A brief snapshot: Katy Perry, in a sequined floor-length mermaid gown with a cape made from the American flag, in Iowa to support Hillary Clinton in 2015.
Perry looked more than a little out of place performing outdoors in the daytime, surrounded by modestly-dressed civilians in the mostly agricultural state.
Trump ended up winning Iowa 51.2% to 41.7%; Hillary's performance was the worst by a Democrat in the state since 1980.
Katy's glamorous presence was apparently not a plus.
A different approach
Another brief snapshot: George Clooney, then at the peak of his career, meets with Barack Obama in 2008 just as the future president's campaign was beginning to catch fire.
"I told him I'd do whatever it takes to get him elected," Clooney told the press, "including staying the hell away from him if that was what he needed."
George was apparently smarter than Katy, and Obama won his election easily.
Joe and Kamala and Meghan and Harry
Let's return to the present, when Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, has make her electoral preferences clear.
Her recent low-resolution video, apparently made on an iPhone 3, urged women to vote for "the change we all need and deserve" was seen as a tacit endorsement of Joe Biden and his vice-presidential nominee, Kamala Harris.
Meghan went suggest that those who didn't vote to do so were "part of the problem. If you're complacent, you're complicit."
(Opponents of President Donald Trump frequently use the word "complicit" for anyone who works with Trump, suggesting that they are "complicit" in his misdeeds.)
But does Meghan really have the ability to move any votes?
Meg the persuader
One of the most important things you learn when you study communications and journalism is that it's not about what you say - it's about the effect your words have on the viewer, listener, or reader.
If that individual is, say, an Iowa farmer wondering why a woman in a sequined dress and a flag cape is performing in a parking lot on a Sunday afternoon at a time most people would rather be watching football, the effect may be negative on her chosen candidate.
And Katy Perry is, at least, generally well-liked.
Compare her case to Meghan, a runaway member of the British royal family, unemployed and couchsurfing, but strangely able to buy a luxury mansion from a mysterious Russian oligarch.
A woman with an increasingly odd head of hair, a meek and cowering husband, and a very small fan club.
Is Meghan really the type of person whom Americans identify with, someone who can convince them to vote and vote as she suggests?
Or will she have a negative effect on her chosen candidate?
Biden has other, better celebrities on his side
The Biden-Harris team already has the endorsement of much more popular celebrities.
Taylor Swift, Lebron James, and John Legend have shared their support for the Democratic candidate. So have Billie Eilish and Steph and Ayesha Curry.
Cardi B, one of the hottest celebrities around whatever you think of her, even did
an interview with Biden last week - if you can call it an interview, since Cardi does all the talking.
The last thing Biden really needs is another celebrity endorsement - in fact, so many celebrity endorsements run the risk of making him look like the candidate of the glitterati as opposed to the common man, common woman, or common non-binary individual.
The person who really benefits
If anyone benefits from Meg's political activism, it is her own brand, or what she hopes to make into her own brand - woke celebrity ex-Royal.
A (bejeweled) hand extended to help women, minorities, and dogs, at least until the dogs prove too bothersome and have to be left behind somewhere near Toronto.
Do you think Meg's activism will help the Biden/Harris ticket, or the causes she claims to support?
Comments
Regarding insomnia
I have suffered with it due to menopause.
I threw a mega tantrum, kicking legs, thrashing arms etc.
I was so tired I couldn't think straight.
Try lavender essential oil (not expensive)
I use it in a humidifier and drops in bowls of water.
Plenty of sunshine/daylight (I live in northern Europe, dark days etc)
Gentle walk and if poss a nice warm bath/shower before bed.
Forget the computer, phone, tablet etc
Keep the bedroom cool.
@Embrel,
I think they're jumping brand names to try to keep ahead of the tax man in three countries.
MWX sounds like an airport abbreviation to me. LAX, SEA, MWX.
I think the state of California is in such dire need of funds that they will be sending tax bills on everything. They (or their representatives) will have to go to court to prove that they don't owe it. The Feds seize bank accounts and property, but that is if the person(s) owing taxes are ordinary citizens/businesspersons that owe money. Sometimes a celebrity is harassed if they want to put a righteous scare into tax evaders. The Markles may be special cases and be thrown in with all the politicians that owe back taxes and have never been bothered. Small business people have their business and personal accounts seized. It isn't right.
I remember reading somewhere that the government said he will reside at Buck Palace.
(on reference to MM potentially accusing her father of horrible things)
If Meghan ever decides to stoop that low, I hope someone in the BRF secretly steps in to cover Thomas Markle's legal bills.
It would also be the perfect way to spill the dirt on Meghan at last!
Yes!! There would be a neat symmetry to that, wouldnt there?
I still love the kraken metaphor.
My country also has a palatial building that normally serves as the president's home and is symbolic of the nation's seat of power. I remember thinking very poorly of one president who refused to move in, saying he preferred a "simpler" residence. If moving into a luxurious home was much too hard for him to do, I wasn't filled with confidence in him as a leader and worker. But I was amused when his successor also refused to live in the palace, claiming it was haunted. Somehow, it was easier to respect that reason.
Thanks for mentioning this--it reminds me that I meant to say in my earlier comment that our current U.S. President is on the record as saying that he regards the White House as a colossal step down from his own residences of Trump Towers & Mir-a-Lago. He basically called it a dump, in not so many words, but it was implied that he feels he is condescending to live there and take a big step down in his lifestyle compared to his Trump Palace with its gold-plated bathroom fixtures. (Yes, he really does have gold-plated bathroom fixtures.) If there is a disgusting noveau-riche affectation out there, DT's got it.
Now that he's waging a fight to hang on to the right to stay in the 'Dump' for 4 more years, perhaps it seems more appealing now. But he still goes to Florida whenever he can. It's the 'White House South'.
The current White House (the first one having been burnt to the ground by the British in 1812, shortly after it was completed) was built with an eye toward creating awe in visiting foreign dignitaries. I've only seen it from a distance on a trip to Washington. It used to be possible to obtain tickets for a tour (very limited and in-demand) but with increased terrorism concerns and now corona, tours might be indefinitely suspended. The White House features prominently in many films and television dramas, but they are only artists' renderings of the premises. The true layout of the Oval Office and the West Wing is heavily guarded and not allowed to be shown exactly.
It's an impressive building, but doesn't hold a candle to a royal Palace for ornamentation. The Federal style is neo-classical and more plain. Too much ornamentation or anything suggesting European royalty was not considered a good look. The Queen and Diana and Charles have all visited the White House (Di famously danced with John Travolta and then-President, Mr. Reagan). I don't know if the White House would over-awe anyone who'd grown up in Buckingham Palace, but presumably the mods cons might be a little more reliable.
The difference between American and British mentalities could be summed up as:
In Britain, 100 miles is a long way and in America, 100 years is a long time.
Americans have a hard time wrapping our minds around the fact that in England, something built in the early 18th century could be referred to as the 'New Construction'. lol But we think very little of jumping in the car for a two hour drive. Many Americans commute that daily for work.
I missed your post first time of reading through and your question about anyone knowing about other strong women so I shall try and make up for my omission by giving you the following name: Empress Matilda.
Of course, someone may already have given you this information and, if so, I apologise but I am not sure whether they would have fleshed her out at all.
If you want to know more, a Google search should provide you with all you need to know although I should be happy to do this myself (if an occasion for going OT would be permitted)
Perhaps the "she was close with her Dad until Harry" narrative is actually not true. Perhaps she was close with her Dad because he was paying her way. His other children have said that he spent lots of money on her, and he appears to have financial problems now.
Perhaps it wasn't hard for her to cut him loose, because he wasn't useful to her anymore. And he had to be completely out of the picture, otherwise Harry and the RF would realize he had spent a small fortune raising her and she was actually quite spoiled.
That doesn't fit with the story that she never had a family growing up.
Hikari. Love your comment about feral children raised by wolves. This really made me laugh. Would that it were true, though, as such children have usually lost the power of speech and communicate in grunts. Victor l'enfant sauvage.
Indeed, to the collective suffering of us all, Megsie has mastered the art of forming human words. So, so many words. There seems to be a disconnect between the words and syntax and meaning, however. It's just a verbal diarrhea of sound, constantly running, causing pain to the inflicted.
Meg is someone who makes a positive first impression, but can't sustain that impression more than a few minutes, really. Initially I had a more positive reaction to her voice . . it's a pleasing contralto as to the register, but the inane drivel she spouts just makes her unlistenable to me any more. As she proved with 'Elephant' (taking others' word for it her as have not listened myself) even reading scripts that have been prepared for her isn't something she can do well.
We all have a super-critical eye toward her now, but I did not feel that way at first; I was rooting for her to make a go of this Duchess thing--for Harry's sake, and to put up a good effort for 'the home team'--USA. We needed some good PR after the Wallis Incident.
We sure didn't get it. I was frankly shocked at how unpolished and gauche Meg was in her public appearances. Not just the wardrobe and styling, though that was plenty bad, but her complete lack of poise with etiquette. Making small talk, deferring to senior royals, even walking gracefully. This woman says she has been practicing yoga since she was in middle school. So why does she bulldoze her way through space like an elephant? Her manners are non-existent. I know she didn't go to any fancy Swiss finishing school, but here in America, most people can say that their parents taught them basic manners. Meg acts like she doesn't even know how to use silverware. She is Eliza Doolittle . . . except an Eliza that absolutely refuses to learn and is content with being a guttersnipe. To be honest, she rarely even looks clean, like she bathes regularly or takes care of her hair. Coming from such an image-conscious industry as acting . . and somebody who marketed herself as a 'lifestyle guru' . .it's head-scratching. She acts like a cave woman. No couth. Greasy. I bet she and Harry both smell.
Gifts on the scale of those alleged here would attract a considerable amount of tax in the UK. I hope the IRS is salivating at the prospect of cleaning them out.
I wonder what the Bank of Dad makes of it?
My main post today explored the thought that Archie exists and has never left the US, at 2.56pm.
ElizabethI
Another:
Livia, wife of Augustus Caesar - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livia
Joan of Arc
JocelynsBellinis- I just finished reading that DM article about how huge W&K's house is. Of course, we all here know it's Meghan's PR. What is crazy though is so many of the comments said the same. I think Meghan's PR is becoming obvious to the average Joe on the street, whether in the US, UK or wherever. Kind of like the Kardashian's. Their PR has got to be some of the most obvious, almost childishly so, that you'll ever see. Once you connect the dots, it's so easy to see. SO, that is gratifying.
I too lost all respect for Gloria Steinum when she blamed Monica Lewinsky for the Clinton affair. It was startling how the ideals of feminism stop where political party is involved in American. Meghan was such a smug b*tch in her little black and white pics with Steinum. She's so happy to be home 'For many reasons'. What a little brat. You'll never convince me that Charles doesn't read things like that and think the same. All the money dumped down the drain on her. Unreal!
Magatha- Best Poet Ever
Hikari- 'Until Meg raised my consciousness, I was also not aware that paint could be vegan.' Haha awesome! See Meghan has awakened us to so many things! I explained to my guy what the word 'woke' meant this morning and he said, 'I think most people in this world today, being born, working living, raising children realize that racism and sexism are wrong and they don't likely need to be told that by someone'. Bingo!
I see too they have their Markle Windsor Foundation set up. Such a joke. But I suppose they better get to making some money while the Queen and Charles are alive and in power. Once William is in power, they are going to be completely cut off.
Remember that blind too about how it was impossible for him to get William and Harry together for that family portrait- that the brothers were very resistant? I wonder if there's any truth there. I feel that Charles and William's relationship has greatly improved and I do think Charles is a good grandfather. Even my mom, well, she can't forgive Charles and thinks he's always up to no good on every level. I don't see it. I think he's a funny, quirky yet caring man. He's sensitive but tough in his way. That bleeds over to William.
Your thought about NXIVM whatever crossed my mind, too.
Let's follow the trail:
Stephen Bronfman is a "close family friend" of Justin Trudeau. He was chief financial chair of the Liberal Party. This Bronfman was caught up in a deal in the Cayman islands that may have cost Canadians millions of dollars.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stephen-bronfman-trudeau-paradise-papers-1.4382511
Edgar Bronfman Jr. is Stephen Bronfman's cousin. Both men have been involved in the Seagram's company at times, and Edgar Jr is the from the Bronfman part of the family which is tied to NXIVM. His name is also in Jeffrey Epstein's black book.
"Bronfman Jr., Edgar: Executive.
Name found in Epstein’s black book.
The former Warner Music Group CEO, son of the late Seagram’s CEO Edgar Bronfman Sr., is related to the NXIVM-sex-cult Bronfmans. His son has a child with pop star M.I.A."
Clare Bronfman was the executive board member of the NXIVM cult. Her sister, Sarah, was also in the cult. Edgar Bronfman Jr is the half brother of Clare and Sara Bronfman.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2019/05/31/from-heiress-to-felon-how-clare-bronfman-wound-up-in-cult-like-group-nxivm/#6b2d15393ecf
*****************************************
Edgar Bronfman Jr's daughter is Hannah Bronfman, and she is all over SoHo House.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bronfman+at+soho+house&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS698US698&oq=bronfman+
We know that Trudeau is also all over SoHo House, and that he is a friend of MM's. Sara Bronfman, who loves to party at various Soho Houses, including Toronto, is the outgoing one, and she introduced her sister to NXIVM.
Very, very, very small and sordid world, huh!
Since comments are on moderation, I don't get them anymore except my posts which I type up in the comment box. That's an interesting glitch if the issue extends to other email subscribers of the blog.
Her complexion, bare of make-up, reminds me of something in an article I once read about male grooming, or rather the lack thereof:
`...faces looking like old chamois leathers that have been used for cleaning the car'.
Thanks for the magnesim, D3 and green tea ideas for all of the insomniacs here. I last slept for couple of hours at about 1 p.m. yesterday, 21 hours ago. I see no sleep in sight in the near future. Ugh. It's a wonder that I can function at all.
In what sounds like a very familiar real estate move, Bronfman's NYC home, owned by a "financier," was originally listed at $36.5 million. The asking price dramatically dropped to $15.9 million, and he bought it for cash at between $13-14 million.
Quite a deal to get a $36.5 million house for $13-14 million. Same as The Harkles.
If subscribed, only Nutty's and my comments will get emailed to you because we type directly into the comment box and our comments get posted immediately.
Thank you Nutties who answered my question about comment emails.
"Quite a deal to get a $36.5 million house for $13-14 million. Same as The Harkles."
Maybe. It's also quite possible the higher asking price for H&M's house was an inflated price. As I think was discussed at the time the purchase became known, the Russian paid a really high price for the house given its sales history. And while those real estate site estimates (like Zillow) aren't always accurate, what H&M supposedly paid was pretty much in line with what those sites had said it was worth. Somebody here (don't remember who) explained how that could mean money laundering was involved when the Russian bought.
But maybe they did "get a deal." We see that alot when politicians buy houses too.
I've been an insomniac all my life since puberty. Apparently, it is sometimes a genetic disorder. I forgot to add that I also take melatonin. This combo works pretty good for me, but it's not perfect. I hope you can try it and that it helps you rest better. Insomnia is awful. Also, some days I may add a benadryl, but have to be careful if having a few drinks. Lol.
It's now on Yahoo.com but the link is far too long to post!
So sorry, have forgotten how to make these links shorter!!
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meghan-the-duchess-of-sussex-my-conversation-with-gloria-steinem-151902708.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL3FpbGRqMXVPUEs_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJBgkZjbs-iXrVZpg5YUBGMDYmpsigRf1GX6meivofndukWvbsXj0Fy73OT8dX2vahLDj_cR6KVNHJWmetKa5G8Sd3mdZj7pvDCiozCld8PJKnd6Fys-5PwoUWzW0QwPmVWSqzJ2HXmK6UxoSzDz4qSHpqhUCCIxokl-eMBTAsdv
Agree.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8667647/Meghan-Markle-praises-feminist-husband-Prince-Harry.html
WAY OFF TOPIC:
For those readers in the path of Hurricane Laura who may be new residents from the midwest or northeast...
Thanks for this, OT it may be but it's important for people to know these things. Especially the reminder about snakes [shudder]
It's official: Harry's testicles are well and truly gone. He's a feminist now!
Geez Meg, OK the WORLD gets it. You hated Marrying INTO the Royal family, and instead of not doing it in the first place, you dragged Harry risky into stateside to a) claim your divorce money, b)residence US for Archie = more divorce money c) stomp on the reason you have privilege (the RF) and exploit it.
She's got to move on. She's 'been back' for almost a year now.
In Feb, once their gardening leave is over, she and H can drift off into the sunset drinking Duchy Champagne and Caviar and may they not have the funds for extensive PR.
I think they know their funds are winding down which is why they are testing the Harry Markle' elaborated strategy of hiring a photog, and spreading images for free via sugar accounts. (that and they don't sell, no one cares).
Anyone else catch that she wore a hat named 'serena'. Maybe she's pulling a Tswift and signaling sugars now for PR game.
eg:
I am just a simple humble kiwi so can anybody explain the definition of a male feminist?
Reply:
I don't know either. But if it's some kind of surgery she wants him to have, I'm not paying for it.
Re MWX,this is what I found in the Express https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1319358/meghan-markle-prince-harry-charity-name-meaning-mwx-sussex-royal
Full details surrounding the name change are yet to be published on the website but there is already speculation as to what ‘MWX’ might mean.
Some have suggested it may stand for Meghan Windsor Foundation or possibly the Mountbatten Windsor Foundation.
One social media user posted: "Do you think MWX means MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR X Royals???"
Another wrote: "MWX = Markle Windsor Foundation!"
A third said: "Harry and Meghan changed their foundation name to MWX. What if M stands for Mountbatten W Windsor. Oh to be a fly on the wall. Just Windsor is bad enough.
"Is this a warning? Take away Sussex and I will become Meghan Mountbatten Windsor."
Anything is possible with MM...
Re the meaning of MWX, I found this in the Express:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1319358/meghan-markle-prince-harry-charity-name-meaning-mwx-sussex-royal
Full details surrounding the name change are yet to be published on the website but there is already speculation as to what ‘MWX’ might mean.
Some have suggested it may stand for Meghan Windsor Foundation or possibly the Mountbatten Windsor Foundation.
One social media user posted: "Do you think MWX means MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR X Royals???"
Another wrote: "MWX = Markle Windsor Foundation!"
A third said: "Harry and Meghan changed their foundation name to MWX. What if M stands for Mountbatten W Windsor. Oh to be a fly on the wall. Just Windsor is bad enough.
"Is this a warning? Take away Sussex and I will become Meghan Mountbatten Windsor."
Anything is possible with MM...
I see what you're saying, but I smell something fishy going on. This is the highest price real estate in New York City, and even in 2011, much smaller apartments went for more than what Bronfman paid for his house. The house is on the same street as Epstein's, and only three blocks away.
Look at the Epstein's house deal:
"For reasons that have never been explained, Wexner appears to have made a gift of the house to Epstein, transferring title for the cost of $0 around 1996. The New York Times reports the property was formally transferred in 2011 from a trust controlled by Wexner and Epstein to a Virgin Islands-based entity controlled by Epstein; Wexner, meanwhile, told the Times through a spokeswoman that he "severed ties" with Epstein a decade ago."
'Bookended to the west by the Frick Collection on Fifth Avenue and the 1810 St. James’ Church just across Madison Avenue in the east, is not usually the kind of place that FBI agents use a crowbar to access."
Here are a couple of sales in 2011 in the same area:
"There were far fewer sales on Fifth Avenue (133) in 2011, but the storied avenue saw some of the largest sales in the city, among them a $36 million sale of a duplex at 834 Fifth Avenue and a $34.6 million sale of a co-op at 927 Fifth Avenue."- Property Shark
It just doesn't add up to me at $13-14 million.
I'd love to hear Harry explain exactly what a feminist is. That would be comedy gold.
I don't doubt you are right about Bronfman.
My quibble was with the "same as the Harkles" part. I'm not sure whether they got a good deal or an average deal as the case certainly can be made that the last sales price (when the Russian bought it) was a bit weird.
The fact she is showing her control tactics publicly says a few things. First, shes not smart. Second, she feels more secure being vocally publicly-transparent towards Harry (and the RF as she said she left for 'many reasons'.)
So, we now see she must lay it on thick behind closed doors treating him like a mother, as if he can't think for himself or have opinions of himself, and how she will praise him like a puppy if he always and only does what she says.
Harry can't think 'I left the RF on my own accord.' He's only allowed to think 'I left the RF for Meghan, and I had too because I am a feminist like her and support her fully.'
What happened too Meghan supporting, ya know, her husband? Why does she want him to be such a beta male?
My husband started laughing when I explained what Meghan said about Harry and supporting feminism.
He replied, "You don't get more feminist than supporting The Queen, which by all accounts they have failed to do."
Blogger Hikari said...
Meghan Markle praises Prince Harry for being such a proud 'feminist' and thanks him for setting a 'beautiful example' for their son Archie during 'backyard chat' with Gloria Steinem.
“It's official: Harry's testicles are well and truly gone. He's a feminist now!”
The only example Harry will be setting for his son is one of male subservience to the women in his life. That is neither empowering nor enlightened behavior.
of course M for Markle is first in the name, the prestige and seed money for the corp came from the Windsor side and that means nothing or is secondary to M.
and i don’t understand the finances of this change. so i’ll outline my timeline and maybe someone can explain?
1- In early 2000’s? -PW & PH - each set aside money from their Diana inheritance to from the Diana Memorial foundation _ charity ( or whatever). non-profit . they then look for additional outside donations? and foundation grants money to causes.
presumably PW & PH get a tax break for their money into the charity- non profit? is that so in the UK?
2- PW marries, Kate is added to the charity/foundation
3- Foundation name changes from Diana something to the something Trust?
4- PH marries the CLAW
5- the fab four split to become the Fab Two and Ungrateful Two. The trust is divided in too. the Fab Two, PW & Kate continue on with their foundation work. Non profit.
6-the Harkles - take their Charity Foundation money and roll it over into a new Sussex Royal Foundation Fund - non-profit.
7- The Harkles - have a hissy fit, pick up their marbles and move to Canada. Then when borders start closing scramble off to their planned from day 1, final destination, LA.
8- Harkles disband their Sussex Royal foundation - non-profit and Roll over the Non-profit monies into a FOR Profit corporation.
If that totally illegal? If PH got a tax break for donating money to the non-profit foundation does he have to file a revised tax return when he takes back the money to a for profit corporation? what about other monies donated by other individuals into the original Diana Fund PW & PH set -up. if that was split in 2, how can the Harkles take their half and dump it into a For Profit business?
I’m very confused by this and it seems totally shady / illegal to me.
I'd love to hear Harry explain exactly what a feminist is. That would be comedy gold.
Wouldn't it just! 😄
I can't wait for @Magatha to come up with another clever little ditty about this.
My sides are aching from laughing at the DM comments. They are universally ridiculed now.
"In early 2000’s? -PW & PH - each set aside money from their Diana inheritance to from the Diana Memorial foundation _ charity ( or whatever). non-profit . they then look for additional outside donations? and foundation grants money to causes.
presumably PW & PH get a tax break for their money into the charity- non profit? is that so in the UK?"
I don't think they "inherited" the Diana Memorial Fund. Here is some info about it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales_Memorial_Fund
From the above link:
"The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (‘the Fund’) was established within days of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, on 31 August 1997, in response to the donations that poured into Kensington Palace. The general public, community groups and companies donated some £34 million. £38 million was generously donated from sales of Sir Elton John and PolyGram's CD of "Candle in the Wind 1997". A further £66 million was subsequently raised through investments, an eight-year programme of commercial partnerships, and proceeds from the exhibition, Diana: A Celebration, donated by Lord Spencer."
Here is some info about the closure from the above link.
"As an unincorporated trust, the Fund, as a matter of law, could not altogether cease to exist when it closed its doors on 31 December 2012. This meant that the Fund would automatically continue to receive future donations. The Directors of the Fund's Trustee Company were keen to ensure that if any money was donated to the Fund after its operations had ceased they would not be lost to charity and instead would continue to make a positive difference to people's lives.
In March 2013, The Royal Foundation became the legal owner of the Fund in order to safeguard the Fund's name and any further income donated to the Fund in the future.
In July 2020, it was reported that the money from the memorial fund was divided between Princes William and Harry and given to their independent charities."
I don't think W&H ever contributed their own money to the fund. So the issue of tax deductions for them is moot.
I do agree though some of the shifting seems a little weird.
PSA how to shorten links:
https://tinyurl.com/
I have never heard Meg refer to herself as a 'mangina'; no we just heard her complain about 'pale, male and stale', so hardly supportive of men's rights it would appear. OOOPs, stike what I said above. I was fooled by the internet because now I saw a definition saying a 'mangina' was describing a feminine male (corruption of 'man-vagina'. Sorry ladies, but maybe it's good for a laugh! Perhaps Harry is a 'mangina' rather than a feminist and Meghan didn't look up the right definition.
Notice, she's also changing the narrative, again, but not in a smart way.
Remember Harry's speech stating it was his decision and he did it to help his family?
Now she's admitting he just followed her along. It wasn't his decision to leave the RF. That's clear now.
"I don't know either. But if it's some kind of surgery she wants him to have, I'm not paying for it.' Maybe she got a coupon during Megxit, like when I adopted my cat. The shelter gave me a coupon good for a free neutering at the local vet.
Powerful woman? ME!
Last thought for now, when I saw that MeMe was going to "interview" Gloria S, my first thought was "perfect, two women that are equally insignificant now"
Thanks... I remembered about Tinyurl about 10 mins after posting!
Will make a note of it so that I don't forget again!! :)
Maybe she got a coupon during Megxit, like when I adopted my cat. The shelter gave me a coupon good for a free neutering at the local vet.
Stop it please!!! My sides are already splitting from laughing tonight. 😆😂😆
Goodnight @Nutties... and stay safe with that awful weather you're having.
Thanks for this, OT it may be but it's important for people to know these things. Especially the reminder about snakes [shudder]
I had written the post but not sent it yet when I went outside. I heard the dogs barking, a hen (who had only one chick) was screeching, and I thought I had better investigate. I couldn't see anything wrong. I thought perhaps a hawk had gotten her only chick, but she watched it so very carefully. Then the dog snapped into a point because stupid human couldn't follow a strong scent. I visually followed his point, and saw the skinny tail of a water moccasin disappearing underneath a *very* small void underneath a sidewalk behind the flowers, then I saw the dead chick that had been bitten. Venomous snakes will strike the intended meal and eat it later. Had it been a big daddy moccasin, it wouldn't have hidden and would have guarded his meal from the dogs, the hen, and me, but this one was only about 3' long. I went out to get the .410 out of the barn, husband said he'd shoot it but I had to have shells ready for the reload. (I had a 12-gauge and a 20-gauge in the house, but didn't want to shoot a sidewalk with them.)
Had snake been out in the pasture, I probably would have picked it up on a shovel and thrown it back out into the swamp. I can't have it under the sidewalk next to the back patio where the dogs sleep and the grandkids like to play.
Husband looked at the void entrance and said "You've got to be kidding. There is no way there is a snake under there." I assured him that there was. He shot once, maybe getting a couple pellets in the small hole. Suddenly a snake erupted out of there moving FAST. He was trying to shoot it as it dodged around flower pots, tree roots, and shrubberies. He was missing, yelling "Give me another shell!" while I was saying "NOooooo! Not that flower pot...oh, dang." He blew the snake in half, said it was no longer a problem, and threw it out into the pasture.
I said "Did you just throw that out where I or the dogs could step on it?" "Maybe. It's dead." "It's only mostly dead. It can still envenom for hours." "FINE!" So he stomped off with a shovel. I asked "Did you throw it over the fence where the dogs couldn't get it?" "No, I threw it into that brushy area that's too wet to mow." "Where the dogs can get it?" "It's DEAD." "No, it isn't." I went to the brushy area where dead snake was reflex crawling and it struck at the shovel. I threw it over the fence out of reach of the dogs and if a coyote gets bitten, I don't care.
I realized that there are probably people like my husband who think that if you kill a venomous snake, it is no longer dangerous, so I wanted to put the warning out. Plus, it has been raining here, a LOT, and snakes are EVERYWHERE. A house on our road has been vacant for a few months. A lawn company was mowing grass. We heard a high-pitched scream. "What was THAT?" husband asked. "I'd say they found a snake in that tall grass. A few seconds later another high-pitched scream, louder. (These were males.) "Must have been a moccasin!" said husband.
The venom in a swamp dweller like that is only part of the problem. They have some nasty bacteria in their mouth that can cause severe medical problems even if they don't inject venom.
He moved a sheep waterer that I had turned upside down so that it didn't collect water/mosquitoes. He disturbed a 6' rat snake underneath it. He almost killed her, too, out of surprise, but I yelled "LEAVE MY SNAKE ALONE! GOOD SNAKE!" He picked her up gently and relocated her so that he could finish clearing a fence line.
I think the flowerbeds are going to get cleared tomorrow.
She bangs on endlessly about `women's rights' without thinking any more deeply -
If women choose not to use their vote, or are to apathetic to do so, is she claiming the right to force them to vote?
Is it the right to parasitise a rich man and his even richer family, all the while cursing them in the eyes of the world?
The right to always get her own way?
The right to waste other people's money?
A woman's right to be a hypocrite?
I haven't heard a word about the sort of female rights people are really concerned about - the right not to be forced into marriage, or subjected to FGM. The right to safety on the streets and in the home.
The only right she seems to have heard of, the vote , was won decades ago.
I did some more research and discovered the Royal Foundation was started in 2009, I haven’t been able to find it it started with a donation from PW & PH.
In 2012 they took ownership of the remaining ‘Diana Memorial foundation’ funds
Then in 2012 the W&K started a segment within the fund for donations from wellwishers for their wedding so they could donate in lieu of giving them a gift.
There’s no mention of PH & the CLAW having wellwishers for their recent wedding donating to the fund instead of giving gift.
and then of course the foundation split and the Harkles have run off with the donation money and started their own for profit corporation with those non-profit funds. im still confused how they can do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Foundation
That would have significant advantages for her, even if she'd rejected him!
I don't think we've considered this possibility yet...
"and then of course the foundation split and the Harkles have run off with the donation money and started their own for profit corporation with those non-profit funds. im still confused how they can do that."
Me too. Isn't that the question facing the U.K. Charity Commission following the complaint from over a month ago? While the complaint may have come from an anti-monarchy group, it doesn't mean there isn't an issue. I'm kind of surprised nothing else has been said... obviously it was not resolved immediately.
Excellent post on MM's version of women's rights!
Yikes about the snake. I'm terrified of them!
I haven't heard a word about the sort of female rights people are really concerned about - the right not to be forced into marriage, or subjected to FGM. The right to safety on the streets and in the home.
The only right she seems to have heard of, the vote , was won decades ago.
How about the right to not be terrorized by the thugs on the street? People are getting extremely angry about their businesses being looted and burned. How about the right to self defense? The candidates that she is backing want that constitutional right removed from men as well as women who are, as a rule, smaller, weaker, and need an equalizer.
Thanks for that info!
I recall someone speculating that the reason Just Harry and Mere Meghan were allowed to remain The Duke and Duchess of Sussex was that Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor would have been much worse.
So far, Markle Windsor eX-royals is my favorite guess. It lets leech off the BRF's influence and take a cheap shot against them at the same time. So efficient!
She'd claim freedom of speech for herself - but deny it to her critics
She'd endorse freedom of want but, again, only for herself
She's ensured freedom from fear - for herself - with security staff and bullet-proof cars.
And doesn't give two hoots for religion anyway.
S*d everyone else, male or female.
Can't really be surprised - if what I've guessed about the Archie business is anywhere near the truth, she's one of the nastiest women currently in existence.
I thoroughly enjoyed your story of the snake, but I'm quite disappointed that you stopped at the practical advice and didn't give us the true moral.
"It's only mostly dead. It can still envenom for hours." . . .
The venom in a swamp dweller like that is only part of the problem. They have some nasty bacteria in their mouth that can cause severe medical problems even if they don't inject venom.
If you ever had an audience with the BRF and told this story, I'm sure they would find it deeply allegorical!
I can't find the original post, so I don't know if we were specifically asked for powerful women from history (which is what people's answers have suggested to me). But I got to wondering about powerful women of today, and the names that came to mind immediately were:
Taylor Swift
Kim Kardashian
Beyoncé
Taylor may like playing the victim, but she took on Apple Music and won, has sold out large venues all over the world, and still produces hits. Kim may be vulgar, but she's an incredibly savvy businesswoman who has also made an impact in prison reform. And Beyoncé has her own business empire, plus the sold-out venues and hits.
That these women are powerful outside of the traditional bastions of politics, finance and war is a little fascinating to me. There's a feminine quality to their influence and reach. Major corporations must woo them for a chance to collaborate with them. And hell hath no fury when they feel themselves scorned! (I really think Ivanka Trump lost much of her power when she decided to work through political channels.)
And it is this that Meghan wants for herself and probably believes she's entitled to. She'll never be self-aware enough to articulate it, though. (I'm now reminded of Hillary Clinton crying out: "Why aren't I 50 points ahead?!") I wonder if Gloria Steinem sussed it out at any point during that chat. Not that she herself is some bastion of integrity. But I imagine she agreed to this gig because someone misrepresented Meghan's ideology, intentions and intellect to her; and if so, perhaps there was a point when it dawned on her that she had been had.
There are too many people not evacuating zones that has been listed as not survivable. I wish them well. I fear many will vanish and their bodies will not be recovered.
MWX sounds like an airport abbreviation to me. LAX, SEA, MWX.
_____________________________________________________
Guess what! it is an airport code MWX is the call sign for Muan International Airport, South Korea.
Maybe Muan or the IATA/ICAO will object and make them re brand once again?
Stay safe Southern Nutties, my prayers are with you.
‘You disgusting hypocrite giving Meghan markle press. She has slept her way into everything she has gotten using men for everything and ripping other women down along her way. She has attacked Kate Middleton and The Queen because she is a spoiled brat who didn’t get her way. All her Hollywood work was achieved through her contacts with the men she was sleeping with. She married Harry to get the notoriety she wanted. Shame on you calling yourself a feminist and promoting this fraud who has used men for everything she has achieved and has been evil to other woman along the way. You fraud!’
Please go on her Instagram and let Gloria Steinman know what you think. It took me 2 minutes.
The link: https://www.instagram.com/gloriasteinem/
Steinman may see any criticism of Megsy as 'attacking a strong and empowered woman'. Steinman has never advocated for women to do something meaningful, worthwhile, good, etc. with their lives, but to take control. Megsy tops the charts in domination and control and getting what she wants, no matter what it is or how it may damage her subservient 'husband'. I don't see Megsy using wealth and connections to build childcare centres at the workplace, offer bursaries and arrange for mentorship programmes for woman with talent, create more shelters and practical assistance for women effected by GBV, and so on. Everything Megsy does seems to be an act of self adoration and is so shallow. (Someone at LSA described the interview as two women taking their turn to showcase woke slogans!)
I wonder why?
If only people would use their brains about Megofirst and ask `what's really been going on?'. They'd be appalled by the answer.
First of all, my hopes and best wishes to all who are in danger from the threatening weather patterns - I sincerely hope that you all come through safely and with minimal damage to your properties.
Secondly, I should like to answer Nutty's question although at first glance it may seem I am going completely OT but please bear with me.
Back when we had the heatwave here in England, I decided that, Covid-19 or not, I and dear husband(DH) were going to have lunch away from home. I duly packed Ploughman's and cold cider into two backpacks and we were off. Having walked along the Itchen for a couple of hours, we found a grassy spot on the river-bank and proceeded to eat and drink. DH had brought his IPad and was busily bringing me up-to-date with the latest news.
This was the first time that MM's political ambitions became more than a rumour and was being openly discussed on various channels.
Well, I can tell you - I completely lost my appetite! What had seemed just a PR rumour was seemingly becoming a reality.
Now, if that news could so affect an English senior citizen what on earth did it do to those same-age voters in the US? What must they have thought of a woman of dubious background, married to a foreign prince threatening to meddle in US politics?
Having scoured the news items and read up here on Nutty's blog, I have come to the conclusion that most people of good sense are absolutely horrified.
However, I can't see MM having any impact or input on JB's campaign as, according to Nutty (and I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve her), many more, far better known celebrities have already endorsed him. So I am looking at the situation from a slightly different, more skewed angle.
I don't think that MM cares a fig about JB as a person and would back a donkey if it was standing for the Democrats. No, I think MM cares more about the celebrities supporting him and I am sure those people are her real targets.
She will do practically anything to get in with the Hollywood crowd and what better way than to be seen, and unfortunately heard, to be backing their darling.
Whatever the outcome, it would be a win-win situation for her - if JB loses, then she will still possibly have some very good contacts in "the business" and if he wins, then she can claim she played a part in his success (and she certainly would claim this, given her ego).
I don't wish her dead (at this moment in time, anyway) but I could wish for her to have a prolonged bout of laryngitis - then we could all enjoy some peace and quiet from that awful whining voice.
In answer to Nutty's question, I don't think MM will affect JB's election chances one way or the other and, having scoured all the news outlets (and, of course, this blog), I am not so sure that is her root objective.
Having thought things over, I am wondering as to whether that attraction for MM is not so much JB/politics as the well-known celebrities who have endorsed him.
Let's face it, this election could prove to be a win-win situation for Megs if she continues to speak out - if JB wins, MM will be trumpeting about how she helped his campaign and we know this may happen given her tremendous ego. However, if JB loses then MM will still have made some very useful contacts in the Hollywood circles. The latter, I believe, is her main aim - her interest is not so much in JB but in his celebrity supporters.
Can we all hope for her to suffer from a prolonged bout of laryngitis - at least we shall not have to listen to that whiny voice for a while.
For Brits who may not be familiar with Steinem, she's been a fixture in the American feminist scene for over 50 years. For a while her name was synonymous with the feminist movement. I've never found her to be appealing because of her humorless & doctrinaire zealotry. She once said that stay at home mothers with children were 'the enemy.' Only fairly recently did she admit that the work women did as wives, mothers & caregivers had any value. She also has been rumored to have had 'strategic' relationships with various men over the course of her career. She was rumored to have desperately visited fertility clinics in an attempt to hang on to her one-time beau, publishing billionaire Mortimer Zuckerberg, who wanted to have children. This was printed in a tongue-in-cheek article about her in a reputable publication, like the New York Times Magazine, not a tabloid. She may share with Megs a propensity to use men as tools for advancement. They may have more in common than we think, although Steinem is undeniably a prolific author & journalist.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are 'focusing on production at the moment' because there isn't a market for 'after-dinner talking right now', a royal source has claimed. There might be but for well established speakers who have something of substance to say.
The Duke, 35, and Duchess of Sussex, 39, are 'exploring other avenues' while their public speaking is 'on hold', an insider told Katie Nicholl for Vanity Fair.
The couple, who have recently moved into a new $14.65million mansion in Santa Barbara, California, with their son Archie, one, have reportedly pitched TV projects to numerous networks. I wonder how many CEOs they've accosted?
They added that the priority for the couple is on projects and campaigns that mean something to them and are 'in line with their views', such as civil rights, women's empowerment and the Black Lives Matter movement.. Will these topics become their 'fail safe' ones? These ideas will rapidly become trite and some are too political. What are they doing?
Royal author Katie said the pair are now figuring out how to make money from some of their projects, following the lack of public speaking engagements due to the coronavirus pandemic. Nothing to do with the pandemic, people are just getting bored with the duo. And they have been coasting along all this time but now realise that they need serious money but don't have the skills to earn it.
It comes following reports that Meghan and Harry are working on a new TV show that takes a 'political stance' on feminism and racial inequality. You can only take these topics so far. American Nutties, you can now look forward to the H&M show (or probably, the M&H show). Lucky you...
So Just An Hour Ago, United States
This deluded pair once claimed they were a 'star power' couple (harry wails' words)... that 'star' has long since faded far into the distant universe & is akin to an uncontrollable eye tic flickering like a cheap neon sign swinging at the entrance of an equally cheap & musty motel... oh! & the [public] 'power' had already been switched off eons ago too...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8669415/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-focusing-production-royal-source-claims.html
Harkles Production pitches
Hollywood PTB are desperate for ‘Woke’ looking projects because they’re hypocrisy of preaching one thing and doing another keeps rearing it’s ugly head. so TPTB are looking for woke, all-types of projects. and if you are white, male, straight, middleage, or combinations of those demographics, you are in the dustbin now.
But. Go Woke, Go Broke. TPTB know this.
The Movie industry looks internationally for revenue and profits, not just domestically, so they need to be willing to cater to other counries demands. ( not very woke)
TV shows that are a hit do well but make alot of their money in residuals, but most aren’t big hits. They’ll pay some bills, but unless it’s something like a Friends, Seinfled, NCIS/ Chicago/Law & Order franchise, Ellen/ Oprah, or a morning/game show hosting gig, there’s not alot of money and to make the big money it has to be popular.
Documentary type work doesnt typically bring in the big money.
TPTB want to greenlight things so they look good and the negative press is off them, but they still have to make money and produce results.
the Harkles - are lawsuit crazy, spilled the tea on their prior employers and their experiences there, have no experince in production, claim they want privacy and restrict photos which isn’t appropriate for the promotional tours that are neccessary for projects, and are rumored to be difficult to work with.
they check off a couple of boxes but they seem like an extremely risky investment to me.
I see a QVC future for them, just like Sarah, Duchess of York.
Or Maybe MM will become a children’s book author, lots of pubilcity there too. and Sarah did that as well.
didn’t Oprah make a huge investment in the company? and they changed their branding to WW
and are focusing on goood health and wellbeing, not just losing weight?
MM can take on the good heallth and wellbeing part with her Yoga, avacoado, and her word sald feel good quotes?
She doesn’t need to get involved with counting points or proteincarbs/excerise, she can copy the Duchess of York, yet again, and focus on the side of the new WW.
and PH will hopefully not copy his uncle and end up more of an embarassment to the BRF.
Well, she should certainly be able to corner the market for books about mean middle-school girls.
"I only watched the snippet on the DM, & I actually thought Megs came across as more appealing than usual."
The interview was published by Yahoo.
If you would like to read it, this is the shortened link:
https://tinyurl.com/y3yurdpd
Oh and I too think Charles and Camilla get along swimingly. That's his woman. She gives him what he needs and he has the biggest smile around her. I think they have a very happy life together.
After feeling very harsh toward both Charles and Camilla during the rocky Diana years, and immediately after her death, I feel much more warmly toward them both. By their wedding in 2005, it was obvious that they were meant to be together for life. I neither fully believe nor disbelieve all the stories about an 'open' arrangement. If they both see other people, or did in the past, it seems mutually agreeable to both. I've always known that Camilla keeps her own house and spends a lot of time with her family, and that she often does not accompany Charles, whether due to her health or just choice. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. She'd learned to share him with other women and the demands of his job years ago, and developed her own life. She's learned not to be clingy & isn't going to start now. Charles already had clingy with Diana and it wasn't good. She more than does her bit for the Firm with her own charities, and is just as happy to be more in the background, letting him be the headliner. She realizes he needs that, in a way that Diana never did. Royal/aristocratic marriages are not much like the middle class version of shared domesticity at all times. The Queen loves 'her Rock' more than her own life, but PP spends the majority of his time in another county altogether. Nobody doubts the strength of their union. It's weird by bourgeois standards, but it's real. I'm sure they speak every day.
You really should write a book with all of your stories! I would buy it. Unless of course we ever met and could just hang out for regular happy hours 😁
Had you told me 20 years ago that I’d become a Charles apologist, I wouldn’t have believed you, but I have come around to his corner. I don’t think he gets enough credit for his gifts, but he gets constantly run down by press and public for his perceived shortcomings. That he is weak, befuddled, indecisive, ‘a disaster’, has become part of the universal folklore. If the marriage to Diana hadn’t been such a highly public failure, and if she had not died so tragically, he would be better thought of. Indeed, if Di were still living and had spent the last 23 years continuing along the path she was on the last year of her life, I do believe Charles would be viewed in a much more statesmanlike manner. He is a very different personality to both of his parents. They are Greatest Gen; he is a Woodstock generation Boomer. He turned 21 in 1969; while his non-Royal peers were smoking pot and practicing free love at Glastonbury, or hitting Carnaby Street, he was getting invested as Prince of Wales. I think he would have rather been at Glastonbury. Charles is a sensitive, imaginative, artistic person. I peg him for an INFP (which I am, so maybe that’s why I identify so strongly with his struggles). He was very shy as a child, which considering that he had absentee parents and only a little sister for a playmate in early childhood, and then was shuttled off to a series of schools in which he was relentlessly bullied because of who he was, seems like the natural outcome. Imagine hearing and reading yourself run down continuously by your father as being a big girls’ blouse and failure before you’d even started in life. Charles stuck out all the hazing at the hated Gordonstoun, found some temporary happiness at Cambridge, treading the boards, and dazzled everyone at his investiture ceremony with perfect Welsh. I hope the old man had a few words of praise for him on that occasion.
At 20 years old, it fell to Charles to become that ‘new young Royal’ modernizing the monarchy. Since then, for the last 51 years, he has fulfilled a role that did not come easily to him by temperament, but he gutted through it and has developed into a much more confident person. For someone like PP, who is a natural Extrovert and hale, blokey man’s man, they really have no conception how mightily the sensitive Introverts struggle as the center of all eyes. It is not effortless, but requires both will and courage. His mother of all people should be empathetic to this, because Charles is like her in her shyness and her duty, and her love of Scotland and horsey things. The Queen is dutiful and energetic, but nobody would call her a visionary as Charles has been with his pet projects. From Philip, Charles gets his artistic bent and his love for books. Like his father, he is a watercolor artist of considerable talent—not just a royal dilettante. He plays the cello. He is a reader and something of a philosopher. He has also turned himself from a chubby kid into a sportsman. From both his parents, he got that stubborn streak that sometimes gets him labeled ‘difficult’ but also allowed him to survive school, and led him to passionately defend esoteric pursuits like organic farming, even when he was deemed out to lunch for it, and now he has been vindicated for prescient thinking. He loves the soil of England, her architecture and her history. He has been an extremely prolific heir in waiting with his Prince’s Trust and the Duchy of Cornwall and tireless travel on behalf of the Crown. He has in every way had the education and training necessary for a modern monarch. I think when he goes out on engagements, he really cares about the people, and he is well-received by those he sees. I don’t think his public image as a rather stiff bumbler jives with the Charles that people closer at hand get to see.
Behind the Crown: Becoming the Prince of Wales
-----------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpkRqJezIWw
The Investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales 1 July, 1969
--------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb68uewyYmM
(The anniversary celebration of this is the event which Meg and Harry attempted to crash and were hilariously ignored by every person present except Charles. The star of this ceremony was only 20 years old. Compare this with Harry's deportment at the age of nearly 36.)
Thanks so much for the info and background on Steinem, as a Brit I’d never heard of her. She most definitely wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but I can see why she’d appeal to Megsy.
For Nutties over the pond, stay safe in those storms, they look horrendous and terrifying. :o(
Glad you think Markle appears to have learned to behave a little. It is a two sided thing, as always. If she settles into some sort of respectable routine everybody will give out a sigh of relief, but it also means she will fade into obscurity, as her only distinguishing value is making noise. Everything she is speaking about has already been said better by others.
We can expect her to retain the title because Andrew still retains his. Although Andrew appears to have learnt to shut up and disappear. The Queen will never take titles away from her favourite son, and unfortunately it gives an iron clad excuse to Harry and Megsy to cling to theirs.
I personally hope Markle will eventually simply tire everybody out. She has nothing new, important or distinguished to say, if media stops reporting her every fart she is a non-entity. Just like other obscure titled flotsam.
@Raspberry Ruffle, you're welcome. I'm pretty sure I read the Zuckerberg rumor in the NY Times, which not only used to be a beautifully designed mixture of layouts, fonts, photos, drawings, etc., but also employed a lot of writers capable of nuance & subtly humorous snark. Today it pretty much hews to a party line, & isn't nearly as informative or fun to read.
That's a wonderful defense of Charles! He hasn't been perfect, but he has been much better than he ever gets credit for.
I only watched the snippet on the DM, & I actually thought Megs came across as more appealing than usual. She gave Steinem an opportunity to speak, & even, wonder of wonders, deferred to Steinem a bit.
Thanks for taking one for the team!
I'm actually not too surprised that Meghan came across well. Narcissists do have a lot of superficial charm, and perhaps Steinem is still big enough a star in Meghan's eyes to merit some love bombing.
Will she hang around long enough for the devaluation stage, though?
I am leaving out on my trip soon so will not be around for days but wanted to say I do not recall asking for examples of powerful women, not to say I didn't I just do not remember post nor even context of request. I do recall asking if there was ever a woman who squandered opportunity as Meghan has. That is only post that comes to mind
Stay safe! Have fun! And hope to chat once again next week :)
She'd just use it as ammunition to further her claims of racism, not being treated fairly, etc.
I think the best way is to take away the money. She/he don't behave, voila! Money gone. It's really the only leverage the brf has.
Although I do think they should not be pres/vp of the commonwealth trust anymore.
Removing those titles would be a blow to them, they seem to be using them for nefarious purposes.
If you look up Empress Matilda (sometimes called Empress Maude) you will find the perfect example of a squandered opportunity.
In fact, she reminds me a lot of MM - lost her chance to be Queen of England due to her arrogance and conceit. Look her up for more info.
Seems like they might have nailed it.
Changing the name when they're shutting it down makes no sense. In that scenario it would?
Everything they do is underhanded and sneaky. Not something I would put past them.
Ever wonder where she comes up with these ideas? Someone has to be advising her who is experienced in fraudulent activity.
I wonder who that would be.
What do you guys think?
I like my modern conveniences; however, it is nice to remember (and to be able to replicate) the way things used to be done. In some cases the old ways really are more efficient. I am so glad that he has popularized continuing them and demonstrated that it can be profitable.
The lawn meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society was actually two self-promoters doing their 'thing'.
That's a wonderful defense of Charles! He hasn't been perfect, but he has been much better than he ever gets credit for.
Thank you. I warmed to my subject. As played by Josh O'Connor in the 3rd season of The Crown, I think Charles is coming off as a much more sympathetic figure than previously. Most of the public acrimony against him is down to the disaster with Diana. He gets the lion's share of blame for that, but the fact is, both partners behaved badly in the marriage. Beyond mutual infidelity and being fundamentally unsuited, Diana suffered from a myriad of mental problems. She had a tough childhood in some respects but she got to grow up in private. Charles' tough childhood was in the public eye, but he had lived quite a full and active young adulthood before that marriage. Contrast the demands placed on him when he was 20 years old with where Diana was at at the same age. Of course, he was born to be a King . . but a person with such an active mind and wide array of interests and things he was good at was never going to be an harmonious fit with a dim bird like Diana. The age gap only made worse the complete lack of curiosity on Diana's part to improve herself. Apart from a love for dance & sport and staging intrigues, Diana had no other pursuits of the mind to engage with Charles. He thought he was at least getting a 'jolly girl' who shared his passions for rambling and outdoorsy pursuits, but Diana hated any and everything to do with 'the country'. I think the Queen Mum got on well with her because they both liked to watch television so much. Charles seems to have gotten his indefatigable energy from his mother. Diana, while beautiful, hadn't cultivated anything else about herself to be interesting to a husband like Charles. I think this, more than Camilla, is why he found the marriage impossible to sustain.
Charles' academic record at Cambridge might not have been stellar (Second Class Honors) .. but he had a lot of irons in the fire during his student days, including having to master enough Welsh to deliver a speech in front of a huge audience *in the space of one month*. He delivered it flawlessly after being heckled by Welsh National extremists. He looked so incredibly young and vulnerable on that stage, but he never lost his cool. For a 20-year-old that's some pretty incredible fortitude.
The spectre of Diana is always going to haunt him, and now it's coming out in the ghastly, disloyal ingratitude and public spectacle of his younger son's behavior. Charles's position is pretty crappy on a number of levels. No matter what stance he takes, he's going to get blamed somehow. Harry is now the age his mother was when she died, if we can believe that. He is still acting like the sullen 16-year-old who thinks his dad owes him the keys to the castle, even though he's run away from home. I imagine Chas's feelings toward his sons are complicated, for different reasons. They both stand to eclipse him--William for being such a success and Harry for being such a colossal screw up.
'Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown", said Mr. Shakespeare. For all his privilege, I wouldn't trade places with Charles.
Good to know there's other Charles supporters here. He gets so relentlessly run down, still, after being at the job of PoW for 51 years. Just today, viewing a bio video of "Anne: the Princess Who Should be Be Queen", the narrator identified her at the top of the program as "The son Prince Philip never had." I mean--ouch. That's two disses to Charles right off the bat--the title and then that dig.
It's manifestly true that Anne displays every bit of the brash self-confidence of her father, and she probably would have sailed through with an easier time as the Crown heir because of it than Charles has had. I admire Anne a lot, but she's not nearly as complex a personality as her brother. As her father drolly summed up: "Unless it eats grass and farts, she's not interested." The idea of Anne as Queen appeals since it would continue her mother's legacy and allow Britain to have a female sovereign for a little while longer. As Sir Winston observes in 'The Crown', "England seems to do rather well with Queens." "God Save the Queen" has been the national anthem for the lifespans of so much of the world now living. Switching over to "God Save the King", for a King nobody seems particularly enthused about, is going to be a huge mental adjustment.
Charles's whole life has been laboring in the long shadows cast by his parents, neither of whom seem to think he's really up for the job, or at least haven't really moved to correct popular opinion to the contrary. Charles survived the summer of 1997 and had managed to rebuild his reputation somewhat, along with Camilla, and then came Hurricane Tungsten, and the very public unraveling of both Harry's sanity and his relationship with the family. Charles is in the (soup) again as the perceived weak enabler of all of this. He really can't get a break. I do hope he gets a shot at proving that in the 21st century, he can be his own monarch, not just a copy of his mother as the only way to rule, before having to make way for his son . . but I think Charles is resigned to being a brief placeholder King. It's hard to fathom anyone able to be more active as Prince of Wales than he has been, so he has at least done that job well. As his mother sets the bar for future sovereigns, future Princes of Wales (hello, Wills and George) are going to have their work cut out to be as innovative in the job as Charles. William is off to a good start.
I wanted to jump on here and echo some of the sentiments regarding feminism. I'll be quoting or echoing some of you but I didn't copy so I apologize! First of all the comment about a male feminist on the DM was hysterical. As far as Gloria Steinum and Meghan Markle, what they really want to push is this narrative that women don't have to be soft, or sweet or kind. That if they demand something, they don't have to be seen as a bitch because men can do the same and men will still considered to be powerful even if they are demanding. I'm telling you, this is Gloria Steinum's main vision, and of course it's Markle's too. Here's the thing, even though there is a disparity in pay for men and women, and that's improving, equality is getting there in our western part of the world. Yes, we can vote. For Gloria and Meghan to talk about that is frankly...stupid. Meghan is rude, selfish and a bitch to those around her and that has nothing to do with being a feminist. No one likes to hear of rich or powerful people acting like jerks, men or women. Meghan is a narcissist and that is far different than being a feminist.
How about this Markle and Steinum. Here is the real need in the area of feminism. There are parts of the world where girls as young as 5 years old are forced into marriage. SOMETIMES the groom waits to consummate until the girl is 10 or 12, sometimes not. Families that have to sell their daughters. Women who can be raped legally if the men see their leg, ankle or clavicle and get turned on. The treatment of women and girls in the Middle East, India, the Far East, Africa and other places is beyong appalling. Forced prostitution, forced abortions, forced genital mutilation. Having to f&ck anyone and everything in order to feed your family or even live. So to watch these two women, who are basically flying their flag for the right to yell at staff and not be seen as bitches, boss their men around, and shake eachother's hands about voting and how they want to influence the election is very tone deaf.
And yes, Markle was deferring to Steinum. That's a tool she possesses in her arsenal, even though she's a narcissist. She's done it on many people. The Queen, definitely Charles, Desmond Tutu and others. There are some photos of her giving William those nodding, smiling looks in the early days too. She can pull that off if she needs too.
IMO The whole thing is fraudulent:
MM seems to have created a new human being solely to extract cash from the RF. My bet is the Doria & MA are the immediate ones behind it.
HM & Charles won't stop funding if they believe there's a real child in US, albeit one she `ghosted' or rejected at its birth as he has already fulfilled her purpose.
It's the only scenario that makes sense to me. I've already outlined it @ 2.56 pm 28/08.
Please, somebody, anybody follow this up and consider it as a possibility!
I'm getting desperate that this possibilty is being ignored.
I was just reading over at Plant's blog, someone commented Meg's interview was released same day as Harry's Netflix debut. Sure as heck was
https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/prince-harry-netflix-debut-olympic-vision-acceptance-needed-more-than-ever-171602553.html
Something like that is beginning to look a whole lot more likely to me, in a rational practical sense that is - Harry seemed blindsided by her pregnancy - they looked as if they were bickering while they were waiting for the bride to arrive at E's wedding. I've long wondered if she'd told him that she would spill the beans that afternoon and he was protesting. Did she finish by saying `Just watch me!'? - Cue smug face.
Then again, how do we account for `Is it mine?' unless there was some doubt in his mind? May not have been nocturnal activity worthy of a `succubus', only Markus?
Please find the holes in my hypothesis as I can't see any yet.
ToySoldiers SunflowerSunflowerSunflower
@ToySoldiers10
·
3h
Celt discovers Harry has been making secret visits to London. Funny that the Paps didn’t pick this up. It proves the fact that the Markles are controlling the narrative with the Media!
NEW INFORMATION ON PRINCE HARRY'S LOCATION - WE HAVE IT! Thumbs up https://youtu.be/GCTK5zhYPSA
was just reading this about the paralympics documentary - Harry is vaguely mentioned but admits he never heard of it until 2012. I'm sure he'll try to take a staring role in the documentary even though it's been in the works for some time now.
https://deadline.com/2019/08/paralympics-documentary-tatyana-mcfadden-richard-curtis-barbara-broccoli-1202701479/
-
"The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (‘the Fund’) was established within days of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, on 31 August 1997, in response to the donations that poured into Kensington Palace. The general public, community groups and companies donated some £34 million. £38 million was generously donated from sales of Sir Elton John and PolyGram's CD of "Candle in the Wind 1997". A further £66 million was subsequently raised through investments, an eight-year programme of commercial partnerships, and proceeds from the exhibition, Diana: A Celebration, donated by Lord Spencer
----------------------------
So there was, at some point, probably over 100 million in this fund. I wonder what happened to all of it? And how much was left when it was monkeyed up with other foundations/trusts and then split.
Well, bless her heart, she can't even let her HUSBAND get publicity without attempting to stomp all over it with her giant feet. I suppose he will be punished for that.
Not the first time she has done that to him!
Saw a posting on Skippy that his Netflix interview was done in London. I looked up the studio mentioned and it does look like it,
https://www.1st-option.com/locations/loft-studios-4
https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-makes-his-netflix-debut-in-paralympics-documentary-lives-are-being-changed/
MM seems to have created a new human being solely to extract cash from the RF. My bet is the Doria & MA are the immediate ones behind it.
HM & Charles won't stop funding if they believe there's a real child in US, albeit one she `ghosted' or rejected at its birth as he has already fulfilled her purpose.
It's the only scenario that makes sense to me. I've already outlined it @ 2.56 pm 28/08.
Please, somebody, anybody follow this up and consider it as a possibility!
I'm getting desperate that this possibilty is being ignored.
If the BRF is being, oh, dear, probably can't say blackmailed, threatened in reference to the safety or well-being of a missing heir, it seems to me that there would be international investigations ongoing, albeit quite quietly. Anybody with connections into that level of intelligence will say nothing.
The previously fired employees have already been questioned, IMO, about what went wrong in their employment. The Harkles do not seem to be the kind of people to inspire loyalty. I think their staff past and present would tell everything that they know in a heartbeat to anybody waving cash with the promise of never identifying them except as an anonymous source.
My personal belief is that the BRF does know what is happening with the child. I thought perhaps there might be a genetic anomaly, but I do believe that, say, a Down syndrome child would have been aborted PDQ.
Well spotted! It is the same studio. So what is going on and why make us believe H is in California? I'm surprised MM let him go, she normally keeps him on a very tight leash.
@Hikari - re Succubus?
Something like that is beginning to look a whole lot more likely to me, in a rational practical sense that is - Harry seemed blindsided by her pregnancy - they looked as if they were bickering while they were waiting for the bride to arrive at E's wedding. I've long wondered if she'd told him that she would spill the beans that afternoon and he was protesting. Did she finish by saying `Just watch me!'? - Cue smug face.
Then again, how do we account for `Is it mine?' unless there was some doubt in his mind? May not have been nocturnal activity worthy of a `succubus', only Markus?
Please find the holes in my hypothesis as I can't see any yet.
The Mystery that is 'Arch' continues . . . now I'm reading that a baby that was a surrogate product arranged by Meg has been in the States this whole time? Including when 'Archie' was supposedly 'being presented to the Queen'; 'christened'; 'shown at polo' and 'meeting Bishop Tutu in Africa'. Well, the "The Queen and the Palace are delighted at the news that somebody somewhere had a baby today" tone of the announcement.
The strapping 16-month-at-a-guess 'DuckArch' . . is THIS Archie? That vid was alledgedly shot at Tyler Perry's house. The age of that baby would jive better with a February birthday not May--which is when Meg had her luxe 'baby shower' in Manhattan.
My head hurts, I tell you, just trying to get a bead on what is normally called 'basic, straightforward reality'--for normal people.
In answer to your question . . Yes, I believe that Eugenie's wedding is when it all began to go sideways for Harry. He was obviously frantic about something and she was ignoring him. I think she sprung it in the car on the way over to the church that the reason she was wearing the big coat was that she was pregnant and she was going to spill it that day.
For the record, I do not and will never believe she was actually pregnant--that's just what she told Harry. In the subsequent tour of OZ, Haz agitated frequently for assurances that it was true, at top volume, according to AH staff who heard the rows. Why would they make *that* particular tidbit up? At that time, it was plausible she was pregnant, though very gauche to upstage the bride with an announcement.
I believe that Meg let Harry believe it was real for a little while, for the duration of that tour at least. His unhappiness was down to it being so soon after the wedding that he was an impending father. Megsie needed those 'We are sooo in lurve and I'm havin' his baby!' photos Down Under. If Harry had known for sure that she wasn't pregnant, he wouldn't have been asking the question within earshot of staff, to my thinking.
Based on the progression of his face looking more and more gaunt and haunted subsequently, I think she told him at some point soon after that someone else was cooking a baby for them but he'd play along as she continued to 'Be pregnant'. She had to keep the 'Bump' small in Oceania, in case Harry wanted to sleep with her. I'm not so sure that aspect of their relationship wasn't over by then. Because how could she fake a pregnancy for 9 months without him being read in, otherwise?
There was that snippy little 'joke' of his in February (to an audience of children) Wait, you're pregnant?? (Titters from audience) Are you sure it's mine? ( .. er . . .awkward!)
If that doesn't point to an artificial pregnancy and him not happy about it (this was in the context of a *offical engagment to a school*) I don't know what. Either Harry feared he was not the paternal contributor, knew he wasn't, or was baiting her about not actually having a real baby under her dress. Just like "My wife will now say a few words in French" at Canada House . . the Sub occasionally throws a passive - aggressive bomb at his Dom. She makes him pay dearly for it later.
Not sure about John but Yoko, definitely.
"They have embraced a more bohemian style and are seeking to become a 'power couple for global harmony', according to Judi James."
They are not a 'power couple' (wishful thinking) and it seems they create disharmony, not harmony, wherever they go.
Re Archie She had to keep the 'Bump' small in Oceania, in case Harry wanted to sleep with her.
----------------------
They had separate bedrooms Down Under (reportedly).
(The easiest explanation, though, is that she's an uninvolved parent that rarely sees the child.)
Comment in the DM about how people are criticizing the M and GS talk.
"Meghan - the Duchess of Trailer Parks" (ouch)
I wondered at some point if the baby was less than perfect too but I also think that if she had thought she could get away with merching the baby, she would have been doing this left, right and center until someone made her stop.
I would guess that she was planning some sort of sell the photos like other celebs have and that was quietly squashed.
So it could be about the baby but lack of photographic evidence may be more along the lines of constraints for merching (sort of a if you won't let me do what I want, I'm going to withhold everything so you can't enjoy him).
thank you Nutty and Charade for working to keep the unpleasantness out. Sad you have to.
As we discussed earlier, separate bedrooms is a time-honored aristocratic tradition. Such big houses, so many rooms to fill. Separate his-n-hers bathrooms, dressing rooms, sitting rooms, hobby rooms et. al. Wealthy folks need never see each other much at all if they don't want to! Couples with lesser means have to share a master bedroom by necessity because the houses are smaller. 'Sleeping in the spare room/apart' is usually a sign of marital discord. Arranging two bedrooms for a Royal couple would be common practice, but Meg and Harry were subjecting everyone to daily deluges of PDA, and this was only 5 months into the marriage. Tales of nightly rows and separate bedrooms would not have supported the Newlyweds in Lurve narrative they were selling. As a middle-class American, the optics of 'separate rooms' wouldn't look good for Meg's purposes. The intel about the terrible behavior and frostiness between the duo in Australia didn't leak out until quite a while later.
What they actually are like together is nothing like we've been sold, of that I'm quite sure. Meg's the sole owner of Landslide Towers and Harry's been sneaking off to London, apparently. So looks like they are back to 'LDR Photo Ops'. Just like at the beginning. I think separate bedrooms have been their norm since 2017. Separate houses even. On separate continents . . ? We have been majorly scammed.
i never noticed any fighting/ seperate bedroom or teapot throwing in the press. was it in the DM or somewhere else?
While there, has he had talks with HMTQ, Charles or, at a long reach, William?
So many questions.
As for the Archie conundrum, I'm still trying make all of te pieces of the puzzle fit, but, as Hikari said, I think it's a good point that his sly, "is it mine," statement stood out like a sore thumb at the time, and was along the same line of his saying that MM will now speak French. I think both were very pointed statements to MM, two undercover yet public messages to her, that he knows she's a liar.
_________________________
Maybe he told her he had to go "on business" or even told her the whole thing's off if she doesn't let him revisit his old haunts. I dunno.
He's starting to look worse, if you ask me.
So far no takers. What a surprise .
So, where would Harry be staying? At the SoHo House? At Frog Cott? At KP? Has he seen HMTQ or Charles? Maybe Eugenie? Surely the press knows or will know shortly. How many trips on a private jet for eco-conscious Harry? Surely the press knows or will know shortly where he is staying.
While there, has he had talks with HMTQ, Charles or, at a long reach, William?
So many questions.
As for the Archie conundrum, I'm still trying make all of te pieces of the puzzle fit, but, as Hikari said, I think it's a good point that his sly, "is it mine," statement stood out like a sore thumb at the time, and was along the same line of his saying that MM will now speak French. I think both were very pointed statements to MM, two undercover yet public messages to her, that he knows she's a liar.
I feel like the grandpa in the "Moonstruck" movie scene at the end where Cher is going to marry Nicholas Cage instead of his brother and the old man is crying. His son asks him what's wrong, and he answers "I'm CONFUSED!"
hypocrit
Besides the identity or actual existence Of a real child, The other crucial piece is: What did Harry know about this surrogacy plot and when did he know about it? There’s been a rumor floating around for some time that he was visiting fertility clinics with her in Canada before they were even engaged. Other than his proximity to a Toronto fertility clinic on one of his visits to her, I find this hard to swallow. Sure, he had talked about wanting kids at some point in the future, but would even Harry be stupid enough to intentionally make babies with a woman he hadn’t even committed to? There was that weird smirk exchanged by both of them during the wedding vows when the “procreation of children” bit was read. What did that mean? Did Harry know there was already an embryo on ice in Canada? If he knew that, why did he appear genuinely confused at her announced pregnancy? There is no conceivable way that Meg’s pregnancy show Would’ve convinced her husband that it was real if it didn’t convince us who only saw the pictures. If she coerced him into pretending that she was pregnant, That would’ve been it’s opportunity to end this. He could have gone to his father and gran And told them that he was frightened...His wife had revealed her intention to completely fake a pregnancy and he didn’t know what to do. I think the reality of the situation was concealed from the family Until it had gone too far. So Harry kept quiet And let the freak show roll on. If he was innocently sandbagged by this insane plot, Why not get help? Since he didn’t, It looks like he was complicit from the beginning.
If he was willing to go to this length because He knew that neither of them could have a child the natural way, Why doesn’t he look happier about being a father? Why does he never speak of his son? Why would he want to deprive his child of its entire royal family forever? Harry Has bitten off more than he can chew, and it’s obvious. The man is a complete wreck. Living so many lies Every day will do that to a person.
Could it be a visa problem? Perhaps he had to leave the states because he had reached the 6 months stage or whatever the time limit is.
https://blindgossip.com/baby-needs-to-start-earning/#more-101135
AUGUST 27, 2020 BLIND GOSSIP LEAVE A COMMENT
[Blind Gossip] While this actress continues to put herself in the headlines on a regular basis, have you noticed that something has been missing for the past few months?
Her baby.
While she continuously pleads for privacy and talks about safety… it turns out those are not the primary reasons you haven’t seen her and her husband’s child!
She believes that any appearance of the baby has significant value. She has been trying for months to strike a deal for a cover story for $2M+, but nobody has been wiling to pay that.
This is very frustrating for them. It used to be the family disapproval that stopped them from using the baby to make money, but that is not the problem any more. Now it’s the economy.
It’s so sad that no one will pay them what they want. What they want, they should get!
If she can’t get that deal done, she will find another use for the baby. One thought is a new photo/video to draw millions of followers when they launch their new social media site. Another is to do a staged appearance in conjunction with one of their projects.
Which project? Who knows! Actress and Hubby have been jumping on and off so many bandwagons over the past few months that it’s getting a little hard to keep track of it all.
Their original plans went out the window, so at this point it’s just a series of weirdly random appearances accompanied by a lot of word salad.
In any case, $2M is a big ask.
Perhaps they are justifying that price by saying it will be donated to charity?
Perhaps to one of their own “charities”?
Hey, they need to start pulling in some money any way they can. Mansions don’t pay for themselves, you know, and neither of the two of them has a real job.
Baby needs to start earning!
Blind Gossip has a new tease about a famous couple who have been trying to get their baby a magazine cover -- for 2 million (US dollars I think). Sorry, I don't know how to post the link.
So far no takers. What a surprise"
Thanks for the link Golden Retriever! (Fitting!)
I think if this is true....the time is past when she could get anything even remotely approaching 2 million dollars for a pic of Archie. Before South Africa and the pic with Desmond Tutu, or the birthday video, or the recent German-published picture...there are pictures identified as Archie if people want to see them.
Archie is rather low in the royal hierarchy, this royal marriage is old news and frankly because they have been so stingy with the images, i think not many relate to him as they might to other royal kids not in the direct line of succession. There are just continuing questions about his origin or who he is really looking at off side or if this is even the same kid. THAT ship sailed a while ago and I think it was a mighty small one. Now their brand is more tarnished than ever, and we are all willing, nay eager to let them have their privacy. If only they would take it and go.
If she coerced him into pretending that she was pregnant, That would’ve been it’s opportunity to end this. He could have gone to his father and gran And told them that he was frightened...His wife had revealed her intention to completely fake a pregnancy and he didn’t know what to do. I think the reality of the situation was concealed from the family Until it had gone too far.
Had he gone to them earlier, what do you think they could have done? Given her a very stern talking to and then planted a story in the press: "The Duchess of Sussex was mortified to learn that the way she wore her coat had been misinterpreted by royal watchers. She has a warm relationship with Princess Eugenie, whom she considers a cousin she never had, and would have never wanted to upstage her at her wedding. The unbuttoned style was intended to be an homage to King Edward VII, Prince Harry's great-great-grandfather, who started the trend of leaving the last button on a jacket unfastened. The Duchess has been reading many books on British history since she and Prince Harry became engaged, and likes to tweaks her outfits to reflect what she has learned about historical fashions."
What do you think, Nutties? Way back in October 2018, would this have been halfway plausible?
Thanks for the Blind Gossip link.
@All Nutties
Thank you for posting links to many items as I do not have the time or talent to track down such references to articles and info about the Harkles.
The first sighting of Harry at a UK airfield was about a month ago and he was with Charles van Straubenzee, perhaps he is staying with the van Straubenzee family , he trusts them and maybe they will gently try to help him out of the predicament he has got himself into. That trip may have been for The Paralympics taping.
Also CDan says he isn’t allowed to see Adele anymore (if he can be believed) ,the original blind hinted she was trying to talk him into getting some help (I took that to mean therapy) and Meghan would not want that at all.
Regarding Archie’s invisibility, I am beginning to think Archie is not perfect in her eyes, and she is hiding him rather than withholding him for spite, perhaps on the autism spectrum he has showed no connection to her at all nor Harry when we see photos or videos of them , not once, usually a child of that age will be hanging on every word or facial expression of their mother or father. The only other explanation is that he never sees them and doesn’t know who they are.
Scorpiotwentythree had an entertaining anaylsis on why Meghan has been so protective of images of Archie. She doesn't see him as a royal baby whom she must share with the public "for free," through traditional presentations and landmark photos. (I didn't like squeezing "for free" in there, but I wanted to follow the logic of Meghan's monetizing little mind.) Instead, she sees him as a celebrity baby of yore -- ranked with Shiloh Jolie-Pitt and Suri Cruise, who both got glamorous magazine spreads for their first public photos. Shiloh even got "paid" 4 million (reportedly), though her parents donated it to charity.
Adding to that, I think that the market for baby photos is no longer what it used to be. Kylie Jenner shared Stormi's first public photo "for free" on Instagram. I think John Legend and Chrissy Teigen have been following the same "model" for their own children. Which isn't to say that their haven't found other ways to make money through their offspring. Meghan is just far, far behind the trends now.
For someone who wants daily stories about herself in the press to keep people interested, she's certainly inconsistent to expect that there is still interest in Archie, whom we've seen less than ten times in over a year.
@Charade
I've been having trouble posting this. I'm sorry in advance if it turns out to be a double post!
Anyone who subscribes to comments (including me) won't receive them.
I am reviewing posts you submit regularly throughout the day before they get published on the blog. No need to submit posts multiple times.
Thanks for your time and patience.
@emeraldcity,
The van Straubanzee thought is a good one. I hope he is with them, and that they are trying to get him out of this mess.
I've made four attempts now at writing a logical explanation of Harry's actions, and I cannot come up with one. It simply defies logic. When you are dealing with a mentally and emotionally deficient manchild and a dangerous and manipulative narcissist, you can't apply the same rules to unravelling the truth as you could any normal couple.
I do believe that Harry has been complicit in MM's reach for world domination, and that he completely believed that he could just leave the BRF, make billions, and live as a California billionaire surfer boy, all while being subsidized by his father. Where Archie fits into this, I have no idea, although there is obviously something very odd to the story of MM's pregnancy (moving bump, etc.), Archie's birth, and lack of any real evidence that he exists. I think it's far more involved than MM just waiting for the right time or a buyer to sell Archie's photos to a mag for $2 million.
If, at any point, Harry had doubts as to MM's true intentions, and about Archie, why couldn't he have just gone to his family, and they would have taken care of the problem? Yes, pride, embarassment and low intelligence could have stopped him, but would even Harry have allowed his entire life to be taken over by MM? This implies true complicity to me.
His entire demeanor has changed and he looks very ill to me, indicating a great emotional strain/drain on him.
Beyond that, again, I'm stumped.
Thanks for the link to Jan Moir’s take on Meghanspeak. Very funny, and so true.
I do have a meager report from Hollywood which I will post a bit later, plus a slightly way out conspiracy theory of my own involving Meg, MA, Doria and Andrew — and of course Harry, which you might find intriguing, as I do.
I need to pull these thoughts together before I place them before you.
In the meantime has anyone yet presented this nickname for Meg which is one of my personal faves— Woko Ono?
Nutty and Charade, please accept my sincere gratitude for your work to maintain this special community for us all. I don’t post very often but I follow along every day for my daily fix!
Where am I now in my thinking?
My view, FWIW, is that there’s a babe-of-convenience, who’s always been in the US, for who MM has not an iota of even human feeling. She may have provided the egg but I’ve no idea of `who’s the Daddy?’
I’d expect them to go to a fertility clinic before going public on the engagement, to check whether all is in order `down below’ if they had hopes of having children.
The entire existence of the child is based on her acquisitive drive.
All she wants is Fame! and Money, Money, Money! The child is only a means to that end as far as she is concerned. If this means creating, then exploiting an innocent child, who probably means less to her than her latest pair of shoes, so be it.
If the babe fell short of perfection in the looks department, would she be trying to sell his image? Would she want to be publicly associated with a flawed child? I very much doubt it, assuming there’s truth in that blind.
Whatever Harry’s original motivation was, apart from sex, he’s is in too deep, way over his head, likely to drown. I did read somewhere, way back, a view that he was `frightened of her’. If it’s true that Adele was trying to help, there may be hope that he can recognise his difficulties and get an idea of what’s going on. Fingers crossed, might Charlie van S be able to `reach’ him?
I like the interpretation of `my wife will now speak French’ as a dig, acknowledging that she’s a liar. (HM apparently speaks good French – I’m sure she’d be able to suss her out.).
Yes, I’m sure that that the RF has a far better idea than us of what’s going on. They must be concerned for the child; not only out of basic humanity but think of the weapon she’d have if she could accuse them of letting the child starve or be deprived of medical attention.
Staff are surely reporting back to higher authority – perhaps that’s why their appointments are so short-lived, ending when they are rumbled? I’m sure I heard the teapot story early on, during the tour. Even then, I thought it was quite likely to be true. I imagine the security services are keeping an eye on her too.
As we’ve said many times, she lacks anything remotely resembling a soul; there’s a great void within giving plenty of room for her demons.
Again, this is just an opinion – roll on the court case.
@Jocelyn'sBellinis
The first sighting of Harry at a UK airfield was about a month ago and he was with Charles van Straubenzee, perhaps he is staying with the van Straubenzee family , he trusts them and maybe they will gently try to help him out of the predicament he has got himself into.
_____________________________
Wasn't Charles van Straubenzee the friend who was supposed to come and help or even rescue Harry towards the beginning of the year? I think Harry was in then Canada, or else it was around the time H&M spoke at the JP Morgan event in Florida. I definitely remember something abt him, perhaps other Nutties remember better? His name was definitely mentioned then.
Thank you for your hard word. The posts are published in 'batches' and I must say very selfishly that I prefer this system instead of trying to catch up with a hundred posts or more that arrived during the night - same at the end of the day with the day's posts.
She was going whether he followed or not. I saw a report saying she’d let him see she’d taken off her wedding ring as a signal – `My way or no way'.
He was forced to choose between following her – and never seeing his/the? child ever again.
What a b*tch.
Re-Megsspeak, usual drivel
“As many of us believe, you can only be what you can see”
Was she shading/plagiarising the Queen?
The Queen said “I have to be seen to be believed”
"Wasn't Charles van Straubenzee the friend who was supposed to come and help or even rescue Harry towards the beginning of the year?"
Could be but I don't remember that. Too many fake stories to keep it all straight.
I do know longtime friend Tom Inskip supposedly made up with Harry after he and his wife were not invited to Harry's wedding reception because he also advised not rushing to marry.
After the lockdown ended he was supposed to be "borrowing" his company's private jet to fly to see Harry so toddler Archie could meet Tom's infant son. Yeah, right.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8351453/TALK-TOWN-Prince-Harrys-former-wingman-set-fly-LA-heal-rift.html
@WildBoar
She appeared to be “ringless” when she visited the National Theatre, just before she scuttled back to Canada.
A warning to Hasnowt?
The group photo in Oz with the Governor General, his wife, & Harry shows her standing apart from them.
Whether for a selfie, just megs with the Opera House in the background,
or there’s truth in the rumour that Lady Cosgrove had words with madam over her treatment of staff?
I believe they are under surveillance, MI5 and MI6.
I wonder a lot of things about them, though. I wonder why she jumped on the BLM bandwagon with both feet long after people started referring to it as Burn, Loot, and Murder.
Now it appears that Daddy Dearest has been spending time in the UK. That wouldn't be at all strange except that she publicizes *everything* and, since that was not publicized, I wonder why it wasn't. California is a coronavirus hotspot, too, just saying.
In the current case, I doubt now if Harry is 100% complicit altho’ he was sufficiently unaware/blinded by his own avarice & lust to be drawn in.
He was such an easy target for her – she’d already identified his vulnerabilities as she and her accomplices circled him like vultures (cue image of her as a Harpy). He had weak boundaries, even a his love of banana flavours apparently, was ripe for exploitation, for goodness’ sake, and she struck with love-bombing and sensational sex, pressing all his buttons at once.
She offered a fantastic vision of wealth beyond even his dreams, and the prison door slammed shut before he could say `WTF?’- trapped by his own wish for independence of wealth and freedom of action.
It needs a cool head, strong boundaries and a strong belief in the validity of one’s own perceptions to stand any chance against a determined narcissist. All too easy to fear that one is losing one’s grip on reality when gaslighted. To doubt the evidence of one’s own ears and eyes? Too easy to think `surely not? I must be imagining it’. Especially if psychoactive substances are involved. Especially if one cares about what might be lost by escaping. One also has to swallow one's pride.
Is she demonic?
Yes, Meggystopheles to his Dr.Faustus
I couldn't find anything really interesting, some had gone into the private sector otherwise just recaps of who they were and what they did. Quite a few had jumped ship from the Cambridges, I bet they were sorry, but it jogged my memory that at one point they had pretty much ditched all their staff and were looking for people from the foreign office in particular to replace them.
I know Fiona McIlwham (their private secretary) came from there and seemed an odd fit considering her ambitions (she was a high flying diplomat), now I wonder if she was actually a plant by the FCO and RF to keep tabs on them. She replaced Samantha the Panther(also a Buckingham Palace plant I bet)and was only there a few months. In the aftermath of the Sussex's shock announcement that they were leaving, she was the one who reportedly joked to colleagues: “I was offered the Iran desk (at the FCO). That might have been easier.” I think Fiona was there to keep an eye on their Commonwealth remit in particular, keeping them on script and heading off any pocket lining schemes.
The Sussex's had an extremly accomplished and experienced crew working for them and still managed to turn gold into straw. I believe the RF have a lot on Meg and will trot it out when the need arises.
Perhaps a better researcher than me can find what Fiona is doing now but I can't even find an English Wikipedia entry for her (under cover and back at the FO?).
Megs and her prate with mate Gloria
Brought her joy, and short lived euphoria
But there’s dollars to bank
Bangles, movies, be frank
With their tenuous link
It’s not hard to think,
Just tossed salad, and J Arthur Rank
Wink, wink 😉
Oooh @WildBoar
Meggystopheles, perfect.
Had a look at Dr Faustus, Homo Fuge (O man, fly)
Homo Curro for Harry (O man, run) too late!
She scares me, Harry is a trapped fool.
The Harkles have many similarities to the
John Lennon Yoko Ono relationship it appears
John too lost his mother young not as young as Harry but John lived apart from his mother from a very young age had issues repressed pain anger over his mother's death. Too like MM pursued John too possibly with the same weapons sex drugs motherly attitudes dominance with submissiveness She was boosting his ego Possibly telling John thst he was far better than Paul that he should be first he could do better leaving the group going solo earning greater wealth fame in the same manner as MM with Harry v William
Yolo then isolated John from his family friends his son Julian all the remaining fab 4 as we are familiar with .All very similar tactics to what we see happening now .
DM article
'How John Lennon became 'mesmerized' by Yoko Ono after she relentlessly pursued him - popping up everywhere he went including the Indian Himalayas, got him hooked on heroin and gifted him a 22-year-old mistress
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6460947/How-Yoko-Ono-relentlessly-pursued-John-Lennon.html
No way would she have put him within reach of the RF, who might have detained him here. She already had her plans to flee- she was waiting until she had up a large enough stock of grievances to use as public justification for going, barely 21 months after the wedding. It wasn’t as if she was living in one room of her mother-law’s house, as so many new brides often had had to.
IMO,the poor mite is just a bargaining chip.
Fiona Mcilwham is hard to find info on.She has a twitter account but hasn't posted This is what I found but it's still vague
Among those being axed are Fiona Mcilwham, the couple’s private secretary. As she was on secondment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, she is likely to be found a new role in Whitehall
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/prince-harry-meghan-markle-staff-royal-family-lose-jobs-uk-canada-397783
https://hedgeaccordingly.com/2020/08/21/us-economy/election-meddling-meghan-markle-all-but-endorses-joe-biden-crossing-political-line-that-is-off-limits-for-british-royals/
"My husband is a feminist". What she is really saying: "Dimbo does what I tell him to".
"My friend Gloria...". Real meaning: "I've known this old bird for about five minutes, but she might be useful".
"Women are linked not ranked..". Real meaning: "Let's ignore the fact that everything I have is due to my rank and Gloria wouldn't even be giving me the time of day if I weren't a royal duchess".
"Come over here, darling". Real meaning: "I meant the dog, not you, Harry - you go back inside".
Reading of Katie Perry’s performance, I was reminded of our home-grown diva, Katherine Jenkins, singing `God Save the Queen’ in front of HM on Derby Day 2012. (Year of the Diamond Jubilee – everyone one hoped the Queen’s horse would wins its race but sadly that was not to be).
Anyway, KJ stood on the turf, right in front of HM, wearing a strapless and v. low cut evening gown. Now this cross-over chanteuse has an inflated sense of her own ability (has said she'll hopes to perform in opera one day!) Sadly, her breathing doesn’t seem quite right to me – she uses her chest far more than she should, no work from the belly. Every time she drew breath, her shoulders and chest rose abruptly – it was cringe-making.
I couldn’t decide whether I wanted her to get through it without a wardrobe malfunction or not – it would have served her right had she popped out of her bodice but I felt embarrassed for the Queen.
Is that perhaps where Trump got the idea or this sort of thing usual in US electioneering?
The Duchess of Sussex was mortified to learn that the way she wore her coat had been misinterpreted by royal watchers. She has a warm relationship with Princess Eugenie, whom she considers a cousin she never had, and would have never wanted to upstage her at her wedding. The unbuttoned style was intended to be an homage to King Edward VII, Prince Harry's great-great-grandfather, who started the trend of leaving the last button on a jacket unfastened. The Duchess has been reading many books on British history since she and Prince Harry became engaged, and likes to tweaks her outfits to reflect what she has learned about historical fashions."
You could write her press releases! Thank you for the laugh!
and @Magatha Mistie
Nice J Arthur Rank reference!! You are so clever!
Thanks to all the witty and erudite Nutties
I forgot that harry has already ‘worked’ earned money at that JP Morgan conference. will the US taxman come for that? does that violate whatever visa he is here under?
Archie
i happen to think he exists and MM (and maybe JCMPH) has been stingy with pictures in order to sell them for big money like the blind says.
unfortunaely for the Harkles, Covid hit and totally screwed up their machinations. at least Covid did one good thing.
i feel really bad for the boy and his future.
JCMPH
if he is visiting UK on secret trips i think it’s all paperwork/ money oriented. he’s totaally under MM’s thumb, and in my opinion has no interest in leaving her. he’s all in for the Hollywood/ California get rich quick schemes of hers. why else is he making all the ridiculous videos and saying the words she puts in his mouth? he’s all in and isn’t leaving anytime soon. mr. privacy doesn’t have to appear in videos / public pr with her, but he does, therefore he condoes it. he may not like all the pr crap she leaks but he’s still showing up for their paps to take pictures, doing viddeos, speeches on wokeness stuff. and he said somethin like it’s ok to profit off of empathy and ther wokeness thing. that sounds like something MM said in private to him to sell her schemes, and he accidently parroted it in a public setting.
Brilliant as usual. Thanks!! 😆
https://www.instagram.com/p/CD67jyDgDPC/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again
copy & paste and go watch the video
Does this mean that the brothers are talking? Have they met in person? Did they meet while Harry was filming in London?
Issuing a joint statement seems to indicate that they have been in communication, and it could indicate a big step toward Harry moving back to the UK. At least they're speaking and have a common goal. There would be no need to say anything the statue at this point, as the unveiling is nearly a year away. Is this BP's way of telling us that Harry may be changing his mind about MM, world domination and living in California?
I will cherish forever the unguarded expression of WTF On the face of Sir Elton at the wedding. And this was one celebrity in attendance who could actually claim an emotional bond with Diana’s son.
It’s been six months since the move to California, So if Harry’s gone back to England, it may well be visa-related. I don’t know the ins and outs of a spousal visa, but there are usually residency requirements before a spouse can get a green card—I don’t think the green card which grants permission to work in the US is automatically granted upon marriage. If Harry is trying to Generate income from projects without working status, That could be problematic. So if he’s back in England and staying with family friends—Whilewe are still in the midst of a global pandemic, And he would have to quarantine for 2 weeks both directions after every visit ... I wonder if this is purely business related, or if this is the beginning of extricating Harry from Situation FUBAR. Interesting how reports of his presence in Blighty circulated so soon after the purchase of Landslide Towers....And it’s solely Meg’s name on the papers. Perhaps the Montecito house will be her divorce settlement. As for support for Master Archie, I hope the BRF requires proof of life and paternity before shelling out child support payments for the next 18 years.
About 10 months, or longer, after news leaks out of the split between the Cambridges and the Sussexes, all the paperwork starts.
1 July 2019
Certificate of Incorporation of a Private Limited Company (limited by guarantee). This is Sussex Royal. Office address is Hanover House, London. Company secretary is Gerard Tyrell. Directors are Natalie Denise Campbell, Sara Latham, HRH The Duke of Sussex, HRH The Duchess of Sussex (address for the four is KP).
26 July 2019
Office address changed to 7 Savoy Court, London.
22 August 2019
Termination of appointment of Latham and Campbell. Appointment of director Karen Blackett.
11 September 2019
Appointment of directors Steven Cooper and Stefan Allesch-Taylor.
15 October 2019
Appointment of director Kirsty Jackson.
30 June 2020
Change of address for Kirsty Jackson Jones to BP. Confirmation statement that all relevant information has been submitted.
3 July 2020
Change of address to BP for Karen Blackett and Steven Cooper.
7 July 2020
Change of details for HRH The Duke of Sussex and HRH The Duchess of Sussex, but no details given. A second filing on the same gives the change of details as change of address to BP. Change of address to BP also submitted for Paul Allesch-Taylor.
28 July 2020
Special resolution for charity to wind up voluntarily (insolvency).
Joint liquidators appointed.
Charity name to be changed to MWX Foundation.
Minimum number of tustees to be one.
Assets (of Sussex Royal) to be divided amongst members and assets can be transferred to another charity with similar objectives.
Notice of Statutory Declaration of Solvency (submitted by Adam Stephens):
Cash at bank: 99 000
Receivable: 200 000
Unsecured liabilities:
Grant: 248 000
Provision for pre-liquidation costs: 35 000
Estimated costs for winding up: 16 000
No estimated interest accrued or estimated surplus.
29 July 2020
Registered office address changed to 25 Moorgate, London.
Termination of appointment of all directors except Harry. Meghan referred to as the Duchess of Sussex.
5 August 2020
Change of name to MWX Foundation.
Form NE01 filed: exemption from requirement as to use of 'limited' or 'cyfyngexig' on change of name.
Certification of incorporation on change of name to MWX Foundation.
Note that The Duke Of Sussex, HRH is the sole director of MWX Foundation.
I caught the tail end of a radio conversation earlier.
Ray Burton, co-writer of “I am Woman” with Helen Reddy.
He wasn’t happy, sidelined, not acknowledged for his contribution, in her new movie.
Pale, stale, male?
Yet reportedly she admitted to marrying her second husband for American citizenship?
Germaine Greer did say Megs would bolt.
Her new book “The Hemale Eunuch” will have a foreword from Harry.
They used the KP address long after the split was announced. Were they angling for office space in Windsor Castle? When they did not get a separate court, did they then decide to leave and only change the address to BP in order to declare insolvency?
Sussex Royal seems to have received money but seems to have spent nothing on any charitable works. Financials are not expected for a while ...
Was change of name to MWX for the purpose of parking money somewhere?
Why does Harry list his place of residence as the UK long after they settled in California?
Contrary to reports, Meghan has nothing to do with MWX, and it was never registered as MXW that I can see. Has Meghan distanced herself from the mess she made?
I bet they were sorry, but it jogged my memory that at one point they had pretty much ditched all their staff and were looking for people from the foreign office in particular to replace them.
I know Fiona McIlwham (their private secretary) came from there and seemed an odd fit considering her ambitions (she was a high flying diplomat), now I wonder if she was actually a plant by the FCO and RF to keep tabs on them.
Fiona being a plant is brilliant. Megs is very paranoid of Royal spies, rightly so. This is one reason she went back to Hollywood. Her American adjuncts do not arrive with built in back channels to the BRF.
Don't fret over Fiona. iirc --- She was on loan from the UK Foreign Office, thus now would be back there collecting a "brilliant" paycheck for whatever she does, unlike your run of the mill private sector plebs.
Lovely Fiona had an Aristo soft landing, back to where she was.
By JAN MOIR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 17:44 EDT, 27 August 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8671981/JAN-MOIR-Meghan-speak-guide-woke-folk.html?ocid=uxbndlbing
"Historical fashions". Very good!
May I add:
The Duchess of Sussex was upset about the speculation regarding her use of the real hair for her extensions and wigs. The Duchess considers her extensions as organic continuation of herself that was designed to be a subtle feminist homage to the 18th century use of wigs in sophisticated societies. She is especially pleased to be able to celebrate the historic use of wigs and elaborate hair arrangements by both men in women of bygone era, which she considers a sing of the true gender equality.
The Duchess of Sussex is also known to be a great fan of foundations and bronzes as well as eye liners and false eyelashes, which are famously connected to traditions of the ancient Egyptian royalty, both genders again, and in some cases even by the gender neutral individuals. Such historic parallels and connections give the Duchess much joy and reinforce her inner ties with all things royal.
IIRC, the Sussexes were reassigned offices at BP In the wake of the split from William. Not only did William not want either of the dogs are still out anywhere near him, but offices at BP were to monitor their activities more closely.
All of Meg and Harry’s projects Have the air of DIY efforts brainstormed at 11:30 at night after several bottles of the Tig. Even when they had office staff, I don’t think Meg ever involved those people much in her plans.
Apparently according to the terms of the constitution, Harry’s place in the succession to the Crown and his Counsellor of State seat require that his official residence be maintained in the UK. He doesn’t actually have to live in it, but his official residence will be listed on all legal paperwork. Frogmore Cottage must be the most talked about house that no one lives in since the Amityville Horror. I guess they must send a foot man to check the mail, in case anything arrives there for Harry.
There is also a MWX Trading Limited and it is very odd. I need to dive deep in order to try to understand what is going on there ...
Dang Dastardly Duo! They stole one of my Xs.
https://www.wine-searcher.com/find/marchesi+antinori+tignanello
This is the second most popular Italian wine.This is among the highest-priced Toscana IGT wine. The price has been rising over the past two years.A diverse array of wines are made by this ... Stores and prices for 'Marchesi Antinori Tignanello Toscana IGT, Tuscany' | prices, stores, tasting notes and …
93% favorable rating
Price Range: $95 - $198
What does everyone think of the constant moderation? Please let me know if possible. I will not publish the responses so feel free to be candid in your response. Thanks!
I hope our Nutties are safe and healthy. I send you my thoughts and best wishes.
Gloria and the Grifter.
“We knew whatever we did was going to be in the papers. We decided to utilize the space we would occupy anyway, by getting married, with a commercial for peace,” Lennon said. “We would sell our product, which we call 'peace. ' And to sell a product you need a gimmick, and the gimmick we thought was 'bed.
at https://time.com/5557089/lennon-ono-bed-in/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20knew%20whatever%20we%20did,gimmick%20we%20thought%20was%20'bed.
Did Harry have a thing about John Lennon?
I see it's already been remarked upon:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8671041/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-morphing-John-Yoko-royal-family-exit.html
I was wondering about the statue as well - would MM be let in to steal Diana's thunder? She'd be bound to try to deliver a speech about empowerment - embarrassment all round. Will HM be quite as welcoming as she would hope?
"Stylist Susie Hasler, who runs Styled By Susie, told FEMAIL Meghan is 'going back to the real her' with her casual vibe seen during video calls and charity appearances. Here, we reveal her five key transformative fashion moves.
LESS POWER DRESSING
LEG-BARING SHORTS
PEEP-TOE SHOES
COMFORTABLE CLOTHES
PLAIN WHITE T-SHIRTS
It's a pity she had to wear such obscenely expensive clothes whilst in the BRF. I suppose now that Charles doesn't give her a clothing allowance, she has to dress more casual (although the outfit and accessories to chat with G Steinem weren't cheap but maybe she was marching).
"A mechanic who used to earn £2,500 a week moonlighting as a Prince Harry lookalike says his lucrative side hustle is in ruins after failing to secure a single booking since the Duke and Duchess of Sussex moved to North America.
Henry Morley says Harry and Meghan's decision to quit the royal family has seen interest in his appearances plummet as the public think the couple have abandoned their country."
No surprise we there.
If you scroll down a bit, you'll see the lookalike with a lookalike Meg posing with "Archie" but it is a small doll, not even an imitation baby. I wonder if there is a message in there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8673205/Prince-Harry-lookalike-says-failed-secure-single-booking-Megxit.html