New Idea, an Australian publication, recently reported that Meghan Markle was considering a run for US President in 2024 - a story widely picked up in other media.
Unfortunately, New Idea has a reputation for making up stories out of whole cloth - not a credible source.
Which sources do you consider trustworthy when it comes to information about the Sussexes?
Choose up to three.
Unfortunately, New Idea has a reputation for making up stories out of whole cloth - not a credible source.
Which sources do you consider trustworthy when it comes to information about the Sussexes?
Choose up to three.
(If the embedded poll isn't working for you, here's a link)
Comments
Most reports seem over-favourable to MM but I attribute this not wanting criticism to be perceived as racist, plus her own PR, even if it's at the expense of objective reporting. I respect the Mail for allowing public comments to stand.
I rely far more what is apparent from what she says and does, as revealed by video evidence, as well as trying to interpret what she reveals inadvertently in what she says.
In retrospect, I found an early reference to her as a `narcissist’ by Samantha as early as November 2016: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harrys-new-girlfriend-slammed-9177414. Narcsite’s first Very Royal Narcissist dates from 17/5/18, 2 days before the wedding. At the time, I was reeling from a major narc attack and I was beginning to wise-up about the condition. All fell into place.
About then, or soon after, I read a great deal of Jerseydeanne - gossip maybe but it presented a fairly coherent narrative about her alleged yachting days.
As for her future aspirations, that’s taken off recently in the press but my `turn’ must have been insight – I’m sure I hadn’t read anything about it, it just seemed obvious. At the time, I found only one early mention of it, (can't find where now), although I see now there was something just after the wedding:
23 May 2018 - `Kensington Palace has been forced to deny suggestions that Meghan Markle is planning to run for President. According to the Daily Mail, the new Duchess of Sussex told a close friend about her ambitions to take the White House after she began dating Prince Harry in 2016.(Yahoo news 2018).'
In trying to find our way through the obfuscation of smoke and mirrors, we need to look for the `dog that didn’t bark’ – what we’re not told (like reading Lady C). I googled the `dog’ term with interesting results, including:
In a legal context: https://brieflywriting.com/2012/07/25/the-dog-that-didnt-bark-what-we-can-learn-from-sir-arthur-conan-doyle-about-using-the-absence-of-expected-facts/
And this, which could apply to those of us who have come through devastating encounters with narcissists:
‘The survivors of existential crises have huge wisdom, won at high cost, about what we need in order to endure when the unexpected arrives. Just because we don’t know the future doesn’t mean we’re helpless.’
https://www.good-governance.org.uk/blog-post/assurance-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/
Keep the faith, folks.
I too try to rely on what MM says or does but also what she wears. It can be very revealing of her intentions, e.g. the pulled down collar on her light pink suit at her first Trooping the Colour, done with the intention of showing a lot more flesh than the jacket was meant to. And don't get me started on sleeveless dresses, lack of tights/hats and other sartorial faux pas.
Yes, as you say, 'Many outrageous stories in the tabloids turned out to be true'. Never underestimate our Meg!
That said, I do hope your day gets better.
There was no way that Nicholas Witchell's discombobulation at the `birth' announcement could have been down to PR!
The first link is to the Guardian's version (longer)
The second is brief but accompanied by an article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx-Zs8VXLpc
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1919724/Nicholas-Witchell-struggles-live-Buckingham-Palace.html
A woman President may happen one day, but I hope she will be way better than the self proclaimed "Miss Magic Boobs".
The Witchell report, IIRC, was a response (or lack thereof) to the strange written birth announcement at Buck House, on the easel. It didn't follow the established pattern of wording and, weirder still, it carried no signatures from the doctors in attendance which are regarded as authentic evidence for a royal birth having taken place without any funny business going on- no warming pans or whatever could be used to smuggle in a baby.
Here is the wording, subject and main verb emphasised
"The Queen and the Royal Family are delighted at the news that Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex was safely delivered of a son at 0526am today.
"Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well."
No verifying signatures.
Compared with:
"Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 4:24pm today.
Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well.”
With 4 doctors’ signatures as verification.
Me, I think the best resources on Meg are this blog and LSA. Everyone is keeping tabs on Meg and sussing out the BS. With Meg, I am always ready to keep an open mind because so much crazy has been confirmed. Not only that, her "normal" behavior is beyond abnormal.
-that we are being shown successive pictures of one specific living child,
- that we are being shown a living child of whom Meghan is the mother, in any sense of the word, based on her behaviour towards the child and the child's response to her.
- and, sometimes, that we are being shown a living child at all, rather than an animatronic. doll.
If I had to choose between a schmaltzy blurb about what an icon she is and a photo of her as Girl in a Hat describes, I'd believe the photo every time. Isn't there a writer's maxim `Show, don't tell'?
It's the `silent evidence' that matters.
I think it says it all that Harry's life has completely changed since he married her. And it appears she is willing to sue family members, ironically over not respecting her privacy?
I also can't think of any celeb that had so many friends giving detailed information to the press.
Agree with WBBM about a lot of this (especially the DM comments).
Most sources have proven to be merely paid mouthpieces (some more than others so I look for consistency for tracking purposes to gauge swings true or false).
As for the ones which seemed to most far fetched have sadly been more true than false.
It has that same feel as Through the Looking Glass.
Good comment about actions CookeShark.
For me, it is not just the actions but when do they happen (what else has been going on or is this a delayed response to something else), how far do they go (is this a one shot which is all about pictures or is this actually doing something but for how long and how often is it repeated (if volunteer) and is there any sort of linkage to any thing in the past or it is more like a ricochet in a slog machine?
No one here in the US takes her serious. Most don't even know who she is. Just because the Tabloids are writing about her doesn't mean the people care about her. She's just another wannabe celebrity.
I've no doubt Archie is Harry's biological child. There is no doubt in my mind there has been DNA testing done. All a nanny or security person would have to do is a quick cheek swab when he was sleeping it's done. If the RF knew he wasn't Harry's, it would've been exposed (at least to Harry).
I was team surrogate but now, i tend more to she gave birth and was just padding herself thinking she was so smart. Otherwise, it would've leaked by now. Between their trips, former employees etc. The thing is - i have no problem with a surrogate if she might have trouble carrying. She probably didn't know law in UK about surrogacy and maybe even thought she'd seem "less of a woman" if people knew she had surrogate.
I pop around to different website, blogs for information and compare the information.
Avoid 'Business Times' (formerly International Business Times). Their royal coverage is unrelentingly sycophantic, and also likely written by some Meg bots--the copy is decidedly not written by a native speaker of English, and there doesn't appear to be an English-speaking copy editor on the premises either.
My favorite sources for Harkle news are this blog (of course), Harry Markle, who first laid it all out for me about Meg's con game on the Royal family, #NotMyDuchess (on Tumblr), The Crowns of Britain, and my latest find, vlogger Taz (According2Taz). She is a British woman in her 30s who offers her opinions on the ongoing Farkle drama in a very entertaining and relatable fashion from her living room in London. I encourage everybody to check her out. I think she represents the average British-woman-on-the-street response to Farkle.
I've stopped clicking on stories about Farkle in other publications, lest I be assisting her in any way with financial support by so doing.
"We told you so"
July 19, 2020 - by jerseydeanne - 2 Comments.
https://jerseydeanne.com/2020/07/19/we-told-you-so/
i have no particular news source for the Dubious Duo. Once I realized, maybe 2 years (?) ago that her PR was generating the endless drivel I stopped clicking on it. My sources are probably sites like this one, Harry Markle, Thecrownsofbritain, anonymous house plant, although the latter keeps disappearing without warning, and notmyduchess. The writing is witty and well-analysed. So I'm entertained and educated at the same time!
Thar was my very first `conspiracy' theory - who would say they wanted to `modernise' the Monarchy unless they wanted to destroy it?
The only point against it would be that surely they'd have chosen someone who wouldn't be a loose cannon? Unless they too are useful idiots, both of them, destined to be disposed of when they wrought their havoc?
The other bloggers and vloggers as listed above are favourites of mine too.
So what did LCC say was the reason for HAMS leaving?????
The latest example I can think of his her Girl Up speech where she says something to the effect that she, Harry, and Archie will be "cheering on" the girls as they are "marching." Note that she is not going to be marching with them.
We haven't seen her give up the titles, the expensive mansion, private security, or funding from Charles. So she can say anything, but her actions don't match it.
Thanks! I couldn't remember if it was that or the tongue sticking out. What a whiner to complain about being bored at a Royal Garden Party! Geez. Like an evening in SoHo is soooo much better? Only if you "hobby" I guess, sober is no fun.
One last comment on the Doria/Archie photo. General consensus is that the HAMS were told NOT to merch or capitalize on Archie in any way (as you know she'd merch the merde out of him if she could) but......remember MeMe is good at bending the rules, Doria would not have signed/agreed to any terms on Megxit therefore she could do pap shots etc with Archie and MeMe could say "oh I didn't know and I didn't do it".
Just my theory.
The photos of Megs, from her overnight train trip with the Queen, have been spun into how Megs and the Queen are laughing together, chatting like two best friends, etc. Meg’s sugars always brought these photos up to tell the tale of how much the Queen loved and liked Megs from the beginning. The videos show Meghan pushing and shoving people to get to her seat quickly; Megs rudely treating the person on one side of her by turning her head while he was in mid-sentence; Megs covering her mouth with her hand, leaning towards the Queen, whose attention was elsewhere; Megs hysterical sudden laughing as soon as she saw the Queen laugh at the presentation in front of her; Megs talking into the air; Meg’s assistants and the Queen’s Lady-in-Waiting all exchanging looks at each other, especially when Megs was laughing and talking to herself - at one point people were rolling their eyes at the spectacle. The Queen was nice, smiled at something with Megs, but altogether ignored her.
Videos of Meg’s swaying belly; Megs pregnant bump deflating and/or falling to her thighs; Meg, at “7” months, sitting front and center, crossing one leg high on other leg’s thigh, Wearing high heels, with her bump folded, and direct line sight into her private parts, with the “Who does she think she is” faces on all the highly accomplished women on the panel.
I trust videos, with the exception of the ones the two DUMBartons send from the wall.
Agreed. The ultimate hypocrisy to me was the CWT speech but not acknowledging that their TITLES are a constant reminder of those days and to truly "address" the past they should have very publicly and dramatically given up all their "colonial" titles in solidarity to CW. But then the fame would be go as well...
This is a first time I hear about the surrogate announcement. I am firmly in the surrogate camp but have heard nothing about the deleted announcement.
If it is true it is astonishing.
I don't have the time right now to write more about why I think MM and politics is a concern, but I'll just say she and Harry have already influenced the current US political climate in a negative
My expectations may be unrealistic, but I am counting on Tom Bower’s biography about Meghan to be the definitive word on her character and her life. I hope Bower, who is 73, stays healthy and is able to do most of his research without having to travel, though I imagine he’ll want visit LA, Toronto, Evanston....He seems to publish a new book every 1-2 years on average, so hopefully the wait won’t be too long.
MONDAY, JULY 20, 2020
Today's Blind Items - Straight Up Stealing
Usually it is in the shadows when it comes to this celebrity couple. The finances are always going to be opaque, just because of what is behind them. Less so for her, because she has always maintained a separate financial profile, profiting off her position whenever possible and making sure she is the only one who can access it while blocking her husband from viewing any of it. Although she filed an extension on her taxes, it appears she did so as married but filing separately. Meanwhile, she wants to know about every penny on the other side of the aisle so to speak.
A complaint has been filed alleging the wife and husband of taking nearly $500K of the public's money that was supposedly heading to a charity, and instead converting it for their own personal gain. Did they split the money 50/50? Is that going to be declared as income? The husband doesn't have to do taxes this year. Next year he will though, and there is going to be a big lid pulled off the cover of the finances of the family from across the pond.
The same argument likely could have been made then-- that the people donating to that didn't necessarily mean to donate to the Royal Foundation's choices of charities. And clearly the money went to the Royal Foundation then only because Diana was Will and Harry's mother. Same argument that's being made now about Travalyst.
But since that was done, it makes sense to me that Will's foundation wouldn't just get to keep whatever was and has been been collected in that fund.
Royal charities could be investigated over transfer of funds from Cambridges to Sussexes
Hannah Furness
The Telegraph5 hours ago
"The Charity Commission has been asked to investigate the philanthropic foundations of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Duke and Duchess of Sussex over the “inappropriate” transfer of funds.
Republic, the anti-monarchy campaign group, has asked the commission to investigate The Royal Foundation and Sussex Royal, over grants given to the Sussexes’ former UK charity and Prince Harry’s travel project.
The Charity Commission said it was assessing information in the complaint to determine whether it was appropriate to investigate.
The Dukes and Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussexes had previously worked together at the Foundation, before Prince Harry and Meghan set up the separate Sussex Royal.
The Foundation’s annual report shows it paid Sussex Royal £145,000 to fund its set-up and launch, with a further £100,000 to Travalyst, which was then under the umbrella of the Sussexes’ charity as an “activity in the sustainable tourism space”.
Since then, Sussex Royal has been wound up - to be replaced by an American non-profit organisation in the near future - and Travalyst has been registered as a private limited company.
In a letter to the commission, Republic campaigner Graham Smith wrote: "These two charities appear to be in breach of guidelines regarding the proper use of charitable funds and may be failing in their duty to act independently and solely in the interests of their objectives."
He added of two grants given by the Royal Foundation to the Sussexes’ projects: “In both instances it appears the only rationale for the decision was the personal relationship between two patrons, the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge."
A spokesman for The Royal Foundation said: “The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently.”
A Charity Commission spokesman said: “We have received a complaint on this issue. As with all concerns raised with us we will assess the information provided to determine whether or not there is a role for the Commission. We have not made any determination of wrongdoing.”
A spokesman for the Sussexes said: “Grants made to the non-profit organisation Travalyst are for the ongoing development of projects that will support communities, wildlife, and the environment through sustainable travel and tourism.
"All grants have been made impartially and objectively, fully in line with governance requirements, and have been reported transparently in full accordance with regulations.”
She's playe dstraight into the hands of the republicans (ie anti-monarchy people)
Monarchy faces huge questions after crass Harry and Meghan statement: Republic
8 January 2020
Campaigners have tonight claimed the statement from Harry and Meghan this evening shows the monarchy isn't sustainable in the modern era.
Graham Smith, speaking for Republic, called the statement crass and self-serving after the royal couple said they would work towards being financially independent.
Speaking for the group Graham Smith said:
"This really is wanting to have your cake and eat it. They have said they will dip in and out of royal duties as it suits them but won't stop taking public money until they find other sources of income."
"To suggest that they're not already financially independent is incredibly crass and belies a sense of self entitlement and a lack of self-awareness that is common among royals."
"What should be more concerning is that the royal family's star couple have effectively bowed out of their leading role, and that raises questions about the monarchy's future."
"The Queen and Prince Charles appear comfortable with all the trappings and formality of royal duties, but it's increasingly clear that the younger generations are not so keen."
"In the meantime taxpayers will rightly ask who will be funding their overseas lifestyle, their extra security and trips back and forth between here and North America."
"The monarchy needs to be asked serious questions about what they're up to, it's not good enough to be told to wait for clarification or to be left reading the tea leaves to work out what their intentions are."
"The royal family is in trouble and with the next succession on the horizon their problems are only going to get worse."
Unfortuantely, the source is entirely reliable.
Why has it been released now?
If the machine that finally takes down the Harkles ends up being the British anti-monarchy Republican group, the entire monarchy may go right along with them.
I don't want to see this happen and really hope we finally see some kind of definitive and major action out of the RF.
This latest news about their "charity" reminds me of how I wondered (back when the Harkles first squawked about leaving) how H&M would be able to partially leave the RF and live in another country. Security costs, taxes and their actions forever throwing a shadow on the British monarchy will always be a problem especially with them living on another continent.
They should have been/should now be removed completely - no funding, no security, no titles, no British patronages, no connections whatsoever to the monarchy other than the fact that Harry is a man who happens to be the grandson of the Queen.
I must agree with other posters about "According 2Taz". I find her posts quite balanced and whichever commenter (sorry, can't remember your name at this moment) said that it seems to represent the thoughts of the average British woman-in-the-street, you are quite right.
Another commenter I love to read is "P'Dina". She is a WoC and her comments and analysis of the Harkles is spot on. At this time, I can only read her posts on youtube and she doesn't post that often but her interpretation of MM's actions is worth listening to and demonstrates that not all PoC are enamoured of MM. In fact, I think her target audience is PoC and am wondering now if she ever posts on LA. Perhaps another Nutty Flavor poster can enlighten me.
Remove them completely.
Throw them to the wolves.
The Crown must survive.
Prince William denies breaching charity law with grants to Prince Harry
Rebecca TaylorRoyal Correspondent
Yahoo News UK6 hours ago
Prince William has been accused of “losing” £300,000 by making donations to his brother Harry’s “pet projects” according to campaigners.
William and Kate’s Royal Foundation awarded grants to Prince Harry so that he and his wife Meghan Markle could set up Sussex Royal, their royal arm before they stepped back from their senior royal roles.
The foundation also gave a grant to Harry for Travalyst, his sustainable travel project, which is now a UK-based non-profit.
The campaign group Republic, which wants to see an end to the monarchy, has reported the charities to the Charity Commission for investigation, claiming they have breached charity law.
In a letter to the Commission, Graham Smith wrote: “The Royal Foundation gave a grant of £145,000 to Sussex Royal and £144,901 to a non-charitable organisation (Travalyst).
“In both instances it appears the only rationale for the decision was the personal relationship between two patrons, the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge.”
But the foundation has denied any wrongdoing and said the grants were awarded by the charity’s board of trustees.
A spokesman for the Royal Foundation said: “The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently.”
A spokesperson who worked with Sussex Royal said: “Grants made to the non-profit organisation Travalyst are for the ongoing development of projects that will support communities, wildlife, and the environment through sustainable travel and tourism.
“All grants have been made impartially and objectively, fully in line with governance requirements, and have been reported transparently in full accordance with regulations.”
Smith added: “I find it difficult to believe that a charity making an independent and impartial decision would decide to make these payments.
“The Royal Foundation has lost almost £300,000 to Prince Harry's pet projects. Harry's own charity is now closing and he appears to be taking the charity's money with him. I can't see how that isn't a breach of charity law.”
The group has said the charities should be investigated for “conflicts of interest, inappropriate use of funds and a lack of independence”.
A Charity Commission spokesman said: “We have received a complaint on this issue. As with all concerns raised with us we will assess the information provided to determine whether or not there is a role for the Commission. We have not made any determination of wrongdoing.”
The donations came to light when the Royal Foundation filed financial documents, which also showed how the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex had decided to split the ongoing income from the memorial fund set up for their mother.
Harry and Meghan, who are currently living in Los Angeles, have dissolved Sussex Royal ahead of the planned launch of their new non-profit, Archewell.
The royals were hoping to use ‘Sussex Royal’ after stepping back from their role as senior members of the Royal Family, having built up a large following on their Instagram account.
But as part of the agreement with the Queen, they agreed not to use the word royal in any future branding.
The Royal Foundation was the charitable arm first for Princes William and Harry, then for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Harry, up until he and Meghan decided to split from them to set up their own foundation.
William and Harry’s uncle, Prince Andrew, had to repay £355,000 after his trust was found in breach of rules by paying one of its former trustees.
Andrew’s charitable body allowed the former trustee to work as a director for a fee for three of its subsidiary companies – in breach of rules.
The Duke of York’s household has paid back the money, and the trust was wound up with remaining funds being distributed among charities with similar aims.
Many thanks for re-posting that Republican article and I have just one comment, really - look from whence it comes (and when).
It's hardly likely that such a movement will post anything good about any member of the BRF, is it?
This latest shindy the Republicans have stirred up is directly aimed at PW - is this the only way they can smear him?
Feeling that PW is usually such a moral person, I honestly believe that the monies from the Diana fund were passed over to the Sussex duo in good faith, as in one charitable foundation giving to another charitable foundation. 'After all, it could be argued that as Diana was PH's mother as well, then he and his foundation should get some of the funds. It is hardly PW's fault if the Harkles decided to move the money into a limited liability business, albeit one that purports to be non-profit. Once the funds have left the Royal Foundation, surely it's down to JH & MM as to any impropriety or misuse of such funds.
I feel sure that PW will be able (and more than willing) to clear his name although I doubt that the Republicans will stop trying to find a way of dragging him into any Harkle mess.
All this sustainable travel crap is just a smoke screen. Travel is a big business that carries millions of dollars in profits.
I believe Travelyst is all about redirecting the money from one pocket to another while pretending to be a charity.
Hands up anybody here who believes Travalyst is a legit good case.
"Now, a source has told Express.co.uk that all Sussex Royal funds will be transferred to Harry’s sustainable tourism initiative, Travalyst.
However, Travalyst was registered as a limited company on April 3 this year and has not been registered with the Charity Commission."
It appears LLC is not an accepted form for a charity. I was able to find this:
"The hybrid nature of an LLC does not prevent the company from making donations to legal charities. However, state laws may prevent an LLC forming as a nonprofit organization".
If Travalyst is an LLC the very minimum it warrants is questioning of its charitable status and the use of charity money in it. Why not register it as charity from the beginning?
"Feeling that PW is usually such a moral person, I honestly believe that the monies from the Diana fund were passed over to the Sussex duo in good faith, as in one charitable foundation giving to another charitable foundation. 'After all, it could be argued that as Diana was PH's mother as well, then he and his foundation should get some of the funds. It is hardly PW's fault if the Harkles decided to move the money into a limited liability business, albeit one that purports to be non-profit. Once the funds have left the Royal Foundation, surely it's down to JH & MM as to any impropriety or misuse of such funds. "
I agree Pretty Paws. I feel sure the Cambridges will be able to clearly and transparently answer any questions that will arise from an investigation. The Sussexes have not made any of their accounting public yet. Including that blasted £3 million from Disney. They are playing fast and loose with OPM and I am glad they are being investigated. At this point, any brush that leaves a taint on the Sussexes and their deals is a positive.
As long as the rest of the RF arent dragged down with them. Surely The family can now see failure to fully separate from the Sussexes is very dangerous.
When the year-end review was put into place, no one could foresee 1. the Covid pandemic and the disastrous effect it would have on the worlds economies and 2. the fact that the Sussexes have flouted almost every point agreed upon. Particularly those points pertaining to respect for the Queen and the institution of the British Royal family.
Additional frivolous lawsuits, openly political speeches, failure to secure even the appearance of self-discipline, real work, or even a home continue to mock the BRF while the runaway spending and extravagant lifestyle fuel rage from Charles' constituency.
Surely surely surely, this investigation must be the catalyst that spurs Charles into acting decisively. If they cannot see they are on a precipice, we can.
Odd, isnt it? The blind from CDan, the complaint and the Republican article reprint so close together? Almost feels like ...an attack.
Megsy and her coven couldnt be pushing this agenda, could she?
Even though she would be cutting off her own funding, she is fully capable of trying to stage a coup thinking she and Harry would be crowned instead.
I second Hikari in the same sources (and oddly the same order)
I look here first, then Harry Markle, Not My Duchess, Yankee Wallys blog, According 2Taz, and Celt News. Almost all with a teaspoon of salt. And I agree that past behaviors predict future, so anything PR is automatically discarded, as are all stunts.
Royal charities could be investigated over transfer of funds from Cambridges to Sussexes
I wonder why the Telegraph did not take the trouble to look at the accounts for the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Had they done so they would have found that the payment to Travalyst came from restricted funds these are funds subject to restrictions imposed by the donor. The £145000 for setting up Sussex Royal was from unrestricted funds and therefore was a payment made at the discretion of the Trustees but it is quite openly declared in the accounts. It should also be noted that the accounts are for the year ended 31 December 2019 and the Sussex duo were part of the Royal Foundation until August 2019
Here is what the Diana Memorial Fund was:
"The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund is an independent grant-giving foundation established in September 1997 after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, to continue her humanitarian work in the United Kingdom and overseas. It was a registered charity under English law."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales_Memorial_Fund
Here's what it said it did:
"During its fifteen years of operation, the Fund worked to secure sustainable improvements in the lives of the most disadvantaged people in the UK and around the world by giving grants, championing causes and lending the Fund’s name and profile to charitable causes."
So it wasn't for a Diana memorial like a statue (although Will and Harry did more recently solicit money for a statue to be placed at KP. Not sure what will happen to that money. Think the sculptor has been working on models.)
What I do hope is that the Republican group will somehow be fruitful in catching Harry at something shady with this latest Markle issue. The money was to go to Sussex Royal - when they were no longer allowed to use that name and created Archwell, why didn't the money move over into that entity? Is the money really missing? Will someone be able to demand an accounting of where that money went? And what about Disney's 3m?
I think Harry is in way over his head with MM's sense of morality.
Many thanks for your kind words.
I looked up this Republican movement and its campaign manager is one Graham Smith, who works for the Guardian newspaper. Who would have thought it? That tells me all I need to know!
It would seem that they (the Republicans) are not bothering too much about HM or PC as perhaps they don't see them as a long-term threat but PW is another matter entirely. He, PW, is widely regarded as an asset to the throne, is morally acceptable and upright in both his public and private life and promises to cover his reign in glory - such bad news for any Republican, I think. Maybe that's why they're going after him but, and it's a big "but", they ought to be very careful as there may well be a public backlash.
The British people love their Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and woe to those who try to bring them down - and that goes for the Harkles as well. Now there's a pair I, personally, would love to see up to their necks in trouble with the IRS - and it couldn't happen to a nicer couple!
I'm from the US but I believe the Republican group has focused mostly on Prince Charles quite a bit (other than the Queen). They have created negative videos and commentary about him and their site claims they plan on moving for a referendum for a republic after the Queen passes away but before Charles becomes king. I have not seen any real focus on William before. I have been checking their site occasionally hoping they would help put a stop to MM.
You can see some of their rhetoric here:
https://www.republic.org.uk/
Thank you for posting those Republican articles.
As an American, I don’t know how powerful or popular anti-monarchy politicians are, but to me it looks like they’re doing PW a favor.
No doubt, PW’s paperwork will be in order BUT the question of how all that Sussex money is spent will remain? Are those donated funds all spent on “expenses” for the H&M show (clothes, travel, lawyers, designers) or on actually needy. people?
Furthermore, if Charles cannot finally stand up to Harry, then perhaps he really isn’t suited to king. I mean, as a non-Brit, I obviously don’t know but even William’s scarf has done more to wuiet the Markle than Charles has in two years.
I did not think the photo w/ Doria was old (quality/lighting), looks recent but the baby did not match SA Archie (aka DuckRabbit Archie), the head was different shaped, less potato-y.
I also remember rumors and a screencap of Kensington Palace making a surrogacy birth statement, I could hardly believe it was true but prevailing commentary suggested it was absolutely posted and deleted, blew my mind.
I used to follow a lot more sources including Skippy and JerseyDeanne until I finally realized everybody was FRICKING NUTS especially after she was never sequestered in Skippy's tower and charged with treason (dang it!!) so then I started thinking more independently.
Coming here, we all share such great sources from behind paywalls (thank you ladies) and elsewhere, notes on new Harry Markles (I looked for a link to contact her and request a financial investigation, she's quite thorough) but she doesn't have anything there.
Harry Markle is the name of the site but the blogger is female. That said, I miss Vince.
Who or what was the check or wire transfer made out to? Was it made out to Meghan's Rainy Day Fund. So that next year when they are out of money, Megs and Hapless can dip into it.
QUESTION: Which dog is being described here? Bogart the beagle or another dog? The dog she said was “too old” to travel to the UK or one of their other dogs the Harkles have obtained since they got married?
————————
Doggy dilemma
July 20, 2020
[Blind Gossip] While many celebrities are cautious about discussing their children or posting their photos for privacy reasons, this TV actress is the only one we know who has chosen to be selectively mysterious when it comes to her pets.
At first, she seemed quite genuine in her love of her pets and featured them prominently on social media. The narrative – Aren’t I a good person for rescuing these animals? – was a bit trying but acceptable.
Then she started dating another celebrity.
Her pets, whom she had once considered her children, became mysteries.
Why was one pet missing? How did another one get seriously injured? Why didn’t she want anyone to know the name of the third pet? It was… odd.
Then there was the lie about the dog she left behind.
You now know the truth. But do you know why she lied about it? Here you go!
“Her relationship with [Man] was the most important thing and she wanted it to look perfect. Telling the truth that he didn’t like the dog and that the dog didn’t like him wouldn’t fit that narrative. She couldn’t make him look like the bad guy and she couldn’t make herself look like a bad person who abandoned her pet. So she had to blame something else.”
We hear that she actually considered several lies before settling on one!
“She considered a couple different stories. One was to tell people that the dog was terminally ill and that’s why it couldn’t travel.”
Did she know that her lie didn’t make sense?
“She knew it was lame but it was the best she could come came up with. She had bigger things to worry about, like locking him down.”
Locking him down?
“Getting him to propose/getting married. She wanted to create the perfect environment for their life together. The dog didn’t fit.”
So, why did she eventually take the dog back?
“Because people were questioning why she didn’t have the dog back since her original excuse didn’t apply any more. However, the situation was exactly the same the second time and [He] didn’t want the dog around so the dog had to go again. She couldn’t tell the same lie twice.”
Look, her dog lie is not the biggest lie in the world.
However, it does make you wonder.
What else she has lied about to get in/stay in the relationship?
And what else has she lied about to create that “perfect” narrative?
Similar: Curating The Dog
Actress:
[Optional] Do you think she handled this situation well? What other lies has she told?
Harry Markle has a Facebook page. Its where one can go to discuss the blog posts, so she may take suggestions there.
https://m.facebook.com/harrymarkled/
@Happy Days
IIRC, Guy is the Beagle, her golden lab/setter mix was Bogart. He is who is being discussed here. Guy supposedly broke two legs in a mysterious accident. She claimed to have left Bogart in Canada because he was "too old to travel". At five.
She and Harry adopted another black lab together whose name wasnt revealed at first "to protect the dogs privacy". I kid you not.
It was finally revealed to be Oz.
We posted the same info at the same time!
Is this blind trying to say she took Bogart back?
Because she could drive and get the dog now?
Its what, a 30 hour drive between L A and Toronto?
Megs is up for that to reunite with a beloved pet!!
But the blind states:
"So, why did she eventually take the dog back?"
“Because people were questioning why she didn’t have the dog back since her original excuse didn’t apply any more. However, the situation was exactly the same the second time and [He] didn’t want the dog around so the dog had to go again. She couldn’t tell the same lie twice.”
They are apparently saying that she took the dog back and then got rid of it again!
Yikes! I really hope this is not true.
🤷🏽♀️
@Puds
I don’t think Schillings are the Queens lawyers, they’re Megs.
Schillings, and Sunshine Sachs, sound like
shonky creditors chasing “Mr Micawber”
Dickends...
Q: How do you keep Half-Prince Harry from looking at something?
A: Put it on a bookshelf.
Dickens had Meg pegged
A modern day Mrs Jellyby
with her “telescopic philanthropy”
https://www.facebook.com/167115176655082/posts/3517324444967455/?vh=e
And soon, hopefully we’ll have a pic of Trevor, his gorgeous wife, and their baby. Another happy family.
Imagine the relief these guys feel!
The grass is not always greener, Megsy!
Re: HarryMarkle: Love her! And you’re right, she’s very thorough. From what I understand, you need to apply to be a member of her group. That’s the only way to communicate with her.
Hope you’re staying cool!
Princess Elizabeth became queen when she was in Kenya and she had to fly home. There's a beautiful piece at:
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/columnists/the-laird-othistle/oh-god-theyve-sent-the-hearses/
The Proclamation, which I recall hearing on the `wireless', was `The King is dead long - live the Queen'.
That is why the Royal Standard is never put at half mast - it represents the presence of the Monarch, nor of the individual Crowned Head. I've known that since I was 5, when we went to Windsor for the day and Dad explained it - it's why I got so cross about the complaints when Di died.
It was years though before I understood the `half-mast' thing. Apparently, it comes from historical naval warfare. When a ship was captured, its flag was lowered so that the flag of the victor could be raised above. When a flag is put at half-mast in mourning, it as acknowledging the conquest by Death, as if Death has an invisible flag.
The Royal Standard is thus never at half mast.
If you google something like ` three queens George VI lying in state' you'll find photos of his wife, mother and daughter, all heavily veiled, in Westminster Hall.
Back to Megwitch and her Great Expectations ... not as much of an Artful Dodger as she thought she was!
So blind gossip is basically saying Meghan has lied about something bigger than the dog. The dogs not the point of that story.
Must be Archie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megapode
- but I've discovered another dimension. These birds don't incubate their eggs in the usual way, by sitting on them. They lay them in mounds of rotting vegetation and rely on the heat so generated to keep them warm - as far as I can make out the hen than has nothing more to do with it.
Sounds like surrogacy!
Nancy, Scrooge and Archie Copperfield
alone in BH (Bleak House) apart from Little Dorit
Thank you for that information and for the reminder the Royal Standard represents a continuous and enduring Monarchy. Hence, that flag cannot and will not be flown at half mast to commemorate an individual's death as there will always be a Sovereign on the throne.
Your reminder that the heir apparent becomes the monarch the instant the previous monarch dies reminded me of something I'd read. Most of us do remember how we were told a parent died (if we weren't there when it happened.) Charles may learn of his mother's death by hearing only the first two words of a sentence uttered by a member of his staff: "Your Majesty, I have a message..."
I had, of course, seen the iconic photograph "Three Queens in Mourning" but your post prompted me to look it up again. I learned Ron Case took it with an old wartime RAF aerial reconnaissance camera!
I also found a posting of the photo with a statement from that time made by Queen Elizabeth, George's wife.
The Queen Mother said to the people of the Commonwealth:
"Your concern for me has upheld me in my sorrow and how proud you have made me by your wonderful tributes to my dear husband, a great and noble King… I commend to your our dear daughter: give her your loyalty and devotion; Though blessed in her husband and children, she will need your protection and your love in the great and lonely station to which she has been called. God bless you all; and may He in His wisdom guide us safely to our true destiny of peace and good will."
Pretty different from the message her great grandson recently sent to the Commonwealth!
Dumbey and Son have fallen on Hard Times
due to our Mutual Friend.
There may be some parallel meaning to the blind story, but I think there is also something wrong with the info presented in it.
Unless I missed stories about MM taking Bogart back when she moved to LA or it happened behind the scenes, I think the author made a mistake with the details of this blind.
Interesting new alleged info is the reason she didn't take Bogart to England - Harry didn't like him. This seems odd too - but the Harkles are just so weird!
@Unknown
Probably another shaggy dog tale
to throw us off the scent of what they’re
really up to.
Megs unleashed, more dribble
Its a Dogs Life
Laddie and the Tramp
Laddie come Home
I became a royal watcher two years ago on Tumblr, but in the past year, this blog has been my main source of news and commentary on the British Royal Family. (My second favorite place to visit is Scorpiotwentythree's tumblr.)
It may not be the best timing on my part, to come out of lurking while our esteemed hostess is on holiday. But the question was such a perfect ice-breaker that I decided to take the plunge!
"I believe that Bogart is with Corey. Would love to see a pic of Corey, his girlfriend, their baby, and Bogart. They’re probably so happy!"
If you want to see pictures of Cory, his partner, and his son, check out his Instagram. Plenty of cute ones there. His son has a ton of hair!
As I posted on an earlier thread, there are also several old posts of Guy and Bogart on Cory's IG but no dogs or evidence of dogs at all in any posts from the last few years. Personally I'm not convinced Cory has Bogart. But maybe he does.
The "Meghan won't try to take Bogart back because she's so wonderful" planted story was dumb. Who would disrupt a dog's life by taking him back after nearly 3 years? And it's not as though Toronto and LA are right next door to each other. And M&H apparently have two dogs already, they have a child, and they are couch surfing!
I do think the story was planted as cover for something though. Maybe a concern Jessica (or someone else) would spill the beans about what really happened to the 5-year old dog M had had since he was a couple of months old? Or maybe cover for something not dog related? Or maybe just to make Harry look at fault?
Speaking of dogs, wonder what happened to Doria's two if she's moved into TP's house? No guarantee her dogs would get along with theirs. (All 4 look pretty depressed to me in pictures. That may be my prejudice though-- my dogs haven't been untrained exactly but they have tended to "happy dance" sometimes when on walks, not dog-show heel!) And if Doria's dogs are at TP's, wonder what he thinks of that? Not only has an extra person moved in, but two more dogs? I don't care how big the house is, 4 dogs is alot of dogs! I love dogs but 4 dogs shed alot, 4 dogs have alot of toenails to scratch floors, any dog can get a GI upset but multiply that times 4....Maybe Doria dumped hers or left them with her partner.
Hasn't young Tara (in that Facebook link you gave) realise she already looks like Fergie?
Or was that last week's look?
What will she do when MM is disgraced?
Most Nutties read by visiting the blog and seeing the new posts and replies. Some Nutties subscribe to emails so they get replies to a blog post from the moment they posted on the blog and Subscribed.
You will never get an alert of a new Nutty post like the Housecleaning one unless a Nuttie says there is one on blog post replies you are subscribed to.
If you have been getting replies by email and they stopped, it may have to do with you accidentally unsubscribing to replies. Check under the Comment box. Where you see your handle "Catlady1649," you will see a link to Subscribe or Unsubscribe underneath. If the link is to Subscribe, that means you are not Subscribed to blog post replies.
Hope this helps.
I have rewceived your answer to my question, so does that mean I'm subscribed to this post ?
Thank you so much for posting the message from the by the then-Queen-Mother. It's so very beautiful
`...she will need your protection and your love in the great and lonely station to which she has been called.'
Exactly, that's why I'm doing my best here.
I can remember the day the King died so well. I had just been diagnosed with chicken pox, the doctor had left and Mum switched on the wireless so I could listen to the BBC Schools programme by mean of an extension speaker dad had previously rigged up in my room for such an eventuality.
Instead of that, however, there was the announcement of the King's passing and that normal programming had been suspended and there would be only news bulletins and solemn music instead, all day.
I'm ashamed to say, I burst into tears, I'd been so looking forward to `my' programme. I see from the Radio Times archive that it should have been `Music and Movement' - `Now children, run around the room... find a space... and pretend you're a tree'. Solemn music/ last thing thing I needed!
I felt guilty about this for almost 50 years, until I got shingles on almost the exact anniversary of the King's death - and realised, when I wanted to cry for no reason, that that's what this virus does.
Oddly enough, Husband tells me he too was off school, with a nosebleed.
@magatha - you're on a roll! Do you think Dimmy Slowboy and Fanny Scratchitt might be heading for the workhouse?
For each blog post you want to subscribe to, the first time you post you click on a checkbox to Subscribe underneath the Comment box. Otherwise, you have to click the word Subscribe as I described before.
@WildBoar
Fanny Scratchitt, hahahaha, love it!
Smutty and Sweep
Scratchitt and weep 😉
Thank you once again.
In the past I have always received any new posts by e mail and have commented on them.
The same with other Nutties comments.
I have now caught up reading comments on this post
I've never understood why people who travel so extensively have pets. Pets depend on routine and they get anxiety when their Master is gone for extended periods of time. I remember my friend's Golden Retriever going crazy when he left town his first time. Everything was planned for his comfort and his favorite dogwalker housesat and took care of him. His dog still acted out. He then decided to get his dog training and some sort of certification so his dog could travel with him going forward.
Some people really shouldn't have pets...
Laura Elston PA Court Reporter.
`Prince Phillip to step down from Colonel in Chief of the Rifles - handing over to Camilla.'
Thank goodness they didn't give MM such a post, she would have tried an armed coup - it's bad enough as it is.
However, Nutty often posts on a previous blog post that she has a new post. When she does that, it would be received by those subscribed to the emails. Maybe that's how you got the alerts. If you ever figure it out, please let me know.
Meg having another go at the RF?
According to Scobie in DM Megs is giving
‘punchier’ speeches on race and gender
equality as she’s no longer bound by ‘constraints’
of royal life.
Her latest ‘f...up’ speech was unscripted,
unlike the formal, scripted speeches used
by the RF.
Miaow
"Maybe the reason JCMH FKAP didn't like Meg's dog because he knew it was Corey's."
Maybe. But Cory has just as many old pictures of Guy on his IG as Bogart.
And Meghan tried to get an awful lot of mileage out of the story she adopted Bogart as a tiny puppy in 2013 (long before she met Cory.) At the time she was visiting LA and Ellen DeGeneres and Portia happened to be at the shelter. Ellen told her to adopt the puppy. Meghan said (quoted in Best Health magazine) "And she’s like, ‘Rescue the dog!’ It’s sort of like if Oprah tells you to do something... And so I brought him home. Because Ellen told me to." I believe Ellen also started telling the same story after M&H got engaged.
So Cory wasn't the dog's original owner unless all of that was completely made up. (Which it could be by both M and Ellen-- neither is known for honesty.)
@Unkown
The Hound of the Marklevilles
The lives of our dog lover Meg
consisted of sit up and beg
Once in a while
she’d give them a smile
till one of them broke their back leg
Why not a bit of Chaucer? The Wife of Windsor (Bath) 's Tale? Fitting...
@Maneki
Or John Ford- ‘Tis pity she’s a whore
"Why can she not just tell the truth. If she lies over small details…."
I totally agree. But I don't think she said Bogart was 3 when she got him. In 2016 when she did that magazine interview she said he was 3 then. But she got him in 213 when he was a puppy. She said he and his brother had been found in an alley in LA at about 5 weeks of age. She decided to adopt him because Ellen told her to. Guy was adopted as an adult as a companion for Bogart. He was sent to Canada from Kentucky.
There are stories that she managed to get ahead of a potential adoptive family for Guy by a kind of "do you know I'm on Suits" routine but I don't know if that's true.
I do agree she seemed to favor Guy over Bogart once she got him. She was never papped walking Bogart but was frequently seen walking Guy.
@Magatha
Yes, another fitting example 😉.
I couldn't be bothered to dig out my old literature book but this is what I found on the Wife of Bath's Tale' (Encyclopedia Britannica).
'Before the Wife of Bath tells her tale, she offers in a long prologue a condemnation of celibacy and a lusty account of her five marriages.
Also somewhere else:
The morals in the Wife's tale are usually said to be that (1) women desire dominance over men, or, to use the Old English word, women desire "sovereintee" over men and that (2) granting women dominance over men is in the best interest of men.'
PH doesn’t seem like a huge dog person to me either. he may have grown up wth them, but he hasn’t had one as an adult that we know of. he commented that the corgis loved MM and they’ve done nothing bark but bark at him. there were pictures of him with Lupo as a pup, but even Lupo has gone into hiding since Charlotte and Louis were born.
her giving up Bogie a second time sounds like she is trying to hang onto PH or keep him locked down. she doesn’t want him leaving yet, at least not until she has totally taken him for everything he has and destroyed his life. lol
Beatrice- loved the dress! she looked great and the wedding was wonderful. she may be my new favroite princess brdie. understated and elegant. it was lovely, the flowers the borrowed classic dress. and i don’t think I’ve ever liked anything she or her sister wears, too busy, frumpy, loud, they reminded me of Cinderellas half sisters at W& K wedding, and the Cambridges looked like a Disney Prince and Prinncess, perfect, like the top of an old fashioned wedding cake.
Eugine dress was beautiful too, and the rest of the pictures looked lovely, perfect her her.
MM’s wedding was beautiful, but extremely strange. she was trying to be an updated Grace Kelly (A+ movie actress) but she’s a B-C list TV actress. all the daddy drama, inviting Hollywood people you don’t know to the wedding just for their Celebrity status, only Mom at the wedding in spite of a large family. she was trying too hard to be the next Diana/ Grace and has failed miserable.
@Maneki
Perfect for Megs
Mistress Quickly 😉
@Teasmade
Jacobean or present
‘Tis pity she’s here
She thinks she's Helen of Troy - the reality is that one of them is Dr Faustus, the other Mephistopheles. But which is which?
A friend agreed to `obey' her husband when they married in 1969, on the grounds, one needing a `casting vote'. I naughtily reminded her of it at their 50th bash and asked how it had turned out.
`Well, she said, `they say two become one when they marry but they don't say which one...'.
Very sage.
I didn't realize that Bogart was a Labrador-Shepherd mix. He may have been harder to train than other more docile dogs. I doubt Meg had the discipline to socialize and train him properly. That's a daily job and Meg has no long-game.
Bogart's a big dog and most girls/women I know prefer smaller dogs. Males I know are the opposite. In fact, a lot of abandoned dogs are the result of people falling in love with puppies and falling out of love when they get too big. She may have fallen out of love with Bogart but kept him because Cory prefers bigger dogs and genuinely liked Bogart.
Meg probably preferred Guy because he's smaller, more of a show dog, and more visually appealing to the cameras.
The corgis probably did not bark at Meghan because by the time she met them all were over 10 years old and 2 were ill one Holly dying only 4 months after the celebrated meeting with Madam. HM decided to stop breeding her dogs because she did not want elderly dogs left without a home (OK plenty of other family members but corgis do not usually play nicely with other dogs) and now only has the 2 dorgis and they are at least 14 years old.
"I didn't realize that Bogart was a Labrador-Shepherd mix. He may have been harder to train than other more docile dogs."
You could be right. I've had German Shepherds and they are wonderful dogs but they do take work. I honestly don't see GSD in any of Bogart's features (coat-type, ears, overall size, tail "plumage," snout length/shape, coat markings) but he could have the temperament. He looks more to me like he's got some American Pit Bull in him. (Which could have kept him out of the UK, I suppose, although I'd think the RF could have gotten around that. Also I'm not sure how strict the rules are about "mutts.")
@Charade
Also Shakespeare - Lady Megbeth or
“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth
it is to have a thankless child”
could apply equally to H&M.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/4b/55/f84b55ef765b89e2e04222742b8b8020.jpg
https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/lifestyleroyals/the-biggest-royal-exit-mystery-will-meghan-reunite-with-rescue-dog-bogart/ar-BBZckTz
@Sandie
RT? Cant find it?
Witty
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/485325-meghan-markle-harry-power-hungry/
She tries to cover it by pretending to do a long slow blink.
Oh, I didn't mean to say Bogart wasn't said to be a Lab/Shepherd mix. He is. My "maybe" was in response to the possibility that maybe she couldn't train him because of his GSD genes as they can be hard. And he doesn't look much like a GSD to me but I see what you mean in that picture.
But Bogart also looks a bit like this to me. (And he seems on the smaller side if he is partly a GSD)
https://work-at-home-tonight.com/yellow-labrador-retriever-pitbull-mix/
Think he's what we used to call a Heinz 57 dog!
I’m off to bed
Thank you @lizzie for the Queen mothers speech.
God save the Queen
I don't buy that ever (being able to get the dog back) was in the cards. I think that even if she tried, the current owners said no.
Her usual MO appears to be a trial balloon but in this case, it was more of an after the fact, firm not happening before we appeared to hear about it. I could be wrong but that's kind of how the information seemed to be released.
And then, it is easier to blame that all on Harry.
Do you have to comment on a post first? And then hit email comments to...
@unknown
I completely misread that second time bit. Thanks for pointing it out
@Enbrethiliel
Welcome!
@magatha mistie..
you are cracking me up! And reminding me of a few old favorites I need to read again
@sandie
Do you have a link for that article, Sandie? I tried to google but its just too vague
have a great day all!
Bogart's a big dog and most girls/women I know prefer smaller dogs. Males I know are the opposite. In fact, a lot of abandoned dogs are the result of people falling in love with puppies and falling out of love when they get too big. She may have fallen out of love with Bogart but kept him because Cory prefers bigger dogs and genuinely liked Bogart.
Wait, what? I've had St. Bernards, Doberman Pinschers (my personal favorite), German Shepherds (love 'em, not the hair so much), livestock guard dogs, mastiffs....currently have a Doberman x Catahoula from the pound and a pit bull mix I rescued from being shot. (He was dumped and was digging under people's fences and eating their dog's food but was NOT killing livestock, neighborhood dogs or cats.) I don't think this particular pit bull cross is going to be suited for being a livestock guard dog AT ALL; this pit bull cross is a snuggle bunny. Grandkids want to take him home with them but they live in an urban environment and I don't think it is suitable for an energetic dog. If they move outside their urban environment, he will go to them.
My dogs are not surrogate children but working partners. I'm the leader of the pack. Dobie mix is starting to get gray around the muzzle, so time to start thinking about another for him to train (he was trained by the German Shepherd, who was trained by the Catahoula, who was trained by the Doberman, who was trained by the German Shepherd cross, who was trained by another pit bull....well, back into the mists of time. They're all trained by me, of course, but it helps to have another dog that knows the commands respond so that newest dog sees and hears what to do.
I suppose "big" depends on your point of view. Bogart looked to be an average-sized dog to me but, with working dog antecedents, unsuited to life in an urban apartment.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/485325-meghan-markle-harry-power-hungry/
LOL @SwampWoman :) Haha, I apologize for my inaccurate account. Now you sound like a great dog owner. I'm used to seeing tiny pooches being the bosses of their owners around here. It makes me so sad seeing dogs with inadequate training or socializing. I love dogs but cannot have them because they're not allowed where I live.
@lizzie Yes, I understood. I see what you mean about Bogart looking like a Labrador-Pitt mix. Heinz 57 dog indeed! That other dog Meg had while dangling Archie from his carrier looked like a Sheprador too. Who knows with pathological liar Meg? I do think Bogart looks like this one: https://news.hamlethub.com/newfairfield/charities/44256-dog-of-the-week-darla-a-shepherd-mix-available-for-adoption
I'm not an active CPA after 25+ yrs due to my health (if I do anything I enjoy helping those who deserve it & they work around my medical schedule) and I most always despised doing audits (I either worked solely or as part of a team on many who were closely related to Epstein in the '90s; another reason why I don't like doing them because as the youngest often I felt like I would be thrown under the bus with their fast & lose accounting practices by these supposedly very "reputable" So. FL (esp. in PB Co.) firms I worked with. But...this would be one audit in a lifetime I think I would find great enjoyment. MM has to file/pay taxes as a dual citizen as of year end 2019 and I heard 'through the grapevine' that she's been in arrears for sometime before she first left for the UK to be with 'Just Harry.'..to the point that she allegedly even was afraid to come back to the U.S. The BRF could have settled that for her but I'm now skeptical because she's made about everything difficult for them to even relate to her civilly in every single aspect it seems (obviously PH has since made that exponentially worse). As the Brits say, this could really start to get bloody interesting
Yes, a bit. I can see GSD facial markings in that one that I don't really see in Bogart-- dark chin, lighter colors on side of face....
Rebecca Tay lorRoyal Correspondent
7 hours ago
Part 1
Prince Harry has called in his lawyers over an allegation from a campaign group that grants awarded to his charitable foundation from Prince William’s breached charity law.
On Monday, anti-monarchy group Republic wrote to the Charity Commission to ask them to investigate whether the Royal Foundation, which conducts the charity work of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, breached several rules when it awarded grants to Sussex Royal and Travalyst.
Sussex Royal was the charitable foundation for Harry and Meghan, and Travalyst is Harry’s sustainable travel non-profit organisation.
Both Prince William and Prince Harry denied anything was wrong with the way the grants were awarded, but Harry has taken further action and is preparing to send a legal letter to Republic.
A spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex’s legal team, Schillings said: “The Duke of Sussex has always and continues to remain deeply committed to his charitable work. This is his life’s focus, and his devotion to charity is at the very core of the principles he lives by, and is obvious through the impact and success of his many charitable projects throughout the UK and beyond.
“To this point, it is deeply offensive to see false claims made about the Duke of Sussex and his charitable work. It is both defamatory and insulting to all the outstanding organisations and people he has partnered with.
“Travalyst (which was founded within Sussex Royal) is a non-profit organisation for which the duke receives no commercial or financial gain, as is the case with all of his charitable commitments. The duke has not, nor has he ever, had any personal financial interest in his charitable work. The interest has always been clear: to support others and to make a positive difference.
“Had the appropriate course of action been followed for these false allegations, it would have clearly demonstrated that anything related to Sussex Royal, Travalyst, or any of the duke’s charitable endeavours is transparent and above board. To suggest otherwise is unequivocally wrong and will be acted upon accordingly with the weight of the law.
“The avenue through which this was publicly and salaciously created only suggests a hunger for media attention as well as a shared and attacking agenda, which is neither right nor just.
“Both the Charity Commission’s own statement today, as well as that of The Royal Foundation, state there is no determination of wrongdoing here. All of the duke’s charitable activities are fully transparent as well as compliant with Charity Commission guidelines, and moreover with his own moral compass.”
"Republic’s CEO Graham Smith had written to the Charity Commission to say: “The Royal Foundation gave a grant of £145,000 to Sussex Royal and £144,901 to a non-charitable organisation (Travalyst).
“In both instances it appears the only rationale for the decision was the personal relationship between two patrons, the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge.”
He wants both The Royal Foundation, which continues the work of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the now dissolved Sussex Royal, which was the latter’s charity, investigated over “conflicts of interest, inappropriate use of funds and a lack of independence”.
On Monday, a Charity Commission spokesman said: “We have received a complaint on this issue. As with all concerns raised with us we will assess the information provided to determine whether or not there is a role for the commission. We have not made any determination of wrongdoing.”
A spokesman for the Royal Foundation said: “The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently.”
Sussex Royal is being wound up as Harry and Meghan agreed not to use the word royal in any jurisdiction, after stepping back from their senior royal duties.
The couple is preparing to launch Archewell in 2021, and they are meeting with various community leaders as they carve out its role."
from CDAN
I'm not an active CPA after 25+ yrs due to my health (if I do anything I enjoy helping those who deserve it & they work around my medical schedule) and I most always despised doing audits (I either worked solely or as part of a team on many who were closely related to Epstein in the '90s; another reason why I don't like doing them because as the youngest often I felt like I would be thrown under the bus with their fast & lose accounting practices by these supposedly very "reputable" So. FL (esp. in PB Co.) firms I worked with. But...this would be one audit in a lifetime I think I would find great enjoyment. MM has to file/pay taxes as a dual citizen as of year end 2019 and I heard 'through the grapevine' that she's been in arrears for sometime before she first left for the UK to be with 'Just Harry.'..to the point that she allegedly even was afraid to come back to the U.S. The BRF could have settled that for her but I'm now skeptical because she's made about everything difficult for them to even relate to her civilly in every single aspect it seems (obviously PH has since made that exponentially worse). As the Brits say, this could really start to get bloody interesting
_________________
Very entertaining. A developing situation.
Harry is stupid beyond belief. The only thing he needed to say something like "We fully comply with all governmental guidelines regarding charitable activity. We will also fully cooperate with any inquiry by the Charity Commission if it decides one is necessary".
Instead he chose to try and intimidate the Republic with his lawyers thus giving it more ammunition. The Republic was fully within its rights to ask questions, they didn't break any laws.
Harry looks worse and worse.
I love big dogs. Dobbies personal favourites too, they are extremely intelligent.
Agree with your remark re hair, currently have two giant walking cushion factories. Love them to bits
Admire you for saving your pit bull cross. Thumbs up
Chris Wheeler has written an op-ed on Meghan for RT. IMO it is the most accurate and honest piece on her that has been published.
@Sandie, What is RT? i’m trying to locate the Chris Wheeler op-ed. Thanks!
They did however suggest that something underhand was going on without, as far as I could see in the accounts, any evidence whatsoever. Maybe someone in Harry's camp took a look at the Republic Campaign last filed accounts and said Hey they have less than £9000 in the bank let's threaten them with a court case.
It is also "Clintonian" (depends on what the meaning of the word is is) when it states, "Both the Charity Commission’s own statement today, as well as that of The Royal Foundation, state there is no determination of wrongdoing here." Of course there's no determination of wrongdoing.... YET. And there may not ever be. But obviously the hope is people will read that to mean the Charity Commission has determined there was no wrongdoing and that's hardly the case.
Finally, it was just nuts to say the mere suggestion there may have been wrongdoing "will be acted upon accordingly with the weight of the law" as if he's going to have his critics thrown in the Tower and then beheaded (or I guess he plans to sue them too.)
“Both the Charity Commission’s own statement today, as well as that of The Royal Foundation, state there is no determination of wrongdoing here. All of the duke’s charitable activities are fully transparent as well as compliant with Charity Commission guidelines, and moreover with his own moral compass.”
Well, there you go. We've all seen JCMH's moral compass in the pictures from Vegas.
IDK - that CDAN comment ... how would a Florida CPA's know something about someone who has always been based in California?
What also does not make sense if that they say they are CPA and finds doing audits distasteful as they would be the one tossed under the bus if something illegal was discovered for not going along with dodgy accounting from other parts of their own organization in league with Epstein. This implies they were with big name accounting firm, not the IRS.
Could she have called on a big name accounting firm to assist her in filing the taxes? Technically yes but it would be extremely, extremely expensive which would not make sense. She would likely to have been billed a thousand or two dollars per day. The big ones are really for corporations, trusts - big operations, not single people. Even one person shops can run about 1K for a fairly straightforward not very complicated return.
No one would offer to do hers for free.
Do I believe she could have decided to leave the US behind and not pay some taxes? well yes. That could easily be in her toolbox as refusing to work on things which are not fun to me.
The other thing is, there is probably some standard somewhere in the code of ethics about not discussing with people outside the assigned project which would be similar to HIPPA for medicine.
I don't pretend to know what is going on with Harry's accounts. However I know two things - Sussex Royal charity is defunct and Harry is moving "his" charity money to Travalyst, which is not a registered charity. It is registered with the Companies House. It is a private company limited by guarantee. And yes, Harry is named solely as "person with significant control details". It states it's activities as "other professional, scientific and technical activities not elsewhere classified". So, in essence it is Harry' private company.
The Republic chose to openly question the money transactions and addressed their questions to the appropriate authority. Whatever their motives are they did it according to the law. And Hary played right into their hands with his stupid threats.
A friend agreed to `obey' her husband when they married in 1969, on the grounds, one needing a `casting vote'. I naughtily reminded her of it at their 50th bash and asked how it had turned out.
`Well, she said, `they say two become one when they marry but they don't say which one...'.
Very sage.
Haha! Presumably it's worked out for your friend and hubby. I think it works best when women 'lead from the back'. There are fewer more unattractive sights than an emasculated, hen-picked mess such as we see with the Haz-zardous Prince formerly known as Harry.
Or as Mama put it in My Big Fat Greek Wedding:
"The man is the head. But the woman is the neck--she turns the head the way she wants him to go." The really skillful ones let the man think everything was all his own idea in the first place. Guys need to feel invested to go along. Watching a man run ragged by his wife isn't a pretty thing to witness.
Harry should have never gotten married. He should have gone to Africa to work with his charities circa 2015 when he got out of the service. He might have met a lovely girl of the Commonwealth that would have been happy to be his helpmeet in Africa. If Harry really ever wanted to work with conservation charities or anything much. What we have here is an overgrown 13-year-old that thinks his life should be a perpetual lads' holiday.
I think financial fraud will be their undoing ultimately, because there is a paper trail (electronic, maybe) that will be uncovered. We may not get to the bottom of Archie, but this money thing won't be going away. Strap yourselves in, my lovelies, the Harkles are not done embarrassing themselves and the RF yet.
This is why you do not give idiot children too much money. Harry must think he's untouchable, or whatever happens, Pa and Granny are going to bail him out. I hope there isn't blowback on William. When the Royal Foundation gave money to Harry and Meg's start-up charity, it was done in good faith, with the understanding that they'd be staying in the UK and being working royals, and around to get their charity running. The leftover proceeds of the Diana Foundation were, as I understand it, split evenly among the two sons for a charitable contribution--it wasn't a lot . .18,000 pounds or something? Harry supposedly designated Sentabale or the elephants to get that money and it wasn't supposed to have passed through his hands at all.
What a cluster this all is . . .
This will bite William somewhat, but even more so Harry. If I had donated money to e.g. the Cancer Society, and instead of them putting it towards cancer causes they gave money to The Society for the Protection of One-Eyed Newts, I’d be pissed. And if The Society for the Protection of One-Eyed Newts, instead of using it for the betterment of the poor little tadpoles gave the money to Walmart, I’d be livid.
Not as a corporation.
What a lot of bland, meaningless twaddle! One of the reeaders' comment sums up MM perfectly:
H987dl654c321, Toronto, Canada,
'The thing about MM and people like her is that who she is over time is made up of qualities she likes in others and mimics enough to make it seem like that's who she is so she fits in. No wonder everything she says is taken from other people out of fear of saying the wrong thing so she has no clue what is actually going on, it's all surface level..I've been fighting the inequality fight for a long time. The people that are actually helping know what young girls/women need to hear.... exemplified in the other speeches that were more positive, fact based and consistent. What MM said isn't even word salad it's loose lettuce. no intention and little context. Her point was what...be nice to each other? Be brave? The girls are already those things just being part of the conference.'
'Loose lettuce'! Ha ha!
Exactly. It is easy to go to the Companies House website and check Travalyst. It is a private company limited by guarantee 👌. What guarantee it is? A one pound.
Another thing is nobody, but nobody, can explain how exactly Travalyst is going to help "communities and wildlife through sustainable tourism".
Are they going to donate a portion of every booking done via Travalyst? Donate where exactly?
Are they going to donate portions of profits from booking, kayak, expedia and such like?
What exactly is sustainable tourism? Bicycles? Staying in a hut? Planting trees during your journey? Going to Somalia (ha!) instead of the Maldives?
To be honest I am an eco freak mad about recycling, reusing, buying less, our car is a hybrid and we have solar panels, but even I will not go into some hell hole with dangerous crime and risky hygiene standards just to help local population with my money. My country already spends billions of my tax money in foreign aid, thank you very much.
`One-eyed newts' - are these the leftovers from Megwitch's culinary efforts?
Russia Today article - I wouldn't put too much credence on the disclaimer about it being an independent opinion. RT's a bit too close to Uncle Vlad for comfort.
Wasn't there a suggestion of cash going missing from the Royal Foundation after Meghan arrived? It was said to be another contributory factor in their being kicked out of KP.
`In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts
I'm afraid these don't grow on trees,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two...
...Why should we break our backs
Stupidly paying tax?
Better get some untaxed income
Better to pick-a-pocket or two...
...Robin Hood, what a crook!
Gave away, what he took.
Charity's fine, subscribe to mine.
Get out and pick-a-pocket or two...
...Take a tip from Bill Sikes
He can whip what he likes.
I recall, he started small
He had to pick-a-pocket or two...
...Dear old gent passing by
Something nice takes his eye
Everything's clear, attack the rear
Get in and pick-a-pocket or two...
...When I see someone rich,
Both my thumbs start to itch
Only to find some peace of mind
We have to pick-a-pocket or two."
With thanks to Lionel Bart!
Even if it was a non profit, they could run it in a similar fashion, paying themselves huge salaries and expenses and sending a tiny fraction of revenue on to actual charitable purposes. Many non-profits do this, and if they ever solicit you for donations, ask to see a copy of their financial statements first. You likely won’t hear from them again!
I will not go into some hell hole with dangerous crime and risky hygiene standards just to help local population with my money. My country already spends billions of my tax money in foreign aid, thank you very much.
EXACTLY!
A celebrity brand strategist has revealed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are in the ideal position to switch their Sussex Royal Instagram account to their new Archewell Foundation.
Phil Pallen, at philpallen.co, told FEMAIL that Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, could be planning a clever PR move by transferring the 11-million strong fan following they have built up on their Instagram account, to their charity endeavours.
Describing a social media fanbase as 'the digital equivalent of waterfront real estate', he predicted that the couple will 'pivot' Sussex Royal to Archewell, once the foundation is 'ready for its reveal'.
Can they do that?
Agree with your comment about not going to some hell hole, but I actually think the goal of Travalyst is two-fold: 1) to get people to go to these hell holes to help the local population with money, and 2) to keep these same people from going to other, more desirable places, to prevent those places from turning into over-crowded, undesirable hell holes.
@Golden:
That’s been the issue all along. Instagram won’t let them ‘pivot’ their Sussex Royal followers to Archewell (or anywhere else.) That’s why they currently have no social media presence.
When you adopt a dog, you make a commitment. Unless the dog is untrainable or dangerous or terminally ill, you don't toss it away like garbage.
Can they do that? Four months ago, what was going around was that it is against Instagram rules for you to transfer your followers from an old account to a new account with new name etc. And that Instagram was not going to make an exception for M/H. Maybe M/H are still nagging Instagram, who knows.
@Golden Retriever, @Fairy Crocodile:
Agree with your comment about not going to some hell hole, but I actually think the goal of Travalyst is two-fold: 1) to get people to go to these hell holes to help the local population with money, and 2) to keep these same people from going to other, more desirable places, to prevent those places from turning into over-crowded, undesirable hell holes.
____________________________
A noble sentiment if that's the aim of Travalyst but in that case, these destinations won't be cheap and will accommodation be affordable? Will there be any infrastructure in places for travellers? (perhaps not necessarily tourists?). Have they thought this through? They're not known for their joined up thinking.
The Royal Foundation as is stated in its report included in the accounts follows a model of incubating and scaling solutions. Travalyst originally was set up within the Royal Foundation, a registered charity then transferred to The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex at that time a registered charity. Other organisations have been set up within The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and then transferred out. This year 2020 this includes the Endeavour Fund transferred to Invictus Games and Coach Core transferred to Coach Core Foundation. These transfers take place with funds relating to the activity being transferred and sometimes even staff being transferred
I agree with you here. Republic went for mud and got what it wanted.
I had a chat with my husband who used to work with large sale charities and he pointed out that Will's trustees would have never approved an illegal transaction as they are responsible for it. Neither would Sussex Royal Trustees.
He also pointed out that Travalyst is not illegal either, that company with limited guarantee is pretty commonly used for charitable activities and not necessarily is for profit. In addition I learned from him that charities can establish companies that do commercial activities and fund these companies on condition that all profit from these activities is pumped back into the charity, although I really didn't like the sound of this one. It is not illegal apparently.
The disaster of the story is really in PR. Harry should have never reacted the way he did, I am sure Megsy is behind all the litigation threats and "moral compass" and over the top language. It just made him look guilty before any wrongdoing is established.
You are right. I just imagined I am sitting trying to book a trip to Tokyo because I always wanted it and some smart a** online interrupts me and tells me to go to Karachi instead because too many people go to Japan and not enough to Karachi.
My reaction would be entirely predictable, wouldn't it?