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
There is a troubling pattern in how the RF cynically uses the media to build positive images of some of the highly unworthy members of the Firm. But the truth seems to leak out in the end, thanks to karma! Makes me think of the RF as a show business whose main purpose is to sell themselves as heroes of the ages. Time to start asking if they are really necessary. This charade of the Deceiving Duo has made me begin to question why we need to have a false image of royalty. The DM quotes a royal historian who states that Charles wanted to expand their role. After knowing how false they are and how avaricious for money and power, he wanted to reward them with positions that would allow them to exploit it even more?
Don't worry. I'm guilty of doing that too. :)
I love the reference to Isadora Duncan. That put me in mind of poor Jayne (`Do you want see my chihuhua?') Mansfield, to say nothing of Diana and Grace Kelly.
Lady C can top that though - she suggests that M & H might be comparable with all the great pairs of lovers of the past (the usual suspects from Tristan & Isolde onward.) She completes the list, though, with Bonnie & Clyde, who also died in a `ahem' `motoring incident'.
I now have Georgie Fame's voice in my head, singing `Meghan and H got be Public Enemy Number One'.
So, for a little light relief:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubOI9yY55JU Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde
Well, I finally got my copy of Lady C's book from Waterstone's, delivered last Friday after weeks of waiting, with ever-lowered expectations after reading your reactions to her tome (and it is a tome), and also those on LSA.
From the beginning I've been put off by the highly complimentary descriptions of Meg, which frankly don't jibe with the evidence of my own eyes and ears. Her brilliance somehow escapes me. But after the long wait and hoping for her arch observations to provide rather easily accessible irony, Lady C. seems to have written a rather boring book. Perhaps I'm wrong. Fellow Nutties, what say you?
As far as my ear to the ground in Hollywood, things seem to be so shut down still in Glitterville that there's not much news. I understand Meg's and Handbag's vocal support of BLM has gone over like a lead balloon from the moment BLM invaded Beverly Hills itself, smashing things, causing residents to cower in their bathrooms with loaded pistols, and that sort of thing. Trust them to back the wrong horse when they didn't have to back any horse at all.
There's little glamor to be seen in Tinseltown these days. Most people are just concerned about their jobs and getting their kids somehow back in school despite LA's ardent love for leftism and their incompetent leftist Mayor Eric Garcetti. A lot of cognitive dissonance in the air. My son is chief national correspondent for one of the three major (alphabet) news outlets and he's been completely occupied traveling, with difficulty all over the nation reporting on coronavirus, which is currently the ONLY big story and BLM trails behind, the daily and nightly Marxist-infiltrated movement having run out of anything other than violence. So the Dastardly Duo are rather unimportant in the scheme of things -- except to us ardent followers who take their entertainment value quite seriously and perhaps wish they would do more pap walks and reveal more goings-on with Messica and the other four famous friends.
But no; nobody seems to take Meg very seriously in Hollywood, as the competition is now ferocious and she hasn't got any talent, nor is she young and beautiful. I almost feel sorry for her, but...no, sorry not sorry, I want MORE because she does provide wonderful unintended entertainment during difficult times. That is her real talent. I just hope poor Archie isn't a real person.
I also agree with you all that the BRF HAD to be complicit in elevating Meg to her present position. Even if one argues that she had them over a barrel with threats of crying RACISM!, they still might have allowed Handbag to marry her without giving the divorcee the great blindingly white wedding complete with all the pomp reserved for serious and joyful events. Seems so shameful.
Will plow on, I suppose, with Lady C. At least until I really feel I've been sold another bill of goods. However, I'll certainly buy Messica's book, should she decide to write one. How glorious would that be?!!!
Meanwhile I continue to feel gratitude to Nutty and to you all, terrific writers, thinkers, historians, psychologists and, yes. gossips. At least we know what OUGHT to be, what's right and decent in personal relations and polite society. I just hate it when an institution like the BRF disappoints, and gets it so wrong.
For that reason alone, they approved.
They didn’t realize her personal goals did not include them, however.
The Gruesomes better have Bank of Dad on speed dial. And butter up Prince Chas real nice. They don't want that sweet sweet Duchy money spigot to run low.
xxxxx, you are so right. The Gruesomes (love the moniker!) better have the Bank of Dad on speed dial and butter up PC real good. Hard times here. They do seem to have a knack for awful timing. I just hope there's no other "baby" on the way. That would be horrifying.
@Jessica, good point that the BRF thought Meg would modernize their "look." Shows how clueless they are. At this point I wouldn't trust the judgment of anyone but William and Catherine. Certainly not HM nor PC. Kind of sad, really.
I'm thinking that if Oprah doesn't come through for them in a major way, the Duo might really want to sneak back into Britain and resume their roles as Senior Royal big shots, blaming the virus or any other excuse they can find for their failure in H'wood.
I could be very wrong, but I think you nailed it that the virus has really made competition here uber vicious and Meg and JH don't really embody any glamour and have little influence. Their Commonwealth Trust zoom call was a total bust. Embarrassing; all that gum-flapping about the trite, cynical idea of innate bias or something -- their new hobby-horse. So boring! Boring is NOT GOOD if you're trying to sell yourself in the entertainment world. At least it didn't used to be.
That’s how she views the world in general. Zero sum. Good and bad. Rich and poor.
We aren’t making money off of oppressed people. As a whole, racism benefits no one. Shows her lack of education on the subject, lack of education on social issues, and lack education of economics in general.
jessica said...
I do think the BRF thought Meghan would help ‘modernize’ the look and attitude of the RF.
For that reason alone, they approved.
They didn’t realize her personal goals did not include them, however.
___________________________________________
It was also thought that in addition to bringing the British royal family up to speed on marrying people of color (several other European monarchies have already done so), Meghan might also help with the Commonwealth in that respect. Since so many countries have majorities of people of color, there was a kind of resentment at the Commonwealth hierarchy always being white people (i.e. the Queen and Prince Charles).
They knew ahead of time that Meghan was a loose cannon, but crossed their fingers and hoped for the best. Too bad things turned out so drastically badly.
TYhere are whispers that Mulroney is going to write a tell all (I will bet you a triple martini that this sucker is already written and going through her lawyers as we speak). I actually hope that happens and will be first in line - her and Markus are two who I think will have the most dirt. You can bet your woke bespoke patoosh he has notes on everyone hidden away.
I see the increase of reports saying how "sad and lost" HAZard is. I think this is all a prelude to something happening so he can paint himself as a victim if a divorce happens and he can go back to the BRF. I believe the firm will take him back, but I also think he needs to take responsibility for his actions - something he has never done before.
I also find it interesting/amusing that the recent photos of them "stepping out" in LA shows them travelling in a gas guzzling truck that I am sure doesn't align with their "woke eco warrior" routine they are trying to do.
One of the things that surprises me with Lady C's book is the apparent power the Courtiers have. She words it as if they are basically in control of the RF image and they make decisions and the RF follows them. Except for Megs.
I also did not like how she elevated H and his military service. She praised him so highly.
As far as the RF knowing what they were getting with her. She was vetted thoroughly and the RF did NOT like what they heard. This was while dating. They didn't think it would be serious, just a fling so they let it go. When they realized it was serious, they tried to talk to H but M had already thoroughly brief him on how to respond - if you are against this relationship/marriage, you are racist. I think they ended up giving in, hoping for the best. And were and still are surprised at how bad it is now.
Moreover, the Hague Convention, to whichthe United States is a signatory, meant that she would betrapped living in Britain in the event of a divorce, for anychildren of the marriage would be obliged to remain in the UKas long as she and Harry were living there at the time of aseparation. As Harry is a devoted father, Meghan will haveknown that there was no way he would agree to her takinghis child or children back to the US should they separate.She, however, is extremely maternal as well as foresighted,so she had a second good reason to move her base ofoperations.
I hope to God the snippet you provide is LCC taking the p!$$. She is in no position to comment upon the Harkle’s parenting skills, Good or bad, so why go for the sycophantic route? She’s not employed by the palace or Harkles. I wish that we could learn for good and all, Whether the Harkles have custody of a baby. She can frame it as her devotion to motherhood, but I think a great white shark is a better mother than Meg. She went back to California because it was always her intention to return to Hollywood after no more than two years, baby or no baby. I can’t help but feel that Archie is in someway just another one of her fictions promoting her own greatness. LCC is going to have to do better than this if I’m going to feel like I haven’t wasted my money. I’m going to read the entire thing tongue-in-cheek, And that will help me get through it.
Not meaning to be ghoulish here, but I was a child when Jane Mansfield died—it was the first time I ever heard the word “decapitation”. I think it was one of my older brothers that told me what it meant.
I completely agree, with Haz I think we are seeing a mixture of mental impairment (when someone takes drugs or has a serious drinking problem, their mental age stops at the age that starts, so their impulse control, decisions etc are by that standard.) and some Narcissistic traits. He has spend his entire life in privilege, not having responsibilities, most likely having his movements dictacted by minders, and he various screw ups covered up or explained that this is "larrikin harry". He has a expectation to continue this and is incapable of independent living.
KC said, (from Lady C C’s book) It is interesting that no one to date has questioned whether Harry has narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies
commensurate with those questioned about Meghan, when,in every respect save intelligence, he has mirrored her, as his conduct throughout the Bradby ITV programme demonstrated. He too came across as someone who wants sympathy intermingled with admiration, all of which is offset by a notable lack of insight as to how blessed he truly is. ....
Absolutely this! He’s more than just complicit. We can see he’s petulant, self-entitled etc. I said long ago they feed off each other, but not in a codependent way. She’s simply brought out the very worst in him, whereas his old girl friends perhaps brought out the nicer traits. He is who is regardless, others can’t truly change (a person) what’s already innate.
That was something Sarah Ferguson talked about in her book after her divorce: the power of what she called "the men in grey suits." It was one of them who said the classic line "The long knives are out for Fergie at the palace." I think he had to apologize and resign for that one.
And Lady C mentions that Diana was constantly hearing from Sir Robert Fellows, Queen's secretary ( I think; he was also her brother in law!) about what Diana did that she should not have done. Diana gave him a very sarcastic nickname--I won't spoil it. (The book contains references to things that happened in May or June, so it's pretty current.)
They did not do this calling on the carpet for their mistakes with Harry and Meghan. It would not have worked anyway, would it?
@Miggy
Sorry, I’d forgotten Fergie is also called Sarah 😂
"It is easier and more fun to read with moderated comments--"
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Nutty quit moderating the comments about July 6th or so (a few days after Althea Bernstein's initial story died down). However I am willing to bet she is looking on from time to time.
I would not be surprised of some of her "yachting friends" start coming forward. The worst move they made was separating from the BRF because that meant they no longer had the protections - hence why these stories are now coming out.
I predict her next move with be either paying for more archie time to trot out to the media or announce a pregnancy that will end in a "tragic miscarriage". I hope I am wrong, but the psychology of these types is that with every action that is not received in the way they intended, they have to ratchet up the event to gain the sympathy they are after. It gives them a cognitive rush that is similar to the rush you get from substance addiction, and as the tolerance builds, so does the action to get that same feeling and publicity.
My theory is that Jessica and Meghan are on the outs. Meghan was waiting and hoping for a good time to drop her and it appeared. Done, and cancelled. In order to completely Cancel Jessica, Meghan is trying to avoid Jessica testifying and interfering in her precious court case of victim hood. Especially, if Jessica has now been ghosted and slighted, ever so Meghan-Like and ever so rudely. Jessica testifying after that, would be horrible news for Meghan.
So Meghan put out the legal filing to omit the 5, and Jessica then put out her own PR ‘I’m going to write a tell-all.’ Basically telling Meghan who HAS ghosted her, even if she doesn’t get called to the trial, she’s going to write a book, so you better call me before either happen!
I think Meghan got the message and is playing ball with Jessica. I think Jessica is demanding a hush payment in the scenario of being called to court. If Meghan and Jessica conspire further, they will say Meghan had nothing to do with the article.
Jessica holds all the power here, she always has and always will. Her PR article, to me, is hilarious. You can run Meghan, but you can’t hide. Not from that Jessica bitch. She’s just like you. She’ll sell you down the river too. Lol. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer person!
For that reason alone, they approved.
They didn’t realize her personal goals did not include them, however.
You’re parroting what Megasy wanted to be seen doing.....to modernise the royal family. That was her arrogant desire. So I don’t agree or think the royal family thought this at all. Nor do I think they were quite that naive when it came to her as a person. Too many differences and changes in attitude creates non-conformity, that’s not the royal family’s MO . They are happy with their look to want to be seen changing it etc .
Megsy just happened to be an American and we all know what happened when the last one married in, I’m guessing they were actually concerned, but to what degree is anyone’s guess. :o/
Besides they are like tortoises when it comes to change - very slow. Diana found her self frozen out because of the changes. It’s a 1000 plus year old institution, why would they want to change it? It’s not in their MO to change morese if something works? I think they know very well what works and doesn’t.
If the BRF needed a reason to accept her, she wasn’t necessarily like other royal picks. What other reason would they have to welcome her? Just because Harry said so?
https://mobile.twitter.com/murky__meg/status/1282339042063986688
I also spotted this https://mobile.twitter.com/benmulroney/status/1282344643510833152
I would love to selfishly read all your comments as I spy in absolute silence :)
Thanks!
-lucy
Except for this friend account I just came across,
https://www.reddit.com/r/royals/comments/en8i51/why_meghan_markle_should_never_have_joined_the/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body
They exclaim that they knew she couldn’t handle it because she was too opinionated and outspoken about her feminist ideals which were in stark contrast to the RF’s policy on discretion.
It’s strange to me, this portrayal of Meghan, as there are plenty of Americans who aren’t loud ranting idealists who think they know everything and that their opinion is the only right one. It, to me, screams a lack of intelligence.
It’s also funny the friend liked that she found Prince Harry. Why? He’s a mentally ill Man Child. No one wants their friend to marry that! Lol
I agree with this person and maybe they should have spoken to ‘Megs’ more, that Harry should have done the right thing and left the family before he married her. But this friend is forgetting that Meghan wouldn’t have married him under that condition....
So is Ben Maleoney saying that Jessica and Meghan ARE friends after saying the daily mail article about Jessica is false? If so, who wrote it and why?
See how they are related, the background of them, and anything we can dig up that may connect Meghans mirror to, well, Meghan.
I wouldn’t doubt it’s her site. It’s an affiliate shopping site. She probably doesn’t make much of any money from it though because A)she doesn’t have style and B) it’s hard to make money this way. She’d have to be a lot more marketable and wearing items that are cheaper.
There is no future for Meghan in L.A. in the movies ( too bad actress, no talent, no glamour, no charisma, in fact nothing that distinguishes her from the hundreds of starlets who want to try their luck in Hollywood ) No producer is going to risk millions of dollars on a movie with her, especially now with the Covid crisis that will lead to so many commercial bankruptcies.
There's no career future for Harry in Los Angeles. He's just an empty shell as soon as he leaves the cocoon of the British Royal Family.
Everything I say, we all know it, but they don't seem to know it.
In the end Harry is the big loser in this disaster. Now he's known:
- 1 : as a weak man, subservient to his wife, a wreck.
- 2 : or as a man with a big ego, bitter jealous, selfish.
In any case, he doesn't seem very smart.
Nothing will work. They can't bring anything new to society, all their "ideas" have already been exploited by other people much more credible and sincere.
:-)
-lucy
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ecull_KXYAAJYb_?format=jpg&name=medium
-lucy
Here's the NZ Herald account if you missed it:
'Gone sour': Royal favourite reveals how Meghan changed Harry
11 Jul, 2020 9:23am
A photographer who has covered the royal family for generations has revealed that Prince Harry's relationship with the media went "completely sour" after Meghan Markle came on the scene and claimed she had "no intention" of ever living in the UK.
Royal photographer Arthur Edwards, 79, had a forty-year career covering the royal family and was a favourite of the late Princess Diana, who referred to the veteran lesnman (sic) as "our Arthur".
Edwards has spoken out about the effect that the Duchess of Sussex had on Harry and claimed that, despite the extensive renovations at Frogmore House, she never planned on living in the UK.
"All that house refurbishment at Frogmore and the money that they spent on that, she had no intention of staying here," Edwards told TalkRadio.
"I think the moment she married Harry it was 'right, let's get out of here as quick as we can,'" he added. "I mean, it was ridiculous."
"It's not in her plans and she is dragging Harry along and unfortunately, he's gone along with it."
Despite photographing Harry since his birth, the photographer said their relationship is now in tatters.
"Unfortunately for the last couple of years, he has gone completely sour," Edwards said in the TalkRadio interview.
"He didn't talk to me for a year. I've been photographing him since he was born, and it was down to her."
Edwards criticised Harry earlier this week after the Duke of Sussex took shots at the Commonwealth, urging the royal to "stop listening to his wife".
In a video call with Commonwealth youth leaders, Harry said: "When you look across the Commonwealth, there is no way that we can move forward unless we acknowledge the past."
"And I think so many people have done such an amazing, incredible job of acknowledging the past and trying to right those wrongs, but I think we all acknowledge on here that there's so much more still to do," Harry added.
Edwards wrote in The Sun: "Prince Harry is entitled to his views. But in criticising the Commonwealth – the organisation closest to his grandmother's heart – he has simply lost the plot."
I then hit Meghan Mirror Twitter. I honestly just experienced my first ever dose of sugar. Only thing I have read remotely like this is when I read single Scobie tweet and replies many months ago
Are these real people? Wow I cannot believe what I just read. So sorry I just had to share as literally never read anything like it. I know They are out there but to read this is shocking to me. I have avoided all this. Honestly I am shellshocked . They cannot be real. Internet OFF
lucy
https://mobile.twitter.com/MeghansMirror/status/1282115709271568384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1282115709271568384%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-3567805761160654300.ampproject.net%2F2006180239003%2Fframe.html
Woke cred?! Lol I very much doubt the royals or their courtiers have even heard of being woke let alone anything else. This seems far too like modern American ideology to be anyway credible. I certainly don’t even think Harry thought this, he’s truly not that bright.
Megsy just happened to be who she is; biracial and American. No conspiracy and no hidden agenda required. :o)
Even if he entered the plot willingly, he is now seems completely in thrall to her and her machinations.
Will he ever awake to find himself on that `cold hill side'?
-----------
Re Lady C and her comment on M's maternal skills/nature - taking the piss, I'm sure!
I think she's been clever - I haven't noticed a single thing that she could realistically be taken to court for. I bet she's can defend her use of the quotations from the sources she claims whilst never revealing them.
Read between the lines - ask what's missing. Where she is apparently being nice about M, she gives no evidence to support her assertions. If she believed, for instance, that M is the perfect mother, she would have given an example, with attribution. Similarly, if she thought the Archie business was all above board, she'd have said why. She would have attempted an explanation for the peculiarities of the Bump and so on.
Towards the end of the book, she quotes Martin Niemöller.
What more do we need?
I experienced something similar - had a look at some of the comments on a Sussex Squad video yesterday.
Like you, I wondered if they were real, despite the avatars - illiterate, illogical, vile. I couldn't even decide whether English was their first language or not, certainly not English as spoken in England.
Blogger Raspberry Ruffle said...
Wullie’sbucket said
`Woke cred'? Perhaps that's trivialising the issue?
There were, and probably still are, important political factors to be taken into account:
We have plenty of people willing to cause trouble in order to get rid of the Monarchy, as well as the mob that would take to the streets to protest violently against the police and racism.
Equally important, was the political climate in the UK at the time.
Lady C frequently mentions Tony Blair. Under him, the Labour party moved more towards the centre ground. I remember a parody of the Red Flag on a comedy show of the time;
`The People's Flag is deepest pink-
it's not as red as you might think...'
Under its its last leader, however, the Labour party moved from this slightly left of Centre position(somewhat akin to Democrats, I imagine) and allowed those on the far Left to flourish - all shades of republicans (in the constitutional sense, not the US sense) and Communists of all hues, be they Marxist, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists or whatever. To show what nice, caring people they were, they indulged in anti-semitism, to the extent that Jews I know, of families that have been here from the 18th century, were seriously considering moving abroad. Corbyn also had a history of associating with some very undesirable people, generally seem as terrorists in fact.
In earlier decades, I recall there had been bitter struggles within the party to remove the communists but this was a new era.
A Labour government coming into power last year, under Corbyn, could have been a major threat to the British constitution, the Monarchy and our values.
Our violent revolution was 370 years ago, the Russian Revolution was less than than 9 years before HM was born. (Have you ever wondered why there's so much clear space in front of Buck House? No tall planting? It's not just so that friendly crowds can assemble... George V was all too aware of what had happened to his cousins.)
`Woke cred' isn't the half of it.
We have plenty of people willing to cause trouble in order to get rid of the Monarchy, as well as the mob that would take to the streets to protest violently against the police and racism.
Equally important, was the political climate in the UK at the time.
.....and
A Labour government coming into power last year, under Corbyn, would have been a major threat to the British constitution, the Monarchy and our values.
Our violent revolution was 370 years ago, the Russian Revolution was less than than 9 years before HM was born. (Have you ever wondered why there's so much clear space in front of Buck House? No tall planting? It's not just so that friendly crowds can assemble... George V was all too aware of what had happened to his cousins.)
Agree and yes. The far left and Labour was before Corbyn was replaced was very much against elitism and the wealthy. Any republican agenda would side with Corbyn and his cronies. Great comment. ;o)
Can an American Nutty enlighten me as to how it's used in the US?
To me, it conveys the world of genuine pearls, good shoes, well-cut tweed clothing and black Labrador gun-dogs.
Or in furniture terms, perhaps elderly sofas in loose covers and well-polished, genuine, old furniture (Georgian or earlier) - and perhaps genuine portraits of genuine ancestors, even a signed and silver-framed Royal photograph or two on the grand piano. The `right' accent of course.
Perhaps a fondness for opera, ballet and exhibitions at the Royal Academy? (One can always recognise the ladies who are heading to the RA, even if they're on the Tube - something about the way they drape their scarves).
I did wonder abt it too. The Cambridge dictionary says 'stylish or fashionable', Collins says 'stylish and sophisticated'. We know Meg's is neither stylish nor fashionable, never mind sophisticated. I think classy also conjures up an idea of elegance and refinement (again, that's not Megs). Is 'classy' different the other side of the pond?
Also, I just came back to clarify that I am not a pro-Commie Indonesian, in case I forgot to make that clear on yesterday's comment. What troubles me about the 1960s Indonesian Communist Purge that America armed is that many of those murdered were falsely-accused of being Communists and were in fact not Communists at all (which is why my grandparents helped hide innocent people on their property).
It was practically a genocide. I'm not a fan of Communism but I don't think anyone deserves to be wiped off the face of the Earth for what they believe in.
PS: I didn't just come to post this OT comment, but I can't bring myself to post the other thing in the same comment with the above condolences. See below:
What a laughable way to live. Who cares about being "making everyone in the room like you"? Genuine humans occasionally have unpopular opinions and adults can accept that not everybody will like you.
Realistic solutions/opinions will usually be imperfect/unpopular. Not word salads packed with Woke buzz words.
A classy woman from a visual stand point:
- Is mindful that it is not so much the value of your clothes but how you wear it. Being appropriately modest and tasteful in dress.
- Is timeless in a fashion sense; wearing clothes chosen for not being the latest trend but rather for their ability to be appreciated in any era.
- Is not ostentatious.
- Clothes that fit and are of good quality.
- Wears clothes of a style suited to your physical attributes.
- Carries herself with dignity
A classy woman's behavior and attitude:
- Respectful of others and who has respect for her self.
- Is discrete in speaking, revealing no confidences of others.
- Does not use foul language or everyday slang.
- Does not gossip but rather judiciously speaks good of others
- Knows who she is as a human and is confident of one's self.
- Is not sexually promiscuous for the mere sake of bed hopping.
- Declines to engage in argumentive conversation intended to inflame.
- Has a personal code of conduct that she adheres to
- Is a humanitarian rather than an opportunist.
- Is sincere and authentic.
- Treats people as she would want to be treated.
- Has impeccable manners.
- Is educated to the level that one has had the ability to be.
- Is kind and considerate in engaging with others no matter who it is.
- Is relatively calm not histrionic.
- Is charitable in deed and word.
- Is true to her faith whatever higher power it is.
These of course are only my opinion and many may have differing aspects to add or subtract.
I fail miserably on the gossip aspect (however I think we all get a pass on gossiping about Markle tho, lol) and a few other elements from time to time.
"It was practically a genocide. I'm not a fan of Communism but I don't think anyone deserves to be wiped off the face of the Earth for what they believe in."
Well I guess Germany and Japan would have won WWII and likely Indonesia would have continued to be under Japanese domination and control today if the Allies did not fight and take the lives of the Japanese who had subjugated Indonesian. As you know during the time of Japanese occupation hundreds of thousands were put into forced manual labor and women were used in the infamous 'comfort stations'. Japan did not oust the Dutch for the sake of Indonesia independence but rather for the rich national resources the archipelago possessed and they needed during the war.
With respect to the 1960's there has been an outcry again for the treatment of women imprisoned in Indonesia who was used as sex slaves by their own Indonesian guards. The Crimes Against Humanity trials has amply brought this to light and the women were not criminals and therefore imprisoned illegally. To date the Indonesian gov't has not redressed these wrongs against the women.
I am only pointing this out since you brought up the subject of not killing someone for their beliefs and the issue of Americans had in purging Communists. America did not imprison and rape these women during this time for the crime of being married to a suspected communist. Since Nutty does not want us to discuss politics I am letting this lie as is although I could have written at length on the subject.
I was then invited to guess what was the worst thing that a daughter could have against her father. Not being a simpleton or three years old, I immediately cottoned onto where this was going, but still refused to be drawn, pointing out that a responsible author does not guess but relies upon information that is freely imparted. After the most tremendous palaver, the informant then managed to spit out the odious word ‘interference’.
I asked what the word meant in that context, and was left in no doubt as to what it did mean. I am terribly sorry, but anyone with scruples or a heart ,invited to accuse a man whose daughter was full of praise for his parenting skills only weeks before she met her prince, would have to be low indeed to give credence to such adebased piece of information. I felt duty-bound to point out to the informant that Harry could not possibly believe any such thing. If he did, it meant that he accepted that Meghan was a brazen liar who had fabricated a truly loving father to impress the readers of her blog as well as everyone else with how worthy she was of the love of such a wonderful man. Either that, or she was lying now, or someone had mischievously made up the whole thing to gain my sympathy.
I’m still awaiting my copy of Lady C’s book but it was nice to skim an electronic version. I’m a dinosaur and still love the feel and smell of a real book. Lest any of you think I’ve pirated a copy of someone‘S intellectual property, my credit card was billed immediately after I placed my ore-order.
I keep reading so many complaints about anything nice that was said about MeGain but most of what I read, while sounding complimentary on the surface, was extremely tongue in cheek. All those nice things were said with a huge degree of sarcasm. Do we really believe that Lady C was serious when she states that M is better educated, has better taste and generally a better person than all the rest of the world? Read over all those sugary remarks again and see if maybe your opinion of what the intended message is doesn’t change. I laughed my head off at some of those descriptions. OnLy Lady C could have gotten away with with those sideways saccharine remarks. She truly killed That witch with kindness.
I think she had to walk a fine line and did a fairly good job of it. I also think Meg's best acting is playing out on the world stage right now - and that's the role she is playing towards H. She studied Diana and him and hit every mark with him. Sucked him right in. And i do NOT think he is a innocent in all this. She does have him all wrapped up in her web. She has brought out the worst in him and put it on display.
And my Scottish friend texted me & he was like, "that's fake" like he thought I fell for a hoax AGAIN (I previously fell for an article about Putin releasing tigers to get Russians to stay-at-home during lockdown 😂😂😹 & was gullible enough to get catfished at one point).
I was like, "NO IT'S REAL!!"
It's like normal people who don't really give a rodents behind about these two must think they're so absurd... We're used to it.
Thanks Lucy,
So is Ben Maleoney saying that Jessica and Meghan ARE friends after saying the daily mail article about Jessica is false? If so, who wrote it and why?
I took Mulroney's comment as simply meaning that it was false to suggest Jessica has been hounding Meghan to be friends again. At least, that's what I'm hoping!
This particular passage in the book put an end to my wanting to protect the royals in any discussion.
We may talk about Harry and Meghan and point at how obscene and damaging their behaviour is. Daily Mail commentators may do the same. But it is ultimately up to the royal family to decide if they want to continue to be associated with the Sussex's humiliating show, open disdain towards UK, Crown and the Queen, or finish this once and for all.
So far:
- Harkles continue to represent the Queen in the Commonwealth Trust
- Harry is the patron of the Invictus and retains his other patronages
- Nobody knows what happened to Disney's 3 million. It is lost. Most likely pocketed by
shameless Harry and Megsy and it is hushed
- Harkles retain HRH and use it in court papers and letters
- Megsy is still the patron of the National Theatre
- Charles still finances the duo
- As far as I am concerned UK is still paying for their protection
- Royal Marines still remain without the Royal Patron because of the ridiculous one year
review on Harry. Everybody knows it should have been given to Anne right away
- Harry remains in the line of succession
- Harkles continue spreading their vitriol about racism in UK
I got to the point where the only concern about the future of the royals for me is the concern about the parks, woodlands and other green spaces they help to preserve, as well as their many historic buildings. As for royals themselves - I stopped caring. Unlike many esteemed Nuttiers I respect I do not think the Queen did well in the situation.
I will salute if Wills manages to totally separate his kid's legacy from any association with the Harkles. So far the damaging connection is still on.
It’s been reported in the British press they are paying this themselves. This of course could be Charles himself, I’m more inclined to believe this.
The Home Office said their security was under review and this was when they hadn’t long been in Canada. I think if the UK tax payer was still paying it would be stated in the media.
Off the top of my head, I do think Americans use it differently than the Brits. The straightforward meaning is the same "stylish, sophisticated" but I think like a lot of American culture, our Puritanical roots show. I usually hear it used with moralistic overtones. Someone is classy because their character and personality is a cut above the rest.
I agree and it’s how I’ve heard it too. Subtle difference between our meaning and theirs. I’m British, I’m hoping more American Nutties can clarify. ;o)
I tried to aspire to it but the frustrations of contemporary life have dented my attempts at acceptable vocabulary at times!
----------------
I've been thinking of 2 aspects of her behaviour that perhaps can be seen as insulting her audience:
My hopes of having children were never realised and I found the belly-clutching flaunting of her `pregnancy' painful. I felt very uncomfortable about it, as if she was insulting those of us who are childless through no fault of our own. It was very bad manners, I felt I was having my nose rubbed in the fact.
Another reason for Royal ladies to wear hosiery - older ladies may be grateful for the way stockings/tights help to conceal the obvious veins and so forth of legs that have walked many miles in their time. If the young follow M's lead, anybody wearing tights could be then be assumed to have unsightly veins they wish to conceal. If every one wears them, nobody would give it a thought.
Nae culture, as they say north of the Border - or `dead common' as we used to say down south.
Yes, Lady C kept the biggest sting in the tail until the end. We'd heard about the attempt to interfere and about the distasteful allegations but I hadn't put the two together. M is certainly a demonstrable liar, as if we didn't already know that.
Harry needs to struggle free of her web, be a man not a mouse, although it's a reasonable bet that he's stuck in a meghan'n'substance-induced brain fog.
Stupid s*d.
I appreciate your stance and admire your conviction in stating it.
As an American my words might mean next to nothing (I wrote the Queen a letter denouncing Markle a yr ago). But I would think if a sizable segment of the UK and Commonwealth would flood the place with such letters maybe the Queen would have to notice (if only to tell her staff to get more garbage bins for the trash). Maybe its the optimist in me that thinks such an outpouring of tangible disgust and demand for action might awaken the Queen (and Charles) that the monarchy may be in jeopardy if the status quo continues.
On a personal note, I was in conversation with the staff person of a US congressman and this person said the office was indeed impressed with letters that come in and they use it to gauge the extent of the populace opinion on a matter.
Any Americans feeling bright or creative this morning? We DO have "common" but "dead" is not a usual intensifier. (Which is wonderful, by the way.)
It's perhaps not quite as strong as it was 60 or 70 years ago, before it took a knock with the Permissive Society.
This does have the connotation of moneyed fashion and style ala the country club set here in America, too. ie. 'a classy wedding' is going to be quite expensive & have chair covers and black tie, etc.
But it also means, at least to me, having impeccable manners toward others and an ease in social settings that transcends money or how one is dressed--it's acting with graciousness and dignity toward others and oneself regardless of financial circumstances.
As Meg and Harry both amply demonstrate, Money and material luxuries in and of themselves do not bestow true 'class' upon anyone.
It may be a particularly American view to believe that innate class in behavior is something that can be taught/learned, through effort, and one's modest circumstances of birth need not preclude one from becoming 'classy' in one's deportment, manners and speech.
Harry was born into such privilege, but he didn't learn it by osmosis, and Meg certainly has not acquired any class by her lofty marriage or her own efforts. So they are both gigantic failures at 'class'.
My guess is the Two Gruesomes have all local/LA security men these days/ Which comes at a great discount due to Hollywood still being mostly in lock down mode anyway/
Translation: It is very difficult for a suitcase girl to make headway in a remorseless town under black colored Virus masques. Mask of the red death anyone?
Covid 19.
Thank you for the memory WBBM. ;o)
The word "common" was a derogatory expression here in the south in years past and it wasn't meant to mean 'typical' per se, but had a slight negative inference. Like your phrase "dead common" even better.
Yes Meghan's belly clutching was so obnoxious and I despised it despite the fact I was a mother. It seemed like she wasn't just proud of being pregnant she was gloating, making the world look at her fecund state in case we didn't miss it. It was in your face thrusting that stomach out and rubbing it, indeed massaging her belly in such a personal way which I found creepy. Drawing such glaring attention to her obvious bump made it the subject of endless conversation and speculation, just a prop for her continued PR. We never heard her talk much about being pregnant, no she had to use her bump to say it all.
Vulgarian | Definition of Vulgarian at Dictionary.com
Vulgarian definition, a vulgar person, especially one whose vulgarity is the more conspicuous because of wealth, prominence
'uncouth'
'familiar' (a little tepid but here in the South it is a bit like 'common' in usage)
I would love to be able to believe they are no more a burden on taxpayer. However I can't. That is why: information on their security bill is muddy.
Vanity Fair claimed in May the £ 4 million security bill is covered by Charles in exchange for the dismal duo's monthly 18K re-payment of Frogmore renovation costs
The DM claims Tyler Perry provides their security while they live in his house and Charles is not paying.
Previous reports in Evening Standard, Sun, Express and other sources indicated Metropolitan Police and the Palace refused to disclose who and how much pays for their security on the grounds of "sensitivity" and "security risk".
There is even zero agreement on how much it costs. I saw estimates from £20 million a year to £3 million a year.
When there is no simple and clear information about the subject available to the public I smell the rat. For this reason I am convinced we are still paying for the duo and royals do not want us to know this. Hence the secrecy and evasion.
Muddy almost swamp like with that much conflicting info. floating around. :o/ Thank you for sharing.
I definitely share your grievances over the pair and for a lot of the time the handling of the whole debacle by the Palace. I’m most definitely not the royalist I was 3 years ago.
I can't think of any other circumstance where it would be acceptable for an adult to repeatedly caress his/her body in public (and can think of a few circumstances where that would lead to an arrest!)
I know M's defenders scream it's natural and point to all 10 or so photos they can find of Kate touching her bump (during three pregnancies.) But with Kate it wasn't constant, it wasn't two-handed, it wasn't extended caressing but touches, it didn't involve thrusting clothes back to do it, it didn't start in public within hours of a pregnancy announcement, and it wasn't done when standing and talking to teenagers!
That cat on your avatar. If he yours? Looks like the British Blue.
If Megsy could master a tenth of his dignity she would have had no problem doing her royal duties. Let alone a hundredth of his grooming skills.
Yes he’s mine and yes, a British Blue. He’s 2 next month and that breed isn’t fully mature until they are 2 and a half. He’s very intelligent and too naughty by half! He’ll give Megsy a run for her money for the naughty step! Lol
Principled and lives by those
principles (but not obnoxious in pressing views on others)
Comfortable in own skin (but not closed to new experiences)
Perfectly able to converse but also quite willing to listen to others
Polite not so much because "rules" are important but good manners promote harmony and put others at ease
In terms of "style," that tends to flow from the person's comfort with him/herself.
For clothing:
Not overly-trendy. Understated. Often fairly simple.
Clothing fits well and isn't overly tight or overly revealing (doesn't have to be a style the Puritans would have approved of though!) For women, clothing so tight undergarments show isn't a classy look. For men, trousers so tight the family jewels are on display isn't a classy look either.
Clothing flatters the person's body regardless of size.
The person wears the clothes, the clothes don't wear the person
Colors worn tend to be flattering to the person vs simply being The Color of the Season
In other words, not Meghan.
For me, being classy doesn't require one to be rich although it may be easier to dress classy when not shopping at second-hand shops. But money definitely doesn't always buy class. (Look at the decor and style of Tyler Perry's house for a failure!)
"Common" tends to mean uncouth, rude, overbearing, self-centered, lacking awareness of others' values/lives, and often overly sexualized (perhaps a Puritan influence there.) Both rich and poor can be common. If there is a prejudice related to economic status, I suppose sometimes a person who comes from money might be said to "act common" while someone from a more humble background would be said to "be common."
Good list. In summary, class is like dignity, something you can't hide, not something you have to spend a fortune on to show
Exactly!
FWIW, I've intentionally avoided putting up images on this blog (and took down some images I'd originally posted) because copyright infringement is a very easy way to get a blog taken down, and many copyright owners now have automated searches for unauthorized online use of their work.
But if you can find a way around that, great.
classless , cheap (not in monetary sense , difficult to describe) tawdry and/or crass.
Classy has me stumped. IMO it is more about the way one carries themselves. Confident and assured. It is more an aura to me and you either have it or you don't
Nutty you are silly! I just got email of comment I wrote weeks ago to other thread.
Thanks I think :-)
New post. I am headed out, catchya later!
My hubs looked through the available backend data of sussexofficial.uk and meghansmirror.com. One is a word press site (MM) and the other is a static site. The google analytics use different accounts. They are both hosted on GoDaddy. There is nothing that intrinsically connects them.
That said, their registration dates line up with Meghans timeline. Meghan's Mirror was registered around 5 months after she met Harry (she was clearly making big plans for herself to be seen, to make money off the clothes she wears- which in 2016, was a bit forward-thinking in terms of internet cash)
Meghan's Mirror: Creation Date: 2016-11-23 T00:42:49Z
Harry's Press Release Date, telling the press to leave Meghan alone was mearly two weeks prior to the creation of Meg's Mirror. His letter was published 8 November 2016.
No one knew who Meghan was, and it would have to be an extremely savvy person to predict that they would stay together and put in the effort to build a site to make affiliate income off of her clothing as her popularity grew. For these reasons, Meghan's Mirror is definitely owned by Meghan. It was also registered in the US.
Sussexofficial.uk was registered in 14th of March 2019, and has been dormant since the publishing of Harry's letter pronouncing his lawsuits towards the media 31st of October 2019. It was registered in the UK.
There is nothing that connects them on the backend that we can see. But it's apparent to me that due to the timing and registrations and contents that these are both connected directly to Meghan. She also probably wanted to keep Meghan's Mirror separate as to not alert the Royals.
I'm going to dig further and come up with hard evidence that Meghan has been making money off of Meghan's Mirror.
A small update. Digging into Meghans Mirror.
It claims to be owned by Effervescent Media. Nothing on the blog is affiliated with the name effervescent until Feb 2018. The founders or people running it, have little to no LinkedIn presence. Their instagrams are dead links. Twitter is dead as well. Everything is shady.
It’s super shady, but still we are trying to get to the bottom of it.
They are trying to do Royal family home, and Kate’s Mirror as of this year. Whoever it is, Meghan or not. No clear revenue.
Interestingly, this ‘group’ or Meghan started it in 2013, with a post about Kate. So Meghan could in fact have planned this all along. Super creepy!
Intriguing timeline for our Megs. She is so shady. Still am amazed by what she allowed herself to be seen in, she best had made bank for all that fiasco.
It is so difficult for me to try to understand what she was thinking. I would be mortified to run to the market in half of her getups, let alone parade between Royalty. She is obviously incredibly vain, leaves me dumbfounded
Did you see Meghans Mirror twitter yesterday with all her minions clawing to get at that wrinkled flour sack? It has to be people from site trying to create buzz as there was nothing redeeming in that frock whatsoever
Great read and I look forward to reading whatever you two supersleuths can dig up next :)