Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
ioGround| Friv Gaming | Friv 200 Games | Friv io Ground
@magatha
Doria as `nanny' - perhaps it was yet another of her porky pies, making out that she, Megain, was pure, gleaming white.
☝🏼THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
I've said it once & will say it again, the most racist person in this mess is Meghan herself.
She cheapens the BLM cause with her awful, neck clutching "angelic" acting with the "heavenly" filter.
I'm generally NEVER comfortable commenting negatively about international actors' acting abilities (because I'm self-aware enough to know I'm not that great of a dramatic actress myself). However, there are two international actors who are so bad I'm actually comfortable saying their acting sucks:
1) Joaquin Phoenix: for appearing insincere & fake while delivering acceptance speech for an OSCAR of all things (I felt gaslit. It was like hearing an adult lying to children... except he was serious. It was the most mind-boggling fakery.)
2) MADAME MARKLE. Chin down, doe-eyes up trying to cosplay her MIL (HOW CREEPY). And every time she's in a "humanitarian" setting she acts like a mean/antagonistic/villain character pretending to be nice. (That's like LAYERS of acting when actors do that: think of when Regina George acted like she was being nice to the new girl but the audience knew she was being fake. Well, Meghan looks like THAT when she's supposedly being "real/sincere". That's how bad she is.... damn.
Also, if this "nanny" anecdote was released recently, it's [maybe] a way of indirectly pointing out how white-looking her mixed-raced son is (which implies she's not irresponsible for choosing to raise her mixed-raced son in the birthplace of the BLM movement when she had every opportunity to raise/educate him in England where there's less police brutality).
It's becoming clear this was her plan all along... never moved her belongings to England, the whole time she was in the UK, she was playing with the American people's (her target audience) sore spot: racism.
When the racism in England wasn't even half as bad as it is in America.
What a piece of work. Don't even get me started on why I never believed Oprah's Zürich story (based on my experience attending uni with mind-blowingly wealthy Africans in mainland Europe & the fact that many designer stores in large cities that attract international travellers, such as the well-to-do who bank in Swiss, have special shop assistants who speak various languages, including Indonesian). I can, however, see someone getting fed up with Oprah's Hollywood airs & pretending to not recognise her just to troll with her (I've a habit of ignoring Indonesian celebrities myself... it drives them nuts lol). I'm telling you Oprah must have more in common with Resse Witherspoon than George Floyd...
If nothing else, the repercussions of events in LA that we've seen over this weekend emphasise why MM has been handled with kid gloves by the-family-she's-never-had.
@WBBM: You are spot on. Although she has spent most of her life shunning her black ethnicity, being a narcissist, she also specializes in portraying herself as a victim. Narcissists never, never take responsibility for their behaviors and shortcomings.
She learned she could weaponize certain aspects of her life and will not hesitate to use them. She uses race as a weapon to attempt to intimidate anyone who she realizes has her sussed, won’t allow her to have her way, or legitimately criticizes her.
Most of us knew that one way or another, she’d pop out a baby as soon as possible, which she did. Because narcs view ALL people as objects to be used, and an innocent baby is a perfect weapon. Archie not only serves as an insurance policy to get her a good settlement and high child support payments in the event of a divorce and if Archie lives with her in the custody agreement, or she can be assured of a large settlement in a divorce if Harry has custody of Archie and returns to the UK with Archie to live there.
Because they are now forever connected to each other via Archie no matter what happens to their marriage, Meghan will likely be a thorn in Harry and the royal family’s side for life. Archie is a bargaining chip, and useful prop for Meghan.
The other weaponization of Archie is against the queen, who dotes on all her grandchildren, has been evidenced by withholding visits with Archie from the queen and Philip. And let’s face it, being in their 90s, with Philip pushing 100, either of them could fall ill and pass on at any time.
The excuse was Archie was “too young” to travel to Sandringham during summer 2019, but then jetted around europe with Archie in tow to visit with Elton and go to Ibiza. They spent the 2019 Christmas and New Year’s holiday season in Canada, and then didn’t bring him to the UK so the queen could see him during the Megxit negotiations or their later return trip for their final engagements as they reportedly backloaded the excuse being concerned about the Covid-19 virus as an afterthought reason for not bringing him for that final trip.
Meghan’s father Thomas will likely never see Archie ever. Heck, he’s never even met Harry.
Yes, WBBM, Meghan is well-versed in weaponization.
I remember reading a long time ago certainly before Harry joined the Army that he had decided to stop washing his hair after discovering a theory that if you left hair unwashed it eventually reached a natural balance between dry and greasy something like the way an animals fur does not need to be washed. Mybe this explains the change in colour and texture.
I was actually a pedal cycle launched at the horse not a motor cycle; the horse was uninjured and made its way back to its stable but the policewoman was thrown face first into a set of traffic lights before hitting the ground
Just saw this vid on the Royal family YT channel- Prince Charles speaking for his charity Teach First. He sounds well and looks OK but he looks rather red. Maybe it's the lighting?
I wonder how many times Charles has actually seen Archie? The only photo he posts/uses is from the Christening. Actually that is the only photo any of the royal family posts of Archie.
Usually, I'd draw diagrams at this point. I expect I'm teaching many of you to suck eggs - please bear with me -
We have 46 chromosomes which can be thought of as 23 pairs or 2 sets each of 23 (that's what 2n=23 [`the diploid number] means, if you've met that term). We get one set from each of our parents.
Chromosomes are discrete bodies, in the cell nucleus, carrying genes, each of which has its own appointed place (locus) on the chromosome. Each member of a pair of chromosomes has the locus for genes controlling the same feature at the same point.
Normal cell division (mitosis)in a body cell involves each chromosome replicating itself (92 in all) . The identical replicants separate (they don't `divide') and each moves to form a group with one replicant from each of the other chromosomes. There are now 2 groups, each of 46. The nucleus and cytoplasm then divide into 2 cells, each with 46/23 pairs/2 sets of 23 chromosomes, all like the original.
Job done.
Sexual reproduction involves fusion of sex cells (gametes). If 2 diploid cells fuse, there'd be 92 chromosomes in the next generation and so on. This wouldn't work in humans - some plants manage it. At some point, there has to be a reduction division (meiosis) so that the fertilised cell has 46, from gametes which have 23 .
Meiosis is more complicated and this is where diagrams are needed - see textbooks aimed at 16-18yr olds, although these often don't explain it terribly well.
The important point is that when the chromosomes of a new pair separate from each other, the direction they travel in has nothing to do with what the other pairs do. Pure chance. This is called `independent segregation'. Each chromosome carries its own genes, (almost like a passengers locked in bus, with assigned seats!). Don't get hung up on something called `crossing over' either - I'm tempted to say that's for fruit flies and fungi.
I reckon that the even the definition at
https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/principle-of-independent-assortment-law-of-independent-302
is misleading - `divide' suggests they might split across the middle into top and bottom. they don't. Imagine dancing with a partner (country or square) - you separate from your partner (the pair `divides') for some figures (the Running Set, anyone?) - you don't both split across the waist with your top and bottom halves going different ways!
Chance enters the matter again at fertilisation- which sperm (X or Y) fertilises the XX egg. I have a friend with 3 sisters whose father wanted a boy - she quoted him as saying `Chance has no memory nor sense of justice', a principle well worth remembering!
All the gametes should end up with an equal number of chromosomes - 23 (there are exceptions if something goes wrong- eg Down's syndrome) nothing `unequal' about that. that's a moral judgement that has no place here.
Independent segregation and the chance which operates at fertilisation can result in the loss of genes from bloodlines. The English might all, on mathematical probability, be able to boast of having Edward III among their direct ancestors but the chances of a haploid set of his chromosomes turning up in anyone today is zilch.
I hope I've managed to clarify things a bit, rather than create confusion at a higher level. Meiosis is the very devil to explain - in my career I've had to do under pressure at times. When newly qualified at 22, I had to keep going, aware that a very attractive lad of 19 was mentally undressing me (best ignored). In my next job (at 25) I had an HMI (government school inspector) checking me out unexpectedly when the class was examining bull semen, followed by my spiel on meiosis.
If I haven't met the approval of better geneticists than I here, please feel free to improve it.
Let us assume that whatever money Meghan has, she is not touching it. (I doubt she has nearly near as much wealth as she is touted to have because those calculations assume she earned much higher than is realistic and paid no taxes and had no expenses.)
I think the funding from the Sovereign grant has now gone, along with all the hidden financial perks of having offices in Buckingham Palace.
Charles seems to still be funding them and that was about 2.5 million per annum (that gives more than 200 000 per month) at the most during the two years of Meghan. If he has had to dip into his pocket to give them more, then maybe he has done so.
Rumours have been circulated abut security, but we do not know if they are paying for their own or not, and if not, who is paying.
They are not paying rent or any of the costs associated with owning property, although they now have started paying for Frogmore.
If Harry has 20 000 000 in a Trust Fund and that is invested safely, the after tax interest, at the very least, is 4,5%, which is 900 000 per annum, but I think the interest would be a lot more than that (the interest would be kept in an interest-bearing account so their income from his trust is more like a million). So, that is more than 80 000 per month from interest. Harry could well have more capital and he may be earning a higher interest and paying less tax.
I could live in comfort and be generous in helping others fr the rest of my life with their income for just one year. Harry and Meghan have plenty of money of their own, but not enough to live like Bill Gates or Oprah and so on if they are paying for it themselves, which is probably why they are squatting in houses (and it is not even close friends of theirs - how embarrassing!)and Meghan has always merched whenever and whatever she can .
She can't hide truth. I am seeing comments from Americans who actually lived in LA during riots of 1992. They say her school was not anywhere near the riots as she was not at the IH Catholic at the time and her father's house was not in the area where looting and rioting happened.
This all is getting out quick
I stand corrected. Glad the horse was fine but absolutely appalled about the attack on policewoman. A fall from the horse can kill. She is lucky to have survived it.
Let's do a comparative analysis between Beyonce's commencement speech and Meghan's speech so that those who don't understand the difference between organic interest and paid PR news releases.
Beyonce and BTS were one of those whom the Obamas invited to deliver a commencement speech which was hosted by Facebook/YouTube.
Beyoncé was the most mentioned artist in the #DearClassOf2020 with over 500,000 tweets. Real people on Twitter, some of whom I know i know in real life were actively discussing her speech. The interest was organic and many of the comments were positive. Most of the tweets were not from official media handles. For more than three hours after her speech, with over 200K tweets, I didn't see the story in any media. This means that her PR didn't send the video or any press release to any media. Beyonce trending was very organic.
For Meghan, she didn't trend in my country throughout the news cycle. But even if you had searched for her name on Twitter, what you would see are the press releases from the Twitter handles of the over 40 media she sent press releases to.
There was no organic interest. Here's was huge paid PR where they had to release 10 more follow up stories to the media about how she is so brilliant that she didn't need notes, how she is quitely learning about black lives matter, how she is doing this or that with black activists behind the scenes, bla bla bla. These are the tell tale signs of paid PR. When you have to squeeze out more stupid PR content from your paid PR. Is it not surprising that the school hasnt yet acknowledged her video on its website? Why would a school not acknowledge her speech or make any mention of it on their website?
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-4165#post-58782188
By the way, she did look down at notes during her 'speech' so that bit of PR was a lie.
If it's true they didn't invite her to speak, and I personally suspect it may be, what is the school going to say? We mold our students' characters in the finest traditions of the Catholic Church but somehow this lying, selfish, uncaring, hypocritical user POS got by us?
It speaks volumes to me the video isn't posted to their FB page. There are other videos from last week including one of a baccalaureate mass. And there's a story about the incoming (biracial) senior class president who organized a student protest and clean up efforts in the Hollywood area. Finally there is a 3-page letter from the school's president on racial inequality. It doesn't seem like they need MM's white-robed prayerful poses and word salad delivered from on high to appear relevant.
You are very astute ladies. The Catholic school did the right thing first by not putting her word salad on their page and second by quietly doing the good job of letting students come together for clean up etc.
The best message for equality is this: if you want to make something out of your life we will help you, whatever color and social background you are. The school seems to try to say exactly this.
You are also right they probably do not want to put her on pedestal because her life doesn't exactly fit the profile of a Catholic school for girls.
And I agree with what Aqua said upthread a bit, that I also don't believe in the "pregnancy," and she summed up the whole scam very well--and it was congruent to what I also believe.
Fake fake fake.
A different question-
Has anyone unravelled the links with James Chau yet? I couldn't make much sense of the reports I saw but a friend has just mentioned that she'd heard he was a Chinese spy tasked with targeting MM - at least, I think that's what she meant... Pure rumour, of course.
I'll have a dig too.
If I can see a real heavily pregnant woman squatting with knees together on high heels, getting up from this position without help and demonstrating significant fluctuations in the belly size to the point of disappearance only to return later, due to natural causes, I will give MM the benefit of the doubt.
As things stand I do not believe in her pregnancy whatever people say about Archie.
And royals know the truth.
He's come to the fore as WHO is not too happy with him
So far as appearance of children go, we often see what we expect to see.
Proponents of the "Hewitt is definitely Harry's father" story just don't see Harry's (uncanny IMO) resemblance to a young Philip or to a younger Charles when he had a beard that grew in reddish. Those who believe the Hewitt story ignore the striking difference between the shape and spacing of Harry and Hewitt's eyes (Harry's eyes strongly favor Charles' to me) and focus instead on the similarity of skin and hair coloring between Harry and Hewitt. They also ignore the fact that Harry doesn't look much like Diana either but since she is obviously accepted as Harry's biological mother, the lack of resemblance is ignored.
There are those who think Charlotte looks exactly like The Queen. While I occasionally see flashes of Princess Margaret's daughter Lady Chatto in Charlotte, personally think she looks exactly like a young William but with Kate's dark hair.
And I expect we've all known of situations with (non-familial) adopted children where strangers unaware of the adoption point out how much the child resembles mom or dad. So we know phenotype ≠ genotype.
In a few ways Archie looks like H&M to me but in more ways he doesn't. He's quite hefty (all over, even his head is pretty large) and Harry wasn't at that age and certainly M wasn't. Yes, maybe he takes after Thomas M but if we didn't know what Thomas looks like but we think we see a "strong resemblance" to H&M, we'd probably ignore Archie's build just as the Hewitt folks ignore the shape of Harry's eyes and lack of resemblance to Diana.
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/amp32477293/how-to-watch-youtube-dear-class-of-2020-virtual-graduation-ceremony/
So I have to ask, Harry and Meghan what did YOU do? Could you have made a video addressing the struggles you’ve gone through as a couple? What example with the two of you be for Archie if he asks what YOU did to make a difference? I’ll wait while you check you bank account for daddy’s check.
Another video made that has probably got Meghan spitting bricks not to have been included was Beyoncé’s video “Dear Class of 2020” which was headed by the Obamas. She discussed not only the protests, but how to effect change, being thankful for your family, and addressed young women as future leaders. It was a pretty powerful speech. And to Meghan’s sugars? THAT is why Bey is the real Queen! (no disrespect meant to Her Majesty as the Queen)
"People who insist that Hewitt is Harry's real father point to the fact that they are both redheads and nobody in the BRF has red hair. They are ignoring the fact that Diana's father and all three siblings are redheads: her dad had reddish-blond hair, as does her brother, while her sisters have auburn hair. Only Diana and her mother were blonds."
I think people who claim Hewitt is Harry's father claim all sorts of things. :-)
I'm not sure what color Diana's hair was naturally after very early childhood...I'm thinking brown, not blonde, but certainly her sibs had red/reddish hair when they were younger adults. But for Harry (or Diana's sibs) to have red hair, it didn't come only from the Spencer side. (Red hair is recessive, I believe. So Diana's mother carried the gene too.) Certainly red hair was seen in the Tudors. And Prince Charles had a reddish beard here in picture #20 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/g24751255/prince-charles-photos/
And Charles' head hair appeared to have reddish undertones in many outdoor pictures taken when he was in his early to mid-20s. And if that wasn't enough, Queen Mary of Teck was a redhead.
Harry's cousins, the York sisters, have red hair or fairly definite red tones in their hair and did when they were children (so it's not faux from Miss Clairol.) Clearly their hair color couldn't have come only from the Ferguson side so Andrew must have had "red hair DNA" to contribute (unless we venture into a truly delusional fantasyland and claim Andrew is not their real father either.)
So I don't believe Hewitt's DNA was ever needed to explain Harry's hair color. But some people do focus in on the similar hair color Harry and Hewitt share and ignore the many facial features they don't share, features Harry often didn't share with Diana either.
having said that , now that the video is out, commissioned or not they *still* remain silent. to me it shows they rather not be associated with her mess. could you imagine if Catherine had done the same? I would imagine her alma mater would be all over it
Immaculate Hearts complete silence regarding the video, ironically speaks volumes IMO
She got wind of what was going on and couldn't get in on it. (Maybe HMTQ sent out a memo). So, the hs video is her pre-emptive strike to do the same thing outside the event. Another gate crash. It had less to do with the high school than her trying to muscle in. Girl has huge cojones. Tungsten indeed.
So if Meghan is paying attention to how things should be done, I hope she paid particular attention to two videos recently posted. The first was a live video done by Alex Ohanian and Serena Williams did TOGETHER this last Saturday night. Here is a power couple isn’t often recognized as such (we more hear about Serena.) But her husband took a huge stand in resigning as a board member for a site he founded. They then did over a half hour video together to discuss his decision as well as candidly take on the challenges Serna has had to face as a black woman. Ultimately Alex wanted to be a good example for his daughter and be able to answer her when she asked, “What did you do?” to recognize that black lives matter.
Please don't be so stupid. If boy fake artist Alex Ohanian really feels this way. Then he should give away at least half his millions he made off (allegedly) racist Reddit, give this to fake artist BLM causes. But he isn't. He is just jive talking. AS ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.
#2 TALK IS CHEAP
FairlyCrocodile: I didnt say I belive she was pregnant, I said I think Archie looks exactly like both Meghan and Harry.
I also didnt say I dont belive she was pregnant :)
I dont know!
But, I once saw a very pregnant overweight woman dance together with healthcare staff, she bent down deep.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=J4XIuqejD5g
That pregnant woman did indeed squat down low. She also had her feet and knees FAR apart when she did so. MM did not.
Agree that Archie does indeed favor the two credited as being his parents.
My best friend just had a baby late March. She has practiced ballet for 20+ hours a week for 10+ years. She could do deep squats and wear stilettos. What she could not do was squat with closed knees. Her jaw dropped when I showed her Meg's pregnancy videos. She thinks Meg is a lunatic for drawing so much attention to a fake bump.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/simeon-francis-investigation-launched-black-151300122.html
The only time black lives matter enough to make the national news is if they've been killed by a white person and that rarely happens. White people as well as Hispanic people, Asian people, and black people get murdered by black people frequently.
Heyjackass.com does a great job of keeping up with Chicago murders for those of you overseas that have no clue as to the size of the problem. (They also have a COVID 19 section listing comorbidities for those of you interested.) Chicago doesn't even make the top ten in cities with high murder rates.
I would have thought that this young man would have been a poster child for Black Lives Matter, but nooo.
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/crime/as-a-child-saved-his-sister-and-brother-when-mom-was-killed-shot-to-death-coming-home-from-work/85-608745551
The focus of black lives matter is a man who was (allegedly) killed by police (two of whom were on the job for four days and one was mixed race) after committing a crime at an immigrant-owned store and now is the focus of wailing and rending of garments and cries of racism. What about the fact that his 5 years in prison was for doing a home invasion of a pregnant black woman's house, sticking a handgun in her abdomen and threatening her fetus' life if he wasn't given money and drugs, which she did not have? What if he had killed her and her friend and her friend's 1-year-old child that were held hostage by other invaders while he searched the house for things to steal? Would anybody have mourned them on a national and international scale? No, they wouldn't have mattered unless their murderer were white.
Maybe I wouldn't be so cynical if the previous members that were lauded by Black Lives Matter weren't criminals and the cases against the police weren't false.
I am with you viz Harrys looks. Of Diana’s two sons, Harry is Mountbatten all over. The red hair throws people off, but as you pointed out, ginger is very prevalent in the Spencer family tree, and it can also be found prevalently on the Royal side. Henry the eighth whom Haz increasingly resembles Since the beard, and middle-age, except without the portliness, was a famous redhead, and his daughter the first Elizabeth, and closer to home in the family tree, I believe several of George the third 15 children also had red hair. Unlike the child we know is Archie, Harry popped out with enough flaming hair on his head to make Charles utter that incredibly boneheaded comment, “oh, it’s a boy. And it’s even got ginger hair.“ I might’ve paraphrased a little… I’m not sure Charles actually called his son it. But that careless remark crush Diana, And rightfully so. Harry will it had occasion to read his fathers dismissive remark upon his arrival, so imagine growing up knowing that, and having to face down and persistent whispers that you are the product of your mothers adulterous affair with her riding instructor. How do used to being treated as a second best non-entity by everyone at court save your mother, and it’s easy to see where Harry got the chip on his shoulder from. But he is undeniably a Mountbatten. He’s got Charles eyes, and when he’s side-by-side with his grandfather, which sadly is not happening anymore, the shared features are unmistakable: the jawline, the nose, the teeth. Harry has a much lower frame than his brother as well, especially since leaving the army. In William, the Spencer genes dominate. As a teen and young 20 something, his resemblance to his Mum was pretty remarkable. Now that he’s older, he reminds me of Philip at certain times, and I agree that he has passed his eyes down to his daughter. The Cambridge children are certainly going to be tall, having height on both sides. Charlotte favors the royal side the most, well her brothers favor the Middletons. People want to say that George looks like his daddy, but actually he’s the spitting image of grandpa Middleton, and little Louis looks just like Mummy at that age. Even Kate has said that.
The providence of the child known as Archie is very mysterious. At times I am convinced that I see a strong resemblance to Meg’s dad, And this child has brown eyes, and a strabismus that is identical to Meg’s. Well this is a not uncommon condition in babies, it would be a strange coincidence indeed if Meg obtained a baby who is not genetically hers with the same condition, particularly since it is flaw Meg would be sensitive about. The child is very large for his age, and I thought for some time that he’s probably at least three months older than his advertised. The make up of genes has been discussed her at length, But I remain a bit mystified as to how Megan and Harry’s baby can look even more lily white than Kate’s children do. I would have expected a few African-American genes to assert themselves somewhere. Young babies features change rapidly and it’s impossible to predict what Archie might look like in a few years. I wonder if we will ever see much of him going forward. Because children learn how to talk, and if something is not on the up and up with megs parentage or her child rearing, Someday four or five-year-old Archie is going to blurt out, “get away from me, lady. I don’t know you.” Children are a lot easier to manipulate as pawns before they can speak up, or run away.
"Meghan Markle hopes her speech to pupils at her old school addressing racial division gave them 'comfort and inspiration' and says her 'heart hurts for those graduating into a world of uncertainty and injustice', source tells Hello!"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8399197/Meghan-Markles-heart-hurts-young-people-graduating-world-uncertainty-injustice.html
I reckon there's a simple explanation - it's photo-shopped from H's own christening. Why should the baby be genuine when everything else is fake, apart that is from Megs beaming with Duper's Delight?
I have always found your comments to be intelligent and pithy.
As well as courteous.
Indeed the pregnant uterus is like a watermelon. You have a good analogue here. When I look at her in the 90K bedspread Morocco dress I wonder why her pregnant belly looks like fat flabs.
There are too many odd things others already pointed out - from the absence of signatures on birth announcement to the absence of interaction with the baby by other royals. But the one that made me pause was Markle touching and caressing the newborn's head exactly where it shouldn't be touched. It was as if the midwives never warned her about it.
The only thing that makes us different from pocket dictatorships is there is still justice system in place and there is still media not entirely bought out.
Truth will come out and the story will be told.
I don't think this was a purely a race motivated murder. The story is more complicated and it will be untangled and revealed. As you say, facts already precipitating and drawing the picture which is different to current hysteria.
Markle should have kept her mouth shut. Or if pressed used trivia like calling for unity and condemning violence in all forms.
If the Harkles set a standard of living that uses all the interest, and intend to maintain it without growing the capital or earning, they will be in difficulty in future. But they can comfortably live on what they have now until they are earning an income.
They have plenty of money for now, as long as they can keep squatting, and Meghan is probably keen to get going with the freebies for merching designer clothing, accessories, make up, jewellery .... Sooner or later something is going to pan out and Meghan at least will start earning.
Living in the USA makes everything a lot more complicated for them and I wonder if they were getting and taking any good financial advice before they fled:
1. Inflation is much higher in the US than in the UK.
2. Unless they continue squatting, owning/renting/leasing property is expensive where they want to live in the US (what they have to pay for renovations and refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage is a fraction of what the mansions they are squatting in in America cost to buy and maintain).
3. Taxes in the USA include federal, state and local. If it is higher or lower than the UK probably depends on the state and city.
4. Freebies were much easier to get in the UK. It will take a lot of hustling for Meghan to get as much as she was getting as a working royal. I think she over estimated what she could be worth ... the same and perhaps as much as 10x what she was hustling for herself in Toronto is do-able; the 100x and more that the press spoke of and that she probably dreamed of is unrealistic.
"Christening photo baby - looks so much like Harry when he was christened. Am I really the only person to see it?"
Honestly, I don't see it except that many 2-3 month old very pale babies without hair look alike especially when dressed alike.
But I'll tell you who "Color Photo Christening Archie" resembles in his face to me---- Lady Louise at her christening. In this photo
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/104356916337439717/
-------
@Hikari,
Agree with just about everything you said. Except the part about Charles' exclamation ("and he's a ginger!") I have read Diana said she led him to believe she was carrying a girl because she knew he wanted a daughter. Diana said she knew Harry was a boy early on because she saw the ultrasound. She said she never told Charles and up until the birth he was sure Harry would be a girl.
Not sure if I believe all that as I'm not sure Diana would have been able to tell early on (from the US. Obviously she could have a mother's intuition.) But having had one baby boy doesn't mean she could find the signs of a teeny-tiny penis on the US screen easily. Still I do believe there's something to the story. No way Charles would have been that shocked to have a second son unless there was a "backstory." After all, he comes from a 3 son/1 daughter family himself.
She didn't get asked to Prom so she had her own anti-Prom. Maybe she thought YT would add her in last-minute after seeing her marvelousness? Or maybe a sugar-hacker would get the job done?
Meg doesn't seem to understand that it takes YEARS of hard work and accomplishment to get organic interest. Guess which acts are trending from YT's "Dear Class 2020" commencement? Beyonce & BTS. Guess what they share in common? An organized network of devoted fans: the Beyhive and ARMY. Those networks came from years of thoughtful, consistent engagement while they perfected their art.
Meg before Harry had minimal fans if any. The BRF gave her an automatic network of fans: Royalists. She even had a playbook for how to engage for the greatest payoff: Royal Protocols. All she needed to do was follow through but like anything that is gotten overnight, not earning it means you haven't learned how to keep it. So she flushed away any chance of becoming a "queen."
thank you :) I know I don't post on the blog often because I get lost reading everyone's posts and they are both informative and profound. I truly value everyone here on the site and I do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I have a deficit in intelligence. I promise, I do not. I just thought it was refreshing to see Alex speaking so candidly with his wife in regards to her struggles with racism.
I appreciate everyone here and hope you guys all have a happy Monday :)
You don't give anyone that impression and have nothing to apologize for. I believe someone may be having a bad day.
Please keep commenting. 😘
Oh yes! I agree -could be either Louise, or even her brother James. Only 1 photo of Louise's christening was released so that would fit the bill if there's are others held privately.
Ostensibly, Archie was baptised 2 months after his birth; his Wessex cousins at 4 months. At birth, tho', James and Louise were both smaller than the stated weight of `Archie'. Could it be that their being smaller, despite being twice the age of `Archie', enabled her to pull off yet another deception? MM could alter the size of the inserted child - would she/he have changed much facially in the extra 2 months?
I don't know enough about babies to work this one out!
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. It's posters like you two who raise the bar and it is appreciated.
but I am sure there is a baby and that baby is half Meghan half Harry. Because he looks like them. I think it is strange you can't see that. The eyes, the nose, the mouth? No?
Ok!:)
She held her own show, on the same night, advertised with the line -`Every performance ...is a Command Performance.'
She was excluded on grounds of her vulgarity. I have read that she used to wear a dress with such a low back that her other cleavage was visible, and `referred' to when she sang `A Little of What You Fancy Does You Good'.
I see another parallel in that...
Incidentally, my great-grandfather's cousin did perform in the RCP. His blackface act as `The White-Eyed Kaffir' was considered acceptable! Times change. See You Tube.
Paranoid Schizophrenia with Disassociative Disorder (MPD).
Agree with just about everything you said. Except the part about Charles' exclamation ("and he's a ginger!") I have read Diana said she led him to believe she was carrying a girl because she knew he wanted a daughter. Diana said she knew Harry was a boy early on because she saw the ultrasound. She said she never told Charles and up until the birth he was sure Harry would be a girl.
Which part are you disagreeing with--that Charles said this about his newborn son, or that it was not extremely insensitive for him to have said it?
In the years since Harry's birth, I have to say that I have come around a great deal to Charles's side. He did not behave well in the marriage, but neither did she. The 'St. Diana' narrative is still so powerful 23 years after her death that many of her most devoted fans still refuse to accept that the Wales marriage was not just a black-and-white dichotomy of Diana being the mistreated, betrayed, innocent victim of Charles's cruelty and adultery, and him the black-hearted villain. They both failed at being good partners for each other. We have learned in the interim that Diana was, besides being far too young for Charles and having absolutely no interests in common which might have helped to bind the marriage together--also a mentally fragile, one might say erratic personality with a manipulative agenda of her own. I do not condone Charles's affair with Camilla, but I truly believe that in his mind, Camilla has always been the wife of his heart. In his own way, he was faithful to *her*. Diana, the teenage bride foisted upon him to bear his children was never an easy fit. However, I don't think it was ever Charles's intention to get divorced. Diana refused to accept sharing her husband with another woman, which has been going on since time immemorial among the aristocracy. If Charles seemed cold toward her feelings in this matter, it's because what he was doing was the norm in his world (seconded by his father, who expressed the idea that the high-strung filly needed to buck up and accept a very common reality). Kings have mistresses; thus is the way of the world. It is not morally admirable behavior, but Diana was not morally admirable either, except when that image of being the wronged and virtuous wife suited her. It would appear that between Harry's birth and her untimely death, she took many more lovers than did Charles, who cleaved to his 'C'. If Diana had been able to swallow her pride and accept the way things were without drama, I believe she'd be alive today to see her sons married and her grandchildren (which may or may not *actually* include Archie.) She, and not Camilla, would be preparing to be Queen Consort.
"The Mind is its own Place," wrote William Blake. "It can make a Heaven of Hell and a Hell of Heaven."
Diana and Meghan have that in common, I'd say.
Diana did like to engineer narratives to her own benefit just like someone else we know . . but I believe that she did not meet James Hewitt until Harry was a toddler. I always took Charles's crack about the red hair to be owing to the fact that children with red hair, particularly boys, tend to get teased for it. Charles read history at Cambridge, along with architecture and would know full well the ginger hair gene on both sides of the family tree. James Hewitt had not entered the picture at this stage.
George Chirgwin?
Fascinating!
I think you go a bit too hard on Charles. By all accounts he had been determined to work on his marriage. He broke up with Camilla and told about his relationship with her to Diana before his wedding. Had Diana been mature and confident individual she would have thanked him for his honesty and that would be it.
Diana was neither, however, and in her insecurity she became fixated on Camilla. She began listening to Charles' phone calls, opening his letters, questioning his whereabouts. Many of the people who happened to be around the couple at that time described her prolonged weeping, shouting at Charles, throwing things around, self - harm, bulimia and extreme mood swings. All this happened before he went back to Camilla.
Rightly or wrongly Charles went back to Camilla because he had been faced with the situation he was unequipped to deal with and neither Diana nor Charles got any professional help. She refused taking drugs and Charles retreated deeper into his shell. All of his friends noticed a change in him at that time. He became gloomy, depressed and irritable, sometimes falling into deep despair and lashing out at his closes assistants, some of whom left as result.
Camilla has and always had much better understanding of Charles and his character. She is described as "warm and motherly, with great sense of humor, not afraid to laugh at herself".
I believe she first offered a shoulder to cry on and then Charles realized he can't do without her. The rest is history.
Whatever faults Charles has he shouldn't be solely blamed for the collapse of his marriage. Diana was no saint either.
Ostensibly, Archie was baptised 2 months after his birth; his Wessex cousins at 4 months. At birth, tho', James and Louise were both smaller than the stated weight of `Archie'. Could it be that their being smaller, despite being twice the age of `Archie', enabled her to pull off yet another deception? MM could alter the size of the inserted child - would she/he have changed much facially in the extra 2 months?
I had not considered the Wessex kids as stand-ins for baby Archie, but we all know that Megs is Photoshop happy, so anything is possible. Perhaps this is just one of the reasons why the famously even-keeled and smiling Countess of Wessex was so cold to Megsie when pictured together this last year. If my nephew's psycho American wife was going around stealing my children's baby pictures and passing them off to the world as her baby, I'd be pissed, too. If that's the way it happened. Something extraordinarily bad happened between the Sandringham meeting in January and the Suxxits last joint appearance at the Commonwealth Day service in March. Members of the family that normally feigned goodwill toward Meghan at least for photo ops were not only no longer trying, they were actively glaring at her or else so frigidly icing her out, it was obvious from our vantage point. The kid gloves had come off and we could feel the hate. Camilla's glare was so epic . . I rather think that if they hadn't been in church, Cam would have leapt at Meg and ripped her wig off. Camilla may be 69 years old, but I wouldn't underestimate her in a fight, oh no I wouldn't. Despite Meg's proselytizing about the healthful vegan yogi lifestyle, I think she's full of it. She doesn't appear at all strong or healthy to me. No muscle tone, no matter how much crouching in stilettos while heavily 'pregnant' she does.
Archie must have picked up the talent for looking different in every picture from his 'Mum'. The baby in South Africa and the little blighter we saw in the color christening Photoshop exercise look definitely to be the same baby. This little bloke has a suggestion of ginger hair, a more slender face and kind of favors Harry as an infant.
The child shown in the B&W christening photos with H&M has *blond* fuzz and a much rounder, larger head. A larger body, full stop. 'Book Archie' looks like this baby, just older. The baby we saw on Meg's lap in that video does NOT resemble christening baby to me. And then of course we've got Christmas card Archie--an obvious fake, with for all the world the distorted face of an Asian baby to all appearances. And the Archie we saw being held by Harry in front of a 'Canadian lake' . . who looked to be about 12 months old, with completely different eyebrows and wearing a little girls' outfit.
Things that make you go . . Hnnnnhhhhhh????
"Which part are you disagreeing with--that Charles said this about his newborn son, or that it was not extremely insensitive for him to have said it?"
Actually neither, exactly. The part you wrote I didn't agree with was this part you wrote about Charles' utterance:
"But that careless remark crushed Diana, And rightfully so."
IF as has been reported, Diana convinced Charles she was carrying a girl (for whatever reason she might have had or thought she had) and she knew he fully believed they'd be welcoming a daughter as her due date approached, yet she was fully expecting she would give birth to a son, then I'm not at all sure Diana had a "right" to be crushed by his reaction in the delivery room.
I expect Charles regretted his exclamation but I can certainly understand his reaction. Yes, sometimes medical staff make mistakes about the sex of babies based on ultrasounds too. And when that happens, ordinary parents may exclaim too. ("Oh crap honey! The nursery is pink!" "Oh no! Everyone expects the baby to be named for Grandpa Johnny and Grandpa Bert!")
And who told the press what Charles said I wonder? Medical staff? I guess that's possible.
And if I haven't been clear I don't think Hewitt is Harry's father. I think Diana met him after Harry was born. And I think Harry is Charles' son.
We've been assuming that the aping if Diana is purely for Harry's `benefit'.
Could it also be aimed at that section of the British public who still adore Diana?
Could someone, MM or some kind of mystery backer who sees her as a useful idiot, have realised how close the monarchy came to being toppled in '97? Are she/they aiming to pick up and run with a planned attempt at national destabilisation? Take that painful time to the conclusion that we just managed to avoid? Using MM as their tool?
Make her the `New Diana! Now With Added Racism!'
A coup with MM at its head - at least, in her own mind.
Bear in mind the overlap with,say, Lisa Nandy - wanting MM as Queen and encouraging folk to take to the streets re George Floyd?
If it seems a daft idea, who would have imagined 2 years ago that there'd be this mess?
Christening photo: our latest thoughts fit pretty well with the chill emanation from Sophie at the Abbey, so thanks for that, Hikari.
I think you go a bit too hard on Charles.
I misfired in my intention, then, because I was actually standing up for Charles against the prevailing narrative amongst Diana stans that Charles was solely to blame for the failure of that marriage.
If I am hard on Charles, it is for 1. his infidelity, which we can be very confident preceded Diana's. Di came to her marriage a virgin, and I think remained a faithful wife to Chas until sometime after Harry's birth, when it was clear that her husband did not love her and was only paying lip service to the marriage, his heart belonging to another woman, along with, often, his body. Apparently he and Cam used to mess around in William and Kate's present residence at Sandringham, then vacant . . or sometimes, even, incredibly, at Highgrove House, where the illicit couple thrilled in their clandestine meetings, Camilla sometimes leaving Charles's arms scant minutes before Diana arrived back home. I find marital infidelity morally reprehensible--however, I also have compassion for the circumstances which drew Charles back to the woman who was his true love and who would have been his first and only wife if circumstances had been quite different. As we are seeing now in the second generation with Harry, there is little else in life that can make a person so miserable and burdened with regrets and other negative emotions as being married to the wrong person. Diana and Charles were not the right people for one another and they were toxic for each other . . .but out of that union came two boys. One is the future of Britain. The other provides us here with a reason for existing. Whatever the other failures of the Charles-Di union, William and Harry are here because it happened.
2. The other thing which could be considered a fault in Charles is his self-centeredness which seemed to lead most of his behavior with his wife. He is a weird amalgamation of devotion to duty--this, he gets from his parents--working quite tirelessly as the Prince of Wales--using his long tenure as the heir-in-waiting to do much good in the world through causes he is passionate about. Neither is he a stupid man. The first British heir *ever* to obtain a university degree, he is well-read, has many interests, and I think must be very interesting to talk to. What is unattractive about his character is the competitive jealousy which he felt at his young wife's rousing success with people, something which she passed along to William. Like the Queen, Charles can come off as cold, distant or awkward in public settings to people who do not know him well, though being a lot warmer, wittier and more engaging at closer range, just like his mother. Being raised all his life cossetted in incredible privilege and being told he is special has led to a sense of entitlements on a personal level which would be incredibly hard to avoid, being raised like he was. Granted, the remark I mentioned was attributed to him by Diana in the Morton book, I believe, and she certainly had an agenda in releasing it. She also claims that he barely looked at the baby but was eager to rush out and go to a polo match. Again, only one person survives who knows if this encounter went down as Diana said.
Camilla is and always has been his soulmate . . I think we can all see that now. Charles is a much happier man now than when he was younger. Having the right partner by his side has made all the difference, though scars and festering wounds still linger over Diana's legacy in his life. Mostly in the person of Harry these days, who is emotionally blackmailing his father over mistakes that were made before Harry was even born. Charles's decisions about Harry, or lack thereof, are frustrating to watch, but this is a very complicated family history we are watching play out. I don't think any of us who watched Harry grow up and saw the forlorn pre-teen walking behind his mother's cortege could have ever imagined that he'd grow up to be the poisonous viper in the bosom of his family. It really is a terrible tragedy to witness.
My wish for Charles is that he can somehow deal with this Harkle Debacle more effectively and be successful in the job he has been preparing for so long. Who can envy him his position, stuck between a beloved mother, one of Britain's most venerable sovereigns--the epitome of all that is best in the English character and a defining figure of two separate centuries .. and his charismatic, handsome son, the banner carrier for the future of the United Kingdom in the new millennium? King Charles III can at best be a placeholder, a short-term monarch whose best years have passed him by already? He's got my sympathies no matter how you slice it. He gets treated like a goat very often, by the press and his own family, and I really don't believe that is deserved. Shakespeare had it right when he wrote, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." Even waiting to wear the crown is a fraught business. Charles has made the best of some rather sh*tty cards and my hat's off to him, but I am not very optimistic about the success of his reign, whenever and for however long that will be.
Blogger KnitWit said...
Part of being "financially independent" is living within your means. The Sussexes have more wealth and options than most. The RF and Charles need to rein them in or cut them off.
I’ve pondered if cutting off the Harkles might not be done with a velvet hammer—with HMTQ and PC issuing a carefully worded public statement to the effect that they love Harry, Meghan and Archie very much, and respect them for wanting to be financially independent and clearing their own path to a new and fulfilling life abroad. To that end, they have decided it would be counterproductive to continue funding Harry and his family, as it would prevent them from breaking free of the ties to the RF that have been so onerous to them.
Thank you for your consistently thoughtful and masterfully expressed comments. I always enjoy reading them (along with those of many others here). I agree with you completely on the subject of Prince Charles. He really is caught between a rock and a hard place, and I only hope that Camilla will outlive him so that he has her love and support to keep him relatively contented and accepting of his unenviable fate.
I believe that history will judge PC with appreciation and respect for all that he has accomplished in the shadow of his mother.
I was a die-hard Diana fan. In many ways I still am. I was young when she appeared on the global scene and had zero interest in the RF. But her beauty, the warmth and vulnerability she radiated won me over. I hated Charles and Camilla and blamed them for her unhappiness and her tragic death. It's only since last year that I began to realize that she was flawed too. And who was responsible for that realization? Her son Harry. A lot of Harry's jealousy and lack of self-love is because she confused him and led him to believe that the kingship could be his for the taking. By jokingly calling him King Harry for example, Diana fed his ambition in the wrong direction. Becoming a king, somebody super-important became his holy grail instead of focusing on his strengths and developing them. Even if you are not book smart, laziness can be overcome by working at activities that excite you. Instead, after her death Harry languished in pity-me land and soon was trapped in substance abuse. Charles enabled him by indulging rather than guiding. I believe Diana, if she had lived, would have matured and been there as a steadying influence on Harry. She would have made him aware that in a dynasty there is only one king or queen. At least I like to believe that!
You have written a very good and considerate comment.
Sadly, once outside of the royal family, Diana started sliding down fast. Her affair with Dodi brought her within control of such shady character as Fayed. I don't think it would have been easy for her to break away from him, she became dependent on his huge wealth and she didn't see anything wrong using his yachts, mansions, guards and hotels. It is a bit like a spider web, but gold and studded with diamonds.
I would like to hope she could have matured to become a stabilizing influence to her boys. To be honest I doubt it, she was going in the opposite direction, but good things could have happened. Perhaps she would have made the right choice in favor of her sons in the end.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBI2lgDHmc4/?utm_source=ig_embed
Womans Day Australia - Meghan's toxic diaries leaked - it's a post by Murky_Meg about Kate being concerned where all these toxic stories are coming from & friends have warned her to prepare for the worse. It also suggests that H is a dab hand with secret SM a/c under the psudonum Spike Wells which has a profile pic of chelsy.
????
A quote from Lady Colin Campbell's book on Meghan. I think it is spot on:
If you offered her California, she would demand Arizona as well, and, if you didn't give it to her, you were victimising her.
Since he wore this uni as a member of empire, the empire that oppressed so many indigenous people and imported slavery to the U.S. and Caribbean - it also showed that he did not take his membership in the empire or its history or ramifications seriously. The fact Rachel married such a member of the empire, with its particular history, does not reconcile with any supposed "activist" beliefs, either.
Lastly, the fact she was able to marry into the RF actually undermines the charge of systemic racism perpetuating in the modern era, since she was able to freely become a member of the empire, with a very expensive wedding, clothing allowance, etc. to boot supported by the taxpayers of the UK. However,it would not undermined it if only occurred to rehabilitate JH's image. Many men of the empire who oversaw colonial lands entered into relationships and marriages with women of some color, like RM, to ameliorate circumstances (see Wide Sargasso Sea). If Rachel entered into such a relationship merely for wealth, that would show she is willing to sell out her "principles" if the price is right. Either way, they do not seem to be the couple that has lived their principles to the point in which they should be given a forum on the subject.
Anyone else who wore a Nazi uniform would have been banned from public life forever. I was baffled when Obama had JH speak at the inaugural summit of his foundation to inner city students. What did JH have to say to them? They had far more to teach Harry about life than the other way around. Would they really want to hear from a man at the pinnacle of an empire that imported slavery, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and wore a Nazi uniform? What would he have to share with them? The time his valet found his beer-soaked Nazi uniform and accidentally sent it to the cleaners? Like these graduates with this speech, Harry needed it more - to be photographed with the "lower classes" in a PR bid - far more than they needed to be spoken at by yet another out-of-touch man born of great wealth. The fact that Ohanian, Williams, and Oprah were perfectly fine with Harry and Rachel show that they aren't terribly principled, either. Sorry for the length. I'm just baffled that no one speaks about the hypocrisy more.
Great post! I have been baffled by the silence as well.
Could they be silent out of respect for the Queen?
I hope journalists become braver as the Harkles become less relevant. All we need is one willing to talk about what we all see. Perhaps an American will expose them. The British journalists are more respectful.
@Hikari. Excellent summation, as per usual. You perfectly captured the Charles Conundrum.
Unlike Meghan, Oprah did not marry to achieve wealth or status.
Would love to watch Oprah interview Meghan and/or Harry. No restrictions, no rehearsals. A basic interview.
"like a spider web, but studded with gold and diamonds," - great phrase.
Agree, Diana hanging out with Dodi cheapened her image. Apart from enjoying the gilded trappings , the fact that the RF were aghast probably added to her enjoyment.
<<<Would love to watch Oprah interview Meghan and/or Harry. No restrictions, no rehearsals. A basic interview.<<<
That would be a decent start but I kind of like the idea of Wendy Williams having a go at Markle. I think the questions would be much tougher and MM would be sure to squirm. I like the thought of Meghan being on the hot seat for once. She has had too many passes already and so has Harry!
I don't post much because most of you express my feelings much better than I can.
I recently read Lady Colin Campbell's book about Diana. If true and I think it is for the most part, it is eye opening. I was 15 when Charles and Diana were married and I remember getting up early (in the US) and watching the wedding. I always loved her and I still do but the narrative that was painted about their marriage was very wrong. According to Lady C., Diana wasn't a virgin. She had been with a couple of other guys and Charles as well before marriage. Supposedly, it was not required that he marry a virgin. Previously, he had asked two other women to marry him and they wouldn't because of the fish bowl life. Also, Diana set her sights on Charles, not the other way around. It seems that HMTQ was concerned because the two had nothing in common. Before marring she told him that she loved, I think it was Balmoral and then after marriage he was shocked to learn that she didn't like going there and didn't want to do the outdoor activities. I could go on and on with more info but I won't I would highly recommend reading it. I can't wait for her book on the Markle disaster to come out.
I'm not sure if I'll post as a unknown - my name is Robyn
Thanks for posting.I've been debating reading the book on Diana. You have helped make up my mind.
It may be a great prequel to the Harkle Debacle.
https://pagesix.com/2020/05/30/prince-harry-had-a-secret-facebook-account-under-the-name-spike-wells/
If they tried to do a few lines they would never get out on stage...there would be a knock down drag-out fight over the ahem* treats. What a cat-fight that would be; wigs a flying and cuss words bouncing off the walls. I would put my bets on Wendy...she seems like she could swing a pretty good blow. Markle would end up needing a new nose!
@KCM, too..,Well guess what arrived today for me? Lady Colin Campbell’s book “The Queen’s Marriage” published in 2018. I have only flipped through the photos so far and read a few paragraphs. She appears to be very pro HMTQ and Philip. She is pretty antagonistic toward the Queen Mother, which promises to be quite entertaining. I suppose I am now obligated to purchase her earlier book on the Queen Mum. She is very definitive in her opinions of who she likes and who she disapproves of, and why. So don’t expect objectivity from Lady C. Reading Her is like having a salon with a courtier with all the juiciest gossip. She is like the well-heeled aristocratic British version of Alice Roosevelt, who famously said “If you can’t say anything nice, come and sit by me.”
Lady C. is not a Diana fan, and admits as much. To quote our friend Mr. Shakespeare again, “All past is prologue.” The current Harkel debacle is a direct offshoot from the debacle that was Diana’s marriage. Not just one person and it was at fault there. But that sad outcome created a situation which will continue to have repercussions for as long as Charles and his sons live. I really and truly hope that the BRF can find a way to deal with the aggressive grafted in invasive outsider For once at all so that some healing can begin. I don’t know if it’s too late for redemption for Harry. He’s acting like a brainwashed cult member and right Royal arse. Was he corrupted from a young age, and has always been like this, or are there still some vestiges of decency and the cheeky prince who used to be everyone’s favorite, and who seemed to care so genuinely about wounded service men and children in Africa? Has Harry always been a bad seed, or is there yet some good in there that deserves a second chance to be Harry of England? It’s hard to conceive of a more lost soul than Haz is right now.
Also, Diana said she felt she was destined to marry someone 'important" She felt she was special.
To blame your "ambitions to marry for status" on destiny instead of just saying I want to marry someone wealthy with power, is a bit sneaky. But maybe people like that are not aware of it themselves. They truly belive they are special. Born under a lucky star. Etc.
I was thinking about Serena's husband's move. Yes it stands out but I was thinking about how if you want to change a system (say the company you run) could it have made a deeper, lasting difference had he chosen to stay and A) did more top down driven diversity hiring (not just a single color) and B) mentored those hirees. He would be known for being a leader in diversity and the company would be known for being a place to be.
Once you step away (or even talk of stepping away) from your power position, you have ceded your power to them and they can tell you that they tried and maybe they did or not by much. Your ability as a changemaker has lost momentum.
I’m not huffing off. I don’t have anything novel to say about the Harkle marriage and the BRF. I’m enjoying the continued debate, which I can do without commenting. My opinion on these issues is well known. I have been here from the very beginning, when Nutty had four comments. I think Archie was born of a surrogate. The bizarre antics around his “birth,” the lack of photographic documentation of him, and Archie’s total lack of emotional connection with him makes me believe that this child is a model, rented for the occasionally photo shoot. I believe that Markle is a malignant narcissist, and that Harry has massive mental and substance abuse issues that Markle manipulates for her own advantage. I have commented repeatedly on these subjects. Let other have their say. I’ve had mine.
To blame your "ambitions to marry for status" on destiny instead of just saying I want to marry someone wealthy with power, is a bit sneaky. But maybe people like that are not aware of it themselves. They truly belive they are special. Born under a lucky star. Etc.
Supposedly, her family thought it was important to marry into the RF. The family thought she would marry Andrew so Duchess or Duch became her nickname.
make an appearance, virtuous reality, at Oprah’s “Town Hall”
What will she wear?
I reckon her old habit of white hair shirt, & pony tail,
with a liberal glossing of bronzer?
I read somewhere? That the Spencer’s had long held dreams of marrying into the RF.
Yes, I read that they had plans for Diana to marry Andrew, hence her nickname Duch.
Much of the scheming re Charles came from Diana’s grandmother, Lady Fermoy, friend of the Queen Mother.
In her book, Lady in Waiting, Lady Anne Glenconner said that she was unofficially engaged to Jonny Spencer.
Lady Fermoy, with whom she was staying, arranged for Jonny to meet her daughter Frances.
The rest is history...
Johnny Spencer said of his youngest daughter "I don't know how she does it but Diana always gets her own way.
Sarah was the Spencer girl meant to marry Charles - she now says that she wanted out because of she could not face the difficulties of joining the RF however at the time it was reported it was because of her previous relationships with other men. Little sister when becoming associated with Charles said "I will not make Sarah's mistake" As far as I am aware Sarah's only mistake was admitting to the previous relationships. Also I lived near Redcliffe Square where Diana shared a flat with others and believe me none of thos girls were the little innocents portrayed in the media
Ironically, getting married at a later age does not seem to always work so well for the royals. One would think that maturity and wisdom would go hand in hand and a marriage later in life would endure. Not so:
Charles - 32 (almost 33) when he married Diane (they met when she was 16 and got engaged and married when she was 19 but courtship did not start until 11 months before the marriage)
Edward - 35 when he married Sophie (5 years after they met and started dating)
William - 28 when he married Catherine (about 8 years after they met and 7 years after they started dating)
Harry - 34 when he married Meghan (2 years after they met and started dating)
But maybe I am incorrect in my judgement and the marriage between Meghan and Harry is one of like-minded people and it will endure. Of course, Harry always wanted to marry and spend the rest of his life with a toxic narcissist!
I thought it was because Sarah spoke about her relationship with Charles?
Also, allegedly claimed she wouldn’t marry her boyfriend
if he were the dustman, or King of England.
I think Harry wished for a way to usurp William.
He sold his soul, & everything else, for Megs.
Silly, stupid boy.
I read her family thought she "acted like a duchess" (got her own way alot) and she had played a Dutch doll in a school play. And as @Sandie said, it wasn't a for-sure thing Andrew would become a duke (although isn't the Duke of York title normally given to the second son?)
That said, it was thought by some Diana and Andrew would make a good pair. She grew up playing with him at Sandringham as, unlike Charles, he was close to her age. She and Andrew did seem to have an easy way of relating to each other much as Kate and Harry used to have. There's never been (so far as I know) any serious suggestion there was any hanky-panky going on between Diana and Andrew when she was married to Charles. But some have said her "falling out" with Fergie happened in part because she was jealous of the life she had with Andrew.
You are right. Sarah spoke to the press and made very stupid comments like "I would turn him down if he were to ask..".
Understanding what she has done she tried to back pedal and claim she had been misquoted, but the reporter stood by his article to the point of being prepared to go to court. Then Sarah called Charled and said"I have done something stupid. I talked to the press". After a long silence Charles replied "Yes you have." This was the end of their "courtship".
Charles should have stayed away from the Spencer's after that, or at least should have been a lot more careful with them. Apart from Jane all the Jonny Spencer kids seemed to have serious psychological issues.
You go on to include William and Edward. Why? There’s nothing wrong with their choice of spouse or their marriages.
Anne declined a title for her husband, hence that’s why neither Zara or Peter have titles.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1481148/Prince-Harry-faces-outcry-at-Nazi-outfit.html
Good photo of fresh faced Harry at age 20 when this took place. Harry looks much different these days, and not in a good way. Harry is lucky there was no social media back them.
"The furore, which has made headlines around the world, represents a new low for the prince, whose late teenage years have been characterised by a facility for "hell-raising", including excessive drinking, cannabis use and taking a swing at photographers."
I read that Lady Fermoy regretted not revealing to the RF that Diana
had “issues” prior to the marriage.
Nutty never has told posters not to engage with me. Period. End of.
I suspect she was referencing YOU when she wrote that, since you have been disrupting this site for months and bossing posters around.
Aquagirl - sorry if it was here.
I missed a lot yesterday as I was feeling sick (the week end was really crummy (divisive meeting with someone insisting that we had to do something a particular way and being a bully about it). I try to read all the messages but it was too overwhelming and I deleted some. Sorry.
Anyway, thank you for agreeing. I think that comes from just observing how people try to bring change into an organization (the power struggles).
The difficulty for anyone (woman, person of color, Asian, Hispanic, different sexual orientation, religion) is when you don't get a job/something you wanted, is that was it because there was someone better or was it because they didn't like this other aspect of you? Our pride wants to believe that there isn't anyone better qualified.
And yet, reality says you will not always get everything your little heart desires.
Another problem is the idea that (now I have not watched their video - only skimmed initial article) race alone should the qualifier to replace him. Large corporations are like steering a battleship - no fast moves and an ability to chart projected course and make minute changes as the trip unfolds. Sure, there are lots and lots of minorities coming out of the universities with great degrees (thanks to the upheaval in the 60's and 70's). That wasn't there then but it is now. So now if you are only picking from a subset of the minorities or just the minorities - what is that? And, does that really guarantee the best you need at the helm of the battleship? Or this will help bring more diversity in hiring just because X is around (as if seeing a minority in the workplace would be enough to change someone's mind like a magic wand)? And it leads us back to the idea that our pride does not want to believe that there could be someone better qualified to get that job/title that we went for.
And currently, we are building up kids (and their parents) who need participation trophies to be able to handle the idea that they didn't get in the top three slots.
This is going to be really really ugly when faced with reality than it is now: 50 years ago, if there used to be 3 good candidates who happened to be white for a high profile job and today we have 15 or 20 for it ... Even with all the new job opportunities in areas which didn't exist, there will still be some disappointment somewhere at not getting a position you wanted.
Regarding Anne, although Brits can have a Queen, male primogeniture still governs how British royal styles and titles are inherited. What happens to Anne bears little resemblance to what happens to Andrew and Edward. Tradition is why Andrew and Edward were expected to get Royal Dukedoms. Edward skipped the tradition because he is reportedly getting the Edinburgh Dukedom after Philip's passing.
Princess Anne's children are female-line and were never going to be HRH. Her husband Mark Phillips was a commoner. HMTQ offered to give him a title before they married so their eventual children could have titles. Anne simply refused. Then we have Prince Edward's children who have HRH styles but use Edward's lesser titles and styles instead.
There is some progress though for Will's children and future generations. Now we have letters of patent so female children don't lose their spot in line to the throne to younger male siblings. Charlotte didn't get pushed back by Louis.
As a comparison, which I thought would be obvious. William and Edward have marriages that have endured and are very good marriages. The key to a marriage enduring for royals seem to be time spent 'dating'/living together before marriage, and, I suppose, willingness of spouse to learn and adapt, and to be loyal and committed. However, for every rule there is bound to be an exception, much like the English language.
I am surprised that Anne's children are not HRH because their father does not have a title, as I thought the matter of titles was decided by the sovereign, i.e. the Queen, who can change rules if she so wishes. To be clear: my (as you say, quite mistaken) impression is that the Queen did want to confer titles on Anne and Mark when they got married and always intended their children to be HRH. It was Anne and Mark who declined titles for themselves (Anne would keep the ones she had) and their children.
Rules are there for guidance and are not some kind of unbreakable thing. The Queen changes the rules when required for whatever reason, e.g. to modernise as with changing the rule about females in the line of succession, and, indeed, giving William's children Prince/Princess titles when the 'rules' did not entitle them to have those titles (not until Charles is king).
used to spend weekends with friends at a village next to my home town.
By all accounts she was friendly, & fun.
Mark Phillips cousin Tony lived in a neighbouring village.
Unfortunately he was killed in the Whitbread “Round the World”
yacht race 1989.
No airs & graces. Down to earth. A real born Princess.
So different to Madam Martyr.
It is a good post.
First time I actually read the Foreword Meghan provided for the Mayhew Annual Report. To me, it comes across as a piece that someone else had a significant part in writing/editing and does not come across as a 100% Meghan piece.
https://themayhew.org/app/uploads/2020/05/Mayhew-Annual-Report-and-Accounts-2019.pdf
The financial statements are interesting, and this paragraph is most interesting in light of the claim from Meghan that they had given a donation for kennel refurbishment on behalf of Archie:
Our kennels refurbishment this year was only
made possible by some very generous gifts. This
included a legacy from the late Brian Sewell’s
estate, and a significant amount fundraised in
memory of George Michael by a group of his
fans, The George Michael Lovelies. Thank you.
Anyway, their Annual Review is professional and the organisation, although very small, is impressive.
Oh yes, on her deathbed Ruth said she bitterly regretted not being more vocal about Diana's "problems" prior to the marriage. In her own way she also tried to warn Diana that the royal family's life " was different and may not suit her".
Ruth had become Diana's critic viewing her behavior as unacceptable and theatrical and they didn't have good relations.
For me the biggest mystery about Diana was always why she failed ALL her A-levels, despite the apparent academic brilliance of her sisters. I think this issue really opens the window into her personality and the way she responded to challenge, as well as her problems.
Diana was totally unprepared and probably unsuitable for the fish tank life of the royal family.
I have learnt more about Diana in the past year or so.
I do wish Harry had kept his trap shut.
Interestingly, Johnnie's father, the earl, who turned Jonnie off on Anne, mentioned the "mad blood" in Anne's family (the Cokes) but it looks like the Spencer children were destined for instability no matter who the parents.
I can recommend the book just for the shock value alone. Reviews all slavered over the live-sex-show-on-the-Paris-honeymoon anecdote, but I think the madness of Anne's husband that everyone just accepted is a bigger part of the story.
If anyone here has read it, I'd be interested in knowing how much, if any, of a whitewash job it is on Princess Margaret they think it is.
For me the biggest mystery about Diana was always why she failed ALL her A-levels, despite the apparent academic brilliance of her sisters. I think this issue really opens the window into her personality and the way she responded to challenge, as well as her problems.
I will always remember Diana laughing at herself and saying "I'm thick as two short planks." I think in the context she was praising her husband's intellect. Charles is like his father--both have active interior lives. Philip lacked university education, going straight into the Navy as a lad, but according to Lady C., his library is extensive. Despite his tendency to shoot his mouth off with very un-PC remarks through the years, the Duke of Edinburgh has a sensitive intellectual side, was very forward-thinking when his wife was a young Queen (the idea to televise her coronation was his), and is a very gifted watercolor artist. PP has (in)famously been very tough on his eldest son, whom he did not, and probably still doesn't--regard as a 'real man' in his terms, too soft, etc. Charles did transform himself from a chubby whinebaby into a skilled athlete. He does all the sporty things--riding, stalking, polo, and he is also a reader. Like his father, talented at watercolors. Passionate about architecture & horticulture from very young. I wonder if Philip realizes how very like him Charles is in some respects, despite their differences of temperament. Temperamentally Charles is more like his mother. I wonder if she realizes this. To me the Prince of Wales has always seemed undervalued by both of his parents--nobody's favorite, except Granny's--even though he has done his utmost as his mother's 'liege man of life and limb' for 50+ years.
I'm digressing, but I was contrasting Charles's inner life and interests with that of his 20-year-old bride. This match was never going to be one of well-matched life companions even without Camilla in the picture. Diana was a teenager when she came to court and her interests were those of a teenager: Duran Duran, shopping, Hollywood film stars, fashion. She did devour the works of her step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland, but that seems to have been the extent of her reading, until she got heavily involved in astrology in later years.
The world jeered at Charles when it learned that his attempts to bond with his new bride on their honeymoon aboard Brittania was to try to get her interested in the works of Laurens van der Post. I was one of the jeerers, then. How fuddy-duddy, how out of touch, thought I. Who in his right mind would shove heavy philosophical tomes at his 20-year-old wife when they had a whole yacht to cavort on? I owe Charles an apology for that. Not only had Laurens van der Post written some of the most thought-provoking reflections upon war and the human condition of our time, but he was also a personal friend and mentor to Charles. Charles was trying to share with Diana a *very* important piece of his life, heart and soul. Imagine the sickening realization he must have had that his marriage was going to be a long dry furrow to hoe when his new wife pronounced his most cherished books 'boring' and proceeded to oogle sailors in her bikini instead, and mope her way through dinner with dignitaries. Then they get to Balmoral, a place she had assured him before the engagement that she loved best of anywhere on Earth, and only deigned to come outside with him for photo ops, where she looked radiantly happy in her country gear.
Even the best of marriages do end. An added complication was that Diane was so young and although this made her easy to mould into the role it also carried the risk of her maturing into a woman who was not at all the right wife for Charles (and Charles not at all the right husband for her). Camilla has admitted that Charles is difficult. I sense that he is quite selfish and not easy being married to her, unless you are a lifelong best friend as Camilla is to him, and a mature woman comfortable in your own identity and with a strong personal private life of your own with friends and family and interests.
Marriages are odd. I have seen the most toxic and dysfunctional marriages endure (quite a lot of those) and the most seemingly stable and happy marriages of very well suited people suddenly end. In the modern world it is not the norm for people to stay in one job for their whole life or to have only one marriage partner, and certainly not to have only one sexual partner.
Charles and Diane had a lot in common, shared many of the same interests, came from a similar background, and had the same commitment and loyalty to the monarchy, but intimacy, marriage and motherhood made Diane crave love and closeness and a soulmate more, whereas Charles soon settled into being a distant husband whose individual interests were more important to him and who held onto important personal relationships that were exclusive of his wife. I have no doubt there was some ugly friction there as well as I have seen how toxic a married couple can be to each other when problems crop up.
By the time she died, they had both moved on from the marriage and had settled into a very civilised way of dealing with each other as they co-parented their sons. The days of scandal about them as a couple were way behind them, as was the separation and divorce, as public as it all was.
This is relevant now because Harry has obviously inherited some of his Mum's academic difficulties. Laziness, entitlement and too much drinking/pot all played a role in his school (non)performance, I imagine . . but I would think someone with a native intelligence who was present for at least some of his lectures could do better than a 'D' in geography as the only class he could nominally pass in his high school career. If he is dyslexic or similar, he did not get any intervention for it based on his abysmal grades.
In his recent book, Diana's former chef at Kensington Palace relates the anecdote of being with Diana in the kitchen one day when she summed up her children, saying "William is deep, like his father. Harry's like me--an airhead." Even though it was said jokingly, there's tragedy underneath this self-deprecation. Diana spoiled Harry and indulged him and sought to elevate his standing in his own mind in an attempt to build up his self esteem, in a way that she had never been built up. Her intent was loving but the way she went about it was misguided, because her method just ended up making Harry envious of William. A real, healthy self-esteem would be to inhabit the role of support to his family without having to aggrandize himself. Harry's tragedy is that the more he obsessively chases 'Being Important and Famous', the more apparent it is that there is no There there . .he's got nothing to say. He generates nothing, he is invested in nothing, he's got no talents or wisdom to share. Within the framework of being supported within the Firm, he could, in a limited and carefully-tailored role, function. He's kicked away all supports, and is only proving more and more with every passing day that he is as dumb and worthless as his internal voice tells him he is.
I think Charles was and is a much more serious, deep thinker than Diana was. That's not a put down of Diana, it's just two very different personalities. Also, she was only 19. The book claimed that Charles and the HMTQ brought doctors in to try and help Diana but she would not agree to therapy or help.
Since Diana's death I've come to realize that Charles is not the totally unfeeling monster that he has been portrayed. It's really a shame that their marriage unfolded the way in which it did. I do think William learned from their mistake. He, obviously, wanted to make sure Kate knew what she was getting into. Kate is such a class act compared to Meghan. I love to see pictures of her with her children. Those seem to be times when she just glows with happiness.
Charles and Diane had a lot in common, shared many of the same interests, came from a similar background, and had the same commitment and loyalty to the monarchy.
I am going to respectfully disagree that the list of items you provided constituted 'a lot' in common. Similar tastes in home furnishings and both enjoying organic vegetables are nice, but hardly the foundations of a solid partnership. Though if they weren't bickering over decor or the courses served at dinner that was at least something. Diana had studied ballet until she got too tall, so I will grant you that was an area they shared. In terms of their incompatibility, I was thinking more of their private pursuits and core values rather than their shared social engagements. Some of those cultural outings were 'work' obligations as the Princess of Wales rather than her own personal inclination. If given the choice, an audience with Duran Duran would have rated a lot higher than a command performance by Yo-Yo Ma. Diana's very public dances with Wayne Sleep and John Travolta at the White House were more about Diana's enjoyment of the spotlight rather than her devotion to the music or the dance itself.
Diana's aristocratic upbringing should have been a greater preparation for her role as Princess of Wales, one would have thought, considering that she knew the Royal family from childhood as a next-door neighbor at Althorp. With her grandmother so chummy with the Queen Mum, and her older sister having dated Charles quite seriously, the expectations and etiquette of her royal role seemed to completely take her by surprise. She was more dutiful than Meghan, and that is to her credit, but I'm sure the Royal family all assumed that she'd fit into their ways more seamlessly than she did, considering her aristocratic heritage. Owing to the disarray and emotional upheaval at Althorp because of the fractured family situation, and financial concerns--weren't the Spencers more or less land-rich but genteel poor, in the terms of their circle?--it seems like the kids, at least the two youngest were left to their own devices a lot and grew up sort of wild and semi-neglected in terms of their educations into 'society'. As Charles's fiancee, she was very raw and made a lot of gaffes in the early days. So she didn't integrate effortlessly by osmosis as the Royals assumed she should.
Diana was so very young and unformed, compared to Charles, who being 13 years older than she and the heir to the Crown, had just lived so much more . . traveled, studied, served in the Navy, had significant romantic relationships. Charles was an homme du monde; and Diana was barely out of childhood. It is not her fault that they didn't mesh better. She did grow up before our eyes, and as you say, with maturity, became more of an equal to Charles in her last years and they were getting on better due to the children and history they shared. I can't be the only one who has wondered what Diana could be like now, if they had stayed married. Both she and Charles didn't seem to appreciate what they had in each other until the marriage was over. Without the divorce, things would be very different now, and not just for them, but for their sons and the watching world.
He was not a good husband to Diana . . but it takes to to tango, or not tango, as it were. Her refusal to accept the reality of Camilla and the drama surrounding her all the time made life with her untenable for Charles. Had Diana truly been committed to the Queen, she would not have published a blab-all book using sneaky tactics. She would not have gone on television and given her doe-eyed blab-all interview to Martin Bashir. Charles rebutted with his own interview, but only after Di had blindsided the family with her revelations.
Both of these were grave disloyalties. Diana was mistreated by her marriage family, yes. But she gave as good as she got, once she got a little more seasoned and learned how to manipulate the media to her advantage. Like Meghan, she had an addiction to attention and to 'telling her side', and she was determined to get both at any cost, even when she damaged herself in the process. Taking up with a Muslim playboy whose family's loyalty to Britain was suspect was not the action of someone committed to the Crown above her own interests.
I do have sympathy for the position Diana was in, in her marriage. Her unhappiness was justified, but she was not emotionally equipped to deal with that unhappiness in healthy ways. The Waleses' dysfunctional union is still having its repercussions, and unfortunately for Charles, he is always going to be defined by his conduct during it, and some will always blame him for the tragic aftermath.
You have touched on the parallel between Harry's and Diana's lack of academic success. I think it is important and very telling.
I am not aware of Charles or William being great scholars either at school and university. There is a joke around that Charles' bodyguard attended classes with him and was allowed to sit exams in the University and did a lot better than Charles.
But both Wills and Charles learned to focus and make the effort and persevere. Diana and Harry never did.
Interestingly, none of Diana's tutors noticed learning difficulties or nerves, but instead their notes to parents persistently talk about the lack of effort, concentration and curiosity.
Diana failed all her exams not just once, she failed them twice, graduating with nothing. She did dismally at the Swiss finishing school too to the extent Jonny was forced to pull her out.
We see a lot of Diana in Harry, but he is worse, I suspect because unlike his mother he also has drinking possibly even drug problems. Diana's only issue was inability to sleep without sleeping pills as far as we know.
Thanks for the amazing posts just above!
From her own family to people who knew her the comment that shook me was "she had difficulty with the truth". In other words she could lie and didn't see much wrong with it.
That is how she persuaded Charles she loved the great outdoors and was interested in the subject of his beloved philosophers. That is minor, though and could be explained by her infatuation with him.
What is difficult to excuse is her full cooperation with Morton's book and subsequent denial of it. She denied it when people asked in order to be able to handle the scandal that was huge. She has fallen out with her sister Jane because Jane's husband Robert Fellows, the then Queen's private secretary, asked her directly and straightforwardly if she had anything to do with the book and she denied any knowledge of it to him with tears. And he believed her. Fellows confirmed to the Lord in charge of the Press Complaints Commission that the rumor of her direct involvement with the book had no grounds. PCC then issued a scathing condemnation of the book and serialization in the media as "dabbing fingers in the stuff of people's souls".
When the media had been able to prove Diana not only knew about the book, she directly authorized it, Fellows was mortified. He immediately offered his resignation to the Queen but she refused it. After this Jane and Diana grew distant and Diana lost Jane's support and Robert's trust.
Charles also tried to talk to her about the book and she refused and fled, losing the olive brunch Charles was trying to offer her. Charles' friends later said he "wanted her to honestly acknowledge her cooperation with the book and admit it was a mistake".
Royal family did not learn about Diana's full extent of cooperation with Morton's book until after her death, when Morton revealed she actually recorded tapes for him in order to have a personal deniability - "I have never met him".
Diana's fall started with Morton's book and ended with Panorama. I could never really like or respect Diana after reading about her lies regarding Morton's book. They were not innocent lies, they had huge implications and she was not an innocent teen at that time. She grew into a full blown liar and manipulator.
I wonder if Harry is a liar too.
If Camilla was his perfect (what it seems posters wax on in such glowing terms) soulmate then Charles alone bears the responsibility for the failure of the marriage as he should not have married (and wasted Diana's time, emotion and womb). But once married, why should have it been Diana's responsibility to bear the onus of reading heavy tomes especially since she didn't have the intellectual capabilities to do so. Maybe Charles should have have taken the lead and tried to fit in with Diana's interests. For all who say Diana looked glum well how would you feel if your husband loved another right in front of you (and your friends aided and abetted it). Asking the young girl to be the mature adult and allow the adult to run roughshod over a young girl's feelings where is the balance of power. Perhaps Diana's childhood experience with a abusive father made her all the more susceptible to hurt and betrayal; I for one would not have accepted infidlity from my husband even if he was the King of England (or just a Prince)
Certainly Charles should have said goodbye emotionally and physically to Camilla instead of indulging his base lust for her. How about Charles I think if this had happened we might have seen a longer marriage between the too, if not with maturity maybe they would have gone the distance.
Despite what I wrote above, I know two opposite people in almost every way imaginable, virtual strangers marrying after knowing each other 6 wks, can go the distance and have a loving and faithful union for 55+ yrs (as it happened to my folks). But the key I believe was they had good values especially commitment and a devoted selfless love which sadly was very lacking in Charles and Diana.
Big zip, nada, a big fat 'nothing-burger' as tatty would say. ROTFLOL, Ta Ta, Goodbye!
“Harry's tragedy is that the more he obsessively chases 'Being Important and Famous', the more apparent it is that there is no There there . .he's got nothing to say. He generates nothing, he is invested in nothing, he's got no talents or wisdom to share. Within the framework of being supported within the Firm, he could, in a limited and carefully-tailored role, function. He's kicked away all supports, and is only proving more and more with every passing day that he is as dumb and worthless as his internal voice tells him he is.”
A brutally frank assessment that is, sadly, true. Well said!
I wonder if Harry is simply one of those students that could not keep up and decided that instead of looking stupid to his classmates, he'd rather look lazy. Perhaps Diana was the same, or perhaps she consoled him with "I didn't do well in school, either!" so he thought it was okay or even expected. Or, after she died, perhaps it felt disloyal to her memory.
*And, yes, teachers were required to teach our lower-functioning students geometry and algebra and if we taught them hard enough, they would be able to grasp it, even though they couldn't do simple addition or multiplication. They had to take standardized tests, too, even though they couldn't read them.
**Sometimes it is the curriculum, or the way the subject is taught. Daughter had great difficulty with the Whole Language curriculum and sight words concept. I was astounded to find that she could not read in second grade (she was a great actress). Since I had taught son how to read when he was four (to the chagrin of his teachers who complained of how bored he was in class), I didn't teach daughter before she went to school. It did not take many simple phonics lessons before she was off and running. Then two of the grandchildren had problems with learning to read and, examining the subject matter, I will be danged if it wasn't whole language dressed up in a new suit with a fancy new name. After @ six months of intensive phonics and "fun" reading materials to read out loud, they were caught up with/ahead of their classmates.
Could't agree more about whole language. It is my understanding that California raised a whole generation of people who could not read (read well that is) because it used whole language exclusively. Years ago there was a wonderful computer program called reader rabbit that taught phonics to children. Even the slowest learned to read faster and better than those learning with whole language. Sorry is this is not politically correct to academics. But children have to want to learn, perhaps Harry never did.
This just speaks to how stupid Harry and Meghan are that they need the current situation explained.
I think they are really being coached to ensure they say the "right" things.
Especially Harry given his past gaffes for example, the Nazi costume.
I agree that I was really stretching to say that Charles and Diane had a lot in common! But, it is not correct to say that they had nothing in common and unwarranted to dismiss their shared interests as irrelevant.
I think that perhaps Harry could have kept his full-time job as a working royal and remained popular and well liked if Meghan had chosen to not be a working royal and pursued a serious acting career in the UK. Nope she has never had that kind of talent. Merching and being a full-time influencer and philanthropist for show was never going to work as a wife of a working royal, but she does not really have any other talents. Perhaps she could have got a full-time job with a charity (e.g. raising funds and awareness for some global charity for children or eliminating poverty, but as a full-time job). The only example of a full-time working royal with a spouse who is not a working royal is the Duke and Duchess of Kent (and she retired from being a working royal) and, of course, the Queen and Prince Phillip.
Until they upped and left the UK and until Megxit and lockdown, Meghan and Harry regularly had time out from each other.I wonder how the marriage is doing with them in lockdown together (and with Archie around all the time as well).
Charles used Diana as a womb. He could have married Camilla when they were both young and single, but he didn’t have the guts to go against his family etc., and marry the woman he loved, because he and his family knew Camilla had been around the block a few too many times and Diana had not. He had to marry a Virgin.
Diana was no saint in her last few years (but I can understand why in many ways), but Charles knowingly married a teenager with little or no life experience. Diana found out about Camilla but it was too late with the wedding plans to call off the wedding. No newly married woman would want to feel second best for their entire marriage and Diana most certainly was just that. She received no guidance on how to cope and deal with the intense media scrutiny and interest, added to this Charles’ jealousy of that attention. Charles felt he was perfectly entitled to have a mistress because after all the previous Prince of Wales’ had one or more (he said as much himself). What a truly atrocious state of affairs. I don’t blame Diana for seeking solace with other men, sadly she also picked married ones, this absolutely do not condone. Diana went off the rails for a while, but she did calm down a year or so before her death.
Charles and Diana were so ill matched. If Charles had made more honest choices he would have left Diana alone to marry a man who would have truly loved her. Instead she was emotionally damaged by his lies and utter betrayal. Diana felt rejected by her Father because she was another girl when they desperately wanted a boy to carry on the line. She was rejected by the most important men in her life, she was very emotionally damaged by both.
Yes, I remember a special education teacher crying, just sobbing in frustration, in the staff room at an elementary school, saying "We KNOW how to teach these children to read. Phonics WORKS! Why aren't we able to do this?" But noooo. All the phonics curriculums were tossed with the adoption of a new, improved curriculum that promised raised scores and better readers which, like all of the other new, expensive solutions to the problem of how to motivate the unmotivated, would be tossed aside as so much vaporware.
https://blindgossip.com/i-have-a-speech/#more-100709
Apparently Tim's neighbours joined ranks and refused to have any truck with reporters or photographers. Anne and Tim were able to live like private citizens, even popping in to their `local', the King Alfred, for a quiet drink. There, they could sit in the corner of the bar, in peace. Other customers, I gather, just said `Good evening' and left it at that.
No problem. That's how to do it.
@Swamp Woman: My goodness, how your comment about `mixed-ability' classes struck home with me. I was teaching at a comprehensive where it was thought that the `weaker' students (I'm being kind) should take part in every class that wasn't directly to do with literacy or numeracy.
I had to teach science to a class of 11 yr.olds, including one little lost soul with a reading age barely equivalent to that of a child half his age. The first lesson was, inevitably, all about the Bunsen burner, what it did and how to use it. At the start of the second lesson, this little chap came up to me -
`Please, Miss, can we play Bunsen burners again?' he asked.
I could have wept at the sadness of it - it seemed far more important for him to learn to read than to go on in a situation where he probably wouldn't have a clue about what he was expected to learn.
I went on to organise local in-service training for teachers of 5-11 yr.olds but couldn't understand why they didn't seem able to grasp the idea of phonics and needed so many courses on it. I once asked an old university friend, who lectured at our local college which delivered initial teacher-training, how they were accepted in the first place.
He replied, `As long as they pass the Mirror test, they get onto the course'.
`Mirror Test?'
`Yes, we put a mirror in front of their faces and if it mists up, they're in.'
He jested but it was close to the truth.
may have had...... problems reading, in ......that she seemed ...... unable to scan .......
ahead ...... more than three .....or four words at ........ a time.
I exaggerate the pauses here but I never heard a smooth flow of words from her when reading from a scripted speech.
Because I was bored and find this fun..yes I am nerdy.
I came across an article where the alleged dr who delivered MM was interviewed on the Archie bday 5/6/19.
DR. MALVERSE MARTIN (MM) received hi CA LICENSE in 1978. Did you know he had his medical license suspended for 5 years? 2005 The California Medical Board submitted their complaint to court about his negligence of failure to maintain proper documents, signing false medical documents, and prescribing dangerous medications w/out proper examination. He represented himself, did acknowledge the complaints and agreed to the the terms starting 2007. He was reinstated after his probation terms were met by taking ethical classes etc in 2012.
My point though was that article said MM was birthed at WEST PARK HOSPITAL by this man. A hospital which was allegedly demolished over 20 YEARS AGO TO MAKE WAY FOR ROW HOUSES. What does this look like to you row houses? The closest info I could find was Canoga Hospital private hosp. being shut down in 1989 bc of financial loss.
THE BUILDING BELOW IS CALLED “WEST PARK MEDICAL PLAZA” ERECTED 1984. THIS IS ONE OF THE LOCATIONS OF DR. MARTIN’S CURRENT PRACTICE. THERE WAS A COMP NAMED WEST PARK HOSPITAL IN 1969, but was merged and inactive, the address was 22141 ROSCOE BLVD 91304.
WELL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PDF DOCS LATER THROUGH CALIFORNIA GOV HISTORICAL HOSPITAL RECORDS & I EVEN WENT THROUGH THE HISTORICAL CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP RECORDS OF HOSPITALS JUST IN CASE...BUT NEVER FOUND A LEGITIMATE HOSPITAL NAMED WEST PARK HOSPITAL NOR PREVIOUSLY NAMED (in case change of ownership or name) THE DOC BELOW IS MY REFERENCE IT SHOWS THE YEARS AND LISTED BY COUNTY AND NAME.
BACK THEN THERE WASNT ANY SJW/SM/ GENDER FLUID SHENANIGANS IF YOU BIRTHED A BOY YOU GET BLUE, IF YOU BIRTHED A GIRL YOU GET PINK... SO THIS COULD BE A PHOTOSHOP OR TMJR OR HER NEPHEWS ON THE DOOLEY SIDE.
OH YES & THIS...WHY DOES A HOSPITAL IN CALIFORNIA, ALLEGEDLY DEMOLISHED OVER 20 YRS AGO HAVE A CURRENT FB ACCT W/ 3 LIKES? THANKS 4 READING I HOPE I DIDNT PUT YOU SLEEP. ������
Diana was taught and helped to be a better orator and read like that (in a clear and measured manner) when she became a member of the royal family. Her mentor became great friends with her over the years and was there when she announced she was giving up most of her patronage’s. He’s been featured in many royal documentaries discussing and talking about her.
I don't know what it is called there, but it is called fluency here: Fluency is the ability to read a text accurately, quickly, and with expression. Reading fluency is important because it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension
It was no coincidence that our poorest readers were our slowest readers. What did your teachers do to try to improve their reading speed? We did timed reading tests at the high school level; I found lots of material on interesting subjects that may pique their interest on the reading level they were on, and let them practice reading more and more quickly. Did it help the poor readers at the high school reading level? I have no idea; the program was abolished at the high school level (grades 10, 11, and 12). (It existed due to a grant from the Department of Education; grant goes away, position goes away.)
Here is a link to an LA Times article regarding the hospital shutting down.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-12-19-me-684-story.html
Are you saying that you think she wasn't born at the hospital or that the hospital never existed?
I'm always impressed by the posters here (well, most of them).
But I did create an account for one specific question:
@Sandie, why do you always refer to her as "Diane"?
As I said before, I was an avid Diana fan at the time of her marriage and in the early years. I had more in common with her, since we were at similar stages of life at the time she married into the royal family. She was only four years older than me, and we had similar frames of reference. I was a fan of Duran Duran also, and was up on all the pop stars and actors of the time, and spent hours absorbed in fashion magazines. Despite being an Earl’s daughter and growing up in a grand home, Diana had suffered through her parents’ divorce And feeling overshadowed by two older and more accomplished sisters. Like most of the girls in Britain, she had grown up with a poster of the prince of Wales on her bedroom wall, and had fantasized about what it would be like to marry him and become his princess. Unlike all the other girls in the United Kingdom however, her family connections and physical proximity furthermore to the Prince of Wales made this fantasy actually possible. She was in the right time, as the saying goes. She was a very young and romantic, and very naïve and inexperienced in the ways of the world. She had almost no education and was working as a part-time nanny and a part-time nursery school aide When the prince of Wales chose her for his bride. It was a real life Cinderella tale, And irresistible to the masses and maybe to Diana herself. Of course being a lissome 19 year old beauty And a member of one of the oldest aristocratic families in England, and literally my next-door neighbor of the royal family at Sandringham made Diana’s Cinderella bid more likely than any other girl in the kingdom. She was placed into Charles’s path at the precise time when pressure upon him to find a wife had reached its zenith, and he was dealing with the heartbreak of knowing that his first choice, Camilla, was off the table… Having been rejected by the palace establishment, chiefly his mother, as being an unsuitable consort, owing to her .”past”. Camila had acknowledged the same And only gone and married his best mate while he was at sea. So there was that. A handful of other relationships with potential Brides, including Sarah Spencer had fizzled out, Leaving Charles Demoralized and in the eyes of his parents and Britain, a failure as a bachelor at the advanced age of 32. If he could not have Camilla, And it seemed like that door was closed, I think Charles had basically given up on the idea that he could freely choose his bride, and had resigned himself to doing his duty for Britain. Could he, should he, have objected more strongly To being thrown together with the teenage sister of his ex-girlfriend, Whom he barely knew, being so much older than she has to almost be a generation ahead of her? In hindsight, yes. But I think that at this time, Charles saw no other options ahead, with Camilla married. If he could not have his choice, he could at least do his duty to the crown and produce heirs. There was nothing outwardly objectionable in Diana as far as the Royals knew. She was young and healthy, pretty, of impeccable noble pedigree, And with the heavy encouragement of her family, with their eyes on the dynastic marriage to make their fortunes, made sure to project the kind of amenable, uncomplicated jolly girl Who shared all the interest which were important to him. The Spencer family baited the hook and Charles swallowed it. By the time Diana’s instability became apparent, Charles had already publicly committed himself to her. No doubt everyone concerned hoped that the new bride would settle in and find her footing. I think Diana and Charles did enjoy a passionate physical relationship for a time, but the intellectual and maturational gulf was too great to sustain harmony.
Never posted here before, but a long time lurker (like so many others).
I'm always impressed by the posters here (well, most of them).
But I did create an account for one specific question:
@Sandie, why do you always refer to her as "Diane"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spelling error. Sorry you could not work that out yourself! Or were you simply being passive aggressive?
I don’t blame Diana for being so young and damaged when she became Charles’s wife. The situation was what it was. But after a few years, Diana learned how to manipulate the media to her advantage, And after things had turned sour beyond repair with Charles, took delight in overshadowing him and making him look foolish… Behaviors which were guaranteed to poke him in all the sore spots of his own insecurities. I don’t exonerate him for his cheating, But these two are never going to be happy together, because they married under false pretenses on both sides. Charles was doing his duty by the crown, and Diana was advancing her own interests. She may have convinced herself that it was true love, but Charles wouldn’t have it had any appeal for her at all had he not been the Prince of
Wales. Yhe Soencers have been the top social climbing family in England for centuries.
Charles would’ve been better off in an arranged match with some minor European princess of his own age, and Diana would’ve been better off with some jolly minor aristocrat of her own age, but out of this dysfunctional union, William was born, the future light of the British monarchy, along with his lovely wife. And for all Harry’s awful behavior and disloyalty to his family, I would not wish him unborn. I just want him to wise up and be a better man. It really turns out that Men are attracted to women like their mothers after all. For all her problems, I think Diana had good qualities. She was just very damaged by her childhood and probably had some developmental issues in terms of her psychology. Perhaps if she and Charles had been better Matched in age and life experience, their divergent personalities wind her present is such an obstacle. They were an experiment that ultimately failed, but we have William and in him is all the good of Charles and Diana both. He is the legacy of their union. So is Harry, unfortunately the more negative legacy. I really and truly hope that has can get himself sorted out. Not optimistic.
That is weird.
Maybe she just could not handle not being invited to give the commencement speech at her old school and then being left out of the virtual graduation that the Obamas put together with a long list of people, but not her, participating ... so, she just pretended she had been invited to give a speech and went ahead and taped herself making a speech.
Remember she made the big announcement about their IG being the place to go for information on the virus? That fizzled out very quickly. Now there is a lot of noise about the race issue. It is going to fizzle out. She has no more IG account she can use. She has no credentials to represent victimised black people. She has no platform as a royal or an actress or as an IG influencer and mercher.
I actually feel sorry for her and sort of hope that someone will come along who she will listen to and who will help her reset and truly make the best use of the global attention and platform she was given and recklessly threw away (although she blames Harry for that). She is not all bad and it is sad to see someone mess up so completely and yet carry on doing the same wrong stuff over and over again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8404313/Beyonce-signing-100M-deal-Disney-work-three-films.html
Meghan is going to plots (from the same article)
"After the success of having Meghan Markle voicing the film Elephant on the platform, they have projects coming up which align perfectly with Beyoncé's brand."
Hilarious!!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8404313/Beyonce-signing-100M-deal-Disney-work-three-films.html
Sigh
She is chewing up the scenery somewhere tonight.
Duck, Harry!
>>>>@Piroska. You have called me out! I am a proud direct descendant of the House of Habsburg.....blah blah blah<<<<
YOU are a RACIST by mentioning yesterday, my maternal relatives lost during the Holocaust in Poland. YOU ARE A DESPICABLE RACIST.
You are AN EVIL PERSON.
Since everyone here thinks your posts are acceptable then I might slip in my Christianity and react in kind!
@I'll get a better name soon said...
Never posted here before, but a long time lurker (like so many others).
I'm always impressed by the posters here (well, most of them).
But I did create an account for one specific question:
@Sandie, why do you always refer to her as "Diane"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spelling error. Sorry you could not work that out yourself! Or were you simply being passive aggressive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what a warm welcome! Thanks. It was a simple question asked because I've seen it continually used with only one poster.
Sorry if I've upset the apple cart. I once thought this was a fairly friendly place...I can see I'm mistaken.
Thank you! Gregg was one of the great ones.
Losing John Prine To Covid was another huge loss.I
I'm glad you are posting!
Missing John Prine too.
(thank you KCM1212) Peaches
I get it! When somebody here posts something a little bit different than I'm used to, especially someone as knowledgeable as @Sandie, I assume I've missed something, lol.
Please hang with us. I'll bet you have a lot to share.
You are very welcome here!
Peaches!!
I am grinning like crazy right now!
😘
KCM1212
and for some kids (sadly) there's a hole in Daddy's arm where all the money goes
Ha! I'll bet she is tearing up Archies library right about now.
Of all the slights and disappointments she has had lately, this has got to be the worst. That deal has everything she wants. Everything.
Expect some articles trashing Bey in the next few days.
>>>Sorry if I've upset the apple cart. I once thought this was a fairly friendly place...I can see I'm mistaken.
June 10, 2020 at 5:33 AM<<<
It used to be but now it is dominated by 'Unknown' (alter ego 'xxxxx' and fake CatEyes with blosgspot avatar) who bosses people around and worse she has been racist towards my dead Polish relatives and goes arounfd telling people they have psychaitric illnesses AND NO ONE, NOT A SINGLE NUTTIE HERE SPEAKS OP TO STOP HER, because they are afraid of her retaliation?
WELCOME!!!!
By and large I very much appreciate your incisive posts but I have an issue with the explanation that Charles was being pressured to settle down. Instead of picking Diana he should have asked Camilla to settle down withn him and none of the heartache, mess and damage to the BRF would have occurred. My God, he was a grown man willing to use his penis on many woman (even accused of being a playboy that one!) without Mommy and Daddy's approval. He could have fathered a child with his many liaisons and never gave it a flying flip what the outcome would have been or what his parents thought. In fact, maybe there are little Charles Jr's out there to rival (and maybe hopefully replace Harry LOL).
And to your comment "....but she created Her own fate.". Yes Diana made a decision to marry BUT she married a man whose heart and soul was given devotedly and completely to another woman. That could have been grounds for an annulment, but she attempted to stick it out much to her detriment in every conceivable way. I would have gotten out of there immediately but not her, she was too in love and too committed and respected the Monarchy too much. I wished she would have left Charles and made him to look like a cad from the very beginning. He did not deserve to have two children by her, Camilla never gave him any children.
I know posters will say Diana lied about liking Balmoral so she tricked him into marriage but how does that equate with Charles pledged during the marriage vows when he knew before God he was lying. It doesn't equate. He should not have pursued Diana (and lets get real Diana did not pursue Charles, she was handed up to him on a platter having passed the
"test" in so many ways. Anyone who does a 'Monday morning quarterback call' 49 yrs later saying 'I am sorry I didn't warn the BRF should be ashamed to talk ill of the dead and why didn't they warn Diana's family that Charles just wanted a pretty brood mare. I suspect Charles thought Camilla wasn't pretty enough to be the mother of his children especially since he so badly wanted a girl.
You act like you have a mixed diagnosis such as Bipolar with sociopathic affective disorder and probably alcoholism since you are not lucid at times.
As to your IQ it appears you have a lower than average maybe 89 and have not apparently benefited from higher education. Your writing indicates low reading comprehension and maybe a 6th grade level of competency.
You suffer from a profound persecution complex and harbor jealousy. You succumb to fits of rage and can't control your impulses. Most likely you have been sexually abused as you lash out at authority figures viewing them as having disappointed you and your emotional scars are deep. You are fixated on people who have more than you in life as you think you should be better off financially but your socioeconomic level is due to your failures in life. You have been your own worse enemy. And you a have a strong tendency to be lazy not wanting to put the effort into any viable means to get ahead.
As a woman you have been very insecure due to your looks which to even be kind are homely at best. You cannot make a love connection with the opposite sex because of your hostility and you refuse to go to counseling so your prognosis is poor.
@Swampwoman: Bravo to you on your courageous truth-telling on what the BLM movement is really about.
Keep speaking out fearlessly for the truth of who we are as Americans and what has really been the TRIUMPH of Americans over systemic racism.
Today, THIS is what telling truth to power really is. Not the sham purveyors of lies a and the power-hungry who emerge every 4 years to turn us against one another in their quest to divide and conquer.
Markle slandered the UK as racist. And now that her ugly scam is exposed there, she returns to America to slime the nation that gave her a great and free life.
Swampwoman, in this dark and perilous hour of history, please keep standing up for truth and facts.