Several books about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have either been newly published or are about to be published.
I haven't had a chance to read anything but the excerpts in the Daily Mail so far -- big reveals include that the Sussexes spent nearly $5000 on numerology sessions and that Doria received an allowance from Meghan and Harry.
Let's discuss the excerpts and the books themselves in this space.
I haven't had a chance to read anything but the excerpts in the Daily Mail so far -- big reveals include that the Sussexes spent nearly $5000 on numerology sessions and that Doria received an allowance from Meghan and Harry.
Let's discuss the excerpts and the books themselves in this space.
Comments
I was looking at how the law now stands, not whether a case against her might succeed, or even the political implications
.
Edward VIII is different – he allowed himself to be removed, to live with the woman he loved. As far as I’m aware, he wasn’t vindictive towards his younger brother Bertie, although I believe he repeatedly asked him for cash.
Also, we don’t know to what extent he’d have cosied up to Hitler, if it hadn’t been for Wallis. Or what would have happened if there had been no Wallis and he still espoused Nazi sympathies. As it turned out, Wallis’s divorce gave PM Baldwin the perfect lever for removing him as king. It was a pretty good bet though, that had Britain fallen to Germany, he’d have been installed as a puppet, which in itself was a reason for liking Hitler. It all goes round in circles.
There was another brother who was suspect, George Duke of Kent. He died in a plane crash during the war, apparently en route for Iceland.
MM going quietly? Agreeing to a financial settlement? If she’s anything like my narc. ex, she'll fight for an outrageous amount (give her the Duchy of Cornwall and she’ll want the Crown Jewels too?). it the money isn’t sorted out, the Decree Absolute can’t be granted and it’d be stalemate for years.
If she’s anything like other narcissists, she just has to win and crush all opposition. She won’t do anything if she considers there’s not enough in it for her. Some commentators have suggested that she, in effect, `named her price’ when she said how much their `business interests’ in the US would be worth at the time of Megxit – was it $200m dollars pa? Or was it in £s Sterling? I can’t be sure but there were a lot of noughts, far more than the £37m that the RF has allegedly earmarked for a pay-off.
Sedition’s a good word, straight from the 17thC, when `seditious libel’ meant treason and one could lose one’s ears or nose for publishing attacks on the king. It would be very interesting if it turned out that there were a plot involving her undermining the monarchy, with a view to establishing a republic.
Sometimes I think we’re still in the 1600s.
Yes, you are right. British royalty is one of the oldest; they lived through many turbulent world events. They witnessed other great monarchies in many countries collapse. That is why they practice strictly no politics approach, it is a hard-learned self-preservation and survival technique.
Watching Megsy jump on so many bandwagons must fill them with horror, because they know it always backfires in the end.
Hence the comment in the Times that It will not end well for anybody.
It's like a slow-motion, completely-preventable tragedy being enacted in front of us.
Horror movies have plot lines more believable, and yet, here we are.
My hunch is complicated; hear me out. Typically, if Harry and Markle divorced as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, she would retain somewhat of a "title". Nothing really so special in the UK where everyone understands how these things work, but to the rest of the world it would mean something. Her divorced title would be Meghan Markle (or other last name if she legally changed her name?), Duchess of Sussex. Today she holds that title WITHOUT THE COMMA before Duchess. The comma represents she is divorced from The Duke (the retainer of the hereditary titles.) This privilege was accorded to Sarah Ferguson. I have read a snippet of LCC's book posted by Yankee Wally regarding PD and Fergie's titles after their respective divorces. The PD story is very interesting.
I believe the BRF does not want Markle to walk away with ANY title or the last name of the family for that matter. By having Harry be "inappropriate", look foolish and pander politically on Zoom chats, HMTQ has cause to strip them BOTH of their titles, PRIOR to a divorce. Markle would leave the marriage and the family as she entered it, just Meghan Markle. The BRF does not want her schilling/grifting for dollars a Duchess title (even a divorced one) around the world. Fergie does a bit of this, but they seem to have some control over her. Markle is a complete wrecking ball and does whatever she wants even if it humiliates her. She has NO self-awareness or is 100% delusional, or both. Finally, once JH is rehabilitated, he could be given a new title from the Monarch, most likely his father by that time, and permanently retire the Duchy of Sussex. I am sure the citizens of Sussex would be pleased.
I believe Celt News suggested that PH went to HMTQ & PP within three months of his wedding to tell them that he had made a mistake. I think they told him that he would have to extricate himself over time and precisely how he is told. Additionally, I am in Hikari's ++ camp completely as to the assumption of some sort of shenanigans between the couples late 2016 breakup, the fall 2017 IG where pictures of JH have him looking like he has just seen the bowels of Hell and the six short weeks to the engagement announcement. Something happened. What? I do not know. Speculations only. Does Sarah Ann Macklin play into this. It was said that PH was head over heels in love with her in and around the fall of 2016 and that the Markle entanglement had been just a "summer fling." Finally, there are far too many "palace" people telling us far too often that JH is "besotted" with Megs. They really hit us over the head with that one.
Lastly, one book recommendation from me is THE DIANA CHRONICLES, by Tina Brown. I read the book in 2009/2010. It is interesting, insightful on many levels and fair. Stylistically, TB is an excellent writer, IMO.
However it seems to me that many posters have claimed (probably legitimately) that the press lied in the past to make Harry look good. Not merely failed to report unfavorable stuff but reported false positive stuff. If that's true, Harry certainly knows it so that may be the origin of his belief the demand about M was justified. There were also stories there were some fairly extensive cover-ups of Will's youthful behavior that Harry likely knows about too (if they happened.)
Personally I doubt the origin of his belief has to do with Diana. Any intervention re: Diana would have happened early on long before Harry was born. And that wouldn't fit with his belief that no one ever protected his mother.
If there really was a 250K payoff and a trip to Australia by PA to hide M's hot tea flinging, you'd think H&M would have quit while they were ahead. But that may have simply convinced them more could be done. And given their pathology, if it could be done, it should be done for them.
You presume Harry is compos mentis and can see his own actions critically, as well as accept responsibility for his actions. I do not see that. . All he said and did points at him being completely convinced he is a victim. He also believes Markle is a victim of racist and murderous British media and his own racist family and whole racist country. That is why he constantly apologises for "bias" and "racism" in the country although he doesn't represent anybody anymore.
His "declaration" anti-media was also very telling. He never grew mentally and is stuck at the level of a 12 year old boy, most likely when he started drinking. Juvenile alcoholism is known to stilt and suppress mental development in later life.
Harry expects the world to do his bidding and doesn't accept his own actions have consequences. Just like his mother in later life.
Jeffrey Epstein scandal: Ghislaine Maxwell arrives for New York hearing
Part I
Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to New York city before her court appearance on charges of abuse and trafficking as lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims say she is “highly likely” to enter a plea bargain.
Ms Maxwell, the British socialite, was arrested on Thursday by the FBI at a secluded New Hampshire mansion and charged with helping to abuse and procure girls as young as 14 for her friend Epstein.
The Times understands that she has been taken by US marshals to a New York facility ready for an expected court appearance in Manhattan either today or on Monday.
Ms Maxwell, who is facing 35 years in prison if found guilty, is under pressure to reveal the names of co-conspirators in exchange for a lesser sentence.
Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died aged 66 in a New York jail last August. His death was ruled to be suicide. Lisa Bloom, a lawyer for six of his victims said that 95 per cent of cases ended in plea bargains and it was “highly likely” that Ms Maxwell would accept a deal.
If Ms Maxwell, daughter of the late newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell, agrees a plea bargain it will place a strain on the Duke of York, who it is alleged to have had sex with a 17-year-old girl in 2001.
The charges that Ms Maxwell is facing are not related to the claims made against Prince Andrew, by Virginia Guiffre Roberts, but law enforcement officials will be keen to ask Ms Maxwell about him.
This morning Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein’s former mentor, claimed that Ms Maxwell would be “fully co-operating” with the FBI. Mr Hoffenberg, who spent 18 years in prison for running a Ponzi scheme that he said Epstein masterminded, said that Ms Maxwell had been convinced that she was not being arrested and that she would “crack in two seconds” in prison.
He said: “Andrew handled it poorly, very poorly. He should have spoken to them through his lawyers and given them some guidance. He should have given them something.
“She’s going to co-operate and be very important. There’s a lot of people very worried, a lot of powerful people been named, and she knows everything. She’ll totally co-operate.”
Mark Stephens, a British lawyer, said: “If, as she is, facing effectively a lifetime in jail, why wouldn’t you try and cut a plea deal, you try and get a reduced sentence, and if that means bringing down some rich and powerful men, some of whom have been named and will be innocent but some of who are going to be found to be very guilty, I think that’s the pressure they’re putting on Ghislaine Maxwell.”
Ms Maxwell was accused of helping Epstein to “recruit, groom and ultimately abuse” at least three girls, including one as young as 14, between 1994 and 1997. One of the girls was allegedly abused in London. After being arrested in New Hampshire, she appeared in court by a video link and was remanded in custody.
Audrey Strauss, acting US attorney for the southern district of New York, said that the investigation into Epstein and his associates was continuing and she urged Prince Andrew to “come in to talk to us”.
Andrew has been locked in a long-running battle with law enforcement in the US over his availability to answer questions about his former friend. He has been accused of attempting to “falsely portray himself to the public as eager and willing to co-operate”, and was said to have “completely shut the door on voluntary co-operation” by Geoffrey Berman, the US prosecutor who was leading the investigation into Epstein until last month.
A source close to Andrew’s legal working group said: “The Duke of York has offered his assistance to the Department of Justice investigation on a number of occasions this year. In addition, the working group has proactively contacted the DoJ twice in the last month and have received no response. That is why we remain utterly bewildered by the DoJ’s approach. However, a request from a commercial law firm is not and never will be the same as an official judicial process.”
In an interview with LBC on Friday morning, Boris Johnson said that no official approach had been made by the US authorities to speak to Prince Andrew about his links to Epstein.
Ms Giuffre has claimed that she was introduced to Epstein by Ms Maxwell before being trafficked to London and forced to have sex with Prince Andrew in Ms Maxwell’s Belgravia home. Andrew denies the claim and has said that he has no recollection of meeting Ms Giuffre. Last year Scotland Yard said that it would not open a criminal investigation into the claims.
In a statement last year Buckingham Palace said: “Any suggestion of impropriety with under-age minors is categorically untrue.”
Investigators accused Ms Maxwell of being “one of the villains” of the Epstein case. On Thursday, Ms Strauss, gesturing at a photograph of Epstein nuzzling Ms Maxwell with his arm around her, said that they had a “personal and professional relationship”.
Ms Maxwell, she alleged, was “among Epstein’s closest associates and helped him exploit girls” and “in some cases participated in the abuse herself”.
She said that Ms Maxwell had perjured herself because “the truth, as alleged, was almost unspeakable”. She added: “Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, then delivered them into the trap that she and Epstein had set for them.”
Regarding Prince Andrew, she said: “We would like to have the benefit of his statement . . . our doors remain open and we would welcome him coming in and giving us an opportunity to hear his statement.”
Gloria Allred, an American lawyer who represents some of Mr Epstein’s victims, said that Prince Andrew was subjecting the victims to a “torture test” by not speaking out about “what he knows”. “The question is, when is he going to tell what he knows? He needs to do that. He needs to do it without delay. It is so traumatising and difficult for the victims not to know the truth,” she told ITV’s Good Morning Britain.
Ms Maxwell’s arrest in the town of Bradford, New Hampshire, at about 8.30am yesterday brought to an end intense speculation about her whereabouts. Last month she was said to have been living in a flat in Paris and in August last year she was photographed eating a burger at a fast-food restaurant in Los Angeles.
William Sweeney, assistant director of the FBI in New York, said that his officers had been “discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell’s whereabouts throughout”. He added: “Recently we learnt she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a life of privilege while her victims live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago.”
The US authorities urged the courts to resist any application for bail, saying that Ms Maxwell had “an extraordinary incentive to flee” because of her ready access to large amounts of money and her international connections. Since 2016 the FBI has identified 15 bank accounts linked to Ms Maxwell, who has three passports, citizenship in two other countries and few meaningful US ties, giving her “absolutely no reason” to stay in the country. She has travelled at least 15 times internationally in the past three years, including to the UK, Japan and Qatar.
She was claimed to have been living on a 156-acre property in Bradford that she bought in cash last December, using a limited liability company to shield her identity.
US prosecutors claim that Ms Maxwell sold a home in New York city for $15 million in 2016, again through a limited liability company, and moved all but $1 million into accounts in her name. Her finances were described as “opaque and indeterminate”.
Ms Maxwell has denied involvement in Epstein’s abuse. At the time of his death, he had been charged with paying under-age girls and women to give him massages while they were naked or topless. Unlike Ms Maxwell’s charges, his covered the period from 2002 to 2005. The three girls in the indictment are not named and it is unclear whether the alleged victim who met Ms Maxwell in the UK has made any complaint to police there.
Last year Anouska De Georgiou, a British former Playboy model, described how she was groomed and raped by Epstein after meeting him in London during the 1990s.
Thank you for the cut and paste!
Thanks for the Times article.
I have to say, I think the FBI continues behave in a pretty embarrassing way. The article quotes William Sweeney, assistant director of the FBI in New York. He says (bold type added by me) his officers had been “discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell’s whereabouts throughout”. He added: “Recently we learnt she had slithered away
to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a life of privilege while her victims live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago.”
I do think using the term "slithered away" was uncalled for and unprofessional. He also makes it sound like if she'd lived in a crappier place she might not have been arrested now. I have no sympathy for Giuffre but I do believe PA's team isn't being dealt with as it should be by the FBI/DOJ. Too much selective grandstanding on this side of the pond.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8488473/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Action-Meghan-Harry-roll-movie-plans-trademark-Archewell.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTDM4Pnwd_c
DZ refers to "Meghan and little "Merchie"
Lol
You know, probably the reason they were so anxious to get IG to transfer their 11.4 million followers, which was against IG policy (but who cares about that, not H&M), was they had bought them. All that money down the drain, tsk tsk.
Sorry if I'm 'splaining what everyone else knew in March.
damn, the delusion is astounding ~ now Archewell is going to produce tv shows and movies??? Who is going to invest in these morons? I really think we are watching Markle getting markled.
@CeeMoore: I had pretty much the same thoughts as I read this. Who is their right mind would invest tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars or pounds in any production either of these nimrods are associated with, especially knowing that neither of the
are particularly stable people. I wouldn’t enter into any contractual agreement with Meghan, whom I regard as totally untrustworthy.
I wouldn’t trust her as far as I could throw her. Can you imagine her crazy diva demands as a director, producer, or an actress? Also, a contract would likely mean nothing to her. If she didn’t get her way and was limited by a contract, she wouldn’t hesitate to resort on portraying herself as a victim of racism, sexism, or any other -ism to attempt to destroy anyone who dares to challenge whatever her self-given authority by publicly hurling wild accusations that have been cooked up in her narcissistic mind.
She has already proved she will attempt to destroy anyone she thinks has slighted her, including her family. Even though she’s suing the MoS, she is also attempting to punish her own father for trying to defend himself from the People magazine hit job by Meghan via her five friends. Meghan apparently isn’t finished with Thomas. We shall see what happens in this case if it actually goes to trial.
In a way, it is a long-range warning to Harry and the RF if Harry ever wakes up and decides to assert himself. While Meghan isin control, Harry is the one who actually holds the true power in their relationship, but he immediately ceded it to Meghan in the time it took to say, “Do me.” She’s just trying to make him afraid to ever attempt to take it back.
Personally I doubt the origin of his [Harry's] belief [that the press was told to give Diana space] has to do with Diana. Any intervention re: Diana would have happened early on long before Harry was born. And that wouldn't fit with his belief that no one ever protected his mother.
-----------------------------
I agree it happened before his birth but I bet she told him about it more than once. "They were so awful the Queen called the editors on the carpet..." like that.
Megs and Harry
Anyway, this is a huge blow to the couple’s plans and they are definitely NOT happy about it.
Your friends at Blind Gossip told you that Meghan Markle, in particular, was ready to fight to use the word “royal.”
She felt legally entitled to keep the Sussex Royal brand that she was building, and considered mounting a legal challenge against the British Royal Family to retain the brand name, including the word “royal.”
And now we have confirmation of that from another source.
From Daily Mail:
DEFIANT MEGHAN TELLS FRIENDS THERE’S NOTHING ‘LEGALLY STOPPING’ HER AND PRINCE HARRY FROM USING THEIR SUSSEX ROYAL NAME, DESPITE QUEEN BANNING THEM FROM USING IT
Blind Gossip found out that if Meghan Markle had actually tried to fight the BRF (British Royal Family) on the use of the word “royal” in her brand, things could have gotten even uglier!
The BRF would have played hardball.
They would have taken away more.
No more Duke and Duchess.
No more Sussex.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE
UPDATE!
Harry and Meghan just updated their SussexRoyal.com website with some incredible details about what the new agreement will look like.
They are still arguing about their right to use the word “royal”!
BUT WAIT - ANOTHER UPDATE
UPDATE!
It took until summer, but we are finally here.
No more Sussex Royal brand.
No more Sussex Royal charity.
LONG LONG POST AND I WILL LET IT GO AT THAT. Nothing really new
Hey, go to skippy's tumbler and scroll down to the headline MM’s CLAIMS OF FEELING UNPROTECTED BY BRF
Look at the picture of her on the right, in the red coat over the purple dress there. The one that shows a sort of bulge in her dress....inches above her KNEES. That is the bump. (Unless you are the nuttie who now cannot tolerate the red-purple combination).
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com
I had seen this pic on another blog but could not link to it; their headline was they almost didn't get to the car in time. With a couple of pics of the bump not quite so far down...yet. i suppose this is real, the gray stone is consistent with other pictures of them outside the building on that day. Could explain why she was so often supporting it against her body, not to risk this happening again.
Ghislaine comment
fyi - that property in NH, supposedly the seller insisted on a name to go onto the paperwork although she had apparently been physically present with someone who the seller (et al) came to the conclusion was her husband.
Side comment: The seller or their realtor picked up on something which made them insist on some sort of needing some sort of identification on the selling paperwork.
Side comment: I don't remember a whole lot of who she was with according to the DM ... but there was this guy who they said something about having having the appearance of a slightly intimate relationship with.
(jump here with me) Ok, so NH is one of several states which allow common law marriage and in NH there are some specifics in terms of it is allowed for inheritance purposes only. Roll that specifics (given the players, alive/deceased/in "protective custody") around in your head.
I'm not big into tin hats but there is something which defies my sense of: surely this comes from a plot from some 3rd rate soap opera and bears nothing close to reality.
A big ty to everyone for all your excellent posts over the past few days! Your comments have been so informative, humorous and enjoyable to read. And always, huge appreciation to our @Nutty for the blog.
You mention in your post that you have NO sympathy for Guiffre. I assume that is not a typo. I am curious what you are observing and thinking. I am not being argumentative. I am uncertain. And, I have worked on legal issues on behalf of sexual abuse victims. Minors, both male and female. You can not believe how much of a CF these things can be.
Isn’t the case about copyright infringement? How are all these claims she’s making against the RF related to the copyright infringement?
When I came to this fun party, I knew a great deal about UK, et al history including the BRF, but I really did not know many details about the younger Royals, including Harry. However, from a distance, I assumed he was not that bright, uneducated, spoiled, arrogant and entitled. I also assumed that all of the heavy lifting, including the creation of the IGs, was accomplished by palace professionals. Harry was not #1 on any of my lists.
When the 2019 Wimbledon debacle occurred I was gobstruck because I thought surely PH would have instructed Markle on appropriate dress for the "boxes" at center court and accompanied her to the event. This is when I stumbled across the Harry Markle blog at which point this CF of a world opened up to me and has, in the last year, consumed too much of my time. (It is my only guilty pleasure, I think.)
You are absolutely right about PH. He is just a complete SH and I pretty much loathe him and his behavior. In the early days of Megxit, I was 50/50 about PH. Was he working a plan with his family or was he truly following the sociopath into the depths of self destruction? I suppose at this juncture my percentages have adjusted to 25/75, leaving a shrinking window open for PH to be working in conjunction with his family to deposit Megs back in LA, with a renovated ranch in the valley and a small lump sum. We can only hope.
"I agree it happened before his birth but I bet she told him about it more than once. "They were so awful the Queen called the editors on the carpet..." like that."
Maybe.
I have no doubt Diana loved her sons with all of her heart and soul. But from all accounts she did expose them to her emotionally unhealthy views and feelings way too often. So you could be right she told Harry those "bedtime stories."
Still, I don't think if Harry really believed TQ and the RF protected his mother he'd have the seething resentment against them he seems to have. So I'm just not buying that's why he thinks the RF can control the press.
I still think it's more likely Harry knows the press has been manipulated/controlled for his benefit in the past and so he resents that not being done for Meghan. But being kind of dim, he doesn't understand that covering up an occasional private time big blooper by a young prince who wasn't technically a full-time working royal at the time isn't the same as controlling the press day in and day out when reporting on an almost middle-aged woman who was representing TQ, a woman who appeared to seek out press attention at every opportunity, a woman who apoeared to openly reject a myriad of British and royal traditions, and a woman who was, at least in part, supported by the taxpayer.
----
@AnyaAmasova wrote:
"You mention in your post that you have NO sympathy for Guiffre. I assume that is not a typo."
No, it was a typo. When I realized I had done that, I thought it was way too late to post a correction so I'm glad you mentioned it. I meant Ghislaine M. I don't have any sympathy for her from what I have read. I don't have an opinion on V. Guiffre yet. For me, there are still some important open questions.
Although I don't have sympathy for Maxwell, I can't say I think the US's top law enforcement agency should refer to her as "slithering away" for living in a pricey house in NH. Court is the place to convict. Not on the courthouse steps especially based on SES. And using such language does make it sound like 1) she was arrested for living too well 2) the NY attorneys are trying to manipulate public opinion and would do so re: PA too. Not good.
Interesting paper from Univ. British Columbia that confirms what we've all been thinking about Smeg.
https://t.co/ez8qUnAD9v?amp=1
"In a new paper in JPSP, Ok and her colleagues found that those who score higher in Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy were more likely to be frequent 'virtuous victim signalers' as a 'resource extraction strategy'"
"We define victim signaling as a public and intentional expression of one’s disadvantages, suffering, oppression, or personal limitations."
"We further suggest that victim signaling is maximally effective at initiating resource transfers when it is coupled with virtue signaling, defined as symbolic demonstrations that can lead observers to make favorable inferences about the signaler’s moral character."
When I read the above, I couldn't help but think of Smegs. Narc and psychopath.
Related: "Martha Stout (Sociopath Next Door) observed anecdotally, #1 clue that you're dealing with a sociopath is they persistently position themselves as a victim, hoping to evoke sympathy in their intended prey"
She's planning to take down the royal family. "Woke defeating traditional". This will be her platform when she runs for a political career.
Isn’t the case about copyright infringement? How are all these claims she’s making against the RF related to the copyright infringement?
--------
Exactly, RO!
And especially odd after the justice, Warby, already threw out a number of items because they aren't relevant to the case.
IIRC MMs lawyer intimated that she was directing the case and they were just doing what the client wanted.
The first ruling was so harmful to her case. He is not going to be happy wading through more irrelevant nonsense.
If this is new. It's been described as "leaked" information. This may actually be the stuff Warby already threw out.
Snipes at minor royals, ludicrous claims her wedding netted £1bn—but, says RICHARD KAY, what really comes shining through from Meghan’s latest court documents is a royally petulant sense of grievance
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8488547/Richard-Kay-Meghans-latest-court-documents-royally-petulant-sense-grievance.html
Althea is almost at ten thousand go fund me dollars. Fake hate crimes can pay
Yes, ticks all their boxes, plus plenty of water nearby
Megsy could do a bit of yachting on the side for pin money 😉
I’m sure the RF did a thorough search of Megs.
I’m also sure they uncovered a different story that orphan Annie
( humanitarian, whip smart, model & Hollywood actress, girl next door )
portrayed herself to be.
As to why they couldn’t stop the wedding?
My guess is Harry saying he would marry her regardless
and would ensure the race card came into play.
RF probably thought they could rein her in with $ & shiny objects.
They totally underestimated her, to be fair I don’t think anyone could
ever foresee the extent of her actions.
Mad, bad and out of control!
Sorry, typo should have read “sin money”
Following AnyaAmasova's suggestion I was wondering what happens if the Queen removes Dukedom from Harry for his systematic labeling of our nation racist or for other violations of whatever code she has.
At first it sounded nice to my ears, but then I thought hold on, Harry is born prince, so instead of Duke and Duchess of Sussex they would be prince and princess Harry Windsor. Right?
Harry caused a huge problem for the institution and there is no easy way out of it. I don't think royals normal policy of hoping it will all go away will work this time. They are dealing with a pair of sociopaths.
“Take some more tea”
I agree, I think what you have said is plausible.
Murdoch is powerful.
Would he chose weak lipped loose legged Meg?
Possibly.
God save the Queen
Exactly, remove one title...
The RF have a helluva battle on their hands.
Hell would freeze over before she's allowed to call herself `Princess Meghan.'
Thanks, Magatha, you've reassured me that I've not entirely lost my marbles yet.
Would he have chosen Meg?
Only if she had rehearsed the part well, so as not to come over as a potential loose cannon, careering across the deck, crushing everyone and everything in her path, as well as opening fire indiscriminately.
If he wanted someone absolutely ruthless, she's his girl. Whether anyone would have initially have clocked her as we eventually did, with the full-house of disorders for `the Dark Triad' is another matter.
But none of the Maxwells have anything to do with the Mirror Group now owned by Reach plc
Meghan trashed and disowned her own Father who adored her and gave her every financial benefit he possibly could. It was recently noted that she divorced Trevor in part because of her unabated fury that he did not cast her in some roles she wanted.
So, is it any surprise she is acting this way toward the Royal Family and making these latest statements— not feeling protected by them? Expecting them to get newspapers to change/suppress stories for her? Expecting to carry on exactly as she wants without a thought to Royal duty or protocol?
In Meghan’s delusional, narcissistic mind, she is on an equal (or higher) social footing with the Queen and other Senior Royals. They were her new family. Her family always “does for her” or she punishes and discards them.
Meghan needs to marry a billionaire with no family and no other work or social obligations (and possibly with dementia) who can lavish his money and time on her. Then, maybe then, she will be OK.
Hopefully, Prince Charles and other members of the RF have been combing their contact lists looking for this perfect fellow...
______________
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8485559/Meghan-Markle-felt-unprotected-royal-institution.html
Meghan Markle 'felt unprotected by the royal institution because palace press officers couldn't defend her against TRUE stories that angered her'
In documents, Meghan's lawyers said she felt 'unprotected by the institution'
Insiders claim this referred to palace machinery, likely her former media team
Legal documents outline Meghan's frustration with the 'no comment' policy
By FAITH RIDLER FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 21:00 EDT, 2 July 2020 | UPDATED: 02:23 EDT, 3 July 2020
Meghan Markle felt 'unprotected' by the Royal 'institution' because it could not defend her against stories in the press that angered her but were true, sources have claimed.
In papers filed in the High Court this week, Meghan's lawyers said press coverage of her while she was pregnant damaged her mental health.
The documents also say she was 'unprotected by the institution and prohibited from defending herself'.
A source confirmed to The Times that this referred to the team of press officers and wider office staff at the Palace.
Officials will often refuse to comment to journalists when an on-the-record reply would confirm a story or damage the royal family member involved.
I still think it's more likely Harry knows the press has been manipulated/controlled for his benefit in the past and so he resents that not being done for Meghan.
____________
Yeah, i think you're right on this.
Okay, NOW who can't handle the truth?
Thanks for the info re Reach plc -last time I heard anything about the Mirror group it was still in Maxwell hands. I must be seriously out of date!
How much does that weaken my hypothesis? Could (someone like) Murdoch still be behind a attempt to bring down the monarchy?
We've suggested various dark forces in the past: unfriendly nation states; international revolutionary political parties; globalists against whole idea of nation states; pure criminals; and now perhaps a single magnate pursuing his own agenda.
Alternatively, has Meg really got this far by her own grifting and manipulation? Without serious help? We've seen despots and dictators a-plenty but they've only gone on to attempt world domination once they had established a power base in their own country.
What is going on? Coincidence, conspiracy or cock up?
It sure beats me.
I agree too. Both well over the age of majority. About all TQ could do was to refuse permission. That might have taken Harry and Archie out of the succession but... would have been scandalous I guess. Well they would have said you are SO racist. And Lady C apparently said TQ welcomed the biracial factor Meghan brought to the family.
She has been manipulating the truth for years.
She assumed they were her new, free PR firm.
We suspect, I believe, that she was acquainted with Weinstein - is there any reason, beyond gut feeling, to think she may be involved in the Epstein mess? Has anyone picked up anything? Might this cause her downfall?
I'm sure I saw her mentioned alongside PA in an article about GM's arrest, I'll see if I can find it.
Ok, so I've been through my history and can't seem to find the part I read anywhere. It was an Express article and I clearly remember that infamous photo of PA standing with VG and GM was included just above the relevant text, as that's also in none of the articles in my history it looks like it's been changed since I read it. I'm trying to remember what was said, it was a one-liner at the end of a short paragraph that went something like "there are suspicions that GM will release info relating to PA and MM"; because it was an Express article and I hadn't seen anything at all in the press connecting MM to it before I read that, I just raised an eyebrow and assumed they'd either not proofread properly (or botched their usual copy/paste from the original source) then forgot about it and went on with my day. Knowing the Express' standards of proofreading and the fact it's been mentioned nowhere else, I'm inclined to go with the assumption that adding MM to the end of the sentence was a c*ck up at their end that they fixed when they noticed it.
Aaand instead of posting this I've just spent another half hour going through every single PA/GM related article in my recent browser history with a fine toothed comb and found nothing. It's bugging me now because I'm starting to question my own memory and wondering if I actually read it or not... Although to be fair, doubting my own eyes/memory/sanity has happened a lot since I became interested in the whole saga of MM.
Ok I misread what was phrased. Gist was that the seller didn't meet GM but had met some guy at the inspection which they thought might be a husband (who stated they were some tech guy looking to buy a place in the States) and they found it slightly odd about the privacy questions (including flight patterns).
The whole close still would have been viewed as slightly odd to the seller or broker.
Not that the price was a million but that they brought cash to the close. At a cash close, the paperwork is only a couple of sheets versus one where you apply for a mortgage where it feels like you are signing a ream of paperwork. Most people who show up at a close with cash aren't doing this for a property of this amount. With rates at 3 or even below, borrowing may be reasonable if you think they could easily go up or you want to keep your cash as cash so when you have a good investment opportunity you can plunk it down ... so why and who shows up with that amount of cash?
Who signed the closing documents and asks lots of questions about privacy? that raised some eyebrows. Now having an LLC can be "normal" and often is if you are doing a flip but with a flip you need your money for the supplies/workers/keep this project rolling). Tends to be less likely in normal day to day life unless you want to try to keep your money from being taken from you in a lawsuit (as in not have assets, easier to declare bankruptcy kinds of moves) or think you might get sued. But then, why not have an umbrella policy? They are really cheap and are less costly than setting up an LLC.
I go along with poster above who said that press relations/cover-ups were easy enough for the unmarried Harry. The cute, red haired, Royal imp. But turned into impossible for Megs. She was too massively wrong and too often. Harry and Megs demanded that the Royal Press office do for Megs what they did for Harry. Spoiled rotten Harry, indulged Harry could not see that this was impossible.
So now the lawsuits in England while they live in America. A farce.
_______________________
Prince Harry’s private secretary LEAVES job despite being ‘godsend’ to Meghan Markle
PRINCE Harry's private secretary Ed Lane Fox will leave the Royal household this summer following the Royal Wedding despite bride-to-be Meghan Markle reportedly describing him as a "god send".
By REBECCA PERRING
PUBLISHED: 11:55, Fri, Apr 27, 2018
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/952031/Prince-harry-meghan-markle-news-harry-private-secretary-ed-lane-fox-leaves-royal-wedding
You are right again. The dismal duo has many titles that were given as honor and goodwill from the monarch. Remove the Duke and Harry is also Earl and Baron too, plus a prince by birth. That would be a stupid strategy by the Palace that would make it look petty and vindictive. I didn't see that until I actually stopped and thought about it.
@ KCM1212
Well said. She did view the Palace press office as her own PR machine! And idiots call her whip smart! She has less perception than a fruite cake, although she is nutty as one (sorry, Nutty Flavour, no insult meant!).
Without going into the ins and outs of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s withdrawal from royal life, still less the merits of the Duchess’s privacy case against the Mail on Sunday, a claim made by her lawyers this morning cannot be allowed to pass without comment. They claim: ‘This contribution of public funds towards crowd security was far outweighed by the tourism revenue of over £1 billion that was generated from the royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex which went directly into the public purse.’
Should we really be thankful to the Duke of Duchess of Sussex for stuffing the UK’s coffers as a result of tourists flocking here for the pair’s wedding or being inspired to come here after watching the event on TV? It is pretty hard to square that claim with figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on tourism to Britain in 2018, the year of the wedding. Far from the wedding boosting tourist numbers, they fell by 3 per cent compared with 2017. There was not even a positive effect on tourists from the US, the Duchess’s home country – tourist numbers were flat. Worse, the amount of money spent by overseas visitors in Britain in 2018 fell to £22.9 billion, a whacking 7 per cent fall compared with 2017. Far from gaining £1 billion in tourist revenues in the wedding year, the country lost £1.7 billion.
Obviously, the royal wedding isn’t the only influence on tourism. The strength of the pound has the most obvious effect on whether tourists decide to visit Britain and how much money they spend while they are here. The pound was relatively strong at the beginning of 2018, although it fell back through the spring and summer. During the main tourist season, in high summer, the Obviously, the royal wedding isn’t the only influence on tourism. The strength of the pound has the most obvious effect on whether tourists decide to visit Britain and how much money they spend while they are here. The pound was relatively strong at the beginning of 2018, although it fell back through the spring and summer. During the main tourist season, in high summer, the pound was at pretty much the same level it had been in the middle of 2017.
Perhaps we should be asking, therefore: did the Duke and Duchess’s wedding actually cost the country tourist revenue? Were people put off by the sight of the royal couple or unimpressed by the backdrop of Windsor? Did they mistakenly assume that Britain would be more crowded as a result of the royal wedding and decide to put off visits to Britain until another time?
I don’t know the answers to those questions, but I feel pretty confident to declare that Harry and Meghan’s claim to have boosted the tourist economy by £1 billion is fantasy.
Thank you for posting the article, many bloggers refer to it in response to Megsy's wild claims. The most telling part is her wedding resulted in no increase in tourists from America.
This is probably the most accurate indication of the true level of the international public interest to her wedding. People did not feel the fifth in line's wedding justifies increased cost in tickets, hotels, food in London and around the wedding brought.
Otherwise she could claim without her wedding tourist revenue would be even lower. As things stand though, if her own people didn't give a fig she can't convincingly demonstrate anybody else in the world did.
New DM article: Archie is ‘just about walking.’ Really, two months after his birthday where he was clearly capable of climbing off MM’s lap?
Saw that!
First off, who cares that Archie is walking. Second, it has convinced me that Archie is much older than they publicly claim (that and Harry's stable interview).
We saw that huge, older mobile baby in the birthday video. She can drop the charade now. It's getting embarrassing.
Also, PR machine trying to cover up that they are no longer Sussex Royal, nor HRH publicly.
For two so desperate to get away from Royalty, they are grasping to hang on! Get a grip and make your own money free and clear, losers!
True but would Megsy be happy as Princess Henry Countess of Dumbarton?
Even if we hadn't seen that very active child two months ago on video, and even if we hadn't seen a baby wearing socks dirty on the bottom seemingly trying to stand on video last Sept in SA, when she was in the UK in March M said he was "trying to walk." How likely is it he hasn't managed to actually walk in 4 months of trying? I know big babies may be slower to walk because it takes a lot of strength to manage their heftier bodies. But "trying" from (supposedly) 10 months to 14 months old? Not buying it. And how would Katie Nicholl know anyway or know Archie "loves living in LA?" One of the dumber PR stories I've seen.
They really are out of their minds schilling propaganda all the time. JCMHFKAP has always been considered dim but whip-smart Meg? Watching H&M espouse their virtues is a case study of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
They really are grasping today to deflect from publicly dropping HRH aren't they! So of course they would release an OUTDATED 'Archie' story (make it about the kid! can't bash a kid!).
Tells me they are just reactionary.
When is Harry going home with Archie? They need to stop using him/his likeness. He was due privacy. They are not respecting their child at all. I'm sickened by it, in fact.
There are photographs of Archie's cousin Tindal walking holding hands with her Phillips cousins. This was on 3 August 2019; Lena was born 18 June 2018 and she had the largest birthdate of any baby in HM's family at 9lb 3oz
"Meghan’s claims of damage during pregnancy might give the newspaper she’s suing the right to request medical documentation for proof."
Yes most definitely, since she has made it as an element of her case. It boggles my mind that she would be so stupid, as she is also putting her mental health damage as an area that is subject to discovery (or she just expects the court to take her word for it). This indeed could get quite enlightening and damaging to Markle not the BRF.
With her pregnancy and mental health issues put forward I would think the MoS legal team could subpoena her medical records establishing that she was in fact pregnant, whether her OB physician documented her stress and whether any mental health professionals likewise did so. This is at the very least needed to either support/or disallow her claim on said 'damage' as a result of the MoS actions.
"There are photographs of Archie's cousin Tindal walking holding hands with her Phillips cousins. This was on 3 August 2019; Lena was born 18 June 2018 and she had the largest birthdate of any baby in HM's family at 9lb 3oz"
I've not seen the picture but I don't doubt it. But on the average heavy babies walk later (Unlike Lena, Archie wasn't heavy at birth per palace info), some studies suggest later-borns may walk sooner, occasional studies suggest boys walk earlier than girls but most don't find a sex effect on walking (but almost all studies suggest girls develop speech earlier than boys and develop more extensive vocabularies) But it's not usual to see a child "try to walk" for 4 months without success. As @unknown said, this story is outdated and intended to distract. It's also supposed to IMO make Archie sound younger than he probably is.
I am a details freak so I started digging. Yes, there is a mistake but not the one everybody assumes.
The book states celebrations STARTED on April 1, 2018. That is true. However, this day fell on the Easter Day of 2018. Royals couldn't celebrate Easter and RAF centenary in the same service, so RAF commemoration took place on July 10, 2018 in Westminster, where Sussexes were. Dean of the Westminster John Hall in his address said that the 100 years since the foundation of the RAF started celebration on the April 1 in the RAF's own church, ST. CLEMENT DANES, and the Westminster service CONTINUES the celebration.
This is where the mistake is. The book mistakenly points at celebrations STARTING on the April 1 in St. Paul's, instead of ST. CLEMENT DANES.
I know it sounds confusing but I suspect this is the editor's mistake, not CC's.
As for CC saying Markle didn't curtsy while the video shows she did. Below is the definition of the court curtsy due to the Queen:
"The gesture is the ultimate mark of respect and the "court curtsy", a deep and elaborate pose, is the preferred method. "The royal curtsy is one foot behind the other and the deep and the longer you stay down shows more respect".
So no, the tiny ugly bob Markle performed on video is not the full court curtsy required on the occasion. If anything it was an insult. I am sure the Queen asked not to make a big deal out of it because it was so badly done and she didn't want a scandal.
I’m not a pediatrician or a mum, but in my opinion, after many years of observing babies and toddlers in my work, the child seen in the Duck Rabbit video was close to if not over 16 months. He was already visibly mobile at that time. First babies tend to walk later than laterborns, mostly because adults are more likely to carry them around. Still, if Archie were 14 months old and not yet fully walking, that would be very late. Some early walkers start by nine months; most have mastered it by 12 months.
Meg has no concept of normal child development, and thinks that the public will swallow whatever bizarre tidbits she puts out about Archie. It was the same when she was pregnant; no apparent concept Of a normally developing pregnancy. Meg is a colossal faker and she’s so bad at it.
The little boys we’ve seen in the two videos look cute and happy, and healthy, and very well developed. Despite some similarities to both Meg and Harry, And even allowing for changes in his appearance due to growth, I strenuously don’t think those are the same two kids;
And I think that in each case the babies were at least four months older than advertised. I could get really tin Hatty And say that we saw possibly two different babies in South Africa, and the one that met Desmond Tutu is a different baby then got off the plane. And a baby posing with hairy in the alleged New Year’s photo is a different baby still. Completely completely bizarre.
At this point, Archie being born via surrogate from Meg and Harry’s DNA, an arrangement undertaken Without the blessing of the royal family, leading to Archie’s mother staging an elaborate faux pregnancy for public consumption is the most benign explanation. A child safely delivered who is Harry’s baby and being loved and cared for by his genetic parents Wouldn’t be such a cause for concern, and all of his cloak and dagger BS and kicking the Harkles to the curb. I think it’s worse. I think the Harkles were done After South Africa, not just for the whineomentary, but for presenting fiction as fact to a beloved international dignitary. The merching has to play a part as well. She will never ever stop trying to exploit “Royal”...She’s still doing it. But I think ultimately it is the Archie matter which force them out.
https://youtu.be/mxobyKJYIHI
Yes, I have long suspected Eugenie did everything in her power to remove the bad aftertaste of Markle's wedding and show respect to the Queen where it is really due. And also to show how a true royal wedding should look like. Not a single wrong note.
My first was walking by 9 months, weighed just over 6lbs at birth.
My second was walking at 10 months, weighed just under 9lb.
That was a bit unexpected.
I reckon the baby Archie has been walking for a while.
Megsy's dress cut would make a proper beautiful curtsy a lot more difficult.
Did you notice that women normally don't look good when they curtsy without a full long skirt?
Megsy rushed into her choice of the dress without proper consideration, like all she does
Thank you, Mrs Trestle; I stand corrected - I should have checked my homework.
Please, folks ignore what I said about the newspaper groups - I'll take the comment down and have a good think about an amended version/new post about how the Wizard of Oz might be involved.
Can any one else offer a suggestion?
re Titles - I think all of them would be taken away, not just the Dukedom.
I was trying to make sense of a crazy situation and came up with a crazy answer. I m happy to withdraw my remarks.
"Megsy's dress cut would make a proper beautiful curtsy a lot more difficult."
That could be true.
I'm not so sure the cut of the dress would have been the problem as the skirt wasn't so tight she had trouble climbing the stairs at the chapel. But the stiff heavy weird fabric could have been. If she had sunk down to the floor in a low curtsy, the dress might have remained standing! But as a Brit and as someone who has occasionally designed wedding dresses, you'd think C. Keller would have known a curtsy would have been expected. (Good grief, in some denominations in the US including during formal Episcopalian services, the bride and groom kneel at the altar. That's a detail a dress designer should consider too!)
But M likely wouldn't have listened to Keller anyway. Looking back, the veil was a real travesty and I expect it was M's idea. Not only was it a rip off of QEII's coronation dress (awful enough) but it was quite presumptuous on its own as M had no real connection to the Commonwealth when veiling for the ceremony-- the connection, however tenuous it turns out to be, occurred only after she became Harry's wife.
We do know though M can sink to the floor in high heels and pop back up with no help (when carrying a fetus the size of a beach ball.) So a curtsy ought to have been doable for her.
Would he have chosen Meg?
“Only if she had rehearsed the part well, so as not to come over as a potential loose cannon, careering across the deck, crushing everyone and everything in her path, as well as opening fire indiscriminately.”
I love your writing.
2015 £23.839 bn
2016 £25.415 bn
2017 £28.396 bn
2018 £26.508 bn (wedding Meghan and Harry)
2019 £28.448 bn
https://www.visitbritain.org/2019-snapshot
I think MM's "the wedding generated 1 billion pounds" (paraphrasing) comment is part of her pathology and very typical for her. It sounds just like the "The Queen does not own the word 'Royal'" business we have heard before. It sounds the same as the "There will be zero engagement" manifesto. It is the same logic that allows her to think she can merch as a Royal as long as she steps down from being a senior Royal. It's also why she is airing her complaints in a lawsuit and not a tell-all, since I believe H&M agreed not to do interviews or tell-alls as part of the 12-month review.
I strongly suspect she is a narc and as such she has a need to decree to us peasants. It is not enough for us to weigh the evidence and reach our own conclusions. People and events are transactional for her, it seems. The wedding generated money for the economy and people should be grateful for that, according to her.
Agree. She draws the wrong conclusions and expectations in her head, then acts of them.
Sleeping her way to money, it was fine as a quick fix to her problems. She clearly used that as her secret ‘weapon’, but smart men already know that which is why she ended up with Harry, the idiot. As she’s aging out of the baby years, that method ends for her, and she’s been completely publicly exposed, so what now? I think we are seeing the repercussions of a person who really didn’t develop their personal or professional life, honestly.
For example a true feminist and humanitarian, someone the masses can look up to is someone who works for everything they are given, who is kind, compassionate, and rights wrongs. Someone who inspires with their life story, doesn’t confuse. Someone who is an open book and asks for forgiveness. Someone who invites their family to their massive once in a lifetime wedding. Someone who truly cares.
She’s not that person, so it’s impossible to reach the heights her ambition set for her. It’s a character problem.
WBBM - I hadn't thought of Games People Play in years.
I can still remember seeing it around. Memories
But none of the Maxwells have anything to do with the Mirror Group now owned by Reach plc
Agree. What would any media baron actually gain personally (or not) from bringing down the monarchy anyhow ? Aside from any republican (anti-monarchy) leanings, not a lot.
I think Megsy is alone in this, just a nasty piece who married a willing idiot who she could completely manipulate to her own advantage. :o/
Can you imagine the new restrictions Meghan would have to abide by if she agreed to rejoin the firm? Lol.
There’s no other way to continue the Royal Roulette. It has to end. And the real royals have to move on from this.
IF Megan was never pregnant, the statement in the court filing regarding lack of protection during pregnancy is a lie. Any and all statements regarding pregnancy would be a lie.
-Would a super-injunction still provide protection in this circumstance? Surely, truth would prevail in a court case?
-Could this lie be used as a defense by MOS? The veracity of all statements filed by Megan’s team could now be brought into question.
-How would the Judge respond to such false/misleading statement(s)? I cannot imagine any judge looking kindly on a party trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the court.
I am not familiar with English law and would love to hear from those who are. The issue of a “pregnancy” may not apply to the main elements of the case, but it may be relevant to possible damages.
I apologize if this has already been discussed, and I missed it! If it has, another topic has been bothering me.
For example a true feminist and humanitarian, someone the masses can look up to is someone who works for everything they are given, who is kind, compassionate, and rights wrongs. Someone who inspires with their life story, doesn’t confuse. Someone who is an open book and asks for forgiveness. Someone who invites their family to their massive once in a lifetime wedding. Someone who truly cares.
She’s not that person, so it’s impossible to reach the heights her ambition set for her. It’s a character problem.
Bingo! Well said.
'Meghan and Harry will focus on their brand-new foundation, Archewell, which was of course named after their son, Archie. "Our focus is on supporting efforts to tackle the global COVID-19 pandemic, but faced with this information coming to light, we felt compelled to share the story of how this came to be," they revealed in a statement.' (my bold).
So now they're involved with the covid-19 pandemic? Is there anything they can't do??
Sorry, I didn't know, apologies if you knew.
Well, I'm happy to dispose of the idea that the Wizard of Oz might have had anything to do with the case, especially as my thoughts have been shown to be based on false assumptions. Hypothesis rejected.
Harry Markle looked at the possibility of backers and she too concluded that any politically motivated backers would have chosen somebody else for their dirty work.As a secret agent, MM is more of a Mr Bean than 007. She and H could still be useful idiots for someone else though.
The only person in history I can think of who wormed their into a family at the top of the tree from obscure beginnings was Rasputin, in his relationship with the Russian Imperial family. He's sometimes called the `Mad Monk' although he was not under religious vows.
Wikipedia says he was a `self-proclaimed holy man'; my old history teacher mentioned that his personal hygiene left much to be desired and it brought a new meaning to the phrase `the odour of sanctity'.
"Gregory Efimovich Rasputin came from solid peasant stock, but drunkenness, stealing and womanising were activities particularly enjoyed by the dissolute young man.
"Rasputin became fascinated by a renegade sect within the Russian Orthodox faith, who believed that the only way to reach God was through sinful actions. Soon, he adopted the robes of a monk, and travelled the country, sinning to his heart's content."
(from https://www.history.co.uk/biographies/who-was-rasputin)
He could apparently stem the haemophiliac Tsaravitch's bleeding, thereby finding favour with the Tsarina, but he was loathed by the Court circle. Eventually, and with some difficulty, he was assassinated but the Imperial family were then contaminated by their association with the whole affair.
"Historians often suggest that Rasputin's terrible reputation helped discredit the tsarist government and thus helped precipitate the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty which happened a few weeks after he was assassinated. Accounts of his life and influence were often based on hearsay and rumor."
@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin
The shadow of the Russian Revolution fell heavily over the RF in the earlier part of the last century - I wonder how much it has lightened since or whether it has darkened again? ?
If Rasputin could exploit a weak link in the Russian Imperial family, could Markle have managed it almost on her own here, using H as the weak point allowing access?
Was a plan threatening to label the RF as `racist' be at the heart of it? Was blackmail necessary at all?
Did she think that she could so discredit the Royals with her allegations that the people would reject all 4 generations that stand between Harry and the throne? The monarch reigns (doesn't rule) only `by consent of the people' - did she hope to manipulate enough of us that the consent would be withdrawn? (In practice, it's the consent, and confidence of `The City' - the Square Mile of the City of London and its institutions- that really matters, I gather.)
Diana made sure she undermined Charles prospects as king - and stated it in so many words in the Martin Bashir interview. So `his jacket's on a shoogly peg' there, with a lot of people still against Camilla, even as `Princess Consort' rather than queen.
Did Me-me-me see herself and Harry being carried shoulder-high up the Mall by a surging mass of sugars, while HM makes a hasty retreat from BP via an obscure backdoor, C&C sneaking out of Clarence House and the Cambridges scooping up children and toys before fleeing KP?
To be followed, of course, by her appearance on the balcony, waving to her people, in her rightful place dead-centre, with H at her side? (and Markus & Scoobie sniggering in the room behind them?). Issuing a Proclamation that we now had the Royal House of Markle?
I've just watched Lucy Worsly's programme about how the Tudors, usurpers that they were, used their propaganda, including Shakespeare's plays, to discredit the dead Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets, and to establish their legitimacy. The vilification was sadly familiar, so like what we have been witnessing.
Lucy commented that Olivier's Richard was absolutely the Tudor view of Richard- she even commented on his facial expression - `full of evil, malice, and deceit'. I wonder, where have we seen that?
Meghan Markle 'worryingly silent' and 'struggling to cope with new LA life' - relative
EXCLUSIVE: Duchess of Sussex's relative says she is has been unusually quiet with the toll of leaving the Royal family, falling out with pal Jessica Mulroney and an ongoing court case taking toll
By Halina Watts
21:27, 4 JUL 2020
Meghan and Prince Harry must be “struggling” to cope as their royal rift is played out in a legal battle, a relative has claimed.
[Picture caption: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have had a difficult year, with family and legal issues]
In documents lodged at the High Court this week, the Duchess of Sussex has insisted she was left “unprotected” by the Royal Family while pregnant with son Archie.
It’s the latest salvo fired in her continuing fight with a newspaper over published extracts of a letter she sent to dad Thomas.
And the stress of their new life is also said to be taking its toll on Harry who is missing the close bond he once had with his brother Prince William.
The relative of Meghan, who does not want to be named, told the Sunday Mirror: “She has gone very quiet. I think she is likely to be feeling extremely low and probably struggling.
“The legal battle and the increased tension it’s created with the royals due to the information that’s coming out has to be putting a lot of strain on them both.
“Meghan’s been a lot more distant and introverted over the last few weeks – her family is worried. And Harry must be tormented by his fractured family ties.
"He was particularly down on William’s birthday on June 21.”
This week it emerged 37-year-old Meghan has named in court papers five friends who gave an interview to US People magazine defending her and criticising her father.
But she denies authorising them to do it.
Prince William and Prince Harry have reported fallen out since Meghan Markle joined the Royal family (Image: Getty)
She insisted her friends spoke to the magazine only because they were worried for her.
Meghan also claimed she had been the subject of numerous damaging and distressing articles, with Kensington Palace ordering her to say nothing but “no comment”.
Her legal document stated: “As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself.”
Found link on Skippy where the poster commented: ~¡Relative? Doria is the only she hasn't ghosted
message to the people of the hospitality business in Britain.
It's warm, heart-felt and brings a lump to the throat.
Thank you, Sir.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8490401/How-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-filling-days-12-bathroom-Hollywood-mansion.html
Anonymous asked:
Hi Skippy! 2016 article in Ebony magazine, Markle says her mom is "100% black" (weird comnent) & about her biracialness: "I could get into twice as many [audition] rooms, but was turned down twice as often as many of my peers..." What she left out is that before any audition, her headshot would often be sent ahead of time by her casting reps or would already be in a database. If she didn't get the parts, it wasn't a race issue--it's an issue of her just being such a wooden, forgettable actress.
Yes…no talent!❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
yes, the answer is MM but look in the comments - before it disappears.......you'll know what i mean
Upon dissolving their Royal offices are KP, Harry moved his private secretary over to be the Executive Director of Travalyst. Why would you keep this person around unless you are politically motivated?
Bio below!
Heather Wong
ASSISTANT PRIVATE SECRETARY TO HRH THE DUKE OF SUSSEX (PRINCE HARRY), INDIVIDUAL
BIOGRAPHY
Heather serves as Assistant Private Secretary to HRH The Duke of Sussex (Prince Harry) at Kensington Palace, where, she focuses on building The Duke of Sussex's strategic initiatives across areas including conservation and sustainable tourism, mental health, sport for social development, HIV/AIDS, and youth engagement in the Commonwealth. Heather works together with strategic partners to navigate the landscape of organisations—from grassroots to global – ensuring maximum potential impact of His Royal Highness' work in these areas.
Prior to joining Kensington Palace, Heather served as Associate Director at Milltown Partners, a London based strategic consultancy working with businesses and individuals to solve complex communications, public policy, and reputation challenges. Before moving to the U.K., Heather worked in U.S. government and politics, and served as Communications Director for the Super PAC NextGen Climate; and was a political appointee in the Obama Administration, serving as Acting Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and as a spokesperson for international affairs at the U.S. Department of Treasury. Heather also was the Communications Director to The Better World Campaign, the issues and advocacy arm of The United Nations Foundation; and spent several years on Capitol Hill as Press Secretary to the House Financial Services Committee and Chairman Barney Frank, and held communications roles in the offices of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, and the (then) Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
Heather holds a bachelor's degree in Mass Communications from the University of California, Berkeley, and a master's degree in Politics and Communications from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
REGIONAL FOCUS
EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA
Megs the producer Hahahaha
More strings than a harp(y)
https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit
Camilla Long
Harry the hostage takes blame for woes of the world
The reedy voice, the dead eyes, the sense that an evil mastermind is mouthing the words at him from behind the camera. Yes, Prince Harry’s latest message did look like a hostage video — there is no way he’d ever use a word as long and tricky as “endemic” of his own accord.
In the video, released on Wednesday, Prince Patty Hearst said he was “sorry” for “endemic” racism and the “unconscious bias” that still blights our world. “Sorry we haven’t got the world to the place you deserve it to be,” he mooed, unaware that somewhere else, at some other time, he was a white prince from a family that built itself on the principle of inequality and had used racial slurs in a video made during military training.
He has only a very hazy recollection of this past life, and now talks like a Peloton instructor from San Diego.
As for titles, Dumbarton could work
Dumbodocs.con
It’s not that MM had to rise in the popularity stakes to get there, she may have thought she could do it by knocking them down. Narcs see life as a greasy pole – anyone higher on it than them has to be pushed down. They don’t have to pull themselves up but may use others for toe- and hand-holds.
How easy is it to destroy somebody by vilifying them? All too easy. It’s not just the horrible things that really happened, such as the abuses carried out by Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, but fantasists have invented lurid allegations, precipitating criminal investigations, destroying lives and reputations.
In 2001, Neil Hamilton (not the nation’s favourite MP) and his wife Christine were arrested on false allegations of serious sexual misconduct. Luckily, they were able to have their alibis corroborated. Without this, they would have been sunk – people were ready to believe anything of them.
In 2003, their accuser was sentenced to 3 years for the offence but she did it again, to someone else, in 2014:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2767792/Fantasist-jailed-2003-falsely-claiming-raped-Neil-Christine-Hamilton-bars-lying-wrongly-telling-police-husband-attacked-samurai-sword
The Savile affair erupted in 2012, followed by another fantasist, initially known as `Nick’:
`… for 18 months between 2014 and 2016, he was the star witness in a high-profile investigation into allegations of sexual abuse and murder, involving MPs, generals and senior figures in the intelligence services…’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49048972)
Finally, in 2019, the perpetrator, real name Carl Beech, admitted that he’d made it all up. He had blackened the characters of highly respected people, some of whom went to their graves before their names were cleared. The conduct of the police also came in for a great deal of criticism for ignoring the presumption of innocence, for those that Beech smeared, until proved guilty.
Yes, vile falsehoods can bring down the innocent. What do you think of this as an explanation of MM's modus operandi? It just takes money to pay for the propaganda to be spread around.
“Artistic integrity”? Where…where did you come up with that? You're not artistic, and you have no integrity. You know, you really need some help. A regular psychiatrist couldn't even help you. You need to go to, like, Vienna or something. You need to get involved at the University Level. Like where Freud studied, and have all those people looking at you and checking up on you. That's the kind of help you need. Not the once a week for 80 bucks. No. You need a Team. A team of psychiatrists working round the clock thinking about you, having conferences, observing you--like the way they did with the Elephant Man. That's what I'm talking about, because that's the only way you're going to get better.
(Posted by Tuneful)
Part One
Meghan Markle left Kate Middleton 'upset' with 'foot-stamping rant' at royal staff
EXCLUSIVE: Speaking to Daily Star Online, royal author Tom Quinn goes into further detail about an alleged heated incident between Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton.
An incident that left Kate Middleton "really upset" after Meghan Markle criticised one of her members of staff involved a "foot-stamping" rant, it has been claimed.
Royal author, Tom Quinn, claims he has spoken to Kensington Palace insiders about their relationship.
Meghan Markle, he describes an alleged incident with royal staff.
Meghan allegedly felt she was not being treated with the same respect as Kate while she and husband Prince Harry lived at the Palace.
It was previously reported how the incident left Kate feeling "horrified", but Quinn has since gone into further detail.
Mr Quinn told Daily Star Online: "Meghan and Harry were living in what's called Nottingham Cottage and it's probably the only bit that you genuinely really could say, is actually quite small.
"And so I think that reminded Meghan that she was, as it were, second place or as the runner-up.
"So when Harry and Will got together and sometimes Meghan and Kate as well, because there was this tension occasionally, famously Meghan slightly lost her temper with a member of Kate's staff in front of Kate.
"And it was that incident, that I was told by someone who was actually there, who said it was really uncomfortable because Meghan just lost it with this person.
"The reason she lost it with Kate's member of staff was that she, Meghan, didn't feel that this person was giving her the sort of attention she deserved.
"It was almost as if in that one encounter, it encapsulated for Meghan the problem that she had, that she's a Princess and she's number two."
Part Two
He added: "She was very successful, coming into this alien environment where people behave towards you according to where you are in the status of who becomes King or Queen next, that's just alien to her.
"The way it was described to me was, there were raised voices and foot-stamping."
It is further claimed that the incident left Kate feeling "really upset".
Mr Quinn continued: "Meghan asked this person, I know who it was but I can't say because it will give away my source, who works for Kate who was basically asked to do something by Meghan and said, 'I'm really sorry I can't do that because I work for Kate'.
"And Meghan really felt she had been slightly put in her place, because if you become a Princess you kind of assume that staff, when you ask them to do something, they are going to do it."
He added: "She (Kate) was horrified, she was really upset because she's very fond of this particular member of staff and she thought that Meghan almost bowling out this person was just completely unacceptable.
"She's very sensitive about not being treated with the same respect that she feels Kate is, so can react badly and doesn't take it lying down."
After later moving to Frogmore Cottage, Harry and Meghan dramatically stepped down as senior royals at the start of the year.
They now live in Los Angeles with baby Archie.
They branded the press a "powerful force" and said there was "no other option" but to flee.
Daily Star Online has approached Meghan and Kate's representatives for a response.
------
Raised voices and footstomping!! The stores coming out are so consistent
Royal charity payout to harry and meghan AND a few details about Meghan's new film project...the possible source of remarks she wants to run for political office.
ROYAL CHARITY PAYOUT Harry and Meghan charities handed £860k from cause they ran with William and Kate
Sun Reporter
22:28, 4 Jul 2020Updated: 22:28, 4 Jul 2020
HARRY and Meghan charities have been handed £860,000 from a cause they ran with William and Kate.
The payout is in accounts for The Royal Foundation, with sources saying it finalises the foursome’s split.
Sources claim the payout finalises the foursome’s split
In its post-balance sheet the foundation announced a transfer of £560,984 to Harry’s Invictus Games Foundation dated June 1.
There is also a £151,901 payout to the Sussexes’ Travalyst, a sustainable tourism initiative, plus £145,000 to the now-closed Sussex Royal.
A note says that payment is “being awarded to facilitate the set-up of their new charity”.
The couple are launching non-profit organisation Archewell.
A source said: “This paperwork finalises the foursome’s split and shows Harry and Meghan going their separate ways in all aspects of their life.”
'SEPARATE WAYS'
It comes as Meghan is set to take on the US presidency in a film project with a politically-motivated “renegade” as the main character.
The Duchess is said to have struck a deal with author Lloyd Scott over her novel Election Year.
The pair are believed to have drawn up non- disclosure agreements which will see Meghan in a producer role overseeing the script’s development.
Lloyd’s story follows Senate staffer Maverick Johnson Malone as she battles to save America from a Russian operative plotting to become the next president.
Meghan is said to have “related to main character”.
A source said: “Lloyd has been excitedly telling people about the deal. She says Meghan contacted her after being alerted to an internet blog about the book.
“It would be a great screenplay and Meghan would have all the contacts to make it huge.
“It contains messages about democracy and standing up for what is right — which Meghan is all about.”
After this part, there's a rehash of recent stories, Archie nearly walking, etc
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12034007/harry-meghan-charities-860k-william-kate/#8221
On a somewhat related topic, someone posted pictures of MM's first wedding to Trevor on a beach in Jamaica to another site and commented that she couldn't see a single black person (unless the waiters count). All the guests were white. Now I read somewhere that Doria attended but none of her other Ragland relatives did? And she didn't have any black friends? This from someone who wants us to believe that the BLM movement has always been so important to her?
Nutty - I found this on LSA and copied it - it is one of the best comments i have ever read on MM and Brits response to her
Your choice to post or not
Rae St James said: ↑ #135642
Couldn't disagree more.
Newbie here and still catching up on posts but really irritated by this view point and just wanted to say:
I am Nigerian British and at best I consider Meghan a fraud and many of us (at least of African origin) feel this way. Her marriage into the BRF means absolutely nothing to me. I succeeded on my own merits in the city not through marriage. I don’t identify with her in any way or form and she is the last person I would look up to. I mentor young people and she is an example of what not to do and how not to behave.
Just a word on the black African perspective (also many other commonwealth countries). We have nothing in common with Meghan and it is quite insulting to insinuate otherwise.
We have strong values that are not disimilar to those of the RF; family, tradition, respect of elders/hierarchy etc and that is why from Nigeria to Kenya to Pakistan to India, across most of the commonwealth, there is broad based support for the Queen and the Cambridges because they uphold and embody values we recognise and share. H & M don't embody these values and we can tell. My Somalian- British activist friend was disgusted by the way she and Harry treated the Queen because she would never treat her Somalian grandmother like that. Same with Pakistani, Malaysian and Indian friends; we all understand family dynamics and culture and respect them.
A loud minority of young blacks (particularly university students) may hail H&M but once you dig into the varied communities you find very little support for them and it reflects in the polling. Even the British Asian and Muslim communities don't support them as these communities tend to be socially conservative and value attributes like tradition and respect of elders. That is why the Cambridges were so well received in Pakistan. When the Cambridges went to Bradford in January, a couple of young teens were asked by ITV if they thought racism drove Meghan out of Britain and they found the claim ridiculous. The Meghan is a victim narrative is driven by a minority of leftwing liberal nutters, out of touch with the rest of the country and don't have either the nation or the wider minority ethnic groups behind them. Let’s not group all British blacks with the few that identify with her. Credit us with some intelligence and self-respect. We are quite astute.
Back to the marriage claim, the uncontested assumption that marrying someone like JCMH is a prize or an achievement for black women is seriously patronising and insulting. I can assure you that many black african parents will actively disapprove of their daughters marrying someone like JCMH, prince or not. William, yes, Harry, no. And it’s down to respect.
We saw pictures of William, a future King, washing Mike Middleton’s car simply because he was courting his daughter. That is serious respect. Before he asked for her hand in marriage, he hosted Mike and Carol on a shooting weekend at Birkhall. He spent Easter Sunday 2011 (Sunday before their Friday wedding) with them at their house in Bucklebury, and invited James Middleton to join him, Harry and Charles for breakfast the day of the wedding. His actions scream I value your daughter and value you by extension. That resonates with any family minded person particularly africans.
Imagine if Meghan seriously identified as black and Harry did something similar for her parents. That would be a statement indeed. Why should blacks settle for less?
Now imagine if Meghan pulled a Sophie, settled down, embedded herself in the family, carried herself with regal poise, earned trust and then picked up serious projects like working with sexually abused women or with modern slavery or FGM, actually doing things not talking about them. Is that not a better reflection that black women can identify with? Why should we settle for less? Why on God’s earth should we be represented by someone so incompetent and offensive? In what way should any of us, many more accomplished than her, should be looking up to her or rooting for her?! It's like staging Fergie as a representative for whites. Just offensive.
She is a disgrace and certainly not a beacon of hope for anyone, least of all black women. We are better than her.
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/blog-posts/
Amy Morin
The 7 Things That Only Narcissists Will Do
Posted Nov 12, 2015
You’ve likely encountered a narcissist or two in your life. Perhaps a former lover could never put your needs first. Or maybe you’ve worked with someone who just couldn't stop promoting his accomplishments long enough to do any work. Whether your encounters are professional or personal, there are telltale signs that you’re dealing with a narcissistic person. And when you are, establish healthy boundaries and keep an emotional distance.
1. They make it clear they know everything.
Narcissists don’t hesitate to educate lawyers about the legal system or enlighten doctors about medicine. After all, they know more about everything than anyone else, and they’re not afraid to show it. In fact, they can be expected to argue, educate, and inform you about virtually every topic you bring up in conversation: “Here’s where you got that wrong. "That’s what most people think, but that’s not actually true.” They don’t shy away from disagreements or opportunities to tutor others about their way of thinking.
2. They insist on being the exception to the rule.
Rules are for people who aren’t smart enough to make good decisions on their own, the narcissist believes, but they know they’re exceptional. And so the usual rules, laws, or policies don't apply to them. They’re often good at manipulating others to bend the rules for them, reinforcing their belief that they shouldn’t have to succumb to the same regulations as everyone else.
3. They project an image of superiority.
Narcissists care greatly about their image. They want to make sure they appear wealthy, popular, and elite. They’re often materialistic and greatly enjoy name dropping, as associating themselves with the hottest brand or famous friends makes them feel important.
4. They make a great first impression, but quickly wear out their welcome.
Narcissists’ charming personalities tend to win them favor with new people—at first. They may come across as confident, exciting—maybe the most endearing and engaging person in the room. But over time, their selfish tendencies cause people to run the other way.
article continues after advertisement
5. They boost their egos by implying others are inferior.
Not only do narcissists need to establish how superior they are; they also tend to imply that everyone else is less intelligent, experienced, or likeable. No matter how much training or education someone else has had, the narcissist is he or she is the real expert.
6. They assume everyone adores them.
The narcissist truly believes that everyone from former co-workers to past lovers holds them in high regard—and assumes that anyone who doesn’t like them must be jealous. But while they can be very sensitive to criticism, outwardly they try to dismiss any negative comments about their personality or performance, and may try to punish anyone who dare express an unfavorable opinion about them.
7. They put their own feelings ahead of other people’s needs.
A lack of empathy is the most telling characteristic of the narcissist. They don’t care what other people need or how they feel. Everything they do centers around what they want and need. They don’t care what type of pain they inflict on others. While fundamentally unsupportive and manipulative, they can fake empathy when it helps them look better. But they lack a genuine desire to put anyone else’s needs above their own desires.
Source: AmyMorinLCSW.com
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/682468-prince-charles-aims-to-dampen-royal-entitlement-after-ascending-the-throne
"Prince Patty Hearse"------dieing, I'm laughing so hard I'm dieting LOLOLOLOLOL
@ maneki and others who talk about them changing who/what they support. Didnt they say ages ago (before they left) it would be different evey week. I dont recall their reason. I dont think it was because they get bored easily. Maybe they didnt have a reason. I dont do social media but Im sure I remember they stopped following everyone and were going to follow new people every week. Sure fits with the way they chop and change.
Thank you for your point of view, writing as an African British, which is informative and interesting and not something I had considered. It makes complete sense.
“Prince Patty Hearst"------dying, I'm laughing so hard I'm dying LOLOLOLOLOL
I know, right?! Camilla Long has a wicked sense of humor.
She could out-Eumenid all three Eumenides.
And thank you, Jdubja, for posting that splendid post from the African contributor to LSA - it's really heartening. We've lost so much of that respect for our elders here, Hasbeen and Neverwas are a case in point.
I haven't forgotten how shocked an African colleague was that my demented mother had had to go into a home and that I wasn't looking after her. Mum had come to live with me and I'd done my best to care for her, without any family to support me. I was near to cracking up but the NHS & Social Services more or less took matters out of my hands.
Last year, at the funeral of a cousin who had been sectioned under the MHA, I met her designated carer, a young African man whose concern and respect for her shone forth. He must had such patience. I felt humbled in his presence.
We need to recover that attitude - Harry's pronouncements on the older generation are unforgivable.
OT? An illustration of attitudes - I went grey in my forties. Cycling home from work one day, without a helmet, I was verbally abused by youngsters in a passing car - `Get out of the way, you old bag!' was the cry.
Shortly after, I was cycling along, with a helmet on. A lorry passed me carefully and I was wolf-whistled.
The other thing I noticed was that once the grey was concealed by colourant, people stopped patronising me - better than being abused but still uncomfortable. I'm now blonde.
How was Meghan's Meghan's mosque visit perceived by the Islamic world, I wonder? Her self-presentation struck me as very disrespectful.
The way MM wore her scarf at a mosque was disrespectful - and I certainly don't like women covering their heads but there is something called respect, which MM doesn't understand. The scarf was very loosely wrapped round her head and she was showing plenty of hair. Either you do it properly or you don't. As usual, she had to bend the rules.
.Following the decision of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to leave the Royal Foundation to set up their own charitable organisation, an unrestricted grant of £145,000 was awarded to Sussex Royal to facilitate the set-up of the new charity Grants of £151,856 were also awarded to the Sussex Royal Foundation for the continued development of the Duke of Sussex’s Sustainable Tourism programme, Travalyst. The Royal Foundation continued to manage a number of legacy programmes for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, including the programmes targeting youth violence in Nottingham and London and the Empowering Communities programme, which continued to support families who had been affected by the Grenfell disaster, through grant funding to a community kitchen in West London.
The book Election Day Megs allegedly intnds to turn into a film is self-published so probably author could not interest any publisher in it and one comment in DM was that it was apparently a rehash of The Manchurian Candidate
Now some thoughts about how narcissists remember/don't remember events, in relation to RF not being able to defend the indefensible.
M considers the RF should have protected her from what we see as legitimate criticism.
If she's anything like my most recent narcissist, she will claim to have no recollection of what she did that attracted the critical press. She may be able to recall what had annoyed her (perceived lack of respect can be a major trigger) and why, in her view, her victim deserved to be called out. She will deny, however, that she flew into a rage and may well refuse to believe that the incident even took place.
Whether the denial is truthful, or if she is knowingly dissembling, or if there really is no trace of it in her memory, is anybody's guess.
Perhaps, in Meghan's mind none of the reported incidents happened, therefore the press reports are not true. As she sees it, the RF did nothing about the abuse she suffered when she had done nothing wrong.
How narcissists' memories work is a mystery to me. Are they lying when they say they don't remember? Do they sincerely believe their own lies?
Or is there really some neural mechanism at work in the brain, during the rage. that wipes the memory, thanks to aberrant wiring?
I don't think we've ever talked about this aspect of narcissistic behaviour. I haven't been able to get to the bottom of it yet. Any ideas?
"I, on the other hand, would find it disrespectful for someone to ask a feminist to cover her hair just because she is a woman. To wear such clothing would go against my beliefs and I wouldn't care what the "islamic world" thought about me. The way Meghan Markle choosed to wear that scarf is almost the only thing about her that does not upset me."
I think I understand where you are coming from. (And whether I do or not, you've got a right to think that, of course.)
I'm uneasy when religions (not only Islam) require women to take on a second-class status. But at that mosque M wasn't representing herself or representing women, she was representing the Queen and the UK. Had M chosen to attend an event on her own looking and acting like she did to make a point, fine. Or had she declined to make that appearance without explanation, ok. But on a semi-royal tour mosque appearance dressing like that...cleavage, arms exposed, hair deliberately exposed, butt pads, PDA.. yuck. And pushing in front of Harry during the visit to Morocco to greet the King first (the "she's repugnant" incident), constantly caressing her phony pregnant belly when greeting young Muslim students...
Personally, I'm not sure she pulled her hair out at the mosque so much to make a statement, but rather she thought she looked "cuter" that way for the cameras. So I don't see that performance or her others as iconically feminist.
@ Snippy
Dead on, "her" wedding didn't generate anything. It she was such a great attraction in her own right, marrying Trevor would have resulted in tourist revenue for the country. It didn't.
Marriage of HRH Henry Windsor to Miss Rachel Meghan Markle didn't generate much either. I went and bought some expensive fine china from Kate and Wills wedding because it was beautiful and commemorated a truly State historic occasion. I didn't bother with cheap Markle memorabilia.
Look past her verbal diarhea. Her pregnancy, claims of feeling unprotected and gagged have nothing to do with the breach of copyright case she is pushing.
She is flooding the court with her nonsense in the knowledge that will surface up in public.
This is a contemptible and totally unprecedented misuse of the legal system.
The woman is out of her mind and out of control.
"The Royal Foundation continued to manage a number of legacy programmes for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, including the programmes targeting youth violence in Nottingham and London and the Empowering Communities programme, which continued to support families who had been affected by the Grenfell disaster, through grant funding to a community kitchen in West London."
If their foundation is gone, how are these legacy programmes faring? Were they just transferred to a different royal charity?
Exactly. We will see how far this goes.
"I, on the other hand, would find it disrespectful for someone to ask a feminist to cover her hair just because she is a woman. To wear such clothing would go against my beliefs and I wouldn't care what the "islamic world" thought about me. The way Meghan Markle choosed to wear that scarf is almost the only thing about her that does not upset me."
For me, this is a question of common courtesy and of respecting the traditions of other cultures and religions. Any man, entering a synagogue or a Jewish cemetery, must wear some kind of headwear (a kipa, a hat, a cap). I saw a visitor wearing a paper (?) kipa in a synagogue in Amsterdam. In Christian churches, it's the other way round. There are posters in Catholic churches in Italy reminding visitors of proper clothing. You can't wear skimpy shorts or tops.
I really dislike the idea of veiling and every time I see very young girls wearing some form of hijab I feel very angry. But if I were to visit a mosque, I would wear a scarf.
Of course Meghan's behaviour was really inappropriate in other ways too. She touched the imam and didn't eat the food their hosts had prepared.
WBBM - absolutely correct about how the reputations are ruined - even if found to be false later. And could she have thought that bringing down the 4 generations above (loved the grabbing the kids and fleeing KP - just saw Lucy Worsley's Myths of Royalty episode of Marie Antoinette where they did do that unsuccessfully) would allow her to drag JH to step into the opening? Maybe not consciously but I am thinking that one of the problems is that once you start some revolution, it is hard to maintain control as what happened in France and Russia. Perhaps, sometimes, it is better not to kick that kind of thing off and work within a system to bring about change (slow but progressing perhaps farther than it would by more anarchy type moves).
KCM1212 - nice article with more detail about the "incident". I think very on target about how MM was thinking that staff are just there to do bidding and not specific to being under someone or within a division in the same way people say they work at IBM (which they do) but they work in this division or that division where the lines of who you report to/who supervises you are marked and you don't step out on your own to someone randomly coming down the hallway telling you to start working on a different division's issue.
I seem to remember something about Prince Albert had a similar problem with trying to get someone to bring in more wood for heating in the room, he asked the wrong person and was told not my job.
Perhaps JH had left her with the idea that you ask and it will be done (so it doesn't matter who you ask). He may have been a little indulged that way growing up or he grew up with knowing who to ask for what (30+ years to learn it), the hierarchy, and hadn't known to think about how to teach her that knowledge (of how things work at the palace, within the BRF as it had been so engrained). Couple that with the idea of being plucked into instant royalty, that probably things had pretty much gone without a lot of reminders of her status (1 of many within the BRF, lower than K) other than a tiara or the carpet color she didn't get, so it would be bound to happen sooner or later.
Election Year into a movie - now she's a producer. This will be very interesting to watch. Sure, she's had a chance to watch her ex do some wheeling and dealing but that doesn't mean that those skills he has, the experience of when or how far to push/plea/deal or the contacts to make it happen. This is about getting OPM (other people's money) to be able to get the right director, the right script, the right actors, good editing and then: selling this to people to pay money to watch it. There are no guarantees that all of that is in her skill set.
Many more things don't get made than get made.
Past success tends to increase your chances of getting green light to go onto the next step but not a guarantee.
I wondered how she got the book rights. Those are sold as part of the publisher's contract to print the book. Yes you can buy them later but you have to get them from whomever purchased them. And, I didn't think they had that kind of money if it had possibilities which had been overlooked by other in HW.
Brainwashing? Now that is hilarious.
Working for an enemy power? Not so funny.
It just needs a touch of `The World of Suzie Wong'...
Past success tends to increase your chances of getting green light to go onto the next step but not a guarantee.
I wondered how she got the book rights."
-----------
I believe Piroska said the book was self published. The story i read said Meghan dealt with the author directly.
Was it through a vanity publisher?
I hope the author had access to sound advice - and a long spoon...
If Meg felt conflicted about wearing the scarf and entering the mosque, then why go at all? Oh wait, how would she get pretty pictures of her cosplaying Diana and Kate? Or how would she take her rightful place as the Queen of the Commonwealth?
South Africa PAID for H&M's trip. If she doesn't like the cultures and religions of the Commonwealth, then don't go. Meg specializes in spitting in the plates of those who feed her.
Don't forget, feminism is political. Foreigners visit with the permission of the host country. Why should a foreigner have any rights to influence it's politics? The women and men of South Africa are the ones who get to decide what their rights are. Yes, we outsiders can have opinions and if we want, we can be their allies. However, to be a foreigner and come in and say you know better as if you have a monopoly of morals and ethics is the epitome of condescension and hypocrisy.
The BRF behaves the way they do because they understand the importance of respecting different societies and staying out of their politics. They have to be beacons of diplomacy and masters of international relationships.
If Meg can only disrespect other people's knowledge, life experiences, religions, and cultures, she has zero right to be subsidized as a representative of said peoples.
Meg's attitude towards the headscarf In South Africa is not very dissimilar to her attitude about wearing a hat for HMTQ.
If this movie gets made it will not even be direct to DVD. It will be direct to flash drive given away at motels and gas stations or will be a lower tier Netflix product.
https://www.ccn.com › maverick-meghan-markle-this-could-be-her-election-year
Jun 29, 2020 · Maverick is the star of a book titled Election Year, written by Lloyd Scott. The plot sees the protagonist approaching the U.S. presidential election in 2020 as a staffer for Senator Suni Wainwright, a candidate on track to become the first female president. This sounds very promising, but there’s a twist! Wainwright is a Russian operative!
"The only difference is that the culture of devout Christian women covering their hair has evolved from Jewish and Muslim cultures."
I respectfully disagree that the Christian tradition evolved from Muslim culture because Islam was created 600+ years after Christ and thus Christianity was instituted.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8494185/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-join-video-call-discuss-justice-equal-rights.html
Thank you CatEyes. I saw that and was trying to think of how to respond.
JFK said A rising tide lifts all boats.
She did change it a bit but still copying others
Begs the question, why didn't her Major in International Relations help her in these circumstances? Did the curriculum not cover the art and power of diplomacy?
I hope the Queen with her hopeless ostriching will get everything she deserves from her two favourite boys. She spoiled them and didn't correct their behavior when necessary. She reaps what she sow.
I am sorry for Wills and Kate. As for Her Majesty the current disaster is her own doing.
My meaning wasn't that Christianity originated from Islam. I meant that the direction of Christian culture's etiquette on women's hair covering evolved to look differently than Jewish culture and Muslim culture's etiquette on hair covering over time.
Thank you for the clarification as I did not see your meaning as you intended. I was not offended, I just posted myself as a matter of clarification. :)
However, I continue to cover my head with a veil when I attend Mass although many do not in America but many do in other countries/regions such as Italy, the African continent, Asia and of course the middle east.
Psychology Today
Amy Morin
The 7 Things That Only Narcissists Will Do
Posted Nov 12, 2015
@KCM1212: Oh gosh, I have referred several people who have been dealing with narcissists
to this article. It is relatively brief and to the point, and not loaded with a bunch of clinical jargon.
Meghan checks off all of these behaviors!!
I believe Meghan has a profound case of narcissistic personality disorder, which, when I mentioned Meghan and NPD by name in my DM comments in 2018, people usually complained to the DM moderators, who often removed my comments and sent me a polite note telling me that a number of complaints had been lodged. I believe this happened to other commenters who dared bring up narcissism and NPD and Meghan.
But at that time, many people who weren’t able to read Meghan’s behaviors, and Harry’s too as her target/victim, had no idea what was coming in the future from her. They were still cheerleading for the Titanic.
Now her narcissism is not only discussed by many in the DM comments and other social media platforms, the press has finally had the spine to link Meghan and narcissism too. The press is, for the most part, avoiding using the term NPD, to avoid being accused of making a diagnosis, but at least they are describing her as a narc.
Another interesting place to look is Quora. Just search Meghan Markle and narcissist, narcissism, or narcissistic personality disorder. Some of the braver souls who are mental health counselors, therapists, psychologists or psychiatrists post there. They usually make it clear that they are not diagnosing Meghan due to professional restraints, but then they give their personal opinion, which is very close to a diagnosis. They all say she is either a narcissist or they believe she probably has NPD, sometimes with sociopathy or borderline personality disorder, which many mental health professionals believe affected Diana, which adds credibility to the theory that men often marry their mothers.
I think Meghan used and continues to use the Diana factor heavily in her manipulation and control of Harry.
Think old films - G-men & gangsters in trilbies.
I once wrote a dissertation on the representation of scientists in British films of the 1950s and 60s where lack of a hat was a signifier of someone who didn't follow the herd, an independent thinker, perhaps a brilliant chap on some top-secret wartime scheme.
On the other hand, does anyone remember the exception- Brian Donlevy as Professor Quatermass? There were 3 films: `The Quatermass Xperiment'; `Quatermass 2' and `Quatermass and the Pit'.
Even when being pursued around what was the building site for Hemel Hempstead New Town, or Shell Haven Refinery, Quatermass held onto his trilby as if his life depended on it - so much so that I felt that `Quatermass 2' should be have been called renamed `Quatermass and the Hat'. Of course, Donlevy wore a toupee so maybe the hat helped to keep it in place!
It was probably the shift to greater informality in the mid 1960s that did for hats. I'm a great hat-wearer and don't feel dressed for a formal occasion without one, any more than I would in dead-flat shoes. I appreciate the warmth in winter, or up a mountain, and a hat conceals many a bad hair day and can balance my somewhat-aquiline nose. More than anything, I love the glamour of a really dashing piece of millinery.
Yet know someone who, 9 times out of 10, has to say `Oh, I can't stand hats..' whenever she sees me in one. So what? That's her problem.
I believe the religious `imperative' for women to cover the hair is based partly on the idea that their hair will tempt men into lust. Various fundamental Protestants have rules about this - at one time women in the Exclusive Brethren were forbidden to cut their hair (I was at school with a girl who had to live under that rule), then the street preachers (male) in the 1980s would be accompanied by silent women who wore triangular peasant kerchiefs on the head.
For a man though, a hat was a symbol of authority; removing it was a sign of respect towards a superior. The forelock tugging yokel or Cockney who touched his forehead as he said `OK, Guv' were removing `virtual hats'. It's also why the early Quakers infuriated the authorities in the 17th century - they took off their hats for nobody, as they believed in spiritual equality.
Thee are inconsistencies in the theory though.
I do miss the convenience of being able to wear a headsquare now, apart from in the garden, lest people jump to the wrong conclusion about my religion - only HM can get still away with it!
Print Length: 222 pages
Publication Date: April 14, 2020
Publisher: Lloyd Scott (April 14, 2020)
Language:: English
Gives short plot summary. No reviews yet.
Sorry KC meant to reply earlier - I have checked both Companies House and Charity Commission and found that despite reports that papers had been filed to close down Sussex Royal it continues to be listed as active by Companies House and registered by Charity Commission. Papers were filed with Companies House on 3 July but these were for change in directors details and a confirmation statement
You were brave to even listen! I didn’t want to add to the viewing numbers, I just can’t my stomach the pair in any capacity.
Oh also, before I am dragged up before the racism council, nothing nefarious intended by my comment. Hats are still in style (barely??) for women of non-white races, and of course women's shampoo and styling routines differ.
*Not sure if he is so well known that way outside the US.
If you were a new, self-published author with no book reviews on amazon and had just signed the Duchess of Sussex to produce a movie, wouldn't you be all over the media talking up your book?
Incidentally, Flaming June is a famous picture by Englishman Howard Leighton and there is debate over whether the model for the picture was a woman by the name of Dorothy Dene or Mary Lloyd. Perhaps a family connection was used for the pseudonym?
Anyway the biggest giveaway is the Youtube trailer for Election Year. The woman used in the trailer as the protaganist looks like a young, sexy Meghan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrp7PCCo6EI
What do others think?
I thought MM had too much to say for herself in the first BBC interview and that she hadn't read the script or researched the role. Nevertheless, I hoped she was capable of learning, despite the evidence to the contrary that was piling up.
The final clincher was the pregnancy announcement on Eugenie's day, when I accepted that Samantha was right all along - MM's a raging narcissist. her behaviour is far worse than that of the narcissist I'd experienced in April 2018 - and I'd had to have help from a counsellor to get over that.
I have a jokey theory about the role of Carmen heated rollers bringing about the Permissive Society. Back then, going to bed with a chap one wasn't married to would have involved risking bad hair in the morning, but who'd risk putting in one's rollers before the rumpy-pumpy?
I wonder if the distribution of funds from the Royal Charity explains the continuing involvement in those charities by the Sussexes. I haven't been able to figure out why, if the Sussexes have left Britain for the dubious comforts of L.A. They keep making videos and calls (not to mention press) to British charities.
Could it be they knew they couldn't get their mitts on the distribution unless they could demonstrate an ongoing presence in the charity?
Also
Megs would certainly be aware of diplomatic requirements. Wasn't her degree from Northwestern in International studies, as well as a brief internship in Buenes Aires? And she at least tried to pass the the Foreign Services test.
All would have stressed the importance of observance and respect for local mores.
I agree with @lizzie that Megs was preening for the pictures.
@WBBM
Rasputin is a fascinating character and the parallels are striking.
His death was the stuff of legends. When cyanide loaded pastries and wine didn't kill him, one of his assassins shot him and left him to bleed out. Rasputin was able to drag himself to a courtyard where he grappled with one of the men, and was shot several more times. His captors then wrapped his body in heavy chains and threw him in the river Neva.
Let's hope history does not repeat itself.
Oops! I didn't realize you had already made the point about Megs International Studies degree. My apologies.
That's what I get for not refreshing the page.
I've heard it was the sugar in the wine and pastries that saved him from the cyanide - no idea how that was supposed to work but I shouldn't like to put it to the test!
https://www.internationalstudies.northwestern.edu/about/
The intro to the course gives the impression that it could be a good start for someone wanting to go into diplomacy but the first-year syllabus struck me as a tad lightweight, or is it just to ensure students know where places are and a bit about their history?
Am I being unfair?
From Daily Mail, UPDATED: 13:13, 29 April 2018
"Miss Roth is an accomplished author who wrote What Pretty Girls Are Made Of in 2015, making Meghan the ill-disguised central character of an ambitious actress.
A copy of the book was reportedly sent to the Duchess of Cambridge."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5669973/Click-lit-author-36-tipped-Meghan-Markles-Maid-Honour.html
Please excuse me while I throw up.
From today’s CDAN:
MONDAY, JULY 06, 2020
Blind Item #7
A little bit of a veiled threat is how the news is being taken that the bff of the alliterate former actress turned royal has been keeping a diary the past couple years. I would imagine it is going to become a book.
FlamingJune86
@riseupwomankind
·
17 May
So proud to have written Election Year a cute uplifting novel with an 80s cool kid vibe that caught the attention of a powerful player. Sometimes dreams are destiny!
Available now at your favorite digital store!
Election Year by Lloyd Scott
books2read.com
FlamingJune86
@riseupwomankind
·
17 May
This trailer has proven to be the making of me. I can't believe it caught the attention of such an important person. I'm so humbled and excited right now. It's unbelievable!
"The intro to the course gives the impression that it could be a good start for someone wanting to go into diplomacy but the first-year syllabus struck me as a tad lightweight, or is it just to ensure students know where places are and a bit about their history?"
"Am I being unfair?"
I don't know that you are being unfair exactly. But what you posted isn't a "course syllabus" in the sense that word is usually used in US settings. (In other words, it doesn't show assignments for a particular course.) Rather it appears to be a very general description of the interdisciplinary major with suggestions of courses that might be taken the first year.
The "major" in International Studies" isn't a stand-alone major. It's an "adjunct" major that any student can add to a degree program but they will be doing a primary major too. M's primary major was Theater. But I suspect many people who complete the IS adjunct major choose a primary major in a more related area like Business, Poli-Sci, History, Econ, or are planning to go on for graduate training-- law, public health, etc.
I'd think ANY student at a halfway decent US university would be exposed to cultural diversity issues both formally and informally. So M's International Studies add-on major should have provided some icing for an already-baked cake. Her study abroad semester in Madrid as well as her BA internship (whatever that entailed) should have provided more icing. So there's really no reason for her lack of cultural awareness/sensitivity except that she probably does have a personality disorder that prevents her from seeing anything from the perspective of another entity. It's really quite astounding to see.
There is something called narcissistic rage. This is taken from Psychology Today:
Narcissistic rage can be defined as intense anger, aggression, or passive-aggression when a narcissist experiences a setback or disappointment, which shatters his (or her) illusions of grandiosity, entitlement, and superiority, and triggers inner inadequacy, shame, and vulnerability.
Also from Psychology Today:
"narcissistic rage may occur when:
1. The narcissist doesn’t get his or her way, even when it’s unreasonable.
2. The narcissist is criticized in some way, even when the critique is made diplomatically, reasonably, and constructively.
3. The narcissist isn’t treated as the center of attention, even when there are other priorities.
4. The narcissist is caught breaking rules, violating social norms, or disregarding boundaries."
Might explain a few things.
One wonders whether to dial 999, but that means deciding between calling for an ambulance or the police - it's that bad.
I can't shake off the feeling every time Megsy tries to threaten with her diary the Palace retaliates by letting out a small portion of the "iceberg" they possess.
"Screaming and stomping feet" was their latest release regarding her behavior.
Previous masterstroke was "can't defend against articles that are true".
I was wondering what happens if the Queen removes Dukedom from Harry for his systematic labeling of our nation racist or for other violations of whatever code she has.
At first it sounded nice to my ears, but then I thought hold on, Harry is born prince, so instead of Duke and Duchess of Sussex they would be prince and princess Harry Windsor. Right?
Apparently any removing of ducal titles has to be voted upon by Parliament, right? Which is odd to me. Even though the Parliament is 'Her Majesty's government' and she gives her blessing to each new Prime Minister, which titles she passes out to her family members as wedding gifts shouldn't concern the Parliament, I wouldn't have thought. If something is within Her Majesty's gift to give in the first place, why should she have to ask permission of the Parliament to take her gift back? Unless having additional titles entitles Harry to a bigger slice of the privy purse?
The citizens of Sussex have made it very plain how *they* feel about the matter, but even if their feelings have no bearing on it, it's patently ridiculous to have two people who reneged on all their responsibilities, both personal and professional to the Queen and who now live in America, and for the one who was 1. NEVER a British citizen in the first place and 2. never intends to go back to England, if she's even permitted to do so . . bearing these titles of British nobility is just completely daft and nonsensical.
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor continued as such until the end of their days, even though they were barred from court and from British soil most of that time. In the unprecedented case of a reigning monarch stepping down, a Dukedom was a little parting gift. He and Wallis tried to monetize their titles, too--which should have prepared the RF better for the intentions of their newest divorced American treasure hunter. When Sarah and Diana were allowed to keep their royal titles (minus HRH), things were a bit different. Both were British subjects of the Queen. Both stuck out their duties in the RF for more than about the scant year Meg managed (in between 'breaks'). Both were the ex-spouses of the Queen's sons. Both had provided two heirs. It could be argued that both earned the right to be recorded the respect in divorce of acknowledging their Royal connection.
Meg was never a British subject, with no intention of becoming one. On that basis alone, she did not deserve a Duchess title. Queen Victoria's uncle, the original Duke of Sussex, displeased the Crown by a non-approved marriage (actually two of them) and his wife was not received at court nor called the Duchess of Sussex until after Victoria ascended and needed her uncle on-side. She agreed to receive his wife and bestowed upon her the title 'Duchess of Edinburgh'--a concession that pleased both sides. The wife did not become a 'Sussex' because her morganatic marriage was still ruled invalid. In earlier, less appeasing times, Meghan would never have become Duchess of Sussex, and Harry would have been obliged to attend court functions alone, as a pariah. Maybe BP is working toward this somewhat, but it's grinding far too slowly for we watchers out here.
Harry will always be Charles's son, no matter how much a bonehead he is. That makes him a Prince of the blood and entitled to be called Prince Harry, though Granny has revoked the HRH, which was a censure to be sure, though the distinction bewtween HRH Prince Harry and Just Plain Prince Harry is lost on most not versed in court etiquette. For sure 999 out of 1000 Americans wouldn't have a clue. Our notion of Princes and Princesses comes from Disney movies.
Meg isn't entitled to diddly-squat. Her 'Princess' is only good as 'Princess Henry' and that's out the window in the event of a divorce. To have a free-range divorced American Duchess who was never a British citizen for even 5 minutes is an utterly bizarre idea. If King Charles finds himself hurting for revenue, he can start passing out manufactured titles to every socially-climbing non-Briton willing to pay for it, then. One can pay to have faux family crests invented, to give some poshness to new money (or in Meg's case, lack of one red dime) . . why not souvenir Royal titles too, since HM has already demeaned 'Duchess' by making Meg one in the first place and allowing her to keep it in the second.
Note that Princess Eugenie, Princess of the blood and one of the most philanthropically-minded of all the Royals despite not being paid by Granny to do so received no extra titles for herself or her husband on her wedding day, despite being Her Majesty's most loyal subject with the curtsey to prove it. She's just a girl and her husband is not Royal . . but mustn't it just gall all of the real Royal family to have this grifting poseur come in and steal the whole kit and kaboodle--dosh, clothes, titles, house--before flipping off the Queen with both hands and fleeing for the Hollywood Hills? That would certainly burn me.