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
Thanks for sharing- I've never been so torn between laughing out loud and vomiting in my mouth.
What a puff piece!
Noam Chomsky?!?!?!? Hahahahahahahaha
"U.N. Women’s Advocate for Women’s Political Participation and Leadership"? Lol a meaningless ceremonial title in a corrupt organization. So perfect for Meg.
Wow.
Posters have told you to stop. You are afraid to give me your attorney's name and phone number. That says it all.
Mark my word, come Monday you will have done nothing! Then you will be discredited forever, just like MM.
Regarding the puzzling aspect of HMTQ acknowledging Archie as her grandson, including during her Christmas address, and being photographed with him on one occasion only.
I agree with others here that there was a surrogate, that the child is biologically Harrys, and that the surrogate refused to hand the child over, as she was entitled to do under British law.
It may have been a combination of factors: genuine emotional bonding with the child she bore and not wanting to be separated from it; concern over the character and behaviour of the intended adoptive parents Harry and Meghan (drugs, narcissistic, and potentially abusive or emotionally absent); and opportunism once she found out the child was a genetic great-grandchild of HMTQ.
There would have been complex negotiations with the surrogate if she decided she wanted to keep 'Archie'. Financial support, NDAs, protection of the 7th in line to the throne, who would take major health and welfare decisions for the child, and custody and access arrangements for the '3' parents.
I can see that the surrogate, understanding the value of Archie's royal connections, negotiated that HMTQ formally and publicly acknowledge Archie's place in the RF. If I remember correctly, HMTQ didn't mention Me-gain as the mother, nor Harry as the father, just that the child 'Archie' was her latest great-grandchild.
I think the public acknowledgement of Archie was negotiated with the surrogate. And I think that the public photo of HMTQ and PP meeting 'Archie' was also negotiated between all parties (Surrogate, Harry and Me-gain, RF).
The photo is one of the strangest I have ever seen - it was staged and all the parties, especially PP, looked weird, strained and unnatural. I don't believe it was photoshopped, it was an arrangement struck after a long and protracted negotiation, never to be repeated.
Just to end, I believe 'Archie' is being cared for by the birth mother, on a royal property probably somewhere in Scotland, well away from prying eyes. He and his birth mother will be cared for and financially supported by the RF for the remainder of their lives (hence the surrogate insisting on the insurance that HMTQ publicly acknowledge him). While his birth name was probably registered as 'Archie' I don't believe he will go by the name Archie, which was chosen by Me-Gain as a narcissistic anagram of her name, but will take the mother's surname and her choice of Christian name for him to live a peaceful and private life.
Contact with Harry will exist, but will be minimal because he will be a dead-beat Dad. Meghan has or will sell her rights to the child, including signing an NDA, for a massive financial payout from the RF.
Talk about pale, stale and male! Born in 1928.
MM would really like us to believe she is a whip smart liberal intellectual.
Or rather, a sexy casual professional whip smart liberal intellectual. LOL LOL LOL
I just don't understand how you can not see that Archie looks exactly like Meghan and her father and brother.
But if it is true that a surrogate are allowed to keep a child that is not biologically hers, if Archie is not living with Meghan and Harry, don't you think someone would leak that to the press or to a gossip website? You know, Meghan and Harry lives in the real world. They live in a BIG house, staff is coming and going. They are out with their dogs, they have business ( well...) meetings, they have friends coming over etc. Don't you think someone would notice if there was no Archie in the house? It is so easy to write anonymously on the internet. Don't you think SOMEONE would leak?
@Wullie'sBucket
Very interesting post that sounds like it could be plausible! But I wonder if and when they would release this info to the public. I would think it would be found out as Archie grows older. Perhaps if the scenario you suggest is true they are waiting for a divorce to reveal the truth?
*****
I believe there is currently a super-injunction in place, for security and privacy purposes, which prevents disclosure of details about Archie or his whereabouts, and that S/I will remain in place until he is no longer a child, i.e. 18 years of age.
Any divorce would reference Archie by saying that custody and contact arrangements between Harry and Me-Gain remain private and no further details will be released.
Given time, the public will simply forget about Archie, and he will fade into the distance. He will take no part in any royal life, because he has no real claim to the throne, given he was born technically out of wedlock. His father (Harry) was not married to his mother (the Surrogate). Courts in Britain have recently confirmed that for the purposes of aristocratic inheritance of titles, etc., a child must be 'born of the body'. The only way he would have a legitimate claim to 7th in line, is if Me-Gain actually carried him, which we know to be untrue.
I acknowledge that the RF has listed him on its website as 7th in line, and there are a number of reasons they may have done that, including that it stops difficult questions being asked, by placing him where people think he should be. But that may quietly change in the future, not by removing his name but by choosing to only list say the first 5 in line (instead of the current 18).
If and when 'Archie' is identified as an adult, living a quiet, unremarkable and normal life somewhere and known as Mr. John Smith, he will only be an object of mild curiosity. Me-Gain will be long gone from people's thoughts.
******
@Rut said
You are ignoring the fact that Archie looks exactly like a Markle? That means, if they used a surrogate they used Meghans eggs and Harrys sperm ( Archie also looks like Harry ) So Archie has no connection to the surrogate
******
It may well have been Me-Gain's ovum, but in Britain the Surrogate has primacy as the person who carried and gave birth to the baby, and cannot be forced to hand over a child.
I also have a strong view that Me-Gain has/will hand over all rights and claim to the child, in exchange for a very large sum from the RF. She wants the money, and the myth of giving birth to 'Archie', and not the burden of motherhood. It is contrary to her psychological makeup to be able to, or want to, care for and compete with a child.
———————
@Rut: Unfortunately in the UK, a surrogate does have rights to a child to whom she’s given birth.
In terms of JH & MM living in the ‘real world’, nothing could be further from the truth. We don’t know if they live in Tyler Perry’s house (not even if they live together), we don’t know if they have staff (certainly don’t need a nanny), we don’t know if they have friends visiting, we don’t know if they even have dogs. Everything is smoke and mirrors. The only thing we do know is that they probably have security.
Have you ever noticed that everything that the Sussexes supposedly do is under extreme secrecy or under cover of the night? For example, in our posts about Frogmore—how can such a huge place have undergone a total renovation with no dumpsters and no deliveries? How did MM get to & from Portland Hospital without anyone seeing her? JH & MM supposedly went to Canada for six weeks but then decided to stay—yet we still have no proof that they ever lived in that mansion. Did they? Then they fled in the middle of the night to LA, supposedly on Tyler Perry’s private jet. But we have absolutely no proof of any of this. Keep in mind that MM kept a fake relationship with JH going for approximately 9 months when they were broken up. So she obviously has people that will lie for her. Why? Idk.
the baby was going to be a girl.
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.
Government lie but Oppositions call them out on these lies; this has not happened with Frogmore Cottage. As for your "lying" eyes have you actually seen the place or are you relying on photographs? As for HMs favourite grandson has she told you that Harry is her favourite? All of you with children and grandchildren do you actually tell anyone which child is your favourite let alone divulging this information to reporters?
She can decide to keep someone elses baby?
That is very strange.
I don't think Meghan is a pink= girl and boy=blue kind of woman.
I think she would deliberately use "wrong colours" just to provoke people who thinks girls should be wearing pink and boys should be wearing blue
I read somewhere there is a tunnel under Windsor castle, maybe staff is moving from place to place via tunnels? That would not be strange, I worked at a place here i Stockholm were they had a "tunnel" under the house that we could use when we wanted to "change house" instead of going out.
Maybe Meghan and Harry slept somewhere else before the birth?
Why was she all swollen after the birth?
Meghan is building an Greta Garbo image, thats why she is so secret about everything She would love to see you write about her as if she is some kind of a mystery. An enigma. She is not.
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.
I may be wrong, but I also seem to vaguely remember that his tweet came shortly after people started wondering if they were actually living there/having work done. IF my memory is correct, that's another red flag - it matches their normal PR route of releasing "the facts" via a "tame journo" or "friends" when people start questioning something.
I think a surrogate was used, Megs eggs & Harry’s sperm.
As for her trip to the hospital. It beggars belief that no one,
out of all the multi media that would have been positioned
outside all the Royal residences/hospitals didn’t catch a glimpse.
This would have been a massive scoop, media would have been on standby for days.
No sightings leaving/returning, and no reports of chopper activity.
Harry's sperm. ugh. Moving on. If true that means he's in on the whole Archie Scheme. That's what interests me the most about the Harkle Debacle. Harry potentially defrauding his family and the British people.
I believe a surrogate was used but why? It's not like they tried to have a child for several years and nothing. Why the rush?
I concur with Magatha re Archie and also believe paps/journalists were hidden near Frogmore and also no one saw any arrival at the Portland (there is an entrance at the back but paps would have known that).
Re surrogacy, this is interesting - taken from a firm of solicitors (www.coles-miller.co.uk):
In England and Wales, the law regards the birth mother as the child’s legal mother, even if she is a surrogate. If married, her spouse/civil partner would also be recognised as a legal parent.
So what’s the solution if the surrogate decides to keep the baby? The intended couple will have to consider their options and more than likely apply to the Family Court for a Child Arrangements Order.
The normal remedy in an uncontested surrogacy arrangement would be to apply for a parental order. This assigns legal parenthood and confirms who is responsible for the child. However, one of the conditions for this is that the surrogate must give her consent. If the surrogate does not consent, the court may still award custody of the child to the intended parents but cannot make them the legal parents.
(My bold)
Sorry, wasn’t sure how to describe his “tadpoles travels” 😉
If it’s also true that they were planning to leave the RF from the beginning,
they have indeed defrauded the RF and the UK
on all, and every level.
As to why? Megs wanted fast “Cash & Harry” plus insurance
to cement her fame & fortune for her return to LA.
Paps/Journos would have been lurking at every Royal residence, and all possible hospitals.
Back gates, secret gates etc.
They were aware of Megs tricks by then, and would have anticipated she would play games.
Not just the UK media, international media, and paps, who aren’t bound by the same rules as the UK.
Poor little Archie should have been named David Copperfield
Master Illusionist
What a strange law.
"So a surrogate have the right to a baby that isn't even hers? She can decide to keep someone elses baby?
That is very strange."
I read somewhere there is a tunnel under Windsor castle, maybe staff is moving from place to place via tunnels?
Maybe Meghan and Harry slept somewhere else before the birth?
Why was she all swollen after the birth?"
My understanding is the term "surrogate" is different from "gestational carrier." But leaving that distinction aside as we've not adopted it here, it is not strange for the one who carried the baby and birthed it to have a claim. That is almost always true (maybe even always) unless a law has been passed giving the egg and sperm donors rights that override hers. In the US, the case of Baby M was a big deal, for example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M
I'm not sure what issue the tunnel idea is supposed to address. Surely the Queen doesn't take tunnels to visit FC and surely a construction work crew wouldn't be sent from the Castle or have reason to use a "secret" tunnel. I don't think tunnels can explain the lack of observed construction activity at FC although tunnels may exist.
Maybe they weren't staying at FC. I agree. But they said they were. Harry said that. I'm willing to agree he may have lied about that but maybe he lied about more than that.
M's facial swelling may or may not have been close in time to "the birth." (If the huge baby seen on the reading video is Archie and was born in March, for example) I agree though it is odd to swell up only after giving birth if M, in fact, did give birth as she never showed any swelling pre-birth. It could have been from hormones for breast feeding if she didn't give birth or from IVF stuff if they were trying that for a variety of reasons. It is could be from stress eating if there was a surrogate snag. It could even have been from facial "work." So that doesn't convince me she birthed Archie on May 6 given all the other weirdness. Sure after-the-fact facial swelling maybe could happen but a shape and size changing/shrinking swinging pre-birth bump too? A post-birth "bump" very high up and only on the left side of the body? Nope.
I don't see any evidence of your signed invoices.
As for Harry being her favourite grandchild, the photographs again speak for the strong bond between the two. I don't see HM looking with such affection at William or any of her other grandchildren.
Just trusting my lying eyes.
If this right Harry is the Queen's darling grandchild then it tells us loads about her. She is universally respected, yes, but her favourite son is a nasty inflated frog who saw nothing filling his pockets and cavorting with sex traffickers. Harry is a selfish mess who is not worth criticism. Harry is so stupid he could destroy the Queenie's legacy and not even notice it.
As for Megs the Queen reportedly liked too she will end up activist for hire.
Her Majesty doesn't seem to have a good compass when it comes to her own family.
"As for Harry being her favourite grandchild, the photographs again speak for the strong bond between the two. I don't see HM looking with such affection at William or any of her other grandchildren."
I can post links that tell a different story. For example, even though they are not working royals the way Harry supposedly once was, there are lots of pictures memorializing TQ's delight in the company of Zara, Eugenie, Bea, Lady Louise....
I do expect her relationship with Will is different though given his status as an heir. I suspect there is some necessary formality and there has always been.
@Magatha I don't think there's a good way to describe Harry's DNA contribution. :)
Does anyone know the legislation for surrogacy in Canada? Maybe a baby was born there but couldn't travel until one month of age ( which could explain the size discrepancy). Just a thought since there were rumeurs of her going back to Canada soon after the wedding.
The photographs show a strong bond??? Really? How many photographs have you seen of HM with Louise and James or in fact with her first grandson Peter Phillips? In addition to this there are many photographs available showing a strong bond between HM and WilliaYou could try doing a search for these.
Anyway I am now bored with this conversation so goodbye a viszontlátásra adieu
I jsut read in a comment section over at CDAN that Harry is also a sex addict, a rumour that originates from escorts. Imagine an escort judging someone as being a sex addict! It must be very bad for them to say that! So he's just like his uncle Andrew, in another way.
It also leads me to believe the stories about blackmail, menage a trois with Markus Anderson and other rumours I dismissed earlier.
She realises the weakness, & strength, of them all.
She can’t be blamed for Andrews disgusting behaviour.
As for her favourites, who knows?
Was that escort Meghan Markle?
CDAN is known to be full of a lot of made up nonsense. Lies or rumours aren’t facts and shouldn’t be noted as such. :o/
I've seen plenty of made up stuff here. So, thank you for your "warning", but I will choose to believe what I choose to believe.
God Save the Queen
As someone mentioned, why not keep prince Harry’s child?
We as outsiders can never know (and may never ever find out) what has gone into the decisions that constituted her actions on Andrew or Harry (especially the latter). But I trust she has tried to do the right thing when it has been truly difficult because of the HAMS underhanded scheming from day one. If she has made a mistake or to, then she is only human and should be excused I think. Even the best of us can probably admit to making some significant mistake(s) in our lives. I hope things turn out well for the sake of her as a Monarch and for her as a Grandmother and Great-Grandmother (of perhaps a child called Archie).
"@aquagirl we do have proof Tyler Perry’s jet picked them up. The press followed its flight path after the fact from Georgia or South Carolina area to get them and a strategic stop for customs and then on to LA. There was an article in DM."
That assumes we believe the DM.
It probably is true but it is certainly astounding. Flying a huge (124-person if coach-seating was installed)
empty private jet from the US East coast to the Vancouver Island area to give some millionaires a ride to LA with a special extra stop made for customs to evade paps. Wow. It's probably true because no one would make up such an absurd story about a self-avowed "eco-warrior/whiner."
I have an idea for the face selling if Meghan after birth. I think try are going to try for one she would carry and started ASAP after she nailed the meal ticket first. And if she had hormones for nursing that doesn't work for me either because she constantly left that baby for days. Maybe they're trying naturally now . Harry didn't want kids right away but she HAD to have one right away.
@Aquagirl
What is your opinion on the child that MM is using? Do you agree that he’s a child actor? If so, when do you think this will stop? It will be more difficult to pretend as the child gets older, especially as we’ve already seen ‘Duck/Rabbit Baby’ talk.
******
I think there will be fewer and fewer appearances by the so-called 'Archie'. I believe the RF and the Surrogate have a lot of control over when and if the real child appears and they are intent on preventing Me-Gain from exploiting the child.
I do think that was him in the Duck/Rabbit Baby video, but that it was likely filmed without the permission or knowledge of the surrogate, during one of Me-Gain's access visits to him in the UK, and it is not video that was filmed in Los Angeles. Like she often does, she sits on the vision until she can gain maximum advantage from its use.
I also don't believe it was Harry doing the filming, but much more likely to be one of her fawning acolytes whom she took with her to the access visit, such as Marcus Anderson or Scoobie Doo, someone who would conspire with her to obtain the footage to put in her bag of exploitable items.
If Me-Gain did make that film without permission, then it is likely any future contact will be supervised or restricted, to prevent her filming the child, breaching its privacy, and exploiting it.
This lessening of access, together with Me-Gain's waning interest in something she cannot monetize, will mean 'Archie' becomes less and less relevant to Me-Gain and she will lose interest in pursuing that angle.
So I expect to see very little of Me-Gain parading the real Archie' around in the future, and as you rightly point out, an actor baby will be harder to maintain, and of course dolls are no longer work as stand-ins after the age of about 18 months.
There was no mention of who, or even what, the other parties were, or whether they were legally able to give informed consent.
The options are mind-boggling; I'll leave it to your imaginations.
By the way, I'm in the hired-baby camp wi' ref to SA/Duck-Rabbit child. To me, most male babies look like little Winston Churchills, although wee George was the image of his dad.
I recall speculating way-back-when that MM was expecting a girl but nobody here thought much of the idea (it was felt that ultrasound evidence would have revealed the truth). Of course, she may have lied anyway, just as we think Diana may have done.
re the law: until DNA technology was developed there was no way of being sure who the father of a child was - a blood test based on blood groups can only say for certain if a specific chap could not possibly be the father of a child. If that was not the case, the matter was still open.
Likewise, the only way to be sure who the mother of a child was to have signed witness statements that the birth was really `out of the body'. James II & VII fled in 1688 because of the strength of the rumours around the birth of his son - so we might expect the RF & law to be rather sensitive on this point.
Nothing about that pregnancy of at least 41 weeks duration rings true with me.
Since babyhood, PA has been her favorite child, the one who was spoiled rotten far more than his brothers and sister. Nigel Cawthorne has a new biography coming out shortly which details how he was an obnoxious bully as a child and grew up to become an obnoxious, entitled, arrogant prat as an adult. I've seen this pattern in other families: one child in a family is the "golden child", the one who can do no wrong, who is never disciplined, who never has to face the consequences of his actions, and so develops an undeserved sense of entitlement and invincibility. PA has been behaving badly since he was a tot, yet HM - who has a notorious "hands off" policy when it comes to her family - never once tried to rein him in. She had numerous occasions to read him the riot act but never did.
https://www.flightradar24.com/
There's a `history' tab - if you know the reg.no of Tyler Perry's plane, you can track if it made the trip, around the day the Mail said.
Over to you.
Sorry, I’m not the “hearsay” of Andrew.
I find the "sex addiction" angle interesting. Here is what I found: "For centuries, cocaine has been known for its aphrodisiac properties. During the late 19th and 20th centuries, cocaine gained notoriety for its ability to induce what was then known as “sexual “frenzy” and “uncontrollable lust.”
Another drug resulting in even stronger sex drive is methamphetamine. According to rehab.com drugs/sex combination results in a vicious circle that is almost impossible to break without professional help.
It will also result in inability to engage in sexual activities without the aid of the drugs. Vicious circle indeed.
I can only say the thought of Harry's reported sex addiction combined with his alleged drug use makes me very sad for Archie. As for Rachel she has used drugs at her first wedding and I don't think she is a stranger to it.
They are a mess.
Thank you for this post. You offer a lot of food for thought here. I have been on "Team Pillow" since the very beginning. Though I was not certain in my conviction that MM was faking her pregnancy (that came on December 5, 2018 in her first solo engagement to the retired actors' home, a study I call "Square Bump in Summer Dress"), I absolutely knew that for someone who claimed to conceive at the end of July, she would not have needed a maternity coat by Eugenie's wedding in mid-October. And the bump was too large for a first trimester pregnancy in Australia, but Meg got out of doing anything unpleasant by claiming that she was too sick or tired 'because she was pregnant'.)
Regarding the puzzling aspect of HMTQ acknowledging Archie as her grandson, including during her Christmas address, and being photographed with him on one occasion only.
There would have been complex negotiations with the surrogate if she decided she wanted to keep 'Archie'. Financial support, NDAs, protection of the 7th in line to the throne, who would take major health and welfare decisions for the child, and custody and access arrangements for the '3' parents.
I can see that the surrogate, understanding the value of Archie's royal connections, negotiated that HMTQ formally and publicly acknowledge Archie's place in the RF. If I remember correctly, HMTQ didn't mention Me-gain as the mother, nor Harry as the father, just that the child 'Archie' was her latest great-grandchild.
I think the public acknowledgement of Archie was negotiated with the surrogate. And I think that the public photo of HMTQ and PP meeting 'Archie' was also negotiated between all parties (Surrogate, Harry and Me-gain, RF).
The photo is one of the strangest I have ever seen - it was staged and all the parties, especially PP, looked weird, strained and unnatural. I don't believe it was photoshopped, it was an arrangement struck after a long and protracted negotiation, never to be repeated.
Any photos with the Royal family and 'Archie' have always looked suspect to me due to their high degree of artificiality in the compositions & the fact that any photos of Archie which have been released are copyrighted to 'Sussex Royal - Chris Allerton'--MM's hired gun--and not to 'Buckingham Palace', which would mean the official Royal photographers were used and the images are the property of the Queen. That presentation tableau photo was so very odd. I had been assuming that it was fake, but your theory makes it easier to explain why the picture was disseminated by and referred to the Queen herself in her Christmas message. It never sat well with me that HMTQ would allow herself to be used in a fraudulent image without her consent and then feature it in her speech. It's hard not to notice how very far the Royal great-grandparents are standing away from 'the baby'. Meg and Doria are the only figures that can actually see 'the baby'. Your theory is elegant, but it tanks another of my pet theories: that Doria herself has not set foot in England since October 2018 when she was imported to show all the women at the Grenfell Kitchen project that 'Look! Meghan has a black Mum!' The outfit Doria is wearing in this baby photo is eerily very similar to the outfit she wore at the cookbook launch. Some here have assured me it is not, but I still find it rather too casual for a meet-and-greet photo op with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh at Windsor Castle.
If you are correct and there was a legal agreement for one (1) 'official' picture with Archie, then it does not seem likely at all that HM would compel any other family members to be present at a photo commemorating a fraudulent christening. I do not believe the christening photo is genuine, and that is the only 'evidence' we've got that Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry's Spencer aunts (haha, good touch, Meg!) have actually seen 'Archie'.
There were a couple of black and white photos also released supposedly on that same day, one with the Harkles and baby and another with Harry, Charles and baby. B&W 'Archie' looks to me like a completely different child than the christening portrait baby. A former poster here, I cannot recall which now, said at the time that her husband was a pediatrician; said he looked at those christening pictures and said immediately--"Those are two different babies."
The one with Harry, Charles and baby, along with another 'candid' shot of the Holy Family at a distance were released months later as part of Meghan's 'Secret, Never-Before Seen' series of which she is so fond.
Given the probable Super-Injunction against all matters Archie, and the very plausible scenario you propose with the legally-engineered agreement for the one photo with the Queen, what do you think the probability is of any of these images of Archie subsequently released by Meghan being genuine? If they do not have custody of a baby, which her bizarre pap-walking with dolls and doctored GIF Christmas card would seem to suggest, where are they getting the baby that we do occasionally see? South Africa, New Year's Day photograph with Harry . . the recent Duck Rabbit video . . In SA, Meg was seen carrying a child off the plane that resembled Duck Rabbit Archie more than the little guy we saw on that trip with Desmond Tutu. I cannot be sure those two are the same babies. Frankly, the Duck Rabbit Archie video could have been shot any time and anywhere in the last six months--it did not have to occur last month in California, though that is what Meg's selling. That baby's visible lack of attachment to Meghan tells the whole story to me. Even if he has a nanny, he would recognize his own mother who lives in the same house, wouldn't he? Zero recognition from the baby--he didn't look at her face *one time*. Not normal. It would however be perfectly normal for a baby-for-hire who was only spending a few minutes with a lady he doesn't know. Nobody would be hiring out their baby for a photo shoot in a pandemic hotspot right now, so I am pretty convinced that photo op was made sometime much earlier, perhaps during the Canada sojourn. Meg and Harry do all their projects against blank walls so they *really* could be taken anywhere at all.
https://twitter.com/Redredred80/status/1273792212858478594/video/1
I take it to mean the photo is real, but who knows. 🤷🏼♀️
Is that not related to an active lawsuit?
So what is the lawsuit related to Archie that has caused the super injunction?
Wouldn’t the lawsuit itself be public record?
I think that after the inevitable divorce and Harry's return to "captivity", Archies "privacy" will be maintained by both Harry and Meghan. Each will pretend the other has primary custody.
In time, Harry at least, will con some poor dope into starting a second family. Since she probably won't be a paranoid privacy freak, that family will be photographed around London a la the Cambridge kids. Archie will just be quietly forgotten.
Meghan may try it all again since she got away with it the first time, although without the line of succession, why go to the bother? She and husbands 4-8 can openly use a surrogate.
Meghan will continue to fake Archies role in her life, trotting out different actors as time goes on. Ultimately, the surrogate, or Archie himself will out the tale, leading to conspiracy theories until the end of all their lives. Archie will become a fascinating footnote to history as the scandal that almost brought down the royal family.
The whole situation with Archie is a classic example of a strategy backfiring. Whatever the kids' origins nobody really minds and the vast majority wishes him well. If Harkles followed tradition and accepted royal ways of "presenting" the baby none of the conspiracy theories would have gained momentum. We must admit though there are plenty of odd circumstances surrounding his birth.
The secrecy, the privacy demands one moment and using the child for PR the next, the horrible unprofessional photoshopped pictures of him, complete absence of pictures ofhiwith other royal children - this all resulted in the collective "What the f***?" in UK.
It is all very reminiscent of the "child in the warming-pan" affair that toppled already unpopular James II.
https://www.brilliantbeginnings.co.uk/intended-parents/surrogacy-in-canada
This timeline would fit with Archie being born in - what - March? Which coincides with his appearing to be approximately two months older than his stated age.
*USA’s surrogate laws are preferable to the UK’s.
She arranges surragacy also
entions MM (in a positive light naturally it is Tatler reporting..) when asked at the very end of this afticle
Eagle And Goose
This is about MM & JM
it's a long one so i am copying/pasting and changing it up a bit to post here
back in a minute
Eagle And Goose
JUNE 18, 2020 BLIND GOSSIP 77 COMMENTS
[Blind Gossip] We have a little lesson for you today in nature and the art of survival!
A few years ago, a Canadian photographer named Lisa Bell captured a remarkable series of photos of an American Bald Eagle and a Canadian Goose.
While not natural enemies, the eagle felt compelled to attack the goose.
After a brief fight, the eagle prevailed and stood victoriously on the back of the prone goose.
When the eagle flew away, though, something really interesting happened. The goose also got up and flew away!
The goose had basically feigned defeat in order to live.
That little story reminds us of two famous women who have been close friends for years.
Eagle, an American, has done a bit of TV, but she became much more famous when she married into a famous family.
Goose, a Canadian, has also done a bit of TV, and she also became much more famous when she married into a famous family.
Eagle has been experiencing a lot of drama over the past couple of years, mostly of her own making.
Through all the criticism and public scrutiny, Goose stayed by her side. What a loyal friend! The additional publicity it brought Goose and her business didn’t hurt either.
Lately, Goose has come under public attack.
Did Eagle stand by her friend, defend her against media attacks, and display the kind of fierce loyalty that bind close friends together?
Nah.
She basically attacked Goose… and then stood on her back in a fit of moral superiority!
Eagle did this to ensure her own survival.
Nature is a cruel mistress.
However, we are going to tell you not to take all of this posturing too seriously.
Why not?
Well, because Eagle actually needs Goose.
First of all, Eagle has a legal battle to fight… and Goose is supposed to be a key ally in that fight.
Second of all, Eagle doesn’t have that many real friends. Sure, there are lots of peripheral people. However, those ranks are rather thin and those friendships are rather shallow. Real friends are hard to find.
Did Eagle really dump Goose?
The public reports that [Eagle] has cut off [Goose] are completely and totally false. They still talk and text every day, as they have for years.
The christening photo was almost entirely retouched except for the image of William. I forget which other photos she analyzed.
it was in one of her videos from the last few days.
And I know there will be a few very offended people here that I even mentioned Ashlee from Danja Zone.
I was doing a bit of time traveling
😁
EXCLUSIVE: Meghan Markle tells friends her instinct to leave the UK 'all makes sense' now because she was 'destined' to help fight systemic racism in US - and she hasn't ruled out a career in politics
Meghan Markle believes she was 'destined' to help fight systemic racism in the United States, a close friend exclusively told DailyMail.com
The Duchess feels that her 'gnawing urgency to uproot from England' was fate so that she could be at the 'forefront' of the movement, the insider explained
The friend said: 'She’s been speaking with Oprah and other community leaders on how she can be part of the solution'
'Meghan feels like her mission goes far beyond acting. She said she wants to use her voice for change and hasn’t ruled out a career in politics,' they added
The 38-year-old former actress and her husband Prince Harry quit their royal duties earlier this year and moved to Los Angeles
She recently had to distance herself from best friend Jessica Mulroney after she threatened to sue a black influencer after a dispute over racism
It came as the US has been rocked by protests across the country in the wake of George Floyd's death
Meghan spoke out about Floyd's death, declaring 'black lives matter' and admitted she hadn't made a statement earlier because she had been 'nervous'
Danja Zone showed the results of using the photoshop detection program on some of the photos of Archie.
The christening photo was almost entirely retouched except for the image of William. I forget which other photos she analyzed.
it was in one of her videos from the last few days.
And I know there will be a few very offended people here that I even mentioned Ashlee from Danja Zone.
—————————
That is because she believes the BRF are reptiles, PP and HM eat children and the real Harry died as a child and this Harry is an imposter. All videos she has made....
But, do keep giving her money by watching her videos.....
Or let me put it this way: is there anyone here who thinks the British Royal Family are shape shifting demonic reptilian hybrids who eat children?
I’m serious. I’d like to know if anyone believes this or believes this is possible.
The whole situation with Archie is a classic example of a strategy backfiring. Whatever the kids' origins nobody really minds and the vast majority wishes him well. If Harkles followed tradition and accepted royal ways of "presenting" the baby none of the conspiracy theories would have gained momentum. We must admit though there are plenty of odd circumstances surrounding his birth.
Meg really engineered a gigantic con, for a woman who is so lax with details she can't even fill out the paperwork properly on an application for a charity, didn't she?
Normally a woman having a baby is a straightforward affair, even if she is Royal. If people were rooting for Meghan and disbelieved stories of her narcissism in her first months as the Duchess of Sussex, the whole Pregnancy Show laid bare just how much of an attention wh*re she is, and frankly, considering the magnitude and duration of this con, I think, indisputably mentally ill on a number of levels. In classic Meg fashion, I believe she launched the scheme 'Anchor Baby ASAP' without fully thinking through all the ramifications. If she *was* made aware of the 'of the body' rule of succession, and/or the differing rules governing surrogate births between North America and the U.K (I'm assuming that Canada follows the same laws as the U.S. regarding the parentage of a child carried by surrogate, but many other countries besides the U.K. award legal custody to the birth mother, not the genetic donor, Japan being one)--I think Meg thought she'd just breeze right through any such obstacles because . . what Meg wants, Meg gets.
If Meg arranged for a surrogate during her trip to Canada just a few weeks after her wedding, and it was successful right away, that would align with the surrogate giving birth around March or April of the following year. Or, perhaps MeGain had already obtained the services of a surrogate prior to the wedding, hence the knowing little smirks that she and Harry appeared to exchange during the 'procreation of children' portion of the vows. Or perhaps I read Harry's expression wrong there . .he has never seemed particularly thrilled to have been made a father so soon after his marriage. Meg has had her eggs on ice in Toronto since sometime after her marriage to Trevor broke up, it has been reported, and she's never disputed that factoid. It is therefore plausible that a surrogate-borne child would be genetically Meg's--she's had her eggs harvested and I don't think her ego would allow her to accept another woman's genetic material as 'hers'. But what about the paternal contribution?
We know that Harry spent quite a bit of time in Toronto during the early 'love-bombing' months of their long-distance courtship. It's possible that during that intense period, Meg played upon Harry's often-stated desire for a family of his own and convinced him that they were meant for each other and would make great parents. Could he have been persuaded during one of these visits to Toronto to make a deposit in Meg's fertility clinic? Perhaps Meg talked him into doing this, reasoning that they could do this now and then become parents at some point in the future when they were ready. Meg may have already had several viable embryos in storage at that clinic by the time her romance with Hazza went south.
They broke up, and he did not consider, or else completely forgot, about the ramifications of having his genetic material on file, and possibly already combined with Meg's. A secret like *that* would account for the sick look on his face when being ambushed by her at the IG ceremonies nearly a full year after they ostensibly broke up. Less than two months after that day, they were engaged. I think most of us here are in agreement that something clandestine and nasty transpired, and that Meg has been holding some kind of leverage over Harry to force this marriage . .something which was so serious that the Queen had no choice but to agree. This would be a potential scenario that would qualify as that serious--that potential heir(s) to the throne of England were in cold storage in Toronto, with Harry's full involvement and Meg threatened to tell all? Or had already brokered a surrogacy deal with Harry's baby that was already in progress?
It would be *incredibly* stupid for Harry to have participated in Meg's scheme even before they were officially married, but it is one possible big arrow in Meg's quiver of blackmail. Other possibilities: some kind of drugs/sex/menage-a-trash scandal involving Soho House being the most likely . . If Meghan were personally involved in the set-up, wouldn't she just tarnish herself by association and leave herself open to criminal charges? I don't rule out that this gambit was tried, and might even have worked . . but it was incredibly risky and would have involved other people. The BRF is used to cleaning up after Harry. It made the drugs-n-sex orgy in Las Vegas incident more or less disappear. What could have been captured on video at Soho House that was worse than that? Sex with the underage (girls or boys)? Menages? Footage of Harry injecting heroin or smoking crack?
Harry is known as a troubled soul. Drug use or licentious sexual behavior has already been documented numerous times with him. If he's gay . . that is hardly the scandal today that it was in Oscar Wilde's time, even for a Royal. William has assured the succession with his children, so Harry was never required to supply heirs to the Crown after the birth of William's heir-and-spare. He might have even been embraced as the first openly out Royal--the climate is conducive to a positive reception for that now, even if his grandparents might struggle a bit with such knowledge. I think Charles would be absolutely fine with it.
Whatever Harry has done to get himself so embroiled with this woman that he cannot get himself disentangled from her seems to have been, for his family, an unforgivable sin. He has been cast off into the Outer Darkness and has been officially disavowed by the Palace. Yes, his father is still paying his allowance . . but the family did that even for the Duke of Windsor, another exile who was not even permitted to set foot on British soil after the funerals of his brother and mother. It seems that the family is leaving the door cracked open for Hazza to return, probably because they know that he is a mental deficient who will not be able to cope out there on his own when the Sussex travesty folds. I think the year was to broker a divorce deal with Meg . .the permanent Megxit . . and they will allow Harry back, albeit never again in a working role. He has betrayed them too deeply. I doubt he will be welcome at holidays, either. I think Charles will ensure Harry is provided a residence and an allowance until the end of his days, but he has been written off. It's a sad, lonely life he has chosen, and I don't see it ending well . .or lasting all that long. I think without inner resources or occupation, he will just sink deeper into substance abuse and depression and unsavory companions and will be an eventual OD or a suicide. That is my grim prognosis for Harry. Meg, like a cockroach will survive and she will always be able to grift money and deals from somewhere. I do wonder what she proposes to do, post-Harry, about 'Archie'. Will he ever be seen with her as he grows up . . .or with Harry? Or will he just 'disappear'? Will people just stop asking questions about Archie and his whereabouts? This can of worms is not going to go away with a Sussex divorce, however devoutly it is wished. In such a way, does Meg have her hooks into the Crown for life.
A commenter on the DM suggested that Perry`s next movie could be 'Madea's Houseguests from Hell'.
I thought not...
EXCLUSIVE: Meghan Markle tells friends her instinct to leave the UK 'all makes sense' now because she was 'destined' to help fight systemic racism in US - and she hasn't ruled out a career in politics
Her new mission in life! Very few will buy this from goofball Megs. These two are so lucky Charles is still supporting them with Duchy money. I hope this gets greatly reduced this coming March when they get an evaluation. Meanwhile Wills and Kate are taking care of business, just made public appearances at a garden center and more.!
This would trump even Uncle Andy's scandal with underage girls. I don't want this to be true, but if it is, it would be the one very, very Bad Thing which the Royals on no account can have coming out about one of their own. My mind cannot dredge up anything else that would be considered That Bad to compel the entire family to be engaged in this cover-up.
We all see here Markle jumped on the BLM bandwagon not because she deeply cares or has some personal valuable contribution to make. She simply hopes this movement will bring her where she wants to be, in other words she is using people of colour the same way she used her white husbands, lovers and friends.
If people can't understand this then there is nothing anybody can say or do that will help. She will harm any movement she joined the same way she harmed everything and everybody she touched. Because she is not genuine and she is a manipulator.
Hilarious, isn't it? Pure comedy gold.
A mixed race woman marries into the most exclusive family in the world, gets a warm welcome by the nation, gets upward of £40 million pounds of taxpayer money spent on her, gets to represent this nation abroad and also gets unique opportunities to make a difference for charities she supposedly cares so much about.
Less than a year and a half having achieved exactly nothing she accuses both the family and the nation of racism, issues a wide attack on the media, throws a tantrum, spits on her royal charities and marches to lecture another nation, which, for a second, only became possible because she married into oh so racist royals in the first place. By herself she is zero.
This is so surreal it is grotesque. Only the twisted world of today can bring forward something like Markle.
tatty said...
Also, someone tell me more about the superinjunction.
Is that not related to an active lawsuit?
So what is the lawsuit related to Archie that has caused the super injunction?
Wouldn’t the lawsuit itself be public record?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is the following:
Yes, an injunction/super-injunction is related to a lawsuit and restricts the media from reporting on the lawsuit, or usually aspects of it.
My understanding is that this is to prevent media discussion et al from influencing what happens in a lawsuit. (I assume this is because in the UK they use a jury system and a jury can be influenced.) The injunction/super-injunction is only supposed to be used for the duration of the trial or the discovery portion of the trial and to extend is to misuse it. Apparently, people do try to use it not for the purpose it was intended. (The secrecy involved makes it almost impossible for the media or public to exercise any kind of democratic/free society oversight over the use of power ... injunctions and super-injunctions can be misused by governments, and apparently are.)
Injunction: the media may say we may not talk about that because there is an injunction (as I said, usually just for the duration of the trial or even just the discover part of the trial).
Super-injunction: the media may not even report that there is an injunction. That injunction is so secret that no one may even talk of its existence, hence it is called a super-injunction! (It sounds absurd but basically that is what a super-injunction is.)
Yes, it was hinted in a TV discussion that there is an injunction that has something to do with the Sussexes. The way an injunction usually works and how it is intended to be used would mean that it would relate to the lawsuits (one for Meghan and one for Harry).
Since Meghan's court case has started and there has been disclosure of evidence, we know it is not related to that (or was it and the media have been slack and have not reported that the injunction is now lifted?).
Harry's lawsuit? Perhaps someone hacked his phone recently and there is an injunction/super-injunction that prevents the media from disclosing that or the contents of what was discovered during the hacking. It has always seemed strange that Harry is pursuing something so far back in the past that did not greatly affect him (other than to reveal that he is not academically gifted and that cat is out of the bag).
It baffles me how there can be an injunction/super-injunction regarding Archie in any way, unless Harry's phone has been hacked recently and there was something about Archie that was discovered in the hacking. But surely the media would have disclosed that information already? Maybe they did. Maybe, unlike the wild and belligerent speculation here, what the media uncovered was the turnover of nannies in the first few weeks of Archie's life and how Meghan was being so possessive over him.
If there was a legal tussle over the legal custody of Archie after his birth, a super-injunction would prevent the media from discussing the existence of such lawsuit (not from discovering its existence but from revealing that). However, as I described above, it would be a misuse for that super-injunction to be in place after the conclusion of a lawsuit. An injunction or super-injunction should not be used to simply protect someone's privacy. It is used in the interest of ensuring justice. As we have seen in Meghan's lawsuit, although she arrogantly assumes she can, she is not successful in bending the law to serve her personal interests and demands.
Maybe Megs figures it will be more difficult for Charles to reduce or cut off the Duo's payments, when the Duo are doing The Good Lord's work as anti-racism campaigners/
If/when Charles takes such action, that Megs will leak out the racism accusations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_conspiracy_theory
To change topic, a bit, (although, the topic of Archie is endlessly fascinating--especially Hikari's posts) did you all see the video of the first outtake of the Harry/Mayhem engagement video on Murkey Megs twitter page. Apparently, it was so bad that they had to do a redo, which is what we all got to see. If you thought the official video was gringey, well watch this one.
Thank you for your posts, Sandie! especially truth and conspiracy and an enforced orthodoxy of thought.
I am beginning to think the simplest and most forward explanation for the shotgun wedding was the fact that genetic material from Harry was held hostage for a million dollar tv wedding.
We have at least two journalists hinting at legal issues (likely super injunctions) that confine open discussions of the Sussexes: Tom Bower and Lady C. Both hints happened when they broached the topic of Archie. Whether anyone likes it or not, there seems to be something about Archie and it's worth gagging the press. Why? Some of us have ideas...
I've only started looking into U.K. super injunctions but they are hard to research when a laymen cannot even know what kinds exist:
https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/injunctions
https://www.channel4.com/news/the-rise-of-the-super-injunction
https://www.ft.com/content/e57e7f68-0161-11e6-ac98-3c15a1aa2e62
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/19/supreme-court-upholds-celebrity-threesome-injunction
But a new thought has occurred to me regarding Harry’s involvement. I do believe there was a surrogate and I have come to believe that given the acknowledgment by the Queen herself that this is a grandchild, that, indeed, this might be Harry’s child. Whether this child has Markle’s genes is up for debate, but it would explain the reticence of the BRF is bringing down the hammer. The child looks happy and well cared for, and that this woman had decided NOT to give up the child OR the BRF put it’s foot down and said that neither of them were capable of taking care of a kid given their proclivity for partying, and it’s being cared for by the real mother or a trusted member of the family, probably in the U.K. (As the poster above suggested). All this would jive with the Cambs notice of Archie’s birthday.
I’m also wondering if Harry doesn’t, in fact, have narc tendencies. We see how easily he interacts with anonymous children, and yet we see NO interaction with the alleged Archie. And maybe the interaction with these anonymous children are fuel for him whereas his own child is nothing more than a burden. He doesn’t get any fuel from him because his interactions with his child are, to date, not public. That photo of him with a child as he is apparently standing in the middle of a lake is NOT the child we saw in the birthday video. That child looked much more feminine than either the SA Archie or the birthday video Archie.
This leaves us with both Harry and Markle in on this charade. I think that there is a cruel streak in Harry and his comment on the Australia tour, “Is it mine?” Wasn’t to question the pregnancy but to goad her (knowing that she wasn’t pregnant). Sounds like they were fighting non-stop on that trip (and I question whether there is a time when they are NOT fighting), and I think he said this as an ugly dig at her. A power play, i.e., we both know you’re not pregnant. Don’t push me, Meghan because I hold the cards right now.” Unfortunately for him, the longer this faux pregnancy went on, the more he lost the power in this because then he would obviously have been complicit in this massive fraud. He’s not very smart, is he?
"Prince William and Prince Harry's Relationship Will Be Explored in New Book Battle of Brothers"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/royals/prince-william-prince-harry-relationship-battle-of-brothers-book/%3famp=true
A big legal battle looks like it is brewing between the former actress turned royal and her husband vs the husband's family. It is why they had to stop using the same law firm as the husband's family.
------------------------------
Guys,
What do you think this is about? Could the Tatler litigation be climaxing behind the scenes faster than expected? I'm surprised the DM had an article on this, but didn't seem to understand its significance.
I have to read through all this, but i will say I want to be first in line for the book that Mulroney is no doubt trying to sell at the moment. Will be interesting to see how this will all play out, as I envisaged her and Markus being the ones who can cause her tremendous damage. (if her rep can be damaged any further).
I have so much to read through and comment on but I will say I want to be first in line fdor the book Mulroney is probably lining up as we speak. In my opinion, her and Markus are the holders of the best dirt. Look for Sparkles to be furiously trying to figure out how to navigate all this.
I'm so very sorry that it's come to this - I placed a high value on this forum and I feel I have lost something of considerable significance, a channel of expression that has enabled me to feel I was doing something, however small, for my country. I didn't have to not just stand helplessly while the Markle trampled all over our traditions, history and constitution as embodied in the Royal family.
It has also enabled me to use my experience of narcissistic abuse to try to explain what sort of people some narcissists are, what they do, and how to identify them. It's clear, however, not only from the subject of our discussion but also what's happened here, that abusers just can't stop themselves.
Thank you so much for all you have done to keep things going, I can't say enough how much I appreciate it.
There's not much Harkle news at the moment but I do hope that, if we start hearing more, you might have the stomach to restart the discussion. If not, it'd be sad but entirely understandable.
Thank you once again for providing and managing this outlet for our frustrations over these events - it's been a delight to connect with an international group and hear their perspectives on the whole, bizarre, performance.
Sincerely yours,
Wild Boar Battle Maid
My guess is that if the Sussexes had acknowledged Father's Day, they would also have had to acknowledge William's birthday, which fell on the same day this year.
I don't know why, but something about this whole Mulroney split/Father's Day omission/Harry in England things smells strange because they're all so close together.
Guesses:
Misha Nonoo or is it Noono?
Catherine McPhee
Not Messie because she comes from money. Not Serena... she wouldn't need to yacht.
Hi Nutty and Nutties,
I see this subject has run its course here with the above quarelling, but I wanted to observe that Ben Mulroney was forced to resign positions in the media due to his proximity to his toxic wife. I have some limited sources in the entertainment and TV news world, and I’m told that Meghan’s betrayal of the two people who “made” her will be avenged — when the time is right. The Mulroneys were real friends to her; friends in high places. They will not forget how she rushed to abandon them. She stands warned. That’s just gossip that has filtered down to me, but I believe when she least expects it, Meghan will taste the bitter fruit of her own cravenness.
To be honest, I was seduced by the summer weather and the "white nights" surrounding summer solstice and have been spending all my time outdoors.
Nothing is wrong with the blog, and I'll be more careful in the future.
(It doesn’t matter that they were married in England. The court has jurisdiction if they meet CA residence requirements. IT TAKES A MINIMUM OF 6 months for a divorce to be final once it is files.)
Quoting starts here:
California residency requirements for divorce
For married persons to get a divorce:
You MUST meet California’s residency requirements. Either you or your spouse must have lived in:
California for the last 6 months, AND
The county where you plan to file the divorce for the last 3 months.
If you and your spouse have lived in California for at least 6 months but in different counties for at least 3 months, you can file in either county.
If you do not meet the residency requirement, you can still file for a legal separation. Once enough time has passed so that you meet the residency requirement for a divorce, you may file an “amended petition” and ask the court for a divorce.
EXCEPTION: Same-sex married couples who got married in California but do not live in California and live in a state (or states) that will not dissolve a same-sex marriage, can file to end their same-sex marriage in California, regardless of these residency requirements. You must file in whichever county you were married. Keep in mind that if neither of you lives in California, the court may not be able to make orders about other issues like property and debt, partner support, or your children. If this is your situation, talk to a lawyer with experience in same-sex marriage laws. Click for help finding a lawyer.
Quoting ENDS.