I almost hate to make a post about Prince Harry's latest venture into the arena of woke politics.
Speaking to young Commonwealth leaders in a video released today, Harry focused on the negative aspects of the countries' shared history, saying that while many people had "done an incredible job of acknowledging the past and trying to right those wrongs, but I think we all acknowledge there is so much more to do."
It's all so tiresome, and reminds me of a McDonald's employee campaigning against the beef and french fry industries.
I'd have a lot more respect for your wokeness if you renounced your income from Dad and your inheritance from Mom, both of which are at least indirectly related to the profits of colonialism.
You can't change the past, Harry, but you can change the future.
Stop paying for private jets and cocaine with money from what you call "endemic institutionalized racism" and then we can talk.
Meg told the attendees at the conference that it was "not just in the big moments, it's in the quiet moments where racism and unconscious bias lies and thrives."
Perhaps Meg should make a commitment to a bias-free future by pledging that her son, Archie, will attend only state schools - nothing private - and that she and Harry will choose a school with a majority nonwhite student body.
After all, the Commonwealth is majority nonwhite.
When people really do take a moment to examine a long-held point of view, it's usually because someone they respect has urged them to do so.
Someone like David Attenborough or Dolly Parton. Someone known for talent, kindness, and a long career of good works. Someone not like Meghan Markle.
When Harry and Meg speak out on the issues, it always seems part of a plan to make themselves look better - not to make the issue itself look better.
All they seem to have achieved with their latest statements is increased profits for the Mail Online; the article about the Commonwealth video has 15,000 comments right now.
Speaking to young Commonwealth leaders in a video released today, Harry focused on the negative aspects of the countries' shared history, saying that while many people had "done an incredible job of acknowledging the past and trying to right those wrongs, but I think we all acknowledge there is so much more to do."
It's all so tiresome, and reminds me of a McDonald's employee campaigning against the beef and french fry industries.
What pays your bills?
Dear Harry: the fruits of those historical wrongs have paid for, and continue to pay for, everything you've received your entire life.I'd have a lot more respect for your wokeness if you renounced your income from Dad and your inheritance from Mom, both of which are at least indirectly related to the profits of colonialism.
You can't change the past, Harry, but you can change the future.
Stop paying for private jets and cocaine with money from what you call "endemic institutionalized racism" and then we can talk.
Like Nancy Reagan
Meanwhile, the video shows Meg looking at Harry adoringly, a bit like Nancy Reagan used to look at "Ronnie" back in the day.Meg told the attendees at the conference that it was "not just in the big moments, it's in the quiet moments where racism and unconscious bias lies and thrives."
Perhaps Meg should make a commitment to a bias-free future by pledging that her son, Archie, will attend only state schools - nothing private - and that she and Harry will choose a school with a majority nonwhite student body.
After all, the Commonwealth is majority nonwhite.
Is this impactful?
The question is, are Harry and Meg really convincing anyone to change their point of view on historical injustices?When people really do take a moment to examine a long-held point of view, it's usually because someone they respect has urged them to do so.
Someone like David Attenborough or Dolly Parton. Someone known for talent, kindness, and a long career of good works. Someone not like Meghan Markle.
When Harry and Meg speak out on the issues, it always seems part of a plan to make themselves look better - not to make the issue itself look better.
All they seem to have achieved with their latest statements is increased profits for the Mail Online; the article about the Commonwealth video has 15,000 comments right now.
Comments
Interestingly, I don’t believe Meghan gave them the full contents of the letter. Yes, I 100% believe that Meghan orchestrated it all. I 100% believe her idiot friends fell for the whole thing. I think they knew the end game was To get the letter published.
I don’t think they knew the full story from Meghan.
I do have a question though?
Why is this letter so damning? Why is she suing over it? I understand it didn’t play out as she had hoped it would, but did it really cause her any damage?
I went through Enty’s podcast from Feb again (there’s a post here by nutty with the transcript) and it alludes to the fact her house of cards backdoor ‘press’ arraignment was falling through during that time. How she always had to stay one step ahead with her leaks and scheming, so making sure Harry stayed hooked. It was interesting and 💯 % believable that Meghan has had secret contracts with the press from the get go (as in, I’ll spill this Harry exclusive to you to boost your career and boost mine). For some reason, I guess she stopped working with those people and then did a runner. The timing of the lawsuit (see:runner) makes sense to keep others at bay from spilling her secrets.
Anyway just curious of if this suit is actually anything more than trying to block the people she betrayed in the press from attacking her and exposing her. Seems she dug herself into a mess not realizing the People article would then bury her too.
Exhausting world she created for herself. no wonder she’s a paranoid mess.
I'd award her an honorary Bachelor's degree - a BF, that is, in the old British sense of Bl**dy F**l. It'd be a First in False Accounting, with Racial Fraud and Faking About.
In this context, the suit is less believable. What are the chances that a young mother, busy and sleep deprived, is going to collude and talk to the press about someone else's business, offering quotes from a document mailed to someone else? They all did this without any of them bothering to tell her it would happen? It borders on histrionic.
I don't think the lawsuit makes any sense except as a cash grab.
Does anyone know the amount of ‘damages’ she is seeking. I’ve never seen large settlements in the UK but I could be wrong. Clearly, the DM refused to settle as they make more money off the press of the case, which I guess Meghan is livid about (goes so far to mention it).
Doubt Megsy was yachting when she was with Trevity-Trev-Trev; the appeal of the yacht customers is having a girls who’s famous for acting/modelling. She was a nobody then and likely just sponged off Trev whilst trying to get parts. Once she got the Suits role however, and ditched Trev, she would have had enough D list fame to be in demand on the fringes of the yacht circuit.
I didn't realize all the yacht girls had to be famous; I thought being nubile, easy, and materially-motivated were recommendations enough. It does seem like it would have been difficult to be a hardcore yachter while involved with Trevor. 'Suits' gave her a little more cachet on her resume, but Meg was already 30 or past it when she got established on Suits. Elizabeth Hurley is a yachter, I gather, and she's 55 years old. There can be no other explanation for why I open my Internet browser to see a 'story' and pics of 'Elizabeth Hurley stuns in a bikini!!' what seems like every other day. Is this Elizabeth's PR firm 'advertising' her wares for upcoming cruises? This may be her main source of income nowadays because I don't believe I've seen EH in a movie in probably . . 10 years?
55 is beyond geriatric for a yachter, but EH has a bangin' body of a woman half her age, and she's definitely still a 'name'. The men using her services aboard could justifiably be having a date with the woman they have fantasized about since the 1980s, and EH has held up remarkably well. We cannot say the same about Meg who is 15+ years younger, but who can only be described as looking 'rode hard and put away wet'. I figured the yachting had to have lasted longer than post-Trev/pre-Harry on account of all the sun damage, but there were a number of Soho House subsidized sun holidays, too, and she did grow up in California, where she probably sun-worshiped regularly at the beach with all her school friends who thought she was of Mediterranean extraction.
Meg's *only* asset was youth and she'd used most of that up by the time she got her first (and only) big show business job. Unless we are putting narrating Disney's 'Elephant' in that category? j/k Still, she would have had at least 5-6 lucrative yachting seasons before giving it up to marry Haz. Maybe one or two between Trevor and Corey, but the latter half of her yachting career when she was ostensibly living with Corey in Toronto, eating his food and documenting it on the Tig. Apparently Corey had told his parents he planned to propose, before getting summarily dumped in less than two years, which came as a surprise to both him and his parents. They had met her, evidently, and found her charming.
Well, of course they would've.
Corey dodged a bullet .. it flew off and hit Haz straight in the gonads instead.
IIRC, we said something about £60K? - Please correct me, somebody, if I've got it wrong.
I'm hoping she gets `technical'/derisory damages - an insultingly small amount to show that there was a breach of copyright but the judge didn't think much of the case or the Plaintiff.
Whistler, in Victorian times, was awarded one farthing in his case against Ruskin (a farthing was a quarter of 1d, the old penny - 4 x 240 of them to the pound, ie one nine-hundred-&-sixtieth part of £1 or 0.1041666p! (if my calculator's correct).
Today, ssomewhere between 5p and £1 would be about right.
You have just stated perfectly my daily thoughts on Elizabeth Hurley. I’m 51 and let’s just say my body is not looking good. I always think she looks amazing, but at the same time I also wonder what her rate is, it must be flipping good! Same as that Polish bikini lady in New York, can never remember her name, but always in her skimpies. In fact, I was mulling over how we’ve gone from the days of cards in phone boxes to just putting a daily PR pic out. How times change.
Does anyone know the amount of ‘damages’ she is seeking. I’ve never seen large settlements in the UK but I could be wrong. Clearly, the DM refused to settle as they make more money off the press of the case, which I guess Meghan is livid about (goes so far to mention it).
Jessica, she claims any damages will go to an anti-bullying charity.
Any guesses as to Archewell's new "focus"?
Exhausting world she created for herself. no wonder she’s a paranoid mess.
Yes indeed! I have wondered what it must be like to live in her world of deception and delusion, and “nightmare” is the word that always comes to mind. It seems indisputable at this point in her wretched saga that she suffers from numerous serious mental health issues. I don’t feel any pity for her whatsoever, though, because she would appear to have an evil heart.
Lordy Lordy....PR machine working in overdrive?
SO many good posts on here. I too am curious about these '5 Friends'. I never got the sense that any of her friends were connected so I think it's bs. Here's what I think happened- Either Meghan contacted these women, and asked if they'd be willing to contact People and request interviews. The other thing is that Meghan is the 5 friends. I'm not a conspiracy person, I don't believe Archie ia a doll, etc, etc. However it is definitely in Meghan's wheelhouse to send in these interviews herself. She has been suspected of doing it before; sending emails under the guise of being someone else. I realize People Mag is likely careful and would need exact names so maybe that's a stretch.
She knows damn well that if these 5 friends have their identities revealed and in addition to having to testify, many of them will fold. I can only imagine how angry these women might be. The thing is that it's only a matter of time until the 5 friends names are leaked. The Daily Mail is extremely slick and they seem to hold grudges. They seem to find ways to leak information as is occuring right now as H & M are getting slaughtered in the press.
Does anyone know how this case will play out? Obviously video conference trials but I wonder what the timeline is?
https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-officially-pregnant/2549473
She claims her "friends" should be anonymous. Well they are witnesses in a court case. It is highly unusual for the judge to rule to keep witnesses in the civil case anonymous.
This may happen if there is a danger to the witness's life. Stress levels or mental health are irrelevant, unless a witness is deemed not fit to testify on mental health grounds. Does she have crazy friends?
My husband was especially sarcastic about her declaration that "they are not judged and neither am I". He smirked and said: "Her case against MoS is judged, as for her friends, they are all witnesses and they will testify as such".
Does anyone know the amount of ‘damages’ she is seeking. I’ve never seen large settlements in the UK but I could be wrong. Clearly, the DM refused to settle as they make more money off the press of the case, which I guess Meghan is livid about (goes so far to mention it).
The depth of her delusional Narc vindictiveness is really bottomless. By bringing this lawsuit, she is risking laying open all her dirt. All the secrets, lies and underhanded tactics she's been using over the last several years to manipulate the press. The grounds of the lawsuit are nonsensical and she keeps dragging in more and more defendants. The original suit was against the Mail on Sunday for publishing the letter as given to them by Thomas. People has long been known as a Team Harkle rag-for-hire, publishing glowing, flattering drivel about Meg these last 3 years. If People is dragged into the lawsuit, how is Meg going to hide the hand-in-pocket arrangement she's been paying them for? No wonder she doesn't want all her 'young mother friends' outed publicly. Using the same 'victimized young mother' schtick re. them as she is promoting about her poor unprotected new little mother self.
What with the Covid still raging worldwide, I doubt any of these people, the 5 friends or Thomas will have to appear in a British court in person. They will probably all testify via video link if they are called upon. As the chief plaintiff, Megsy may have to appear. I can't believe the amount of resources and court time that have been wasted upon this drivel. Her claims that this was a completely spontaneous and clandestine decision by 5 disparate friends of hers residing in another country to go to People Magazine individually (at the same time) and spill all about this letter--who shows a 'personal, private' letter to one's father to a bunch of friends while living abroad. She would have had to email them copies, and electronic files can be recovered even if they have been erased. She's admitted they saw the letter; just not that she coached them into going to People collectively or separately; but the fact that they can quote long sections of the letter verbatim illustrates exactly that, as I think the MoS attorneys will show.
In a real scenario of sharing a painful family matter with friends, one would likely call up such close friends on the phone or video chat with them and describe one's feelings, perhaps mention that she'd written to her father to vent her anger . . but read it aloud from beginning to end? Either her pals got sent electronic or hard copies of that letter or they took shorthand while Megsy read them the letter over the phone or Skype, to be *that* knowledgeable about its contents.
Meg has a very specific definition of 'private'--as in, only *she* is entitled to it, unless she decides to 'share'. Anybody else's 'privacy' does not exist.
Meg sent Thomas that letter in August 2018, the summer after her wedding. The Mail did not publish it til mid-January of the following year when she was 'pregnant with Archie'. Her father had the letter in his possession, then, for over six months before giving it to the Mail and he'd shown it to no one else. Yet 5 of Meg's 'best friends' all knew about it?
Who cannot see that THIS STINKS?
Meg is so in need of Narc fuel to bolster her idea of herself as a global icon, I believe she has purposefully engineered this war with the British tabloids solely to prove what a colossal star she is. That's what huge Hollywood celebs do, right, sue tabloids? In Meg's twisted mind, the fact that her dysfunctional relationship with her dad is now the talk of the global media, she is once again overshadowing those dull plodding Cambridges and proving she's super nova and they aren't.
Notice that this tabloid suit kicked off at the same time the Harkles bolted from the RF. It had been many months since 'Archie's birth' and the temporary buzz from the South Africa stick-it-to-'em documentary had worn off. MM needed another reason to be the center of attention again.
She will probably end up killing her father with this business but she doesn't give a sh*t. My wish for Thomas is that he find a qualified therapist to help him address some of the psychic wounds left by his daughter's betrayal. If this lawsuit doesn't go her way, thus exonerating Thomas, I'd expect the sexual abuse allegations to start up . . against Thomas and probably some sexual harassment claims against the Windsor family men.
She has signed a legally binding document swearing that the charges she's making are not false. Meg would regard that as no better than toilet paper, but the penalties for filing false lawsuits and perjury could be extremely severe. I think the RF is waiting for this. I can only hope to God they have stopped paying the Harkles' legal bills. This *must* be seen as entirely Meg's doing, with Harry an innocent party, so that he can possibly be extracted to face whatever censure is coming his way in Britain, but at least it won't be contempt of court for perjury. Without the RF to shore her up, she cannot continue to fund these baseless lawsuits, and she can kiss her imagined career as America's Philanthropic Duchess goodbye. She'll be in a world of doo doo of her own making.
I agree her 5 ‘friends’ are in a precarious position.
If they are real, I think Serena is one, hence why she distanced herself from Meghan after the lawsuit and Megxit.
I also think another is Misha NoNoo, who would definitely save her reputation before Meghans. As would Serena.
A third most likely suspect is Jessica M. Seeing how she would probably want to play victim of Meghan, she could go all out to redeem herself if she is called to court.
Either way, meg clearly overlooked the People Mag aspect of the case and it will all come out.
That’s why she’s in damage control mode. Painting herself and her friends as victims to control the narrative.
It’s definitely a way to keep herself in the papers, especially since there’s no money in it for her and it’s costing her I’d guess 50-100k already in legal fees (300 ph min.)
Megsy might be Narco-rage blinded enough to try and sue People. She knows all about biting the hand that feeds her.
People is not named as a co-defendant in the suit, but they have been dragged into Meg's case against Mail on Sunday as a potential hostile witness for the defense. If Meg's 5 friends are compelled to testify under their own identities as to what they told People for publication, and when, and whose idea the People article was in the first place, then representatives of the magazine will also have to take the stand to confirm or deny this testimony. I imagine in the hot seat would have to be the reporter who is credited with the by-line of that 'Meghan's Friends Tell All'; the managing editor who would have approved the story & the editor-in-chief who let it run. Also coming under scrutiny would be any financial arrangements the magazine had with Meghan and/or her staff for favorable coverage for her in this and various other articles.
It's not in Meg's interest to throw People under the bus; that's why she's trying to get the motion to unmask the 5 friends quashed. The Mail on Sunday is trying to protect its own reputation and rights to publish that letter and its lawyers will have no compunction against revealing how Meg has employed People as her mouthpiece for payoffs. We have always known that People plays softball with celebs in order to sell covers . . but the details of Meghan's exact arrangement with People could get explosive, considering that she was at the time a senior member of the British Royal family.
Is the 'former A++ lister' supposed to be Barack Obama? Ouch.
It is a very manufactured, look-they're-after-me-like-Diana ploy.
But it's frivolous. There is no reason to send someone a letter like that UNLESS you want it leaked. Otherwise you'd just call the person and say "We have to talk."
This letter was never needed. It is the most obvious part of this case and overlooked (perhaps willingly) by her defenders. It IS needed, however, if it's going to be part of a future scheme.
If they are real
While it will be embarrassing, inconvenient, and yes, potentially humiliating, if the judgement goes against Meg, to be outed as one of 'the Anonymous 5', it needn't be devastating. They didn't do anything legally wrong or morally reprehensible by supporting a friend in print. Speaking to a magazine anonymously on behalf of a friend is not a crime. The content of their remarks is based on the letter composed by her which she discussed with them freely. If what they repeated to the magazine are untruths, that is on the author of the letter, not them. They can testify they were acting in good faith in supporting their friend.
They will be compelled to answer whether they were instructed by Meghan to participate in this expose for People . . and what other inducements she may have offered them to do so. If they lie about *that*, that's on them. It will only go badly for them if they lie.
It wouldn't hurt their cause either to speak frankly about the sense they now have of being used by the Duchess of Sussex in this particular ploy when they were convinced they were helping a friend right an injustice against her.
Either way, meg clearly overlooked the People Mag aspect of the case and it will all come out. That’s why she’s in damage control mode. Painting herself and her friends as victims to control the narrative.
Yes, clearly, as ever, Meg did not think through the consequences if things did not go her way with this lawsuit. It seems pretty certain that she thought MoS would just roll over and pay her a big fat settlement without having to actually defend her claims or get her 'friends' further involved. Meg has very determined, very specific fantasies of how she expects things to go in her life, but when they inevitably do NOT go according to her whims, she never has a B plan. It's quite something to behold.
p.s. I don’t believe this for a minute!
Maybe this case is the beginning of the end for Megs, then. It is true that she has backend deals, no doubt.
Once things get legal for people, they normally don’t collude any longer.
I agree that Jessica, Misha and Serena are highly likely. I get the vibe from Serena that she doesn't play or mess around with bs. So I kind of hope she's called to testify!
However it is definitely in Meghan's wheelhouse to send in these interviews herself. She has been suspected of doing it before; sending emails under the guise of being someone else. I realize People Mag is likely careful and would need exact names so maybe that's a stretch.
---------
Maybe the reason Megs seems so desperate to protect the five anonymous women is because:
Megs sent the emails. Of course.
Megs had to give the court five names. So she did.
But maybe its going to be a "surprise" to each of the women that they were one of the anonymous sources.
And they are not going to be happy about it.
Exactly.
If Meg is unmasked as 'all' of the 5 friends, the case should be immediately thrown out as spurious, and there will be heavy penalties against the claimant for wasting the court's time.
Mail on Sunday could counter-sue her no-longer-Royal Highness for defamation. Or have they already? Thomas Markle could sue his heartless spawn for defamation also and perhaps recoup some of those hundreds of thousands he laid out on her education and plastic surgery and years of support when she was a young adult.
I think Megsy very likely did just attach names of 5 of her known friends to coy little tags like "LA friend" "Longtime friend" "Former co-star", etc. These are incredibly vague, while at the same time fitting people who have already been identified as fitting all of these (Jessica, Lindsay Roth & Abigail Spencer, e.g.) If Meg made up the whole thing, it'd explain the pristinely co-ordinated effort of the 'Five' with *absolutely no leading from Meghan* whatsoever.
Does Meg really expect the judge to believe that on 5 separate occasions within the space of a few days, the offices of People Magazine received a phone call that went like this:
Caller: Hi, yes, my name is Lindsay Jill Roth. I have been identified several times in your magazine as a long-time college friend of Meghan Markle's? Well, I have some information on this feud she's having with her father that I think you need to hear right now. Oh, no, Meg doesn't know I'm calling you AT ALL. But we talk almost every day and she shared some stuff with me *in the strictest confidence*. I'm just so upset on her behalf at how unfair her dad is being to her right now and I really want to help her tell her side of the story, because, you know . .*as a member of the Royal Family* she's *not allowed* to talk to you. But you can't let anyone know I spoke to you, OK? And please, this has to be off the record, you promise? Hold on while I get my notes .. .
Repeat with Jessica, Abigail, et al.
I think a lot depends on their decision to hide the 5 friends identity. If the courts say no, she'll probably fade away in this lawsuit.
OUR VERDICT
Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.
Let's hope so 🙏. I don't think we could endure 10 months of belly holding (with both hands) and coat flicking.
From DM
Meghan said ideally they (she and Archie) would be in a baby group class that met in person a couple of times a week. This would give Archie the opportunity to play with other toddlers and help develop his brain.'
But although Meghan said she'd love to join a baby group class where she could have play dates with other new moms, she admitted it would be 'impossible'.
'Meghan said she would love to be part of a 'Mommy and Me' community, but knows this is impossible even if there was no COVID-19 because of who she is. She said she's just too well known to do normal things,' the friend said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8498177/Meghan-bemoans-Archie-lack-social-skills-doesnt-interact-toddlers.html
Yeah. Too bad Archie can't interact with any of his cousins and his extended family back in Britain.
And of course, nobody in the history of Los Angeles has faced the issue of socializing the child of a famous parent.
Poor Meggie, taking on a sea of woes and facing them so bravely.
Yes, that would be an ideal activity for a loving mom to engage in with her toddler. Perhaps Doria took her to something similar when she was Archie's age, for all the good it did. Meghan never has grasped how to play nicely with others, and her brain development has some questionable areas.
But although Meghan said she'd love to join a baby group class where she could have play dates with other new moms, she admitted it would be 'impossible'.
'Meghan said she would love to be part of a 'Mommy and Me' community, but knows this is impossible even if there was no COVID-19 because of who she is. She said she's just too well known to do normal things,' the friend said.
Again with her 'friends'. Who knew she had so many of those, in Covid lockdown in a strange house after all those years away in Canada, England, and Canada again?
Meghan thinks she gets to burnish her credentials as 'woke, caring, nurturing bestest mom ever, concerned about her baby's brain development and & socialization with other children.
Darn COVID foiled her Best-Mom-in-the-World intentions! And even if they weren't trapped in Tyler Perry's house due to a pandemic, she STILL wouldn't be able to do normal Mommy stuff with Archie because she's *just too famous*. Awww. Another way the Royal family is keeping her squelched and not free to express herself. But even from her time, now some years ago, on Suits as the office lay, she'd still have been much too well-known to take Archie to any Mommy & Me classes.
But she's such a wonderful mother, she WOULD have, you know. If it hadn't been impossible.
I bet a million bucks that there are quite a few celebrity moms who attend classes with their children in the L.A. area and belong to gyms in the area, too. But Meghan is more famous then them, see. People like Taylor Swift or Jessica Alba, e.g.
I can think of another reason why it's impossible for Meg and Archie to attend Mommy & Me classes, can't you? What's hilarious is that Meg *actually* thinks she's still selling herself as Mum of the Year.
Of course she's perfectly capable of having pretended she wanted to live in A and E. I've always thought she told him whatever he wanted to hear in order to get her hooks into him. As the penny not dropped yet, Harry?
Plus we heard all about how Archie went to playgroup in England and wanted to play with the other red-haired children (when when he supposedly was about 5-6 months old, yeah right. Kids that age 1) play together and 2) notice hair.) Guess she's more famous in LA, where as you say, @KCM1212 there aren't any other famous people with kids.
This one is a particular wheeze. We've seen a couple of babies (very possibly not the (same) baby) that was/were as bald as Winston Churchill. If either of these babies is Archie, he has not had any significant hair of any color since his birth. The big boy we saw recently still had sparse to almost no hair, but had all the indications of being blond, not ginger.
William was blond. Diana was blond, as were the Queen, her sister, Archie's great-auntie Anne and Archie's paternal great-grandfather. His maternal great-great-grandfather & siblings were all blond children too. There's a lot of blond in the House of Windsor. Harry is an anomoly as a ginger. Ginger hair is a much rarer shade, and *If* people could be convinced that he's got tufts of red hair by continual repetition of this phrase despite visual lack of evidence to corroborate this, it would bolster Harry's claim of paternity.
Meg keeps telling us (though various hired 'friends') just how red Archie's hair is, yet the bab(ies) she parade's for our view categorically do not have red hair, or really any hair.
This is exhausting, innit, continually having to put the gaslights out every 5 minutes.
I hope that MM gets turned into a psychological case study as one of the most pernicious cases of NPD/sociopathy ever witnessed.
Meg seems determined to go the full Michael Jackson route. If she doesn't stop meddling with her face, she's going to wind up looking like the Cat Lady, Jocelyn Wildenstein.
Here's my question: in the midst of a global pandemic, and with Los Angeles a Covid hotspot and still on stricter lockdown than many other places, HOW is she getting this work done? I could see paying somebody to come to Tyler's crib and give her Botox injections, but she'd need office appointments for anything surgical . . hospital for scheduled surgeries. Even for someone as famous as Markle (koff) would they do frivolous procedures? All the other celebs are locked in their living rooms doing concerts and interviews from home, yet Markle can traipse to the plastic surgeon?
Is plastic surgery considered 'essential services' in Plasticwood?
Her new looks could be down to beauty filters/Photoshop/new wigs? Just wondering how she'd be getting work done at this time.
Well, there is red hair on the Spencer side and on the RF side. Diana was blonde as a child but by the time she was a teenager, her hair had darkened to brown with red tones (although not nearly as red as her sisters' hair.) Charles' beard was reddish when he was young. And Harry's York cousins couldn't have inherited their reddish hair from the Ferguson side only since red hair is recessive. Lady Louise is pretty close to what I'd call "strawberry blonde" too. And Queen Mary was a redhead.
But I totally agree that Archie's long-promised "tufts of red hair" have yet to appear! And the story about him being attracted to red-haired children at playgroup was really dumb.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_UCS4c6Tos
In her own inimitable style, she is absolutely scathing abt MM & also H. Listen at 7 minutes, and also at 11.10 min. for abt 5 minutes. It's priceless. She lays into her and doesn't mince her words.
It's a long video (58 min.) and it's now too late to listen to the rest but do listen, it is worth it.
It could have been that Jessica M coordinated it for a payment they all split. That’s very likely. Like, extremely. Mega megs doesn’t want Jess to spill the beans in court.
As for the playgroup, why doesn’t Meghan have any friends? That’s what moms do, not playgroup. She’s not a commoner lol.
She needs to leave her kid out of this. That’s crossing too many lines and another victim story this whack job is going to sell.
Some surgical facilities have their own clinics as well. Their own full set up, etc and bring in an anesthesiologist and some nurses for the procedures.
And yet no family was good enough to "defend" her in People magazine..
I hope that MM gets turned into a psychological case study as one of the most pernicious cases of NPD/sociopathy ever witnessed.
I second that!!
Did you watch the video about Markle's alleged procedures?
I loved the narrator’s description of Markle’s face looking “sandblasted” lol.
In the past (before she publicly ghosted Megsy), Serena was very vocal when she defended MM and was never afraid to put her name to it. I can’t see why she would suddenly feel the need to hide her identity.
All five of the names published by the Sun are people few of us would have ever heard of. If MM coordinated this whole article, she’d probably want to hide names if they couldn't bring any “celebrity credibility” with their defense of her.
Let’s face it, none of those ladies are a Clooney, an Oprah or an Elton.
Definitely impossible.
My secret hope is that Lainey is one of the 5 friends, and that being named will torpedo her doth-protest-too-much statement trying to distance herself from Jessica and Meghan.
Dare to dream, lol.
https://www.laineygossip.com/is-serena-williams-one-of-the-friends-who-spoke-out-about-meghan-markle-in-people-magazine-feature/51926
The only reason I heard about Meghan in the beginning is because I was a regular reader of Lainey's site. I now see Meghan, Lainey, and Jessica as three witches, working together to hatch this scheme.
Her teeth look very different now, and she doesn't look as pretty as she was before.
*Ducks flying tomatoes*
Yep- the timing and content of Serena's tea post was pretty odd. I think that Serena was in Meg's corner at first, but soon came to realize something was off about Meghan (likely beginning with Meg's behaviour towards Serena's husband) and slowly backed away ;)
I laughed out loud a few times.
(@makecakes link is in the 201-400 page of the comments)
Thank you for the Lainey link. I guess that makes me third guess myself LOL!
The Plastic Surgery of Meghan Markle
75,741 views•May 4, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24fDuMoAJf4
Very well done, and is what video Nuttys are referring to. As I have posted, a large part of why Megs wanted to move to LA was to get plastic surgery done very discreetly and quietly. This would have been impossible while living in the UK. Megs was paranoid of being betrayed to the DM and others and she was right.
I keep reading about Serena's husband and Meghan.What happened ?
While in the audience at a Serena tennis match, Megsy allegedly flashed him her nether regions.
I’m in full tin hat mode right now as pertains to MM. I can’t copy the link but her body double was posted on twitter yesterday along with her name. This woman is close enough in looks with appropriate filters and a strait haired wig to pass for MeGain. When I looked back to the food delivery photos it’s pretty obvious which was which. The double has wider hips and thighs.
I know many of you don’t buy into Toronto Paper and Drip Drop but DD still says that the real Child Known As Archie has never been seen outside of the RF and was carried by a surrogate. To date MM has shown us a rent-a-baby. He seems to have some inside source and is friends with the group who comprise TP.
I’ll be sooo glad when this court case finally gets in front of a judge. Not knowing a lot about U.K. law, I’m hoping that all of her little remarks are opening the door to allow even more information to be brought in. The RF didn’t protect you while pregnant? Well, let’s just examine your medical records from them obstetrician... . I said a year ago that her fake pregnancy being revealed would be the final nail in her coffin. Even her sugars will be devastated by the insult to motherhood. She’s made a mockery of what many consider a holy estate. I not one who reveres gestation as being a pedestal-worthy estate. As Rhett Butler said “even a cat can have kittens”.
@Cass
Ah, yes Megs and her wide legged look 😉
Celt news has a video about the tennis match. Celt seems to be staying very neutral on Megs behavior, but it seems obvious to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Yri9qnnkE
Celt has another video discussing the same match. Its definitely worth a watch. Martina Navratova burns Megs.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xlvyi8Jt9wA
and @makescakes
thanks for that video! I had no idea how extensive Megs work was. The vlogger was so knowledgeable.
Her crossed legged mile wide smile....
Basic Insult
Meghan on Craig Ferguson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EM2xi5Jnd0
My thoughts:
1. She comes out doing that hip sway walk- so sexy. *eye roll*
2. She sits down in front of him and starts preening.
3. As soon as she begins talking- is she imitating his accent? I get that vibe- she's talking weird. Becoming her prey.
4. Her eyes are locked on him and her body language emotes to him- she knows how to keep a man interested. She only has eyes for him- not those pesky cameras ;)
5. "Strangely hairless body you have." That part always creeped me out, and frankly I've spent a bit too much time curious on whether she's waxed her whole arms, or lasered them, and how much else has been waxed or lasered. Whyyy does my brain go there sometimes?
6. I detect some cocaine mouth gymnastics. Perhaps it's just because she's nervous, but, well... ;)
7. She flirted so hard that he felt compelled to mention he has a wife.
Lainey is a good guess. I still think Jessica orchestrated it with Megs, another drawn out PR ploy. I think they got paid. I think they did the ‘soft call’ for quotes from people.
What she’s probably really scared of, is Jessica having to admit they orchestrate everything together for articles, even when Meghan was dating Harry. Which would end their careers in the RF. That would be ground zero for Megs. Her dumb PR life and lies just completely cathing up under examination.
Serena, I haven’t bought that she has completely ghosted Megs. Who here thinks she has? It was strange that all the sudden they aren’t even public friends, why would Serena do that? Did she realize Meghan is actually nuts and that Meghan married up? Is Serena a realist?
Just wondering. I think maybe Serena saw Meghan do some crazy shit behind the scenes then backed away, but I have no idea. Flashing the rich tech husband might also be the other, as she found out Harry and Megs just don’t have hard cash.....
What say you guys on Serena? Friend or Foe?
https://www.pdfread.net/ebook/meghan-and-harry-lady-colin-cambell/
I am maybe half way or so through chapter 3 and suddenly the screen refreshed and the book is gone. so i try to do some searches on the site and it is not there anymore. I go back to the original website and again, it's gone.
Anyone else have this problem?
I was just reading a fascinating part from a friend about when she decides she wants someone, how seductive she becomes, how she goes after men. Or anyway for that matter.
and poof - all gone
I think it's possible M seriously pissed off Serena by: 1) her antics clearing the stands when SW was playing at Wimbledon. Not every athlete wants to play to partially empty stands nor wants a diva in the audience grabbing attention. 2) Coming to NYC to the finals...maybe as a jinx but also flirting with her husband and trying to talk to her mother when SW was playing (sort of like talking during the anthem at the TOC.)
I also don't think they were ever really good friends anyway. M didn't go to S's wedding and besties usually do. For awhile the bestie thing worked for both of them though. M needed a black friend since she was suddenly selling herself as a black member of the RF and S wanted M to wear her clothes.
Queen Elizabeth Should Not Read This
JULY 9, 2020 BLIND GOSSIP LEAVE A COMMENT
[Pop Bitch] Which member of the Royal Family could do wonders for the hospitality industry?
They could also give the government’s latest scheme a huge boost if they’d only allow the papers to print some photos.
What photos?
The ones they had of him “helping out” a blow-up doll!
Similar: A Royal Pain For Producers
Male Royal:
[Optional] Who are your favorite and least favorites members of the British Royal family? Why?
you might just post a request for her to contact you.
I think she can see the email you gave to be able to comment.
Is that right, nutties?
I saw a gmail account mentioned a while ago that she uses for the blog, but I didnt make a note of it.
Not a great help, I'm afraid. Can anyone else help @newnuttier?
Welcome, by the way!
It would look bad for her to publicly say she doesn’t even know the woman, then let her march on in to a tournament. She would then have to deny she knew Meghan would be there. Too many tracks to cover for such a public person (Serena) and PR psycho (Meghan).
And yes, suppose it was after she left her baby in the UK (or told Serena it was fake anyway, a step to far for Serena) and tried to flash Alexis, that Serena knew Meghan was just using her at that point (because that was crazy, and even Serena said as much- her husband is also NOT an idiot). Maybe it was also after the Beyoncé video came out (who she is friends with) and saw Meghan and Harry disrespect her like that, and the lightbulb went off about how she’s just out to steal others limelight at all times (like Wimbledon). Really crass behavior.
Serena can be friends with anyone and does not need a hanger on like Megs. Once she was ALSO out of the RF, she was like yeah whatever Meghan, good luck. And called it a day.
That’s my new theory I’m sticking too.
:)
The Doxie Chicks
“If I fall you’re going down with me”
What I got was that Meghan made Harry feel manly and protective.
And Harry is called Blow Job Harry in British upper class circles.
The idea she is trying to morph her triangular (I thought it more rectangular) face into a more classical oval like Kate's is very thought-provoking.
Very, very creepy!! And reminiscent of that movie Single White Female
I think all of this plastic look is from being around some glamour in LA. I don’t think she feels like she fits in looks wise, where as in Britain with the publicity her look stuck out a bit more. She has to try harder now.
There are reports that following Harry's comments Jamaica wants reparation payments for past slavery. They already tried to press for billions of pounds in reparations in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/jamaica-calls-britain-pay-billions-pounds-reparations-slavery
Harry has just given them the new ammunition.
You do know that the Guardian is so left of left politically wise. It’s the woklings choice of newspaper so of course they are right on the Duo’s side. ;o)
They’ve written some overly supportive and syrupy articles about Megsy since her arrival.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_UCS4c6Tos
This is how LCC describes MM abt her &H' Commonwealth video at 21'. She makes general comments on her in a very witty way and does not pull any punches. She also mentions false memory syndrome (starting at 12'32"). I hope MM listens to what LCC has to say, she would learn a lot.
An example - she doesn't say much about Archie but the discussion of surrogacy law in UK and US and how this relates to Archie's lack of a title is very telling. One is left to draw one's own conclusions. (I can't find the page at the moment - how I wish the book had an index, or that the chapters had subtitles.)
Yes, I agree MM will go down in medical history and there'll be books and TV documentaries about her well into the future, just as there are with the Windsors. She'd be (in)famous for as long as there were medical schools and students needing to learn about psychopathology. She'd be in company with the trapper/voyageur Alexis St Martin, the chap with a hole in his stomach who `helped' Beaumont with his work on digestion. Sounds appropriate but I can't think that is quite what she had in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_St._Martin
Also, Lady C leaves me in no doubt about what an impossible person Diana was, much more so than I had suspected. Worse still, she points out the parallels with MM and how MM has exploited this. We peasants have only sussed out the most obvious bits.
MM's relationship with Instagram experts is on p223 - the jaw-dropping brief she gave them to `create the world's number one Instagram a/c' in order to make her `bigger than Diana' and `the most famous woman in the world'.
Lady C also does a fine dissection of the Marxist female MPs, eager to exploit the situation for their own ends. (pp283- 287). She specifically mentions Rebecca Long-Bailey, later a candidate for the Labour leadership, recently removed from her Shadow Government post on account of the antisemitic implications of what she posted on SM regarding the death of George Floyd.
Broadly, Lady C interprets much of the situation as resulting from a misunderstanding about the differences between English/British culture and that of the US. She praises MM whenever she possibly can, so it's not an out-and-out hatchet job. I'd say she makes fair criticism.
It'll be very interesting to see how America views the book, once it is freely available there. It's been a huge success here and it's perhaps surprising that there hasn't been a cheep from Maison Perry yet. MM must be aware of its content, surely? The silence suggests that plotting is afoot. Will she try to sue Lady C? I get the impression that Lady C has covered her back most carefully and that this is a reliable account.
Does the US have the phrase `the greater the truth, the greater the libel'? The idea that lies can hurt but not nearly as much as the truth can.
Another (possibly relevant?) snippet from today’s yahoo news, apparently about Diana:
`And in her maternity wear, she made a feature of the bump, which was unusual at the time she was pregnant.’
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/fashion-historian-secrets-of-princess-diana-wardrobe-200905005.html
To what extent is this true, do you suppose? Or is it being `written back’ into history. I recall there was a row about the publication of photos of a pregnant Di in her swimsuit – I can’t imagine PC being happy about her displaying her bump, though I may be wrong.
I must now go and get on with my life!
@WildBoar
Mentioning surrogacy laws,
and Archies lack of title, is very telling.
I’ve always thought Archies lack of title
and the Queen not attending his Christening
was iffy, not quite cricket?
I'm in the Uk, it's 9.30am and I'm reading all the posts I received during the night.
Thank you to the Nutties who explained to me about the Serena husband/Meghan question I asked.I ffound some pics. She has no shame.
I remember the pics of her at that meeting with those highly respected women when her dress was hiked up to her hoo haa.
Once again....Thank You X
@WildBoar
As for Toronto paper 1 as much as I would love to believe them
I view them much the same as Megs
“All Promise and nowt to show”
@Catlady
That was the embryonic kicking of feminism
which caused her “Kenny Everett” crossing of legs.
Cupid stunt..
There was something Toronto papers was right about - but I can't remember what it was!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBW8L198GQ
Kenny Everett as "Cupid Stunt" on "Parkinson" '82 (pt.1/7) HQ
It's got everything in it!!!
I remember Diana's maternity wear the way you do. She wore designer and high-end versions of the flowing smock-style of dress that was the usual maternity wear of the time. I most certainly do not remember that "she made a feature of the bump" as the Yahoo article claims. The quote is from Eleri Lynn, the curator of a display of Diana's clothes.
Diana did remain publicly active longer into her pregnancies than may have been usual for royals at the time. But normal women were already doing that as this was the 1980s, not the 1950s.
I believe the shot of a pregnant Diana in a bikini raised a hullabaloo because it was shot on a supposedly private vacation.
Just watched, hahahaha brilliant!
“Hello England”
“Remember to be nice on your way up
so that they're nice to you when you’re going down..”
“All in the best possible taste”
Everett forsaw our Megs.
Wonder if Parky sees the resemblance, hehehe
@lizzie
I remember Diana pregnant.
She was always dressed in frumpy smocks.
I don’t recall her clutching her bump,
or making a show of herself.
Thanks for the Kenny Everett video. I used to watch him back in the day and I'd forgotten his famous leg crossing. Thanks for the laugh.
@FairyCrocodile
My faith in the Queen will never waiver.
God save the Queen
Diana did the exactly the same - to catch Charles, who is very much the `good squire' she made out she was a hearty country-loving girl but all was revealed when it became apparent that she was a city girl who loathed the Great Outdoors in general and Balmoral in particular.
Can we predict more of MM's moves by looking closely at how Diana played it?
Yes, if MM does a 'Panorama style' interview. Diana's backfired spectacularly, you can imagine MM in her usual victim role, there's your answer.
if there is another website where it is available, please repost. I'll try going through the various posts later today to find one but there are a lot !!!
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/83795-authors-guild-amazon-prh-file-suit-against-e-book-pirate-site.html
(I will paste it in even if that seemingly breaks the spirit of the piece. Emphasis mine.)
Authors Guild, Amazon, PRH File Suit Against E-book Pirate Site
By PW Staff | Jul 08, 2020
The Authors Guild, Amazon Publishing, and Penguin Random House this week filed suit in federal court in Washington State seeking to enjoin a Ukraine-based piracy site called KISS library. The site, which operates under a number of different domain names using a “sophisticated” legitimate-looking site designed to deceive consumers, is said to sell illegally pirated e-books to U.S. readers.
The complaint asks that KISS Library and its operators be enjoined from illegally copying, distributing and selling works written or published by the plaintiffs.
“While the main culprits are the KISS Library websites and operators, it doesn’t help that sites devoted to e-book piracy are readily available through U.S. search engines,” Authors Guild president Douglas Preston said in a statement. “American authors and publishing companies have no recourse against these rogue foreign sites, other than through expensive federal litigation.”
Named plaintiff from the Authors Guild include its president Preston, and members Lee Child, Sylvia Day, John Grisham, C.J. Lyons, Jim Rasenberger, T.J. Stiles, R.L. Stine, Monique Truong, Scott Turow, Nicholas Weinstock, and Stuart Woods.
“Over the last several years, we have worked through various channels to curtail the proliferation of e-book piracy sites, but KISS Library has been a challenge since it is a particularly egregious criminal enterprise,” said Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild. “It sells highly commercial books and passes itself off as a legitimate site. Unlike authorized sites that pay for the books they sell, KISS Library keeps all the proceeds that it illegally obtains from American readers. Not a single penny goes to the authors or publishers that produce the books.”
Re 'The Switcheroo'
Diana did the exactly the same - to catch Charles, who is very much the `good squire' she made out she was a hearty country-loving girl but all was revealed when it became apparent that she was a city girl who loathed the Great Outdoors in general and Balmoral in particular.
Diana was a peer of mine, and while she was alive, I was completely in her corner . . until the last year or so when she was visibly making head-scratching reckless choices. She had made out OK in the divorce, really--ditching the HRH and her security detail were her own ideas. She got some 15 million pounds in settlement & retained the KP apartment so the boys could stay with her there when they weren't in school or with their dad. She was retained as patron of all her charities--until she ditched those too, in a fit of pique.
"We loved Diana until we knew her," someone here said--maybe it was you? :) Charles certainly has faults and hurt Diana grievously with the ongoing Camilla affair. I think he did sincerely try to give Camilla up and make a go of his arranged marriage . . Diana was a very attractive and frisky filly and Chas enjoys women. I've always thought the 'Playboy Prince' years were in part to prove to his domineering father that he was categorically not gay. To Diana's credit, though she disparaged her husband for many things--calling him unfit to be King, for example--she never once disparaged him as a lover. I think that bit between them was all right . . at least until Harry was born. But since Diana's death I have come to realize just how rough marriage to her must have been for Charles.
The Royal family's fault for not doing their due diligence, same then as now. At least the Markle family didn't lie about their sister's true nature the way Diana's family covered for her. The Spencers knew all of Diana's issues, and they were legion. These last 20-odd years I have been supporting Prince Charles and his second marriage by way of an apology.
It turns out, in trying so hard to break away from his family, Harry has gone and chosen a woman who is just like his mom in so many ways. I don't think Diana was a malignant Narcissist. Borderline, definitely. The drama, self-harming, neuroses, attention-seeking . . it's all there.
This delusion that she is so popular that she's can't go on a Mommy date with Archie is just that, a delusion.
tell them everything she knows about her 6-year employer/their accounts.
She is rehired when the mistake that led to her firing is found out but speaks rudely and arrogantly to the partner in charge of personnel, demanding she get a 10% raise when she is offered 3%, then 7%, then for the company to pay her way through Harvard Law School, and a grovelling apology: "One more thing, these should have been the first words out of your mouth...You need to apologize to me RIGHT NOW, or I will file a lawsuit against you in the morning." All the time walking forward threateningly with arms crossed, a petulant scowl on her face along with the familiar expressions we see over and over in videos. He says "yes" to everything. Life imitating art.
What Rachel wants, Rachel gets.
I have always thought MM kept her hand planted on her bump to keep others from reaching out to touch. And I strongly suspect she is a narc. As such, pregnancy is a fuel source. This is why a surrogate or adoption would be out of the question, even if it didn't disrupt the line of succession. She wouldn't get the attention if she used a surrogate. The picture of her when Claire Wright Keller got her award is very telling.
Being an expectant mother is definitely a means of getting positive attention, which is one reason why Markle rushed into 'being pregnant' so soon after the wedding. The temporary high/honeymoon period of the wedding had worn off, and the negative tea was beginning to spill about tensions within the Fab Four and about how she treated her staff. Meg also needed an anchor baby tout suite to tie Harry to her forever & insure that that she had the ultimate bargaining chip against the Royal family in the case of a divorce--a heir to the succession, her own little Prince or Princess. She'd seen, and envied, the positive press Catherine received when she was expecting, and there was no better way to deflect any criticisms of her than being seen to be pregnant.
However, actually *being pregnant* presented several difficulties:
1. As a Narc and incredibly vain about her looks, she would not have wanted to get all stretched out and fat. Before agreeing to marry Trevor she had made him sign a document stipulating that he'd pay for personal trainers and cosmetic surgery to restore her body to its pre-pregnancy condition IF she had his baby. Which she never did. She left him before that ever happened, though there are some rumors making the rounds about possible termination(s) she's had. Ninaki Priddy seems to so. Having a baby did not fit in with Meg's career goals. She needed a baby of Harry's to secure her position, but there was the same problem of ruining her figure, and her being that much older now to get it back.
2. There remains ongoing debate over whether one or both of this couple can actually conceive their own children. Any hint of physical defect is not acceptable to Narcs, though, so if she did have issues with her fertility, she'd never have openly admitted to them and been frank about their need to consider alternative methods of becoming a family. The speed of her pregnancy seems a little suspect given her age and Harry's potentially compromised fertility. Yet she is marketing the idea that she conceived with zero difficulty less than three months after her wedding. It took 20-year-old Diana about the same amount of time. Harry certainly wanted to wait at least a year, and the couple had been in fact instructed/strongly encouraged by the family not to have a child right away.
Of course, no one 'instructs' Meg, especially if she wants to do the opposite.
3. Despite the Harkles' early and sickening displays of constant PDA, there were persistent signals that all was not so rosy in the marital bed. Harry seemed completely taken by surprise by her announcement, and the couple slept in separate rooms on the Oceania tour and had blazing rows over whether she was 'really pregnant'. Harry seemed very unsure about his contribution to any such enterprise. If they were so in love that they'd been humping like rabbits and actively trying for a baby, shouldn't he have been more certain? Given the optics they were staging for the cameras of extreme love and devotion, the dissonance of what was going on when the couple was not on public walkabout was worrying, after just their 5 month anniversary.
Don't you think it odd that Markle didn't invite her mother to the baby shower celebrating the impending arrival of Doria's first grandchild? Many of her celebrity friends had come from further away than L.A. to be there. If anyone would have wanted to touch Bump, it would be have been her mom. How do you explain the pictures from that weekend that show Meghan going out to the bar with Marcus Anderson attempting to hide her suddenly flat tummy behind a big handbag? It's not possible to leave a real fetus behind in the hotel room when it's inconvenient to one's drinking.
Staging a pregnancy gave Meg all the Narc fuel and opportunity to buy designer maternity fashions on Charles's money and have her photo taken as the glowing expectant mum (compliments of bronzer & highlighter) without having to endure the physical indignities (stretch marks, bloating, weight gain, tearing, potential eclampsia, gestational diabetes, et al) of a real pregnancy. Her body never behaved as a normal pregnant woman's, and we've got a fair amount of testimony here from posters who've been pregnant a number of times and were never able to bounce up and down like a beach ball in stilettos in their 8th month.
Meg just ate up that attention during her 'Julia Roberts'-esque double belly-cupping moment at the Brit Fashion Awards (which she crashed and hijacked away from Rosamund Pike). Talk about a cat that got the cream! She also looked, in that black Valentino number that she was mere weeks away from her delivery, when she was allegedly about 41/2 months along. Really weird that just a few days later, on her *official* visit to the retired actors' charity that the bump seemed to have shrunk considerably and morphed from a basketball into more of a squashed square shape. Real babies can't expand or shrink depending on what Mum decides to wear that day. Sometimes the bump changed sizes from one hour to the next in the same engagement.
Some have suggested that Meg supplemented her real pregnancy with a series of bumps in order to look 'more pregnant'. I thought this was certainly possibly in the earliest days, in Australia . . having just made the announcement, she wanted to look visibly pregnant for the photographs. Which is why she sported a 5-month sized belly at 13 weeks or less, according to her, at the Fiji state dinner.
She turned up at the Introduction of Archie photocall looking much more bloated and swollen than she ever had during the proceeding 10 months. I haven't got an explanation for that either--the all-over swelling AFTER 'delivery', when it had been a few days. Potentially, fertility drug injections, perhaps, in an attempt to get pregnant herself after her ruse was discovered. I think something fell through with her plans to obtain a baby and the child(ren) we have seen as "Archie" is not actually him, if he is real.
The salient thing about Meghan, which may be shared by all Narcs, but I think might be very specific to her, and other Narcs in her age group who have grown up indoctrinated in social media culture is that to her, the *appearance* of reality is as good as actual reality. Better, because in a manipulated version of events, Meg can control everything and tell the story *she* wants told. In *real* life, there are too many uncertainties, and that is not acceptable to Meg. That's why to me a fake pregnancy/surrogacy isn't outlandish at all, given what we know of her personality and MO. We'd see more of Master Archie if she was able to show him to us, and she'd be merching the heck out of him. And she sure as buttons intended to have a 'Royal' baby, with titles, who would set her up for life.
As so many of Meg's plans tend to do, her plan with Archie fell apart somewhere. The real question(s) are: Where is Archie now, if he exists? and How much did the Royal family know of her role-playing and when did they know it? Doesn't seem like we are going to get answers to these anytime real soon, from Lady Colin Campbell or anyone else. The RF have too much to lose by transparency here. Though I think the truth will out eventually, just as it has with Andrew. Once William is King, I think a whole lot will be changing, including how much he is willing to shelter his traitorous little brother from the consequences of all the couple's lies. Whatever Harry knew or didn't know about Meg going into his marriage, he's into it up to his neck now. He can't pretend that he is innocent of her activities because he looks 100% complicit from here.
'Unfortunately for the last couple of years, he has gone completely sour,' he said. 'He didn't talk to me for a year. I've been photographing him since he was born, and it was down to her.'
London-based veteran royal photographer Arthur Edwards, 79, alleged that staying in the UK was not in Meghan Markle's 'plans' - despite spending £2.4million of taxpayers' money to refurbish Frogmore Cottage. We knew hat but it's now in b&w.
Elsewhere in the DM, 'Meghan Markle has ditched her vibrant outfits in favour of all-white ensembles in recent days to show solidarity with anti-racist causes, according to a stylist, and is even influencing Prince Harry to do the same.' So that's why she's wearing white now? And I thought it was because she was a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary...
Late coming to this discussion but the history of Margaret Greville’s tiara appears to be well documented. It was made for her by Boucheron in the early 1900s. She had it remodelled to a bandeau shape in 1910 remodelled again in 1919 and again in 1921 when the emeralds were added. The Queen Mother wore othe emerald pieces bequeathed to her by Mrs Greville but not the tiara probably because the styling was not to her taste
Given ths history it is unlikely that it had anything to o with Xenia. I have seen a photograph of it after the emeralds were added in 1921 taken from the Boucheron archives
Meg has always favored a lot of white outfits in the past, before she aligned herself specifically with 'anti-racist causes'. The very first time we saw her as Harry's fiancee she was wearing her favorite white bathrobe coat, outside in November. The blindingly virginal white wedding dress and 22-foot veil; the white (*chain embroidered*) number to the Commonwealth Day service in 2019 prior to going on 'maternity leave'--she stood out like a beacon among the more soberly attired people there for a church service, and the only one in white, just the way Meg likes it. Then of course she attempted to recreate her engagement photo look with another trenchcoat inspired WHITE dress, just 48 hours, allegedly of giving birth. A quizzical postpartum outfit considering potential bleeding and other leakage issues, as Nutty has observed in an earlier post in this space.
Meg has always favored white, when she wasn't in black. I just think it's kind of hysterical that WHITE has become the symbol color of anti-racist movements, which to put more bluntly tend to be anti-Caucasian movements. Does anybody else find irony here?
Also, I just can't see Sarah R. being one of the women involved with the People story. Abigail S, yes.
First I am reading about this is here. I don't think this idea is very wide spread. All white outfits tend to be automatically pretentious. So be careful when going all white, it might elevate you (if you can pull it off) or people might snicker behind your back. And think-say, "What a clown".
The movement is actually propelled by supporting the color BLACK.
BLACK -outs
BLACK -shirts
It would be horrifying and counterproductive, if BLM protestors and gear and signage used WHITE. Clearly Meghan knows NOTHING about marketing or the reasoning for the BLM signaling.
She’s always lying about everything. She does like white. She looks awful in it. As much as she looks awful in that boyfriend shirt she wears every chance she gets. Trying to cover up that Spongebob figure I guess. Just looks so low rent. It should be tucked in with a nice belt or necklace. It’s not sexy even though I think she thinks it is. Specifically that time she wore that awful outfit next to
Kate at the tennis match.
`Black' once meant `white', as in `bleak' (eg bleak hillside, with grass bleached (another related word!)to whiteness after a northern winter). It survives as `bleik' in Icelandic (=pale, pink); somebody with the northern English surname `Blake' may have had an ancestor whose hair was black, or white!
There's a fish in northern lakes called a `bleak' - that is silvery, pale.
`Bleak' and `bleach' reflect the Norse use of `k' v. the Saxon `ch'or `sh' eg kirk & church; `skirt' and `shirt'(from the upper and lower parts of a one-piece tunic).
And of course it's related to `blanch' and the French blanc/blanche!
Also, white was once the colour of death whereas black was mourning -the apocalyptic `pale horse' is the personification of Death.
In traditional Christian spirituality, in a roundabout kind of way, it has come to represent moving from one spiritual state to another - a `death' of one sort of life and rebirth into another spiritual life, via a sacrament, as at Baptism and Confirmation and for brides as they leave their maiden state (in theory!) and become new people as wives (The groom,of course, carries on as before).
see:
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-word-Black-come-to-mean-something-dark-in-color-Its-root-meaning-is-White-Pale-Shine-Bright-Burn-etc
I was just going to post the same! Bring it on! Hope she write a no holds barred account of her friendship with Megsy and her shenanigans.
Go,go, go!
Thanks for providing that very interesting etymology of 'black/white'.
I lived in Japan in the 1990s, where the majority of people identify as both Shinto & Buddhist. Shinto was the indigenous nature-based religion with many pantheistic gods, like Wicca. Buddhism, with its highly organized theology was imported from China. In the lives of most Japanese people, these are for ceremonial observances & festivals only, not a daily or weekly practice of attending religious services. Shinto is for weddings and for happy things like asking blessings upon children. Funerals are Buddist, and the color is white. One does not give white or yellow flowers as gifts because they are associated with death.
Do you remember how often she'd mix black and white together in outfits and call it 'monochrome'? This may be the new-fangled Millennial usage, kind of like the "New, New Math", but monochrome means 'one shade', right? So an all-black OR an all-white outfit is monochromatic. Dressing oneself in a huge blousy messy white shirt over black pants that are straining at the seams has the *opposite* effect of a monochromatic outfit--which is to give the illusion of a longer, leaner body line. It wasn't until Meg abandoned the 'Suits' looks which worked for her so well and began dressing in these baggy, ill-fitted coats with belts that I became aware that her shape was so boxy. I have a similar shape so I know the challenge of being built like Spongebob. I avoid robe-like objects that tie with a bulky belt across the widest part of me unless I'm kicking back at home watching Hulu. Anybody who's watched even one episode of 'What Not to Wear' knows that you do not intentionally call attention to the thickest part of your body . .unless of course you are proud of having a thick waist and negative @$$. Which I am not, particularly.
'Member when Megsy listed her occupation as 'Actress/Supermodel' and described her own legs as 'a mile long'? She also lists her height at 5'7". Yeah--in 4" heels, maybe. Meghan is, charitably, my height of 5'5" (165 cm). How does any bit of that translate to 'a mile'? I ought to have mile-long legs, too, dammit. So why do I need to buy petite trousers with the 27" inseam, then?
Am I the ONLY ONE who thinks Harry and Meghan look like they are stoned out of their gourds? AND act like it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hell, yeah. This is why they fled Britain and moved to Hotel California. Much better drugs.
Meg covers better. Harry talks incredibly fast (though unintelligibly) and has very jerky hand movements. He's also got trouble focusing his eyes or standing still without fidgeting.
I suspect both are heavy cocaine users. Crack would be cheaper and easier to get, and gives an even more intense quick, dirty high (so I have been informed. I have never tried either. I don't have disposable income for dope, unlike some people.)
Harry might and probably does have AD/HD from childhood. Maybe he gives Megsy his Adderol pills in exchange for coke.
Could be coke, could be methamphetamine. I actually DID try cocaine back in the day (these were the late 70's and I was a feckless young adult for a while) before it was crack. Only resulted in a sort of manic high for about a couple of hours. I could never afford it long-term, tho. Heroin, on the other hand, is something I never felt the urge to try. I have no idea what crack does to people, but I do know about methamphetamine, as I have friends in law enforcement. It actually does make people stay up for days without sleep, and eventually go psychotic. Makes me wonder whether they do the one thing to keep them "up" during the day, and another to "help them sleep."
And, interestingly, I watched a documentary not too long ago about how the Germans refined drugs like that to keep their soldiers manic and going past their endurance. If I get the chance I will leave a link.
But I stand by my assertion that the Harkles are showing obvious signs of drug use. Poor Archie.
July 10, 2020 - by jerseydeanne - 1 Comment
Heard on the grapevine…Megan Markle has been dropped by PR firm, Sunshine Sachs…
https://jerseydeanne.com/2020/07/10/another-one-bites-the-dust/
Now - does life imitate art, art life, or is it an endless chicken & egg thing? (Altho' that's been solved with the discovery of feathered dinosaurs).
I've just found another theatrical piece that might do for Megsy. Can she sing? If so, this might be something for her - Sorazabal's `La Tabernera del Puerto'. It's in Spanish so no problem for our great linguist.
I was watching a TV programme from the Royal Opera House, celebrating its `reopening'.
A tenor began to sing Leandro's aria "No puede ser"
The subtitles caught my eye immediately:
It cannot be so! This woman is good.
She cannot be a bad woman!
In her look, like a strange light,
I've seen that this woman is unhappy.
She cannot be a cheap siren
who has poisoned every moment of my life.
It cannot be so! Because I've seen her pray,
because I've seen her love,
because I've seen her cry!
Those eyes that cry don't know how to lie.
Bad women do not look like that.
Glinting in her eyes I saw two tears,
and my hope is, they glint for me.
Vivid light of my hopes!
Take pity on my love!
Because I cannot pretend,
because I cannot be silent,
because I cannot live!
Oh,yeah? I thought
So I found the synopsis of the opera on https://www.zarzuela.net/syn/taberna.htm
Briefly, the girl has been set up to lure Leandro into a cocaine smuggling gang - they are at sea, bringing a consignment home, caught in a storm and barely survive. The ending isn't exactly happy, they get arrested by Customs officers but someone else takes the rap. She at least is distraught.
The low-down from SS has the ring of truth about it.
If she's really saying that about A, and he exists, that is tragic. Appalling. Do we believe it?
I recall someone telling me that during the war, when she was small child, it was just her and her mother at home - her father was in Egypt.
One day, after the end of the war, she went into the bathroom then rushed back to safety -
`Mummy, there's strange man in the bathroom!!!'
`That, darling, is your father.'
Understandable, perhaps, then.
The Harkles' quite noticeable signs of being impaired (remember the giggle fit Harry had at the Well Child awards? Speaking about becoming a new father to a roomful of parents of critically, most terminally, ill children, Haz became hysterical with giggles that he tried to pass off as emotion over the wonder of fatherhood) .. the glassy eyes, the flop sweat, the messy attire--same shirt for days on end, holey shoes, etc . . actually give me some hope that they are not, in fact the primary custodians of a one-year-old baby. The Royal family knows Harry's substance issues very well. He's been sending his RPOs out for 'gear' since he was a teen. One of the biggest party princes in Europe *suddenly* turns his life around and starts eating vegan, doing yoga and foreswearing cigs and alcohol (and his drugs) when he meets holistic humanitarian Megsy from SoCal? They sit around Tyler Perry's house sipping matcha vegan lattes, doing hot yoga and taking turns devising ways to raise Archie gender neutral?
Please.
Meg's PR reflects the opposite of what is actually transpiring. (Eg. She and Kate are besties who go shopping all the time; The Queen loves her better than anyone and is baking Megsy a birthday cake with her own hands, etc. etc.) So when I keep hearing about how great Meg has been for Harry, getting him so healthy, giving him the incentive to ditch all his old bad habits . .I'm like, sure Meg, pull the other one.
On the contrary, I think she's gotten him even more deeply mired in all his vices, and I'm sorry to say that it would not surprise me one bit if Harry winds up as a drug OD one of these days.
Surely there would be some kind of intervention if these two drugheads who flit from country to country to house to house were in charge of a baby. If Harry's family couldn't intervene from the UK, they could get Children's Services in L.A. involved.
I personally do not believe they have custody of a baby, even if there is an Archie somewhere. Meg's actions during the papp walk last July, the 'forest trail walk' in Canada (the one she's suing Splash News over) . .the weird manipulated images of Archie she has released . . support this. Why would she drag a doll around or fake up a Christmas card if Archie was with her? The child we saw in the two videos did not know either her or Harry from Adam and Eve.
If Archie was born via surrogate and they tried to adopt him . . I think it fell though on the grounds that they are unfit parents and she's been covering ever since. The Queen *may* have met an actual baby on May 8, 2019 (the same date the metadata shows the staged christening photo was taken), but perhaps that was the first and last day that Meg actually held Archie.
It's such a mystery . . wonder if we will ever know.
Indeed. So many unanswered questions. It does seem to be the pair of the Harkles conspiring with each other over all this "secrecy." They think it makes them more interesting, when it only gets more irritating by the day.
Whoever poor little Archie is, it is the depth of depravity to use an infant for your own PR delusions, IMO.
https://mmbelly.tumblr.com
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/07/blind-item-7_10.html#disqus_thread
Not only that, if you check moonbumps on amazon there is a huge selection, including inflatable ones, and shapes are remarkably similar to what we have all observed with her.
Isn't it that the judge will force her to tell the court, who will force the FF to testify, which will reveal the whole sordid fairy tale?
So it's not just knowing who they are.
As to the 5 friends? I believe she was all 5. I dont even believe JM fired off email to People. I think MM named names for court because she had to but she is stuck because it is all a lie. If SS bailed maybe that is a reason, she expects them to produce the fab(ricated) 5
She spun such deep tale with that asinine story. If it was one friend, maybe , but 5? LOL!
That is my spiel for the week. Its lucy, hello all! Never bothered to make account, it has been so peaceful around here ,makes me think I was part of the problem. Better read without me :D
Have a great weekend!
If for some crazy reason I wanted to re-live the uncomfortable feeling of pregnancy for Halloween, I would bring out the ol' pillow/cushion and stick it in the pantyhose/tights.
I was thinking about the I can't do a basic Mommy and Me class. I'm wondering if the local nannies have something similar for all their important babies - just as a word of mouth and MM heard the whispers of it? The mothers in that area will all be mothers who want the best of the best for their precious baby and maybe a Mommy and Me at a church wouldn't be the "right location" but if they banded together, they could set something up though rotating homes, use the pool house or these homes have lots and lots of rooms.
It might (however) be amusing to think that the departing "gift" from SS was this placement story which makes her look very entitled.
Okay - so i was reading Lady Collins book on the website posted earlier.
https://www.pdfread.net/ebook/meghan-and-harry-lady-colin-cambell/
I am maybe half way or so through chapter 3 and suddenly the screen refreshed and the book is gone. so i try to do some searches on the site and it is not there anymore. I go back to the original website and again, it's gone.
Anyone else have this problem?
I was just reading a fascinating part from a friend about when she decides she wants someone, how seductive she becomes, how she goes after men. Or anyway for that matter.
and poof - all gone
July 10, 2020 at 5:15 AM
Was just settling in with a huge cup of tea to start reading this book - I didn't download it, I was just about to and I go to the page and poof.. it's gone. Sigh. I guess I should have downloaded it when I went there yesterday. Oh well.. July 28 isn't that far away. Sigh
A Different Legal Strategy
JULY 10, 2020 BLIND GOSSIP LEAVE A COMMENT
[Blind Gossip] While it is unclear exactly how many people are going to get thrown under the bus in this upcoming legal trial, one person is doing their best to make sure that they are not one of them!
While everyone else is keeping their mouths shut and engaging their own attorneys, he is going the opposite way.
Basically, he is playing a different game from everyone else. Instead of staying quiet and distancing himself, he is being overly solicitous to the woman who is at the center of the legal brouhaha.
He thinks that if he says nice things about her and offers her help, she will protect him so he can get eventually on with his career as usual.
It’s a risky plan.
While we do not know her personally, she seems to treat even long-time “friends” as pawns in her game. If push comes to shove, saving any given transactional “friendship” will probably be less important to her than saving herself.
This man is obviously betting that ingratiating himself with her is the winning strategy.
Also, Hikari had an interesting post about illusion vs reality that reminded me of an article about Silvio Berlusconi, written about 8 years ago.
"Whatever it is, it is very Italian. This is, after all, the culture that invented Baroque, with its trompe l'oeil ceilings, false doors, facades that disguise multiple layers and facades that disguise nothing at all. In all his years of public life, Mr. Berlusconi has blurred the line between image and reality. Or rather he has made a brilliant career on the fundamental Italian truth that image is reality."
I am sure that Berlusconi is a narcissist on the highest level, to have come so far and for so long. MM, also a narcissist on a much lower level, though lack of intelligence or other causation, has so much trouble with facade management, hence this blog. The closest she has come to a 'fundamental Italian truth' is that wine is good, Tignanello, and that TIG, with a nod to Charles, also stands for tungsten inert gas welding.
Honestly though, it reminds me of nothing more deep than Annie in the movie Annie Hall. I guess you have to be old to remember the film but Annie (Diane Keaton) left NYC for LA and suddenly started wafting around in white outfits and quirky shades all the time while back in NYC Alvy (Woody) was still dressing in dark colors and obsessing over death.
"Insiders at the Palace expressed concern that Meghan and Harry had not undertaken the traditional photo call and micromanaged the photographs. The Queen and Prince Phillip stayed away from the christening because although they had been generous and understanding to a point in time, they now felt publicly embarrassed by Meghan’s controlling behavior, this is according to a palace source."
Another:
"The rift with William had to be managed and not allowed to deteriorate further. The firm had to act fast, before Meghan and Harry did something unthinkable. From what they had seen of her so far, she obviously would pursue any route she deemed necessary, Royal or not. A great deal of work was put into thinking of alternative roles for Harry & Meghan that would be important and would make them feel important but not be in competition with William’s future role. The roles presented to Harry & Meghan were not acceptable because they believed that they had more global power than William. "
Again, nothing new, but any excerpts might be worth a peek.
https://yankeewally.tumblr.com
(scroll down just past the DeNiro gif)
Now the Mail is saying JM May write a tell all. Oh please let it be true!!!
There have been questions about the legality of the ebook piracy sites, and now LCC's book has disappeared. This may be of interest...
Thanks Teasmade. We'll see what happens with downloads next.
‘The Meghan Markles and the other Ignoramuses of this world’.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_UCS4c6Tos
oops I posted about the exact same quote. I have to read more closely before I post.
Thanks. It doesn't matter, it's easily done. I'm glad you enjoyed LCC's video, she has such an inimitable way of saying things 😉
When people such as Prince Harry say they want us to face up to the past, do they really mean it?
It’s a demanding task, needing patience, humility, and effort. Some people spend their whole lives on it. It means understanding people from very different cultures with very different values.
It means acquiring some feeling for the hard physical conditions they had to face, their insecurity, their limited resources, the always slow and often imperfect spread of information, and the frequent illnesses and pains they took for granted.
It means gaining some insight into their beliefs about the universe, their understanding of their own history, their fears about their present, and their expectations of the future.
Facing up to the past should make us less sure of our own superiority. Is Prince Harry – who said, when talking about the Commonwealth, that we need to 'look at the past' to move forward – prepared for that?
Once in a remote part of Queensland, my hosts showed me the unpublished diary of the family who in the 1880s had set up the cattle station they owned. It was a pathetic record of illnesses, of stock running away (in pre-barbed-wire days), of loneliness, of harsh surroundings, of near despair after high hopes, and of early death.
Today, many would condemn those people as racist land-stealers, as genocidal displacers of aboriginal people. Is that really what they were? Is that their whole story? Have we the right to pass judgment from our privileged position?
So I am somewhat cautious when people urge us to face up to our past. What they seem really to want is that we should accept the selective one-dimensional view of history that they are dictating, and which advances their interests and flatters their virtuousness. And they are often dictating from a position of ignorance, or of political expediency, or both.
When Prince Harry, who is visibly sincere and well meaning, recently spoke of the need to ‘acknowledge the past’ it was wholly unclear what he meant. When he urged us to ‘right those wrongs’, he did not say which. Vagueness is prudent, but also rather dangerous, for it can sound like a call to propagate indiscriminate collective guilt and unexamined collective victimhood.
His context was the Commonwealth, but presumably he did not see that benign and innocuous institution as itself guilty – but who knows? Presumably the couple were alluding to the Commonwealth’s pre-history, the British Empire, and ultimately to slavery. Is it really necessary to repeat again that the British Empire was the institution that more than any other, and at crucial times single-handedly, reduced slavery from being a globally practiced and legally recognised institution as old as humanity, to a despised criminal activity lingering only in dark corners of human society? But let’s leave that one, important though it is.
We should indeed face up to the history of the Empire, but what is that history? The Empire was, as one historian puts it, ‘a global mosaic of almost ungraspable complexity and staggering contrasts.’ Anyone who is interested can ‘educate themselves’, as activists like to say, if they can be bothered: the Oxford History of the British Empire includes 19 volumes and has a bibliography of over 600 pages.
But knowledge and understanding are not, I think, the aims of those who summon us to inherited penitence. Gramsci taught us about the tyranny of cultural hegemony. Orwell warned of the control of thought through the control of language, and how power is gained by dictating the historical narrative: ‘he who controls the past controls the future; and he who controls the present controls the past’. That is precisely what all this is about.
The Commonwealth embodied a grown-up decision not to be dominated by past crimes and conflicts, but to accept the legacy of history and build on it for the benefit of the future. One of the wrongs to be righted now is the neglect of the Commonwealth, often tinged with contempt, by many British politicians and diplomats who lost interest in it during the 1960s when it refused to be an obedient instrument of British policy. The Commonwealth largely survives today because of the lifetime commitment of the Queen.
Britain now has both a duty and an interest in fostering Commonwealth links to mutual benefit: that is indeed a way to ‘acknowledge the past’, as perhaps Prince Harry was suggesting. Teaching British children something of the true history of the Empire and the Commonwealth is a desirable step. But propagating an unending saga of guilt and victimhood is neither true to the past nor beneficial to the future.
WRITTEN BY
Robert Tombs
Robert Tombs is an emeritus professor in history at the University of Cambridge
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-prince-harry-really-prepared-to-face-up-to-the-commonwealth-s-past-
On the same page, she adds that G NC refers to MM as `razor sharp'. Think we can come back with the old response -`Yeah, so sharp she cuts herself...'
So far, I have seen no reference to her intellect, as opposed to intelligence. Her boredom threshhold is apparently so low that I imagine she demands instant gratification - and if that might prove her ultimate undoing. She demonstrates an inability to think things through, to do a SWOT analysis (`strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats') for any proposed action, or to have the slightest awareness that her plans might not turn out as she expects.
Still, we all can see that money is her `value' and that her gorgeous mincies, (if you'll excuse my Cockney rhyming slang) are in fact cash-register eyes.
Page 104 has a cracker, regarding what the RF found out in the background checks and how it reacted, apparently `tearing its hair out'. The reviews were mixed - some even suggested she was well-known in Hollywood and Toronto as an `operator par excellence'. There is a direct quote: `it was like introducing Typhoid Mary to New York'.
Yet, on balance, `her biracial identity was an answer to the family's prayers'. To which I'd say it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference, had they been totally opposed to the match, as H would've gone ahead anyway.
Precisely!
Thank you for the excellent Spectator article, Nutty. It's really thought-provoking.
Leaving aside the way the lower orders of Britain have been treated by the powerful over history (and I bet H has never given that a thought), we have a painful reminder of past imperial tragedy on our doorstep, Ireland.
I've tried for years to understand Irish history, grasp the intricacies, paradoxes, and blunders of the past there, to find where the truth really lies. There are many `truths' I think. Some of my ancestors may have been the abusers, others the victims. It's almost a case of `if you're not confused, you don't understand the situation'.
Presumably, our two paragons of virtue were briefed before they went to Ireland, not to undo the better relationship that had been established during HM's visit in 2011? Not that there was any evidence of that from the way she dressed and behaved.
Their hypocrisy is staggering.
I'm not sure what LCC meant when she described M as "ferociously intelligent." I'm not sure what people mean when they say M is "whip smart" either. But I agree both those terms could imply a kind of destructive force.
I also agree intelligence and intellect certainly aren't the same thing. And while there is no one agreed-upon definition of intelligence, I can't say that I see M as particularly intelligent (much less an intellectual.) Of course, she's not stupid. And she did have the benefit of attending elite private schools prior to attending Northwestern. Those kinds of schools are often more successful than public schools in nurturing individual student strengths, at least in the US.
But my personal definition of general intelligence in the 21st century includes being well read (despite her university education, she's not given the impression she is), the ability to think logically, the ability to acquire and apply knowledge, the ability to understand complex problems, the ability to think abstractly, the ability to use language effectively (she writes like a gifted but overwrought 13-year old, in my opinion), and finally the ability to possess and demonstrate self awareness.
M seems to know nothing about economics or world history. I can't imagine she has a grasp of higher mathematics. Her wooden acting skills suggest a lack of emotional intelligence as do her public interactions including those with children. I can't imagine she knows anything about art or music (beyond musical theater.) She seems to lack cultural sensitivity to an astounding degree. She plagiarizes at the drop of a hat.
Personally I think plagiarizers are scum. And what's so ironic is that had she given the attributions that were due, I'd have thought that would have made her look more intelligent! In other words, had she said, "As John Kennedy said, a rising tide..." Or "As Eleanor Roosevelt said it isn't enough to talk about peace...I'd like to suggest to you today it isn't enough to talk about equality either..." Citing historical figures would have suggested to me she might know something about history. As she chose to do it though she simply convinced me she's a thief. (And plagiarism is not even a defensible kind of theft like stealing food to feed a family or stealing medicine to heal a sick person. It's theft purely for personal aggrandizement.)
I think M is, at best, of middling "above average" intelligence. Nowhere near whip smart. More cunning and sly than smart. I think her supposed intelligence is one of those things that the more it's said, the more some people believe it's true. She's whip smart, she's a "young mother," she's 5'7" in stocking feet, she speaks French, she could be elected president, her (5-year old) dog was too old to travel, Archie has red hair...