
When will MM finally figure out that the entire world knows that her "friends" are really just MM? It's becoming rather tiresome.
I don't think JM will write a book. It would implicate her in too many of MM's schemes, the least of which is guilt by association or guilt by knowledge of certain things MM has done, but not speaking up about them. Everybody would know that it was a revenge book, and JM's reputation for truthfulness is not stellar.
Either way, JM's reputation is in tatters, and judging by the previous actions of this group, I wouldn't be surprised if a JM divorce is coming unless she can turn her reputation around quickly. Her husband is not going to let his career be ruined by JM's and MM's antics. He can find another cheap trick wife to replace JM quickly enough.
By the way, OPRAH, where is your input about your good friend, MM, now? You're suddenly very silent, and so is Gayle. Do you really want to put out that interview with your good buddies, The Harkles, now? Ellen, how about you? Elton? Care to chime in now? The Clooneys? Anybody?
I think the wolrd is finally turning against MM and toward the BRF. Even many of her sugars have figured out that she and Harry are not the kind of people they purported themselves to be.
Maybe HMTQ and PC are even shrewder than we thought. She let time and MM ruin her own reputation, and everything's finally coming to a head. All without putting out negative statements about The Harkles or stooping to below royal behavior. Let's not count out HMTQ just yet. MM may be tungsten, but HMTQ and PC are titanium.
The article about JM using Mm to gain notoriety is just laughable. How can anybody believe that MM had decided before JM's blunder that MM felt used by her? Does she think we're that stupid? Evidently, JM didn't get the message, as JM still called MM her best friend. Where's the friendship now, MM? She's running away again when times get tough. What a piece of work she is! MM has absolutely no shame or integrity, and Harry is just as bad.
"How can anybody believe that MM had decided before JM's blunder that MM felt used by her? Does she think we're that stupid? Evidently, JM didn't get the message, as JM still called MM her best friend."
No kidding. And if MM did name JM, a non-Christian, as one of Archie's godparents less than a year ago (as the article states), that would have been highly unusual for the COE. So getting her bestie Justin Welby to change the rules for JM wouldn't have sent a message of "our friendship is over." Neither would taking the Mulroneys on their Australian tour which we know happened. And it was reported Archie was left with JM in January and March when MM and Harry were in the UK. Guess lots of people leave their babies with people they don't like?
Re the comments on Archie and all the secrecy, I have always felt that the decision not to take the apartment at KP and to move to Frogmore was an effort to keep the whole pregnancy as private as possible which would be difficult living next door to Catherine and William.
I hope I don't come up as Unknown. Filled out the blogger profile but fear there is more to do.
My name is Midge,
Welcome! Your name shows up just fine.
I agree that they had to get out of the palace to keep the pregnancy situation as private as possible, but did they really ever live at Frogmore Cottage?
So many questions. I can't wait for Lady C's book!
Sorry I missed your post on the last page asking me whether Lady C had answered the question about Doria being in prison. The answer, is yes, Lady C did answer in her own, very subtle way, and it was affirmative. She refused to say anything any further, though, as she said her book is about MM, and not Doria.
If Jessica was no longer a friend of Meghan, why did Meghan tell the press she was leaving Archie with her in Canada and flying off to the UK.
This isn't going to end well for Meghan. Jessica is an idiot, but well connected. Meghan and Harry are no longer Royal (or are they, year is getting close). In a few more months, if they are banished from the kingdom- people will start speaking out. Look at everyone else in her history path. Spoke out.
What. A. Mess.
Meghan, if you read this, have you checked in with Jessica to make sure she is Ok?
Practice what you preach. This is why no one likes you.
Both Jessica and Meghan trade on connections and merch and grift their way through life, with their interests being (other than all things self) clothes, fashion, jewellery, holidays, food, wine, people (famous people that can boost my profile), places, social media, TV shows, brands ... and some charity thrown in the mix because it helps raise the profile. (Jessica loves the family snaps but Meghan does not and that is something interesting enough to make up another whole thread.)
Of course Jessica used the attention she got from her friendship with Meghan, just as Meghan has used people her whole life. Birds of a feather flock together and everyone can see that.
Does Meghan have any friends or family left to throw under the bus?
Harry comes from a family where loyalty is important (Charles, Diana, Sophie, Sarah, Andrew are just some of the members who have created major scandals but none of them have been thrown under the bus by the family ... Sarah never made it back on the Christmas list but she has always remained on the fringes and actually lives on Crown property). I reckon he is going to have a major breakdown because the cognitive dissonance required to live with Meghan and remain a loving and supportive husband and partner must be massive.
I too think its fraud of epic proportions. I think it may (just may) border on treason--if IVF or especially surrogacy. Harry had to know eventually and was probably between a rock and a hard place. Can't admit he was wrong to the family, look like a fool to the world, etc.
I think they planned to leave before the wedding. I think MeMe sold him on the pregnancy because, remember they were going to make 100's of millions (billions!) of dollars on their own. Once they were "financial independent" of the BRF, Harry would be declared a winner in his mind and could simply remove himself and Archie from the line of succession. Easy peasy lemon squeezey and nobody is the wiser. And MeMe still gets to brag her son is "Royal".
Its just a theory.
Re. the Harkles living arrangements
Kensington Palace is a large compound, though the impression I had was that the only apartment which was was not already occupied was KP #1, recently vacated by the Glouchesters..? who opted to move into s smaller residence more suitable for a senior couple. They may have been “encouraged” to do so by BP Since #1 Was being eyed as a good place for William’s London residence/offices, As a grand enough space for the future Prince of Wales to grow into as his base. If Charles retains Clarence House as he plans to after he ascends, Wills needed a sizable space as his role increases. Meg of course thought she deserved something equally grand, and Harry’s bachelor pad at NottCott is pretty bijou. It has been said that Madame put in an order for Frogmore House, Where her wedding reception was held and her engagement photos taken. That is both an event space, and place the Queen is fond of. During the summer, the house and grounds are open for public tours. I think Meg was certainly put in her place in the pecking order When they were giving Frogmore Cottage instead. Significantly less grand, but the family was willing to spend money on it to make it habitable as a single-family home. I have always suspected that Meg fleeced Charles for those decorating invoices, and never had any intention of living there. If the worked on on Frogmore Cottage has been legitimately done, And it was transformed into a nice family home, Why is repayment of those monies such a sticking point now? Why not move Jack and Eugénie out of tiny Ivy Cott at KP And let them have Frogmore As a grace and favor home on which they can pay rent? Eugenie’s parents Would be neighbors at Royal Lodge, and Granny Stays often at Windsor Castle...She’s there now. I have a feeling that Frogmore Cottage is NOT Presently a desirable, freshly renovated home, but what Meg did with that 2.3 Million pounds, and where she was living Since before Archie was born is anybody’s guess.
Campbell is not a rah rah woman for the royals. She tells what she thinks, or knows, of the truth. She was not an admirer of her subject, the consort Queen Elizabeth, but she wasn’t very nasty, either. Little cuts.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/293624-hollywood-bigwigs-not-eager-to-cast-meghan-markle-report
...
Several reports in UK and US media claimed that Meghan Markle was expecting that Hollywood bigwigs would be eager to cast her in their TV and films projects.
A report went on to claim that she was expecting to get Oscar-winning roles but to her dismay she has received offers that she is unwilling to accept.
Citing an insider, heatworld.com reported, “Meghan had really expected to have her pick of movie roles and other exciting offers, but it’s been a bit of an uphill battle.”
The report further said “It seems like some casting directors are afraid of the negativity surrounding her and Harry’s decision to quit the royal family.
Commenting on the roles Meghan Markle has been offered so far, the report said, "She’s received offers to host her own daytime talk show, which she thinks would be ‘cringeworthy’, and she’s also been offered guest slots on a few minor dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. But she really feels that she can only lend her name to prestige projects, like she did when she narrated the Disney documentary Elephants.”
Hands up anyone who believes that Hollywood would not cast a very talented actor because of the 'negativity surrounding her and Harry's decision to quit the royal family'. She is not getting the prestige roles she wants because, as before when she was in Hollywood and failed to get a career off the ground there, she is not talented nor has charisma. She is worse than ordinary (could make a living plugging away at mundane work that there would be a steady supply of) - she is annoying and entitled and bossy and definitely not reliable.
Daytime talk show: the novelty factor would bring in the advertising revenue for a good first season at least, and it would be sell-able worldwide, for the first season definitely.
Guest slot on a minor drama and sitcoms: a guest is not a permanent pain in the neck that you can't get rid of; sitcoms that need perking up could benefit from a brief appearance (boost ratings and advertising briefly) but only minor shows is an ouch - she really does not have a good reputation in Hollywood!
Reality show: it would be so tacky but she would have fans. There are a lot of mindless people who enjoy that kind of show and she could build a lucrative, tacky but lucrative, brand from it.
The Suitcase Girl would have grabbed at any of the above offers, and she could do pretty well on any of them (not the grandiose life she has as a royal but it would pay for the torn jeans and Soho membership). She thinks she is too good for any of those jobs now but perhaps people in Hollywood can see she is still the Suitcase girl, just older and with more baggage. Someone should tell her the truth?
Lady C.’s book on Queen Mum seems like a must-get. I have just received her 2018 title, “The Queen’s Marriage”. I have not had time to read more than a few pages so far, put a caption on a family shot depicting ER with her mother, Charles and Anne on Anne’s christening day states that Queen Mum intentionally did all she could to undermine her daughter’s relationships with her children so they would prefer Granny. It certainly worked with Charles; Granny cultivated him especially. To be fair, with Elizabeth and Philip gone for months at a time on Commonwealth tours, Queen Mum was often the only maternal figure available apart from Nanny.
Suitcase girl , older with more baggae lmao. Perfect.
I’d love to see Harry’s commentary. He’d end up cheating on her with another housewife though.
Emotional intelligence doesn't depend on scholastic aptitude (which we know is a lost cause) but I don't have much hope for that either. Where would he all of the sudden develop maturity, when he's never had to have it before, when he's skipped all the steps, gotten a pass in life?
What do any of you others think?
Unknown, suitcase girl with more baggage lmao!!!
These two don’t just sit back and laugh at what’s happening. They miss the irony in all they do. Otherwise, they’d be unstoppable.
Since Iyanla is a POC maybe Meg would go for it from the pure PR angle it could provide, not that she would take any advice or that she would concede her life needs fixing!
[S]he is still the Suitcase girl, just older and with more baggage.
Omg, yes!! Lol. Well said.
MM is just box office poison now. She was never accepted in Hollywood due to her lack of acting ability, and after the widely-negative reviews of her Elephants disaster, she's again shown that she has no acting chops, not even for a voice over.
Now that she's failed at virtually everything, and her likability factor is non-existent, there is no studio that would want to take a chance on her. She's talked her way out of any prestigious acting job that could have come her way.
Of course, she thinks she's too good for a small walk-on role or a talk show, but I think at this point that even those have been rescinded.
She's tried and failed at the the humanitarian bit, completely messed up her trying to get positive press for her BLM attempts, is in the middle of the Jessica mess, and now her reputation is in shambles. What studio in their right mind would want to take a chance on her with millions of dollars on the line? Same with a talk show, unless it was Oprah, who has also been completely silent about MM in recent weeks, when she once was her cheerleader.
She just sinks deeper and deeper with every move she makes, the latest just today with her "friends" saying she was used by Jessica and that she was distancing herself from her best friend.
Again, after ghosting her best friend and many others- her father, the BRF, suing a newspaper (a dubious lawsuit at best), and countless other "Markle Debacles," who would now want to work with her or put their money on her being a success?
She and Harry are complete and utter failures at everything they have attempted.
I've never seen somebody make such a mess of their lives, all due to thinking they are "whip smart." Nobody is going to back her now, except for the few sugars she has left. MM and Harry are now social and business pariahs.
In MM’s mind, we should ALL be a lot more grateful for her presence!!
I think there's also a jealousy factor, too, with MM toward JM. MM thought she finally had the upper hand by marrying a prince, but it was JM who got all of the jobs.
Sometimes I make myself step back for a minute and take a deep breath. I know you don't know me but I'm usually really nice. My intense dislike for MM is different for me. And I think the reason is because of all the hurt she has caused. I mean heartbreaking pain especially to so many family members let alone friends . So sorry ,not sorry ,as the kids say today.
Yes. Good call. Also, she believes JM is more “free” to live the vapid, socialite lifestyle with less criticism.
Well, I have no sympathy for her. What did she expect? To marry into the BRF and also be a low rent socialite? She's talked her way into such a mess, that she'll be hounded wherever she goes. She DID want fame, didn't she? Well, she has it now. Unfortunately for her, she's more infamous than famous.
@Teasmade and Indy,
I think we've all waited for MM to redeem herself, but she's just hopeless. There are just some people in life who are so devious and unlikable that you can't help but be repelled by them. She brings the negativity upon herself by her actions.
There is only one other person whom I dislike as much as MM. He an author, and he has the same moral values as MM. I can't like people who are so dishonest and devious, and I can't give them a pass just because they are famous.
I see SNL making a character of her. It would be hilarious! Just imagine what they would do with Harry's character. I'm actually laughing right now, thinking of the skits they could do.
I think we are on to something!!
Click on your name from one of your posts, which is "Unknown" right now. It will take you to your own page where you can add your new name and an avatar, if you wish. I hope this helps. Good luck!
Oh the skewering of The Harkles. They provide sooooo much material, without trying!
I have so many ideas about how SNL could make a character of her. They have enough of The Harkles gaffes to last for several seasons.
@Jessica,
I LOVE The Windsors. The actress who plays Camilla is spot on. Actually, they're all great in their roles. I love what they do with Harry and MM, too.
Glad that you finally got a name, and welcome! We have lots of fun here, with great posters who really make you look at things from different angles.
Harry straight out said in the engagement interview that they would not be having children anytime soon. I can see why he was so clearly shocked about the announcement.
In #13, you mentioned the 42 days. That is true, but the original birth certificate is issued under the birth mother’s name. She then has 42 days to change her mind. Even if she doesn’t change her mind, the new birth certificate is not automatically issued. The adoptive parents have to go to court to legally adopt the child. So if there was a surrogate, Megsy missed 2 key points: the ‘of the body’ rule, and this rule.
Also, I was under the impression that the Gloucesters never moved out of their apt. They initially said that they would (because of the reasons that you mentioned), but I don’t think they ever did. Perhaps they were asked to say this by HM to make it seem as though the Sussexes would be moving in? Any work that was done on that apt. was external only (windows, etc.) and was necessary maintenance.
I don’t believe that JH & MM ever lived together. I think that she initially stayed at SoHo House, but where was she living after that? Who knows. I’m sure Jessica does!
I don't know British law. I did know the original birth certificate is issued under the surrogates name (I'm assuming mother, father unknown). It was my impression (so I could very well be wrong) that it was a rather closed door process at 42 days. The new birth certificate is issued with the adoptive parents listed as the birth parents. I would think that given its Just Call Me Harry Formally Prince Harry the court part would be handled very quietly and behind closed doors. I do not believe that it would be published.
I went on at (boring?) length about that Birth Certificate - please forgive me for coming back to it now!
Eventually, I think the best explanation is that the the BC we were shown represents adoption hence Archie M-W coming into existence legally, if not biologically. The only other similar BC I've come across was photo of one for a transgender person, showing the new gender. That too lacked the authenticating stamp in bottom RH corner.
As I understand it in adoption, the original certificate, ie the true copy of what's was recorded on the register, is sealed and not given to the child until it is 18 & legally adult. (By `sealed' I take it to mean `done in such a way that any breach is obvious, eg with sealing wax' - I've no idea if wax is still used - it wouldn't surprise me, and presumably it would be impressed with an official seal. We keep up old traditions here - our laws are still inscribed on vellum.)
There was a report that a statement from BP said wtte that there was a baby, it had been adopted and was `safe with the family that loved him'.
Had the child been born in US, it would have been theirs from birth, assuming they were the biological parents. That is not so here. The child has to be formally adopted to be legally the child of the biological parents.
There have been unconfirmed rumours that the child is in the UK and that Harry has spent time bonding with him.
We still don't know who S. African/Duck Rabbit baby is/are. He could be hired or the surrogate baby. If the lad we've been shown is the surrogate child, an earlier genuine birth, as opposed to `legal birth' in a new identity, would explain the anomalous size, but not the behaviour we have observed.
It's possible that MM is the mother (suspected egg harvesting in Canada) but, given Harry's saying they weren't going to start a family immediately,and one would imagine that the husband might have some control over this, unless he was tricked (`Of course I'm on the Pill, darling'), we don't know who's the daddy.
And wasn't he overheard saying `Is it mine?'?
In short, we may have picked up that a child has been adopted but that's as far as we've got!
Re. Archie
It is my contention that a baby was produced via surrogate, and the formal legal adoption by the Harkles did not go through, throwing a wrench, the first of many, into Meg’s plan for making hundreds of millions off a cute baby. I think sharks are better mothers than Meghan.
Two words: “Feed Time”
I think after the circus that was the birth announcement of this baby, The Harkles were denied custody. Either because the birth mother changed her mind, which she is entirely free to do since surrogacy arrangements are not recognized under British law, Particularly if they were undertaken in Canada. So they are, if not completely illegal, more or less uninforceable. Meg is so not good with details; she probably assumed that Britain would be the same as the United States, where the genetic donor is the legal mother regardless of who carries the baby. If Harry made a deposit at a fertility clinic in Toronto, And it was before the wedding ...? He was incredibly naïve; what did he think was going to happen? If Meg had assured him that their genetic material would sit tight in the clinic for a couple of years before anything was done with it, Harry’s demeanor since the blessed pregnancy was announced Makes it pretty clear that he was lied to about that. The other possibility for the denial of custody is that during the 42 day waiting period, they were evaluated as potential parents and deemed unfit. Their genetic child or no, They would be subject to the same stringent evaluation for their suitability as parents that they would for any other adoption of a non-related baby, and those are strict. Habitual drug use by one or both, testing positive for drugs, Alcoholism, and/or exhibiting mental instability or a potentially dangerous home environment with all be factors.
We’ve been wondering what Markle used to blackmail Harry into marriage... What if it was reminding him that she had his DNA under lock and key in Toronto, possibly already combined with hers into a potential child(ren)? He had to marry her, and set in motion their plan to overshadow William and Kate, or if she was going to spill everything? I think at some point, the family was told the truth...Hence the deafening silence surrounding Meg’s Ostentatious pregnancy which increasingly defied all the laws of gravity and human gestation, and it’s very lukewarm, nearly nonexistent acknowledgment of the birth or Archie’s existence. The queen finally did acknowledge Archie two separate times on television. So we must conclude that she is complicit in something here.
Whatever happened, it seems that things soured irrevocably for Meg after she hijacked Eugenie’s wedding and all the bizarre antics that followed. The subterfuge surrounding Archie is too extreme to simply be about “privacy”.
Further, if PC did ask her/prompt the/ to excuse herself from the Garden Party, he could have done the ultimate 'LEAVE' the RF anytime after that. I think they took a few months and a 'wait and see' to figure her out completely, then realizing she is a total idiot knew it would come to an abrupt end one way or another. I have a feeling William kept the conversation going with Harry to keep abreast of Meghan Details 101. Why else was the firing everyone left, right and center. All she had to do was look at Harry. lol.
Anyway, my prediction? They leave the RF (too deep into their plot at this point). Harry sticks around for another 12 months. Meghan gets more erratic with life stress. Harry or Meghan have an affair. Meghan hoping for an A-list affair, but it will be Harry and his old hookup in England who brings him back to reality.
Harry chats with his old mates, sees happy families, and says he's fine going back to RF. Meghan retaliates, but her power is too weak and she's dumped.
People forget Harry has all the power here. They give Meghan too much credit. I think he's just buying his time, hanging around, perving on Meghan (god why), and will move on when he's alone in the UK. Meghan won't realize it until too late.
No one is surprised, everyone is disgusted.
Her kids were in her wedding FFS, these two are ride or die grifters. Like, at least they had each other?
The important question: I wonder what makes Meghan assume she is better off without Jessica?
And wow, harsh. No wonder Meghan's family detests her. The more I observe about this person, the less likely I want to even be in the same city as her!
Meghan needs to reverse her life, go hang out at SOHO house in Toronto with all the other wannabes (seriously, have you guys been there? It's a pretentious Nuevo-Fake Rich crowd, think TOWIE or your local Cheesecake Factory gone Champaign and Caviar. Full of BS people.) It's laughable she thinks it's a cool place and hangs out there in every location. LOL. Harry would have definitely not wanted to be there. It would have made him uncomfortable.
She needs to just like stop. I don't know what else to say. Meghan, just stop.
Welcome!
“I have always felt that the decision not to take the apartment at KP and to move to Frogmore was an effort to keep the whole pregnancy as private as possible which would be difficult living next door to Catherine and William.”
Except that at Frogmore they were neighbors of the Queen’s, because she spent weekends at Windsor.
I imagine it comes under `hate speech' here - what about the US?
Have H & M committed treason?
`Treason Act 1702 and Treason Act (Ireland) 1703:
attempting to hinder the succession to the throne under the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701' (Wikipedia)
Whether producing a pretender 7th in line amounts to much would be for a court to decide.
I'm not sure if today's life sentence for treason is a whole-life one or like that for murder?
One the other hand, `sectioning' under the Mental Health Act can last indefinitely. Is thinking that one more important than the Queen of the United Kingdom and of her associated Realms and Dependencies the same as believing that one actually is Napoleon or Jesus Christ? Or that one should be Queen, despite being a US citizen?
Or are all those who would like her as Queen, including Lisa Nandy MP, evidence of Treasonous Delusion?
Archie, assuming he really exists: poor kid - I hope he's not their's, then he might miss any tendency to mental instability transmitted genetically.
Once just seen an article in the DM about their trademark application being rejected:
'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who stepped down as working royals earlier this year, had their application turned down because they did not sign the document and they did not pay all the required fees, documents seen by The Sun have revealed. They have been sent an 'Irregularity Notice' by the patent examiner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8434061/New-blow-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle.html
The paperwork, which was submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on March 3, was also said to be 'too vague'.
Looks like the grass is not greener the other side of the or pond.
Re the duo at Frogmore being neighbours of the Queen's when she is at Windsor: Frogmore Cottage is about 1km from the castle. Close but not exactly next-door. Would they have been invited to see the Queen for tea?
Excellent point about how stringent adoption requirements can be - they are notorious in the UK for being tough. i hadn't thought of that.
You're dead right about H$Ms being unfit as adoptive parents, even if the child is 100% theirs biologically. There was a speculation that it (we don't what sex/gender the child might be) had been adopted into the RF by other parents - Sophie & Edward perhaps.
Yes, they've been given the rope to hang themselves.
For those who have worried about ‘Archie’s future’, I sincerely doubt that a child named Archie Harrison actually exists.
"I don’t think that the work on Frogmore was ever done (the Windsor neighbor’s have confirmed this), nor is it currently in a livable condition. If it were, it would make perfect sense to let Eugenie & Jack live there."
I, too, wonder about the state of Frog Cott. Other than that weird out-of-the-blue single tweet from a reporter (I think Richard Palmer?) saying he'd seen cars parked there, the windows open, and H&M coming and going, I don't think anyone else has reported they have evidence they ever lived there. And we know at least one of the FC stories was fake, the one about M watching lawn bowling from the window as it's not physically possible to see the bowling green from FC. And personally I'm pretty sure all the stories about well-known visitors (Ellen, HRC, even Doria as a 2-week+ visitor, for example) were fake too as no one has ever seen visitors. The only "sighting" I'm aware of was of JM and her daughter shopping in the town of Windsor. And as M's "wing woman" that easily could have been an intentional sighting on JM's part. She wasn't exactly traveling inconspicuously to the UK as I think she announced the trip on her IG.
But I'm not sure Eugenie and Jack would want to live at FC. Eugenie reportedly has fond memories of growing up in Windsor but don't she and Jack both work in London? I guess no one is commuting for work these days with COVID but assuming that changes, they may not want to live at least an hour's commute from London. It would have been less of an issue for H&M given how seldom they actually had to show up for "work" and work wasn't always in London anyway. And they had transportation and chauffers provided for them and I'm assuming Eugenie and Jack don't. Finally, it sounds like Eugenie and Jack have a fairly active social life in London.
While H&M said they wanted FC as their "home base" in the UK when they talked about splitting their time in their IG manifesto, for now they may have been allowed (or maybe almost forced) to keep it for two reasons.
First, so rent and refurbishment payback could be ostensibly collected for PR reasons (clearly paid behind the scenes by Charles one way or the other.) Also, if it ever comes out money was advanced but work was not done, to have any hope of avoiding a complete PR disaster for the monarchy, payback from "the couple" needed to have already commenced.
Second, Harry needs to "live there" to push out any decision about Harry continuing as a counsellor of state (CoS). To be a CoS he is supposed to be domiciled in the UK so he needs a domicile to claim to live in, doesn't he? He has been a CoS since 2005 when he turned 21 and replaced Edward who had dropped down in the line of succession. While I doubt Harry has ever been asked to do anything in that role, removing him would raise questions about why Andrew hasn't been removed. If both Harry and Andrew were removed, Bea and Eugenie would be in line as replacements until the Cambridge children turn 21. And at least for me, making the York sisters CoS would raise questions about how they can "act in the name and on behalf of the sovereign" in matters of state but aren't even allowed to represent HM at ribbon-cuttings and plaque-unveilings, jobs Will has been kind of vocal about not doing in the future (as he says he wants to do more "meaningful" work) and jobs H&M tended to suck at doing. Anne won't always be doing 500+ appearances a year (while younger working royals are off trying to reinvent the wheel as she recently said.)
Yes, JM posted about her trip on Instagram, and also called the paps for both her departure and return to the Toronto airport. I’m assuming that all of the other visitors were fake, especially because Priyanka was also included on that list and she outright denied it. Not to mention Ellen’s comment about the tufts of red hair.
Lurker here. I wanted to write about something which no one seems to mention.
You are right about Frogmore. In photos of the finished product, they show a loft type design of the living room. The problem is, the ceiling is not high enough to be Frogmore. Frogmore is or was 2 storeys and the newly renovated lounge or living room as Americans call it, is not that high.
I wonder what happened with the money and why everyone seems to be lying about the renovations, including Prince Charles.
By the way, I like the blog more now that the disruptive people no longer post.
"In photos of the finished product, they show...."
Do you have a link? I've never seen any photos of the supposed finished product. I've seen Soho House photos of designs done by the interior designer H&M supposedly hired, but I've never seen actual Frogmore photos. Was this change (inclusion of a "loft" (ugh) in the renovation plans maybe?
Casting directors generally being "on crack" makes a lot of sense, actually.
That would explain their God complex & penchant for playing God.
The only thing I can think of that's worse is the agent who thinks he's a casting director.
And the absolute worst is Meghan Markle's acting 😂😂
God I'm still not over that one time Nutty called Meghan a "thespian" SO CRUEL 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com/post/159662100836/lets-also-remember-jessica-mulroney-liked-the
Jessica sold herself as a stylist so there is no scandal to have her merching deals for herself and others exposed, but Meghan ... if she used her connection to royalty before marrying Harry to get merching deals it comes across as very tacky; if she continued to merch after marriage, she broke protocol at the very least.
If Jessica has proof, she should expose Meghan. Without proof, Meghan will simply claim that it is all lies and she is a victim.
Yes, there were photographs of cars in the driveway (cars then linked to one of the Harkles).
Yes, the Harkles (on more than one occasion) were seen driving from the direction of Frogmore Cottage to Windsor Castle for an appearance or to the church for a service with the Queen.
Yes, there were photographs of the new fences erected around Frogmore Cottage.
Yes, there were payments made from the SG for verified work done at Frogmore Cottage. (Perhaps those who make and pass on this claim have never worked in business and with large amounts - there are checks and balances and processes to go through before a payment is made, especially when one is sending public funds and are going to be carefully scrutinised.)
Yes, Richard Palmer is a verified and trustworthy royal reporter and you can trust what he says (unless he is a relying on a source that is then proved to have been misleading him).
The Queen and the Cambridges have visited the Harkles at Frogmore Cottage (and who knows who else in the BRF). Do you really think they would not have noticed that the Harkles don't live there or that no work was actually done on the almost derelict 5 cottages?
I wrote about the Kristen Stewart casting yesterday but it was OT . I'd still be interested in opinions. The only reason I wrote about it yesterday is because we were talking about people seeming to be siding with the RF at least in US and UK and Canada because the movie looks like it will be very unkind to Diana . Just the title "SPENCER" sounds pretty cold . But I understand if it's too OT. But Meghan and Harry screw up in every area of their lives and it's connected to so many things lol.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a25295234/prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-windsor-home/
Frogmore is HUGE! It is a mansion. All this labor done for For useless La Megs and Hapless. But not large enough for Megs' out of control grandiosity. Look at all the chimneys because there were five dwellings within where the BRF personnel lived and each apartment needed heat in the winter.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8326801/At-Harry-Meghan-paying-Frogmore.html
Were she a good practising Jew, whether Orthodox/Liberal/reform (apart from being atheist) I'd have expect the references to the Trinity and Christ, in the baptismal liturgy, to stick in her throat.
For example:
The officiating clergyman asks parents, godparents and sponsors:
`Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?'
They reply:
`I do.'
`Do you trust in him as Lord?'
`I do.'
And then all say:
`This is our faith.
We believe and trust in one God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'
I know unbelievers can and do have their children baptised for questionable reasons (eg getting them into a CofE school) but to consider asking a Jewish person to recite this is, IMO, outrageous - it states the very opposite of the Jewish profession of faith, the Shema:
"Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is One."
So which is it? Was there no Christening with JM as godparent. or did JM `perjure' herself and go through with it?
IF the latter, it tells us even more about JM & MM and their lack of cultural sensitivity.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/06/24/public-paid-24m-renovate-duke-duchess-sussexs-frogmore-cottage/
- new roof on the cottage
- bamboo type fence
but no other work is verifiable. I was just doing a search to respond to the request to provide a photo of the lounge, which I couldn't find. I also didn't find anything which could confirm that apart from the two things mentioned above, any other type of work had been done.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7194079/How-Meghan-Harry-spent-2-4m-cottage-TWO-orangeries-floating-floor-cashmere-throws.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1297724/Prince-Charles-news-speaking-french-video-Emmanuel-Macron-UK-visit-Royal-Family-latest
(Basically, Macron is visiting the UK. Charles makes a speech and speaks fluent French.)
Harry introduces Meghan to his father. He is so proud of his love and has been boasting about her many accomplishments. One of the claims Meghan made on her CV was that she was fluent in French.
(By the way, I was also at a private Catholic school and studied French, as it was compulsory, but never, ever have I claimed to be fluent in French. At best, I could confidently order a coffee and croissant/cheese sandwich when visiting France! ... In fact, I have never mentioned French on my CV - darn, missed opportunity!)
Charles is delighted to meet the woman who has captured his beloved son's heart and is enthusiastic about her being so accomplished. He speaks to her in French.
Bloody hell ... all she understands is bonjour ... as for the rest, what the heck did he just say?
Meghan's response: grab Harry, bend over in laughter, then proceed to spout a lot of word salad (gush, oh gosh - was she still imitating a posh English accent at that stage? - so thrilled, so much in love, so relevant, so ...).
Charles is perplexed. Did he brush this off as simply exotic theatrical behaviour or was this the first moment that the thought occurred to him that Harry's future wife might be deranged?
Harry is looking at her in wonderment, any hint of question that her behaviour may be odd enough to be worried swept away by her death grip on his arm (after all, he has lived with a father labelled odd so Harry is OK with odd).
I thought after the "mortified" statement we would see another one soon about how "they're not that close." Bingo!
JM will not be as easy to ghost as the others. Or, behind the scenes, MM could be assuring JM that this is all just for show and they'll continue to associate. Who knows.
There was a fascinating comment on one of the Celt News videos last night. This person pointed out how as a young girl, at someone else's birthday party, MM felt compelled to wear the crown and order other children around. That seems to be very selfish behavior to me. Most children at that age understand the concept of it being someone else's birthday. She also suggested that Thomas Markle taking MM to the TV set every day after school really did a number on her.
Charles has had the virus and has recovered, I have no doubt he has been tested and has immunity (even if it is not long-lasting, he has immunity for now).
Charles has been tested and is virus free so he is not going to infect anyone.
The same goes for Boris Johnson and anyone else in his government who has had the virus and recovered and has been seen to not observe the social distancing rules.
Perhaps everyone, instead of blowing off steam with outrage, should discuss if one should observe social distancing if one does not need to (won't be infected and can't infect anyone else). The alternative is to carry some kind of card or be labelled in some way. It may be a good idea to discuss why that would be problematic. In my opinion, it is always a good idea to engage in these kind of debates and realise that everything we do is a decision with pros and cons, winners and losers and there is no perfect answer to anything.
BTW, I have done the above and my conclusion is 'Do the social distancing, even if you do not need to'.
But maybe it is a conscious choice to get things back to normal (i.e. Charles was told by the government to please ignore social distancing with Macron - take it on the chin, the criticism - for the good of your country). The virus is going to be around for a while and many more will get sick and die but everyone is more prepared with facilities and treatments and so the situation will not threaten to get out of hand again.
For me the good news (as I am most at risk for not surviving because of underlying conditions) is that the medication that the UK has just approved as a treatment as it improves survival rate by about 35% is manufactured in my country. We don't have to look to the West with a begging bowl to get the medication as my government has done to get more ventilators (only the USA, who my government frequently insults, responded and gave us a whole batch of ventilators!)
Back to regular programming ... and ti the Harkles who seem to have abandoned piggy backing the virus for publicity (and donations) and now seem to be missing the BLM boat as well.
Megsy's "I dropped JM loooong before the scandal" PR is probably the most pathetic bleating I have ever observed coming from the Markle camp. She is scared witless that her only remaining card will be destroyed by association. A Ukrainian woman I met rudely but colorfully described this type of people thus: "I wouldn't sit to cr***p in the same field with her".
Another maxim that comes to mind thinking of Markle: "Darling, has it ever occurred to you that all of your failed relationships and destroyed friendships have one factor in common? You".
We still don’t know whether humans can get infected with the virus a second time. One thing we do know is that if someone recovers from the illness, their body has developed an immune response, because their body defeated the virus - at least for that first round. We can test people for antibodies to demonstrate this. The big unknown, though, is how long will that immunity last – days, weeks, months? Unfortunately, it is too early to tell.
Why does she care so much? It's so weird that she lives this PR life off of being Harry's wife....and that's about it. Also, very reactive.
Print Length: 331 pages
Publisher: Dynasty Press (June 25, 2020)
Publication Date: June 25, 2020
Thanks for the link to the Express with Charles'# speech. Yes, his French is very good, the delivery a little slow and with a bit of an English accent and intonation but on the whole he did very well.
As for MM, I'd love to hear what Charles said to her in French. In spite of her bragging, she doesn't speak fluent French, i.e. like in Morocco. I speak fluent French so was able to judge.
On the same page as the video was the headline of an article on MM abt her Suits audition:
'According to the 2018 book ‘Meghan: A Hollywood Princess’, she originally decided to go for “sexy professional casual” clothes: a plum-coloured spaghetti strap top, black jeans and high heels, until suddenly she realised it was not quite the right tone.
She rushed into a H&M before her audition and bought a $35 (£29) black dress, which she didn’t even have time to try on for size first. (my bold). No surprises there, at least our Meg is consistent.
Sorry, that's not a thing. Pick two out of three maybe.
She is ridiculous.
The photo of the work on the chimneys is of
Frogmore Cottage. There are trees behind the cottage.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/inside-meghan-harrys-3m-frogmore-13836869
The chimneys of Frogmore House are white.
You should know by now that MM always goes for the sexy look - or what she thinks is sexy. This is why she likes her hair in those little 'tendrils', she goes for the sexy, girlish look.
Yes, 'sexy, professional, casual' 🤔🤔
I did say that Charles has immunity for now, i.e. I did qualify that as I am aware that we do not have long-term information about immunity (or even about immunity for different strains). Perhaps you missed that?
For now, Charles would have antibodies that would protect him from COVID-19, or at least the strain he contracted. (I did wonder if he had considered that he may be vulnerable to be infected by another strain from the French delegation and wonder how much had been done in terms of precautions ...)
Boris Johnson pointedly maintained social distance from Macron when they met in public, and Johnson would also have antibodies that gives him immunity for now and for the strain of the virus ...
What the heck could Meghan be doing with the Angels organisation delivering food in LA? Surely it is not a cookbook because the whole point is that they deliver ready cooked meals to those who not able to cook their own. They have very wealthy patrons so surely it is not some kind of fund-raising drive. Perhaps they are going to do something really charitable and extend their operations to food kitchens for the homeless of LA?
https://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic-personality-quiz/
I got a score of 36/40 for her. Margin of error would have to be just below 50% to put her on the right side of narcissism and out of the territory of NPD (i.e. a score of less than 20) ...!
In addition royaling when you're not actually royal looks plain silly. No regular celebrity does zoom chats with random charities and publishes glowing self congratulating articles about it. That type of work only makes halfway sense when you represent an institution like the BRF that is supposed to represent the people. Cause that way your words of thanks and encouragement are basically words of thanks and encouragement from the nation as a whole whose figurehead you are - or that's the idea I guess. Celebrities donate their own money or do fundraisers with their fanbase. H&M just look completely out of place.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-4284#post-59157105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTp0PSLc0BY
@Teasmade , I thought the same thing about those three words together. But it's Meghan, soooo. Actually I really don't think even two of them go together lol. Every time I see your avatar I get they jingle in my head for awhile. "you get that tiny little tea leaf,. in tetley tea. "
"Project Angel Food is pleased to announce an inaugural event, LEAD WITH LOVE: Project Angel Food Emergency Telethon, underwritten by City National Bank, airing on KTLA 5 in Los Angeles on Saturday, June 27th, from 7 p.m to 9 p.m., and streaming live on Facebook and the Project Angel Food and KTLA 5 websites. Will & Grace’s Eric McCormack, KTLA 5 anchor Jessica Holmes, and Broadway’s original Dreamgirl Sheryl Lee Ralph are hosting. We’re looking to our generous past supporters to contribute to our first-ever telethon and help raise the $500,000 urgently needed to replenish Project Angel Food’s Emergency Fund."
https://www.angelfood.org/event/lead-with-love-project-angel-food-emergency-telethon/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xILRsoYu_Pg&feature=emb_rel_end
This disease is so different from anything we have ever seen before as a species, in many ways.
@Sandie
Re: Covid-19
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has urged caution, warning that current antibody tests can yield false positives.
This means the test might falsely report you have antibodies when you do not. In addition, as a Biologist I can tell you that you do not always gain immunity despite having a disease once. [I am a living example of not having antibodies to measles when I caught it as a child. I subsequently had to obtain a 2nd measles shot years later in order to gain immunity].
Besides if Charles had immunity for the one strain he had previously caught it remains to be seen if he would be protected from other strains perhaps. IMO it was unwise for Charles not to wear a mask for his own protection.
From Elon University:
Those who recover from COVID-19 will most likely be immune to the disease, at least for a few months, and possibly for years or even a lifetime. It is difficult to know for certain because the novel coronavirus has been studied by scientists for only four months. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the epidemiologist who currently advises the White House, believes that those who recover from COVID-19 will be immune to reinfection for several years.
https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2020/05/11/elon-answers-can-you-get-covid-19-again/
Note the words "most likely" which is not absolute. In addition this virus can mutate (as viruses are known to do) making it a different entity than the first agent of infection. It is unknown how quickly the virus may mutate and how different it will be thus it is premature to speculate about how infectious the mutations will be and the promise of a vaccine's potential effectiveness.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/28/12/21577422-7735171-image-a-69_1574944321895.jpg
Excessive amounts of money do not seem to have been spent on the new fence.
Though the windows do seem to have been recently renovated.
I don't see where 2.3 million £ went.
I agree. Until I viewed the video I also had no idea how huge the house actually was.
It was quite an eye-opener!
They are such selfish pair.
- new roof on the cottage
- bamboo type fence
This is from the Sovereign Grant accounts under Maintnance of Property
Frogmore Cottage, Windsor (£2.4m) The scheme consisted of the reconfiguration and full refurbishment of five residential units in poor condition to create the official residence for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their family. The works started on-site in November 2018 and were substantially completed by the end of March 2019.
How do you know that? Also the fact that certain persons were seentravelling from the direction of Frogmore Cottage does not prove that they were living there
“I have always felt that the decision not to take the apartment at KP and to move to Frogmore was an effort to keep the whole pregnancy as private as possible which would be difficult living next door to Catherine and William.”
I think the decision was taken out of their hands when William went to his grandmother and, well, one does not 'demand' things of the Queen outright . . .but William let his grandmother know the full extent of his unhappiness at the prospect of having the Harkles as neighbors at *any* remove at Kensington Palace due to how upsetting their (Meghan's) presence was to Catherine and the children--that it was no longer acceptable to William that the Harkles even remain at NottCott, never mind right next door in Apt. 2. Meghan loves to frame everything as 'her/their decision' when these 'decisions' belong solely to the Queen. The Queen told Meg where she would be permitted to live and MM didn't like it.
Meg then proceeded to ask the Queen for apartments at Windsor Castle, which was drolly denied . . so she wasn't that concerned about not living too close to other members of the RF vis. her pregnancy. She probably fully expected to be told, OK, dear, you can have a full wing in my favorite castle and I will send all my footmen and maids to wait upon thee in your own private wing!
For all that she was so obsessed with Diana, Meg really failed to do her homework before embarking on Royal life, or else she would have known that Diana was pretty frank about how it was NOT a fairy tale all the livelong day, not even for the Princess of Wales. I think she had similar misguided expectations about that as Meg did, but when Di got engaged she was 19 years old.
You provided a lengthy listing of items about Frogmore Cottage that you assert is true, from pictures of renovation work, to cars coming and going and the sworn testimony of one (1) reporter, Richard Palmer, that Frogmore Cottage was a fully renovated home and was getting used as the daily residence of the Harkles.
Back when all that work was ostensibly being done, I was always searching for the evidence which you describe and never able to find any pictures documenting that kind of progress/habitation at Frogmore. Always the same two stock photos: one of the back of the house from across a field from the public footpath with only the chimneys visible and that other side-view of the property showing a long white building in visible disrepair surrounded by weedy, overrun looking grounds. Always these same two photos, presumably 'pre-work'. I do recall another photo of some scaffolding around a chimney. Harry Markle has provided a photostat of the official work orders filed with the council for exterior renovation work to be done on this listed building. The permissions were in order, but the general public has never yet seen any photos of the finished work. This exterior portion was covered by public tax monies due to the building's historic status, and these renovations were applied for/allocated for long before the Cottage was ever gifted to the Harkles. These kinds of extensive public works projects take time and are slow going. If the application for the work was not filed until December, it seems *highly* unlikely verging on impossible that work that extensive would have been completed by the following April, just 4.5 months later, when the Harkles ostensibly moved in to await the birth of Archie. 4 months, which would have encompassed the Christmas/New Year's holidays and the entirety of the winter months which were hardly conducive to outside work 24/7 during that time? Not forgetting that the inside needed renovating as well, and that is the portion which were to come out of private funds. If the taxpayers are salty about the exterior work's costs, they were going to be stuck with those regardless of who lived at Frogmore. If Meg bilked Charles for furnishings and copper bathtubs and so forth that never materialized, that is an internal matter. The (negligible) portion which H. and M. are ostensibly paying back (out of Harry's allowance from his Dad so Dad is in effect paying) would probably be comparable to the rent they would be expected to offer on that property if they were still in England.
Apparently there were a few staff members or workmen on the premises from time to time, so if there was an occasional vehicle or window open, that means that *someone* was there, but Richard Palmer really did not report the level of activity which one would associate with a young couple, a baby and two active dogs on the premises, along with a large contingent of RPOs. I think he saw one, maybe two cars there on one occasion, and one black Range Rover looks very like another. Unless Richard saw Harry exit the house, get into this car and drive away, or arrive and get out of it, he can't say for certain the car was Harry's.
There was a great deal of skepticism surrounding Richard's tweet, because not only did it come unbidden out of left field, but he was the only reporter to do so. It lacked corroboration, an important piece of legitimate journalism.
Meg and Harry could have generated some goodwill and given their stories veracity if they had allowed some pictures with the various celebrities and/or Royal family members who have ostensibly 'dropped by to visit' Archie at home. We have had nothing but Meg's word that any of these visits ever happened, and Meg's word is not reliable, to put it mildly.
Yes, according to Meghan HMTQ dropped in on Frogmore at least twice--again after the baby was born, just narrowly missing the Cambridges. Meg's consistent litany in the press is just how special, wonderful and beloved of her new in-laws--the Queen's favorite, Charles's favorite . .besties with Kate--until the narrative about Kate changed and Kate became the 'snobby' Mean Girl who wouldn't take her shopping. Meg always tries to have it both ways, depending on whatever suits her whims of the moment.
I will stand here and state my belief that not one of the Royal family members of this alleged baby has actually met him, including the photo ops. I think it's all been trickery. Kate saw Meghan carrying something at the polo and you can tell by her face *(and the faces of surrounding observers)* that Meg was barking mad and carrying an inert dolly.
As to how or why Archie got mentioned twice in the Queen's speeches, I cannot say--it might be some sort of coded signal, but I wonder if we will ever know.
Frogmore is a lesser matter than Archie, since it's just a house, but I feel in my waters that we have been relentlessly deceived about that as well. I just disbelieve everything Meg's PR machine churns out--it's much less stressful that way.
There was a fascinating comment on one of the Celt News videos last night. This person pointed out how as a young girl, at someone else's birthday party, MM felt compelled to wear the crown and order other children around. That seems to be very selfish behavior to me. Most children at that age understand the concept of it being someone else's birthday. She also suggested that Thomas Markle taking MM to the TV set every day after school really did a number on her.
I've heard that, too. I imagine little Megsy was not at all popular at birthday parties. That there was Junior Narcissist in action.
I'm sure the set of "Married, With Children" was not a salubrious environment for a young girl, though Thomas seemed to try and shield his daughter from the more risque parts. If he was forced to assume full-time custody of Meghan when she was 9 or 10 years old due to Doria doing a flit wherever she was, he would have been trying to work long hours on-set while taking care of a child who was too young to be left on her own every day after school til whenever filming wrapped. Some of those set days could go to 14 hours. So he was trying to do the dad thing while also working . .he was in a bind. His older kids were already out of the house--he couldn't very well ask Samantha to babysit Meg every day . . he was in something of a bind. There probably wasn't enough cash left over for a full-time housekeeper after he'd paid Meg's school fees.
I've also read that Thomas would spend hours photographing Meg and using all his lighting wizardry to make her look good . . telling his baby girl that she'd be a star, etc. I see that as the actions of loving, if misguided, dad who was giving his daughter what she wanted. Do we think for a second that taking her pictures for hours on end was solely Tom's idea? Thomas no doubt always saw his little princess as beautiful but let's be bluntly honest and say that Meg was a really cute baby who morphed into a homely preteen. Maybe Tom was trying to bolster her self-esteem and inadvertently created a monster.
Whatever has driven Meg to the dark side is partially due to growing up in that self-referential, shallow hothouse of Hollywood, and her parenting . . but not entirely. If she was high-jacking other children's birthday parties from a very young age, that has nothing to do with photo shoots with Daddy or being on-set of a risque sitcom . .that is internal . .that is Meghan. There is something very wrong with her that goes well beyond just wanting to be a star. She is lacking some fundamental human components in her makeup, and that is Nature.
@Hikari, actually, the Queen does drop in on her neighbours in Windsor, as would anyone living in a small British village. I've seen a few stories about how the people of Windsor have a very good relationship with her and the BRF precisely because they don't act like they are above them.
I have read that the Queen is a familiar sight in Windsor and very friendly to the 'regular folks' . . I assumed that was more while she was out on walkabout, or riding or perhaps visiting the shops, not that she was in the habit of dropping in on people at home for tea. Her Majesty is not quite the same as 'anyone living in a small village'. That she has a good relationship with the community is not surprising.
Were the Queen to 'drop by' on anyone in Windsor, but most especially an expectant granddaughter-in-law whom the world press was watching for her imminent giving birth, I suppose I might expect to see a photo of the Queen's entourage stopping at Frogmore Cottage. It was Easter Sunday, and her birthday and everyone was abuzz that Meghan had been absent from the service. It wasn't some random Tuesday when Her Maj might have snuck out and driven herself over in the Land Rover (lol). If this visit were genuine, I'd expect to *not* here anything about it, because that's what I think the Queen would wish. The fact that we did hear about it, in the Daily Mail, a known Meg-rag, but without any photo just smacks of Meg's PR fingers all over it, frankly.
To add to the post I made above, it's the first time I've seen a photo of the front of the cottage.
The aerial view of a house with a road leading just past it isn't Frogmore Cottage. It might be Frogmore House, but it's definitely not Frogmore Cottage. The cottage has a circular driveway.
The FAKE 'Cat Eyes' disappeared after I proved it was a felony to impersonate me!
However, I am the same as I have always been.
If the aerial view is the one that Miggy mentioned in the Murky Meg video, it is Frogmore Cottage:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/374291419030952010/
If you look closely at the aerial view, you will see that we are looking at the back of the house. Look over the house and onto the grass, (left hand side) and you will see the round concrete balls, (not sure what they are called) that are placed on the edge of the lawn and lining the drive which is partly hidden in the photo. If you then look at the other shot on the video which shows the front of the house, you will get a closer look at the same concrete balls.
I'm pretty sure it's the same house.
Yes thanks, it's definitely Frogmore Cottage. Frogmore House is not only architecturally different but also much larger and a different shape entirely.
Sue me tomorrow! Better yet, give me your attorney's name and phone number so I can speed up the process! You won't do it here and now, because you are bluffing. But oh how I wish it was true!!!!!!!!!!
Publish my IP address right now.......................tick tock................
You can't because you don't have it and you can't get it. But I want you to sue me as it offers a wonderful chance to countersue you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well got to go, as my worker needs me as we have a project to complete on my farm before dark.
Why don't you take a break as your comments are ugly and unwarranted.
Why don't you take a break as your comments are ugly and unwarranted.
Taking the country to war for non-existent WMD so hiding 2 million for Her Majesty's favourite grandson is nothing for them.
If you have any proof of your claims, please produce them. Perhaps a FOI request? All I know is I believe what my eyes see: no work on Frogmore worth 2 million plus. Just like with Markle's baby bump, I trust my lying eyes.
They are still out of control IMO.
And you expect me to believe them when it comes to 2 million spent on the Queen's favourite grandson? I don't think so.
This is about the Skripal affair. It's off topic, but if you want to read how duplicitous the government can be, go ahead and read it.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-points-i-just-cant-believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/
Frogmore Cottage, Windsor (£2.4m)
The scheme consisted of the reconfiguration and full refurbishment of five residential units in poor condition to create the official residence for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their family. The works started on-site in November 2018 and were substantially completed by the end of March 2019.“
Page 13
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/final_sovereign_grant_for_website.pdf
=====================
https://www.vogue.com/article/is-this-the-new-dawn-of-meghan-markle
On the evening of June 3, the Duchess of Sussex shared a speech with Immaculate High School’s graduating seniors. It wasn’t the one she originally planned, which was cheerful and congratulatory. But as the country roiled over the death of George Floyd, she knew she couldn’t stay silent.
So, dressed in a plain white shirt with a pared-back ponytail, the Duchess delivered an emotional address against a nondescript wall. She emphasized that Black lives mattered. She named more victims of systemic police brutality: Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, Tamir Rice. She shared her own painful memories from growing up as a biracial child during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, an event she said was also triggered by “a senseless act of racism.” (“I remember the curfew, and I remember rushing back home and on that drive home seeing ash fall from the sky and smelling the smoke and seeing the smoke billow out of buildings,” she recalled.) Then, she urged action: “I know that this is not the graduation that you envisioned. And this is not the celebration that you imagined. But I also know that there’s a way for us to reframe this for you and to not see this as the end of something but instead to see this as the beginning of you harnessing all the work, all the values, and all the skills that you have embodied over the last four years.”
This story was not first reported in The Times of London, The Mail on Sunday, or any of the British-based publications that comprise the royal rota. (Traditionally, the U.K. press is given exclusive media access to royal events and official engagements.) Instead, Essence, the U.S.-based Black women’s lifestyle outlet, got the scoop. Earlier this year, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced their intention to provide more “diverse and open” access to their work, and they stuck by their word.
Days later, multiple outlets claimed that Harry and Meghan were postponing the launch of their charity, Archewell, to focus on the Black Lives Matter movement. "The couple now plan to take a more vocal role in the movement imminently, with action in the coming days,” The Telegraph reported. “The couple have spent the last two weeks in private conversations with campaigners and organizations.” (Vogue has reached out to a representative for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.)
When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their decision to step back from royal life on January 8, they did so with this message: “After many months of reflection and internal discussion, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.” While “within this institution” was wishful thinking—a week later, Buckingham Palace stated the couple no longer represented the monarchy—a progressive new role, it seems, was not. In fact, if the Immaculate Heart Speech was any indication, the world is about to see the new dawn of Meghan Markle.
1/2
It’s the role she always wanted to play. In a November 2017 interview with the BBC after her engagement, she spoke with sincere idealism about her future: “One of the first things we started talking about when we met was just the different things that we wanted to do in the world and how passionate we were about seeing change,” she said of herself and Harry. After her wedding, she hit the ground running: she released a cookbook to benefit the Hubb Community Kitchen, and gathered universal laudation during the couple’s two week tour of Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, and Fiji. (A highlight? Her speech on women’s rights in Wellington.) The Queen was reportedly impressed by her work ethic, especially while pregnant.
However despite her significant time on the world stage, it does feel like Markle, and her “sparkle” (as the press called it), had been suppressed. Once upon a time, she was a U.N. Women’s Advocate for Women’s Political Participation and Leadership. She was an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, calling him a misogynist. In 2017, she told her Instagram followers to read Noam Chomsky. She blogged a plethora of musings on The Tig. But when she joined the royal family, that all went away—the social media, the lifestyle blog, and, well, her opinions.
The members of the monarchy must go through great lengths to remain apolitical. As Head of State, Queen does not vote in elections, and “has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters.” The feeling is that the Windsors must represent all of the United Kingdom, and, as unelected public officials, cannot use their power for undue influence.
Yet this steadfast commitment to neutrality also serves as a public muzzle—even when it comes to arguably universal causes. Many were disappointed when the Duchess of Cambridge, for example, wore green to the 2018 BAFTAs, where most actors donned black to support Time’s Up. Prince Charles was accused of meddling in government policy after sending letters to Labour government leaders about climate change and . . . Patagonian toothfish. (In case you were wondering, it’s sometimes mislabeled as Chilean sea bass.) Markle endured a minor scandal when a reporter tweeted that she approved of Ireland’s abortion referendum. They later clarified “she was interested and very measured, not political at all.” The damage, however, was done. If Meghan was still part of the royal family, could she have made the same passionate speech about Black Lives Matter, now the largest civil rights movement in history? Or would it have been reduced to a watered-down statement, or social media post, of support?
That’s now a mere hypothetical question. With a returned freedom of self-expression, an expanded global platform, and a new “no-engagement” policy with several British tabloids, Meghan no longer needs to uniformly abide by the constraints of the monarchy. She can support Black Lives Matter, any cause of her choosing. She can talk to any media outlet she wants. She can be politically outspoken—and, rumor has it, come the 2020 election, she will be.
The Duke and Duchess haven’t revealed their full plans for the Black Lives Matter movement yet. But it does seem like we’ve arrived at the moment when Meghan Markle, and her “sparkle,” can truly shine. Maybe, one day, she’ll even start posting about Noam Chomsky again.
I also remember wondering, when I first heard about all of the work, how so much work could have been done in such a short period of time including approval. I know from first hand experience how long architects working for the Council will take to go throw the drawings and plans for listed properties. You have to count on at least 4-5 months in the best cases. It didn't seem to make any sense.
I don't see a barbecue pit either, which was mentioned in the stories about Frogmore renovations, nor the vegetable garden they wanted to plant which would require some work and materials as well.
You have been polluting this blog
@TheTide, @Wullie’sBucket: That Vogue article honestly made me want to throw up! Can’t she please just go away??!!!
I have three close friends who contracted COVID-19. They all tested positive. All live/lived in New York (2 in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn) and all in their late 30’s to early 40’s. My male friend was the sickest. He was recovering at home and was told to go to the hospital if his breathing was compromised. He was sadly found dead in his apartment. Both females recovered at home and have subsequently tested positive for anti-bodies. One works in a hospital and the other is also an essential worker. The one who works in the hospital contracted it again, only 2 weeks after returning to work. It wasn’t as bad the second time, but she still had to self isolate. She had an inconclusive COVID test, then finally a negative one and just returned to work again this week. So she has basically been sick on and off for months.
There is so little that is known about this virus, but the idea that having it once provides any immunity for any length of time is simply not true. So social distancing and taking all necessary precautions is highly recommended. Stay safe, everyone.